Originally it was approved as a subsidy for farms which is why right leaning people ever supported it originally.
The end goal is to restict the program and eventually end it entirely. This just an excuse.
I think if youre at a store and you take it upon yourself to judge a person buying a product and spying on them to determine their method of payment to justify your initial suspicions, without any knowledge of why they are in that position, and your response is that you should be able to dictate the diet of someone else as a result is such an insane authoritarian way to view it that I dont even know what to say to you.
The caste system is real and be honest, you would rather see that person slumped over OD on the street corner than standing next to you in line attempting to just feed themselves.
Really what this view reveals is your own insecurity and lack of empathy
No. The cruelty is pretending that everyone has equal capacity to make life choices and that society has no role in encouraging people to make good decisions.
> Drinking soda has almost nothing to do with rotting teeth.
This is the first I've heard anyone say this. Got any sources to share?
> Should we take away Gatorade too?
First of all, it's not taking away, rather it's not providing. And yes, probably. Gatorade has almost as much added sugar as coke.
The guiding principle is "don't provide things that are 1) going to promote illness, and 2) cause you to have to now provide more things to deal with the problems you've caused.
there is a difference between discouraging bad decisions and encouraging good ones. this resolution falls into the former which is a collective punishment more than anything else since the health of those affected isn't the driving factor here. a better solution would be if healthy items like produce were given incentive to be purchased over these, like exclusive discounting or something similar.
Like making it so that you have to pay full price for candy and soda, but letting you buy produce for free with your SNAP benefits? It's not like beneficiaries are banned from buying soda. They just can't use their benefits to do it (and since money is fungible, it's not really even taking anything away unless they had more than they need to buy actual groceries).
As someone who buys soda maybe once a year or two and candy only to give out on Halloween, I don't understand how this is a point of contention. No one should be buying this stuff with enough regularity for it to affect their budget. Why would we subsidize it? That is encouraging people to buy it. We shouldn't subsidize it for the same reasons we shouldn't subsidize cigarettes and alcohol.
Or more to the point, SNAP is for food. Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day, they have no place in anyone's diet.
If so, then will you concede that the policy (ban) under discussion will tend to have beneficial effects that might outweigh the insulting effect that you noted in your first comment?
Everyone gets something from the government, that’s dangerous reasoning.
If the policy got folks out of poverty I’m all for it, otherwise it’s just people’s / government’s desire to tell others what to do for the sake of doing that.
Would make more sense to shit-can the program and just hand them cash. Any junkies or land-whales will kill themselves faster and relieve the taxpayers of further burden, and the people that need it have better understanding of their own needs than some benefits clerk who spends 5 minutes with them twice a year. It would be a win-win for literally everyone.
I lived in a crappy part of town when I was young. Local homeless guy I recognized, I'd give him a few bucks once in a while. I didn't know him, but everyone recognized him.
Someone mentioned to me "he's just gonna spend it on booze" (there wasn't really any evidence for that but they assumed). A friend of mine made an insightful comment "Considering his life so far, maybe he actually could use a beer more than us." (We were going to a local bar)
Someone wants some skittles or something, fine by me. The idea that we should tell someone they can't have a treat because they're poor, I agree that seems cruel.
Folks who really want to get those folks help / get them out of the system, they're not sweating skittles.
My wife works in the school system and one of the poorer kids told her that sometimes their aunt and uncle come over and take their food. THAT is a problem, not skittles.
For me it’s less about what they pick and more about not funneling more tax payer money to PepsiCo for food like products that kill people. If you are going to micro manage the program cut out all the toxic shit.
> Would make more sense to shit-can the program and just hand them cash
Is there anywhere else in the world that has a similar program to SNAP that micro-manages what kind of things people can buy? Everywhere else I'm familiar with just gives people in need cash that they can spend however they want. The closest thing I can think of is food banks (which also seems much more rare elsewhere, only recently popping up in the UK after their austerity programs)
JUNAEB in Chile is pretty much SNAP for college students. Originally you could buy beer or pretty much anything in the supermarket, it got limited strictly to food and then items with two or less warning labels [0].
A big difference is intention, in the US the focus is "anti-sin" and avoiding joy for undesirables. Many protein bars or "natural" juices are just morally aesthetic candy and soda. The labeling in Chile is data driven* (i.e, It's pretty much an efficient way to read the nutrition info, it killed vitamin water) so the objective is closer to public health.
I would also think that straight cash is preferable, the limitations are fine for complementary benefits of college students, not for actual families. Diapers and lentils are a better use of government money. Anyways if people want to buy drugs, converting food items to cash is simple.
Whenever I take the first bite into an energy or protein bar I pause with surprise because of how sweet it is. Then I ask myself, "how is this not a candy bar?"
This is long overdue. I don't understand why this hasn't yet been implemented in other States. The poor (those on food stamps) suffer the most because the stuff that is cheap and available on every corner is garbage like soda, and then they struggle with obesity, diabetes, and an array of health problems. There needs to be more effort into making healthy food available ("food deserts" are a problem). So while this ban isn't the solution in itself, it's part of the solution.
