First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
17,720
Reaction score
10,752
Points
1,280
Location
Twin Falls Idaho
Once again, Idaho leads the nation!
Well..in stigmatizing the poor, anyway~

Gov. Little is sure to sign this.


SNAP benefits—also known as "food stamps"—are administered nationwide to low- and no-income households that would otherwise struggle to purchase groceries. In the 2024 fiscal year, the program served 130,900 Idaho residents, or 7 percent of the state population. But numerous states are considering banning certain purchases from being made using the anti-poverty benefit, Idaho being the first to pass a bill in both chambers.
The passage and potential signing of the bill does not necessarily mean Idaho's SNAP recipients in Idaho will be immediately impacted, as the ban will be subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval.

No waivers are currently in place in any state that bar SNAP recipients from buying foods based on their nutritional value. However, this could be subject to change under the current Trump administration. Newsweek has contacted the USDA for comment via email.

There is also a push at the federal level to see junk food purchases banned. In January, U.S. Representative Josh Brecheen, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced the Healthy SNAP Act, which would make soft drinks, candy, ice cream and prepared desserts ineligible from being purchased using SNAP benefits.
 
Once again, Idaho leads the nation!
Well..in stigmatizing the poor, anyway~

Gov. Little is sure to sign this.


SNAP benefits—also known as "food stamps"—are administered nationwide to low- and no-income households that would otherwise struggle to purchase groceries. In the 2024 fiscal year, the program served 130,900 Idaho residents, or 7 percent of the state population. But numerous states are considering banning certain purchases from being made using the anti-poverty benefit, Idaho being the first to pass a bill in both chambers.
Just out of curiosity, how do you think limiting benefits drawn from taxpayers money to essential food products stigmatizes the poor?
 
Just out of curiosity, how do you think limiting benefits drawn from taxpayers money to essential food products stigmatizes the poor?
LOL! I'll bite:

Paternalistic actions implemented against a class of people solely because of their financial status.
It takes a little piece of the poor person's freedom away..and creates a subtle social difference.

I remember never taking free lunches as a kid..because of the stigma of handing in a specially colored ticket that designated me as being one of the poor kids...so perhaps I take it personally.

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.
 
LOL! I'll bite:

Paternalistic actions implemented against a class of people solely because of their financial status.
It takes a little piece of the poor person's freedom away..and creates a subtle social difference.

I remember never taking free lunches as a kid..because of the stigma of handing in a specially colored ticket that designated me as being one of the poor kids...so perhaps I take it personally.

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.
They can buy soda and candy with their own money.

But not with taxpayer money. We don’t need to fund unhealthy habits.
 
LOL! I'll bite:

Paternalistic actions implemented against a class of people solely because of their financial status.
It takes a little piece of the poor person's freedom away..and creates a subtle social difference.

I remember never taking free lunches as a kid..because of the stigma of handing in a specially colored ticket that designated me as being one of the poor kids...so perhaps I take it personally.

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.
They don’t police people’s food choices. People are free to spend their own earnings however they want.

But they don’t get carte blanche to waste OTHER people’s money on junk.
 
No more Super Big Gulps

Gonna have to spend their own money now.
Which is probably some form of AFDC or SSI, right?

So the unintended consequence will be more cash spent on sweets..and less on frills like the electric bill?
 
LOL! I'll bite:

Paternalistic actions implemented against a class of people solely because of their financial status.
It takes a little piece of the poor person's freedom away..and creates a subtle social difference.

I remember never taking free lunches as a kid..because of the stigma of handing in a specially colored ticket that designated me as being one of the poor kids...so perhaps I take it personally.

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.
Perhaps true, but it is really not the job of the government to take money from some and give it to others at all. Therefore, putting restrictions on the largess is not stigmatizing, but necessary so not to overly burden those they are taking the funds from.
 
Perhaps true, but it is really not the job of the government to take money from some and give it to others at all. Therefore, putting restrictions on the largess is not stigmatizing, but necessary so not to overly burden those they are taking the funds from.
Why don't you say that to the top 1% rich? They are the ones taking the most from others and giving it to themselves. Candy and soda are not largesse. Yachts and summer residences are.
 
Should have never gotten like it is. What happened to giving them food itself, instead of a card?
I believe you call it the Grocery Industry?
Direct farmer to poor person groceries would be way better--but bypassing the retail interests in this country is a non-starter~
 
Back
Top Bottom