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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t think non citizens are SNAP eligible, actually. Troll fail

Non citizens with legal status are eligible, but undocumented people are not eligible.

Republicans changed the law to block non citizens with legal status from getting SNAP. So people like refugees are getting kicked off regardless of the shutdown. And you are right that undocumented are not eligible.

[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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Because the "waste" and "fraud" will save us literal pennies from the budget.

This is the same argument as millenials can't afford a home because of Starbucks and avocado toast. Saving a few bucks a month doesn't move the needle enough. So focusing efforts on a relatively well run program is NOT going to save your budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Because the "waste" and "fraud" will save us literal pennies from the budget.

This is the same argument as millenials can't afford a home because of Starbucks and avocado toast. Saving a few bucks a month doesn't move the needle enough. So focusing efforts on a relatively well run program is NOT going to save your budget.

Exactly this. PP either doesn’t know or avoids the fact that snap has income limits, asset tests. It also has time limits for able bodied adults. The system tries to root out those who defraud it where States with high payment errors used to pay penalties. But now republicans have incentivized them to increase payment errors which will actually increase fraud.

And spending the money on things you don’t like but are allowed isn’t fraud. That’s a policy choice. Change the policy but don’t be surprised by unintended consequences. (People will buy more juice instead of soda, food companies will just reformulate highly processed food or Lobby for carve outs)

[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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

The very first item on the list...

[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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

The very first item on the list...

Yep the food bank that you want to replace SNAP has chocolate milk boxes as the ver first item on their list.

[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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

I grew up blue collar/working class and we ate a lot of this (not necessarily the individual packs because those cost more, but still) plus hamburger helper, progresso, campbells and honestly it was fine. I’m thankful to not need to rely on these sorts of foods any more but it also doesn’t bother me to occasionally serve my kids instant oatmeal or boxed mac and cheese or tuna.

[Anonymous]

Processed food like Mac and cheese cups is fine, it’s not ideal, but fine. It’s also cheap. The point is that it’s feeding people who don’t have food. What on earth is wrong with you all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is no one worried about the major spigot that’s about to get turned off to our food production system?
SNAP was just a middle man to funnel money to grocery stores/food manufacturers/producers.

Seriously. So much weird judgement on this thread. Bottom line is about 10% of the US population needs help buying food. That’s a big chunk of change for producers and distributors. Removing that money from the system will affect the system for everyone.

[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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

With the exception of the bars, this is similar what my family ate in the 1970s and 1980s, along with spaghetti.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Processed food like Mac and cheese cups is fine, it’s not ideal, but fine. It’s also cheap. The point is that it’s feeding people who don’t have food. What on earth is wrong with you all!

No, the point is supplementing a crappy diet with nutritious foods. Not giving them even more crap.

[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: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?

This is why SNAP has the restaurant program.

So you don’t want homeless people who use SNAP to buy soda or snacks but you are ok if they get benefits for restaurants where they will probably buy soda and other food you don’t approve of?

I call BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is no one worried about the major spigot that’s about to get turned off to our food production system?
SNAP was just a middle man to funnel money to grocery stores/food manufacturers/producers.

Seriously. So much weird judgement on this thread. Bottom line is about 10% of the US population needs help buying food. That’s a big chunk of change for producers and distributors. Removing that money from the system will affect the system for everyone.

Low info people

They saw TikToks therefore they know all 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.

here's a list from a group serving people with limited ability to cook who also rely on SNAP. It's all highly processed cheap food. This is the reality for alot of people.

Shelf-stable milk cartons (chocolate preferred)‬
‭Individual Cup of Noodles (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Individual Mac & Cheese cups (water is only added ingredient)‬
‭Cheese or peanut butter cracker packs‬
‭Fruit cups (100% juice preferred)‬
‭Bars (granola, fruit, cereal, breakfast, protein)‬
‭Individual cups of instant oatmeal‬
‭Individual cups of cereal‬
‭100% juice boxes/pouches (no glass bottles; no soft drinks)‬
‭Prego Ready Meals, Barilla pasta entrees, Hormel Compleats‬
Chicken or tuna snack packs with crackers‬
Packets of trail mix or nuts‬
Individual beef sticks/beef jerky‬

I grew up blue collar/working class and we ate a lot of this (not necessarily the individual packs because those cost more, but still) plus hamburger helper, progresso, campbells and honestly it was fine. I’m thankful to not need to rely on these sorts of foods any more but it also doesn’t bother me to occasionally serve my kids instant oatmeal or boxed mac and cheese or tuna.

Same. People on this thread would ban most of this.

They want people to buy potatoes and cook dried beans. Food banks like potatoes but they don’t like dried beans because their clients don’t know what to do with them.

They also don’t like hamburger helper because it needs meat and they don’t like boxed Mac and cheese because it needs milk and butter.

They want cans with pop lids because clients don’t have can openers and they need easy to open things for people with dexterity issues like the elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is no one worried about the major spigot that’s about to get turned off to our food production system?
SNAP was just a middle man to funnel money to grocery stores/food manufacturers/producers.

Seriously. So much weird judgement on this thread. Bottom line is about 10% of the US population needs help buying food. That’s a big chunk of change for producers and distributors. Removing that money from the system will affect the system for everyone.

+1 12% of grocery profits. Much higher in rural areas