Soda and candy bans for SNAP

Seems like a good idea on the surface, but (1) I wonder what the potential implementation issues and unintended consequences might be (how much of a hassle will it be to define “candy” and “soda”?) and (2) I’m not sure where the line should be drawn wrt judging and policing the choices of people who probably don’t make the best choices.

For example, is it that bad if a kid gets a soda in their lunch box? Or is that maybe not a big deal in the grand scheme of things? And distinguishing between cake mix and a pre-prepared dessert? My rent is over $5k/month and my kitchen makes baking a hassle. At what point are we using food to punish people for being poor?

Rather than approaching it from the direction of creating more restrictions, what if they made it a tiered program where people get x dollars for a VERY limited number of food categories (rice, beans, fresh, canned, and frozen fruits and vegetables, bread, eggs, milk) and y dollars for whatever else they need/want. Force people to make good choices rather than police bad ones.

Soda yes, chocolate no.

People being banned from eating candy and drinking soda by a president who eats McDonald’s every fucking day and his drugged-out HHS secretary. You can’t make this shit up.

If you've allowed the taxpayer to become your mommy & daddy, the government has to the right to curb your unhealthy choices, which, in the long run, will only take more money out of the taxpayer's pocket. Fuck you and your poor choices.

R2 makes good points (R3 too). This isnt like alcohol which is easy and clearcut to define. I suspect a better answer might be to incentivise people to make better choices, eg a bonus for weight loss or improving certain specific medical markers

Could this be the beginning of the end for MAGA?

"Meemaw ain't gettin' her Mountain Dew and Snickers for free, cuz President Trump says she cain't have 'em no more."

The hypocrisy writes itself….

Robert F. Kennedy II is a former heroin addict and a current abuser of illegal steroids.

As someone who is the current recipient of a taxpayer funded salary, will you be criticizing RFK II's poor choices, both past and current?

And BTW: fuck you right back, you pompous asshole.

R8 is intended for the dickhead at R4.

[quote]This isnt like alcohol which is easy and clearcut to define.

European countries with tax on sugary drinks seemingly have no problem defining what constitutes excess sugar. This shit makes people OBESE in no time and also messes with the developing brain, it's just crazy to me that it should be subsidised by the taxpayer. Coupons should be for milk and unsweetened water.

Well said R3. This will never happen anyway because the very powerful ABA "Big Sugar" is lobbying the Trump administration. They fight tool and nail to the bitter end about everything. They know they're the next "smoking" so they only have a limited lifespan now.

I think there should be, but only a limited option of them and only of the healthier kind. Or they can only spend a very limited amount on them. I think people on the poorer end of the scale deserve some treats too but that doesn't mean they should abuse the system or waste people's tax money on non nutritive items.

Get a job if you want to buy whatever you want. Lazy people.

Sorry - wish I'd read further down my own link - 13 states have requested FDA approval with 6 receiving approval to ban soda from program. Looks like it IS happening.

R8, your comment is so ridiculous. There is a difference between earned income and dependency on other people's work. You can be played the fool by these losers. I'm done with that game.

[quote]If you've allowed the taxpayer to become your mommy & daddy

You’re an asshole.

"You can be played the fool by these losers. I'm done with that game."

If you're a supporter of Donald Trump and RFK Jr. and every other deadbeat, dirtball scumbag member of his administration, you have more than a passing acquaintance with losers, loser.

Remember when Michele Obama was a Castro commie for making school lunches healthier?

The democrats are pussies yo. Motherfuckers are weak.

Remember when Bloomberg wanted to levy a tax on sugary sodas in NYC and the same proto-MAGA assholes lost their fucking minds? I seem to remember Sarah Palin slugging Pepsis in "protest" because they're all moronic drama queens.

R13, most people on food stamps have jobs

Blame people like Jeff Bezos for not paying their employees a living wage

R13, get a job and maybe you'll have better things to do than watch right-wing propaganda on YouTube

I think this is entirely reasonable. Candy and soda are empty calories. They're not that expensive either if someone really wants to treat themselves. A buck at a dollar tree will get them candy if they're that desperate. I guess you can argue diet soda is different since it lacks the calories, but it still provides no nutrition.

If I were in charge of all this tho , I'd instead focus on incentivizing good, healthy choices, even if that meant more $ per person.

