21

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps" and posted in the "Political Discussion". The original poster quotes from a recent study conducted by The Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC) regarding the use of food stamps. The report shows that junk food, especially soft drinks, are the leading purchases with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds. The original poster asks whether the program should be modified so that soft drinks and junk food are no longer covered. EPIC is a fairly new "think tank" formed less than a year ago by Paul Winfree. Winfree served in the administration of former President and current cult leader Donald Trump. As such, EPIC clearly has an agenda. Even so, their findings are consistent with other studies of the use of SNAP benefits. As posters point out in the thread, this reflects deeper societal issues. One poster puts things very succinctly, writing, "Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive." Moreover, poor people who rely on food stamps often live in food deserts where healthy food is not readily available. Many posters argue that junk food is promoted by extensive marketing and the use of SNAP benefits for junk food is encouraged by corporate lobbying. Some posters go even further and claim that the government and private equity investors actually want to encourage unhealthy lifestyles in order to kill people off. One poster is especially fixated on Blackrock and "Globalists" who he insists have a "depopulation" agenda. Several posters argue, however, that junk food is actually expensive and provide examples of healthy food being cheaper. In response, another poster points out that even in cases where healthy food costs less, it takes longer and requires more effort to prepare. This can create unwanted stress in families that are already struggling. There are two distinct points of view in this thread. One, which is basically represented by the original poster, suggests that poor people are intentionally choosing to spend tax payer money on junk food, creating more problems for both themselves and society, and the solution should be to simply prohibit this. The other point of view is that poor people face significant constraints that discourage them from eating healthy, some built right into the SNAP program, and that the solution is to provide more accessible healthy alternatives. The second group doesn't necessarily oppose prohibiting junk food, but simply doesn't view prohibition as addressing the actual problem. Some posters made an effort to create grocery lists that showed how a healthy diet could be achieved on a budget. Other posters responded by pointing out what had been missed in those lists and where the lists were not practical. However, one poster who actually bothered to read the report suggested that much of this discussion missed the point completely. I'll quote that poster at length: