News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
a stopped clock is right twice a day
Yeah I absolutely hate this guy, but agree with this. I don't know it just seems so logical. Others arguments replying to you aren't convincing at all.
Those things are unhealthy, but restricting them is policing what poor people eat. It's stigmatizing. Also, people will still buy these things because they're addictive. So they'll be paying out of pocket for it rather than using their SNAP benefits. It's a lose-lose.
I dont get your argument. How's it stigmatizing? Why should someone be able to spend it all on energy drinks and starburst? Just doesn't make sense.
I support aggressively increasing food stamps for anyone in need. But I'd also support aggressive regulation, like no candy and shit. It just makes sense to me but maybe I'm missing something.
100% agree i cant fucking stand it when poor people enjoy anything
Yikes. Straw man much?
The purpose of food stamps isn't the pleasure someone gets out of eating a candybar and redbull. The purpose is nutrition and food for those who can't afford it.
Implying that I think poor people shouldn't enjoy anything is ridiculous. Dumb comments are dumb.
I mean shit, I'm as left progressive as it gets. Id support and additional "pleasure joy" food stamp specifically earmarked for fun candy and treats and shit. Just supplemental to the real food nutritious one. I dunno. While we're at it, make the billionaires pay for it.
Your way is "here's money for food because you cant afford it, you can spend it all on skittles if that makes you happy".
Lmao, you're clearly not
I honestly don't see how this is much different than Michelle Obama trying to get junk food out of schools. Nobody here seems to want to cut benefits from people in need but some of us don't see an issue with some restrictions. Candy and soda is poison. We have never let people buy alcohol with food stamps either.
Does anyone seriously think Michelle Obama is "as left progressive as it gets"?? Is the overton window so fucked that neoliberal ideas are now considered progressive?
When Michelle Obama did that shit, I ended up underweight and had to start spending more money on food
You sound like the kind of person who doesn't give homeless people cash so they can't spend it on drugs. Just let people find a little joy and make their own choices
Food assistance programs aren't about helping people find joy in harmful behaviors. Again, there's a reason why we don't let people buy alcohol with this assistance and candy and soda is just as nutritionally empty.
I don't care what they're supposedly "about;" dignity and self-determination are important principles to me
I’m okay with these particular restrictions and my tax dollars not contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic. I don’t think that affects my status as a progressive any either.
Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, and that’s okay. One thing I really like about Lemmy is how we’re able to have this disagreement without childish downvotes and insults. Refreshing.
im made out of meat im not sure what youre implying
the purpose of food stamps is to steal money from hard working americans and give it to minorities
i didnt imply anything i dont know where you got that from
sorry i thought you were a patriot but i guess a broken clock is right twice a day
please dont put quotes in my mouth
These people literally think we're broke when in reality, if we cut our defense budget by like, 25%, we could probably give candy to the entire fucking nation (I did not do the math).
But it's absurd. Let people enjoy their fucking rations, Jesus Christ. Nobody wants to be on food stamps.
Why does their joy have to be in guzzling cola? States are already taxing high sugar items on the rest of us ffs, how is this any different?
If they want to buy these items they still can, just have to use their own coin, not ours.
Ok buddy, first off you're not the one who's paying a substantial amount of this. Second, prices are only high so people richer than you can be even richer.
Third, you are displaying front-and-center how easily manipulated you are by imagining food stamp users who only get soda and candy.
These conmen are literally controlling your mind, and you're too ignorant to do anything about it. Sad.
fucking moochers is what they are i mean they should really only be allowed to have plain rice and water heck maybe even make them eat dog food im glad theres people like you and yawweee who agree with me
Dude, it's even dumber than that.
Has anyone here ever been on food stamps? You get a couple hundred dollars per person per month. That's more than my food budget off of food stamps. I don't buy soda and candy already, why would I get it when I have more resources to buy better food?
This is just a distraction for useful idiots like wildncrazyguy138.
What percentage of food stamp users "spend it all on energy drinks and starburst?" People can only eat so much junk food before they get sick and sick of it.
Personally, if I'm on food stamps, I'm not wasting in on childish garbage like candy. I'd be eating those pork egg roll things all the time along with a lot more seafood. You know, the things that I can't afford on my own. I can afford candy and soda on my own but still choose not to get it.
