name me 3 food items people should not be able to purchase on E.B.T.?

[already home_17]

i didnt know the EBT police was a thing. so yall willing to take food away from poor people if

1. it's unhealthy
2. they have more food than you (so jealousy?)

aight man lol

this is a conservative talking point used to justify cutting benefits from poor people

if you not tryna keep junk food from all americans i'm not interested in hearing any argument regarding taking it away from the poorest

 

[konceptjones]

Hot food should be allowed

Ill say it again… snacks/candy and sodas/energy drinks you want a cart full of that you should be able to pay cash for it and not use assistance to fund it, thats not food more like junk food.

You’ll make that little bit of junk food or soda last when you gotta pay for it out of pocket versus using assistance and grabbing a cart full cause yolo it’s not your actual money.

There are programs that do allow hot foods to be purchased by EBT recipients and that's been the case for decades. There are restrictions on it (i.e. only restaurants that have signed up for the program are allowed) and IIRC there's some stipulations on who's allowed to do it.

 

[konceptjones]

i didnt know the EBT police was a thing. so yall willing to take food away from poor people if

1. it's unhealthy
2. they have more food than you (so jealousy?)

aight man lol

this is a conservative talking point used to justify cutting benefits from poor people

if you not tryna keep junk food from all americans i'm not interested in hearing any argument regarding taking it away from the poorest

You made all of that up.

As I said, food stamps were meant to be used to buy nutritious foods. That was the Democrat mandate in it's inception, so taking it back to that is NOT a "conservative" talking point in any way. Also, originally you had to spend some of your own money on food in order to get food stamps back inna day; this was also a Democrat mandate.

It's in the name: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If the shit doesn't meet a nutritional need, you shouldn't be using it to buy the shit.

 

[already home_17]

You made all of that up.

As I said, food stamps were meant to be used to buy nutritious foods. That was the Democrat mandate in it's inception, so taking it back to that is NOT a "conservative" talking point in any way. Also, originally you had to spend some of your own money on food in order to get food stamps back inna day; this was also a Democrat mandate.

It's in the name: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If the shit doesn't meet a nutritional need, you shouldn't be using it to buy the shit.

I didn't make anything up. the states who are banning or considering banning junk food from food stamps are red states

Map shows 10 states changing rules on SNAP benefits

Republican lawmakers want to ban "junk" food purchases with food stamps.

www.newsweek.com

 

[konceptjones]

I didn't make anything up. the states who are banning or considering banning junk food from food stamps are red states

Map shows 10 states changing rules on SNAP benefits

Republican lawmakers want to ban "junk" food purchases with food stamps.

www.newsweek.com

If you cut out junk foods, guess what happens? You have more to spend on actually healthy foods.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've said this in this thread: The purpose of this program is to make sure poor people have proper nutrition. This is what you're arguing against.

 

[SeaSnake]

The thing is people have access to proper nutrition. You can’t make them buy it tho. I understand wit restrictions I don’t think adults need to be restricted with this tho

 

[already home_17]

If you cut out junk foods, guess what happens? You have more to spend on actually healthy foods.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've said this in this thread: The purpose of this program is to make sure poor people have proper nutrition. This is what you're arguing against.

i’m arguing for folks eating what they want to eat. snap recipients using their benefits on potato chips and a pepsi isn’t the end of the world

let me be clear. i don’t believe these cuts are being made for the health and welfare of americas poor. you may want to believe it, or simply believe in healthy eating, and that’s perfectly fine. but based on who this talking point is coming from, the math ain’t mathing to me. the same party trying to cut medicaid from poor people, cut heating assistance for poor people, and cut various other programs that help low income americans….all of a sudden care about poor americans and want them to eat healthier?

it’s all bullshit to me. they can sell it however they want and folks will buy it, but fact of the matter is they don’t want to provide social programs period and they will chip away (or take to it with a chainsaw) until there’s nothing left

THAT’s why i’m arguing against these rule changes

 

