First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[MisterBeale]

"Requiring that the poor feed their children properly with tax-payer donated food, is NOT a punishment."

This is one of the most retarded comments ever made here.

 

[OldFlame]

So in other words, by your line of thinking, it really IS about whether anyone should be allowed to smoke or drink! And at first opportunity, you can't wait to give up that individual choice and turn it over to the state so long as it is someone else and NOT YOURSELF.

As to what taxpayers are paying for, they are paying for /public assistance./ The assistance is the money allotted, and that does not change regardless of how the money is spent, so long as it is legal. So, no taxpayer is paying for candy bars or pop, they are paying for the monetary assistance.

Used to be that you had to commit a crime to justify taking away a person's freedom and rights. Interesting how some people now are willing to justify doing so to people who've done nothing wrong other than run into some misfortune.

The measure of a society is not what people do when it is easy or folks are looking, but by how that society treats people when it isn't so easy and no one is watching.

Bottom line: the rationalization that just because a person becomes a ward of the state, the state has the right to discriminate against them and lord it over them taking their liberty away. Truth is that we are all the recipient of taxpayer-funded government services.

Maybe you don't mind the government running your life but I do. I want the government out of my life as much as possible.

You don't have a 'right' to anyone else buying you candy and soda, it's as simple as that.

 

[toobfreak]

Say the same to a welfare recipient who wants snacks and movies and cell phones for all the kids.

Why? Where do you get off telling someone they can't go see a movie or own a cellphone?

Are you a fascist?

 

[MisterBeale]

Maybe you don't mind the government running your life but I do. I want the government out of my life as much as possible.

If you want the government out of your life, the way to do IS NOT to take a handouts from it where the agencies ask for all your personal information and data.

 

[OldFlame]

Why? Where do you get off telling someone they can't go see a movie or own a cellphone?

Are you a fascist?

You're being ridiculous. I asked you where it stops, you didn't answer.

 

[Lisa558]

Why? Where do you get off telling someone they can't go see a movie or own a cellphone?

Are you a fascist?

Nobody’s telling them that, libbie. But WE don’t have to buy them the movie ticket. Or a cell phone.

They can use their own money.

 

[MisterBeale]

You usually don't get "welfare" if you are working!

Damn, you are not very informed about what the hell is going on.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

www.forbes.com

How Big Food Corporations Take Advantage of SNAP

Companies like Walmart are getting away with not only paying their workers low wages, but also owning the stores where the workers use SNAP benefits to buy their food.

blog.ucs.org

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says​

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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.

.

Banning soda and candy is stigmatizing the poor?

Ooooooooooooooooooooo-kay.

I grew up poor, and the tragic absence of candy and soda in my life did not stunt my growth.








.

 

[Lisa558]

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

I don’t think it’s the same person. He used to be a Republican. Someone hacked his account.

I’ve noticed massive personality changes with a couple of other posters too.

 

[IM2]

Think about what you posted.

The same types who want unregulated gun use want to regulate what some people get to eat. The rich corporate executives getting government subsidies get to eat what they want. They are buying the same donated food.

 

[IM2]

Damn, you are not very informed about what the hell is going on.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

www.forbes.com

How Big Food Corporations Take Advantage of SNAP

Companies like Walmart are getting away with not only paying their workers low wages, but also owning the stores where the workers use SNAP benefits to buy their food.

blog.ucs.org

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says​

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

Maybe Wal Mart and McDonalds should pay living wages.

 

[Woodznutz]

"Requiring that the poor feed their children properly with tax-payer donated food, is NOT a punishment."

This is one of the most retarded comments ever made here.

SNAP recipients are free to buy candy and pop with their own money, which they will do. It's all good.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Yes. If you are in a wheelchair or something and all you can do is sit and wheel around and cannot work, but want a soda, that is your self-determination.

Or can you tell me you'd be OK eating and drinking the same thing three times a day? I'm amazed at the rationalization that just because someone needs a government service we don't use, a government service to which they both qualify for and are entitled to, that they must "give up something," some individual liberty, to get it.

You must realize that whether or not person x uses that service, the government will still collect your taxes. And if they don't use that money one place, they will simply spend it somewhere else.

It is one thing to defraud or cheat the government out of a service; I'm amazed that people here think legitimate lawful users of that service are somehow "imposing" on, cheating or burdening you, and must give something up in payment.

