[-]

popcornsprinkled@reddit

Arkansas recently took candies and cakes off of food stamps and put on rotisserie chicken.

I'm not here to tell you what to do with your body, but I don't want to pay for your bad decision either.

[-]

DarthFluttershy_@reddit

Rotisserie chicken is actually a really good thing to be sure is included. It's already prepared, nutrient rich (comparatively), and fairly cheap.

That said chasing individual foods to include or exclude is a centralization trap. There will always be circumstances and particular needs that are difficult to anticipate, especially from the insular perspective of mostly wealthy politicians. This is always a fundamental weakness of public welfare.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

While I wholeheartedly agree, most juices have as much sugar as sodas. So those would hypothetically be out next. Also, there are spots in this country where healthy options can be few and far between, especially without a car. Strawberries are not as easily available everywhere as doritos for instance.

[-]

The-Hater-Baconator@reddit

But I think you could argue that some juices have some nutritional benefit. While not as much as whole fruit/veggies - they can be a source of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants (soda is not). It also needs to be moderated as a source of sugar - but I don’t think anyone actually argues that they might as well be the same thing.

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

Tariffs were implemented before factories were allowed to be built here, so that's tricky. Again, canned pears have 19 grams of sugar. And canned lettuce is just plain nasty.

[-]

trahloc@reddit

My dude how many people eating American 7 eleven food do you think are eating lettuce of any kind that isn't bundled in a premade sandwich?

7 eleven knows how to make quality food. They're an excellent option here in Asia. Their nutritional failure in the states is the customer choices not the convenience store companies capabilities.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

13.5 million Americans, according to the US government. But the lettuce part was a joke. http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-deserts-in-the-u-s

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

1 miles distance is so ludicrously low.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

Not my data, not my benchmark. But let's meet 12 miles outside of Phoenix and see how long it takes you to get a watermelon. No vehicles allowed. Start at 11:30am. Sound fun? I'd throw a few bucks on the wager.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

I can get a watermelon delivered 20 miles outside the city on the same day.

And if you live 12 miles outside a city... get a fucking car.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

So you're cool with snap money going to doordash? I think that's more egregious than the sodas. These are for poor people, 'get a car' isn't the best logic. All I'm saying is the problem is bigger than the headline suggests.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

Nationally, only 8% of households don't have a car. And that includes voluntary no-car people. I personally had a car that I paid for (including the car, insurance, maintenance, and gas) by 17 years old. It's not hard.

But that wasn't of course the point. The point is that few to no people are genuinely unable to shop for healthy foods. The statistics you provided, relying on a 1 mile range are not helpful and come from a US agency trying to justify it's existence.

And to put this into perspective, you are arguing that candy and soda must be covered by food stamps because some people live more than a mile away from a legitimate grocery store.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

No, my only point is it sucks when anyone have less options than they did before. I also have several vehicles, and live walking distance to several stores selling anything I could ever want. And I'm not on snap. But this is a big country and not everyone has what you and I do. There's mountains and desert and swamp and a bunch of other parts of this country that don't look like suburbia. 8% of American households still equates to people struggling. I don't want anyone to struggle any more than they have to is all I'm saying. Congrats on the car though!

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

Do you believe alcohol should be SNAP eligible?

If not, why?

[-]

Busy_Onion_3411@reddit

No, because

A) It's poison, that will kill you far faster than food preservatives will

B) It's addictive, meaning you're going to cripple these areas with alcoholism, and lead to far more drunk driving incidents, as well as alcohol fueled misconduct. The effects bleed out into the rest of the world, rather than being contained to the person, like with less healthy foods.

C) You genuinely cannot survive off of alcohol alone. Lots of sodas use fruit extracts and other ingredients with some nutritional substance, making them less shitty overall than you'd initially think. Manufacturers of these foods also often fortify them with vitamins, minerals, etc to prevent people stuck in these food deserts, or those who just straight up can't be arsed to be responsible, from dying.

Right now, stomach cancer from eating too many chips is a very displaced, far removed consequence from someone's diet. Theoretically, anything could have caused that, and when it happens, it's usually in their 50s or 60s, at which point they've been exposed to so many other things. But if people are dying from deficiency in certain macronutrients, vitamins, and/or minerals, that's much more directly linked. Companies are incetivized, therefore, to fortify these foods to still be better than nothing. I think it's also mandated by the FDA/USDA to some extent, but I might be wrong about that.

There is a right way to do this. If they force companies to change their stocking habits, through threat of fines, reduced tax breaks, etc, then remove these items from SNAP eligibility after the companies have complied, this is generally a win. I hate to give credit for it to someone so awful, but I would if they did it properly. But the way they're doing it is carefully designed to sound good on the surface, and theoretically be a good move, while not having any of the following or prerequisite supporting orders/regulations necessary to make it good. Because it's not meant to actually benefit anyone, but rather, harm those they view as less then, who also tend to rely on government support.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

The jerk in me wants to say yes because there's no sugar. But seriously, no, it should not be covered by snap. Should sugar free sodas be covered? My issue is the availability, for the thousandth time. Soda is sold everywhere, but a lot of other beverages aren't. That remains the part of my post everyone is glossing over. There are plenty of parts of this country where 711 is the only store within 10 miles or more, and they don't sell produce. Lots of people in this country don't have healthy options available. You can get a coke and doritos everywhere, but that's not the case for some healthier options. While you and I presumably can, not everyone can get to their nearest produce department easily. A lot of these people don't have cars. And I think doordash is a bigger waste of our money. It just sucks to limit options for people who are already in a bad spot. And I do not work for a soda company, I just know how i would want to be treated if it was my turn to be down bad. Serious question, where is the most remote, rural, desolate whatever place you have been in America? It doesn't all look like 20 minutes outside of Chicago.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

I lived for several years in a town of 10000 where we had a single grocery store that was approximately 15 miles from my home. In the desert (northern az). I was quite poor at the time, but never had to rely on soda or Doritos for sustenance. And I was on SNAP. I drove a beat to shit car from the 1980s that cost me about 1k to purchase. The nearest city (with 40k residents) was nearly an hour drive away.

We received so much SNAP funds at the time for my family that we could regularly (weekly?) buy steak.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

Here is what I can't understand- 10k is not that rural, and your store was 15 miles away. Are you saying that the situation you lived is as hard as it can ever get for someone living in this country? What did you do if your car broke down? Do you still think snap is providing more than enough benefits? Is $330 enough to feed your family for a month? Are you aware if people have more than $3000 in cash or vehicles they're ineligible?

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

Now you've significantly moved the goalposts. You started with "20 miles outside Chicago" (where I'm guessing you're located near or somewhere similar). Now you've moved to "well, 10k isn't really rural."

My car did break down. More than once. I fixed it because I'm not an incompetent city boy.

I am thoroughly convinced you have no personal experience living in a rural area.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

I lived in Grafton nh for a year and a half. Population 1300. Rural AF. Im simply stating it's more rural out there than 10k towns.

[-]

trahloc@reddit

tbf, plenty of teenagers can't do a 16 minute mile unladen with groceries. So you're looking at senior citizens walking for an hour, one way, to carry a few days worth of groceries potentially? While it's good to get out and walk it isn't reasonable to consider 1 mile "ludicrously low" you're talking 25 million people after all. It's not like 8% is just the weirdos bob and alice.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

You're claiming that a large number of teenagers can't walk at 3.5mph?

I'm older, fat, and constantly ill. Somehow I've never had an issue fast walking for a single mile.

I'm 2022, car insurance reports claimed there are over 51 million licensed drivers in the US. There are only 58 million seniors in the US total.

And for perspective, you're arguing that SNAP must cover candy and soda because... around 7 million seniors may not be able to drive or walk to a grocery store?

[-]

trahloc@reddit

large number of teenagers can't walk at 3.5mph

Yup, there are kids today with perfectly healthy genetics without any diseases who lack the muscle density to walk up and down stairs. We played outside as kids, these kids are given tablets to babysit them and so are their neighbors. After hearing about multiple parents getting arrested or having CDC called on them for letting their kids play outside (even when within visual range of the parent) I'm not too surprised. The nanny state has ruined generations.