Sounds good, but in New York, delis let customers by anything with SNAP. Lotsa people sell their SNAP cards.

I agree, R16, if someone does that, they are an asshole.

They better not get rid of snap.

If democrats did it, you’d all rejoice.

Why should it be used on junk food? If they want candy and soda, they can buy it themselves.

If you want health care, R26, pay for it your damn self. Don't expect my good choices to subsidize your poor choices.

Of course, no one actually pays for their health care *themselves. Not even a two-fisted individualist like R27.

When the Dems suggested this the right, in a furor, called them commies.

Now it’s all fine when the right blocks processed foods for SNAP

Soft drinks are relatively inexpensive, so given the fairly low dollar amount SNAP recipients are getting, is it wise to exclude those products? Because broke hungry people are not interested in the consensus of solvent, well-fed people. They will steal it, and the price will go up. For you.

Besides, every junior league cookbook in the south has a recipe for Coca-Cola Cake.

The problem with placing artificial limits on what SNAP beneficiaries can purchase is that it does not take into account the real world situations that exist. To be blunt, there is a reason why they have microwaves at 7-11; it's frequently the cheapest if not only way a poor person can get a hot meal. It would be much more efficient if we allowed SNAP purchases of prepared foods, and even sold entire meal packages or kits with items that required little to no cooking because poor folks don't have appliances, the skills or even the time to prepare nutritious meals.

And of course the irony is that we have a system in place that is extraordinarily efficient at providing quality, balanced and delicious meals at a very low cost, but we hate it and absolutely refuse to properly fund school lunches (and breakfasts) because woke or something.

Where are the reich wingers hollering "NANNY STATE!!!"

that would work if you forced all grocers in poor areas to carry healthy foods that are available on the new 'snap' but they won't do that. what they're trying to do, is stick people with a card that can't buy anything.

The same Queens gavone who wants to put a giant gilded litterbox next to the White House (a welfare project paid for by taxpayers for his own vanity) is saying poor people can’t have treats.

SNAP is the best money the government pays. Period.

As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. The question is, how do we treat them? If we are kind to them and help them out, they are less likely to commit crimes. That’s the most basic exchange, even if you’re an amoral person and don’t care about the least capable people in our culture starving.

From an economic perspective, no question. SNAP is THE BEST investment the government can make. The poor take that money and invest it back 100% into the U.S. economy. It all gets spent right here, buying goods in America. Every penny.

There’s plenty of welfare for the rich. It dwarfs SNAP tenfold or more. But when rich people get the money, very little of it is invested back into the U.S. economy. It gets speculated in the stock market, it our hasss luxury items, or it’s invested overseas.

^^^ “it purchases luxury items”

"Of course, no one actually pays for their health care *themselves."

Is R28 really that disconnected from reality?

The best approach would be to allow a LIMITED amount of soda and candy, such as once per month.

R34 conservatives literally can't understand externalities. they don't understand that destroying the welfare state sends the poor to the parking lots and sidewalks to bother and disgust them. authoritarian personalities absolutely flip out over the idea of 'undeserving' people having positive outcomes. i read some study a long time ago that suggested that they are very willing to spite themselves to prevent a perceived positive outcome for an 'undeserving' person. their mind reacts to that concept as though they were watching footage of war crime torture basically.

If soda and candy are so awful, NO ONE should be able to buy them. Otherwise, this is just a pointless act of cruelty.

Exactly r39.

The funniest thing about this is it’s this disgusting pig of a man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, this nepo baby, judging people born into poverty.

A ban on using SNAP for candy and soda is not a ban on everything that is tasty or a treat.

If you're using public money, there can and should be restrictions on what that money can be used for. No alcohol, no soda, no candy is a reasonable restriction on SNAP funds.

BTW, Michelle Obama's idea for restrictions on school lunches provided for by public money was also reasonable. It was just poorly and unevenly executed.

"If you're using public money, there can and should be restrictions on what that money can be used for."

Says who? You? Who the fuck are you?

