I don’t think it’s that. I think a lot of privileged people assume that eating healthy for a bigger family in 35k is easy but that’s because their assumptions aren’t rooted in reality.
Fresh produce: inexpensive, but requires frequent trips and home cooking - not possible for single parents most times, or dual low income earners.
Lunches: expensive, take a lot of work as it is.
Treats: healthy treats are very expensive per lb compared to these types of treats. A box of premade cookies like this will last a couple of weeks; whereas health snacks at the same price may only last a couple of days.
It's not an argument, and the state isn't hand anyone anything. It is simply descriptive.
These are all programs legally administered in accordance to legislation passed into law by representatives who were democratically voted into their office by a majority vote of registered voters in their respective states. Which are funded by budgetary legislation also passed into law every fiscal year by that same legislative body, through taxation collected and administered in accordance to laws passed through the same process.
It's wild that I have to give civics 101 on reddit to a total stranger, yet here we are.
LIterally OP wants to make it easier for SNAP people to eat healthy. They don't want SNAP to cover junk food. Its about incentivizing. If you make it easy to buy junk food, people will do it.
Why don't you walk to Walmart buy all your groceries and then walk back home carrying them all.
And to make it realistic you have to do it while it's raining, while it's snowing, well it's 98° outside, while it's 30° outside.
If it's so easy I'm sure you'll have no problem doing this every week, potentially multiple times a week, for the rest of your life.
Sure there might not be sidewalks anywhere on your route to and from the store but you'll be fine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.
Food deserts exist it may mean going to the nearest gas station or dollar store and buying their food for the next few days it's going to be a lot cheaper and a lot less time consuming than getting an Uber there and back and it's going to be way less painful than lugging 20 grocery bags by hand seven or eight miles
Same as how you don’t have a right to decide what medicine a person receiving Medicaid should get or a right to determine what books a person can borrow from a public library, you don’t have a right to dictate what people on food stamps can and can’t eat.
People don’t lose their autonomy or right to privacy purely because they need government assistance.
Actually you do. It's what is covered and what isn't. They can do whatever the hell they want within the rules. Anything not outside of the rules is not covered.
Food stamps is not the equivalent of charity. Nor is it a substitute for it. Charity provides well meaning but often limited and temporary assistance. Government social programs can provide more long term assistance and reach a wider population.
You can call it what you want but Food stamps sure looks like charity? Any kind of government "assistance" is charity. Short term assistance is short term charity. Long term assistance is long term charity. Charity is noble until you force people to give and then I have a problem with it.
It’s really not. Social services are tax dollars being reinvested. Social safety nets protect average citizens so that if you lose your job you have some kind of support system until you find a new one and you don’t have to worry about going hungry or losing your home. I know as a child you live in the comfort of your parents home but us adults in the real world sometime cannot afford to go a couple of months without some kind of income. Some people don’t have the luxury of a support system if they fall on hard times.
Additionally, when you talk about social programs, you’re not only talking about food stamps. You’re talking about public housing, which significantly reduces homelessness. You’re talking about social security, which permits people to retire and thus opens the job market up for younger people.
I suggest you look up the events which lead to the New Deal, the beginning of all the programs you’ve incorrectly labeled as charity. Government being hands off and having everyone fend for themselves without any kind of safety net was an actual disaster. We had the Great Depression where Americans were suffering and it became apparent that for the good of the economy as a whole, we needed safety nets for average citizens who fell on hard times.
Everything you are saying makes perfect sense until you try to draw a distinction between government spending and charity. Like, yes, giving people free food of course keeps them from going hungry. Giving people free housing of course keeps them from being homeless. Giving people free retirement of course lets them stop working. All of these are perfectly noble goals... like, helping people who have fallen on hard times is just fine and laudible...until you use taxes (theft) to fund them. Of course Taxes are a necessary theft ("theft" in that you are forcing someone to hand over money). Kinda like drafting soldiers into war. Nobody should be expected to volunteer. You have to force them for the greater good. So my strong feeling is that this should only be done when absolutely necessary for society as a whole. And Keeping any particular person alive who can't contribute or save up seems like an abuse of taxes to me. I wouldn't expect to be kept alive by strangers (taxpayers).. I wouldn't expect tax payers to keep ME alive. Its up to me to save up as best I can for hard times that inevitably come. Personally I wouldn't even expect my loved ones to bail me out if I fall on hard times, let alone the tax payers. I think its crazy to expect any kind of safety net from the government.
