First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[Lisa558]

Seems like a legitimate comparison to free loading Israel to me. . . .

View attachment 1096756

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/countries-that-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s

1) So it looks like the Arab countries got more than Israel.

2) And Ukraine? Wow!

3) What are you? Some sort of lib who can’t wait to pounce on the Jewish country when addressing a Jew? It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

You’re nasty.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There are some who just can't improve. And I'm not talking about subsidizing those who CAN improve but are too lazy to try, I'm talking about providing a child of parents who are living with no hope a treat. Hell, that pack of cookies might just be the best thing that child had all week.

Pay for that out of your pocket. When you see a Mom use an EBT that doesn't allow booze, buy her a six pack! When candy is banned, buy something for the kids!

 

[toobfreak]

If your subsistence is being paid for by the taxpayers there’s nothing wrong with talking steps to ensure that one can’t purchase unhealthy products.

Why? Why stop there? We all use services paid for by taxpayers. So why let ANYONE purchase anything which is in any way unhealthy?

Also, tell me how you measure the unhealthiness of a few candy bars, snacks, or cans of pop a week? When do they become unhealthy? How? And if they are so bad, why were they ever allowed on the market in the first place for anyone?

Do please let us know when you switch to eating nothing but berries and green leafy vegetable for every meal three times a day and drinking nothing but spring water. I mean, not only is that healthy, but it is all you really need to stay alive.

I just love how people here are so anxious to take away self-determination from people for no good reason and place it in the hands of bureaucrats who don't know the first thing about what you want, need or like nor how you even use them.

This tells me that sooner or later, this country will fall to total statism.

 

[MisterBeale]

1) So it looks like the Arab countries got more than Israel.

2) And Ukraine? Wow!

3) What are you? Some sort of lib who can’t wait to pounce on the Jewish country when addressing a Jew? It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

You’re nasty.

Just as we should end the aid to the Islamic nations, so too, the gravy train for Israel should end.

I'm just calling out your bullshit. Sorry you don't like being exposed as a purveyor of bullshit.

 

[Lisa558]

Why? Why stop there? We all use services paid for by taxpayers. So why let ANYONE purchase anything which is in any way unhealthy?

Also, tell me how you measure the unhealthiness of a few candy bars, snacks, or cans of pop a week? When do they become unhealthy? How? And if they are so bad, why were they ever allowed on the market in the first place for anyone?

Do please let us know when you switch to eating nothing but berries and green leafy vegetable for every meal three times a day and drinking nothing but spring water. I mean, not only is that healthy, but it is all you really need to stay alive.

I just love how people here are so anxious to take away self-determination from people for no good reason and place it in the hands of bureaucrats who don't know the first thing about what you want, need or like nor how you even use them.

This tells me that sooner or later, this country will fall to total statism.

“Self-determination” from people who need other people’s money to buy a soda? LOL

 

[OldFlame]

You answered it with a question. And that wall of text was simply to make clear the complex dichotomy between seeing people here who have championed themselves before me for years as denizens of the Constitution and the American way suddenly do an about face and start calling for a very unAmerican and unconstitutional thing. I've merely been trying to hopefully make a few people here realize the hypocrisy of their sudden 180° reversals. The real test of conservatism is not to back it just when it works to your favor but to stand behind it even when it doesn't!


Really??? How was it a "poor judgement" when a person I once knew got a heart infection causing his heart cavity to swell and damaging his aorta at the worst possible time and he was forced onto public assistance because he could no longer work?


Really? So your brand of constitutionalism allows for the government to just arbitrarily deny certain people the ability to buy certain foods deemed "non-essential with FOOD stamps just to punish another group of people cheating the system? That is the WORST kind of punishment because it is entirely arbitrary and unjust, not only because the government shouldn't have the right to tell others what to eat, not only because they did nothing to deserve it, but because it solves absolutely NOTHING. Denying people the right to buy what they want doesn't do jack to fix the system, doesn't do jack to stop the abusers, nor does it do anything to make anyone healthier nor even save five cents, so what is the point other than blind vindictiveness and prejudice? Yet you are to have me believe blind arbitrary vindictiveness directed at innocent people isn't punishment? It is the worst kind of punishment because it is arbitrary and unjustified.


I see. Better choices of not coming down with an illness? That is a load of bullcrap.


Wow.

I think you are far too emotionally attached to the subject to see it clearly. Government assistance isn't constitutional either, yet here we are. There should be a distinction between the people that you are describing, those who cannot, nor will ever, be self-sustaining, and those who are able bodied and perfectly able to work. Financial assistance from the taxpayers was never intended to be a permanent solution, it was intended to be a short-term solution until people got themselves back onto their feet. It's not a solution for those people who make poor life decisions that require the rest of us have to pay for them for years on end, that's completely unconstitutional. If anything is unconstitutional, it's taking money away from one group of people to give it to another. And if you are taking other's money, then there should be parameters on how that money is spent, that it's being spent on what it was intended for. It should be able to purchase basic and healthy foods, and if you don't like the stipulations, then don't take the money. No one is controlling anyone, and it should be a lesson to everyone that you don't rely on the government for a damn thing. For those in the first group, there should be a different program for them, different access to funds, and then the stipulations could be set accordingly. Living off your fellow citizens should never be comfortable or without restrictions, that would lead to disaster, which is pretty much where we're at right now.

