Anonymous #1 1d

They actually barely even spend it on that, they resell them for weed and Jordan tennis shoes

5

Anonymous #2 1d

Wow, I hate it

1

Anonymous #1 1d

do you know anyone personally who uses SNAP benefits or are you talking out of your ass bc it makes you feel better about being a pos

4

Anonymous #1 1d

realistically why is this bad

6

Anonymous OP 1d

No but I have access to google and statistics. 20% of SNAP assistance is spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar.” I believe that number should be 0.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

My local farmers market accepts snap and I use it on that. So now I eat less fresh food and the local farmers also make less money🤗

4

Anonymous #4 1d

Hey that’s great! Anecdotal, and thus not applicable, but I’m happy the accept it and I’m happy you use it to purchase food there. I hope the government shutdown ends soon.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Hopefully the republicans start negotiating with the dems on the healthcare subsidies

1

Anonymous #1 1d

lucky for everyone else, whatever percentage you believe should be spent on treats actually doesn’t matter. that means that 80% (a MAJORITY btw, if you can do math) go toward basic grocery staples. there are also MULTIPLE studies that show that SNAP and non-SNAP households have extremely similar food spending patterns. why are SNAP households expected to be healthier than you?

2

Anonymous OP 1d

Because they’re buying groceries with government money, and should have restrictions on what they can and cannot buy to ensure the taxpayer dollar goes further for them. SNAP isn’t to buy sweet treats, it should be exclusively for nutritional assistance

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

True, it’s anecdotal. But I’m just saying if this option was more available, I bet more people would use it. Most big ideas come from small places. I hope it ends soon too, but as long as the politicians keep getting paid, they’ll just keep using us as pawns to pass the legislation they want

9

Anonymous #1 1d

I agree it should be 0. However, my approach would be to just increase the cost of those foods so they become unreasonable to buy for the average SNAP/EBT recipient. Hopefully that would also help decrease obesity too. Even people that don’t use government assistance shouldn’t be buying that. I’d much rather fund farmers so natural foods can be cheaper but they still get paid livable wages

1

Anonymous #1 1d

wow, so the plan is to police poor people’s grocery carts to “save taxpayer dollars”? snap averages $6 a day, you’re not balancing the budget by banning cookies. if you actually cared about nutrition, you’d push for better access to healthy foods and education, not shaming people for buying the same groceries you buy.

6

Anonymous #1 1d

Why are you trying to limit what someone can buy lol. That’s a big gov idea

8

Anonymous #3 1d

Because it’s government money already - it’s not limiting what the consumer can buy, it’s limiting what SNAP would apply to

0

Anonymous #4 1d

OR instead of increasing the cost of unhealthy food, you make healthy food more accessible. believe it or not most SNAP recipients would prefer to eat healthier diets if they were more affordable. but food prices and access are the issue.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

it is limiting the consumer bc you’re deciding what poor people can and can’t buy. calling it “just limiting what snap applies to” doesn’t change that it restricts their choices in a way no one else has to deal with. taxpayers don’t get told what kind of lunch they can buy with their tax refund or child credit. make healthier food cheaper and accessible, don’t punish ppl who already have few options.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

By preventing snap from covering those certain items?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Is that not what I mentioned in my comment that you called “anecdotal” and “not applicable”

2