SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Mar 12, 2026 at 06:43 AM EDT updated Mar 12, 2026 at 08:35 AM EDT


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that new restrictions on what they can purchase with the benefits are unlawful and harmful to people who rely on the program.

Five plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, seeking to halt and then overturn SNAP "waivers" that block benefits being used to purchase foods considered low in nutritional value, such as candy and as sugary drinks. The USDA told Newsweek on Thursday it will "not comment on pending litigation."

Why It Matters

New food restrictions waivers have been approved in 22 states, with several already implementing the new blocks. The changes impact millions of low- and no-income Americans who depend on benefits to buy groceries.

The case challenges a policy shift backed by officials in the Trump administration that supporters say is intended to promote healthier diets. The plaintiffs argue the restrictions make it harder for families to access food and manage health conditions, while also creating confusion for shoppers at grocery store checkouts.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-recipients-fight-back-junk-food-ban-waiver-lawsuit-11664497

---

Link to SUIT (PDF viewer) is here

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Sugar may not be the main problem

There are dozens of other additives that amount to some altered form of sweetener ... polysaccharides, gums of many varieties, modified food starch to name a few. They alter gut bacteria. We weren't meant to eat this stuff.

[niyad]

20. see post 15

[twodogsbarking]

2. Just give them the fucking money. They spend more money "discussing" it than it costs.

Maybe it isn't even about the money.

[niyad]

11. It is, and always has been, about control, shaming, and, to a great degree, misogyny,

since it is assumed that women do most of the grocery shopping. And we KNOW women cannot make intelligent decisions on their own.

[jfz9580m]

53. That is what emotion Ai is for!

So someone like this nice Epstein associated lady (who was not raised religious, but swayed by pseudoscientific bilge like Intelligent Design) worked on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard

She wanted to “rehabilitate” Epstein. She is a creepy person like all of the MIT Media Lab.

[rampartd]

101. the money spent investigating and verifying "means tests"

seems to exceed what it would cost to just give snap to anyone who applies.

[FadedMullet]

3. My sympathies would revolve around a better understanding of "access food", "manage health conditions" and......

......"create confusion". Call me a reactionary, but there is nothing wrong with the public buying good food for the poor, instead of "All-American" junk food.

[choie]

5. Do we get a say in what type of food the military is served?

Why should we do so with SNAP? Or is it because snap benefits “the poors”?

[orangecrush]

116. That's exactly why

[SunSeeker]

9. These rules would prevent a family from using SNAP to buy a birthday cake for their kids.

I survived on food stamps as a kid, I know it was humiliating enough for my mom to pay with food stamps. To not even be able to buy your kid a birthday cake is just too much.

[niyad]

19. see post 15

[Cirsium]

107. Sure

The wealthy and powerful can dictate what we eat, while McDonalds hamburgers are served in the White House.

[Jacson6]

4. I don't know...

I receive a small stipend of SNAP each month as a retired OM that I use to buy chicken, hamburger and staple to last through the month. IME.

[niyad]

21. See post 15

[Torchlight]

6. I'll pay attention to the counter-arguments when healthy food

is as affordable as many junk foods. Until then, they sound little more like sanctimonious attempts to tell others how to better live their lives than rational, thought-out positions. As long as luxury jets with bedrooms for officials are so common, I'll look at cutting costs there rather than scrutinizing the dining tables of people whose circumstances I don’t know.

[quaint]

7. You nailed it "when healthy food is as affordable as many junk foods"

[niyad]

18. THANK YOU!!!

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

28. In what world would high-quality anything be as affordable as junk?

[niyad]

38. A sane one?

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

42. define 'junk' then

[niyad]

43. Anything I don't like.

[Cirsium]

106. Oh, I don't know

Too many of the posts on this thread?

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

110. on that we agree!

[Cirsium]

111. Great

Now explain how my remarks about agriculture are the reason "we" lose elections, if you could please.

[Torchlight]

57. In the same world that sealions move goalposts

Just a guess, though.

[Cirsium]

77. Oh, come on

That is ridiculous. You are judging food as though it were widgets. Yes, luxury widgets will always be more expensive than junk widgets.

