study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obesity = Depopulation
The is the globalist agenda.

*This

Democrat elites promote illness and disease because it makes them wealthy.

The biggest beneficiary of poor people using SNAP to buy crap food is Walmart. Do you want to guess which party gets the most Walton money?

Walmart also pays so little even their full time employees are eligible for SNAP.

You aren't subsidizing food for poor people. You're subsidizing yatchs for the billionaires that exploit them as their employer.

Yup. The Walton Walmart owners are DEMOCRATS.

Their billionaires who own BOTH parties, and we're subsidizing the wages they should be paying their employees. This is not a partisan issue. It's a billionaire issue. Why are there so many people working full time relying on food stamps??? Direct your ire there. Not at the people trying to freaking survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

I was like 18 at the time and honestly don't know much about the program or the changes they proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

Which schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pasta, rice and beans are super cheap. You can get a box of whole wheat pasta for less than. $1.50 and it will last for multiple meals.

If you worked 2 jobs, and had to take the bus for both jobs, just how much time do you think you'd have to cook dinner from scratch?

My mother worked a low level job and cooked from scratched. She was up at 5am, worked, came home and finished prepping meals, then cleaned up. She finally finished at 9pm and then just went to bed. Rinse and repeat. She at least had a ride to work. She never helped us with hw or anything else. Too tired (and I don't blame her).

I'd like to see you be a low income person, work a low income job, take public transit to work, and cook from scratch.

I am now fortunate to wfh and earn a good income. So, we can cook from scratch and do most nights.

Are you serious? So throwing pasta in a pot of boiling water for 6-7 mins is cooking from scratch? Dumping a can of beans in a pot for five mins is too much work? Okay.

Do you want to subsist on pasta and beans daily? Why do you expect poor people to forgo any comfort or food they enjoy?

This is the grossest side of DCUM.

We have pasta or beans and rice multiple times per week.

Just a can of beans? Or an actual meal with additional fresh ingredients and seasonings? You're being dishonest.

I'm also sure that's not all you eat. You eat pizza sometimes. You drink an occasional soft drink. You have a dessert when you feel like it. Yet you'd deny poor people the same autonomy.

SNAP supplemental benefits

It supplements their food budget.

They can buy soda with their own money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

Which schools?

All public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Coca Cola and the HFCS industry disagree. Big pharma disagrees. Hate to say it, but no one in corporate America actually wants poor people to eat healthy food. The fact that we talk about toxic crap like soda as a “treat” shows you how we have internalized the message. There is too much money to be made poisoning people..

I’d have no problem making SNAP a WIC like program for everyone, but I’d rather put the money in people’s hands than waste it on a bureaucracy. Many people, particularly the ones on temporary hard times or otherwise have good access to grocery stores, do very well with their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

Which schools?

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 111–296 (text) (PDF)) is a federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 13, 2010. The law is part of the reauthorization of funding for child nutrition (see the original Child Nutrition Act). It funded child nutrition programs and free lunch programs in schools for 5 years.[1] In addition, the law set new nutrition standards for schools, and allocated $4.5 billion for their implementation.[1] The new nutrition standards were a centerpiece of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative to combat childhood obesity.[2] In FY 2011, federal spending totaled $10.1 billion for the National School Lunch Program.[3] The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act allows USDA, for the first time in 30 years, opportunity to make real reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children.[4] Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and Michelle Obama were a step in transforming the food pyramid recommendation, which has been around since the early 1990s, into what is now known as "MyPlate".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy,_Hunger-Free_Kids_Act_of_2010

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And it’s not pretty. Or healthy.

EPIC Report: Food Stamps: A Culture of Dependency
Matthew Dickerson
May 8, 2024
The story of the food stamp program is one of expanding enrollment, higher spending, benefit payments growing faster than inflation, little work by recipients, and ultimately, a greater dependence on taxpayers.

Food stamp enrollment has increased significantly, surging from 17.3 million individuals in 2001 to 42.1 million in 2023.

https://epicforamerica.org/blog/epic-report-food-stamps-a-culture-of-dependency/


— Coca-Cola, Sprite and other soft drinks are the most commonly-bought items via the $135 billion-a-year Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a new study says.

— Candy, potato chips, frozen pizza, ice cream, cookies, and other ultra-processed food dominates the top 20 items, says a report from the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC).

— Recipients spend much of their benefits on junk food, such as soft drinks, chips and other bag snacks, breakfast cereals, frozen handheld snacks, candy, frozen pizza, ice cream coffee creamer, and cookies.



SNAP costs have exploded from $31 billion to $135 billion, his report says, using inflation-adjusted numbers.

