study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it is realistic to police food items purchased. There are also valid reasons some may purchase convenience foods- living in a food desert, lack of kitchen facilities, or simply a child, disabled or elderly person who is unable to prepare full meals.

However, I don’t see any reason whatsoever for purchasing soda- and it would be very easy to remove as an allowable item. Just put it in the same category as alcohol or other disallowed items. No one needs soda and it has zero nutritional value whatsoever, obviously.

[Anonymous]

All Americans buy a lot of this and poor people buy more regardless of who’s paying for it. I’m not sure what the point is. Make anything professed off limits? Require them to cook more? What if their stove doesn’t work and their slumlord won’t fix it for 6 months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are other National food programs like WIC where pregnant and lactating women and children up to 5 get healthy food. There are certain categories like juice, milk, bread, peanut butter/beans, fruits/vegetables that participants can buy so much of each category. You can’t use WIC to buy soda, candy, cookies or processed food.

Then there is free school lunch and in many communities free school breakfast and for kids who stay after school even free school dinner.

To get an accurate picture of the diet of people using snap you have to add all the nutritional programs together. And if you live in cities like Flint, Michigan you are going to be too afraid to have your family drink tap water. There are way too many places in the US where the tap water is not safe to drink.

Good points.

Here's more.
I have a longtime acquaintance who gets SNAP not because she has children, but because of chronic severe mental illness. Long ago she was brilliant and accomplished, but for more than two decades she has been in and out of psych hospitals (anywhere from a few weeks to several months), 2 years of ECT, lives on a small SSDI check supplemented by SSI in a dreary public housing apartment (closets consist of painted cinderblock partitions with low-grade untrimmed plywood shelves, pretty much like the prison camp in Orange is the New Black). Most of the time she lives on the fringe of psychosis. Because of her dual diagnosis alcohol use disorder, she is breathalyzed 2x a day when paid community mental health workers bring her meds. When she goes to the store she gets a ton of Mountain Dew and Coke, ice cream, and yogurt and some frozen meals and Tuna Helper. When she does cook the Tuna Helper, it's a big deal to her and she'll call and invite me to dinner. Soda is her substitute for booze.

So, think of the millions of people on disability and SSI. People with intellectual disabilities and chronic severe mental illness. The soda is bad for them. The other processed foods just as bad, maybe worse. Cooking skills or capacity may be beyond them. BTW smoking is very prevalent among people with certain mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia).

We could create an Eden of community supports to support healthy living for this population (the life expectancy of someone with schizophrenia is in the neighborhood of 50 years, not because of the schizophrenia but because of poor health habits; many are obese and chain smoke). Not likely to happen.

Now, as to the lobbies:
https://www.pogo.org/investigations/the-snack-food-and-corn-syrup-lobbyist-shaping-trumps-dietary-guidelines-for-americans

This article left out one lobbyist segment--sugar producers, both cane and beet.

[Anonymous]

The food conglomerate lobby will never support something that's actually healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All Americans buy a lot of this and poor people buy more regardless of who’s paying for it. I’m not sure what the point is. Make anything professed off limits? Require them to cook more? What if their stove doesn’t work and their slumlord won’t fix it for 6 months?

Oh stop. Enough of the victimhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans buy a lot of this and poor people buy more regardless of who’s paying for it. I’m not sure what the point is. Make anything professed off limits? Require them to cook more? What if their stove doesn’t work and their slumlord won’t fix it for 6 months?

Oh stop. Enough of the victimhood.

Imagine accusing someone of "victimhood" while crying about how offended you are that impoverished people get to eat a bag of doritos once in a while.

I hope every single one of the people whining about this loses everything and has to learn what it's like to live off SNAP. And I doubly hope some Karen like yourself screams at you in the grocery line because they've seen fit to police your shopping cart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are other National food programs like WIC where pregnant and lactating women and children up to 5 get healthy food. There are certain categories like juice, milk, bread, peanut butter/beans, fruits/vegetables that participants can buy so much of each category. You can’t use WIC to buy soda, candy, cookies or processed food.