[konceptjones]

i’m arguing for folks eating what they want to eat. snap recipients using their benefits on potato chips and a pepsi isn’t the end of the world

let me be clear. i don’t believe these cuts are being made for the health and welfare of americas poor. you may want to believe it, or simply believe in healthy eating, and that’s perfectly fine. but based on who this talking point is coming from, the math ain’t mathing to me. the same party trying to cut medicaid from poor people, cut heating assistance for poor people, and cut various other programs that help low income americans….all of a sudden care about poor americans and want them to eat healthier?

it’s all bullshit to me. they can sell it however they want and folks will buy it, but fact of the matter is they don’t want to provide social programs period and they will chip away (or take to it with a chainsaw) until there’s nothing left

THAT’s why i’m arguing against these rule changes

You're talking about two entirely different things: Cutting spending on SNAP is not the same as banning the purchase of candy, pop, and snack cakes and the like with SNAP. You're conflating the two to make a point no one is talking about.

Stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to introduce shit that ain't a part of the conversation.

The craziest thing about all of this is that the idea of restricting what can be purchased with SNAP/food stamps ain't even a new idea and Democrats have backed this idea going back decades: In 2010 Michael Bloomberg (lifelong Democrat that flipped to get the nomination for mayor of NYC) and then NY governor David Paterson (Democrat) actually applied for a federal waiver in order to ban pop from being purchased with food stamps by NY citizens; it was rejected by the USDA, but he tried none the less.

In 2013, Bloomberg sent a letter to the USDA to continue that effort and it was signed by the mayors of LA (Dem), Chicago (Dem), Baltimore (Dem), Boston (Dem), Louisville, Ky (Dem), Madison, WI (Dem), Minneapolis (Dem); Newark, N.J (Dem), Oakland, CA (Dem), Philadelphia (Dem), Phoenix (Dem), Portland, OR (Dem), Providence, RI (Dem), Salt Lake City (Dem), San Francisco (Dem), St. Louis, MO (Dem); and Seattle (Dem). AAAAAAAAAAALL these Democrats signed on to back restricting what could be purchased with food stamps just barely over a decade ago.

And I could keep going back, but the point is that Dems have supported this kind of ban going back as long as you want to look, but y'all muhfuckas all of a sudden turn into Red when the Republicans put forth the exact same bans:

 

[already home_17]

You're talking about two entirely different things: Cutting spending on SNAP is not the same as banning the purchase of candy, pop, and snack cakes and the like with SNAP. You're conflating the two to make a point no one is talking about.

Stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to introduce shit that ain't a part of the conversation.

The craziest thing about all of this is that the idea of restricting what can be purchased with SNAP/food stamps ain't even a new idea and Democrats have backed this idea going back decades: In 2010 Michael Bloomberg (lifelong Democrat that flipped to get the nomination for mayor of NYC) and then NY governor David Paterson (Democrat) actually applied for a federal waiver in order to ban pop from being purchased with food stamps by NY citizens; it was rejected by the USDA, but he tried none the less.

In 2013, Bloomberg sent a letter to the USDA to continue that effort and it was signed by the mayors of LA (Dem), Chicago (Dem), Baltimore (Dem), Boston (Dem), Louisville, Ky (Dem), Madison, WI (Dem), Minneapolis (Dem); Newark, N.J (Dem), Oakland, CA (Dem), Philadelphia (Dem), Phoenix (Dem), Portland, OR (Dem), Providence, RI (Dem), Salt Lake City (Dem), San Francisco (Dem), St. Louis, MO (Dem); and Seattle (Dem). AAAAAAAAAAALL these Democrats signed on to back restricting what could be purchased with food stamps just barely over a decade ago.

And I could keep going back, but the point is that Dems have supported this kind of ban going back as long as you want to look, but y'all muhfuckas all of a sudden turn into Red when the Republicans put forth the exact same bans:

…but i did

if you not tryna keep junk food from all americans i'm not interested in hearing any argument regarding taking it away from the poorest

i’m arguing for folks eating what they want to eat. snap recipients using their benefits on potato chips and a pepsi isn’t the end of the world

you posting all that other shit changes nothing. i’m against the restrictions regardless of which party supports it. red or blue, fuck them both

 

[konceptjones]

…but i did





you posting all that other shit changes nothing. i’m against the restrictions regardless of which party supports it. red or blue, fuck them both

Which is absolute bullshit and nothing more than you backpedaling like a muhfuckas. 'Cause if it didn't matter, you wouldn't have said this:

this is a conservative talking point used to justify cutting benefits from poor people

If you really believed that, you would have NEVER called it a "conservative talking point". When you find out that the Democrats supported the very same shit that Republicans did but it was foul when the GOP did it, suddenly you don't care.