Food is free. I live and work in a fruit district and there are thousands of "feral" fruit trees here producing fruit every year, free for the taking. Go get it. You pay for food in order to support the people tending and harvesting, cleaning and packing, storing and shipping the produce to you. You are paying for convenience as well as for your health and safety.

I have been lucky, eating fresh fruit off the tree every day in the season. We have a policy here - no one goes hungry in this county so long as we are farming. But many people do not have access to fresh healthy food. Most poor people make very intelligent food decisions. We have to. (I say "we" because you don't make much money working on the farm). Poor people make much better dollar to calorie ratio decisions than well-off people do.

As I have often said...

Never before in the existence of humankind has there ever been a population as ignorant about and alienated from the source of their own food as modern Americans.

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

96. Did my post just get called ridiculous by someone claiming that "food is free"?

[Cirsium]

97. Correct

Yep, that's what I said.

[Oliver Bolliver Butt]

98. this is why we lose elections

[Cirsium]

99. Oh, sure it is

Thanks for the comic relief.

[Torchlight]

100. Nice bumper sticker

Hope the font choice makes up for it!

[moonscape]

35. And when healthy food is available

in food deserts.

[niyad]

39. EXACTLY. see post 15.

[EX500rider]

63. Who says they have to buy healthy food?

They're free to buy all kinds of macaroni and cheese etc and any kind of other processed crap they want, just not sugary drinks and candy

[Torchlight]

65. You're arguing a point I neither made nor implied.

[niyad]

70. Maybe you could acquaint yourself with some of the restrictions,

and those that have been proposed over the years. Like the ones proposed in WI several yyears ago, forbidding real cheese (in WI), dried beans, rice, etc.

Disdain and sanctimonious judgement are just oozing from your posts on this subject.

See post 15.

[EX500rider]

74. There's certainly some self-righteous sanctimonious posting going on here

I agree with that.
Our mileage May differ on who's doing it though
All I saw on the blurb is they were not alowing candy and soda.

[niyad]

86. ohhh myyyyyy. Our mileage does indeed vary. Thank you for confirming

everything I said.

[cstanleytech]

8. I'm not against junk food restrictions but I support an increase in the amount provided as eating healthy isn't cheap.

I'd say an increase of an minimum of 200 a month per child for produce would probably help a lot.

[niyad]

17. See post 15.

[CTyankee]

54. Many poor people lack kitchens in which to whip up those great recipes from scratch with all their helpful vitamins.

Or maybe they hold down two jobs and simply can't be home to cook. Or they may simply be homeless.

[EX500rider]

64. This doesn't stop them from buying TV dinners and macaroni and cheese and other easy quick Foods

Just not sugary drinks and candy

[CTyankee]

66. Why do we get to be their food cop?

We don't "trust" them to buy the food WE deem OK to eat?

What can we do to help them eat better foods? Offer them fresh, better foods! Make it easy to get them.

[EX500rider]

67. If the taxpayer is footing the bill the taxpayer has some say

I think subsidizing diabetes may be a bad idea, ymmv

[CTyankee]

72. I agree. How can we get at this problem as a society?

Health care professionals are the people who can help here.

[cstanleytech]

68. Yes which is why produce is a good area to provide more money to spend on as you don't need to cook salads.

[CTyankee]

73. A great point. The issue is how we get such foods to those who need, but can't afford to buy, those food items.

Or maybe they simply don't have ready access to those foods.

[BaronChocula]

10. "The five plaintiffs--who live in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia..."

I'll just put that there.

[niyad]

12. Really.?? What, exactly, are we to understand by that?

[BaronChocula]

13. With the exception of Colorado

these are "red states" going back at least three presidential elections. Simpleton magas would probably least expect this much pushback from ordinarily "safe zones."

[niyad]

16. Then why include Colorado?

[BaronChocula]

22. It was taken verbatim from the article

That's why it was in quotes.

[niyad]

23. Thank you.

[BaronChocula]

24. ...

[Bettie]

26. Are people in those states less worthy of having food

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Just say it, whatever it is.

[70sEraVet]

14. The story they want to push with these restrictions,

is that poor people are undeserving. New restrictions, but an old tradition.

[pcdb]

40. I think it's that taxpayer funded diabetes is a bad idea.

This is another issue that Democrats used to support but are now against. I guess we'll just keep driving the cost of healthcare up.