Then there is free school lunch and in many communities free school breakfast and for kids who stay after school even free school dinner.

To get an accurate picture of the diet of people using snap you have to add all the nutritional programs together. And if you live in cities like Flint, Michigan you are going to be too afraid to have your family drink tap water. There are way too many places in the US where the tap water is not safe to drink.

Good points.

Here's more.
I have a longtime acquaintance who gets SNAP not because she has children, but because of chronic severe mental illness. Long ago she was brilliant and accomplished, but for more than two decades she has been in and out of psych hospitals (anywhere from a few weeks to several months), 2 years of ECT, lives on a small SSDI check supplemented by SSI in a dreary public housing apartment (closets consist of painted cinderblock partitions with low-grade untrimmed plywood shelves, pretty much like the prison camp in Orange is the New Black). Most of the time she lives on the fringe of psychosis. Because of her dual diagnosis alcohol use disorder, she is breathalyzed 2x a day when paid community mental health workers bring her meds. When she goes to the store she gets a ton of Mountain Dew and Coke, ice cream, and yogurt and some frozen meals and Tuna Helper. When she does cook the Tuna Helper, it's a big deal to her and she'll call and invite me to dinner. Soda is her substitute for booze.

So, think of the millions of people on disability and SSI. People with intellectual disabilities and chronic severe mental illness. The soda is bad for them. The other processed foods just as bad, maybe worse. Cooking skills or capacity may be beyond them. BTW smoking is very prevalent among people with certain mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia).

We could create an Eden of community supports to support healthy living for this population (the life expectancy of someone with schizophrenia is in the neighborhood of 50 years, not because of the schizophrenia but because of poor health habits; many are obese and chain smoke). Not likely to happen.

Now, as to the lobbies:
https://www.pogo.org/investigations/the-snack-food-and-corn-syrup-lobbyist-shaping-trumps-dietary-guidelines-for-americans

This article left out one lobbyist segment--sugar producers, both cane and beet.

sounds like she should be living in an apartment complex with a cafeteria. It would be a special one for people in her condition. Because definitely better to pay for an army of social workers than have an "institution" like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of corporations and farmers getting welfare too, my friend.

See sugar subsidies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are other National food programs like WIC where pregnant and lactating women and children up to 5 get healthy food. There are certain categories like juice, milk, bread, peanut butter/beans, fruits/vegetables that participants can buy so much of each category. You can’t use WIC to buy soda, candy, cookies or processed food.

Then there is free school lunch and in many communities free school breakfast and for kids who stay after school even free school dinner.

To get an accurate picture of the diet of people using snap you have to add all the nutritional programs together. And if you live in cities like Flint, Michigan you are going to be too afraid to have your family drink tap water. There are way too many places in the US where the tap water is not safe to drink.

Good points.

Here's more.
I have a longtime acquaintance who gets SNAP not because she has children, but because of chronic severe mental illness. Long ago she was brilliant and accomplished, but for more than two decades she has been in and out of psych hospitals (anywhere from a few weeks to several months), 2 years of ECT, lives on a small SSDI check supplemented by SSI in a dreary public housing apartment (closets consist of painted cinderblock partitions with low-grade untrimmed plywood shelves, pretty much like the prison camp in Orange is the New Black). Most of the time she lives on the fringe of psychosis. Because of her dual diagnosis alcohol use disorder, she is breathalyzed 2x a day when paid community mental health workers bring her meds. When she goes to the store she gets a ton of Mountain Dew and Coke, ice cream, and yogurt and some frozen meals and Tuna Helper. When she does cook the Tuna Helper, it's a big deal to her and she'll call and invite me to dinner. Soda is her substitute for booze.

So, think of the millions of people on disability and SSI. People with intellectual disabilities and chronic severe mental illness. The soda is bad for them. The other processed foods just as bad, maybe worse. Cooking skills or capacity may be beyond them. BTW smoking is very prevalent among people with certain mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia).