Here is some data for you:

https://dph.sc.gov/sites/scdph/files/2025-06/SC-FitnessGram-COVID-Report_20250625.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

For the total school year samples, the percentage of students in the Healthy Fitness Zone was stable at 51-53% for the four school years between 2016-17 and 2019-20. • During the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years this percentage was markedly reduced to 44-45%. This pattern is shown in Figure 1A.

you're arguing that SNAP must cover candy and soda because... around 7 million seniors may not be able to drive or walk to a grocery store?

Your other points were logical defenses and then you imported this screed from left field. I never mentioned defending SNAP, only that your statement of "ludicrously low" was itself, ludicrous.

[-]

trahloc@reddit

Yup, my point was these food deserts already exist. We stop making junk food free and suddenly the monetary incentive to carry it drops. The food deserts will shrink due to market demands.... Or they'll probably switch to the most unhealthy version that skirts by "junk food" like sugar laden dried fruits.

Either way. The problem you're using to defend your stance already exists. It is not made worse by making the quality of food less processed. Rice n beans aren't the problem, salads are, you don't need salads to live.

[-]

brainskull@reddit

Nobody on earth is subsisting on legitimate snack food lol. There is literally not one single person who eats chips as a primary source of calories. I suggest you actually come down to reality here.

[-]

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

The reality is, fresh fruit and veggies is not something a good chunk of Americans come into contact with on a daily basis. My whole point is it sucks to limit options for people who are in a worse spot than me. I live in an area where I have 5 grocery stores within 10 minutes. I just drove cross country, a lot on back roads, and a chunk of the country lives 15 miles away from the nearest grocery store, that sells mostly canned goods. Stretches of nm AZ OK and TX etc. it's 30 miles between houses. There are 13 million Americans who don't live like me and you. Who needs to come down to reality?

[-]

FlimsyPriority751@reddit

Yeah but that's not the point here. The question isn't about limiting people's choices...it's about how taxpayer money is used to provide basic nutritional sustenance for people struggling financially. By all means people are entitled to their right to choose, but that entitlement stops as soon as they're using my tax money to buy crap that they don't really need.

Food benefits should consist of the bare minimum for items required to prevent malnutrition. This is literally why most flour in the US is fortified and most Americans can be perfectly healthy and well fed on $5 a day.

Lower-Savings-794@reddit

Sorry. I made a mistake and my number was wrong. Point still stands. I'm reminding you this is food stamps. Not all of them work and not all of them have cars. Some can't do either, like blind people for instance. People without legs. Allagash maine is 20 miles to the nearest produce department. That is all I am saying. The people using these services are including populations that can't work and/or drive. It sucks when they have less options, which they will have. That's all I'm saying.

[-]

Busy_Onion_3411@reddit

A lot of "food stores" in these areas are actually convenience stores/gas stations. The creme de la creme is a Family Dollar/Dollar Tree/etc, and if you're extremely lucky, you might get one of those smaller grocery stores like Save-A-Lot that only sell secondary brands that companies spin up to sell the food that's still edible, but just doesn't meet their quality standards (i.e Doritos making their own knockoff chip, the bags of which get all of the "weird" or small chips).

Out of the two more likely scenarios, only the "dollar stores" have "proper food". 7-Eleven, gas stations, etc usually don't. Chain locations like 7-Eleven might change their stocking habits to include better choices in these areas, but the smaller franchised/independently owned gas stations almost certainly won't be able to do that. This will lead to sweeping business failures, plunging these areas into even worse poverty. So now, all of these businesses have closed down, because their clientele evaporated. Larger chain stores maybe have started selling shelf stable foods, but there's a good chance they've also decided it's just not worth the hassle, and closed down.

So it really boils down to one question: If you're wrong, and the businesses leave instead of wasting the money and effort adapting, what then? What option will these people be left with as a backup?

[-]

UncleWainey@reddit

It’s almost like it’s a nuanced thing and the government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers.

[-]

berserkthebattl@reddit

They definitely have nutritional benefit, many juices just have a high concentration of natural sugar from fructose even if it's 100% juice with no added sucrose. Still significantly better than the vast majority of sodas.

[-]

Asangkt358@reddit

I don’t think anyone actually argues that they might as well be the same thing.

Seen_Any_Elves@reddit

But is there a better, more meaningful way to address this than simply creating an “approved” list of foods? That process would require nutritionists and other experts to meet, review items, and make ongoing decisions.

Personally, I expected RFK to propose a system that benefits all Americans, rather than targeting those who need assistance and telling them to stop drinking soda. I understand the desire to monitor how public funds are spent, but I would rather pay fewer experts to maintain a list and instead invest more in enforcing FDA front-of-package labels for added sugar.

Yeah, that prepared food rule is stupid. Some states you can use food stamps for Subway or other sandwich places. But not fast food.

[-]

acr159@reddit

gif

You bring up a really good point about food deserts. When I lived in SF, the poor neighborhoods would have a corner store or licquor store and that was it as far as a place to shop. Healthy, nutritious food is expensive as well. I'm not going to act like I have the solution, but that said this is where my libertarian stances start to soften a bit, and think you brought up a pretty big issue.

[-]

Queen_Kore_@reddit

See here's where I stand. If the government is sooooo concerned about healthy food options why don't they work on making healthy food more accessible. Like, make it cheaper to buy fruit and veggies than junk food. Honestly, if we had cost effective and easily accessible options more people would gravitate towards those options. Also, God forbid lil Timmy gets a small birthday cake that was paid with ebt because the family can't afford it otherwise.

Like here's the thing, there are so many other ways to remedy this situation. Better paying jobs, lower cost of living, easily accessible healthy food choices. Instead it's "nah poor people don't deserve any kind of sweet treat" then it'll just start evolving. People will be like "I can't afford a steak so poor people can't get any kind of red meat." Or "Well eggs are so expensive why am I paying for poor people to get eggs when I have to pay out of pocket... mY tAx DoLlArs!" Knowing full well that most people on ebt have full time jobs and are paying taxes too... c'mon.

[-]

Where_You_Want_To_Be@reddit

I hate this argument.

Do you also think then that it will be “joyous” when the same people are suffering from diabetes? Morbidly obese, with painful health issues?

The idea that not paying for soda is somehow banning joy is ridiculous. People in poverty can experience plenty of joy, in the same way that anyone else does, by visiting with friends and family, helping others, doing some hobby, etc.

[-]

trahloc@reddit

Folks in poverty should be given a hand to stay alive so those who can find their footing to leave poverty. Joy has nothing to do with ultra processed commercial goods. It was my mom making goulash or my aunt making burek or either of their gnocchi. All things they made out of basic ingredients not out of the factories.

The most savory and delicious dishes were made by people poorer than those we call poverty stricken today.

[-]

popcornsprinkled@reddit

I'm pretty damned happy when I'm eating a rotisserie chicken.

When that sweet grease dribbles down my chin and I enjoy something I didn't have to cook. I'm not bad at cooking, but it just isn't the same.

A rotisserie chicken is generally around 50-75% of the cost of a whole chicken. Rotisserie chicken from the grocery store is a loss leader that's prepared with chicken they will not be able to sell, it's marked down in price compared to whole chickens. It's one of the cheapest sources of meat you can buy.

In general yes, prepared food is more expensive. Rotisserie chickens in particular are not, they're very cheap

[-]

clarkstud@reddit

This isn’t really accurate either. It’s a loss leader at some places like Costco, but a way to minimize waste at other stores when they get near the expiration date. They’re also usually smaller and pumped with additives to not only enhance flavor but also add weight, so actual meat is lower per pound. But anywhere from $.50-1.00 difference per pound can be found sure, but not 50-75%. But this is getting way outside the original argument. The same chicken, cooked vs uncooked is going to have to factor in the cost of cooking it.

[-]

brainskull@reddit

No, it does not lol. It's literally the same chicken you buy fresh at Safeway, cooked and reduced in price. You are not paying a premium for it. Please read any economics at all to understand that markets do not function via input and output costs alone.