I don't want any of my tax money being used to fund wars or support right wing dictators here or abroad. Where are the restrictions there?

didn't they all go into conniptions when michelle obama wanted to serve healthy food to public school students

r37, that idea is also reasonable, especially today with everything being digital it's easy to limit it that way. But I think if you're going to go the let them have something but don't let them use all of it on crap route I think a set dollar amount would probably be better. Give them a few dollars in the bad category. Otherwise, "one item" could be a giant, $30 dollar sized box of candy bars. Too many ways to get around it.

None of that applies to candy or soda, r31.

If the taxpayer is your mommy and daddy, you've already proven you can't make responsible choices. Therefore, your mommy and daddy has the right to control your choices so mommy and daddy don't have to spend even more money on you going forward. Mommy and daddy are also teaching your about responsible, healthful food choices because you can't make them if you are buying sodas and candy. You're welcome.

Fat fuck Rush Limpballs lost his mind over Michelle Obama's health initiative. "HOW DARE SHE TELL ME TO DRINK WATER AND EAT MORE VEGETABLES! I'LL DO WHAT A WANT!"

It resonated with his racist audience of oppositional defiance disordered retards (ie, MAGAts).

I guess the taxpayer is also “mommy and daddy” of the corporations that get welfare from the government as well, amirite “mommy and daddy” troll at r46 (with your fat snout)?

So the taxpayers should tell the corporate welfare recipients what they can and can’t spend the handouts on. But strangely, we don’t.

R30 - Soda is NOT relatively inexpensive - at least not where I live. 20 oz bottles of soda are $2.99.

With the increase in grocery prices, you would think someone would think twice about spending what little money on SNAP they have on crap like this.

But I also hate when there are articles criticizing what the poor and down-and-out do with what little resources they get. It's not a ton of money in comparison to the billions of corporate tax breaks given.

Items like this are designed to distract - even if we can collectively agree. It's a Reagan playbook that's been going on for over 40 years.

R48, corporations provide products, services, jobs and wealth. People living off the taxpayer have proven to make detrimental and unproductive choices, therefore their surrogate mommy and daddy have the right to make choices for them. Also, I don't think the government should make choices for corporations because most government bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent.

Of course it applies, R45; what's the difference between a banned can of Coke and an acceptable can of Hi-C (and I'm probably dating myself here) fruit juice? Less than a teaspoon of flavoring. This isn't an argument about nutrition, it's an argument about which companies will reap the rewards of government spending, and which won't, relegating the poor to collateral damage.

But the inverse is not true, right R50? I think companies that live off the taxpayers have proven to make detrimental and unproductive choices and should therefore be denied autonomy... if that's the standard for poor people, why not corporations, too? It's the same money. To wit, let's ban Tesla cars because without the tax incentives and markets for carbon emission trading — you know, government spending — Tesla would not exist, let alone be the largest (by market cap) auto manufacturer in the world.

Only in NYC would you be paying over 5K a month rent and be considered poor.

It costs more money to implement new restrictions re: public assistance than it saves. If this is really about saving people from their own "poor choices," then double the minimum wage and cap the prices of housing, education, and healthcare---what's actually making people unhealthy is the fact that they can't say no badly paid jobs and wildly overpriced. housing. People are overworked, overstressed, buried in debt.

"[R48], corporations provide products, services, jobs and wealth."

"Wealth" to who?

Poor people create the profit for corporations---both via labor and consumption.

Soda, yes. The worst shit on the planet. Candy, yes. The next worst shit on the planet. I'm not interested in spending tax dollars in this non-nutritive, unhealthy crap. You want to buy it? Then take the money out of your own fucking pocket.

It will not cost "more money to impmement new restrictions." Just add crap soda and corn syrup candy to the existing list. Easy.

What happens if you have no car and the two stores you have access too don’t sell anything without added suagr to drink or eat?

You can buy crystal light packets, they sell those for cheap. We live in a country of fat fucks. Trump being one of them. But he's not on welfare so he can buy what he wants. Should they be able to buy cigarettes too? I mean, why not? otherwise you're just punishing people for being poor, right?

I just don’t think people with less means are going to have discriminating taste buds to put something back on the shelf when it has a crap ton of sugar. Will some? Certainly, but there’s a larger pattern of not being detail oriented and living in the moment.

Wow, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...yes, people on SNAP live in the moment and aren't detail oriented. Just let the dummies have whatever they want to make their awful lives better, never expect more from them.

dr. pepper says 10 a.m., 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.

