Makes sense to me.

Rapier108 said:

---

I'm sure someone will find an Obama or Biden judge to block it.

No legit reason to do so, but they'll do it anyway.

---

Are you saying there isn't a Constitutional right to get free Cheetos paid for by the government?!!?! Have you no compassion?!!!?!?

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

Now comes the definition of "processed". Extremists will claim the saltine crackers you eat with your soup, or even the can of Minestrone soup is "processed" and not pure enough for their definition.

PepsiCo gonna take a hit.

Are tamping rods still a SNAP benefit?

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

No court battles needed. Have a very narrow list with only four or five items on it. Rice, beans, bread, cheese and maybe Spam or some other cheap canned meat. Maybe add fresh veggies.

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

---

There's still loads to litigate with it and tons of lobbying would be created to go on the 'bread' list for instance. Restrictions like this are such a waste of time. Just give people stipend to cover what they need and magically watch them become better decision makers and quickly.

Love this.

I don't know which "REEE!" I'll enjoy hearing more, that from the recipients of SNAP or every company that makes money from those government through those people on SNAP.

Either way, popcorn is ready.

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

---

There's still loads to litigate with it and tons of lobbying would be created to go on the 'bread' list for instance. Restrictions like this are such a waste of time. Just give people stipend to cover what they need and magically watch them become better decision makers and quickly.

---

Give them a box with rice, beans, canned veggies, a loaf or two of bread and canned meat. Done.

I may be wrong but I really don't see Democrats in contested areas coming out strongly against this rule. It won't be a winning issue.

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

No court battles needed. Have a very narrow list with only four or five items on it. Rice, beans, bread, cheese and maybe Spam or some other cheap canned meat. Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

Treat it like WIC. These marked items in the store are eligible. Limited to xyz.

Quote:

---

Marc Craig, 47, of Des Moines, said he has been living in his car since October. He said the new waivers will make it more difficult to determine how to use the $298 in SNAP benefits he receives each month, while also increasing the stigma he feels at the cash register.

"They treat people that get food stamps like we're not people," Craig said.

---

What about the stigma of living in your car? Does that bother him?


Maybe he should be stigmatized into working.

BigRobSA said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

---

There's still loads to litigate with it and tons of lobbying would be created to go on the 'bread' list for instance. Restrictions like this are such a waste of time. Just give people stipend to cover what they need and magically watch them become better decision makers and quickly.

---

Give them a box with rice, beans, canned veggies, a loaf or two of bread and canned meat. Done.

---

Yep, some volume of the actual food items and they have to come pick it up. Reduce the volume by 20% per month until they get nothing.

BigRobSA said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

---

There's still loads to litigate with it and tons of lobbying would be created to go on the 'bread' list for instance. Restrictions like this are such a waste of time. Just give people stipend to cover what they need and magically watch them become better decision makers and quickly.

---

Give them a box with rice, beans, canned veggies, a loaf or two of bread and canned meat. Done.

---

That's what I'm saying. There's nothing to fight over.

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

But this is my point on why the answer is just give people less benefit and tell them to make ends meet rather than do restrictions. Fresh veggies are more expensive than canned or frozen. Frozen are generally more nutrient dense and canned as nutrient dense as fresh. Both are cheaper. Why throw restrictions on spend and narrowly define what's good and bad?

Let people do it just design the benefits received small enough for people to meet their base nutritional needs and learn how to make good choices.

---

The point there's less to litigate if the list is limited to four or five healthy choices.

---

There's still loads to litigate with it and tons of lobbying would be created to go on the 'bread' list for instance. Restrictions like this are such a waste of time. Just give people stipend to cover what they need and magically watch them become better decision makers and quickly.

---

Nope. It needs to be limited to the basics. Giving them a stipend will just encourage more bad behavior. If someone wants to sue the government because they don't like the brand of beans given to them then oh well.

Flour sugar eggs make a cake and not banned. They can still have a cake

Whoop2 said:

---

Flour sugar eggs make a cake and not banned. They can still have a cake

---

Or....


.....or.....


work and buy whatever you want to with your own money.

"Aid" was never meant to be generational, it was meant to help in times of need, to prevent hunger/suffering.

BigRobSA said:

---

Whoop2 said:

---

Flour sugar eggs make a cake and not banned. They can still have a cake

---

Or....


.....or.....


work and buy whatever you want to with your own money.

"Aid" was never meant to be generational, it was meant to help in times of need, to prevent hunger/suffering.

---

The government doesn't need to be in the business of aid. Churches and private charities are much better equipped for that, and they're local, serving the needs of their local communities.

I'd even grant them the rotisserie chickens. For $6.99 you can stretch into 2 or 3 meals.

Back in the day I volunteered at our local charity group in my parents small town. You do have to think about the type of people who are both poor and unskilled/stupid/in a really bad place. These are the type of grinding poor where they do not own a frying pan to cook with or they got one at some point but their water was shut off so their kitchen is filled with fossilized dish filth. Their trailer is filled with dirty clothes because they don't have water or coins to launder so they get a clothing voucher for the thrift store and buy new clothes to wear.

