Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and its a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

SNAP is ONLY to afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.

There is a very clear need to define the exact items that will meet that. It isn't a feel good program. It is a program to SUPPLEMENT low income people in need with ESSENTIAL food.

Quote:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year.

---

Great stat for the easily manipulated who don't realize or care that half of Americans pay no federal income tax.

Even better for someone so lazy about wanting to actually help people that they don't give a damn about how that money is spent and whether it is helping or harming.

But both of those are typical of the democratic mindset of grand gestures over meaningful action, buying votes with taxpayer money, and ignoring reality because fantasy sells much more easily.

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and its a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Geez you people are so weak. If you aren't paying for it. You eat what I tell you to, or you don't eat.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

I can't imagine cheering on people wasting money out of your pocket.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

When they don't pay for that Coke they are enjoying, then yeah, that is a problem.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

one safe place said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

They can enjoy anything they buy with their own money, it is fine to have restrictions on what they can buy with someone else's money.

---

Why do you care though? It just seems so petty. There's a lot of things my tax money pays for that bugs me. Soda ain't one of 'em.

---

Seems more petty to expect taxpayers to keep paying for more and more stuff.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

When they don't pay for that Coke they are enjoying, then yeah, that is a problem.

---

Haha! I can already see it now, theft of carbonated beverages have only surged due to the government's failure to pay for such an essential item to low income families.

SNAP isn't for the folks who receive them but rather the companies who have products for the SNAP funds. Same for school lunches.

Cokes aren't cheap and they have no nutritional value. The point of the program is supposed to be to feed those who can't afford to feed themselves, and buying Cokes with it is basically misappropriation of funds.

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

---

Are you trying to have an honest conversation? Because its hard to tell if your reading comprehension is that bad, or youre just enjoying being an *******.

No, its that the goverment is probably paying a nutritionist $100k a year to approve an under weight 1 year old whole milk.

Or that they probably spent tens of millions+ building and maintaing an app that sole purpose is to find approved food items because its next to impossible to shop the approved items.

Also, the whole nutritional guidelines is based on the fda and, I assume, Michelle Obamas food program crap

Slwdsm said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

---

Are you trying to have an honest conversation? Because its hard to tell if your reading comprehension is that bad, or youre just enjoying being an *******.

No, its that the goverment is probably paying a nutritionist $100k a year to approve an under weight 1 year old whole milk.

---

Let's see the documentation of your bold claim.

I don't see a problem with a nutritionist being deployed for a Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC provides healthy foods, personalized nutrition education, breastfeeding support and referrals to other services to support you and your family.

I'm not sure if you're trying to plead to legitimacy due to your sister that you were "helping" but not supplementing her with a few dollars of milk for her underweight infant. That is YALL'S problem not SNAP

The 55 Republicans that voted no just told you who is donating huge money to their campaigns

Coca Cola
Pepsi
Their distributed and on and on
This is about giving those fat freeloaders the SNAP benefits it's about keeping the government funding the soft drink companies

When some states first started taking cokes off of food stamps earlier this year, about 2 dozen "conservative influencers" got caught taking money from coca cola inc to spew the same "REEEEEEE but muh freedom to drink cokes" talking points all over social media.

Sounds like coke spread the money elsewhere now.

And it has become abundantly clear that at least 1/3 of republicans in congress are liberals pretending not to be.

I know its stupid to try and go against the group think in this thread but the whole wic thing was eye opening for me.

https://texaswic.org/about-wic/mywic

Go to the site and look at the bloat..

I'd rather let the fat people be fat than pay more goverment employees to fund a "healthy program" with taxes.

Slwdsm said:

---

I know its stupid to try and go against the group think in this thread but the whole wic thing was eye opening for me.

https://texaswic.org/about-wic/mywic

Go to the site and look at the bloat..

I'd rather let the fat people be fat than pay more goverment employees to fund a "healthy program" with taxes.

---

I know you want to make this about you but this is about SNAP not your problems with WIC

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

---

Are you trying to have an honest conversation? Because its hard to tell if your reading comprehension is that bad, or youre just enjoying being an *******.

No, its that the goverment is probably paying a nutritionist $100k a year to approve an under weight 1 year old whole milk.

---

Let's see the documentation of your bold claim.

I don't see a problem with a nutritionist being deployed for a Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC provides healthy foods, personalized nutrition education, breastfeeding support and referrals to other services to support you and your family.