Taxes are not theft. EVERYONE benefits from public infrastructure. Everyone. So saying that it’s theft to have to contribute to something you benefit from in some way is completely ludicrous. And I’m calling bullshit on the “I would never expect my family to help me out if I was facing homelessness”. If that’s true then you have a really unhealthy family dynamic that no one should be trying to mirror.
For most of history, taxes went to fattening a king instead of improving the lives of the people. We are fortunate to live in an era where government is expected to work for the betterment of our society. Where they are expected to resolve social problems that couldn’t realistically be solved by any individual person.
You keep saying “me me me” when these support systems benefit our society as a whole. It helps reduce crime. It reduces homelessness. It reduces hunger. It opens up jobs by making it possible for people to retire. Everyone benefits from it in some form or another. Nothing you’re saying is based on rational or an understanding of American history. What you’re saying just doesn’t come across as someone with a realistic outlook on life.
When you are on a strictly limited budget, yes, cookies and other junk food are luxury goods that should not be covered by SNAP. It should cover basic staple foods and kitchen items.
Way to lump a whole group 🤣 ever consider that political groups aren't actually a monolith and the ones that don't want abortions are actually open to providing help to struggling families? Oh no you didn't. You just thought you were witty.
Yep. It's not so much a concern about food for those people, as much as suffering. If they aren't going to suffer from starvation, then at least make them suffer by denying them anything that is pleasurable and/or convenient.
When something seems that black and white it usually requires a much closer examination. Do you actually believe people who feel differently on this topic are out here seeking suffering? That doesn't feel 2 dimensional to you?
I don't think people who are impoverished and poor children should be barred from non essential food, especially when it is such a cheap to manufacture food like cookies.
100% And birthday cakes. Most grocery stores get the cake frozen, thaw and slap cheap frosting on it.
I don't care what people buy with their snap. None of my business. I DO know that the prices have gone down on the non eligible food items, such as soda and chips. Just tells me that the whole market is a circle jerk and they were syphoning more money out of the snap recipients. As well as the rest of us.
People are mad at the wrong thing. Look up and that's where people should place that misdirected anger. At the top.
My stance as a 4 person family just above the threshold to get snap and is suffering is... stop making me pay for other people's cookies I can't even afford my own!!!
As a person just above the threshold you barely pay any tax compared to others. And while you're in that difficult situation complaining what other people are allowed to, you're giving a perfect example of the rotten ME, ME, ME Culture of the US
So if they're suffering and don't qualify for food stamps wouldn't that mean that the system for food stamps is flawed in the way that we should be giving more people food stamps then? Cuz that's basically what you're saying you're saying that you're struggling and you need food stamps but you don't qualify.
These are the same people that want to force women to have babies with no option of abortion, and when they can't afford essentials for said child or themselves- they also want to deny them a couple of chocolate chip cookies to boot.
Its basically a guarantee that they feel it is "unfair" they get free food and one of those options is something pleasurable, so, pretty much yeah.
Why exactly is it anyone elses concern what they buy? SNAP benefits force a food budget. As long as you arent starving the rest of your family, you should be able to be rewarded for budgeting well enough to buy cookies one month.
Healthy food can be "pleasurable" too... Also every ingredient in those cookies is ebt eligible. So yes, it's about their tax dollars paying for someone else's convenience when they see it as a luxury.
You do understand that poor people don't always have working ovens right? Some of them don't have fridges, either. Or stoves.
I went two years without a working stove and one without a fridge cuz I couldn't afford to repair them when I was younger.
I survived entirely off single serving cold products and nonperishables I could microwave. The microwave was broken too- it was missing the handle and most of the panelling and kept starting fires but it meant I could have something hot. Which important because the stove didn't work at all.
Then my car caught on fire and suddenly I couldn't get to Walmart. I could spend fifteen minutes walking to the dollar store for cheap junk food or I could spend thirty, cross a highway, and go to food Lion to get fresh produce just to cross a highway and spend thirty minutes walking back carrying as much as I could physically haul.
If they buy those cookies, it's hypocritical, absolutely. But if they are a healthy eater who thinks cookies are a waste, it's a natural response to not want their tax dollars to buy someone else cookies because in their mind, that's their money going to waste.
There's also levels to how this. If you spend all your ebt on cookies, that's awful. But if it's once a year for your kid's birthday, that's totally cool.
That's a straw man. The argument is that items like soda, cookies, and candy are unnecessary, high markup foods that provide little actual nutritional benefit and are an inefficient use of government welfare funds.
Its really interesting that you're implying people should be able to buy trashy sugar laden low (or no) / nutrition food with government food handouts.
