Republican SNAP Proposals Could Take Food Away From Millions of Low-Income Individuals and Families

[Lisa558]

The cruelty is the point.

Trump cultists, being awful human beings, literally get off on cruelty.

What’s cruel about people getting jobs to work for what they want? As it stands now, you have the working class struggling to buy groceries while SNAP recipients shop at Whole Foods.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

P.S. You don’t need a doctorate in nutrition to know that soda is bad for you. More SNAP money is spent on that than any other category.

Soda being bad for most people is fairly obvious and you want that eliminated, that's fine! You just don't get to arbitrarily decide on other things. That was my point.

Think back to the changes in the school lunch program that were made at the behest of Michelle Obama. How well did that work out when they found the new lunches were tasteless, the kids threw them away, and did not contain enough nutrition for teenage boys even if they did eat them?

You forget many of us worked in those schools and have either kids or grandkids in those schools. I have no problem with restrictions, but your uninformed opinions should not matter. Just like mine!

 

[Lisa558]

Why no bottled water? There are parts of this country where the tap water is barely drinkable. (Florida, for example - beyond hard water)

Instead of bottled water (which is $5 a case) maybe focus on the type of beef, chicken and fish people can buy? (Regular ground beef vs wagu ground beef, salmon vs lobster, etc).

The main reason they don't restrict them as much as some think they should is because they basically qualify for a "certain amount of money" so if they decide to blow 90% of it on junk, steaks and lobster, then are forced to eat ramen noodles the rest of the month, after the good stuff runs out, that's on them. But if they're smart with it, they can eat well for the entire month.

But they are NOT smart with it, and then cry they need more taxpayer money.

So I DO like your idea to restrict the type of item per category. I, for example, stick with flounder instead of halibut because the latter is more than $20 a pound. Why should SNAP recipients get to eat better than I do?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What’s cruel about people getting jobs to work for what they want? As it stands now, you have the working class struggling to buy groceries while SNAP recipients shop at Whole Foods.

My daughter had SNAP for her two kids while working fulltime for the TSA. Some SNAP recipients make poor choices so we should just cut everyone off completely because of them?

You really should curb your enthusiasm and think things through a little more.

 

[Lisa558]

Soda being bad for most people is fairly obvious and you want that eliminated, that's fine! You just don't get to arbitrarily decide on other things. That was my point.

Think back to the changes in the school lunch program that were made at the behest of Michelle Obama. How well did that work out when they found the new lunches were tasteless, the kids threw them away, and did not contain enough nutrition for teenage boys even if they did eat them?

You forget many of us worked in those schools and have either kids or grandkids in those schools. I have no problem with restrictions, but your uninformed opinions should not matter. Just like mine!

Well of COURSE I don’t get to decide. But I DO get to give my opinion here, just as you do.

And my opinions are not uninformed. I know, for example, that flounder is cheaper than halibut. I know Diet Coke AND JUNK FOOD in general are bad for your health. I know that canned soup is full of sodium. IOW, I can offer my informed opinion on what foods should be allowed on SNAP.

 

[Lisa558]

My daughter had SNAP for her two kids while working fulltime for the TSA. Some SNAP recipients make poor choices so we should just cut everyone off completely because of them?

You really should curb your enthusiasm and think things through a little more.

When did I say cut people off completely? Did you hear me say to eliminate SNAP? You really should stop putting words in other people’s mouths and arguing against what they never said in the first place.

No, I said certain foods should not be allowed on SNAP. We need to get tougher with how our money is spent. And news flash: the welfare people buying soda and shopping at Whole Foods ARE indeed using our money.

 

[Ace Nova]

But they are NOT smart with it, and then cry they need more taxpayer money.

So I DO like your idea to restrict the type of item per category. I, for example, stick with flounder instead of halibut because the latter is more than $20 a pound. Why should SNAP recipients get to eat better than I do?

You are overly generalizing. I've had friends and associates fall on hard times and used those types of programs - and from my understanding, they were grateful to get what they could and used it to feed their families. And no, they weren't eating "steak and lobster" every night either.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

JackOffNoLays 2024:

"Kamala is totally going to beat Trump the LOSER MYSOGINIST INSURRECTIONIST CONVICTED FELON BLAH BLAH BLAH (insert generic corporate media brainwash here...)"

JackOffNoLays 2025:

View attachment 1069892

Typical cuck response from you, Henry.
Nothing but sour grapes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well of COURSE I don’t get to decide. But I DO get to give my opinion here, just as you do.

And my opinions are not uninformed. I know, for example, that flounder is cheaper than halibut. I know Diet Coke AND JUNK FOOD in general are bad for your health. I know that canned soup is full of sodium. IOW, I can offer my informed opinion on what foods should be allowed on SNAP.

Wow! I must have touched your ***** nerve. Sorry about that!

I personally don't care what they buy because trying to impose severe restrictions on their purchases is probably more costly than the SNAP. Are you going to pay for the store's computer to allow flounder but not halibut? Those restrictions have to be made by the individual grocery stores, you do realize. That's called an unfunded mandate that the store cannot recover. I guess that means that people cannot shop at their local bodega or Dollar General because the software will be too expensive for the store to buy, so they won't be able to accept SNAP.

If a person wants to eat steak for the first three days of the month and then ramen the rest of the month, this is a free country. That sucks being free, isn't it?

 

[Lisa558]

You are overly generalizing. I've had friends and associates fall on hard times and used those types of programs - and from my understanding, they were grateful to get what they could and used it to feed their families. And no, they weren't eating "steak and lobster" every night either.

I didn’t say they were eating steak and lobster every night. But it is a fact that welfare recipients DO use our money to buy soda and other bad things. This should be disallowed.