Because the artificial sweeteners and chemicals are also harmful. I don't know why people think that Diet Coke is any better than regular Coke. You're just replacing one sweetener with another and still at risk of diabetes and other health problems[0].
Why would a program that's meant to help people buy groceries include any soda? The point is to help people in need to be able to afford an adequate diet, not to buy fun treats. It shouldn't include marijuana either, for example.
I don’t know if I can behind this idea. If they cared about _not paying twice_ there would be free or affordable health care to lower income folks, helping drive preventative medical care vs waiting on health problems become too big ignore and thus ends up being a larger medical bill, which they can’t afford. So ya I think it’s still about control. Society as a whole is weirdly obsessed with controlling those with less means
You can buy McDonalds with SNAP in some states.
Originally it was approved as a subsidy for farms which is why right leaning people ever supported it originally.
The end goal is to restict the program and eventually end it entirely. This just an excuse.
I think if youre at a store and you take it upon yourself to judge a person buying a product and spying on them to determine their method of payment to justify your initial suspicions, without any knowledge of why they are in that position, and your response is that you should be able to dictate the diet of someone else as a result is such an insane authoritarian way to view it that I dont even know what to say to you.
The caste system is real and be honest, you would rather see that person slumped over OD on the street corner than standing next to you in line attempting to just feed themselves.
Really what this view reveals is your own insecurity and lack of empathy
/s?
Coca Cola will be pissed
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5118876-healthy-snap-...
"This part of the SNAP subsidy, by our estimates, drives 20 to 25 percent of U.S. revenues for Coca-Cola and Pepsico.Feb 2, 2025"
That’s a shocking number. I actually have a hard time believing it.
Would also explain the lack of real interest to guarantee proper access to clean, lead free tap water.
Instead: let big conglomerates control most wells and get everyone addicted via sugar+salt.
This is one of those things that I doubt changes anything, and I suspect only satisfies folks desire to wag their finger at other folks.
Folks will give one reason for it, but I think it's just finger wagging / getting in other people's business in the end.
It is petty cruelty by folks who wrongly believe they are incapable of one day being poor and destitute.
No. The cruelty is pretending that everyone has equal capacity to make life choices and that society has no role in encouraging people to make good decisions.
There ia about zero effort put into encouraging good decisions, but a lot of gleeful activity into making their lives as uncomfortable as possible.
Systematically again and again. At this point, it just make bo sense to pretend anything else.
The very same people throw massive fit at any measure that could make their targets life's better.
You know what's uncomfortable (and also expensive)? Being obese and having rotting teeth.
Drinking soda has almost nothing to do with rotting teeth. Dentists are now more concerned about the damage electrolyte drinks cause.
Should we take away Gatorade too?
> Drinking soda has almost nothing to do with rotting teeth.
This is the first I've heard anyone say this. Got any sources to share?
> Should we take away Gatorade too?
First of all, it's not taking away, rather it's not providing. And yes, probably. Gatorade has almost as much added sugar as coke.
The guiding principle is "don't provide things that are 1) going to promote illness, and 2) cause you to have to now provide more things to deal with the problems you've caused.
there is a difference between discouraging bad decisions and encouraging good ones. this resolution falls into the former which is a collective punishment more than anything else since the health of those affected isn't the driving factor here. a better solution would be if healthy items like produce were given incentive to be purchased over these, like exclusive discounting or something similar.
Like making it so that you have to pay full price for candy and soda, but letting you buy produce for free with your SNAP benefits? It's not like beneficiaries are banned from buying soda. They just can't use their benefits to do it (and since money is fungible, it's not really even taking anything away unless they had more than they need to buy actual groceries).
As someone who buys soda maybe once a year or two and candy only to give out on Halloween, I don't understand how this is a point of contention. No one should be buying this stuff with enough regularity for it to affect their budget. Why would we subsidize it? That is encouraging people to buy it. We shouldn't subsidize it for the same reasons we shouldn't subsidize cigarettes and alcohol.
Or more to the point, SNAP is for food. Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day, they have no place in anyone's diet.
>Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day
Or a farmer.
Who is pretending these straw men?
It’s not me. I don’t agree with either of those positions.
If so, then will you concede that the policy (ban) under discussion will tend to have beneficial effects that might outweigh the insulting effect that you noted in your first comment?
[dead]
If the government is giving you money to buy food, it’s extremely fair that they require you to buy food that isn’t diabetes-inducing poison.
Everyone gets something from the government, that’s dangerous reasoning.
If the policy got folks out of poverty I’m all for it, otherwise it’s just people’s / government’s desire to tell others what to do for the sake of doing that.
Reducing obesity and diabetes is definitely a worthy goal.
Would make more sense to shit-can the program and just hand them cash. Any junkies or land-whales will kill themselves faster and relieve the taxpayers of further burden, and the people that need it have better understanding of their own needs than some benefits clerk who spends 5 minutes with them twice a year. It would be a win-win for literally everyone.