We could create an Eden of community supports to support healthy living for this population (the life expectancy of someone with schizophrenia is in the neighborhood of 50 years, not because of the schizophrenia but because of poor health habits; many are obese and chain smoke). Not likely to happen.

Now, as to the lobbies:
https://www.pogo.org/investigations/the-snack-food-and-corn-syrup-lobbyist-shaping-trumps-dietary-guidelines-for-americans

This article left out one lobbyist segment--sugar producers, both cane and beet.

Another take is it can all go according to plan until it doesn’t.

This is why I find the sanctimony so grating.

The meager social safety net exists for a reason because some people need help.

But there will always be the bootstraps brigade who think they are sitting on an unmovable and infallible pedestal that they clawed their way onto and will remain on all due to x-factor.

If the sugary foods/drinks and junk snacks were restricted tomorrow, by Friday they’d be on here preaching that the ability to buy red red meat, fish, and chicken should be disallowed as well.

They’d say I don’t want my money subsidizing quality protein for the poors, let them eat rice & beans and canned corn, with chants of my great grands survived on air, rainwater and insect larvae, and the poors can too.

It’s all so transparent and ugly and quite frankly those who preach the loudest are usually the ones that are 2-6 paychecks away from financial devastation themselves. Carrying their whole foods bags, munching on their $18 garbage green kale salads, and driving their leased suburban land yachts.

Overextended, and over leveraged to hell.

The truly wealthy people I know don’t really concern themselves with the spending habits of SNAP recipients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

If they didn’t want to live this way, they wouldn’t.

For better or worse, our society maximizes freedom. This includes the freedom to make poor choices.

Thank you for at least owning up to your moronic stance that poor people WANT to live in poverty. Until people like you dispense of this totally nonsensical notion, we'll never solve these problems.

You believe they want it and are actively choosing it, and you think yourself morally superior and therefore in a position to judge and control them.

The reality is that our economic system REQUIRES an exploited underclass. The system itself creates poverty. The people in poverty are making choices you don't understand because you literally do not understand poverty.

But stand in judgement all you like. You and most Americans are far closer to poverty than you may realize. A job loss, a health issue, any number of things could bankrupt you tomorrow. And our systems would keep you barely treading water for the rest of your miserable life. And the percentage of the population living like this only grows every year.

Please. I guarantee that I have more lived experience with poverty than you do. I have worked many minimum wage jobs. I have lived in rat infested tiny apartments. My high school had 95% of students under the poverty line.

Yet miraculously, we were able to avoid spending all the money on soda and Doritos.

I don’t need to be lectured by some wealthy DCUM who had probably never left Bethesda or Great Falls about the exploitation of the underclass. I lived it for over 20 years. Have you? Let me guess, you read nomadland or hillbilly elegy and are now an expert on the exploited underclass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of corporations and farmers getting welfare too, my friend.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of corporations and farmers getting welfare too, my friend.

See sugar subsidies

And corn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are other National food programs like WIC where pregnant and lactating women and children up to 5 get healthy food. There are certain categories like juice, milk, bread, peanut butter/beans, fruits/vegetables that participants can buy so much of each category. You can’t use WIC to buy soda, candy, cookies or processed food.

Then there is free school lunch and in many communities free school breakfast and for kids who stay after school even free school dinner.

To get an accurate picture of the diet of people using snap you have to add all the nutritional programs together. And if you live in cities like Flint, Michigan you are going to be too afraid to have your family drink tap water. There are way too many places in the US where the tap water is not safe to drink.

Good points.

Here's more.
I have a longtime acquaintance who gets SNAP not because she has children, but because of chronic severe mental illness. Long ago she was brilliant and accomplished, but for more than two decades she has been in and out of psych hospitals (anywhere from a few weeks to several months), 2 years of ECT, lives on a small SSDI check supplemented by SSI in a dreary public housing apartment (closets consist of painted cinderblock partitions with low-grade untrimmed plywood shelves, pretty much like the prison camp in Orange is the New Black). Most of the time she lives on the fringe of psychosis. Because of her dual diagnosis alcohol use disorder, she is breathalyzed 2x a day when paid community mental health workers bring her meds. When she goes to the store she gets a ton of Mountain Dew and Coke, ice cream, and yogurt and some frozen meals and Tuna Helper. When she does cook the Tuna Helper, it's a big deal to her and she'll call and invite me to dinner. Soda is her substitute for booze.