You're being intellectually dishonest and it shows, therefore it's pointless to continue this convo with you. Good day sir.

 

[already home_17]

Which is absolute bullshit and nothing more than you backpedaling like a muhfuckas. 'Cause if it didn't matter, you wouldn't have said this:



If you really believed that, you would have NEVER called it a "conservative talking point". When you find out that the Democrats supported the very same shit that Republicans did but it was foul when the GOP did it, suddenly you don't care.

You're being intellectually dishonest and it shows, therefore it's pointless to continue this convo with you. Good day sir.

me: this is a conservative talking point in 2025
you: well the democrats were pushing for this in 2013!
me: okay. well fuck them too
you: oh now you don’t care? back-peddler!

i’m not sure if you’re slow or just having a slow day. maybe you’re not yourself. you might wanna try a snickers

there may be ton available at your local wal-mart if these restrictions go through

 

[konceptjones]

me: this is a conservative talking point in 2025
you: well the democrats were pushing for this in 2013!
me: okay. well fuck them too
you: oh now you don’t care? back-peddler!

i’m not sure if you’re slow or just having a slow day. maybe you’re not yourself. you might wanna try a snickers

there may be ton available at your local wal-mart if these restrictions go through

There you go again, lying. That wasn't how it went and you know it. It'd be different if everyone couldn't see it, but... Well... We can.

 

[SeaSnake]

Which is absolute bullshit and nothing more than you backpedaling like a muhfuckas. 'Cause if it didn't matter, you wouldn't have said this:



If you really believed that, you would have NEVER called it a "conservative talking point". When you find out that the Democrats supported the very same shit that Republicans did but it was foul when the GOP did it, suddenly you don't care.

You're being intellectually dishonest and it shows, therefore it's pointless to continue this convo with you. Good day sir.

lol bruh you’re acting like this is t an open talking point for MAGA and them. I don’t know any of the democrat mayors you mentioned I could see if you said some senators or governors who control a whole state.

But what me and blackrain and already are saying is we are not for the restrictions period. Conservatives have been the loudest about restrictions at least recently

 

[SeaSnake]

me: this is a conservative talking point in 2025
you: well the democrats were pushing for this in 2013!
me: okay. well fuck them too
you: oh now you don’t care? back-peddler!

i’m not sure if you’re slow or just having a slow day. maybe you’re not yourself. you might wanna try a snickers

there may be ton available at your local wal-mart if these restrictions go through

Bruh we knew exactly what timeframe you meant

 

[konceptjones]

lol bruh you’re acting like this is t an open talking point for MAGA and them. I don’t know any of the democrat mayors you mentioned I could see if you said some senators or governors who control a whole state.

But what me and blackrain and already are saying is we are not for the restrictions period. Conservatives have been the loudest about restrictions at least recently

Cory Booker was the mayor of Newark, NJ and he supported it. Also, the governor of NY actually tried to make it happen in 2010 but was denied by the USDA. Democrats have historically supported similar restrictions for decades but, like with imposing tariffs on China, when the Democrats support these same talking points its fine and dandy; when the Republicans push for the exact same shit it's suddenly evil.

If I feel up to it after watching this movie, I'll post up a list of democrat governors and senators that have proposed shit like this. As a start: Democrat Bill Stone of the Mississippi State Senate proposed SB2293 back in 2012 which, among other things, aimed to restrict SNAP purchases to "... the purchase of healthy food and healthy beverage only."

 

[SeaSnake]

Well obviously the Democrats were not that stuck on it since it ain’t happen. Been 15 years. Biden didn’t change it.

 

[konceptjones]

Well obviously the Democrats were not that stuck on it since it ain’t happen. Been 15 years. Biden didn’t change it.

It's worth noting that the last Trump administration denied requests from states to restrict pop, candy, and other junk foods from SNAP purchases.

So, you know... There's that as well. And that wasn't that long ago.