So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

You forgot vacations and manicures or does that qualify for self care? If you have all your needs met, why do better? Why would your kids see any reason to get out of the situation they're in?

Why are you jealous of people on government assistance? Do you honestly believe they live an enviable life? Would you trade?

As has already been shared, most people on assistance are on it temporarily. People that are on it long term are disabled or elderly. This idea that people are living the good life collecting food stamps IS NOT REAL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

I am not rich, but I am I guess middle class and a pet is really not in my budget right now. So we don’t have one. I would also love a weekly massage for self care, but I can’t afford it. Why should I subsidize someone else having a pet??

You aren't. You pay taxes to be part of our society. You don't have a pet because you've chosen to prioritize other things. Do you honestly want to trade places with the person on SNAP whose pound puppy is the only source of love and companionship they have? You people are like toddlers, whining about the little bit someone has, when you already have everything you need.

DP

So I disagree with this perspective completely and I'm a liberal and have a lot of sympathy for those less fortunate. I donate all the time. I'm for universal healthcare and believe in contributing to the whole of society in making my community a healthy and happy one.

However..

There is such a thing called decision making and some are better than others in this skill set. So I get that everyone wants to feel loved and appreciated and love animals but if I'm on SNAP, my first priority should NOT be relying on SNAP till the end of time! At some point I'm responsible for my own needs. If I need help that's one thing, if I am simply making decisions to make my self feel good and use govt funds to sustain myself then I'm failing at prioritizing correctly and at decision making in general.

I fear many have an inherent prob with SNAP because so many abuse their privileges. When you have a public system in a Democracy as rich as ours, people are going to mess up a lot and waste a lot of safety nets financially. It's a different culture elsewhere but there is such a streak of entitlement culturally here that I'm not sure SNAP should not be completely overhauled.

I believe some will impact tragically without SNAP but a lot will be just fine. Thankfully many states are able to provide. We really do have a prob in US of inequality but also of waste and useless govt overreach - not everything is right with govt even as I disagree with Trump and Rep approach in managing govt functionality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

I am not rich, but I am I guess middle class and a pet is really not in my budget right now. So we don’t have one. I would also love a weekly massage for self care, but I can’t afford it. Why should I subsidize someone else having a pet??

You aren't. You pay taxes to be part of our society. You don't have a pet because you've chosen to prioritize other things. Do you honestly want to trade places with the person on SNAP whose pound puppy is the only source of love and companionship they have? You people are like toddlers, whining about the little bit someone has, when you already have everything you need.

DP

So I disagree with this perspective completely and I'm a liberal and have a lot of sympathy for those less fortunate. I donate all the time. I'm for universal healthcare and believe in contributing to the whole of society in making my community a healthy and happy one.

However..

There is such a thing called decision making and some are better than others in this skill set. So I get that everyone wants to feel loved and appreciated and love animals but if I'm on SNAP, my first priority should NOT be relying on SNAP till the end of time! At some point I'm responsible for my own needs. If I need help that's one thing, if I am simply making decisions to make my self feel good and use govt funds to sustain myself then I'm failing at prioritizing correctly and at decision making in general.

I fear many have an inherent prob with SNAP because so many abuse their privileges. When you have a public system in a Democracy as rich as ours, people are going to mess up a lot and waste a lot of safety nets financially. It's a different culture elsewhere but there is such a streak of entitlement culturally here that I'm not sure SNAP should not be completely overhauled.

I believe some will impact tragically without SNAP but a lot will be just fine. Thankfully many states are able to provide. We really do have a prob in US of inequality but also of waste and useless govt overreach - not everything is right with govt even as I disagree with Trump and Rep approach in managing govt functionality.

If you want the "privileges" of living off of SNAP, quit your job, go work at Walmart, and enjoy. No one is denying you this life. You are just as entitled to it as anyone else. I'm done arguing with you fools.

[Anonymous]

For some idiotic reason, Dems are mortified when people point out the very real fact that many people who get food money from the government in the form of SNAP & other programs can afford cigarettes, tattoos, fake nails, pets, and other things most of us would consider optional.

