Solid.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

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.

---

You're starting to get close to understanding why this is so infuriating. Even if you're right that it's a relatively small amount, that's not the issue. The reason why so many are focused on the junk food part is because that is so idiotic that it shouldn't even be a question. Now extrapolate this idiocy out to everything else our stupid govt does and the amount becomes huge. The point is that our govt is so enormously wasteful we can't even get the most obvious cuts. It's so absurd that taking all the money spent on snap and just lighting it on fire would achieve a better outcome.

About 3/4 of snap goes to people who can easily get by without it. We have MANY solidly middle class snap recipients, millions of them, and NOBODY in the USA is starving. Most SNAP recipients are overweight or obese. They sure the **** do not need more luxury calories on my dime.

Instead, it is effectively a form of UBI because it is cash-like and fungible. The money the recipient normally would spend on food is now freed up to be spent on other personal consumption. SNAP effectively buys many a cell phone plan or makes many a car lease payment.

There used to be this thing called charity that provided benefit to the giver, the receiver, and the community as well.

Government programs are not charity.

Low/no T Republicans strike again. Feeding the greedy fatties their ration of food industry feed pellets. Csnt risk those campaign contributions

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.

---

Strange...... Most people care about what their dollars are spent on. That's how most people get ahead in life. Seeing their money spent on bs items that no one really requires, especially when they have no say in it, shouldn't make people mad? Strange way of looking at it. Really strange.

As long as it's Big Red, it's ok.

The Republican party continues to disappoint.

After ObamaCare passed and was approved by the USSC, I came so close to saying to people at HEB, who were using the Lone Star card, "hey, put that big bottle of Mountain Dew and those 3 bags of taco flavored Doritos back on the shelf. You are 200 lbs over weight and I am paying for your unhealthy lifesyle so go get some vegetables and chicken to eat."

Well the average tax payer only pays 12.5 K a year so I would wager most on this thread are paying far more than 200 bucks a year to make the fats fatter

backintexas2013 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.

---

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

---

Not sure where that $200 number originated. Looks like there are 100 million tax payers and SNAP is 100 billion a year. $1,000 per year per taxpayer.

Sumlins Pool Guy said:

---

Well the average tax payer only pays 12.5 K a year so I would wager most on this thread are paying far more than 200 bucks a year to make the fats fatter

---

$13,500 is what the government spends per citizen not counting SS and Medicaid. If someone isn't paying that they are mooching. For a family of 4 that's $54,000.

I bet the starving old Ukrainian Jews are not getting any cokes in their food boxes. I wonder why?

Phatbob said:

---

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.

---

Well said!

Slwdsm said:

---

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"

---

Dont we already have systems in place dictating what someone can and can't buy? Wouldnt this change just be a change to the list? I fail to see the challenge or huge expense.

Does it cost tax payers more to have cops enforce a 45 speed limit vs a 50 speed limit since it's more restrictive?

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.

---

Wait until you find out you have to pay for their fatcare

MouthBQ98 said:

---

About 3/4 of snap goes to people who can easily get by without it. We have MANY solidly middle class snap recipients, millions of them, and NOBODY in the USA is starving. Most SNAP recipients are overweight or obese. They sure the **** do not need more luxury calories on my dime.

Instead, it is effectively a form of UBI because it is cash-like and fungible. The money the recipient normally would spend on food is now freed up to be spent on other personal consumption. SNAP effectively buys many a cell phone plan or makes many a car lease payment.

---

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Why people get mad. They see this going on standing in the grocery line. Well said.

My dad worked the graveyard shift at a convenience store early 2000s. He knew exactly when everyone's SNAP/LoneStar cards were reloaded. The store would be flooded at midnight with folks buying candy, sodas, etc. they would try to buy alcohol and tobacco telling him to run the charge as misc. when he refused, people would throw drinks and food at him.

If I am paying for food for someone else, I want it to be food not something that is going to increase the healthcare costs I will also be paying for them. Nevermind that purchasing calories at a convenience store is about the least cost effective way to purchase sustenance.

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.

---

SNAP is a socialist program. When they accept SNAP benefits they give up some of their freedom of choice by participating in the socialist program. If they want choice they should only participate in capitalism.

AlaskanAg99 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 can pay my share for the deadbeats if you think this.

---

Actual deadbeats expecting freebies deserve the back of a hand, not a helping hand. Presuming everyone, or even most people getting SNAPS benefits is a deadbeat though is just being uninformed. The majority of working age people getting SNAPS benefits do work and the majority of those who don't; can't. Yes, there are deadbeats who take advantage. For them I refer back to my first sentence.