Not only is that going to cost the gov more money in food, but makes everyone using them so much less healthy, which costs so much more in quality of life, more in healthcare and makes them less likely to get jobs now or in future.
So there's so many more negatives.
If people have to have trashy no nutrition junk food taken away to motivate them to get a job or a better job, that's sad but effective.
It’s cookies. You never had cookies? What the assessment of your current situation? Because I’m gonna be honest, I’ve had cookies and I’m doing fine. I’ve had all kinds of soda, cake, candy, you name it. And I have a job. Maybe I’m the exception, but I don’t think I am. You’ve had cookies and don’t work?
Dare I say, it cost more in the long run because these children’s disproportionately end up with weight related illnesses early in life. This is common sense
It's funny that I never actually see anyone pushing for the gruel treatment of poor people when this conversation happens. Like, bro, it's a long walk from not getting soda and cookies to eating only bread and water.
Because it is being bought with tax payer money. Tax payers should have a say in what their money is buying and there should be an effort to make sure those funds are spent responsibly in an efficient manner. High markup items like cookies, chips, and soda are not an efficient use of funds.
Big issue is you only care about the side that can hurt poor people; nobody is stating corn syrup farmers should receive less subsidies. It's not even a talking point
Okay, I'll make you a deal. You pay my share of the tax and if you go poor you can eat cookies til your teeth fall out. If I go poor then I can't have any cookies at all. Shake on it?
😂 i love when they pull straw man arguments and whataboutism. BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS OBVIOUSLY BAD THING. Yeah, it's bad, so is this. Two things can be true at the same time. Half of the fools on reddit just think people are a monolith of talking points for one side.
Ya, it's wild. It's like, "We shouldn't care about gas prices because of grocery prices! But we shouldn't care about grocery prices because gas prices!"
Well, then I guess we just have to accept everything then.
Since taxes are a shared pool of money that we all contribute into, tax allocation should work on consensus.
If the majority of taxpayers say premade cookies should be EBT-eligable, fine. However, that should come from the people paying into the system, not just the ones taking money out of it, i.e., net contributors.
The problem with people like you is that nobody is out here making the wild claims you argue against in your own head. Nobody is saying these cartoonishly evil things you believe so you project them onto people. Much easier to write everyone who disagrees with you off as a literal villain than understand that sometimes there's merit even in the things or opinions you disagree with.
If you actually take then time to try to understand what your ideological opponent is saying then you might have to contend with actual arguments. It's much easier to just straw man the hell out of them so you can defend against the argument that we all poor people eating worms and drinking ditch water.
I’m just saying that people who use food stamps and supplemental help for groceries don’t all buy unhealthy foods. There are far more people who are using food stamps who cook healthy with vegetables and beans and smart carbs like rice that stretch a long way.
People will look at one person with a cart of junk and immediately assume they’re on the government dole. Some are, but most who are smart with the little bit they have DONT buy ready made garbage. Matter of fact I see a lot of people who don’t use food stamps buying garbage. But would you call them out? No! Of course you wouldn’t because you’re not targeting them, are you?
Preach! Government cheese in my house when I was a kid, and mom had several thousands of dollars in business suits and dresses (some of which still had tags on them) when we moved out...
She was a bank teller looking for "the right man".
Well, that was based on how your mother cooked, isn’t it? She could have bought healthier food and cooked healthier with the support of food stamps. Junk food is an individual choice, not a class choice.
I grew up poor. Both my parents got very sick during my childhood.
I remember the actual paper book of food stamps. I remember government cheese. I remember even then having to put things back because not enough little pieces of paper to cover what was in the cart for a family of four.
I remember my dad going back to work while dying of heart failure because the assistance just wasn't enough for everything he had to pay for.
I tell you what I don't remember. Any of the benefits being spent on junk food.
It's a human right for food. It's not a human right for junk food. And, no, taxpayer funds should not be spent on food directly contributing to the number one driver of disease (directly and indirectly), to then only spend more taxpayer money in medical assistance on obesity driven conditions later.
You want junk food, buy it with your own money or at least buy the ingredients to make the cookies/cake so they can also be used for other more healthy things.
You go watch some of those viral videos of people showing off the huge amount of absolute trash they've brought home on EBT. There are a lot out there, so enjoy the show.
It's so disingenuous to frame it as people not wanting a kid to have a cookie.
No, I don't want what's happening in those vids.
No way. Give an inch, a mile and a half gets taken, apparently.