I'm not sure if you're trying to plead to legitimacy due to your sister that you were "helping" but not supplementing her with a few dollars of milk for her underweight infant. That is YALL'S problem not SNAP

---

Thank you for the google explanation of what wic is/does... but whats your point?

What exactly is the documentation you would like to see?

As for my sister, she ended up getting the help she needed before getting back to work following her pregnancy... so thank you for your concern...?

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

Nah, your taxpayer dollars are gonna go to bombing the ME and you'll like it.

Slwdsm said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

---

Are you trying to have an honest conversation? Because its hard to tell if your reading comprehension is that bad, or youre just enjoying being an *******.

No, its that the goverment is probably paying a nutritionist $100k a year to approve an under weight 1 year old whole milk.

---

Let's see the documentation of your bold claim.

I don't see a problem with a nutritionist being deployed for a Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. WIC provides healthy foods, personalized nutrition education, breastfeeding support and referrals to other services to support you and your family.

I'm not sure if you're trying to plead to legitimacy due to your sister that you were "helping" but not supplementing her with a few dollars of milk for her underweight infant. That is YALL'S problem not SNAP

---

Thank you for the google explanation of what wic is/does... but whats your point?

What exactly is the documentation you would like to see?

As for my sister, she ended up getting the help she needed before getting back to work following her pregnancy... so thank you for your concern...?

---

My point is that this A) isn't your thread since this is SNAP not WIC B) What WIC hasn't done as it should C) How the bleeding heart excuse all to permit all isnt a good strategy to make sure that your sister can get whole milk going forward when she didn't get that with excessive programs in existence.

If I were you, I'd say end all of SNAP and make sure that WIC covers all needs instead of saying don't cut SNAP because WIC doesn't get enough

Texas Republicans among the 55 who voted "No" (against the Self soda ban amendment) on Roll Call 151:
Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31) Voted No.
Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX-6) Voted No.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX-10) Voted No.

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

One of the dumbest posts I've ever read. You said ... "anything the government touches turns to ****". Lol, The government is already involved!!!! Your post is senseless.

So you believe in no restrictions. They can buy wine or beer or cartons of cigarettes or a basket full of candy. Stupid.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and its a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Geez you people are so weak. If you aren't paying for it. You eat what I tell you to, or you don't eat.

---

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

They then get diabetic and now you pay for their medical bills and ozempic

Now imagine that person, who doesn't work but is perfectly able, is likely overweight and hates everything you stand for in terms of values and principles, stealing $200 from your wallet every year and buying lots of cokes with it. Then, they tell you they deserve cokes for some reason.

I can pretty easily imagine getting mad at that person.

---

Your points arent super clear, but I'll do my best.

A) my point is that the food portion of wic is a heavily regulated version of snap... its a fair comparison considering this bill was opening the door for goverment regulation of snap.


B) its not that wic isnt doing what it should. My point is its that getting a kid switched to whole milk probably costs the tax payers $200+ .. that the regulation (that politicians absolutely love) requires you to download tax payer boondoggle of an app to basic groceey shopping.

C) my point is the bleeding heart "we need to make people healthier by not funding their fudge rounds" is going to end up costing taxpayers more money

Unless they hire Elon to set it up... in which case im likely on board.

Slwdsm said:

---

Your points arent super clear, but I'll do my best.

A) my point is that the food portion of wic is a heavily regulated version of snap... its a fair comparison considering this bill was opening the door for goverment regulation of snap.


B) its not that wic isnt doing what it should. My point is its that getting a kid switched to whole milk probably costs the tax payers $200+ .. that the regulation (that politicians absolutely love) requires you to download tax payer boondoggle of an app to basic groceey shopping.

C) my point is the bleeding heart "we need to make people healthier by not funding their fudge rounds" is going to end up costing taxpayers more money

Unless they hire Elon to set it up... in which case im likely on board.

---

So you think something, don't really know and cant document it, therefore making ineffective government programs bigger is the solution which will cost less

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

AggieT said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

You're a special kind of stupid.

What does their diabetes cost?

---

Everyone that drinks soda gets diabetes?

---

Is that really going to be the sword you want to fall upon?

---

I wasn't aware that an anonymous opinion board carried that kind of weight, but sure. Yeah. I think anyone who cares about their tax dollars paying for cokes and candy on SNAP is actively looking for things to make them mad.

