• SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    This is the kind of BS that leads to you being unable to buy warm food with food programs. A box of fried or baked chicken costs $26 for 24 pieces, which can feed me for 2-3 days, saving me money in the long run. A hot pizza is $13. A rotisserie from CostCo is about $6.

    People should make the decisions about their food stamps, because they are familiar with how to best feed themselves. Your typical WalMart employee has to rely on food stamps and other benefits, because WalMart doesn’t want to pay a living wage. An initiative like RFK’s is designed to punish the poor for failing to be born with a silver spoon.

    This isn’t about helping people to make better decisions, it is about depriving them the good things in life.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Buying soda and candy. I can get behind a worm for that one. Just ban those things already. But I would step on that worm right after. The guy is clearly crazy. And too old. I wouldn’t want anyone to suffer from whatever self inflicted speech impediment this guy has.

    • smayonak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Ever try to water down a fountain drink with carbonated water? You can add 300% soda water and it still tastes sweet. But that overwhelming level of sweetness seems to stimulate appetite. And it’s one of many reasons why manufacturers use high fructose instead of table sugar. It’s slightly sweeter and more stimulating.

      • JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        56 minutes ago

        The products are designed to trick our bodies into eating and drinking more. Super sweet spikes the insulin but has nothing to digest so you’re hungry and now it’s salty snack time making you thirsty for more soda. Consume.

  • 🔰Hurling⚜️Durling🔱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Uhhhhhh… It already does. Snap changed from actual stamps to a digital card that declines any purchase that does not fit in the categories that justify a snap purchase. I worked a couple of years ago with a non-profit org that helped the needy, and I distinctly remember being at walmart with someone was buying groceries, when they used their snap card the payment covered everything but junk food and the person I was with had to pay with their own money for the rest of their things.

    In short RFK is working on stopping something that never has ever existed.

  • BBQuicktime@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 hours ago

    These same assholes were the ones freaking out when Michelle Obama was trying to get healthier food for school lunches and making up shit like “Turning Cookie Monster into Veggie Monster” to get mad at.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Many right-wingers don’t care about words or truth or consistency. They just want to hurt their out-group.

  • pepperjohnson@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Heaven forbid someone enjoys their life. I’d rather pay for this than billionaire tax cuts and the bloated military budget.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      We can do both. A stopped clock is right twice per day. It would be a good idea, except that you already cant buy junk food with food stamps…

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    17 hours ago

    It’s like painting over murals at detention centers where kids are housed… with gray paint. It definitely sends a message.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      No, it’s like removing soda machines from school cafeterias. It’s a good idea. It’s so good, in fact, that you already can’t buy junk food with food stamps!!

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Let’s have a writing contest, you guys. Now that a Trump appointee is against it, let’s all think up reasons for why subsidized high-fructose corn syrup sold as food is not only a good thing but actually a basic human right.

      • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’m not saying we should ban these things, I’m just saying we shouldn’t be subsidizing them and purchasing them with public funds. If poor people want to buy this stuff with their own money that’s their right.

        • lemming741@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Ditching subsidies is a start.

          I would tax them into oblivion like cigarettes. Hits the poor first still, but it would shift consumption habits rather than ban them outright.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          I’m just saying we shouldn’t be subsidizing them and purchasing them with public funds.

          Then start with the ag subsidies, not the tiny joy that poor people can wring from life.

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      It’s a nanny state. Sure, candy and soda is bad for you, and america has an obesity problem, but I’m against this.

      Just give people money and let them buy what they want / need.

      I’m tired of pedophiles and gay homophobes shaming poor people for having a soda and a candy bar. (Edit: not my intention to associate lgbtq with pedophiles, but it seems a lot of homophobes are into it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, but republifuckers need to mind their own business in general and stop judging others for the behaviors they are ashamed to participate in themselves.)

      • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        At a minimum they should talk about how they will move to providing healthy foods as they cut the bad stuff. Moving to unhealthy food to none, seems like a bad move. Like wtf

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It’s a nanny state.

        I mean yea, but so is giving you money for food. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the food you get with it to be nutritious.

        • DancingBear@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Just give them money, I don’t care if they want hookers and blow

          It’s none of your business what poor people spend their money on.

          • blarghly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Then they spend their money on hookers and blow, and then come back saying they have no money to buy food. Do you let them starve then?