Do you realize that SNAP takers spend 10% of our money on sodas?

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

 

[struth]

The cruelty is the point.

Trump cultists, being awful human beings, literally get off on cruelty.

What’s cruel about it? If you want to feed your neighbor, do it

It’s not the federal govts job to do it

 

[Lisa558]

Wow! I must have touched your ***** nerve. Sorry about that!

I personally don't care what they buy because trying to impose severe restrictions on their purchases is probably more costly than the SNAP. Are you going to pay for the store's computer to allow flounder but not halibut? Those restrictions have to be made by the individual grocery stores, you do realize. That's called an unfunded mandate that the store cannot recover. I guess that means that people cannot shop at their local bodega or Dollar General because the software will be too expensive for the store to buy, so they won't be able to accept SNAP.

If a person wants to eat steak for the first three days of the month and then ramen the rest of the month, this is a free country. That sucks being free, isn't it?

The stores are already set up to exclude certain items. We don’t need any computer overhaul.

You sure are determined that people should be able to use OUR money to spend on bad items. If they want to throw out 10% of the food charity they are given on soda, they need to get a part-time gig and buy it themselves.

 

[struth]

I didn’t say they were eating steak and lobster every night. But it is a fact that welfare recipients DO use our money to buy soda and other bad things. This should be disallowed.

Do you realize that SNAP takers spend 10% of our money on sodas?

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

100 percent current. Govt food ad should be limited to only healthy foods

You shouldn’t be able to purchase chips, and pizza with it.

When people are hungry they find a way to be productive

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I didn’t say they were eating steak and lobster every night. But it is a fact that welfare recipients DO use our money to buy soda and other bad things. This should be disallowed.

Do you realize that SNAP takers spend 10% of our money on sodas?

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

Once we give it to them, it is their money. You want to restrict it, that's fine, but don't dictate it like you are the Grand Poohbah of SNAP rules.

Personally, I drink diet caffeine-free soda that is $1.00 a bottle. What would be so bad about that?

 

[Lisa558]

Once we give it to them, it is their money. You want to restrict it, that's fine, but don't dictate it like you are the Grand Poohbah of SNAP rules.

No, it is NOT their money. We have every right to restrict how taxpayer dollars.

Personally, I drink diet caffeine-free soda that is $1.00 a bottle. What would be so bad about that?

Fine, as long as you’re paying for it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The stores are already set up to exclude certain items. We don’t need any computer overhaul.

You sure are determined that people should be able to use OUR money to spend on bad items. If they want to throw out 10% of the food charity they are given on soda, they need to get a part-time gig and buy it themselves.

Like I said, just cut the whole program because a few people abuse it. You claim it is our money. What is there are people out there who support the plan as is. They should just suck it up and go along because that's what your ultra-right wing politicians believe, isn't it?

Don't play with the program. Do away with it and then deal with the aftermath.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, it is NOT their money. We have every right to restrict how taxpayer dollars.

Fine, as long as you’re paying for it.

Actually, the US government pays for it with my SS check. is that OK with you that that is the source of the money?

Do away with the entire programs, but don't ***** when kids start showing up at emergency rooms dying of malnutrition.

 

[Lisa558]

Like I said, just cut the whole program because a few people abuse it. You claim it is our money. What is there are people out there who support the plan as is. They should just suck it up and go along because that's what your ultra-right wing politicians believe, isn't it?

Don't play with the program. Do away with it and then deal with the aftermath.

Wait. Your are objecting to my OPINION we should disallow soda to be purchased with food stamps because you think the recipients of government taxpayers dollars should be able to throw our money away - and then you say to abolish the ENTIRE program?

OMG.

 

[Lisa558]

Actually, the US government pays for it with my SS check. is that OK with you that that is the source of the money?

Do away with the entire programs, but don't ***** when kids start showing up at emergency rooms dying of malnutrition.

The program is paid for by all taxpayer money, including those in the working class who can barely afford their own food.

And who here said to do away with the entire program? You are going to the extreme, making up things that people didn’t say, and then arguing with them over something they never said.

(For sure….a liberal tactic in debate when they can’t win the argument.)

 

[Ace Nova]

The stores are already set up to exclude certain items. We don’t need any computer overhaul.

You sure are determined that people should be able to use OUR money to spend on bad items. If they want to throw out 10% of the food charity they are given on soda, they need to get a part-time gig and buy it themselves.

"Our money" I've heard that said over and over again. How much of it is really yours or "ours"? For starters, only around 58% of federal budget spending is from tax payer revenue. The other 42% of federal spending comes from corporate taxes, states and the rest is borrowed (deficit).

So if your in the top 1% of income and pay the maximum federal tax rate every year, you can claim that you help pay for 58% of government spending. Top 5% can claim about 20% less than that (around 46%) Top 10% (10% less around 42%) All the way to the top 50% of income in the US that can claim they pay for around 20-30% of Federal Spending.

Anyone below the top 50% of income earnings/tax rates in the US account for between 0% - 3% of Federal Spending. (In terms of tax revenue)

That's for ALL Federal Spending, including interest on the deficit.

When it comes to government welfare programs, they make up about 40% of federal spending but that's mostly medicare and social security. If you broke it down, the food stamp programs are only a very small part of that - and many of those are handled by state programs - so depending on the state you live in, you may not even be paying it at all.

But at most, if your in the top 50% of earners, you would be paying less than 1% - 2% of your taxes towards those costs - at most. If you're not in the top 50% of income, you're paying either 0% or less than 1% of those costs.


That said, it's still tax money, it should not be abused and should be managed properly.