And it bugs us just a little bit that our tax dollars go to them to buy food when their purchases of these optional items would seem to indicate they actually COULD be buying their own food.

This in no way applies to people who really need SNAP $. We are happy that they get SNAP, & are confident there are enough charities out there which will feed them if SNAP payments cease.

But your tiny brains can’t handle that distinction, so you insist on claiming MAGAs want everyone on SNAP to go without food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

So other people/the government have should pay for your basic needs so you can use own your money for the things you enjoy and to bring your happiness? Sorry, but having a pet isn’t a necessity. Neither are soda and chips.

DP, but it’s weird to me that you say this like it’s a bad thing. God forbid we as a society make sure everyone has food and housing so they can use what little money they have left for something that brings them joy.

The problem is you see someone like this and get jealous of them having something you can’t afford and instead of electing people who will give some breaks to the middle class so you too can afford things that make your life better. But by all means let’s continue paying for people like Kristi Noem and Kash Patel to jet set in a private plane and spend millions more to have the National Guard loiter around cities with nothing to do.

[Anonymous]

It’s going to be an interesting and scary thing to see. I wonder if we are going to see the sales of cheap vices going down (low budget alcohol, cigs, soda).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For some idiotic reason, Dems are mortified when people point out the very real fact that many people who get food money from the government in the form of SNAP & other programs can afford cigarettes, tattoos, fake nails, pets, and other things most of us would consider optional.

And it bugs us just a little bit that our tax dollars go to them to buy food when their purchases of these optional items would seem to indicate they actually COULD be buying their own food.

This in no way applies to people who really need SNAP $. We are happy that they get SNAP, & are confident there are enough charities out there which will feed them if SNAP payments cease.

But your tiny brains can’t handle that distinction, so you insist on claiming MAGAs want everyone on SNAP to go without food.

They have money for tattoos because they aren’t saving for retirement. They will never take a vacation. They won't be able to afford private school or to help their kids with college. They won't own a home.

You could live your life this way too if you had no hope for your future and spent every dime you make on subsistence or frivolity. You're truly moronic to be jealous of the people who qualify for these benefits.

There is no widespread abuse of this system. Turn your ire at the people actually abusing systems and stealing the prosperity of ALL of us. If the wealthy stopped hoarding resources, we could all have affordable healthcare, modern public transportation systems, well funded public schools, etc.

Poor people are not the reason your life isn't as good as you think it should be. And taking away their soda and chips isn't going to make your life better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For some idiotic reason, Dems are mortified when people point out the very real fact that many people who get food money from the government in the form of SNAP & other programs can afford cigarettes, tattoos, fake nails, pets, and other things most of us would consider optional.

And it bugs us just a little bit that our tax dollars go to them to buy food when their purchases of these optional items would seem to indicate they actually COULD be buying their own food.

This in no way applies to people who really need SNAP $. We are happy that they get SNAP, & are confident there are enough charities out there which will feed them if SNAP payments cease.

But your tiny brains can’t handle that distinction, so you insist on claiming MAGAs want everyone on SNAP to go without food.

But the billionaires? They’re cool?

[Anonymous]

Here we have the same people defending the guy wasting billions on a ballroom, while getting upset about giving a few dollars a year to buy some poor people buy some Oreos. What a world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some idiotic reason, Dems are mortified when people point out the very real fact that many people who get food money from the government in the form of SNAP & other programs can afford cigarettes, tattoos, fake nails, pets, and other things most of us would consider optional.

And it bugs us just a little bit that our tax dollars go to them to buy food when their purchases of these optional items would seem to indicate they actually COULD be buying their own food.

This in no way applies to people who really need SNAP $. We are happy that they get SNAP, & are confident there are enough charities out there which will feed them if SNAP payments cease.

But your tiny brains can’t handle that distinction, so you insist on claiming MAGAs want everyone on SNAP to go without food.

They have money for tattoos because they aren’t saving for retirement. They will never take a vacation. They won't be able to afford private school or to help their kids with college. They won't own a home.