Safeway and Costco etc take the same approach with these chickens. They get people in the door, they're loss leaders

[-]

clarkstud@reddit

You’re being economically obtuse at this point. We’re talking about welfare and the food provided by taxpayers for the needy, not an external calculation of how it might affect various business models and the calculations they make in order to decrease waste and losses for their businesses. Obviously incentivizing those sorts of alternatives pervert the market and is undesirable. SNAP turning into a government subsidy for Coca-Cola was never the answer, but here we are. If you want to form an argument about subsidies for Kroger then have at it, I’ll just bow out. Simply stated for you: it is less costly to give you a chicken than to cook that same chicken and then give it to you. Potential waste loss for a third party or business in that calculation is irrelevant in this context.

[-]

brainskull@reddit

It is not more costly to do that, if it were then nobody would do it. Stores do it because it makes them money, not out of some sense of altruism or whatever.

[-]

clarkstud@reddit

No, I’m not sure what argument you’re even trying to make at this point. Start from there and explain.

[-]

brainskull@reddit

"How about raw chicken and learn to cook" is absurd, it costs more to buy raw chicken.

Not a particularly complicated concept here. What about this discussion is confusing exactly?

[-]

clarkstud@reddit

“Costs more for whom?” is the question. I’m sorry this is confusing for some people.

[-]

brainskull@reddit

The taxpayer, the firm, and the consumer. Rotisserie chickens are not more costly for the firm, if they were they'd be priced higher.

You're imagining a world in which the cost of preparing the chicken is higher than the cost of the alternative. This is not the case, these places all produce these rotisserie chickens because they make them more money than just selling them fresh.

Oh, I have a list of shit she rather pay into than actually help people. This accidentally became a positive. I promise it's not the norm.

blingthatboogie@reddit

In Colorado rotisserie chicken or any prepared heated food is not eligible for EBT , tea bags are also not eligible.

[-]

popcornsprinkled@reddit

That is the norm. Candies have been eligible for food stamps but real hot food have not. It's rare for me to agree with my Governor, but she wasn't wrong on this one.

[-]

affectionate_ant@reddit

That’s actually a good idea. Nobody “needs” cakes and candies to survive. Rotisserie chickens are like $5-6 around here and they are awesome and help with the cooking. That’s 3-4 meals for myself. I don’t mind paying taxes to help a struggling individual or family afford a rotisserie chicken.

Buying them sodas when I don’t even drink sodas is kinda BS tho

[-]

CommonSensei-_@reddit

Yes! 100%

[-]

Seared_Gibets@reddit

Heck, sounds good to me. It's real food.

[-]

rebel0ne@reddit

Perfect. Excited for opposing arguments.

[-]

Dog_Backup@reddit

My thought is if people are going to make bad decisions let em. Natural selection ftw.

(First its your food theyre taking, then its your guns)

[-]

WallyMcWalNuts@reddit

I am conflicted about this one. I think that people should eat better but I don’t think we should tell people how to spend money, even if our government is giving them my tax dollars. How does this make sense with the traditional libertarian argument? Also, please don’t bring up Milton’s anti-income tax idea, I get it, the platform has a lot of interpretations. But I am talking about the stereotypical stance of libertarians.

[-]

Maxcrss@reddit

I think that if we’re giving them money to buy food, we have the right to tell them what they can and can’t buy as long as it’s not a brand thing.

[-]

RequirementFew773@reddit

I would say that first, it's theft to take MY income to redistribute it to other people, especially when I barely get a say in what is done with it!

Second, if the government is going to give you money/benefits, then it has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with it. Diets with lots of food high in fats and sugars are shown to lead to worse health than one's with less. And people on food stamps are much more likely to get other gov't benefits, so the better their health, the less money the gov't is paying out in health care.

[-]

DMTrious@reddit

I work 40 hours a week with 2 kids and I don't make enough to buy enough to pay bills and groceries. Let me get a mountain dew to make it thri the day and mind your buisness

[-]

CoffeeCup220@reddit

You wouldn't even NOTICE the poors buying candy if you looked at the billionaires buying yachts with that same money they're taking from stamps.

[-]

revdingles@reddit

I imagine the reason this isn't already a thing isn't because sugary snacks and sodas are explicitly permitted, it's because food items in general are permitted and there's a huge burden for markets to be in compliance a need for bureaucrats to figure out how to enforce it.

What's the cutoff point for how much sugar is allowed? Is there a distinction between added and natural sugars? Do artificial sweeteners count? Are the limits going to be set in such a way that it comes in just over one brand that lobbies harder than another?

Devil is always in the details. This type of thing is easy to sell but hard to execute.

[-]

DMaximus12@reddit

Ok, how about the government should not be restricting the freedoms of individuals to choose what they want to spend money on?

It’s an entirely different discussion to say if the government should be giving money to low income individuals. But since the government is giving this money out, putting restrictions on how it is spent is a restriction on individual liberty.

[-]

Astarkos@reddit

Yeah the opposing argument is Libertarianism. It seems a lot of nanny state conservatives have gotten lost and somehow found themselves in the completely wrong place.

[-]

Claytertot@reddit

Individuals should not be restricted in the purchasing choices they make with their own money.

But if we are implementing a government program with the goal of providing food to those who cannot afford to feed themselves, then limiting what kinds of food are being provided to relatively healthy, nutritious options is reasonable. Especially when poor people are disproportionately affected by obesity and malnutrition as it is.

The goal of these programs should be to lift people up to the point that they are no longer reliant on these programs. The goal should not be to make them even more dependent on government support.

[-]

and the last person I want to decide what's proper nutrition is RFK Jr.

[-]

beatles910@reddit

I agree, he's an idiot, but I have to admit, I think he is right on this one.

[-]

DMaximus12@reddit

I don’t understand how my words could be summarized as such. I haven’t made a declarative statement outside of “the government placing restrictions on an individual’s purchasing decisions is a restriction of their personal liberty.”

Please provide more insight into how you think your summary matches what I’ve written.

[-]

beatles910@reddit

I don't see how your recent statement matches the statemen I replied to at all. Now you've got me confused as to what you are even trying to say.

The statement I replied to said "the government know what is the best decisions" and "should be able to make purchasing decissions"

I agree with you, but EBT does end up as money in the accounts of the retailer, their employees, etc. It can be viewed as a grocery subsidy in a way, no?

That being said, typically hot food is excluded from benefits. I think a good compromise could be include (some) hot foods, limit sugary foods/drinks. Would probably serve the spirit of the program much better

[-]

Jentleman2g@reddit

The money doesn't belong to the individuals using it, it is an allotment by the government (not a payment), using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, with restrictions on how it can be spent. I don't much care for government assistance, I would like to see a return to communities collectively helping their less fortunate.

[-]

DMaximus12@reddit

My point is that restrictions from the government on how money can be spent, regardless on who owns that money, is a restriction on individual freedoms.

[-]

refboy4@reddit

If you don’t like the restrictions, then don’t apply to get the money. Easy as that.

If you come me asking for a loan to buy a car, I expect you to use it to buy a car, not go to the casino. That’s the agreement. I’ll give you money for this specific reason with these restrictions, take the deal or not.

[-]

DMaximus12@reddit

And you’re supportive of the government placing those restrictions on individuals?

[-]

Lol no.

[-]

Lewa358@reddit

This is a regulation, so it's gonna cost taxpayer money to enforce, and in terms of the $$ per pound value of food, healthy stuff is broadly more expensive per calorie and less accessible than junk food, so this would require more money being thrown into welfare programs just to ensure that they keep people alive.

[-]

Great in theory bad in reality. This requires more government monitoring and compliance, more point of sale controls. Sure you've stopped people from buying unhealthy food, but you just made the whole program cost more money. When you see graphs showing the acceleration of administrative costs you're seeing the cause of that right here.

[-]

GalacticGaming1225@reddit

You've correctly identified the symptom, but it's crucial to diagnose the underlying disease.

You're 100% right. This move requires more government monitoring, more bureaucracy, and more expensive point-of-sale controls. The administrative costs will inevitably accelerate.

But why?

