re: EBT Community Member™ upset Trump blocked her cinnamon toast stick purchase at Sam's

I don't feel sorry for her, but the way the new policies were implemented seems dumb. Do you just have to wait and see what's eligible at the checkout counter?

quote:

---

If it’s got a shite ton of sugar or corn syrup, then it’s probably not eligible.

---

I doubt that is always true. "Probably" is too vague. Someone said she should go and buy the ingredients to make French toast. By that logic, syrup would be ineligible.

1. I voted for this.

2. Why don't you just buy bread, eggs, and milk, and make your own fricking French toast? It takes 5 minutes and the EBT card wouldn't have rejected any of those items. And relative to the amount of French toast you could have made with those ingredients, it probably would have been cheaper.

3. Why are you feeding your kids what amounts to junk food for breakfast in the first place?

4. As one of the people who pays for your ungrateful arse in the first place, frick you.

quote:

---

I doubt that is always true. "Probably" is too vague. Someone said she should go and buy the ingredients to make French toast. By that logic, syrup would be ineligible

---

Then the fatties don't get syrup. Put some local honey on'em.

Stop making excuses for the worthless amongst us.

quote:

---

Funny thing is she could probably just put that shite back and go grab some bread, eggs, cinnamon and syrup and make the shite herself.

---

No, she couldn’t. And if you told her it could be made with bread, eggs and cinnamon, you would probably surprise her.

quote:

---

i hope she has comments enabled. going to be fun.

---

Is there a link to her account with this video?

quote:

---

Put some local honey on'em.

---

These purchasing restrictions will do nothing. Just more nanny state stupidity that WILL lead to consequences no one here wants. The nation will not spend less money. People will not be healthier.

Grocery stores and food manufacturers are going to lose billions of dollars. That means campaign donations start disappearing. We have elections in 10 months. This is going to backfire. Much like prohibition. It's always like that.

When these restrictions fail to make a dent in any of the problems they are aimed at, don't be surprised when the "experts" want to apply the restrictions to everyone. If they are to maintain logical consistency, they must do that. Below are excerpts from: KEEPING SODA IN SNAP: Understanding the Other Iron Triangle a 2018 manuscript you can find at PubMed. Written by the typical Harvard / Ivy / Boston snobs.

Sugary beverages are clearly labeled a public health problem, and not just for the SNAP element. Look at the numbers they cite. They will come for these things for the general population, not just those on SNAP. They'll come for a lot of other things to that everyone enjoys. All in the name of "public health".

Take note of how these authors use the term "personal responsibility". They are not fans of it. Don't underestimate what the nanny state will do to you, saying they are doing it for you, in the future.

Participants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of “personal responsibility” in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this “iron triangle” of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.

Sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) are a significant contributor to the obesity crisis. Per capita calorie intake from caloric soda consumption quadrupled for American adults between 1965 and 2002.4 Low income American adults now consume nearly two SSB servings a day,5 and for every one to two daily servings consumed, the lifetime risk of developing diabetes increases by 30%.6 Between 1958 and 2010, the number of Americans with diabetes increased 12-fold.7 In addition to obesity and diabetes, SSB consumption is linked to increased risks for hypertension, coronary heart disease, and tooth decay. These health risks are faced most acutely by low-income households, including those eligible for SNAP benefits.8 Among American adults with no college education, about 8% of all deaths due to diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are linked to SSB intake.9


SNAP recipients are a small part of the nation. If obesity, diabetes etc is sky rocketing, the math tells you that if you want to really make progress, you have to limit these purchases for everyone, not just a small group. Those arguments will be made in the future.

In the work that follows we explore why removing SSBs from SNAP has remained controversial. Part of the explanation is deeply cultural, given the distinct preference of most Americans for personal responsibility versus governmental authority. In a 2011 Pew Global Attitudes survey, Americans preferred “freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference” over “state guarantees that nobody is in need” by a margin of 58 to 35%. In Britain these preferences were roughly reversed, with only 38% opting for freedom. In Germany and France 62% opted for state guarantees over freedom.15

Restricting SNAP is an alignment with Europe and the nanny state. They restrict a lot more than just food purchases. That will be done here in the US as well.

wrong free food should have limited options period should be cheese and bread but this a good start