Then call yourself a defender of personal liberty.

 

[MisterBeale]

The same types who want unregulated gun use want to regulate what some people get to eat.

a) There is an amendment to the constitution which explicitly states;

. . .and b), advocates for this, have no intention of regulating what people eat.

If you need to create fallacious straw-men arguments based on false equivalence? You've already lost the debate on this.

Everyone can eat whatever the hell they want.


. . . this is about government funding an epidemic of overweight, unhealthy folks' food choices, which then becomes a burden on the entire system's medical industry.

 

[Woodznutz]

Think about what you posted.

The same types who want unregulated gun use want to regulate what some people get to eat. The rich corporate executives getting government subsidies get to eat what they want. They are buying the same donated food.

The rich can afford to get fat and sick on junk food, the poor can't. Also, the poor depend on others to pay their medical bills, many of which result from poor dietary habits, which are also funded by others. The whole thing is a twisted comedy.

I think the nutty rationale is "America is too big to fail, therefore I can do whatever the hell I want to do...or eat."

 

[Rawley]

I don’t think it’s the same person. He used to be a Republican. Someone hacked his account.

I’ve noticed massive personality changes with a couple of other posters too.

Interesting

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Think about what you posted.

The same types who want unregulated gun use want to regulate what some people get to eat. The rich corporate executives getting government subsidies get to eat what they want. They are buying the same donated food.

.

I've never seen anyone's life saved with a bag of Skittles.

There are a million stories of lives saved by the good guy with a gun.

11 More Examples of How Firearms Save Gun Owners’ Lives, Property

At a time when some gun control advocates appear intent on painting lawful gun ownership as a danger to society, and the Second Amendment as little more than an outdated protection of a person’s right to hunt, it’s important to remember the regular role armed citizens play in defending...

www.heritage.org

At The Federalist: Study: Concealed Carriers Do A Better Job Of Stopping Active Shooters Than Police

Dr. John Lott has a new op-ed at The Federalist. . You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according t…

crimeresearch.org

Defensive Gun Use Statistics: America’s Life-Saving Gun Incidents (2024)

Do guns save lives in America? Read the latest data on defensive gun uses here.

ammo.com

How many people were saved by people with concealed carry? | [April Updated]

How many people were saved by people with concealed carry? In 2018, a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that concealed carry permit holders were responsible for around 283,000 saved lives over the course of 11 years. 1. Are concealed carry permit holders effective in preventing...

thegunzone.com

An Official Journal Of The NRA | FBI Report Highlights Effectiveness of Concealed Carry

The FBI's newly released report, "Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017" highlights a growing trend of armed citizens effectively stopping threats.

www.shootingillustrated.com

.

 

[MisterBeale]

Maybe Wal Mart and McDonalds should pay living wages.

Agreed on that point.

If its employees have to be on social welfare? Then the government should not allow the WalMart corp., to participate in offering SNAP at its stores.

Makes sense to me.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

The reality is that once people are in need of government services, rather than help them get back on their feet, the government simply drives most people downward and forces them to stay on assistance. For one thing, because there is a wide gap between where people NEED help to pull themselves back up and where they begin QUALIFYING for said help, so what happens is that people with problems needing help just keep falling until they fall below the point of recovery until they are so utterly in need of help that they become permanently in need of those services.

That is problem #1 in how the government operates. Government pulls people into poverty then punishes them for trying to get out, so then end up with all these people forever in need of assistance. The irony is that the government limits services because it has so many people on said programs which it drives there, but if they just gave a little more services and help intelligently, they would have far less in need. But then, there never was anything intelligent about government.

It's not a solution for those people who make poor life decisions

WHAT POOR DECISIONS?! Stop with the bullshit. I have already been over this several times. I am talking about people in need through no fault of their own likely who will never be able to get back off assistance, but as to people making "poor decisions," it would still be better to raise these people up and get them on their feet and off welfare than to institutionalize them for life as government does. Government has utterly failed to take people with "bad decisions" and educate them, train them or whatever it takes to get them back OFF assistance, and this ultimately ends up costing all of us FAR MORE money that if we really gave those people the real help they need.

 

[Woodznutz]

Maybe Wal Mart and McDonalds should pay living wages.

Raising wages affects business expansion. Businesses expand at the expense of their employees; Walmart is the poster child for this business plan.