So, think of the millions of people on disability and SSI. People with intellectual disabilities and chronic severe mental illness. The soda is bad for them. The other processed foods just as bad, maybe worse. Cooking skills or capacity may be beyond them. BTW smoking is very prevalent among people with certain mental illnesses (especially schizophrenia).

We could create an Eden of community supports to support healthy living for this population (the life expectancy of someone with schizophrenia is in the neighborhood of 50 years, not because of the schizophrenia but because of poor health habits; many are obese and chain smoke). Not likely to happen.

Now, as to the lobbies:
https://www.pogo.org/investigations/the-snack-food-and-corn-syrup-lobbyist-shaping-trumps-dietary-guidelines-for-americans

This article left out one lobbyist segment--sugar producers, both cane and beet.

Another take is it can all go according to plan until it doesn’t.

This is why I find the sanctimony so grating.

The meager social safety net exists for a reason because some people need help.

But there will always be the bootstraps brigade who think they are sitting on an unmovable and infallible pedestal that they clawed their way onto and will remain on all due to x-factor.

If the sugary foods/drinks and junk snacks were restricted tomorrow, by Friday they’d be on here preaching that the ability to buy red red meat, fish, and chicken should be disallowed as well.

They’d say I don’t want my money subsidizing quality protein for the poors, let them eat rice & beans and canned corn, with chants of my great grands survived on air, rainwater and insect larvae, and the poors can too.

It’s all so transparent and ugly and quite frankly those who preach the loudest are usually the ones that are 2-6 paychecks away from financial devastation themselves. Carrying their whole foods bags, munching on their $18 garbage green kale salads, and driving their leased suburban land yachts.

Overextended, and over leveraged to hell.

The truly wealthy people I know don’t really concern themselves with the spending habits of SNAP recipients.

I have no problem with them spending it on healthy food and I would be ok with providing an incentive to purchase healthy food even if it results in slightly more spending. I just think it's ridiculous that people can use the assistance money to buy literally candy and then taxpayers have to bail them out when they get diabetes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it is realistic to police food items purchased. There are also valid reasons some may purchase convenience foods- living in a food desert, lack of kitchen facilities, or simply a child, disabled or elderly person who is unable to prepare full meals.

However, I don’t see any reason whatsoever for purchasing soda- and it would be very easy to remove as an allowable item. Just put it in the same category as alcohol or other disallowed items. No one needs soda and it has zero nutritional value whatsoever, obviously.

If you've ever had to live without a kitchen you didn't starve, right? Bread and turkey to make sandwiches. Baby carrots and ranch. Bagels and cheese. Soda, candy, Cheetos do not need to be subsidized. SUPPLEMENTAL Nutrition is the name of the program. Recipients can spend their own money on those oh-so-necessary treats. If they're going to allow soda they may as well allow alcohol because poor people deserve a drink too.

[Anonymous]

I do think there’s probably a difference between the soda/candy and the processed foods. The latter really are necessary for some segment of the population because they can’t store fresh food, don’t have ovens/stoves to cook fresh food, etc.

I worked in poverty assistance for years and one thing I learned is that for a segment of the persistent poor, there’s a reason for it. They have significant physical or mental disabilities, or have borderline IQ or are just very elderly. The same things that keep them in poverty make it hard for them to prepare fresh food and/or understand the importance of it. If you have someone who can’t stand without pain and is dosed up on pain medication, they aren’t going to cook fresh beans and rice — they are gojng to stick something in the microwave for 2 minutes. Or you have someone with an IQ of 70, not technically disabled, but probably not capable of thinking through all the steps of healthy eating. Yes, it would be great if there were more supports for all these people. But there aren’t. So we should at least let them eat a frozen dinner they can microwave.