SNAP is intended to provide nutrition to poor people. By accepting SNAP, tgey are entering into a social contract to abide by what the program is intended. Buying candy instead of eggs violates that contract.

Yeah that stuff or worse, like meth or crack or whatever. Causing ng additional problems. Subsidizing food indirectly subsidizes things like illegal drugs.

Ag with kids said:

---

TAMUallen 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.

---

Nuts arent a soda... silly liberal.

But on a serious note, theres nothing about carbonated sugar drinks that is related to providing the nutritious food essential to health and well-being for anybody's grocery bill.

---

Correct...

SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

WTF is "nutritional" about a soft drink?

---

Absolutely nothing!!

The thing is, we all know who really benefits from this, aside from the peasant masses, and it's Coke, Pepsi Co., and every other company that makes sodas. AND, on top of that, now that everyone and their mother is on Ozempic, the health industry is going to be losing tons (pun intended) of potential patients thanks to their weight loss reducing, or eliminating their weight-related health issues like diabetes and everything else. That's not good for doctors who need patients to charge and make their living from.

So, by making sure the poor get their sodas on the front end, private companies and the health industry, from the doctor to the hospital, are going to get theirs on the back end.

A pox on every politician who voted for this. They're making sure taxpayers feed the poor the sugary poison they need to get their health so bad that they get to a doctor and eventually the morgue, all while getting our money into the hands of private companies and doctors pockets.

AggiePops said:

---

Actual deadbeats expecting freebies deserve the back of a hand, not a helping hand. Presuming everyone, or even most people getting SNAPS benefits is a deadbeat though is just being uninformed. The majority of working age people getting SNAPS benefits do work and the majority of those who don't; can't. Yes, there are deadbeats who take advantage. For them I refer back to my first sentence.

---

There are around 40 million people receiving snap. It's something like one out of every 8 people. Based on your informed position, do you honestly believe that many people need this?

Why don't we just cut through all the BS and ask the root question? What percentage of the population in America is truly incapable of providing for themselves? IOW, they have a legitimate disability and are incapable of performing ANY job. Can't sit in front of a computer. Can't answer phones. Can't do ANYTHING whatsoever. There's no possible way that number is even close to 1 in 8.

I say abolish the whole thing. But if it's going to exist, it should not be cash-like and fungible as MouthBQ said. It should be a predetermined basket of essentials only. Just go to Amazon and search for snap ebt eligible items. If you're not a SNAP recipient, how in the hell is this not infuriating?

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 see what you did there.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actual deadbeats expecting freebies deserve the back of a hand, not a helping hand. Presuming everyone, or even most people getting SNAPS benefits is a deadbeat though is just being uninformed. The majority of working age people getting SNAPS benefits do work and the majority of those who don't; can't. Yes, there are deadbeats who take advantage. For them I refer back to my first sentence.

---

There are around 40 million people receiving snap. It's something like one out of every 8 people. Based on your informed position, do you honestly believe that many people need this?

Why don't we just cut through all the BS and ask the root question? What percentage of the population in America is truly incapable of providing for themselves? IOW, they have a legitimate disability and are incapable of performing ANY job. Can't sit in front of a computer. Can't answer phones. Can't do ANYTHING whatsoever. There's no possible way that number is even close to 1 in 8.

I say abolish the whole thing. But if it's going to exist, it should not be cash-like and fungible as MouthBQ said. It should be a predetermined basket of essentials only. Just go to Amazon and search for snap ebt eligible items. If you're not a SNAP recipient, how in the hell is this not infuriating?

---

I just went to Amazon and did the SNAP search. I'm even more pissed about this than before.

According to the Google, the average household receives about $350 a month. I'm sure all of it isn't being spent on the things like Crown Maple Certified Organic Syrup, or Stonewall Kitchen Aioli, but just that those higher-end products CAN be purchased, along with Frosted Flakes and Microwave Kraft Mac and cheese and Microwave Chef Boyardee, is beyond the pale.

Those companies are getting rich AF by selling absolute crap that the poor buy because it's easy and free to them.

If ever there was a scam in this country, from consumer to company, it's SNAP.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actual deadbeats expecting freebies deserve the back of a hand, not a helping hand. Presuming everyone, or even most people getting SNAPS benefits is a deadbeat though is just being uninformed. The majority of working age people getting SNAPS benefits do work and the majority of those who don't; can't. Yes, there are deadbeats who take advantage. For them I refer back to my first sentence.

---

There are around 40 million people receiving snap. It's something like one out of every 8 people. Based on your informed position, do you honestly believe that many people need this?