Those costs are the direct, unavoidable price of increased state control. The bureaucracy isn't an accidental byproduct; it's the necessary infrastructure for paternalism. You cannot empower the state to police the grocery carts of millions without also funding the army of administrators, regulators, and compliance officers required to do so.

You're correct on the destination, but you're mistaken about the direction.

The classical libertarian position is, without question, the complete abolition of the welfare state, including SNAP. On that, we agree.

However, in a world where immediate abolition isn't on the table, a libertarian must evaluate any policy change with a simple test: does this move increase or decrease the power, complexity, and scope of the state?

Abolishing food stamps: Decreases state power. It ends a tax, a dependency program, and a bureaucracy. This is the ideal.
Adding restrictions to food stamps: Massively increases state power. It requires creating a new bureaucratic apparatus to define, monitor, and enforce what constitutes "healthy" food. It empowers lobbyists from different food industries to fight over what gets approved. It transforms a simple wealth-transfer program into an active, paternalistic nanny state that dictates the diets of its citizens.

You're arguing that because the cage shouldn't exist, there's no reason to oppose the guards installing surveillance cameras and dictating the meal plan.

A consistent libertarian opposes both the cage and any new, more intrusive rules. The argument against this move is that it trades a simple, bad government program for a more complex, expensive, and authoritarian one. That is always a move in the wrong direction.

[-]

GalacticGaming1225@reddit

This is a masterclass in watching people use libertarian rhetoric to justify their inner authoritarian.

First, you get the “My Tax Dollars, My Choice” crowd, who argue that providing food stamps gives them the right to attach strings. That's the language of a fiscal conservative, not a libertarian. A libertarian argument about "tax dollars" ends with "stop taking them," not "use the money you stole from me to micromanage a poor person's grocery cart." You don't get to complain about your violated property rights and then use that as a license to violate someone else's personal autonomy. It's just petty tyranny wrapped in a Gadsden flag.

Then there’s the circular logic about Medicaid costs: "People on food stamps will likely end up on subsidized healthcare, so we should force them to eat healthier." This is the nanny-state death spiral. You're justifying the failure of one bloated government program by demanding the expansion of another. The point isn't to have government healthcare and food programs police each other into infinity; it's to recognize that both are symptoms of the same disease.

These arguments, however, are just distractions about how to tune the machine. The real problem is the machine itself.

Consider how the system actually works: the government uses our money to subsidize corn and sugar, making processed junk food artificially cheap. Its inflationary policies and regulations then make self-sufficiency artificially expensive for the poor. Finally, it creates SNAP to "solve" the problems it caused, which functions as a massive, guaranteed revenue stream for the same corporate food giants who lobby for the subsidies in the first place.

The choice between a paternalistic state that dictates your grocery list and a negligent one that subsidizes your diabetes is a false one. Both treat adults like incompetent children.

The real goal isn't to design a more "moral" or "efficient" food stamp program. It's to foster a sound economy and voluntary civil society where these programs aren't needed.

To me, Libertarianism isn’t about being anti-compassion—it’s about believing there are often better, more efficient, and more empowering ways to support people than relying on bloated federal systems. And while food stamps might be part of the safety net today, I’d argue there are countless other areas of government spending—military overreach, corporate subsidies, and bloated bureaucracies—that could be cut before we even begin touching programs aimed at helping people in real need.

In short, I think it’s possible to hold Libertarian values while also recognizing the realities of the system we’re currently living in. Change doesn’t happen overnight, and in the meantime, we do the best we can with the tools available.

[-]

HauntedTrailer@reddit

I grew up poor and became a libertarian. I saw the traps that government programs created for poor people that use them first hand. For instance, my sister refused to get a better paying job because she would lose medicaid and food stamps for my niece. The jobs she was qualified for paid enough to kick her off of welfare while also not providing enough money to cover insurance and food. Fortunately for my niece, we adopted her and she didn't have to continue in that cycle.

With that said, as far as programs I would like to see cut go, food stamps and WIC, among other direct benefits to the poor are pretty low on my priority list.

[-]

AdaGang@reddit

How did you grow up on food stamps and become a libertarian?

[-]

So, I don't think anyone here really wants to control what people buy with their own money.

Controlling how tax income is spent is slightly a different matter.

That said..

The average taxpayer in the United States paid $13,367 in federal income taxes for 2022.

This includes $389.43 for Food stamps (SNAP)

While this isn't a significant amount of money, it's a couple steps away from "mere pennies."

Source: 2022 the United States Average Federal Income Taxes Paid

[-]

psychicesp@reddit

While I certainly agree that food stamps should not be used for junk food, I'm not sure stuff like this ends well. The only thing worse than bloated and expensive government social services is bloated, expensive and COMPLICATED government social services.

How will "sugary soda" be defined? Does diet soda count? Does sugary juice count? What's the limit?

This makes the service more complicated and expensive as each individual product will need to be defined. It creates market forces not based on organic demand. Formulas will change so that the drinks can skirt the classification of "sugary soda" and will often make these products more expensive and worse tasting for everyone.

All so a struggling single mother can't buy juice on her day to bring snacks to the whatever.

While I agree that behavior policing is technically morally okay for government funded services in a vacuum, in this instance it only reduces the little bit of good done by these services and inflates the harm caused by them. Even in the instances where behavior policing is morally okay it still ends up doing more harm than good.

[-]

UncleWainey@reddit

I had to scroll so far to find this. Who are all these “libertarians” celebrating an effort have government tell people what to eat?

This is why I like UBI. Just give poor people a little money and you won’t need some huge bureaucracy ripe for regulatory capture that’s figuring out what is and isn’t “junk food”.

[-]

MysteriousSherbet827@reddit

THANK YOU. I feel like I’m going crazy reading all these comments celebrating this additional control. Apparently libertarians, like most Americans, just hate poor people.

I’m so damn discouraged.

[-]

Excellent-Berry-2331@reddit

[-]

gatornatortater@reddit

If someone is so desperate that they can't feed themselves on their own dime, then it is probably going to help them to only spend that money on useful calories.

But anyone would be hard pressed to find someone who gets food stamps that doesn't have any private method to fund the occasional luxury, like beer or soda.

Even the homeless seem to have no problem bringing in money just by standing at street corners.

But all this is besides the point.

Use it for the precut fruit and veggies in the produce section. Use it for the salad kit at the deli (like you mentioned). Use it for an apple or an orange.

A lot of people don’t live near a Whole Foods and buy most of their groceries from the corner bodega.

[-]

bellapippin@reddit

Dude he just said he struggles with perishables bc of lack of storage. The precut fruit and veggies are usually like double than the whole counterparts and they spoil too.

I currently have two jobs and am a full time student, believe me I know. But Im not working multiple jobs, with a child, in a rural area, while living 40 minutes away from the nearest grocery store by freeway, while the child goes to school 20 minutes by freeway, with one job being in that rural town and the other 2 in the town 40 minutes away.

When you live in the middle of nowhere like my mom and I did it's an entirely different set of circumstances. That's why obesity and poverty are so prevalent in rural communities. Also factor the cost of utilities, which are significantly more in rural areas. If we didn't have $500 to fill our propane tank, we couldn't use our stove or oven.

Luckily we lived in an agriculture area, so not a food desert, but that's also a major issue in rural areas.

[-]

Where_You_Want_To_Be@reddit

You would have eventually moved.

abakedapplepie@reddit

Prepared foods (anything that is sold warm) are not covered by food stamps

[-]

BitchStewie_@reddit

It depends on the state. They are in CA.

[-]

r0xxon@reddit

I mean yes, but we have to stop designing the policy for all people catered around the caveats of the 20%.

[-]

Buddha_Clause@reddit

Problem is that on a cost per calorie evaluation, it's just better value to get cheap, calorie dense food. So if you're poor enough to need food stamps, you can't afford a healthy, produce full diet.

Not to mention the prep time involved in making produce edible that struggling people might not have.

It's easy to get mad at some gluttonous straw man taking advantage of the system, but it's a weak assessment of the reality of the situation.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I dont think you're going to get much more calories per dollar than a huge bag of rice and beans. If you're looking solely at prepared foods, junk is often cheaper.

