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.
WAY to much money is given to them if they can afford to buy soda at the same rate as the middle and upper classes.
SNAP should never be for non-essentials, but instead we have SODA as their #1 purchase. FFS!
They must really need that assistance if they go and spend it on soda.
Why don't you direct your anger toward the lobbyists for soft drinks? They're the ones who benefit when people are allowed to use their SNAP benefits to buy Cokes.
Then ban sodas from the freaking approved list of food stamp purchases.
Explain to me why we need to create an entirely new government program that accomplishes the same goal
Even banning soda is not something easy to accomplish. It required programming every computerized register to reject soda, but that can only be done once the buyer attempts to use their EBT card, which will mean the clerk has to take the soda back from the customer and remove the purchase from the register. WIC is enough of a nightmare for store clerks, you can get a pound of cheese but only a certain brand of cheese and that can change from week to week.
Why not treat people like adults, if they drink soda then that means they won't have as much money to spend on food, that is ultimately their choice. Taxpayer money goes toward Social Security too, but I don't see any discussions about not allowing SS recipients to buy soda with their money...I wonder why that might be?
Why don't you direct your anger toward the lobbyists for soft drinks? They're the ones who benefit when people are allowed to use their SNAP benefits to buy Cokes.
They are part of the problem, but the biggest problem is there's 47,000,000 people sucking on the government sugar tit.
Just look at them spitting the dummy at the mere though of loosing their sugar daddy.
and the 40% of recipients who are children, or the 11% who are elderly..or the 1.5 million veterans
All of the poor elderly that I know receive $16/mo of food stamps. It’s the with kids who get the lion’s share of the free food. I know a woman on disability (not visible or obvious) with two boys who receives over $500/mo of free food! Must be nice.
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-15-2018 at 03:53 AM..
Reason: language
All of the poor elderly that I know receive $16/mo of food stamps. It’s the with kids who get the lion’s share of the free food. I know a woman on disability (not visible or obvious) with two boys who receives over $500/mo of free food! Must be nice.
Wow.
Your username definitely suits you!
Did you know that 29% of single mothers are divorced and 21% are widowed? How dare you assume that just because a woman is a single mother that she must sleep around.
As for the elderly you know only receiving $16/mo, since you're such an expert on food stamps, you must also know that it is income based. They likely have income from pensions, retirement funds and social security- low enough that they qualify for some SNAP, but too high to qualify for the maximum benefit.
What they should be fed is the same stuff hospitals use to feed comatose and vegetative state patients. All the nutrients you need in a can. Don’t deliver it to the bums. Give them cards good for that good only. Every grocery store will soon be stocking it.
No objection to restrictions on EBT purchases. But this sure sounds like a very uncertain way to modify the current program. Wonder if there have been any test runs in limited locales, which is how any business would proceed before implementing a new service model? Of course not.
According to NPR, the USDA believes that a total of 50 state governments will be able to design and administer programs to deliver food for less than the cost SNAP recipients now pay for food at grocery stores. The program rationale is overall cost savings - not benefit to the consumer of the food like better food.
Wonder how the USDA is going to apportion funds among the states, since we're no longer dealing with costs per person served (EBT card) but now costs to provide food per person served. And what happens if the states can't meet their "delivery" budgets?
Grocery store profit margins are notoriously low (around 1 to 2 percent) with stores staying in business due to volume. And I suppose there are wholesaler markup costs where some savings should be found for bulk food acquisitions. But enough to offset the costs of this new program much less reduce overall EBT costs?
The USDA thinks so.
It's just a dumb idea that popped into the head of a dumb guy. What else is new?
I remember the hard time so many posters on the right, gave Michelle Obama about her lunch program. That we don't want her telling us what to feed out kids, they hated that.
Yeah... guess they are never happy.
Similarly, just as not wanting others instructing their teens in using birth control, yet don't support abortion, then have high rates of teen pregnancy, with those uneducated raising children and going on Welfare. (They always seem to be in conflict with themselves).
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.
(They always seem to be in conflict with themselves).