- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Snap Debate
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:31 pm
There’s been a lot of talk around the new ban on some junk food from snap benefits.
Do you think it should even more strict on Junk food? This is more part of the MAHA movement than anything else.
Should Snap be able to be used on seafood and more expensive cuts of meat?
Do you think it should even more strict on Junk food? This is more part of the MAHA movement than anything else.
Should Snap be able to be used on seafood and more expensive cuts of meat?
35
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:34 pm to Tigernomics
Snap should only be used for necessary staples
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:35 pm to Tigernomics
The SNAP debate should be:
Why is a blatantly unconstitutional program like SNAP allowed to exist and how soon are we going to get rid of it?
Why is a blatantly unconstitutional program like SNAP allowed to exist and how soon are we going to get rid of it?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:36 pm to Tigernomics
quote:
Do you think it should even more strict on Junk food?
Yes
quote:
Should Snap be able to be used on seafood and more expensive cuts of meat?
No
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:36 pm to Tigernomics
I think soda is a good start.
Banning real food, like shrimp or steak is a bad idea. They only get x amount of dollars- who cares if it's spent on proteins?
Banning real food, like shrimp or steak is a bad idea. They only get x amount of dollars- who cares if it's spent on proteins?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:36 pm to Tigernomics
quote:
Should Snap be able to be used on seafood and more expensive cuts of meat?
No. Restrict to economy meats (pork, chicken) and staples like beans, rice, flour, sugar, etc.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:49 pm to Tigernomics
quote:No. Catfish, ground beef, cheaper roasts, pork and chicken. They can use their own money for more expensive stuff.
Should Snap be able to be used on seafood and more expensive cuts of meat?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:50 pm to SallysHuman
quote:Why?
Banning real food, like shrimp or steak is a bad idea
quote:Me, a tax payer.
who cares if it's spent on proteins?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:53 pm to Tigernomics
This is gonna be gradual. Keep in mind that only about a dozen states have ANY restrictions on Snap. There will be more and then you'll start seeing red states add items. The reason for the slow move is the fear of Dem ads in the next election: "They want to starve poor people!!!"
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:56 pm to Tigernomics
Feeding the poor should not be giving the equivalent of a debit card to buy whatever they want.
It should be going to wait in line at a soup kitchen and eating whatever is being served that day.
We aren't feeding the hungry. We're encouraging laziness.
It should be going to wait in line at a soup kitchen and eating whatever is being served that day.
We aren't feeding the hungry. We're encouraging laziness.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 4:59 pm to Revelator
quote:
Snap should only be used for necessary staples
It should be used on nutritious food. Otherwise we taxpayers will be on the hook for paying the early onset of diabetes, heart disease and other comorbidities! If you want soda, Twinkies and Cheetos get a damn job and buy all you want.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:00 pm to Tigernomics
Can people on SNAP not make out a food budget?
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:05 pm to Jake88
quote:
who cares if it's spent on proteins?
Me, a tax payer.
If they get $300/mo... they're gonna spend $300/mo.
I understand limiting obviously unhealthy, unnecessary items like soda, dingdongs and candy bars- but quality protein doesn't cost you, the taxpayer, more. Crap food does because of associated healthcare costs... but good protein doesn't.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:09 pm to SallysHuman
quote:It does. That $300 can go further with cheaper meats than with expensive cuts.
but quality protein doesn't cost you, the taxpayer, more
quote:Chicken, lean pork and ground beef is not worse than steak.
Crap food does because of associated healthcare costs... but good protein doesn't.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:15 pm to Jake88
quote:
but quality protein doesn't cost you, the taxpayer, more
It does. That $300 can go further with cheaper meats than with expensive cuts.
They get a set amount... it'll be $300 either way. Yes, they should try to stretch it, but it doesn't matter. They don't get allocated benefits based on their dietary preferences- it's income based. As long as the food is food it ought not matter.
Unless you're advocating going back to government cheese and foodbox days- Honestly, I don't have a problem with that either.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:18 pm to Tigernomics
I think SNAP should only be applicable for a narrow basket of foods that supply sufficient calories and nutrients under the guidelines of a healthy balanced diet.
IT is more than possible. Give me a family of five's SNAP benefit, and Ill get everybody sufficiently fed, money will be saved, and they will all be fit as Hercules.
IT is more than possible. Give me a family of five's SNAP benefit, and Ill get everybody sufficiently fed, money will be saved, and they will all be fit as Hercules.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:24 pm to SallysHuman
quote:Thats for one person. $975 for family of four.
They get a set amount... it'll be $300 either way.
quote:It does. When it gets burned through they draw from other resources. SNAP should be disincentivizing not enable people to buy more expensive cuts of meat.
Yes, they should try to stretch it, but it doesn't matter.
Besides SNAP is an acronym for supplemental nutrition assistance program, not Steak N Au Poivre.
quote:No problem with this.
Unless you're advocating going back to government cheese and foodbox days
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:26 pm to SallysHuman
Soda good start is correct.
Everything has a bar code or produce number. Scanners can be coded to not accept unhealthy items.
Funny thing about grocery shopping and value. I can fill up a good sized buggy with produce, meat, chicken, etc. for a moderate cost as long as it is not processed or prepackaged/ready to eat. If wife and I clean it, chop it, prepare it ourselves the cost is much lower and healthier than processed foods. Of course we're retired and have the time to do the work. Most everyone knows this, but the constraints of working life leans to the time saving, unhealthy, processed foods.
Everything has a bar code or produce number. Scanners can be coded to not accept unhealthy items.
Funny thing about grocery shopping and value. I can fill up a good sized buggy with produce, meat, chicken, etc. for a moderate cost as long as it is not processed or prepackaged/ready to eat. If wife and I clean it, chop it, prepare it ourselves the cost is much lower and healthier than processed foods. Of course we're retired and have the time to do the work. Most everyone knows this, but the constraints of working life leans to the time saving, unhealthy, processed foods.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 5:53 pm to Tigernomics
Milk, bread, eggs, chicken.
Posted on 8/5/25 at 6:00 pm to Tigernomics
No you should not be able to buy expensive meat with SNAP. I was always against snap but do think it’s good at times . We have foster parents parenting disabled kids that are not theirs . I dong have an issue with then getting help, but single women with 5 kids from multiple difference men and has never been married should be getting SNAP. I would prefer more soup kitchens and less SNAP. If my tax money if going to feed them then they shouldn’t bd eating better then me .
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News