[niyad]

44. Do you seriously think ANY of this bs debate has to do with genuine concern

about people's health?

[pcdb]

47. Maybe not to Republicans

That doesn't mean Democrats have to want people to get diabetes just to be on the other side.

[niyad]

49. That isn't an either/or, regardless of how you frame it. Perhaps you

coul address some of the other, more immediate, issues being discussed in this thread?

[pcdb]

89. What other issues?

I don't take RFK seriously, but that doesn't mean I think SNAP should be providing diabetes to poor people. I feel like we have the need to be against everything Trump is for even if we agree with him. Up until recently, it was the libertarian position that government should have no say in how SNAP is spent, now it's us.

I've seen threads where some Democrats sound like free market capitalists opposing tariffs and other protectionist policies... things Democrats used to support. We don't have to turn against are own policy positions just because Trump agrees with us.

[niyad]

15. Before I start screaming about the self-righteous sanctimony and

virtue signalling that seems to surround every discussion about "healthy eating" and "junk food restrictions", wherever they occur, I would like people to keep in mind one little fact. Many people live in the "food deserts", meaning there are no grocery stores within ten miles. The ONLY access to any kind of food in those areas is convenience stores, with their limited choices. And before I hear anything about "just get on a bus", as one pontificator snarled at me several years ago in a meeting, many of those same areas do not have decent public transit, either. And, even if there is, hauling bags of groceries on and off buses, particularly if one has to transfer, or has mobility isssues, is not a picnic.

When one defends all these restrictions, whatever one's stated reason, one must ask oneself why it is okay to tell these people what they may, or may not, purchase with OUR money. Does one tell the military how to spend the trillions they get? Does one restrict the oil companies? Big AG? Big Pharma? And then think about what those answers say about oneself.

[Polybius]

37. But at what point is the line drawn?

Should beer be allowed? How about household items? Or would those be the cutoff in your opinion? For the record, I am all for allowing sweets to be purchased with SNAP.

[niyad]

41. Supplemental Nutrition. .last I checked, household items do not

qualify as "nutrition". Allowing any kind of alcohol is, in all likelihood, never going to happen.

[Polybius]

103. Ok, so we're in agreement

The other poster thinks it all should be covered. Post 79.

[Celerity]

55. Starting April 1, Texas also will ban SNAP purchases of many drinks that use artificial sweeteners.

Starting April 1, 2026, Texas will implement new restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, banning the purchase of candy, gum, and sweetened drinks containing 5g or more of added sugar or artificial sweeteners. These changes are part of a broader, state-driven effort to limit junk food in food-aid programs.

https://www.hhs.texas.gov/news/2026/03/new-snap-purchase-restrictions-take-effect-april-1

[Cirsium]

79. yes yes yes yes

FFS.

What is the matter with people here?

[Polybius]

104. You think household supplies and alcohol should be covered by SNAP?

SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It was created for things that can be ingested, with the exception of liquor and vitamins. Allowing household supplies won't happen, unless you enjoy Tide Pods with your coffee.

[Cirsium]

105. Nonsense

It is truly abhorrent that shaming and misogyny masquerade as concern for people with limited means.

[Polybius]

113. It's an interesting position that I never heard anyone take

I am all for SNAP covering sweets/soda, but liquor and household supplies? Come on. We have cash assistance for that.

[Cirsium]

114. Why?

Why control what people buy at all? That is a right wing approach.

[Polybius]

123. That's what cash assistance is for

SNAP is for consumption that isn't alcohol or vitamins.

[Cirsium]

125. That isn't what being a Democrat is for

Being a Democrat is not for scolding and lecturing those who are less fortunate. It is not for punching down.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital – all undreamed of by the fathers – the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people’s money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge1 once said: “Necessitous men are not free men.” Liberty requires opportunity to make a living – a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

FDR
Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa., June 27, 1936

[Polybius]

133. No one is scolding anyone

You can buy liquor, clothes, detergent or cigarettes with cash assistance. SNAP is for Supplemental Nutrition.

PeaceWave agreed with me. He deleted his post after I told him that's what cash assistance is for. You're alone with thinking SNAP should cover it all.