I lived in a crappy part of town when I was young. Local homeless guy I recognized, I'd give him a few bucks once in a while. I didn't know him, but everyone recognized him.
Someone mentioned to me "he's just gonna spend it on booze" (there wasn't really any evidence for that but they assumed). A friend of mine made an insightful comment "Considering his life so far, maybe he actually could use a beer more than us." (We were going to a local bar)
Someone wants some skittles or something, fine by me. The idea that we should tell someone they can't have a treat because they're poor, I agree that seems cruel.
Folks who really want to get those folks help / get them out of the system, they're not sweating skittles.
My wife works in the school system and one of the poorer kids told her that sometimes their aunt and uncle come over and take their food. THAT is a problem, not skittles.
There's a famous anecdote about C.S. Lewis saying much the same thing:
> On the way to an Inklings meeting, he gave some money to a street beggar, and I made the usual objection: "Won't he just spend it on drink?"
> Lewis answered, "Yes, but if I kept it, so would I."
https://web.archive.org/web/20210717220213/https://www.ncron...
For me it’s less about what they pick and more about not funneling more tax payer money to PepsiCo for food like products that kill people. If you are going to micro manage the program cut out all the toxic shit.
Chiquita also kills people
Oh, the lovely United Fruits Company?
Who dares to have a critical view into a proper history book?
Everybody better read "Fahrenheit 451" too, as long as the Bro-lords don't go after it (again).
> Would make more sense to shit-can the program and just hand them cash
Is there anywhere else in the world that has a similar program to SNAP that micro-manages what kind of things people can buy? Everywhere else I'm familiar with just gives people in need cash that they can spend however they want. The closest thing I can think of is food banks (which also seems much more rare elsewhere, only recently popping up in the UK after their austerity programs)
JUNAEB in Chile is pretty much SNAP for college students. Originally you could buy beer or pretty much anything in the supermarket, it got limited strictly to food and then items with two or less warning labels [0].
A big difference is intention, in the US the focus is "anti-sin" and avoiding joy for undesirables. Many protein bars or "natural" juices are just morally aesthetic candy and soda. The labeling in Chile is data driven* (i.e, It's pretty much an efficient way to read the nutrition info, it killed vitamin water) so the objective is closer to public health.
I would also think that straight cash is preferable, the limitations are fine for complementary benefits of college students, not for actual families. Diapers and lentils are a better use of government money. Anyways if people want to buy drugs, converting food items to cash is simple.
- https://www.theexamination.org/articles/a-decade-after-its-p...
[flagged]
Whenever I take the first bite into an energy or protein bar I pause with surprise because of how sweet it is. Then I ask myself, "how is this not a candy bar?"
The macronutrient profile? Is this a trick question?
> Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (..) also commonly known as food stamps.
This is progress it is peak idiocracy for the taxpayer to subsidize junk food to a largely obese population
They would save more money and improve the health of the average American by cutting the corn and dairy subsidies.
Why not just tax the “harmful” product?
If you cover soda you might as well cover alcohol.
You cant buy alcohol with snap.
I know, soda is just as bad for you though. At least beer can be considered a historic food.
The dose makes the poison.
Why not ban white bread and bleached rice while you’re at it?
Lol all ingredients to brew beer/wine but maybe specialized yeasts are buyable with most food benefits.
This is long overdue. I don't understand why this hasn't yet been implemented in other States. The poor (those on food stamps) suffer the most because the stuff that is cheap and available on every corner is garbage like soda, and then they struggle with obesity, diabetes, and an array of health problems. There needs to be more effort into making healthy food available ("food deserts" are a problem). So while this ban isn't the solution in itself, it's part of the solution.
I’m all for this. I much prefer they purchase the healthiest stuff they can buy at the grocery stuff to stay sharp throughout the day.
Pop tarts and soda provide zero nutritional value and cause brain fog. If they want that, they can pay for it out of their own pocket.
Calories are nutrition. Necessary one.
> Pop tarts and soda provide zero nutritional value
But they have a very high calorie:dollar ratio.
Someone plz explain to me why the ban also applies to diet sodas
Because the artificial sweeteners and chemicals are also harmful. I don't know why people think that Diet Coke is any better than regular Coke. You're just replacing one sweetener with another and still at risk of diabetes and other health problems[0].
[0] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/3-reasons-you-should-kick...
Why would a program that's meant to help people buy groceries include any soda? The point is to help people in need to be able to afford an adequate diet, not to buy fun treats. It shouldn't include marijuana either, for example.
By your logic, maybe this program should only subsidize a nutritionally-rich slurry?
My view… this isn’t about health, it’s about control
It's about _not paying twice_: 1. subsidize unhealthy drinks and food 2. subsidize the consequences
Want something unhealthy? Earn it yourself.
I don’t know if I can behind this idea. If they cared about _not paying twice_ there would be free or affordable health care to lower income folks, helping drive preventative medical care vs waiting on health problems become too big ignore and thus ends up being a larger medical bill, which they can’t afford. So ya I think it’s still about control. Society as a whole is weirdly obsessed with controlling those with less means