Anonymous #1 5w

Haha

13

Anonymous #3 5w

Not really a joke, I don’t think its empathetic for the government to use tax money give children lifelong physical and mental health issues.

-7

Anonymous #1 5w

I didn’t realize that the government was handing out fat pills that instantly make you fat. We should mandate that SNAP only entitles families to Nutraloaf©️ to fight obesity. All for the kids, of course.

23

Anonymous #3 5w

Is that how you think childhood obesity works?

-6

Anonymous #1 5w

No, obviously not. But it seems like that’s how you think it works if you believe that letting poor families have cookies every now and then is the cause of the obesity epidemic.

7

Anonymous #3 5w

Do you think that’s how snap works? The government only pays for junk food for children now and then?

-2

Anonymous #1 5w

Oh so poor parents are filling their carts up with cookies and nothing else? Good to know.

6

Anonymous #3 5w

Soda, frozen junk food, desserts, candy, cereal, chips, sugar, and other sweets make up a combined 30% of SNAP spending. Does that sound healthy to you?

0

Anonymous #3 5w

Men on SNAP are 5% more likely to be obese compared to Men of similar incomes (32% vs 37%). Women on snap are 12% more likely to be obese (40% vs 52%). I don’t see how operating food assistance in this way is empathetic at all

0

Anonymous #1 5w

Have you considered that ready-to-eat foods are more common in poor households because the responsible parents are too busy trying to make ends meet to cook? The time sink is enormous. SNAP is a band-aid on the gaping wound that is poverty in America. Want healthy kids? Then address the root of the problem and get parents enough time at home to make real food. Restricting families to a list of government-approved rations is idiotic.

8

Anonymous #1 5w

Hmmm I wonder why poor people tend to be overweight. Certainly it’s not related to any socioeconomic factors and is actually just about them mooching off government assistance

11

Anonymous #4 5w

Poor people on SNAP are more likely to be obese than poor people who haven’t applied for SNAP. It’s literally isolating the variable.

2

Anonymous #1 5w

Why is that? Why are they more likely to be obese?

1

Anonymous #3 5w

These aren’t mutually exclusive. We can simultaneously work to increase the amount of leisure time, and stop the government subsidies to increase childhood obesity.

0

Anonymous #4 5w

Because snap encourages worse diets

0

Anonymous #1 5w

How does it encourage it? I want details Do food stamps only apply to sweet treats? Are fruits not as readily available for snap families? You need to have more of an analysis than just empty statements

1

Anonymous #1 5w

You’re right. They aren’t mutually exclusive. But restricting SNAP before addressing the main problems is just the kind of performative “fix” that the government loves to push.

2

Anonymous #1 5w

I’d rather a kid be obese due to poorly processed food than dead.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

A lot of people that end up overweight as children are able to turn it into a hell of a physique once they’re older

5

Anonymous #7 5w

SNAP mainly is processed food, that’s the problem. Instead of taking it away and letting people starve maybe we need to put more money into it so people can afford getting fruits and vegetables and fresh protein. But republicans will never let that happen. They’re more than happy to let them starve

14

Anonymous #1 5w

Michelle Obama tried to end that and everyone cried about it

2

Anonymous #5 5w

That’s exactly what I meant dude why don’t we give allotments like an extra $100 or so for fruits and vegetables like a section of snap to be specifically used on things that are healthy. I’m not saying get rid of snap I’m saying we should try to make it more healthy so fewer children suffer from obesity, and stop subsidizing ebt double stuffed Oreos.

7

Anonymous #7 5w

Sadly that will never happen. Millions of dumbass republicans think snap now is a waste of money. If we try to mention increasing the funding it will go away forever

2

Anonymous #3 5w

You guys are weird ending Ebt is bad but saying that we should give people more money for food and less for 15 bags of chips is not stupid. You literally can’t get hot food on EBT in a lot of places like if we let people get Roticerie chicken instead of subsidizing Lays with EBT people would be better off.

5

Anonymous #5 5w

See I don’t think so, the government is fucked yes, but when we give up is when nothing happens same with the Epstein files we could fix EBT and increase funding at the same time it’s not one or the other but there has to be political will for it and that won’t happen as long as the whole of Congress is bowing to the morons.

-1

Anonymous #5 5w

They can’t make it go away forever without actually passing a bill to end the program, which would likely be opposed even by some republicans. Farmers depend on SNAP too

0

Anonymous #8 5w

Republicans don’t gaf about farmers

3

Anonymous #7 5w

The difference between the Epstein files and increasing funding in snap is that one will cost millions more and the other wouldn’t. You cannot relate the two. I’m all for raising the funding but it was stripped away in the first place because it was deemed “unnecessary” and “a waste of money” already. It’s just the truth. Funding for snap will never go up, and if it is tried to increase it, they are risking the loss of it all together in hateful retaliation.

1

Anonymous #6 5w

Ngl I keep forgetting that these farmers already voted for Trump even though he fucked them over with tariffs before. Who am I kidding, they’re not gonna learn 💀

1

Anonymous #8 5w

Yeah it is unfortunate. They don’t deserve the hardship though

3

Anonymous #7 5w

yes i agree let’s incentivize a healthy lifestyle but also?? let poor people live their fuckin lives and have a cookie for fucks sake

6

Anonymous #7 5w

And maybe we should expand EBT to hot food. It’s weird that the government restricts the food that poor families can eat anyways. How about we don’t kick them while they’re down by enforcing authoritarian nutrition guidelines on them?

1

Anonymous #3 5w

True but getting rid of the subsidies for major junk food companies would help and adding additional money for specific food groups wouldn’t be terrible. We should be subsidizing things that are healthy, and as someone said earlier it is true that poorer families have higher rates of obesity so we could actively create programs that help people’s diet. It’s a government program why are we putting money into making people more unhealthy.

0