Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should any store be allowed to collect SNAP benefits for junk food? We are helping feed their families, and food purchases should be limited to seafood less than $10/lb, hamburger, chicken, frozen bags of veggies, fruit, milk, juice, cereal, eggs, cheese, and bread.
A couple of reasons. It's bizarre to treat adults like children and dole out food to them based on what someone "thinks" they should have, and the cost to grocery stores of tagging thousands of items in their registers to make sure they can't be rung up with EBT would be so costly and time consuming that most stores would quit accepting SNAP.
Of course it's our money. Any money they spend on online delivery is less they have available for food purchases, which we are subsidizing. Money is fungible.
(Reminds me of an interview I read in the WaPo in which the welfare recipient was complaining that she doesn't get sufficient food stamps to feed her kids well. The interviewer pointed to the big flat-screen TV and asked her how she could afford that, and she snapped, "don't tell me how to spend MY money.")
Maybe someone gave her the TV, maybe she bought it when she had a job maybe some people should mind their own business
I've been thinking about this a little more, and I now think that this is not a good idea for everyone.
If an elderly and/or disabled person can walk but doesn't drive, and the grocery store is less than a mile or two away, it forces him or her to at least get some exercise. If the necessity of physically shopping for groceries is taken away, I think it would just encourage the person to be even more shut in and possibly 'lazy' then s/he might already be.
Let's try this again. SNAP recipients receive a card that looks like a credit card. It is loaded with a certain amount of credit that can only be spent on food. The average benefit received is $126 a month. It is not "fungible" and cannot be used to pay for food delivery. If they don't have the resources to pay for food delivery they can't utilize this benefit. Get it now?
Sheesh. Some of you liberals tire me.
Welfare recipients don't fund their food purchases entirely with SNAP. They supplement with their "own" money. So if they are paying $8 or whatever to have the food delivered, that's $8 less they have for food itself. Sorry, but able-bodied adults within a reasonable reach of a grocery store need to get their butts over there.
She had a 54" name-brand flatscreen. I certainly didn't splurge on something like that! And NO....she should not be complaining that taxpayers need to give her more money for food while she splurges on a large-screen TV.
Stop excusing the irresponsible decisions of people just because they are poor. She should not have bought that expensive TV, and since she did, she should have kept her mouth shut about not being able to afford food for her kids.
Maybe someone gave her the TV, maybe she bought it when she had a job maybe someone should mind their own GD business
it IS my business when a welfare recipient throws out $1000 on an expensive TV when my taxes go to provide them the food they can't afford on their own.
And in the interview, she didn't say someone gave her the TV or that she bought it when she had a job (which was never). She was indignant that the interviewer, who after all is helping pay for the food she says she can't afford, asked her how she was able to afford an expensive luxury like that.
LIberals need to lose the attitude that welfare recipients are entitled to do whatever they want with money they get from other people.
I expect it from liberals, but conservatives and MAGAs are showing their true colors now.
In your anarcho capitalist utopia, I'm pretty sure that grocery delivery systems could still exist. As could some sort of voluntary insurance to help out those unable to care for themselves, and hopefully most of us would be generous enough to support it. The only thing is it wouldn't be sponsored by the state.
Well, it opens up some new jobs some of them can do. That will be nice.
For the rest of us, this will only be a return to what was once the way groceries were done. When I was young, every grocery store in my little town had a delivery boy, and my mother only went to a store when she needed to restock the pantry. When she only needed a few things, she called and the store delivered the groceries.
Every little grocery store had its own truck. I used to see them out in the country every day, driving groceries to farms. People seldom went to a grocery to pick up food unless they really needed to stock up. Delivery was as common then as the pizza boy is now.
Delivery was also the reason why the grocery store became the Super Market. When grocers discovered there was more money to be made selling light bulbs, stationery, paperbacks, and all the other stuff than there was selling vegetables and loaves of bread, they needed bigger stores to display all that.
And the bigger stores needed to have customers come in to decide what they wanted from all the new stuff that was suddenly offered. Once a customer came in, they made a lot of impulse buying they had never made before, and the customers liked those surprises they found. So they began going to the store more and using delivery less.
Eventually, the demand for delivery just faded away and was replaced by parking lots.
There's nothing new or novel about home delivery. For centuries, merchants went to the home to deliver their goods of all kinds. We are just returning to the past using the latest device.
Long before the telephone, a kid in the neighborhood ran to the grocery with a order note and a nickel in his pocket for giving the note to the grocer. The closest grocery was always small and only a few blocks away.
A couple of reasons. It's bizarre to treat adults like children and dole out food to them based on what someone "thinks" they should have, and the cost to grocery stores of tagging thousands of items in their registers to make sure they can't be rung up with EBT would be so costly and time consuming that most stores would quit accepting SNAP.
NO, it's not bizarre. These are people who are taking money from others to feed themselves, and it's perfectly reasonable to limit their choices. They can buy junk food with actual money, if they want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