[-]

Buddha_Clause@reddit

Bulk commodities are likely your best bet for cheap calories, but lots of people struggling at poverty wages working multiple jobs can't afford or aren't in positions to prepare their own food.

Oh I didnt know you were the arbiter of poverty!

brainskull@reddit

You can buy frozen vegetables, but more importantly you’re not having your vegetables perish if you’re actually poor. You eat the food you buy rather than completely filling up your fridge and throwing half of it out when it inevitably rots.

It take 5 minutes to steam some broccoli,time is not an issue. Every single person in the country has enough time to steam some broccoli

[-]

refboy4@reddit

Okay, then head on over to the frozen section and get frozen veggie steamer packs. Damn near the same nutrition and will keep months if you have to.

There is always a way. People CHOOSE to eat unhealthy and then try to justify it.

[-]

FoundationVast3881@reddit

I used to live in a homeless shelter, and I would use my EBT card to buy a bunch of candy from Walmart and trade it for cigarettes and cash.

[-]

I completely understand the idea. I agree with you in concept.

I just pull back from restricting access to things just because I disagree with the budget category.

I recall seeing something for NY that doubled the amount for fruits and vegs.

Well they probably ain’t paying property taxes.

Do you know how business works? If you have a cost, your customers pay it. Or you go out of business. (or investors, but we're not talking at that level).

Rent covers property taxes of the owner. So everyone pays property tax.

Sales tax goes to the EBT card…

Oh really. They get more from EBT than they pay in sales tax? Laughable.

Here's some examples of things we've missed so far:

Federal Taxes

Payroll Taxes (taken from paycheck):
Social Security Tax (6.2%)
Medicare Tax (1.45%)
Federal Income Tax (if earnings > ~$14,600 standard deduction)

State & Local Taxes

State Income Tax (if applicable)
Sales Tax (on non-exempt goods)
Vehicle Taxes/Fees:
Car Registration Fee (annual)
Personal Property Tax (on car value, in some states)
Gas Tax (~$0.50–$0.70/gal combined fed + state)

Other Fees/Taxes

Highway Tolls (if applicable)
"Sin Taxes" (cigarettes, alcohol, vaping)
Utility Taxes (small fees on phone/electric bills)

[-]

refboy4@reddit

“Rent covers property taxes of the owner. So everyone pays property tax.”

Which because of how taxes work gets written off by “property Improvements” and “property maintenance” and “It’s section 8 housing so I actually get extra grants/ tax write-offs back to make it section 8”

Rent covers property taxes of the owner. So everyone pays property tax.

“Here's some examples of things we've missed so far:

“Federal Taxes”

• ⁠Payroll Taxes (taken from paycheck): ⁠• ⁠Social Security Tax (6.2%) ⁠• ⁠Medicare Tax (1.45%) • ⁠Federal Income Tax (if earnings > ~$14,600 standard deduction)”

Again not taken out since they generally work for cash so they can claim no income:

“State & Local Taxes”

• ⁠State Income Tax (if applicable) Once again not taken out cause they “have no income” • ⁠Sales Tax (on non-exempt goods) (Once again, charged to EBT card as part of the transaction) • ⁠Vehicle Taxes/Fees: ⁠• ⁠Car Registration Fee (annual) Extremely high in CO where I live, however they’ve also had like 5 “blitz” enforcements cause almost half the cars are driving with expired or fraudulent registrations” ⁠• ⁠Personal Property Tax (on car value, in some states) ⁠• ⁠”Gas Tax (~$0.50–$0.70/gal combined fed + state)” (pathetically low amount, and with more cars going electric or hybrid, less and less relevant)

Other Fees/Taxes

• ⁠Highway Tolls (if applicable)(soooo, don’t take the fuckin toll road?) • "Sin Taxes" (cigarettes, alcohol, vaping) (Your sins are your problem. You CHOOSE to pay those taxes on your bad habits) • ⁠Utility Taxes (small fees on phone/electric bills) Then take that shit up with the local utility. They try to sneak some shit in? Expose it. Can’t remember his name off the top of my head, wanna say Marshall Zellenger with 9 news Denver) has been dragging Excel energy through the mud for two+ years now exposing the bullshit charges they try to charge.*

[-]

Actual_Surround45@reddit

:rolls eyes:

You have a very..... odd and wrong view of how the world works.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

Gaslighting liar.

In 2024, the top 1% accounted for 40% of tax revenue. The top 10% accounted for 72%.

The bottom 50% accounted for less than 3% of federal revenue.

[-]

Shukakun@reddit

It's not even that they don't have access to healthier options, it's a matter of mental health. Broke people are miserable enough to no longer care about eating healthy at all, whether it's because of fatigue or lack of self worth, honestly it's probably both most of the time. Blows my mind that people can see a situation like that and go "Oh yeah they're just stupid and selfish, let's further restrict what they can do with the crumbs we give them".

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

I am tired of paying for your candy and soda.

Buy your own fucking treats.

[-]

refboy4@reddit

I understand there are “food deserts”. But you can’t tell me that 95+ % of those on SNAP are nowhere near a regular grocery store with actual produce and healthier options than Fruit Loops.

[-]

mrjackspade@reddit

A food desert in an urban area (where most people live) is defined as a distance of greater than one mile.

I live in a food desert because the nearest grocery store is on the next block.

Also how do you define pre made? If it's already cooked and RTE like tinned chicken is that pre made? Or is it only not allowed if you think they might get some joy out of it?

As always, blinkered and short sighted.

[-]

Spiritual_Squash_473@reddit

Bullshit. Even SNAP reports that only around 25% of recipients have a disability. Not disabled. A disability. Which could include such debilitating conditions such as IBS.

Over 10% of the US is on SNAP. It's pure welfare and statist word games won't change that.

[-]

Adsaldpo@reddit

Guy doens't know how system works, still says to get rid of it.

[-]

PS same technique works with rum.

[-]

PuttPutt7@reddit

facts

[-]

jorsiem@reddit

If I had to give that's the work of junk food manufacturers manufacturers

[-]

FIRST_PENCIL@reddit

I mean I agree with where you are coming from but if you are functionally homeless where are you going to cook it?

[-]

refboy4@reddit

Then there are many options where you can buy packaged food either ready to eat (pre-cut fruits/ veggies, salads from the deli) or packaged and ready to heat.

s29@reddit

I guess if food stamp people want to eat then they'll have to buy it. Also sounds like a self correcting problem to me.

[-]

JJ12345678910@reddit

Except then you'll get people complaining they are buying fresh meat with tax dollars. There will be no satisfying the crowd that thinks social safety nets have no place.

[-]

The_Derpening@reddit

I got a flyer in the mail advertising a burger joint. It says they accept SNAP.

[-]

Take-to-the-highways@reddit

You can only use snap to buy food at restaurants if you're homeless. There are two types of snap in California, the Restaurant Food Program (RMP) has an incredibly high barrier of entry and it's basically just for people who don't have anywhere to cook any type of food, like an oven or microwave

[-]

Nikadaemus@reddit

Yet EBT also doesn't cover toiletries and some other fairy critical stuff

Often means people sell their EBT to crooked shops to get cash back

[-]

OcclusalEmbrasure@reddit

I won’t say I disagree, but I think the problem is that large swaths of area in the US are food deserts. The best they might have are processed foods at the gas station or dollar store.

[-]

First-Weather3401@reddit

I swear i’ve seen ebt used at a liquor store

[-]

dont forget fast food restaurants. the free stuff should be fruits/ veggies and limited meat.

[-]

winkman@reddit

Imagine growing up poor, yet gaining healthy eating habits.

What a fucking concept!

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

Theory is that even thou they are on assistance, they should also be allowed a splurge item. Soda or candy or whatever along those lines.

Real question is how many abuse that allowance as a percentage of all recipients and if it is worth chasing down vs focusing on the bigger issues.

[-]

hkusp45css@reddit

Bigger issues like giving people money to eat when the rest of the world works for that entitlement?