Should the government adjust the benefits so that some foods or drinks are not covered? I would think at least making soda unable to be purchased on SNAP would be a good thing.

Oh wow. A conservative think tank hates the poor. Film at 11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pasta, rice and beans are super cheap. You can get a box of whole wheat pasta for less than. $1.50 and it will last for multiple meals.

If you worked 2 jobs, and had to take the bus for both jobs, just how much time do you think you'd have to cook dinner from scratch?

My mother worked a low level job and cooked from scratched. She was up at 5am, worked, came home and finished prepping meals, then cleaned up. She finally finished at 9pm and then just went to bed. Rinse and repeat. She at least had a ride to work. She never helped us with hw or anything else. Too tired (and I don't blame her).

I'd like to see you be a low income person, work a low income job, take public transit to work, and cook from scratch.

I am now fortunate to wfh and earn a good income. So, we can cook from scratch and do most nights.

Are you serious? So throwing pasta in a pot of boiling water for 6-7 mins is cooking from scratch? Dumping a can of beans in a pot for five mins is too much work? Okay.

Do you want to subsist on pasta and beans daily? Why do you expect poor people to forgo any comfort or food they enjoy?

This is the grossest side of DCUM.

We have pasta or beans and rice multiple times per week.

Just a can of beans? Or an actual meal with additional fresh ingredients and seasonings? You're being dishonest.

I'm also sure that's not all you eat. You eat pizza sometimes. You drink an occasional soft drink. You have a dessert when you feel like it. Yet you'd deny poor people the same autonomy.

SNAP supplemental benefits

It supplements their food budget.

They can buy soda with their own money.

And corporations can buy back stocks with their own money. And maybe pay their employees a living wage? And what did businesses do with all that PPP money?

It's only poor people that you want to control because you think yourself better than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged.

I imagine life is pretty miserable if you rely on SNAP. Why is it so awful to let people make their own choices, even if they are not the choices you would make?

Because those choices are not in the best interest of the person. Why should we subsidize “foods” with no nutritional value that will likely contribute to the person becoming overweight and diabetic. This seems like common sense to me.

We subsidize a lot of shit that isn't great. In this country adults get to make their own choices.

And be honest, you don't actually care. You just like looking down on poor people. I'm sure you shovel plenty of crap down your gullet.

If those choices are subsidized by the taxpayers and those “food” choices lead to more healthcare that must be subsidized by the taxpayer there must be some common sense guidelines. Soda is not a food. That’s basic.

Why is it only things that benefit poor people that everyone wants to get their2 cents in? Think about all the other BS our taxes subsidize that you never ask any questions about.

Did you complain when Michelle Obama changed school meals?

What exactly did she change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it’s not pretty. Or healthy.

EPIC Report: Food Stamps: A Culture of Dependency
Matthew Dickerson
May 8, 2024
The story of the food stamp program is one of expanding enrollment, higher spending, benefit payments growing faster than inflation, little work by recipients, and ultimately, a greater dependence on taxpayers.

Food stamp enrollment has increased significantly, surging from 17.3 million individuals in 2001 to 42.1 million in 2023.

https://epicforamerica.org/blog/epic-report-food-stamps-a-culture-of-dependency/


— Coca-Cola, Sprite and other soft drinks are the most commonly-bought items via the $135 billion-a-year Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a new study says.

— Candy, potato chips, frozen pizza, ice cream, cookies, and other ultra-processed food dominates the top 20 items, says a report from the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC).

— Recipients spend much of their benefits on junk food, such as soft drinks, chips and other bag snacks, breakfast cereals, frozen handheld snacks, candy, frozen pizza, ice cream coffee creamer, and cookies.



SNAP costs have exploded from $31 billion to $135 billion, his report says, using inflation-adjusted numbers.

Should the government adjust the benefits so that some foods or drinks are not covered? I would think at least making soda unable to be purchased on SNAP would be a good thing.

Oh wow. A conservative think tank hates the poor. Film at 11.

New Food Standards
edit

Gives USDA the authority to set new standards for food sold in lunches during the regular day, including vending machines.[12]
Authorizes additional funds for the new standards for federally-subsidized school lunches.
Provides resources for schools and communities to utilize local farms and gardens to provide fresh produce.
Provides resources to increase nutritional quality of food provided by USDA
Sets minimum standards for school wellness policies
Limits milk served to nonfat flavored milk or 1 percent white milk[13]
Reduced portion sizes in meals
Mandate a minimum on fruit, vegetables, and whole grain servings
Mandate a maximum sodium, sugar, and fat content.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy,_Hunger-Free_Kids_Act_of_2010