            • DancingBear@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              14 hours ago

              lol… I’m just tired of people trying to gate keep basic needs as though they somehow know better than poor people what they need.

              If we checked what government subsidized millionaires and billionaires spent their money 10% as much as how we do poor people we could actually save money……

              Food stamps and wic and other programs are generally less than a couple hundred dollars. It’s not your business what they spend it on.

  • Sidhean@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    ITT: “You don’t deserve candy if you’re poor” sorry that was mean

    Like, yeah, its bad for me. I was hooked on it as a kid and I’m trying to cut back except so many people in my life eats shit-tons of sugar. I’m working on it, but I do not need the government telling me what I can and can’t eat just because I’m poor. I dunno, that seems mean. Maybe RFK should work on just banning them all together (unless you’re rich ofc). If its bad for me, its bad for you, too.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There was time in my life when most of my food came from a public pantry. I know it’s not the same as stamps, bit same principle.

    Anyway, birthday rolls around; didn’t think anything of it cuz I was in the “it’s just another day…” phase of life, and even if I wanted to do something for it, I wouldn’t have been able to afford it. Roll up to the pantry for that week’s pickup, and they break out a fucking cake and a hand-written birthday card! Nothing crazy - maybe 6-inch diameter, enough for the wife and I to split. But that shit pulled my ass right out of a depression spell like nothing else came close to before or since.

    When I finally got a reliable income coming in and paid off the critical stuff and got a little bit of savings, my first ‘splurge’ was a $1k donation to that pantry with a note saying that their assistance pretty much single-handedly saved me from homelessness and probably from suicide; and enabled me to take the steps I needed to get the job I have now and ultimately become self sufficient.

    Food is more than just nutrients; and junk food is more than just food that’s junk.

    And pantries are bad ass. If anyone reading this is struggling and not yet using one, GO SEE IF YOU’RE ELIGIBLE! Many people are resistant to ask for help prior to hitting absolute rock bottom, but a little help now (even if you only-kind-of need it) could save you from needing a LOT of help later. They’re also an awesome source of info on local resources - whatever your unique situation is, they can probably point you in the right direction to start getting shit under control.

    …I should make another donation - shit’s extra fucked nowadays.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I bet it would feel very different if you just used food stamps to buy your own cake

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Probably, but then that would have enabled me to give my wife that or vice versa. We don’t have kids, but a lot of food stamp recipients do - same spiel.

        And even outside of special events, maybe that can of soda with dinner is the carrot-on-a-stick that gets a person through an otherwise miserable day cuz, shocker: poverty fucking sucks.

        That’s the cool thing about not having arbitrary restrictions on shit like this: people are free to handle their own unique situation at their own discretion, including whether or not junk food is worth including in that week’s budget.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yeah, less autonomy is never a solution in situations like those. It’s just a form of petty oppression.

    • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Even ignoring that, just because you are on food stamps doesn’t mean you don’t deserve some indulgences.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        No one ever deserves indulgences. The whole point of an indulgence is that it can’t be deserved. Otherwise it would just be a normal reward.

  • blinx615@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    But they’re the most efficient dollars-to-calories ratio… Cheapest way to feed the hungry lol

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They are not. You’re thinking of staple foods, like rice and dry beans. Have you seen the cost of a bag of Doritos lately???

    • howrar
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Here in Canada, it’s half the cost for rice. I don’t imagine it’s that different in the US (at least, pre-tariffs). Assuming 2500Calories per day, I can get a year’s worth of Calories from rice for about 500CAD while it would cost me 1k CAD for the same on soda (calculated based on $1/2L of Crush cream soda).

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    I used to live in a kinda poor area. Lots of people on some sort of program. And that program had really restrictive rules about what you can and cannot buy. For example, you could buy Skippy peanut butter but not Skippy light peanut butter (whatever that is). It caused great confusion for the people who needed food, huge amounts of labor for the poor grocery person, and a long wait for the other shoppers in line - just so the government can save a few cents. Unbelievable.

    • swelter_spark@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yep. I used to work in a store where people would ask if some specific food or drink could be paid for by food stamps/EBT all the time. I was like, idk, lets run it and see. 50/50 chance you can buy anything, and no explanation for what’s covered and what isn’t. It sucks to tell someone they can’t buy their favorite food for their birthday.