[Cirsium]

137. I may be alone

I doubt it, though. Say I am. So what?

What is the difference between these two scenarios:

1) A young single mother uses SNAP benefits to buy her child a $10 birthday present, and then spends $10 cash here at our fruit stand.

2) The same young single mother uses SNAP benefits to buy $10 worth of fruit here at our fruit stand, and then spends $10 cash to buy her child a birthday present.

[Polybius]

139. Because it was created for food and beverages

I'm all for the young single mother getting cash assistance from the government, in addition to SNAP benefits.

Unless you want to combine the two, while bringing up the payments? That conceivably could work.

[Cirsium]

140. I don't agree

It was created - as so many programs are - as a shabby compromise. The shame, barriers, conditions and control elements that the Republicans love - especially when used against women and minority populations - get added to any benefits.

[Polybius]

122. No, it's a normal approach

What part of Supplemental Nutrition don't you understand? Even Bernie wouldn't agree with that position.

[Cirsium]

124. Normal approach?

What part of right wing talking points don't you understand? We've seen where the
"normal approach" in politics has gotten us. If what you say about Sanders is true, then he is wrong.

What I do understand about Supplemental Nutrition is that it is a response to the fact that millions of people in the country struggle to have access to adequate nutrition. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. The notion that we need to force the most vulnerable among us to get adequate nutrition obvious says that their lack of access to adequate nutrition is their fault. That position is ignorant and it is cruel.

Of course on the farm we would rather that people come here rather tha to the junk food aisle - or any aisle - in the supermarket. And overwhelmingly, they already do. I rarely see SNAP recipients in the local store, but I see them in the farm market all the time. Why is that? Because people who are poor make much better decisions than those with significant discretionary income do. We have no choice. The premise used to justify restriction on the use of the (absurdly picayune) SNAP benefits, as often expressed by Republican politicians, is that people who are in poverty are not very smart and don't make good decisions.

Googling just now I find dozens (hundreds?) of right wing sites - "why do poor people make bad decisions?" Oh, is that what's wrong with the country? Poor people making bad decisions? What, unlike the wealthy?

From the NIH:

"Dietary food choice based on price per calorie best matches actual consumption patterns and may therefore be the most salient price metric for low-income populations."

People with limited means are maximizing their dollar to calorie ratio, something better off people do not need to do. Does that result in crappier food often? Yes, of course. But that is not because people are making bad choices, it is result of business decisions over which the consumers have little or no control.

"Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of America. I'll show you something to make you change your mind." Amazing that I need to argue for compassion here.

I keep glancing up to the top of the page. This IS Democratic Underground, isn't it?

[Polybius]

134. Every governor is against your position

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2026, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Stop making it about talking points. Read what SNAP stands for. You're not buying detergent with it anywhere.

[Cirsium]

136. oh

[IzzaNuDay]

56. Totally agree with you

Once I was on a business trip to an urban area, and I wanted to find some healthy snacks during my trip. I was fortunate to have a rental car. But even then, it was a challenge to find a grocery store in this area.

I found a small grocery store, but the produce quality was awful. And the first thing I thought was how do the residents ever find the same foods I look for? Yeah, we definitely have food deserts. And I am afraid it’s by design.

[cstanleytech]

69. That's an entirely different issue though but it's one that does need to be addressed urgently IMO.

[niyad]

71. No, it is obviously a central part of the issue.

[Cirsium]

78. Thank you

Very well said.

[niyad]

83. You are most welcome. One would not think such a post was needed

amoung progressives, but. . .

[Alice B.]

135. Also point out the percentage of SNAP recipients employed at least part-time

Or who have been employed at any point. Technically they’re taxpayers, too.

Until I get to have a say in any and all of the stuff my tax dollars are going toward, I have no f’s to give about what SNAP recipients buy.

It’s always a nanny state until it isn’t.

[niyad]

141. Yes, thank you. A most excellent point.

[electric_blue68]

25. If I remember correctly in NYS/C...

when I had food stamps we couldn't buy soda, or candy. Not that I bought a lot anyway. Probably not chips, etc, either. Again, only bought a small to modest amount.

[NH Ethylene]

27. I remember exactly that decades ago when I got food stamps.

I don't recall it being a problem for me. I certainly wasn't going to feed my two toddlers any junk food anyway.

