First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[toobfreak]

The mother can tell her kid that other people are paying for their food, and there are some things that are excluded.

Then she can explain that if the kid wants a treat, he can do a favor for a neighbor and earn money. My father got a penny for lugging the ice to his neighbor’s house, starting at age 8.

Think what a great lesson that would be: when you earn you own money, and don’t have to rely on other people providing for you, you can choose how to spend it!

Fine, but that is all THEORY.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You make a very good point I had not even considered. A great many SNAP recipients are mothers with children. Can you imagine having several kids and having to tell them that sorry, they won't be allowed to buy any more candy or cola because some pompous, self-righteous ass decided you are not entitled to them?

Well, I wouldn't go that far lol. But, at the same time, I'm not asking for the government to subsidize the lazy, I'm saying..for those who are truly down trodden, who live in a dire situation, who can't even run two pennies together...let the children have a little joy.


What kind of dark world do we live in when we can let those in these situations have even a little bit of joy...

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: I don't want to give the government the power to be telling people how they can eat! Especially under force of law. No matter who they are.

I think if you are on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to give your kid a bag of chips and a coke and call that lunch. If we are going to feed them, we need to ensure they are getting the proper food, and proper nutrition, to allow them the best chance at success at developing physically and mentally for the future. And yes...a milkshake..or a resses cup..every now and again...

 

[Delldude]

I think the issue is the percentage of the benefit that is spent on unhealthy foods.

 

[struth]

Do you think that is constitutional?

The program qualifies them for X amount of assistance each month.

It is none of my business how they spend it. No matter what they buy with it, it is still their allotment and costs the same.

IMO, I could care less if they buy alcohol if that is how they feel is the best use of said money.

I know there are people on welfare who do not belong. I know there is waste and fraud in the program. I want the government to deal with THAT, instead of worrying about things which are none of their business.

Quit taking your anger at government out on those legitimately in the program instead.

What’s unconstitutional about it?

The program says they get X a month, but nothing in the constitution forbids Congress from limiting what they spend that welfare on. In fact it already does. You can’t by buy booze with it, why can’t they limit soda as well?

 

[ThisIsMe]

"now and then?"

Do you spend 10% of your monthly grocery budget on soda?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/29/659634119/food-stamps-for-soda-time-to-end-billion-dollar-subsidy-for-sugary-drinks

Yep, and we live in a time when all that can be tracked. There should be limits placed in that stuff.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How will you limit this?

What you buy with a snap card can be tracked. If you purchase more than your monthly limit, it denies that part of your transaction.

Now, if the user decides they will pull cash out of their pocket to pay for it that way, then when the transaction is all entered into the system and it reports that back to the snap agency. If the snap agency sees you have enough money to buy extra stuff then they reduce your snap benefit by that amount. .

It isn't perfect, but it's an idea

 

[toobfreak]

Where in the Constitution does it say taxpayers have to provide free food for other people?

Nowhere. It was created by FDR through the Social Security Act written by congress into law.

So I ask you again, after creating the law to help people who really NEED help, where does the government get off telling people they can only use it to buy this or that food, when none of their restrictions or exclusions make a bit of difference?

Little/no impact on their health (for whatever THAT is worth), and certainly no saving to the government!

And since we all rely on various government services, how will you be if the government decides to start telling EVERYONE what they can have, buy and eat?

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I don't want the government having that kind of power over anyone. For once they have it over a few, they can only try to have over more.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I’m not buying an electric car. Can’t afford them.

And a mother can find $2 to buy her kid a treat, if she prioritizes correctly. All she has to do is skip one drink, and that would buy 5 treats.

I agree. Not all partners on snap are smokers and drinkers though.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What about WIC, my compassionate friends who want snap card users to be able to buy their kids, candy and cola instead of real food?

WIC rules are pretty specific about what food they can buy. Milk, eggs, cheese, healthy foods that provide calories and nutrition and stick to the ribs, i.e. Keep the kid from being hungry.

Is that wrong? Should not the poor be allowed to make their own decisions about what to feed their babies and toddlers? Instead of baby formula should they not be allowed to buy candy pacifiers and Hawaiian Punch?

I’m just wondering if this “self-determination” principle of yours applies to everything or are you selective?

 

[Delldude]

Doesn't matter if I like it or not, you or I don't control food stamps.

Not entirely true. Enough citizens input to their representatives is how you change it.

 

[toobfreak]

What kind of dark world do we live in when we can let those in these situations have even a little bit of joy...

Good point but I think you meant to say: 'CAN'T' let those in these situations.... And that was my point early on. Child or senior citizen, it is wholly unamerican and inhuman do deny either the freedom to have a little snack of sweets once in a while just like the rest of us like and want as part of common human dignity, just because others in the system are being allowed to abuse and defraud the system--- which IS THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT.

I think if you are on government assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to give your kid a bag of chips and a coke and call that lunch.

How are you going to monitor much less stop them?

If we are going to feed them, we need to ensure they are getting the proper food, and proper nutrition, to allow them the best chance at success at developing physically and mentally for the future.

The government feeds everyone. Ever hear of the FDA? So why not that same concern and control over everyone's life? Oh yeah, because no one wants that kind of oversight on themselves, but some feel it is OK if they can rationalize it because it is being done to "the other guy."