---

I care about my tax dollars paying for anything for other people besides roads, defense and security. Beyond that pay for it yourself, don't ask me to pay for it.

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

Your points arent super clear, but I'll do my best.

A) my point is that the food portion of wic is a heavily regulated version of snap... its a fair comparison considering this bill was opening the door for goverment regulation of snap.


B) its not that wic isnt doing what it should. My point is its that getting a kid switched to whole milk probably costs the tax payers $200+ .. that the regulation (that politicians absolutely love) requires you to download tax payer boondoggle of an app to basic groceey shopping.

C) my point is the bleeding heart "we need to make people healthier by not funding their fudge rounds" is going to end up costing taxpayers more money

Unless they hire Elon to set it up... in which case im likely on board.

---

So you think something, don't really know and cant document it, therefore making ineffective government programs bigger is the solution which will cost less

---

I think there is some confusion here...

Im not sure exactly what proof youre asking for? Happy to provide it if you can state what it is needs proof.

This bill (from op) is a limitation on what people can buy with snap, but doesnt change the amount they would be awarded, correct? So effectively no reduction in money, but would create more rules/governance.

My position is if we cant cut or reduce snap we should leave it. I think tax payer dollars would be better spent on closing loop holes and curtailing the fraud.

1) I believe snap is more efficient*** than something like wic when it comes to simply providing money for food and gave examples why.

2) I believe that any regulation by the goverment of snap will end up becoming a disaster. What is your proposed elimination from snap eligibility?

I frankly dont give a **** what people spend their snap funds on... and i believe we wasted more tax payer dollars by having this stupid bill go through congress.

***efficient meaning cost to tax payers per dollar provided for "nutrition"

TAMUallen said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Slwdsm said:

---

IMO the problem isnt about what they buy, its the amount being subsidized. I dont disagree with the concept that you guys are getting at... but I also dont want the goverment chosing what people can buy on snap.

Not everyone on snap is fat. So are we going to have weigh-ins? Or just punish the thin people?

Wic tries to police what people buy and it's a train wreck. The administration and oversight probably costs more than they "save".

---

Why not??

---

Tldr Because anything the goverment touches turns to **** that costs taxpayers astronomical amounts of money.

Full example: Helped my sister after her second was born. She was receiving wic... the restrictions and requirements make it nearly impossible to shop (i failed and paid for the items out of my pocket.. apparently there is an app (tax payer $$?) that helps).

They also automatically default to only low fat milk at certain child ages which require appointments with "nutritionist" (taxpayers $$$?) to allow him to get whole milk (her older is small for his age).

Its certainly healthier than what people probably buy on snap, but at what cost?

I'd love to cut subsidies, but this isnt cutting subsidies... and it will probably just create more tax burden with the way our **** government works.

---

Your argument against removing SNAP soft drinks and candy is that your WIC sister couldnt get whole milk instead of 2%?

---

Had a WIC milk experience a few years back. Grocery line family in front of were checking out with two baskets. One was a basket with more premium type items and the other was filled with staples (rice, beans, etc.) The well dressed machismo radiating father absolutely dripping gold chains was arguing with the clerk about the Lactase brand lactose-free milk because WIC wouldn't pay for it. Mi espanol isn't very good but I think he believed that since it was more expensive then it was better somehow. The premium cart was eventually paid for with a WIC card. They paid for the staples with an enormous roll of cash dad pulled from his pocket.

This pretty much sums up WIC to me.

DonHenley said:

---

Eliminate SNAP all together/ thread

---

/thread

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

Thats a week of groceries in my household. I wouldn't terribly mind if it's going towards the truly needy for truly needed things, but junk food does not make the list.

At one point in my early adult life, I cut out sugary drinks with no other change and lost close to 10 pounds. Imagine the health benefits.

SNAP should cover a very specific list of food types. This list should not include candy, cokes and junk food. We've all seen the baby-mamma with her 6 kids in line with all sorts of junk and/or steaks, etc. and watch her load up her late model Escalade. SNAP isn't a luxury. It should be something that helps someone, not sustain them forever. There's a difference in being poor and being lazy.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I saw somewhere that SNAP costs the average taxpayer about $200 a year. Cool. If they want to buy soda with it, go nuts. I can't imagine being angry at someone for enjoying a soft drink.

---

Your stat does it include only those that actually pay income tax? Too many people don't pay their fair share

Why didn't you provide for your sister instead of dumping her on us?