[electric_blue68]

29. In my case it was just for me...

In the 2000s, 2010s.

[Polybius]

36. I can't speak for NYS, but soda and candy was allowed in NYC when I was on it

Early 2020's.

[electric_blue68]

45. I'm an NYC'r but don't have SNAP anymore...

but that's good. Nothing wrong with a bit of that

[chouchou]

30. I think I wrote this the other day.

Wouldn't a percentage be more fair Like 15 percent or 20 percent for "fun"

It's amazing how many Americans stand up and rant about the poor get free food..."They should sweep the streets"
But..They don't mind when the politicians, Military, con people and corporations steal tons of money
from the taxpayers.. Grrrrr.

[niyad]

34. Why should there be ANY "percentage for fun" designation? By WHOSE

definition of "fun"???

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post.

[chouchou]

50. I understand your point. I was thinking that the "Other sons-a-####"" would stop trashing the poor..

....if there was a little bit of regular structure. My personal beliefs are; Give them the damn food/clothes cards..
and shut down the nasty overview. Yes, I'm trying to walk on both rails.

[niyad]

52. I can welll understand your desire to try that. However, as old and jaded

and annoyed and exhausted and ENRAGED as I am from many decades of dealing with those hate-filled assholes, I can tell you that NOTHING will stop them from trashing the poor, the immigrants, the disabled. .actually. . . anybody who isn't like them.

[chouchou]

58. Unfortunately, your words are true. I keep hoping that mostly people are kind, fair and just.

...and I'm going to win a Rolls Royce today..

[niyad]

59. It is good to have hope and optimism.

Can I have the first ride in your new Rolls?

[chouchou]

60. Absolutely. We can go shopping like professionals.

[niyad]

61. yayyyy

[MichMan]

31. You haven't been able to buy beer or wine for decades

This is just an additional restriction it would appear.

[niyad]

32. see post 15

[GenThePerservering]

75. OMG, enough with the post #15

I used to live on food stamps in a food desert. I DID NOT WASTE IT ON SODA OR CANDY. It was tough enough to keep fed without that shit burning through what little I had.

[Cirsium]

81. Good for you

Enough with the "I came through OK so I have no sympathy for those who didn't" bs. How's that?

[niyad]

85. Thank you for confirming my post.

[Torchlight]

62. Creative use of Reductio ad absurdum. Very serious stuff

Good luck!

[niyad]

33. Let us add one little thing to this discussion. Apprroximately FIFTY PERCENT

of ALL the food in this country goes to waste. FIFTY PERCENT. We could feed everyone. And yet the ones at the top playing their ugly games make sure that the ones at the bottom are debating, fighting over, piously virtue signalling over, scraps. How it must amuse them.

[Demobrat]

46. Not everyone has cooking facilities or equipment.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2026, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s all well and good to say the money should go for fresh food, but where is the single mom living with her two kids in a motel room supposed to cook it? How about the one living in a trailer without a working stove? And if there is a stove, what about the pots and pans? Does everyone pack them up when they run from an abusive relationship?
It’s so privileged to assume everyone has a burner and a pot to boil water for rice in. It’s just not the case.

[niyad]

48. THANK YOU!! And then there are the tuly homeless. I have never

understood the prohibition against hot or prepared foods in SNAP. WTAF??? Who could possibly need them more???

[Demobrat]

87. I only didn't mention them because

I understand it’s impossible to get food stamps without an address. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so.

[orangecrush]

117. Many shelters provide an address

That clients can use for such purposes and to receive mail.

[EX500rider]

51. Where does it say "fresh food"? It says no "candy and sugary drinks" That would leave tons of options..

...that don't involve cooking

[questionseverything]

82. 90 billion dollars the defense department wasted on lobster, crab and steak 🥩

In one month but for sure no snickers for welfare kids

Got it!

[EX500rider]

90. 90 billion? You sure about that?

And nothing stops the parent from buying a candy bar, just not with SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, not "supplemental candy program"

[questionseverything]

92. Sure there was some furniture, ice cream machines, musical instruments and

Similar not warsy bs but paid for by dod last September

But yes 90 plus billion for the finer things of life and no snickers for hungry kids, got it

Misplaced priorities

[EX500rider]

94. The figure I saw was 22 million

And if the kids are hungry their parents ought to be buying them real food not candy bars.