 

[progressive hunter]

Doesn't matter if I like it or not, you or I don't control food stamps.

ahh but we can influence our reps to restrict certain items or just not contribute..

 

[toobfreak]

but nothing in the constitution forbids Congress from limiting what they spend that welfare on.

Sure there is. Right off the top, the FIRST THING the Constitution declares the role of government is for is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Does the government telling you that you can't use your food allotment to buy this or that food because they just don't think you need them sound like LIBERTY to you?

Telling someone they can eat so long as it is something THEY like and approve of is a subtle form of FASCISM.

In fact it already does.

But that does not make it right. And one wrong doesn't justify another. I am amazed that no one here can see this as a creeping form of fascism! It is OK because it is being done to someone else!

 

[toobfreak]

What about WIC, my compassionate friends who want snap card users to be able to buy their kids, candy and cola instead of real food?

I'm not familiar with WIC or what it is, but candy and cola ARE food. You can eat them and both provide sustenance.

WIC rules are pretty specific about what food taken by. Milk, eggs, cheese, healthy foods that provide calories and nutrition and stick to the ribs, i.e. Keep the kid from being hungry. Is that wrong? Should not the poor be allowed to make their own decisions about what to feed their babies and toddlers?

I don't know anything about the program, but on the surface, it sounds like mothers ought to be taught or encouraged to buy good food for their kids, not FORCED to. But apparently the government fails at this too as I've heard horror stories about mothers who only have kids for more benefits then leave the kids home in filth while they go out partying and shacking up. So yeah, another failure by government and certainly not a good or desirable one by the mothers neither.

Instead of baby formula should they not be allowed to buy candy pacifiers and Hawaiian Punch?

Maybe you should just opt for some Crack.

I’m just wondering if this “self-determination” principle of yours applies to everything or are you selective?

In a truly democratic, self-deterministic society as we pretend to be, it should really apply to everything, with the government giving oversight to help educate and urge people to make better not worse choices, but ultimately, it is not the government's place to tell you how to feed your kids! That is the PARENT'S responsibility, and try as we might, some parents are just going to be BAD parents and there is nothing we can do about that without becoming an oppressive, totalitarian, fascist society.

And the obvious danger here is in giving government a little power over our lives as it will only lead to them seizing yet more and more, as history already demonstrates.

 

[struth]

Sure there is. Right off the top, the FIRST THING the Constitution declares the role of government is for is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Does the government telling you that you can't use your food allotment to buy this or that food because they just don't think you need them sound like LIBERTY to you?

Telling someone they can eat so long as it is something THEY like and approve of is a subtle form of FASCISM.


But that does not make it right. And one wrong doesn't justify another. I am amazed that no one here can see this as a creeping form of fascism! It is OK because it is being done to someone else!

1) no it doesn’t

2) what’s wrong about it? How about we just don’t give them any money at all

 

[toobfreak]

How about we just don’t give them any money at all

Why don't you propose that to your representative. Tell them you want an end to all social services including welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, no matter who it hurts and no matter how many lives it costs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What you buy with a snap card can be tracked. If you purchase more than your monthly limit, it denies that part of your transaction.

Now, if the user decides they will pull cash out of their pocket to pay for it that way, then when the transaction is all entered into the system and it reports that back to the snap agency. If the snap agency sees you have enough money to buy extra stuff then they reduce your snap benefit by that amount. .

It isn't perfect, but it's an idea

Really dumb!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why don't you propose that to your representative. Tell them you want an end to all social services including welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, no matter who it hurts and no matter how many lives it costs.

"How many lives it costs."

You crack me up.

Hungry people find ways to feed themselves, dude.

They pause having babies until they do.

 

[toobfreak]

Hungry people find ways to feed themselves, dude.

Really? How does an 88 year old disabled person in a wheelchair drum up extra cash for food, go out and prostitute himself? Once again, you resort to the stereotype that everyone on welfare is young, black and out running scams. But you are half right: the people who should have never been put on the program in the first place find a way of making ends meet by committing crimes. Robbing, stealing, lying and cheating. Congratulations, you just rationalized driving some folks to selling drugs and other stuff to make ends meet. Wasn't that kind of George Floyd's thing when he got busted passing counterfeit $20s? That is your government in action. Government saved a few bucks by inciting a national riot that ended up costing America 2 billion in damages, and around 44 people dead.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Really? How does an 88 year old disabled person in a wheelchair drum up extra cash for food, go out and prostitute himself? Once again, you resort to the stereotype that everyone on welfare is young, black and out running scams. But you are half right: the people who should have never been put on the program in the first place find a way of making ends meet by committing crimes. Robbing, stealing, lying and cheating. Congratulations, you just rationalized driving some folks to selling drugs and other stuff to make ends meet. Wasn't that kind of George Floyd's thing when he got busted passing counterfeit $20s? That is your government in action. Government saved a few bucks by inciting a national riot that ended up costing America 2 billion in damages, and around 44 people dead.

Before the government started taking more than half of the money we earned, private charities did a fine job of taking care of such people in the rare case in which they had no families to take care of them.

You need to read more.