First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[OldFlame]

WRONG. Once again, the real problem is not the people needing assistance as shit happens and no one can change that, it is how the government utterly fails at ever giving enough to get able-bodied people back OFF assistance.

What should they be giving? And for how long?

 

[toobfreak]

When you are spending other people's money, those people can tell you how you can spend it.

When you qualify for a program and receive your allotment, it is now YOUR money, you earned it by qualifying, and no, taxpayers like you have no constitutional justification within the Social Security Act of FDR to have any "say" in what food you buy with food stamps. Food is a personal choice. Maybe a way can be thought to help encourage better eating by some other agency or method, but what you are describing is just pure fascism. I've said that about 50 times now and am sick of repeating it. I thought this would be plainly obvious to anyone who wasn't a rabid marxist, but apparently not.

It might be different if it actually saved the program any money but it doesn't even do that. There is absolutely no legal nor medical basis in telling people falling into the SNAP program: "Ahha! Now that we have you, we are going to make you only eat wheat germ and celery juice!" That would be like the DOT telling you that since you use the public roads, that the state has the right to force you to only own and drive some two-seater shitcan egg beater little EV.

Maybe dooshbags like you are eager to turn over the few liberties we still have left in this country but I am not. The government already has taken over my medical insurance, banking, and so many other things, I don't need them now telling me what I am hungry for and can buy at the grocery store. No matter what a person buys, your SNAP allotment remains the same.

 

[OldFlame]

Why not? What does denying a person candy and soda accomplish? Have you read anything here at all? Why do I need a right? If I qualify for $200 in assistance, who died and left you in charge of telling me how and where I should spend it?

Maybe I hate soda, in which case, I am giving up nothing.

So you think they should be able to spend that $200 that everyone else worked hard to provide them on whatever they choose? Weed, alcohol, movie ticket, etc..?

 

[Vrenn]

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.

I agree with this. But if we do this, we don't need to do the stupidity that the Washington MAGAts keep demanding for Medicaid.

 

[OldFlame]

When you qualify for a program and receive your allotment, it is now YOUR money, you earned it by qualifying, and no, taxpayers like you have no constitutional justification within the Social Security Act of FDR to have any "say" in what food you buy with food stamps. Food is a personal choice. Maybe a way can be thought to help encourage better eating by some other agency or method, but what you are describing is just pure fascism. I've said that about 50 times now and am sick of repeating it. I thought this would be plainly obvious to anyone who wasn't a rabid marxist, but apparently not.

It might be different if it actually saved the program any money but it doesn't even do that. There is absolutely no legal nor medical basis in telling people falling into the SNAP program: "Ahha! Now that we have you, we are going to make you only eat wheat germ and celery juice!" That would be like the DOT telling you that since you use the public roads, that the state has the right to force you to only own and drive some two-seater shitcan egg beater little EV.

Maybe dooshbags like you are eager to turn over the few liberties we still have left in this country but I am not. The government already has taken over my medical insurance, banking, and so many other things, I don't need them now telling me what I am hungry for and can buy at the grocery store. No matter what a person buys, your SNAP allotment remains the same.

OMG, there's no constitutional justification to take my fucking money and give it to someone else to use for their own needs. You have no constitutional ground to stand on at all with welfare, welfare itself is unconstitutional.

Liberty is not taking my money and giving it to someone else.

 

[OldFlame]

I do support my own ass, Moron. I bet I made far more money than you before I retired. And I am not begging for anything much less any handout. Shit, you just don't get it, like talking to an idiot wall. I am talking PRINCIPLE. I guess I am the only real bone fide conservative constitutionalist here.

I cannot believe some people here are literally arguing for fascism, statism and oppression while thinking of themselves as "conservatives."

I get now why the left hate most conservatives: some people are just mean-spirited, selfish, stingy, and begrudging, and hide behind a false facade telling themselves they are bad conservatives if they are also fair, reasonable and compassionate.