They can't for whatever reason break their cycle without more intensive life counseling.

Also, some people snd lots of seniors have disabilities where they cannot chop or stand at a stove.

All that to say that 70% + of snap users probably do not fit this profile, but there are folks out there who would not do well on all raw food. I'd like to see a life skill or mobility related adjustment somehow. Or like a dietician requirement, just brainstorming a balance for those who cannot provide for themselves.

I agree

There are meal on wheels for seniors.

Of course, but I think there could be a balance for seniors so they dont have to fully rely on delivered food except as a supplement. And also to relieve the burden on MOW resources.

Charpie said:

---

MRB10 said:

---

RFKs appointment is the best thing Trump has done since being elected.

So many blue stars for this.

---

SNAP falls under the dept of ag. So thank Aggie Brooke Rollins for this

---

Fair point. I associate this move with MAHA, which I credit to RFK, but my comment wasn't clear on that.

aggiebrad94 said:

---

People used to WANT to get off welfare. There was a social stigma to it.

---

This! In the late 70's we were on food stamps and there were separate lines in the school cafeteria for free breakfast and .25 lunches.

Served a LOT of knuckle sandwiches from all the crap received from being in those lines.

Bring back the stigma! It's motivating.

Plus there are nursing facilities and Assisted Living for those who can afford it.

Nursing homes can be covered by Medicaid

Gilligan said:

---

aggiebrad94 said:

---

People used to WANT to get off welfare. There was a social stigma to it.

---

This! In the late 70's we were on food stamps and there were separate lines in the school cafeteria for free breakfast and .25 lunches.

Served a LOT of knuckle sandwiches from all the crap received from being in those lines.

Bring back the stigma! It's motivating.

---

My mother was dying of cancer, and thusly, couldn't work (in the late 70s) and we were on food stamps. Definitely a stigma. She made my lunches, so no free school lunches (plus she loved me, so she fought for me to get a scholarship to a private, Lutheran school).

We make it too easy for people to abuse the system.

13B said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

SNAP should only get you access to the unprocessed foods in the grocery store - vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, dairy, rice, beans.

Think of it as a "bread line" to borrow the Soviet term, where you dont have to wait for hours, it's not just bread, it's always in stock, and you can feed your family with the basics, which by the way are more healthy to raise a family on anyway. It's insane that candy, soda, chips, crackers, cereal (most of them, anyway), and other things like that were able to be purchased in the first place.

It should be sufficient to feed a family with hearty ingredients and meaningful calories, but not enough where you make competitive tik tok videos on how much "free" food you were able to purchase on someone else's dime.

---

I generally agree with this sentiment but a food bans are so impractical.

The unintended consequence of a mandate like this are constant court battles around what is and isn't a soda or candy or potato chip or whatever and enforcement of the rule gets more costly than the efficiency it intends.

And you mention cheese and processed and I know what you are getting at… but super processed food and cheese in particular is generally cheapest for the retailer, producer and consumer as an example so defining these things on how 'processed' they are starts feeling like a fool's errand. Likely the same for bread. More 'processed' bread is cheaper for everyone usually.

I've always been of the view that if you want to force healthier habits and nutrition with SNAP benefit recipients, make the benefit smaller. Force the issue with the beneficiary rather than create a dog's dinner in enforcing the rules and regulations.

---

No court battles needed. Have a very narrow list with only four or five items on it. Rice, beans, bread, cheese and maybe Spam or some other cheap canned meat. Maybe add fresh veggies.

---

Treat it like WIC. These marked items in the store are eligible. Limited to xyz.

---

I think the point is that those marked items are on the list because they were lobbied to get on the list...

BigRobSA said:

---

Gilligan said:

---

aggiebrad94 said:

---

People used to WANT to get off welfare. There was a social stigma to it.

---

This! In the late 70's we were on food stamps and there were separate lines in the school cafeteria for free breakfast and .25 lunches.

Served a LOT of knuckle sandwiches from all the crap received from being in those lines.

Bring back the stigma! It's motivating.

---

My mother was dying of cancer, and thusly, couldn't work (in the late 70s) and we were on food stamps. Definitely a stigma. She made my lunches, so no free school lunches (plus she loved me, so she fought for me to get a scholarship to a private, Lutheran school).

We make it too easy for people to abuse the system.

---

Lutheran, ese?

Aren't y'all all Catholic?

Story doesn't check out.

Gilligan said:

---

aggiebrad94 said:

---

People used to WANT to get off welfare. There was a social stigma to it.

---

This! In the late 70's we were on food stamps and there were separate lines in the school cafeteria for free breakfast and .25 lunches.

Served a LOT of knuckle sandwiches from all the crap received from being in those lines.

Bring back the stigma! It's motivating.

---

Maybe we can program the card readers at grocery store checkouts to take passive-aggression action if someone uses an EBT card.

For the first six months on the program, the coupon printer will give job ads. Afterwards, it will also play The Offspring's "Why don't you get a job?" or similar deadbeat-shaming song loud enough for everyone in the store to hear.