Why don't we just cut through all the BS and ask the root question? What percentage of the population in America is truly incapable of providing for themselves? IOW, they have a legitimate disability and are incapable of performing ANY job. Can't sit in front of a computer. Can't answer phones. Can't do ANYTHING whatsoever. There's no possible way that number is even close to 1 in 8.

I say abolish the whole thing. But if it's going to exist, it should not be cash-like and fungible as MouthBQ said. It should be a predetermined basket of essentials only. Just go to Amazon and search for snap ebt eligible items. If you're not a SNAP recipient, how in the hell is this not infuriating?

---

I mentioned 'working age' people on SNAPS. Your nearly 40M total includes a lot of kids and elderly folks, comprising around 60% of the total. That means less than 15M working age folks, most of whom can work, are. As mentioned in my earlier post, deadbeats looking for free handouts should be smacked, not given anything. Deny that sort their handout and they'll likely turn to burglary, then hopefully be caught and thrown in jail. Ironically getting their free handout in a jail cell..

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.

---

If you feel like the government should cover health care for everyone, you should be against government subsidies for unhealthy food. That includes soft drinks.

RUDE AWAKENING

“None of the snacks go through on EBT.” pic.twitter.com/4xBiXRaWq2

— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) May 2, 2026

"Brawkley"?

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

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.

---

You're asking why we care about the mole hill while ignoring that mountain it's sitting on.

It's not just $200. It's the fact that we know it's exponentially more than that. If elected officials can't support the taxpayers to say no to an easy $200, you think they are going to GAS about the tens of thousands you actually do care about?

Plus, it's not my responsibility to fund a permanent underclass. I donate to my church to help people who need it. The government hasn't helped a single person escape poverty in the history if its existence.

---

Somali day care operators say hello...

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.

---

If they are getting SNAP benefits, then they don't have much. They should use it to buy better food for their kids.

Why TF are we giving unhealthy food to people who don't need it? Most of them are fat-asses.

I grew up in severe poverty. We were homeless for two years. We lived in the office of my dad's warehouse, and took baths in a mop sink. There were five of us. We still didn't take handouts or anything from the government. We made it work, and sometimes went hungry, but never asked for help.

Anyone can go out and make extra money. Mow a yard. Help people move stuff around their house. Etc.

We incentivize laziness. Don't make enough money - have this free handout. Make too much money - lose the handout.

You should have to do something for the handout. Clean up the side of the road. Volunteer.

No one values something they get for free.

You know why I value my Texas A&M education? Because I busted my ass - working 40-45 hours per week, and had a diagnosed learning disability, but worked past all the difficulties. Same thing with graduate school - worked my ass off.

Why TF does a poor person want to get off of public assistance when they can just get whatever TF they want (food-wise, free internet, etc), and get fat and happy off of it? They have no reason to! There's no incentive to try and better themselves!

No Spin Ag said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actual deadbeats expecting freebies deserve the back of a hand, not a helping hand. Presuming everyone, or even most people getting SNAPS benefits is a deadbeat though is just being uninformed. The majority of working age people getting SNAPS benefits do work and the majority of those who don't; can't. Yes, there are deadbeats who take advantage. For them I refer back to my first sentence.

---

There are around 40 million people receiving snap. It's something like one out of every 8 people. Based on your informed position, do you honestly believe that many people need this?

Why don't we just cut through all the BS and ask the root question? What percentage of the population in America is truly incapable of providing for themselves? IOW, they have a legitimate disability and are incapable of performing ANY job. Can't sit in front of a computer. Can't answer phones. Can't do ANYTHING whatsoever. There's no possible way that number is even close to 1 in 8.

I say abolish the whole thing. But if it's going to exist, it should not be cash-like and fungible as MouthBQ said. It should be a predetermined basket of essentials only. Just go to Amazon and search for snap ebt eligible items. If you're not a SNAP recipient, how in the hell is this not infuriating?

---

I just went to Amazon and did the SNAP search. I'm even more pissed about this than before.

According to the Google, the average household receives about $350 a month. I'm sure all of it isn't being spent on the things like Crown Maple Certified Organic Syrup, or Stonewall Kitchen Aioli, but just that those higher-end products CAN be purchased, along with Frosted Flakes and Microwave Kraft Mac and cheese and Microwave Chef Boyardee, is beyond the pale.

Those companies are getting rich AF by selling absolute crap that the poor buy because it's easy and free to them.

If ever there was a scam in this country, from consumer to company, it's SNAP.

---

I checked the Kroger app. You can buy Snapple on SNAP. Mind blown

Hot take: SNAP should kind of suck for the people that on it so they're incentivized to get off it.