No wonder there is such a divide in this country.

You're no conservative if you advocate for, approve of, and defend money that was worked hard for being taken out of someone's pocket and given to someone else.

 

[toobfreak]

Easy to answer. They become unhealthy when the cookies and candy replace nutrition.

When do cookies and candy entirely replace nutrition? Never mind that even cookies and candy have nutrition in them (read the box), but do you really think people sit around eating nothing but cookies and candy all day long for a meal? And so, NO ONE should be able to buy even a single canday bar or can of pop? Have you gone all marxist on me too?

If people want to eat themselves and feed their children into a hospital stay they can do it.

That is stupid and ridiculous B&W thinking.

Nothing is banned. No one is deprived. They must pay for their addictions on their own.

What addiction? Wow. Of course you are banning and depriving people, some people of having a sweet by lumping everyone on SNAP into the same category. It is fascist thinking.

Interesting how fascism appeals to even reasonable people just as soon as it involves a group of people you don't like nor care about.

 

[toobfreak]

If thr taxpayer pays for your meals, there should be limits on what you can buy that are junk food,

Why? What will you say when the government decides: "Hey, let's do that to you too?

but I don't think there is anything wrong with a small percentage of it being junk food, every child deserves a treat every now and then.

Exactly. Remember, most anything you buy in a box or a bag can be considered junk food. All fast food can be considered junk food. "Junk food" is a VERY broad category. You are treading on dangerous waters giving this kind of power to the government.

 

[OldFlame]

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!

You used the term 'food allotment' and 'liberty' in the same sentence. I'm sorry, but your argument is just pure bunk.

 

[OldFlame]

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.

Why are you including Social Security and Medicare, things that most people have paid into all of their lives, and had they been allowed to divert that money into their own invested funds instead, they would have been far better off?

 

[OldFlame]

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.

Is every welfare recipient and elderly, disabled person? What percentage are?

 

[OldFlame]

When do cookies and candy entirely replace nutrition? Never mind that even cookies and candy have nutrition in them (read the box), but do you really think people sit around eating nothing but cookies and candy all day long for a meal? And so, NO ONE should be able to buy even a single canday bar or can of pop? Have you gone all marxist on me too?


That is stupid and ridiculous B&W thinking.


What addiction? Wow. Of course you are banning and depriving people, some people of having a sweet by lumping everyone on SNAP into the same category. It is fascist thinking.

Interesting how fascism appeals to even reasonable people just as soon as it involves a group of people you don't like nor care about.

Did you intentionally not read the post that gave the statistics on what food stamps are used to purchase?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When do cookies and candy entirely replace nutrition? Never mind that even cookies and candy have nutrition in them (read the box), but do you really think people sit around eating nothing but cookies and candy all day long for a meal? And so, NO ONE should be able to buy even a single canday bar or can of pop? Have you gone all marxist on me too?


That is stupid and ridiculous B&W thinking.


What addiction? Wow. Of course you are banning and depriving people, some people of having a sweet by lumping everyone on SNAP into the same category. It is fascist thinking.

Interesting how fascism appeals to even reasonable people just as soon as it involves a group of people you don't like nor care about.

I am not banning or preventing anyone from having a sweet. They just can't use government money to pay for it. And YES, there are people who make a meal on cookies, candy, cake, pie, potato chips and wash it down with beer. People should be able to buy and eat anything they want. All the time. The government should not finance the diet. This is a far cry from banning anyone and everyone from buying a candy bar.

It's like the government giving someone rent money that they gamble away and don't pay the rent. Stop giving them rent money. They you can say "You want people to be homeless!"

 

[toobfreak]

Explain how the government keeps someone on assistance for life?

Go figure it out yourself. I posted to this thread 50 times yesterday and I'm done with it. I'm tired of getting pulled back in. I never saw so much stupidity in all my life. There is nothing in the SSA created by FDR that proposed limiting or controlling what others can eat. I'm sure even FDR would be appalled at that suggestion and would be against it.