[quote] Should they be able to buy cigarettes too? I mean, why not? otherwise you're just punishing people for being poor, right?

Would those voting nay do likewise in the context of cigarettes or vapes? Just because it's a Trump Administration proposal it doesn't make it wrong. Sure, the presumption is that it is, but it can be rebutted.

You can buy soda and candy once you’re paying for it yourself. When you’re asking the taxpayers to pay for your meals, eat what you’re told.

Your faux noblesse oblige is showing majorly @R61.

We're doing enough now to degrade public health. Anything we can do to improve public health is all to the good.

I totally disagree with it. It's because they only want to punish people for being poor. That's why they're doing it. Anybody who thinks it's because they want to make poor people healthy is delusional.

Trump just took Medicaid away from them. He doesn't give a crap about their health.

No, this is all about being judgmental and sticking it to poor people.

Also, it's not up to YOU what anybody else eats but this site if full of food control freaks. Get over yourselves.

When my dad died (I was 8) we were on food stamps for a while (or whatever it was called in the 90s). My mother was so humiliated, but she had 3 kids to feed, and working 2 part-time jobs wasn't enough for us. I never felt shame about it, but I guess it was only for about a year or so from what I understand. I had actually forgotten about it, until an obnoxious relative was saying some of the stuff said here, and finally my mom chimed in that we'd hit rock bottom, and needed help, etc. She slowly worked her way out of it, thank goodness. I hate to see people abusing that system, of course - but I also hate to read people being so hateful about the situation some people find themselves in.

When we told Meemaw that she would have to replace her daily Snicker's bar with an apple or an orange, she let loose the kind of language that would make a sailor blush.

[quote] Trump just took Medicaid away from them. He doesn't give a crap about their health.

While I don't disagree about his motives, the end results will be beneficial. So I'm focusing on the benefits, not the motives.

R67 Is it up to ME if people who are being subsidized by tax payers are racking up massive bills due to their bad health from being fat fucks? I guess not. What if they had COPD? Would you be so kind about that? Don't be so controlling!

You're suddenly friends of the poor and trashy? Every fucking story that has a white trash angle is full of vitriol for these magats, but now suddenly you're feeling magnanimous and want them to eat shit foods.

R70, the "end results?" The "end results" of people who can't get a candy bar or health care are pretty predictable. A candy bar won't kill you. No health care will. Just admit you're a judgemental asshole.

You too, R71.

Sanctimonious twats.

Tobacco use is exponentially more taxing to our healthcare system than sugar or soda. If the concern is making the general population healthier, ban cigarettes. If it is just about punishing people for being poor then yeah make candy and soda snap-ineligible.

The US is so cruel to its poor. No other so-called First World nation is so rabid about punishing its poor.

[quote] A candy bar won't kill you. No health care will.

Why is this a zero-sum game?! We need to improve public health AND health care coverage.

The far right hated Michelle Obama's efforts to promote healthier eating & many DLers seem to hate Trump Administration efforts to promote healthier eating. The extremes in politics seem to have too much in common.

[quote]Also, it's not up to YOU what anybody else eats but this site if full of food control freaks. Get over yourselves.

If I’m paying for it, the yes, it is up to me.

If you can’t afford food, then you can’t afford diabetes medicine. You don’t need candy.

On the SNAP website:

SNAP provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.

Was this always the wording or has it been changed so soda and candy do not fit the bill.

If SNAP is for hungry people to get fed, candy and soda do not a meal make. Do they get other assistance they could spend for treats? .

[quote] If I’m paying for it, the yes, it is up to me.

Why stop there?! You should go confiscate one of those CV-Ospreys that you are "paying for."

Note to the nays. Most people on MA are white. And they're mostly Trump voters.

Exactly R81! you guys should hate them, I don't understand your sudden fucking compassion. We know people only are deserving of anything based on who they voted for.

If these people want candy and soda, they could always get a job and buy it themselves.

Fucking hypocrites. The right wing threw fit when Michele wanted ban chips from vending machines but now they suddenly care about health. Right as when they cut healthcare, disaster relief, and environmental protections? The whole point is just cruelty.

[quote] Fucking hypocrites. The right wing threw fit when Michele wanted ban chips from vending machines but now they suddenly care about health.