 

[Lisa558]

Just as we should end the aid to the Islamic nations, so too, the gravy train for Israel should end.

I'm just calling out your bullshit. Sorry you don't like being exposed as a purveyor of bullshit.

America gains from aid to Israel.

And there is no comparison to what we are discussing in this debate. You just can’t control your hostility toward Jews.

 

[Woodznutz]

Once again, Idaho leads the nation!
Well..in stigmatizing the poor, anyway~

Gov. Little is sure to sign this.

First SNAP ban on candy and soda set to become law

The bill now heads to Idaho Governor Brad Little's desk to be signed.

www.newsweek.com

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.

It's about time.

 

[Woodznutz]

I see this as very good thing.

The grocery lobby sure won't be pleased.

USDA will reject it. They don't give a shit about health.

 

[MisterBeale]

So why let ANYONE purchase anything which is in any way unhealthy?

If producers want to produce unhealthy products, and consumers want them, that is no business of the government.



. . . unless government funds go to pay for that activity naturally.



You are engaging in fallacious reasoning by presenting a straw-man argument based on a false equivalence.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They both are. Both give things of value to poor families

My daughter got SNAP when her deadbeat husband abandoned the family. At the time, she was employed by the federal government, but did not make enough money to feed her kids. You usually don't get "welfare" if you are working! You can get SNAP. She had WIC at one time. Do you want to talk about restrictions on purchases?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They are both social welfare programs.

True, but TANF is what is classically known as welfare.

 

[OldFlame]

No YOU did. I only applied your own line of reasoning you used for one group you DON'T care about and applied it to another group you DO care about to show you the flaws in the thinking.

Notice that everyone here attacking welfare recipients probably are NOT on welfare, never WERE on welfare, nor never knew anyone close to them that was forced to go onto it!

It is much like giving up something you don't value. Telling someone they must give up driving might mean nothing to someone who doesn't own nor drive, but might mean EVERYTHING to a professional NASCAR driver! Funny how the same issue looks different to different people simply from the differences in the POV from which they examine an issue.

That means that nothing in life is truly black and white, it is all relative to how you want to look at it, even if a lot of people WANT it to appear black and white.

Should we buy them transportation too, since it's their right to drive? Clothes? What if they're an alcoholic and will die without it, think Frank Gallegher, should we buy them that? Should we pay for all of their medical expenses too? Where does your scenario end and why?

 

[MisterBeale]

America gains from aid to Israel.

And there is no comparison to what we are discussing in this debate. You just can’t control your hostility toward Jews.

 

[Lisa558]

Should we buy them transportation too, since it's their right to drive? Clothes? What if they're an alcoholic and will die without it, think Frank Gallegher, should we buy them that? Should we pay for all of their medical expenses too? Where does your scenario end and why?

He thinks we should buy anything and everything welfare recipients want that the middle class works for and earns for itself.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

USDA will reject it. They don't give a shit about health.

The USDA is run by a Republican and a farmer.

 

[1srelluc]

The ones I see waddling into our local food bank could not put their arms to their sides if they tried.

The first thing they clean out is snacks local stores donate, and the hundreds of pounds of produce goes untouched.....They end-up tossing it in the dumpster.

 

[OldFlame]

Why? Why stop there? We all use services paid for by taxpayers. So why let ANYONE purchase anything which is in any way unhealthy?

Also, tell me how you measure the unhealthiness of a few candy bars, snacks, or cans of pop a week? When do they become unhealthy? How? And if they are so bad, why were they ever allowed on the market in the first place for anyone?

Do please let us know when you switch to eating nothing but berries and green leafy vegetable for every meal three times a day and drinking nothing but spring water. I mean, not only is that healthy, but it is all you really need to stay alive.

I just love how people here are so anxious to take away self-determination from people for no good reason and place it in the hands of bureaucrats who don't know the first thing about what you want, need or like nor how you even use them.

This tells me that sooner or later, this country will fall to total statism.

If they were utilizing self determination to begin with, they wouldn't be using taxpayer money to buy their food.

 

[Woodznutz]

Your two pennies in tax given to the poor isn't enough for you to determine what people should eat or drink.

Those pennies add up to a government food allowance that almost guarantees obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and God only knows what else, which thanks to our largess means we also will be paying those medical bills.

 

[Rawley]

“Self-determination” from people who need other people’s money to buy a soda? LOL

How much more are you going to bang your head on the wall with that one?