Legislators are idiots. I am sure whatever fascist dreamed up putting conditions on WHAT food a person can buy or wants to eat was nothing but a rotten leftist who thought it was somehow saving the program money or making poor people live healthier, when it probably accomplishes nothing at all or does the exact opposite.

Giving the government say over how or what I can buy or eat is a power I am not willing to give the government.

 

[OldFlame]

Go figure it out yourself. I posted to this thread 50 times yesterday and I'm done with it. I'm tired of getting pulled back in. I never saw so much stupidity in all my life. There is nothing in the SSA created by FDR that proposed limiting or controlling what others can eat. I'm sure even FDR would be appalled at that suggestion and would be against it.

Legislators are idiots. I am sure whatever fascist dreamed up putting conditions on WHAT food a person can buy or wants to eat was nothing but a rotten leftist who thought it was somehow saving the program money or making poor people live healthier, when it probably accomplishes nothing at all or does the exact opposite.

Giving the government say over how or what I can buy or eat is a power I am not willing to give the government.

You made the claim, but now you won't explain what you meant by it?

 

[toobfreak]

You made the claim, but now you won't explain what you meant by it?

Nope. You and others here have made it clear that you can be explained to until blue in the face and there are just some things you refuse to ever understand.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why? What will you say when the government decides: "Hey, let's do that to you too?

The government isn't paying for my food.

Exactly. Remember, most anything you buy in a box or a bag can be considered junk food. All fast food can be considered junk food. "Junk food" is a VERY broad category. You are treading on dangerous waters giving this kind of power to the government.

.junk food, chips, candy, sodas. And yes, I think fast food should be limited. Home cooked meals will be far healthier and cheaper than going out to eat.

 

[Concerned American]

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.

Welfare and SNAP are benefits to keep those without income alive. It is charity. If you can't feed yourself, you shouldn't be eating overpriced garbage. I think it should be limited to staples, e.g lower priced meats, flour, sugar, spices, baking goods, veggies and fruit of every stripe and as a bonus give them a free basic cook book. Nothing else. Something along the lines of beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Concerned American]

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

It is not up to the government to feed the populace. This ain't communism. If people want choice, earn it.

 

[toobfreak]

Welfare and SNAP are benefits to keep those without income alive. It is charity.

What if you paid into SNAP all your life then get sick and have to go on welfare. How is it charity if you are only getting your own money back?

If you can't feed yourself, you shouldn't be eating overpriced garbage.

What is over priced about a $0.90 2 liter bottle of diet cola? So, you cannot buy that but it is OK to buy lobster?

I think it should be limited to staples, e.g lower priced meats, flour, sugar, spices, baking goods, veggies and fruit of every stripe and as a bonus give them a free basic cook book. Nothing else.

In other words, low quality food. Don't you know that low quality food is unhealthy? Also, what if you are on welfare for being disabled and you cannot stand to cook meals. Do you eat the flour, sugar and spices out of the bag?

Something along the lines of beggars can't be choosers.

Why not? Why can't a person unable to work be free to choose what they eat? Why can they not buy a can of pop even if it is sugar free? And what is accomplished by making them spend their own money? They still get to spend the same amount of SNAP money on /something/. And what if they are on Social Security--- congrats, now instead of spending the valued taxpayer SNAP funds on a pound of oatmeal cookies, they are now spending the valued taxpayer SSI funds to buy that box of oatmeal cookies instead.

Not as simple as you thought, eh? Be careful what you wish. Bottom line: never jump into a ditch in the dark granting the government control over your life until you have thought it through very carefully. If there is food in the supermarket so horrid that it cannot be wasted on welfare people, maybe it is not fit for consumption and should either be improved or taken off the shelf.

Better still-- instead of having some braindead yuk agency like SNAP tell you that you are not allowed peanut butter, maybe it would be better to have some other group just seek ways to help people eat better or to even just get off public insistence instead.