You could live your life this way too if you had no hope for your future and spent every dime you make on subsistence or frivolity. You're truly moronic to be jealous of the people who qualify for these benefits.

There is no widespread abuse of this system. Turn your ire at the people actually abusing systems and stealing the prosperity of ALL of us. If the wealthy stopped hoarding resources, we could all have affordable healthcare, modern public transportation systems, well funded public schools, etc.

Poor people are not the reason your life isn't as good as you think it should be. And taking away their soda and chips isn't going to make your life better.

Great response. Thank you for writing this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The democrats voted against paying the troops but now want the administration to take action on SNAP. I am noticing this.

Did you notice Trump has sold off all the commissaries? The privatized commissaries are raising food costs for military families by 30%. You need to pay more attention to who is really screwing you.

That claim is false. Trump did not sell off military commissaries — they’re still run by the Defense Commissary Agency. While the Pentagon has discussed possible privatization, it hasn’t happened. There’s also no evidence that commissary food costs have risen 30% due to privatization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

Cool. Take it up with Congress if Speaker Johnson ever reopens the House. They make the laws. The answer is not “turn off SNAP benefits”. Change the law to stop subsidizing Big Food on the front end (ag subsidies that go mostly to big crops like corn for corn syrup) and on the back end (SNAP benefits).

Good luck with that MAGA. In the meantime, stop demonizing people for making rationale choices.

If snap got turned off, no one would starve, they would maybe consume fewer overall calories- which is needed. It’s either done by eating less of the food you normally eat or exchanging some (most) of the junk food for heathy foods with fewer calories. But something needs to change.

Spend some time in countries without the thin safety net we have. The choices for families are grim. I’ll take obese fed children in school any day over rampant child labor or worse, sex slavery.

Get Big Ag and Big Food off the government teat and make food healthier for everyone. But stop demonizing people for making rationale food choices.

Don't forget the international trade in black market organs that preys on desperately poor people in poor countries. The safety net in America protects us from far worse horrors than an obesity epidemic.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/human-trafficking-victims-forced-to-sell-their-organs-share-harrowing-stories

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/frontpage/2024/June/explainer_-understanding-human-trafficking-for-organ-removal.html

https://www.npr.org/2009/07/30/111379908/the-international-organ-trafficking-market


I thought about this issue. The desperation when people need money and the US government selling off our blood. It’s worth more than oil on the international market exchange.

Highly recommend watching
America: The human plasma factory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

I am not rich, but I am I guess middle class and a pet is really not in my budget right now. So we don’t have one. I would also love a weekly massage for self care, but I can’t afford it. Why should I subsidize someone else having a pet??

You aren't. You pay taxes to be part of our society. You don't have a pet because you've chosen to prioritize other things. Do you honestly want to trade places with the person on SNAP whose pound puppy is the only source of love and companionship they have? You people are like toddlers, whining about the little bit someone has, when you already have everything you need.

DP

So I disagree with this perspective completely and I'm a liberal and have a lot of sympathy for those less fortunate. I donate all the time. I'm for universal healthcare and believe in contributing to the whole of society in making my community a healthy and happy one.

However..

There is such a thing called decision making and some are better than others in this skill set. So I get that everyone wants to feel loved and appreciated and love animals but if I'm on SNAP, my first priority should NOT be relying on SNAP till the end of time! At some point I'm responsible for my own needs. If I need help that's one thing, if I am simply making decisions to make my self feel good and use govt funds to sustain myself then I'm failing at prioritizing correctly and at decision making in general.

I fear many have an inherent prob with SNAP because so many abuse their privileges. When you have a public system in a Democracy as rich as ours, people are going to mess up a lot and waste a lot of safety nets financially. It's a different culture elsewhere but there is such a streak of entitlement culturally here that I'm not sure SNAP should not be completely overhauled.

I believe some will impact tragically without SNAP but a lot will be just fine. Thankfully many states are able to provide. We really do have a prob in US of inequality but also of waste and useless govt overreach - not everything is right with govt even as I disagree with Trump and Rep approach in managing govt functionality.

