First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

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..?
Liberal Logic 101

If someone doesn't give a lazy crybaby outside a convenience store the money to buy junk food, he must be the type who would go into the store and prevent anyone else from buying junk food there.
 
Liberal Logic 101

If someone doesn't give a lazy crybaby outside a convenience store the money to buy junk food, he must be the type who would go into the store and prevent anyone else from buying junk food there.

If they wish to use their own money to make the purchase, then you are right. But if they are using the card then they don't get the choice outside of what the people that issued the card determines.
 
I hate white folks like you that hate black folks.
No, you hate the Korean store owners who won't let black folks steal from their shelves.

As long as you keep voting for the plantation owners you're going to stay on the plantation. That's a fact.
 
No, you hate the Korean store owners who won't let black folks steal from their shelves.

As long as you keep voting for the plantation owners you're going to stay on the plantation. That's a fact.
I hate Korean store owners? WTF are you talking about?

Explain to me what the plantation is exactly.
 
If they wish to use their own money to make the purchase, then you are right. But if they are using the card then they don't get the choice outside of what the people that issued the card determines.
If they have their own money to buy candy they should not get food stamps
 
In many cases they get cash assistance alongside snap.
And they get free medical, also, and greatly subsidized housing.

I remember when I was in my early 30s and living in a small condo. The part-time receptionist was in her early 20s, and was living in a 3-bedroom townhouse. That’s because she got food stamps for herself and her baby, paid $87 a month for the townhouse (she told me), and rented out two of the bedrooms for cash under the table.

She had more disposable (and non-taxed) income than I did!
 
And they get free medical, also, and greatly subsidized housing.

I remember when I was in my early 30s and living in a small condo. The part-time receptionist was in her early 20s, and was living in a 3-bedroom townhouse. That’s because she got food stamps for herself and her baby, paid $87 a month for the townhouse (she told me), and rented out two of the bedrooms for cash under the table.

She had more disposable (and non-taxed) income than I did!
I saw a post from some woman in exactly the same situation. She was crying about losing her benefits because she went out and bought a Beemer or some other high end car.
You're allowed to have a car.....but.

She was really flipping out.
 
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.

Sorry, but when you are given money for free, there are strings attached. That is life. They should be thankful that they get food and housing for free, not complaining that they can’t “buy” whatever they would like with our money.

Reminds me of a line in Christmas Vacation when Clark’s loser brother-law, Eddie, tells him a story about how he couldn’t buy his kids and family Christmas presents. Clark offers to buy them gifts and Eddie says “I want to get you something real nice”. Democrats are all in favor of spending someone else’s money.
 
Sorry, but when you are given money for free, there are strings attached.
That's why EV charging stations never got off the ground, why rural internet never got off the ground.

It was all due to signing on the dotted line with Uncle Sam.
 
Once again, Idaho leads the nation!
Well..in stigmatizing the poor, anyway~

Gov. Little is sure to sign this.


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.
As usual, Trump has the left over a barrel. Let's see them oppose this.
 
Back
Top Bottom