      • MDCCCLV
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yeah WIC is very restricted. Food stamps is more like most things that are groceries but not hot ready to serve items.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why is it in our interest to pay for food that causes obesity and health issues?

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        If the concern was really about health, they’d be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          17 hours ago

          And if the concern was about people’s health, Trump wouldn’t have put RFK Jr into that job.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          17 hours ago

          If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?

          • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell’s soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It’s a carb and it’s processed. Let’s make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.

            Where should the line be drawn?

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              44 minutes ago

              The line should be drawn on the category of candy and soda. I’m not saying ban all sugar

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            It is their own dime. The government is everybody, and it’s here to serve. Somehow they got in your head that they aren’t entitled to that, but they are.

            Edit: had/head

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              37 minutes ago

              It’s not based on income. It’s based on whether the government is paying for it or the person is paying out of their own pocket.

              Similarly, school meals should be healthy and not include sweets and soda

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I want you to consider what you would do if you had $300 per month to buy food. How often would you use any of that money to buy soda and candy? Would you do it on a regular? Or would you do it just for special occasions to lift your spirits when things were bad?

        This isn’t about health this is about punishing the poor for being poor.

        • blarghly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I would buy it literally never, because I already never buy it, because I know it makes me fat and depressed.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I would spend very little of it on candy and soda, but not every person makes the same choices

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              If I’m paying for it, I have the right to vote for this law. It affects me

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            I was very poor for two or three years in my early 20s. I was maniacally disciplined in only buying healthy, affordable food, no alcohol, no junk food, no sweets. Brown rice, beans, fish off the boat (a fishing fleet operated from our city’s harbor), tofu, miso, green veg. So I stayed healthy. If I had received any assistance, interference in my choices wouldn’t have helped. But the purpose of the interference isn’t to help, it’s to disempower, infantilize and humiliate.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              36 minutes ago

              It wouldn’t interfere in your choices because you didn’t buy those things

          • catloaf@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            So you agree that there is some amount of acceptable spending on sweets.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Then start with ag subsidies. But that’s if you’re serious about fixing the problem and don’t just want to punish poor people for being poor.

      • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        22 hours ago

        What if it’s not happening that much and this is just a shoe horn to get legislation to destroy benefits? What if most states already remove some purchases from the EBT/food stamp total?

        It’s like drug testing for welfare. It’s sounds like a good idea until you realize it costs millions, produces almost no results and the government performing said drug tests can’t be bothered to not do it in s corrupt way?

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Unlike means testing, it will cost nothing. You just update the list of what is covered. Then it’s forever banned from food stamps

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            as someone else pointed out a specific example that comes up regularly (this is apparently already how it works): 1 particular brand of peanut butter was available, but their lite version wasn’t… with a cart full of groceries, figuring out exactly what gets paid for with what or what needs to be put back isn’t a fast process… this takes not only the persons time, but the cashiers time and everyone behind them in the queue

            these are things we call negative externalities: costs forced to other places in the system without being accounted for in price

            there are many, many, MANY more costs associated with any government program and intervention but this specific example would cost the country as a whole far more than the occasional unhealthy snack

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              42 minutes ago

              But it’s not lite peanut butter. It’s all items that are marked candy and soda. That’s a clear category

      • pulido@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Because giving more people reasons to enjoy life benefits us all. Also, fuck rich people. We should all be clamoring to take as much from them as possible to improve the lives of those who have less.

        You can drink soda and eat candy without becoming obese or having health issues as a result.

      • Archangel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Why do you consider what someone else eats to be a matter of “your interest”, at all?

        Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on? Is it in “their interest” to make sure you’re spending their money on “the right things”?

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on?

          Historically, that was a thing until very recently. Henry Ford used to send inspectors into people’s homes to snoop on them, not only food and alcohol, but what language they spoke in the home. Thank the unions for that bullshit having been stopped.

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          17 hours ago

          If I’m paying for it, it’s my interest. If it’s your personal decision, then do what you want

          • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            If that’s your stance you might wanna leave the low hanging fruit where it is and pick something that actually matters. Just my two cents. Like defense spending.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              34 minutes ago

              Defense spending is the most important function of government. Without it we can’t help Ukraine