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

If the percentage is sufficiently low, why spend the effort to research the effects if it is removed vs pivoting to other issues within the system?

ie. Is this some kind of low hanging fruit or is it a major driving issue in that system.

Focus should be prioritized for the items with the greatest impact/return, not those items affecting only a handful of recipients.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I remember they tried something like that with drug testing, etc. The cost of the program to validate it greatly exceeded the fraud. However universally applying restrictions at the POS would just be a database change on the register software. They already do some checks.

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

Cost is in the research/understanding on the impact to the individual on assistance vs just allowing them to buy a Pepsi here and there.

[-]

Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit

It doesn't cost anything (or not much) to update the database and disallow pepsi.

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

You’re avoiding the actual issue.

It’s not the cost of updating a system, it’s the cost of understanding the impact on the individual and if removing that small nicety in their life will cause further issues which may impede their ability to lift themselves up and get out of whatever rut they are in and off assistance.

You can throw caution to the wind and just make changes without understanding their impact, it’s just super risky.

[-]

subfreq111@reddit

You're avoiding the issue that we don't need a government funded impact assessment for the feelings of all the people leaching wealth away from others. Drinking less soda carries zero physical downside and I care exactly zero about how losing this nicety affects them. Receiving government assistance should be morally and socially painful enough that those who receive it are actively looking for a way off of it. Not super risky.

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

For your sake, I truly hope you never find yourself in need of assistance.

These programs are not fully black/white, they are not void of emotion.

Shooting from the hip and making decisions without understanding the effects has a high likelihood of having real negative effects across the board.

[-]

Where_You_Want_To_Be@reddit

Dude, what “effects” are you talking about? Everyone has already listed the blatantly obvious positive effects, can you even name one or two negative effects?

And again, these people aren’t banned completely from buying soda, they can still do so with their own money. (Which, they obviously must have SOME, as the government isn’t paying for their entire existence.)

[-]

JasonG784@reddit

The impact is... "No, you can't drink yourself fat and diabetic on other people's dime." There is no risk in that. "But I want a Pepsi now and then!" Tough shit - buy it yourself.

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

Making decisions without knowing the facts and impacts…..

What if that single Pepsi a week is their only bright spot and removing that causes them to go further into depression?

Will that help them lift up and get off assistance or will that drive them further down and increase the amount of assistance they qualify for?

It’s a big picture problem, not a zoomed in microscopic thing.

[-]

Walt_the_White@reddit

People think that being poor is a sin of sorts and think they shouldn't have nice things. That's really what I've gathered from this conversation with people over the years.

We want to punish the poor for the fact that they are poor. Be it by their own actions or not

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

Yup.

Funny part to me is the number of down votes for explaining what the argument is and why shooting from the hip has consequences.

I neither provided my position for or against the issue, only provided what the arguments are that I have seen.

Guess some individuals simply are unable to process new information and possibly change their understanding of the situation.

[-]

Walt_the_White@reddit

Poor people are easy targets that we've been told is safe to punch down on, so we all pile on because we're being punched down on by those above us. We want to feel that power too.

Make people feel superior to each other and it becomes easier to manipulate everyone. There's a reason the scapegoat is necessary for everything.

This, as with so many other issues, isn't a problem most want to actually fix because the fix involves concepts they refuse to believe and accept, or actions that we don't want to take, like giving things to "undeserving" people

[-]

JasonG784@reddit

This thread is a perfect encapsulation of why so many people are checked out of mainstream political and economic discourse. It showcases the complete breakdown of personal responsibility, economic understanding, and even basic gratitude.

The idea that denying someone free soda is “punishing” them is absurd. That’s not compassion; it’s infantilization. We’ve gone from "help people meet basic needs so they don’t starve" to "what if denying Pepsi causes depression?" as if sugary beverages are a human right. The emotional manipulation here is off the charts - weaponizing hypothetical sadness to justify open-ended entitlement.

And the leap to “rich people fail and get bailed out, so poor people deserve Pepsi” is exactly the kind of brain-dead moral relativism that kills productive policy discussion. Yes, corporate bailouts suck. That doesn’t mean everyone else gets a blank check to consume whatever they want on the taxpayer’s dime. Two wrongs don’t make a Pepsi.

[-]

Walt_the_White@reddit

Ok. Let's ask. How do you decide what counts and what doesn't? I get your example, Pepsi, easy. What counts as soda? Does seltzer count? Zero sugar? Ok, no soda, are we stopping all sugary drinks? Water only? Juice? What counts as juice? Where do you draw the line between juice and "fruit drink"? Are we going to set a sugar limit? Ok, side from the fact that every single thing in this country has a pound of sugar in it for no reason, where do you draw that line? Ok, now who is going to go to every single brand and set which do and don't count? That responsibility isn't going to land on the store or the cashier, because I can tell you, from experience, they don't give a fuck. They would rather let it through than the fight with the customer for $10/hr. That's just drinks. You have to do that with every single aspect of food. Where do you draw the line for snacks? I assume you're going to knit pick their selection for dinner and breakfast and lunch too right? Because we SHOULD be telling these people to eat. Hell we're paying for it right?

So now we are going to need an army of people to run through products to qualify and disqualify them from the program, but not just that, you also need to create a section of this army that is going to accept applications for new products, or create some kind of qualifying procedure. They're going to have to verify the arbitrary restrictions we're setting are being met. We've just created an entire branch of an agency of the government. Every person involved needs salary, the building they occupy needs to be paid for, those people need computers, Internet, any other thing for the job. Do you see where I'm going with this? Doing this picking and choosing can be, in the end run, more expensive than just letting these people get what they need. There are already incredible restrictions on these programs. I'm not sure if you've met people relying on them.

Me personally, do I think telling you "you can't have a coke today" is punishment? No, of fucking course not. But telling a child "no you can't ever have a coke, at least until you yourself can pay for it" because their parents happen to be poor. Feel however you do about these imaginary parents (for some reason I'm betting most people here would imagine more negative than just unluck characters), it kind of is punishing the kids for something they have no part of. These people are often on the balls of their asses. I've worked around tons of people on assistance and their lives often suck. I would take my hard working life over theirs any day. Those people shouldn't be denied a little happiness or enjoyment, in my opinion, just because of some petty bull shit where someone like me or you is looking at them saying "they aren't deserving". And as for the tax cost. We give so much fucking free money to super insanely rich assholes and corporations, and cater to those who make money in capital instead of labor. I'm not bothered by the pennies we spend in comparison to feed hungry people. "Deserving" or not.

[-]

JasonG784@reddit

You seem very worried that a problem is impossible when it is already literally solved. WIC has usable standards already. There’s no “figuring out where the line is” needed. No new people, salaries, etc - you’re manufacturing problems where none exist.

[-]

Hopefully if you ever find yourself in a situation of need, the ones around you are less assholes about it

[-]

JasonG784@reddit

Hopefully if I'm ever in need I'm not a choosy beggar, insisting that someone's charity come in the form of a Pepsi instead of a bottle of water.

[-]

Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit

No, I think it's pretty straightforward.

[-]

hkusp45css@reddit

I find myself unmoved by the plight of people who accept free support and then demand to be allowed to do with it what they please.

[-]

Where_You_Want_To_Be@reddit

It’s not “here and there.”

From ChatGPT (because it’s easier than researching this entire argument for you):

What Foods Are Being Purchased? • Junk foods remain prevalent A resource listing shows that among the top twenty most‑purchased items by SNAP recipients are bag snacks, candy, frozen pizza, and ice cream—suggesting a significant portion of spending on less nutritious options. https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households?utm_source=chatgpt.com

•   Sugary beverages are a major item

SNAP households allocate roughly 10–11% of benefits to sugar‑sweetened beverages. Nationally, this spending is projected at around $9 billion in SNAP dollars in 2025.

https://time.com/7297603/snap-subsidizing-soda-arianna-huffington-essay/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

10 PERCENT OF THEIR GROCERY BUDGET IS FUCKING SODA. If 10% of your grocery budget was booze, people would say you might have a problem, lol.

[-]

DiscreditedGadgeteer@reddit

Lefties are only concerned with costs when it supports their position.

