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:

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.

Right. It’s all so neat, tidy and perfectly administered, right?

[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:

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.

Right. It’s all so neat, tidy and perfectly administered, right?

This is the hill you’re going to die on wrt government spending???? We financed a genocide ffs.

[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:

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.

Right. It’s all so neat, tidy and perfectly administered, right?

This is the hill you’re going to die on wrt government spending???? We financed a genocide ffs.

Sure. I mean, $145 billion a year with this level of fraud and abuse is nothing, right?

[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:

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.

Right. It’s all so neat, tidy and perfectly administered, right?

This is the hill you’re going to die on wrt government spending???? We financed a genocide ffs.

Sure. I mean, $145 billion a year with this level of fraud and abuse is nothing, right?

What level of fraud and abuse? The fraud and abuse that exists in your imagination?

Let's talk about corporate fraud and abuse. Let's talk about tax loopholes and cheating of the 1%. We KNOW that exists, and we do nothing about it.

[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:

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.

Right. It’s all so neat, tidy and perfectly administered, right?

Funny you should mention that. Republicans big beautiful bill actually incentivizes states to increase (!!!) waste, fraud and abuse in SNAP.

“It actually goes against their argument that they want to incentivize states to lower down their error rates,” said Gina Plata-Nino, deputy director of SNAP at the Food Research and Action Center. “States will manage to keep their high error rates, then come fiscal year 2028, they can delay it, versus states that are trying incredibly hard to lower down their error rates — they will be penalized. … It makes no sense.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/20/snap-tax-law-error-rate/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal judge is going to order the administration to use the emergency funds that Congress already appropriated for this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/30/snap-funds-government-shutdown/

Just another example of lawless behavior by this administration, and absolutely dereliction of duty in the House of Representatives.

If they won’t distribute the funds, I think all of the red state voters who rely on SNAP need to get up close and personal with their reps while they’re vacationing at home.

Judge needs to be told publicly and in no uncertain terms that they have no power and are inserting themselves where the executive and legislative branches are in control.

Remove her from the bench if need be. The judicial branch cannot impinge on the other branches.

Nope. Trump is illegally withholding the funds. Congress provided these dollars and as recently as September Trump admin said they would use them during shutdown.

[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: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.

Yes they are making rationale choices. Make the junk more expensive, limit what products they can buy. It’s not take their money away and the problem goes away. It will make it worse.

1) Tax the junk
2) Teach nutritional science in school (incorporate it into HS bio AND bring back home ec involving meal prep)
3) identify food desserts (the way we do flood zones) and utilize the National Guard to devise a way to supply health food in these spots (apparently they are available to patrol streets of cities, can't they also carry in food?)
4) Take a look at what agricultural constraints on pesticides, etc exist in Europe and impose those here (bc European fruits and veggies are SO much better)
5) Allow medicare/caid billing codes to reimburse for more food prescriptions
6) launch a PSA campaign showing the preparation of 15 minute healthy meals for under $XYZ and a weekly shopping list for under $XYZ to buy ingredients for breakfast/lunch/dinner for 1, 2, 3, etc people

Am sure there are additional ideas to call for. Not only will this help people stretch their dollars farther and minimize hunger but also will make people more healthy and reduce healthcare costs.

I’m not going to kiss your athleisure covered ass for this inane bullshit. Even on a long thread, it is completely inappropriate to conflate a healthier reform of SNAP with failing to provide any supplemental income to the poorest and hungriest among us. Go try to make a friend in middle age where you two dopes can natter on at each other.

42 million people are not the "poorest and hungriest among us." Massive reform in the entire program is needed, starting with cutting the welfare subsidy to Big Food, which is what is driving this.

You deflecting MAHA sh!tsack. Yeah let’s definitely get our priorities straight.
You are exactly like this bald-faced Brittany Hughes monster, fretting over the good people purchase at Walmart. You’re cruel, not high-minded, so sit down and STFU.

Can’t handle the truth?

[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.

But the billionaires? They’re cool?

So this is my biggest issue with Dems - you don't know how to argue. I HATE fing Trump. Mortifying disturbing as is all his crew. Incl all the sold out tech billionaires who bow down to him for favor.

BUT - one thing is not the other!

Just because I think SNAP can do with an overhaul does not mean billionaires are cool! You can't just suggest I'm wrong about both things that really are 2 separate subjects altogether.

SNAP is being used in the wrong way by we don't know how many are on it. Does not mean we should stop helping folks who need it, does not have anything to do with billionaires and does not mean everyone on SNAP sucks. It simply means that there are most DEF those who take advantage of the system as it happens in every system except as a country we don't really have the budget to continue wasteful spending. It would be good to come up with a different way if business as usual.

I'm not sure why you insist on attacking people who are not against a system like SNAP but still pointing out it may not be the awesome program you think it is simply because it exists!

[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.

You are SO stupid. Nobody is saying people can’t have things. ANY things.

But if you claim to be so desperate that you need others to pick up your food tab, you refute that claim when you have money for things that are clearly, by any standards, not necessities.

[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.

You are SO stupid. Nobody is saying people can’t have things. ANY things.

But if you claim to be so desperate that you need others to pick up your food tab, you refute that claim when you have money for things that are clearly, by any standards, not necessities.

Man, do you even hear yourself?

You are simply selfish. Over FOOD!

[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.

But the billionaires? They’re cool?

It’s always just a matter of time until the Communists slither into the scene & claim everything would be great if they were allowed to take other people’s money and redistribute it.

[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:

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.

You are SO stupid. Nobody is saying people can’t have things. ANY things.

But if you claim to be so desperate that you need others to pick up your food tab, you refute that claim when you have money for things that are clearly, by any standards, not necessities.

Man, do you even hear yourself?

You are simply selfish. Over FOOD!

Go away, junior. Come back when you graduate from high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is going to be a GOOD thing. These people don't vote anyways

TikTok flooded with threats of chaos, stealing food, raiding white homes. We've spoken about preparation so often we're all tired of hearing it. It's here. November 1st SNAP ends. It would be prudent to shop this week and be done.

Stop falling for fake AI crap. This is the essence of being played.

AI is being used to create rage against Black women.

https://www.tiktok.com/@showtoolsai/video/7565209760488803614

[Anonymous]

[twitter]https://x.com/abc/status/1983876140356768189?s=46&t=MpkceUgvzQ5ldTyvmUWW-g

[Anonymous]