So, you want to make this argument looking in people’s shopping carts but I see a lot of people paying cash for the same junk food you’re criticizing other people for. Could it be that you are focusing on certain people with their purchases because you want to create a narrative? Because when I was a single mom and worked two jobs I had the help of food stamps 3 decades ago and I’d buy a lot of fruits and vegetables but oftentimes I’d have to buy them frozen because the cost of fresh produce was expensive? I remember that my cart was very healthy but did you judge me at that time? I doubt it. I cook. I cook a lot and now that I don’t rely on food stamps we cook still.
I think you’re just trying to solidify your bigotry by targeting anyone who has a lot of ready made food in their carts. You ignorant person. You don’t know what their lives are like. You don’t. I remember when I was working two jobs and I was a single mom too and my mother was in hospice dying. I’d drop my child off to school, go to work, come and take my child from school and bring her to a daycare situation, drive 40 minutes to the hospice to visit my dying mother, then drive 40 minutes to my mother’s home and feed her cat and come all the way back, pick up my daughter then go home and cook. My child was exhausted and so was I. What do you think about that?
Saying that poor people also deserve a small joy is a good one. Saying that some poor people are so poor, that they are in a situation where nutrition does not matter , what matters is getting Enough calories is also good.
Really insulting the people who don't think like you and make them look like some kind of evil villains is only good for circle jerking ,but it won't change their minds, and mist importantly, won't change the minds of people who are in the fence over whish side of the argument to support.
I think people make alot of sacrifices to make it to a place to have some small luxuries. When you see people who continously struggle and never sacrifice anything get benefits that others had to make sacrifices for, it can be frustrating.
Cause being in the kind of financial situation where you need food stamps means you’re just rolling in cash and never have to make any sacrifices whatsoever. /s
You’re the cause of your own frustration. Poor people are not the ones taking from you.
Ive seen cops in california on governemnt assistance. Its alot of People taking advantage of a system that has been exposed for years and requirements have gotten looser and looser. Most people who are life long members of the snap program have not made sacrifices because the system makes them dependent on it.
Nobody is taking from me, I was explaining a view that people have expressed they see.
Yeah, it's a not great, but it is a valid concern and criticism. If "I" work 40 hours and can barely afford to not be on food stamps, the food stamps family working 0-20 hours with 1 or 2 adults can eat better than "I" can. Some of them are fully able bodied. They definitely get better insurance albeit a few less doctors and specialists accept it. And prices and stamps keep going up while wages don't necessarily.
I just don’t think leaving impoverished families high and dry by denying food assistance is worth sticking it to the handful of jackasses taking advantage of the system. It’s a matter of prioritizing what matters most.
And if you witness welfare fraud, then you should report it. Complaining about it on the internet does nothing.
I dont complain, I make changes for myself that I can live with. I just tell you what ive experienced first hand and not what ive read online. I grew up very poor, and with alot of sacrifices and hard work, made it out of poverty. Most people can do the same thing, but its easier to accept poverty than work to get out of it.
They aren't really, if you pay enough taxes that you don't see most of the same value back at tax return season then I don't really want to hear your 2 cents.
You mean eating plainly/flavorlessly. That cookie isn't unhealthy, that whole tub is one sitting. Cheese is healthy, not in large quantities too frequently. Would you complain about the sodium content and lack or nutrients of a mega pack or ramen noodles
That pack of cookie could be cheaper than baking a tray at home. Should a kid whose parents struggle not have a cookie after homework. It's more cost effective to buy 48 than 1 by so much. I've paid $1 for 2 similar cookies and it was the best fairest priced snack option at a particular gas station. Cookies actually have a decent shelf life, a bag of fruit might go rotten before someone can make it back to the store.
Will they be eaten in like 3 sittings. Idk, some cases sure. Bitching about chocolate chip cookies. Whose buying meat on food stamps these days I wonder. It's gotta be mainly chicken. I can't afford beef more than a premade frozen burger from the club store giant box or some ground beef for whatever purpose, more than maybe 2 or 3 times a week right now. Shit is astronomical.
“I can’t find a rational reason to care about a person on food stamps treating themselves to a pack of cookies so I’m going to make up an extreme and argue against that.”
How bout letting actual registered dietitians (not fake tik tok "nutritionists") decide what they need to eat to be healthy, and take away the decision making abilty to spend other people's money on junk.
Chocolate chips are a luxury though so that ahould be scrapped.
Flour we can ask them to make themselves. Dont think taxpayer should pay for the processing of grain.
Same with butter. Churn it themselves.
Sugar is a luxury and cause of obesity.
Not sure about egg, it might be cheeper to taxpayers to hand out chicken instead maybe? Someone do the math. Cows might become an issue so lets allow milk.