[-]

Downtown_Recover5177@reddit

Why do we have to research anything here? We know soda is terrible for your health, we want to make people healthy, end of story. Remove sodas from the list of things the government will buy for you. Heart disease is the number one killer, and soda contributes, we know that already. It’s kind of like asking why SNAP doesn’t cover cigarettes, and maybe we should research it before deciding? Nah.

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

Your missing the point entirely and instead arguing something else.

Awesome. The people who feel that way can pay for the others, then.

[-]

jcutta@reddit

Something like 70% of people on EBT have a full time job. This is a false narrative that food stamp recipients don't work.

[-]

Mental_Medium3988@reddit

most people try and stretch every dollar they get out. if that means sometimes getting prepared foods, than thats what theyll do. and oh no someone at the bottom has a candy bar. its not a big deal. especially when you look at how much taxes the rich dodge. or how much welfare they get. if someone on food stamps decides to blow their budget on wagyu steaks and the biggest lobster and starve the rest of the month, not junk food i might add, its still better than what the rich do.

[-]

Where_You_Want_To_Be@reddit

Wtf are you doing in this sub?

when you look at how much taxes the rich dodge

Implying you’re owed some share of their income?

How do you not understand that “the rich” are spending their own money, while people on welfare are not.

“The rich” also drive very nice cars. If there were a “free cars” govt program, would you expect them to be giving out Porsche’s too?

[-]

DiscreditedGadgeteer@reddit

That’s the attitude that causes the people working to pay for other’s benefits, to say enough is enough. Which is increasingly where we are at in society. If the programs don’t get serious about very carefully managing the people’s money, the programs will increasingly cease to exist. Walmart closing at 10pm and locking up lots of items is an example of society saying that the cost of accommodating certain people is no longer worth it. People say that Walmart would never end EBT purchases. But EBT transactions equal barely TWO HOURS of Walmarts sale PER YEAR. So it won’t take much more inconvenience for them to consider a change.

[-]

Vindaloo6363@reddit

Bigger issues like childhood and adult obesity, diabetes, heart disease? We're literally subsidizing these diseases.

[-]

CommonSensei-_@reddit

And contributing to these diseases… and then tax payer money is going to treat these ( mostly printable) diseases.

I work in healthcare

[-]

dubie2003@reddit

I am not following your thought process. Are you suggesting that those items only affect those in assistance because of the soda?

Those issues are larger than just allowing people to use some of their assistance in a soda.

[-]

BrainSawce@reddit

I agree that junk food shouldn’t be eligible, but why organic? Yes it’s an added expense and some consider it a luxury, but you can’t argue that it’s not healthy. If someone decides they want to buy organic something (for instance- bell peppers and blueberries typically have very high levels of pesticides that simple washing doesn’t get rid of) then they should. It just means they have less benefits to spend on other things.

[-]

msears101@reddit

The extra cost. When there are peaches that are $1.59 a pound AND "organic" peaches for $3.39 a pound. Let's feed more people per dollar.

[-]

staticattacks@reddit

Now a person that is obese, diet coke it probably better for their health than 100% pure grape juice which is calorific.

Except artificial sweeteners have been shown to increase appetite, damage gut microbiomes, insulin resistance etc

[-]

wanderingfloatilla@reddit

I've seen people use their EBT to buy cart fulls of various chips and 24 pack flats of energy drinks

[-]

amnesteyh@reddit

Yeah poor people should only eat stale bread and drink water, right?

[-]

Sturgillsturtle@reddit

Gets even darker when you consider they were petitioning for GLP1’s to be covered by Medicaid. I don’t know the status of it now

maceman10006@reddit

There aren’t many restrictions at all on what food and drinks can be bought with food stamps. The argument is regardless of what you buy you only get a certain amount each month so spend it wisely. One of my close friends worked at a grocery store in highschool and claimed they’d have people buying expensive stuff like lobster and steaks.

There probably should be restrictions because the intent of food stamps is to keep you from starving…not blowing your entire allowance on a couple lobsters every 1st of the month, then support yourself for the rest of the month doing god knows what.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

Working in a 'cash' business to make sure their reportable income is low enough to keep on assistance.

[-]

JasonG784@reddit

Lobbying.

[-]

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

Ok, they can have a singular, “day making” soda.

[-]

iroll20s@reddit

I'm on board with this. Garbage food like potato chips, etc too. Public assistance shouldn't be comfortable. If you want to choose what to eat, pay for it yourself.

[-]

refboy4@reddit

“Public assistance shouldn't be comfortable”

I’ve caught so much shit for this opinion. “It’s so inhumane! Don’t you have empathy for human beings?!” Blah blah blah.

People will do what you incentivize them to do. If you incentivize them to get off welfare more often than not they will try to do it.

[-]

DirtyPrancing65@reddit

I agree incentivizing people to get off is a good strategy. Your suggestion that negative punishment is the way to incentivize it is missing a crucial piece of info: you are not weaned off food stamps, you lose them quickly, along with other benefits.

Making being on assistance more uncomfortable doesn’t change the fact that they are a trap, and a parent is never going to take a raise at work that cuts off their child’s food stamps.

It’s actually logical. A $100 raise is not $100 less in stamps, that $100 raise can literally cost you your entire stamps. Plus if you get into trouble again, it can take awhile to get them coming back in - meantime, your kids are not eating.

If you’re making smart choices in the system we built, you don’t take the raise because it costs you more resources than it brings in, risks your children not eating, and takes away a reliable means of providing (that a job in an at will state unfortunately is not)

He wants people to be healthier, live longer and not be 500lb and die of a heart attack at age 30.

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

bUt wHaT aBoUt tHe dIaBetIcS wHo nEeD sOdAs?????????

[-]

TheBrownGhost@reddit

Why? This is not simplifying the bureaucracy. The most libertarian goal for these supplemental programs should be to encourage those who cannot normally to participate in the economy. Here's what I would do: roll all of these welfare programs into one qualifying universal basic income. Spend that income as you see fit. Buy groceries, buy clothing, buy gasoline, buy work and school supplies, or buy a TV and weed from your dealer. Either way, there needs to be a positive feedback loop between the supplemental income and the greater economic engine, not just into these incredibly niche and honestly heavily subsidized, departments. What you spend that money on should be completely up to you.

[-]

puredamage@reddit

Yeah, I agree. I think sugary sodas are devoid of any nutrition and pretty much no one should drink them, but I also recognize this is an expansion of government bureaucracy.

Libertarians are celebrating that we now have some bureaucrat making regulation on which bubbly drink qualifies and which doesn't? Next we get special interests making backroom deals on which beverage qualifies and which doesn't?

AgeOfReasonEnds31120@reddit

It's not the job of the nanny state to dictate what we can do with our bodies, but if it's really cutting taxes, I see no problem with it.

[-]

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

If the nanny state is providing the food, I’d guess they get to decide what you eat.

[-]

AgeOfReasonEnds31120@reddit

gotta keep them healthy so they can keep paying taxes

[-]

Nugsonnugs2@reddit

They need to stop cash withdrawals for snap /ebt as well

[-]

pauljrupp@reddit

I always wondered why politicians felt that sugary drinks (sodas, specialty coffees, etc.) are so unhealthy that they should be taxed to discourage their consumption, but they're healthy enough to qualify for supplemental nutrition assistance.

“Dude he just said he struggles with perishables bc of lack of storage. The precut fruit and veggies are usually like double than the whole counterparts and they spoil too.”

Yeah they are more expensive, but I’d much rather they buy that with my money than Cheetos and Pop Tarts. They don’t go bad in a day. Maybe they have to do like the rest of the world and go to the store every day or every other day than once a week/ month like American’s do it. So what. Many Europeans and Asians will go to the store every single day and buy what they need for dinner. Shopping for the week/ month and very much an American thing.

[-]

chuchrox@reddit

💯 you want to eat shit do it but I don’t want to pay for it.