But as the vote here suggests, the hypocrisy runs both ways in this particular instance.

Same as the cane sugar vs HFCS bullshit. They’re both refined sugar. The issue wasn’t the ingredient, just the quantity of intake.

Who said they care about health? They probably are pissed that people are buying shitty food with government benefits.

[quote] Who said they care about health? They probably are pissed that people are buying shitty food with government benefits.

Even if the point is conceded, to what end? If my house is on fire, do I give a whit if the dousing firefighters hate me?

"the whole point is just cruelty!" says Johnny Drama who probably weighs in on every thread involving white trash dying to say, "good, one less magat/trump voter", and if the person killed is a pregnant woman, "good, two less magats".

[quote]They probably are pissed that people are buying shitty food with government benefits.

Everyone should be pissed about it.

If you’re pissed that taxpayer dollars are being spent to arm Israel, you should also be pissed about taxpayer dollars paying for shitty food for people who likely aren’t the picture of health.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

"These assholes are just trying to punish the poor"

and

"These assholes were so mad when the dems did this, suddenly they care? "

and

"It's mainly white people who voted for Trump that use these to buy shitty foods." You hate Trump so much that you suddenly want to protect the people who voted for him? Full circle. You should go vote for Trump to get back at him.

But as we were told when Michelle Obama wanted healthier school lunches, freebasing soda was a god-given American right.

Ketchup is a vegetable!

[quote]Ketchup is a vegetable!—Ronald Reagan

Amy Klobuchar tried it.

"It's mainly white people who voted for Trump that use these to buy shitty foods."

UH, not true...get out of Iowa, dude. Junk food and soda are primarily consumed by capita by black people and hispanics.

Not a value judgement---there are legit reasons why *anyone of any color* consumes this shit in mass quantities, like a lack of other food options or time and space to keep or prep more perishable items. And limiting what people can buy with food stamps addresses none of them.

"If you’re pissed that taxpayer dollars are being spent to arm Israel, you should also be pissed about taxpayer dollars paying for shitty food for people who likely aren’t the picture of health."

Lol...taxpayer $$ that go to food stamps are so minimal it's not even worth discussing. There are probably over a thousand tax-payer funded programs that I could take issue with, those that facilitate widely unpopular genocide topping the list. I think MORE of the tax burden should be directed to food.

I don't approve of swathes of the general population consuming massive amounts of soda on a regular basis; if that smackhound RFK wants to do something about it, he should ban it outright.

"Same as the cane sugar vs HFCS bullshit. They’re both refined sugar. The issue wasn’t the ingredient, just the quantity of intake."

Bullshit. That was all theatre, and RFK Jr. is shamelessly stupid and inept, but HCFS *is* worse. You don't need to strawman this by invoking the MAHA freaks; people like Michael Pollan started this conversation.

"You can buy crystal light packets, they sell those for cheap. We live in a country of fat fucks. Trump being one of them. But he's not on welfare so he can buy what he wants. Should they be able to buy cigarettes too? I mean, why not? otherwise you're just punishing people for being poor, right?"

This is not an apples - apples hypothetical. The real question is, should people who smoke or maybe gave gay sex be allowed to be on government health insurance? RFK says no the first because they'll have more maladies that require medical attention; no clue what he thinks about the second.

"Do they get other assistance they could spend for treats?"

Generally, no.

If you don't think having the government get in the weeds of what is approved is dangerous, get ready for PREP, AIDS treatment, etc. to soon be removed from approved insurance, etc.

" It will not cost "more money to impmement new restrictions." Just add crap soda and corn syrup candy to the existing list. Easy"

Dude, shut up. You know nothing about public policy. It will absolutely cost more $$ to implement.

"There is a difference between earned income and dependency on other people's work."

What is this word salad? Most food stamps recipients actually work, dumbass. And unlike RFK Jr., most are not mere bureaucrats spending tax $$, but actually do *productive* work. Which is not to imply this "production" is benefiting anyone but the ultra rich, but it absolutely doesn't require the same level of scrutiny re: conflicts of interest as a government job. MAHA is a sham, and RFK Jr. has already told a hundreds lies about what it will do for the American people. That brain-damaged junkie hasn't earned anything.

Tasteful friends: do you buy candy and soda with your SNAP benefits?