[questionseverything]

95. I think a snickers or a Reeces has more protein than chips or pastries

[Cirsium]

80. Thank you

When did Democrats become so callous and ignorant?

[ShepKat]

76. when i was on snap,

there wasn't enough to buy crap bs fake food. Never bought soda, ever.
my kids ate ok and any dessert type food and potato chips were homemade

[niyad]

84. see post 15

[Demobrat]

88. You had a home with a working kitchen to make them in.

How lovely for you.

[questionseverything]

93. Most folks on snap have to supplement it with food pantry items or cash

[radicalleft]

91. This is nothing more than the continaution of Ronald Reagan and the "welfare queen driving Cadillacs"

bullshit he peddled in the 80's.

Or nothing more than the Florida attempt to drug test "welfare" recipients.

It's red-meat for the base...

[OC375]

102. Soda isn't food

Candy isn’t either. . Use some common sense. What a dumb foxhole to defend. Grow up. I don’t recall eating a store bought cake outside a wedding until my 20’s at work. 1st world problem.

[berniesandersmittens]

108. Grow up?

I have a problem with taking away from the poor. The very same people who gripe about sugary food get passed when someone buys seafood or lean steak with their SNAP.

Butmying a birthday cake for your child is not an extraordinary thing to ask for. Neither are cookies when you have to send some yo school for field day/valentines day.

What was so wrong with how it's been in the past? I'm more upset about tax write offs for yachts than I am about a dawned cake.

[OC375]

112. All about taxing the rich on my end

Just am not down spending the savings on candy. I think there’s space to do both. YMMV

[questionseverything]

126. A snickers has 4-5 grams of protein ( from the peanuts)

A individual bag of lays potato chips has 2-3 grams of protein ( from the animal fat the potatoes were cooked in)

So besides belittling people just for being poor and needing food, you are suggesting the least healthy option for them. We should be expanding food stamps since they create additional GDP ( good for growing the economy) not shame the current users!

[OC375]

127. Buy a bag of nuts then

Less crap. Cheaper $$$ for protein.

[questionseverything]

128. Obviously you don't need to use the gas station/ convenience store grocery

The snickers bar costs from $1.- $2. And if there’s a tiny bag of nuts ( big if) it would cost $2.-$3. Soooooo

Since a person only gets $1.90 per meal half the money for the next meal is gone

[OC375]

129. Rural

Nothing for miles when I was growing up poor in a crappy quadplex with no parents around, for miles. Convenience store heaven, every 20 miles. Peanuts are protein. You argued nutrition… Buy a large bag one day, and spread it over 7. Peanut butter is cheap and has sugar too. Twofer. Ramen for carbs. Skip chips. This isn’t rocket science. More money for sure, but less crap.

[questionseverything]

130. Nothing is the way it was 20-30 years ago so spare me the " walked uphill in the snow " stories

Your solution was “a big bag to split up” , do you think this mythical big bag is at the convenient store? Because it’s not. And if it was it would be 3 times what it costs at Walmart.

You don’t address chips being much worse for people , but I suppose the food police will attack that next.

I think most people make the best choices they can with in the scope of their choices.
I don’t feel the need to punish people who didn’t have many choices to start with. People who feel the need to control others less fortunate than themselves before they will help them creep me out.

[OC375]

131. No snickers and soda isn't punishment

It’s reasonable being that the program is about supplemental nutrition. Everything has limits, even necessary government nutrition programs, and leaning on the old “people who feel the need to control” canard is just lazy. We’ll just have to disagree on this one.

[NickB79]

109. This isn't the hill Democrats should die upon

I'd speculate that even a majority of Democrats support restrictions on junk food purchased with SNAP funds.

[orangecrush]

118. Bye

[NickB79]

120. Ciao

[Demobrat]

119. I could not care less what people spend them on.

They get a fixed amount that goes to the store no matter what they buy.

I’m not the food police.

[Demobrat]

132. Dispensaries take food stamps?

[BannonsLiver]

138. This is the way.

Anything other than that and people are treading into asshole territory.