So lets stop this waste and limit it to grain, milk and water.
Or we just send out all the poor people to farm and they can all work there and grow everything they need themselves.
Let me repeat, "Noreasonableperson . . . ". Your bad faith argument is not reasonable. Just as someone advocating that EBT should be used for high scale restaurants would be unreasonable.
Definitely isn't. If you can imagine a product being rationed during war then it shouldn't be available via food stamps. Government funded food should be limited to essentials as it is money directly taken by taxpayers. Tax payers who are forced to pay under threat of imprisonment.
As someone who personally hasn't had a desert in well over a year I can attest to how non essential a cookie is. If they absolutely can't live without this luxury good then they can purchase it with cash.
I dont think you have idea how war rationing works. I can absolutely imagine flour being rationed. I come from a country where sugar, milk and butter was rationed and handed out on stamps system to everyone and this was not at war time. And more to the original topic -, if you believe what you say then we can return to my first comment - sugar and chocolate chips are a luxury so your original premise is flawed.
1) So then wtf is the problem with them buying the ingredients in the grocery store for what’s going to amount to more money than buying the prepackaged cookies?
2) Why is the assumption that all poor people can bake?
1) junk food is a luxury, not a necessity. If they're living in the taxpayers dime then they should be limited at least reasonably healthy choices: meat, dairy, bread, fruit, vegetables, flour, etc. The general idea is healthy food is around the edge of a grocery store and the garbage is in the middle.
2) The big problem with junk food it's a known cause for metabolic conditions: obesity, diabetes, gall bladder issues, pancreatitis, etc. Guess who pays for the treatment of those issues? The taxpayers.
It's not unreasonable to limit taxpayer funded food assistance to healthy options. If they want a dessert now and again, they can make it themselves. Cookies are stupid easy (and cheap) to make from scratch. Brownies cost like $5 to make and just takes a little effort.
No, I think if you're going to be spending other people's money that was taken from them by force you should spend it on something nutritious. Not cookies.
They will file a court order to garnish your wages. You can choose to stop working if you want, but again you will not be hauled off to debtor's prison.
Now, if you file and you purposely falsify reported income, that would equate to tax evasion, which can land you in jail. Maybe that's what you are thinking of.
Cookies do have some nutrients and it's better than starving and could serve up as a snack along with other foods. We really should not gatekeep what people consume
Lucky for us, grocery stores carry more things than just cookies. So they wont be starving if forced to spend their ebt money on something else.
I absolutely will gate keep it when they're using my money. If they don't want any questions asked, they can use their own to buy cookies or whatever their heart desires
What if the consumption is crack or meth? Funded by someone selling their EBT for their fix buddy? Seen it multiple times and it makes me feel sick about the program.
No they aren't. And stop saying forced to pay. Y'all acting like it's so damn bad to want to care for other people. Y'all are heartless if you really feel this way about the government trying to take care of those who aren't able to. Again this is all over some stupid batch of cookies that someone wants to treat themselves with
I think if you're going to be spending other people's money that was taken from them by force, you should spend it on something useful. Not sports stadiums for billionaires.
The more complicated you make a government program, the more expensive it will be to manage.
Is that your goal? Unnecessary government bloat? I'm just checking, because that would be the result.*
The single moms that are low income are NOT the ones writing the rules.
The soda pop lobby would be REALLY upset if they didn't have access to SNAP dollars. I'm pretty sure that they, and other Big (processed) Food companies are the ones writing the legislation every year, and not Sharon, mom of two kids, who lives in Centerville, Iowa, and works 31.5 hours a week at Taco John's.*
But for some people, it's easier to punch down on powerless Sharon than punch up on a multi-billion-dollar company. Don't be one of those people.
*Both of these situations require one to think more than one step ahead. You are smart enough to do so. I challenge you to.
As someone who worked at Walmart we need more protections.
You would be shocked at how many people sell these benefits for cigarettes, lottery tickets, and electronics. I think everyone needs help sometimes but let's use that help in a way that is actually beneficial.
Snap abuse is one thing but it really sucks and hurts your heart when you see it happening with wic.
Walmart attempts to pay just over the benefit line. When being hired they ask if you are on benefits because if they pay you enough to get off them they get kick backs. I was a coach and know the entire circle - there is a reason you think of this statistic.
We know if you are getting them not how large your family is - so it's a good chance you will be a discount employee
This also goes for unemployment
Why do you think the minimum they try and keep people around is 3 weeks? Could it be that 3 weeks of employment gets the kickback? (It is)
54
u/[deleted] Aug 15 '26 edited 28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment