Anonymous #2 3d

junk food is a luxury, not a necessity. SNAP is meant to help people survive, not provide luxury goods. theres no reason to buy soda and chips when you cant afford food that will actually sustain you. not to mention the obesity problem in the US

1

Anonymous OP 3d

food is food stfu

30

Anonymous #2 3d

yeah no food is not food lmfao. there are little to no nutrients in chips and other snacks, hence why theyre called JUNK food

-2

im just saying i want people to be able to feed themselves. if they choose to buy food with little to no nutrients, that’s their business, not mine. 🤷‍♀️

17

Anonymous #2 3d

its also not teaching them to budget correctly, furthering their financial issues. as we have seen in history, this often causes generational financial insecurity

-3

Anonymous #3 3d

junk food is a luxury, not a necessity. if given money for food, why waste it on stuff that wont fill you up, furthering your hunger? believe me, i used to be poor, homeless, not knowing when my next meal would be. if i got money, i wasnt about to spend it on chips

-9

Anonymous OP 3d

i actually see your point lol, you haven’t changed my mind bc i really don’t care what other people buy, but i can definitely see where you’re coming from.

4

Anonymous OP 3d

Junk food is like the opposite of a luxury. I do think people should be able to buy things like premade sandwiches on SNAP in case they don’t have a kitchen, but when it comes down to calories per dollar spent, sometimes junk food is most economically feasible, and I don’t think we should punish people for doing that.

24

Anonymous #4 3d

a whole rotisserie chicken from walmart is a little under $6, with a serving size being 250 cals (8 servings). a family size bag of doritos from Walmart is a little over $5, with a serving size being 100cals (15 servings). because chips are not filling and/or nutritious at all, im going to assume they will be eating more than 12 chips (a serving size) perhaps even more than 24 chips (2 servings, 200 cals), resulting in about 7.5 servings per bag

-3

Anonymous #4 3d

while chicken is filling and relatively nutritious, you can get away with eating 1 serving. you cant do that with chips. so yes, these families should spend that extra $.75 on the chicken. you are also misconstruing a "punishment." if SNAP is used to give families access to a human necessity, not giving them chips is not a punishment because chips are not a necessity.

-3

Anonymous OP 3d

The entire family sized bag of Doritos is still more calories for less money than the entire chicken though. And this isn’t even factoring in portability or perishability at all. I agree that people on snap should prioritize healthier foods, but our food system in the US is kinda rigged against them.

14

Anonymous #4 3d

just because a family is given SNAP benefits doesnt mean they shouldnt also spend their own money on things they want, like treats. but that shouldnt be on my dime when i myself cant even afford to buy treats

-3

Anonymous OP 3d

I actually don’t mind if my tax dollars go to buying a poor family some cookies or chips, especially if that’s the most readily available food. I feel like instead of arguing over this; we should work on fixing our predatory food industry that keeps poor people fat and unhealthy. Healthy food shouldn’t be so expensive and inaccessible.

19

Anonymous #4 3d

idk where you did your math 15 servings * 100 cals = 1500 cals per bag 1500 cals / 5.25 = 286 cals per $ 8 servings * 250 cals = 2000 cals per bag 2000 cals / 6 = 333 cals per $

-2

Anonymous #4 3d

nobody is saying YOU cant donate your money if you believe so strongly that people deserve chips and cookies. but people should not have to pay for it when they cant even afford those items themselves. with your logic, im being punished by the government because i myself am unable to buy chips and cookies and they refuse to send me money 😢 so send me your money

-2

Anonymous #4 3d

healthy food isnt as expensive as you think if you factor out the sweets. its about budgeting. unfortunately, the people on SNAP arent being forced to budget when they can buy whatever sweets they want

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

sure. cookies and chips dont seem like a luxury when you can put it in your cart without checking the price. thats not the reality for most people. especially as prices are rising and wages are staying the same

-2

Anonymous OP 3d

Bro something you can buy at dollar tree for $1.25 is notttt a luxury. A treat, technically sure, but not a luxury.

12

Anonymous OP 3d

I cannot speak for every case because some people are more in need of the SNAP benefits they receive than others, but they typically do still have to budget. If junk food was expensive and healthy food was cheap, then we’d see a change in how poor people purchase food, but it’s not.

12

Anonymous OP 3d

ignoring the individual cost effectiveness of junk food, how exactly do you propose we would even enforce this? Does the government have to designate which foods are allowed and which aren’t? That’ll burn money that should be going to the people the program helps. Do we make the stores decide? You bet they’re making less-than-ethical decisions to make a little extra. Either way people will get screwed over by non obvious distinctions and It will make shopping harder.

2

Anonymous #1 3d

This might be a valid stance if being on SNAP was a result of almost exclusively laziness and not a massive governmental/societal failure. People working for some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world have to rely on SNAP, because these evil entities will not pay them a living wage. I think they deserve to buy whatever they want with it.

6

Anonymous #1 3d

People buying snacks isnt thriving off ebt tho?

6

Anonymous #4 2d

then let me rephrase. people using SNAP benefits should not be able to buy treats. my stance would be different if these people were buying treats every once in a while, but obviously that is not the case when the two most popular food items purchased on snap are chips and soda

0

Anonymous #4 2d

sure, but i dont think american taxpayers should be allowing people to pick chips and soda if they had to choose between that and a healthy meal

0

Anonymous #5 2d

there are already limits to what you can purchase on SNAP benefits, such as not being allowed to buy pre-cooked foods such as fried chicken. my stance is that we should be changing those limits. i dont really understand what this comment is saying. are you saying that there arent already limitations? because that is not true

1

Anonymous OP 2d

obviously, but the restrictions are mostly by store and categories that are already defined for other reasons, like alcohol. Creating a restriction on whats healthy would be additional work and additional confusion

2

Anonymous OP 2d

Food deserts exist btw. Why do people think poor people don’t deserve nice things either? Sure buying snacks all the time isn’t wise but you’re telling me someone poor can’t buy some chips because it’s their fav snack?

4

Anonymous #8 1d

thats exactly why i feel how i feel. my stance would be different if people on SNAP bought chips as a snack. but when youre supplementing actual food with snacks? nah

0

Anonymous #5 1d

chips are an already defined category in the grocery store

0