Yeah, if the goal was actually to make people eat healthier, he'd be trying to limit the availability of those items to everyone, not just poor people.
Change SNAP from money to a system that says "X gets _lbs of raw meat, _pieces of fresh vegetables, _pieces of raw fruit etc". The inventory systems in stores know what is being rung up so I don't see why it couldn't work. It also means SNAP automatically adjusts for inflation and regional pricing. Probably won't stop people selling their SNAP for cash though.
So what happens when a store is out of raw meat, or raw vegetables, or raw fruit? What if someone is a vegetarian, or has allergies or other dietary requirements that prohibit certain items? Who's monitoring and enforcing this (and how much is that monitoring and enforcing costing?)
Rather than spending the time and effort policing what food people buy, why don't we instead spend that time and money addressing the poverty problem that makes SNAP necessary in the first place?
Because poverty will always exist, not every place will have a fully employed population, there will always be people that are almost unemployable because few jobs want to hire sex offenders or even just felons. The snap program already has significant issues regarding vendor requirements preventing farmers from qualifying without adding meat or bread. Candy and soda are almost never the only option for food, especially since most convenience stors don't meet the requirements to accept snap.
Addressing poverty instead of putting Band-Aids on the effects would be great. I was just addressing the line of thought of getting people to eat healthier.
Or he'd be increasing the availability of healthy food instead of taking things away
No matter how available it is, people just eat what they like. If society is paying for it, might as well make it healthy
Or not bow to special interests and support research on the negative health affects of these things.
People on food stamps aren't buying these things because it's fun, but because it's cheap, easy calories because they're homeless or working three jobs and don't have the time to cook real food. The clock is not right here.
No, they are buying them because they want to. I used to buy milk and cereal. It has sugar, but it's 3 grams per serving instead of like 15.
Don't tell me you don't have time to pour a bowl of milk
The milk went bad three days ago and I haven't had time to hike to the store because my car died and I don't have the money to get it fixed.
How much of the average food stamp budget goes to soda and candy?
If you can't answer this, then it would be foolish of you to think it's a problem.
Is it foolish of you?
According to the USDA, soda represents the most purchased item on food stamps. Candy represents the 11th most purchased item. Very few of the items on the top 20 list are very healthy. Vegetables and fruits are missing from the most altogether, even though these require no prep work before eating.
Thanks for sharing this. I decided to do a bit of my own research and came across some interesting information.
Your source: https://epicforamerica.org/social-programs/here-is-what-food-stamp-recipients-buy/
I'm not sure what 'epicforamerica' is, but it sounds like a propaganda outlet. They claim their source is the USDA, and the PDF they provided has a weird link to it: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
It says it's from 2016, which could be true but I can't find it with a quick search.
What I did find though was this official USDA website with a similar study from 2011: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households
Here are charts from the primary sources, the official USDA 2011 then the 2016 study 'epicforamerica' linked to:
Sweetened beverages actually comes out at #2 in 'total expenditures' when meat is grouped into a single category. 'Epicforamerica' decided to split them up for their own reasons.
Both charts show that soda expenditures are ~9.3% of what EBT users spend their food stamps on. That's pretty reasonable if you ask me, and I think it owes more to the fact that a 2-liter of Coke is $2.74 at Walmart than anything else. That means if one person buys a 2-liter of Coke as part of a $27 grocery bill, then that's immediately over the average amount.
Prepared desserts is at 7%, salty snacks at 3.4%, and candy at 2%.
So all in all, we're looking at a little under 25% of expenditures being spent on junk food. That's also reasonable to me. Soda is so high is because it's actually just a scam. I'd be in favor of restricting food stamp recipients to only buying generic brands of soda, but that's about it.
Heck, I'd be in favor of forcing most brands to sell their food at a lower price to food stamp recipients. The main reason they don't have enough is because others have too much.
Also, it looks like 'epicforamerica' successfully manipulated you into thinking a certain way by withholding, distorting, or just straight up lying about information.
Vegetables are actually #3 in expenditures, and fruits are #8.
You're saying that studying 10% of your grocery bill on soda is reasonable?