First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[TNHarley]

And you guys want to sit here and talk about their choices, when they made their choice already. To be dependent on other people and the govt. Thats what happens when you depend on others.
Grow up.

 

[okfine]

Uh huh. You seem stuck on stupid this evening....bad drugs---senior moment?

Poor baby. Grow up.

 

[Robert W]

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.

Clearly the candy and soda industries are against this. But why do Democrats want candy and soda in Democrats diets?

 

[TNHarley]

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~

I meant when they gave them milk and beans and shit.

 

[dblack]

Should have never gotten like it is. What happened to giving them food itself, instead of a card?

Beats me. I think you realize that I oppose state welfare across the board. And I oppose it for exactly this reason: it's inevitably used to bully people.

It's the tag team of two party politics. Dems pass laws creating dependency on the state, and Republicans show us why it was a bad idea

 

[okfine]

Uh huh. You seem stuck on stupid this evening....bad drugs---senior moment?

Most everything on the shelf has sugar and salt in it. Cry about that while you're at it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I meant when they gave them milk and beans and shit.

Food Commodities--I was raised on them in the '50's and early '60's...and what happened is what I said...LBJ started his War on Poverty...and giving people access to the same selection of food as everyone else had seemed..and I know this is way out of style..seemed fair.
The untended consequence..at least unintended for the Govt.--was the success that the grocery industry owed to the Food Stamp program.

...and here we sit--policing the poor...some things really never do change eh?

 

[TNHarley]

Beats me. I think you realize that I oppose state welfare across the board. And I oppose it for exactly this reason: it's inevitably used to bully people.

It's the tag team of two party politics. Dems pass laws creating dependency on the state, and Republicans show us why it was a bad idea

So instead of regulating it, they should just get rid of it completely. Im down for that lol.
Except for disabled people. But thats a completely different subject.

 

[TNHarley]

Food Commodities--I was raised on them in the '50's and early '60's...and what happened is what I said...LBJ started his War on Poverty...and giving people access to the same selection of food as everyone else had seemed..and I know this is way out of style..seemed fair.
The untended consequence..at least unintended for the Govt.--was the success that the grocery industry owed to the Food Stamp program.

...and here we sit--policing the poor...some things really never do change eh?

Having other people pay for anothers luxuries is only "fair" to one party in the transaction.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Nobody is forcing them to live off of the public dole. They can spend their own money on whatever they want. If they want to use my money, it comes with conditions.

 

[Silent Warrior]

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.

There are so many things wrong with that statement made by the board's resident racist that one can't help but laugh.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Most everything on the shelf has sugar and salt in it. Cry about that while you're at it.

Hmm..do you actually think I favor this? You seem...having difficulty tracking?
I see zero reasons to limit what the poor buy with their SNAP benefits--do you?
Perhaps you might actually take a cogent stand on this issue..as unlikely as that seems?

Whatever..I agree with this much..IDGAF--about whatever your misread of my posts has engendered in your besieged lil brain.

 

[dblack]

So instead of regulating it, they should just get rid of it completely. Im down for that lol.

Exactly. But Rs don't have the balls, nor the leadership, to pursue that goal. So instead we're going to go after welfare recipients for eating candy. Petty virtue signaling.

 

[dblack]

Nobody is forcing them to live off of the public dole.

Isn't that what minimum wage laws do?

 

[1srelluc]

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~

That's how it used to work before the grocery lobby claimed their throats were being cut.....That is why the paper punch cards and a bit later, food stamps were started.

Before, the truly needy signed-up for assistance and in my AO the Salvation Army filled and handed out the USDA Staple Food Boxes. Fresh produce was also donated when in season.

The SD, town PD, and cab companies even got in on the act for those who could not go to the SA and pick it up themselves.

A real community effort, not some EBT card for the nameless horde that gets recharged every month.

 

[okfine]

Hmm..do you actually think I favor this? You seem...having difficulty tracking?
I see zero reasons to limit what the poor buy with their SNAP benefits--do you?
Perhaps you might actually take a cogent stand on this issue..as unlikely as that seems?

Whatever..I agree with this much..IDGAF--about whatever your misread of my posts has engendered in your besieged lil brain.

Holy Moses or holier than thou.
Calm down. WTF do you care whether I used good or bad drugs. I paid cash.

 

[Rawley]

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.

Uh, when the gvt is footing the bill, it sure is.

 

[dblack]

Uh, when the gvt is footing the bill, it sure is.

Ahh.. so if you get free shit from the government, they own your ass, eh?

 

[Rawley]

I don't mind feeding hungry kids but I don't also want to fund their treatment for Diabetes later on....

Most Americans are heavier than they should be, of course, but a U.S. Department of Agriculture study delving into National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2007 through 2010 found Americans on food stamps were more likely to be obese than other groups -- including people who didn't receive benefits even though they were poor enough to qualify.

Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds

Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds

www.huffpost.com

 

[22lcidw]

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~

The same people making the products for us that we all question at times and RFK Jr. is monitoring, some of the ingredients added over the years may not be that good for us.