For the love of god learn some basic facts about snap. 50% are on for a year or less. 67% are off within 2 years. The 1/3 who are on longer tend to be the elderly and disabled.

Benefits are fairly modest. Only the poorest of poor live off SNAP alone for food purchases. They’re the ones most likely to be homeless without many options for how to prepare their food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They'll have to get a job. Stop mooching.

Those three year olds didn’t choose their parents. You stop mooching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7 of those are crap. Candy? JFC, I never got candy as a kid and my parents were loaded.

And 13 things are regular staples. I’d be fine blocking candy and soft drinks from purchases. I don’t have a problem with frozen novelties or snacks or cookies.

You should care. 24% of low income kids are obese, not just overweight, but obese. Compared to 10% obesity rate of kids not low income. It’s because they are and they are over consuming junk food, by a lot. Snap is given specifically to buy heathy foods and it’s being used to purchase junk.

This is an old article. Obesity rate has increased from 20% to 24% since 2015

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/december/gap-in-obesity-rates-between-low-and-high-income-children-widens-with-age

This thread is about SNAP being cut off. Can you stop? Do you think people should starve because they aren't buying food you approve?

You think people consuming 200% of the calories their body needs are at risk for starving?

Fat people still have to eat, and yes they can starve. What is wrong with you?

Of course, but less food. You think people receiving snap can buy zero food at all without snap?

And they be even more likely to buy crap food because it is cheap! They’re not going to buy ground beef or milk like they do now.

They’re going to buy ramen packs and other cheap crap.

There are many, many heathy options that are cheap, if not cheaper than junk. People buy the junk because of convenience and preference, not price.

Yep, this. We’ve gone over and over this. A 10 pound bag of potatoes is $5 at Aldi. Loaded Baked potatoes make a great meal, and you can make a ton of other sides. Or potato soup. These are all things I eat btw. Dry beans and rice are cheap. You can make all kind of meals with that and various fixing. A family pack of chicken thighs is $6 at Aldi. A pork roast is around 12 and makes a ton of meat.

And how should a family living out of their car prepare those things? Or maybe in a motel room with just a microwave? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people are in exactly those circumstance or that car living is on the rise in America?

It's willful ignorance. They want to believe people on SNAP don't work, sit around in their free apartments, playing on their Obama phones, popping out kids, paying for manicures and tattoos, and eating junk food all day living it up on government assistance.

Idk how many times it has to be said that this welfare queen image you have is not real. It was made up to manipulate you. The Nixon and Reagan administration's are on record admitting they made it up.

There are no people on SNAP who don’t want to work, buy or rent a stable home, better themselves, etc. They are desperate for it in fact.

They have all, along with their kids, simply fallen on hard times or there are no suitable jobs available to them in their area. That’s all.

So, NBC4 DC just did a story on people on SNAP considering giving up their pets. One woman interviewed estimated she spends nearly $400 on her dog. Seriously?

I feel sorry for those who really need these benefits but something is terribly wrong when people on SNAP can afford to take on the expense of pets when you consider food, worming, flea meds, yearly vaccinations & care in case something goes wrong.

People have physical and emotional needs. Being poor sucks and it's lonely and isolating. Many poor people have pets for various reasons, including for their emotional health. Why do you begrudge these people any speck of happiness they may have?

No sodas, no candy, no chips, no TV, no cell phones, no car, no self care, no kids, no pets. They should just work, eat rice and beans in the dark, and die.

I am not rich, but I am I guess middle class and a pet is really not in my budget right now. So we don’t have one. I would also love a weekly massage for self care, but I can’t afford it. Why should I subsidize someone else having a pet??

You aren't. You pay taxes to be part of our society. You don't have a pet because you've chosen to prioritize other things. Do you honestly want to trade places with the person on SNAP whose pound puppy is the only source of love and companionship they have? You people are like toddlers, whining about the little bit someone has, when you already have everything you need.

We are subsidizing no matter how you choose to spin it.