[-]

Nebulaer@reddit

What about people with diabetes? They need sugary drinks to control their blood sugar. Also, the argument that people with less money than you should be uncomfortable doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, you talk about how eating all that junk food causes health problems like obesity and metabolic syndrome, but then go on to say these people are "comfortable." How does that make sense? If that's your idea of comfortable why aren't you doing it? Plus the argument that you dont want to "pay" for people's poor decisions doesnt really matter. Who's to say exactly what is a poor decision or not? What about the kid that rode his skateboard over a shitty homemade ramp in his driveway and broke his arm? Should his/his parents insurance not pay for his injury because "it was a poor decision"? We already have a system for denying/approving medical coverage for certain conditions, are you saying there's a problem with that system denying reasonable claims and allowing unreasonable ones?

[-]

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

Um, people with diabetes don’t drink sodas to regulate their blood sugar.

Nebulaer@reddit

You posted controversial material on reddit because you didn't want to argue?

[-]

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

I thought you wanted to talk about it?

[-]

Nebulaer@reddit

So you could tell the class what your personal definition is of talking vs arguing?

[-]

Visible_Noise1850@reddit (OP)

I could, yes.

[-]

Nebulaer@reddit

Whatever.

How about ban food stamps altogether

[-]

TitusImmortalis@reddit

I think that there really needs to be a specific list of things you can use food stamps for and not just this "You can't buy sugar drinks" or "Not for make up" or whatever.

Toiletries
Staple foods (needs to be tailored for people with food restrictions also)
Could be used for food adjacent things (tupperware, pots and pans, cups, plates, etc)

Something that will need to coincide with this is that there isn't price gouging from manufacturers so they aren't just looking at it as some kind of sneaky government subsidization of sales.

[-]

Eazy12345678@reddit

yeah food stamps should only buy health foods.

[-]

ineedtostopthefap@reddit

Actually not against this, still fuck this guy

[-]

DeArgonaut@reddit

I’m confused by the responses given this is a libertarian sub. I’m not myself, but saying what you can and can’t eat sounds more like a gop position than libertarian one

[-]

Chaoscardigan@reddit

It's not their money.

I can agree with this. I dont like welfare programs in general, but if they're going to exist they should be stringent.

“There really should be limits and accountability”

Treat it like probation. You apply for it, if it’s determined you eligible you get a case officer. Every week month whatever, you have to check in with them. They re-evaluate if you are still eligible.

Have you been looking for a job and just still haven’t landed one? What job? Show me the application. Can we get you resources at the county labor center?

Show me the receipts of the food you bought.

Oh, you changed the visitation schedule with your baby daddy and now only have them for 2 weeks a month? How does it suddenly cost $300 a week to feed one person?

[-]

How about we say no to both things?

[-]

moonroots64@reddit

YES!! 💯

“They’re one of the best deals out there”

Not trying to toot my own horn, but I saw a lady in a checkout with two kids around 3-4 counting pennies and coupons. You could tell she was stretched thin. She was like $4 over and was trying to figure out what to put back. Three cans of corn or the bag of beans? No junk food on the counter just basics. I left the line and went back to the deli. Got two rotisserie chickens and went back to the checkout. Put them on the belt and said I’ll get these and the rest of her bill. She just stared at me. Cashier was like aight whatever man.

She cried and hugged me in the parking lot. For $12 dollars in chicken she had food for a week and I made her month. That $12 didn’t mean shit to me. Eating proper food is not as expensive as people claim it to be.

[-]

mr-logician@reddit

We shouldn’t be using taxpayer money to subsidize people’s diabetes.

If you want to treat yourself to a Coca-Cola that is perfectly fine, but do it with your own money.

[-]

Pumpkinbeater420@reddit

MAHA. Keep it coming.

Essentially, yes, you said that.

You don’t care what the food stamps pay for. Might as well just hand them cash and let them pay their cable bills with it.

[-]

Explicit_Tech@reddit

Don't really buy junk food with EBT because then I won't have enough to buy actual food

[-]

clarkstud@reddit

This one isn't difficult. We're against food stamps in general, but if we have to have it, there should be limitations for what they are used for.

[-]

geronimo11b@reddit

Long overdue. I’m sick of seeing videos of food stamp recipients with literal CART FULLS of junk food. Uncrustables, snack cakes, soda. Hundreds of dollars of that bullshit at a time. Why the fuck are taxpayers funding morbid obesity and laziness? I can barely afford groceries with inflation and these mfs are coming out of the store with 2-3 carts filled to the brim. I’m all for WIC and basic nutritional necessities to those actually in need, but this shit is absolutely out of control.

[-]

rsglen2@reddit

The USDA has access to every grocery store purchase and an awesome opportunity for analysis. In 2016 they compared total grocery store purchases of SNAP customers to non SNAP customers. They determined that there were more similarities than differences. They included a chart that shows the percentage spent on various food items in descending order. Although, the order differs, statistically they are identical. My takeaway is that SNAP recipients purchase with the same preferences as the rest of us. They don’t become stupid for needing SNAP and they don’t need to be regulated.

Some things to keep in mind:

Get rid of candies, cakes, and ice cream while they're at it. There are so many healthy, delicious, and time-saving options that aren't complete junk.

Eat a sheet pan of chicken thighs with broccoli and carrots. There you go. Prep time is 5 minutes. Cook time is 40. Go take a shower while you're waiting.

[-]

refboy4@reddit

“Prep time is 5 minutes.”

What are you on about? They can buy soda or cake—just not with taxpayer money. It’s not like it would be cost prohibitive to pay $3 for a once-a-year purchase with non-taxpayer funds.

[-]

BigFishPub@reddit

Billionaires destroyed the working class and you're upset about soda. Yall are fucking lemmings.

[-]

Edmundyoulittle@reddit

Full disclosure, not libertarian.

RFK is a whack job, but there are random things he's doing that I think are reasonable. This is one of them.

I don’t think I have a problem with this.

Voluntary charity is fantastic, but forced charity at the point of a government gun is not. Hopefully, every food will be “completely ban[ned] from food stamps.”

Now, if the government were to ban or regulate the private sale, trade, or consumption of sodas, that would be horrendous.

[-]

Special-Estimate-165@reddit

It's still going in the wrong direction.

c0ld--@reddit

Back in the day, I used to see mothers who appeared to be FOTB (no disrespect, just an observation) use their food stamp cards to buy carts and carts-full of items for their shops. Sodas, snacks, and other items that clearly looked like they weren't for "helping a struggling family be able to eat".

At that time I figured "Eh... government's paying for it. Who cares???" until I realized I am paying for it.

[-]

Blutroyale-_-@reddit

Goooooooood

[-]

CommonSensei-_@reddit

this is why I voted for him.

I didn’t go with Chase, but I could’ve…

[-]

OGbobbyjohnson323@reddit

The Hill report BY LAURA SCHMIDT, HANS TAPARIA AND ROBERT LUSTIG, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 02/02/25 1:00 PM ET:

40.2% of Coca-Cola's U.S. revenue alone comes from SNAP-eligible households

This part of the SNAP subsidy, by our estimates, drives 20 to 25 percent of U.S. revenues for Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

[-]

NewPerfection@reddit

That's insane. I don't get it. Water is so cheap it's basically free. Why do so many people have an aversion to drinking water?

[-]

HighSorcererGreg@reddit

Sugar is more addictive than heroin, and most people are weak willed uncritical husks floating through life giving in to every craving.

I've met plenty of former smokers, you'll find few former sugar addicts.

[-]

PrairieBitch@reddit

Creating specific food type requirements is an in-store tracking nightmare. That's part of why they don't get so specific.

[-]

Otherwise19@reddit

Poison. Resulting in massive health insurance bills and heart attacks. Obesity juice.

[-]

Loaf_Baked_Sbeve@reddit

The good news is that the law defines Soda as any non-alcoholic carbonated drink with more than 5 grams of sugar or artificial sweetener per serving. Most Sparkling Water brands and artificially sweetened sodas will be exempt because the amount of sweetener doesn't even reach 1 gram per serving. It's really just a food stamp ban on normal sodas.

“Taxes ought not to pay for your bag of Fudge Rounds.”

1 purchase with food stamps is soft drinks. Could be interesting.

[-]