Foods which are considered junk food should not be purchased with taxpayer funds. This will be a win-win because it will result in a healthier people and therefore lower medicare costs should those people using EBT remain on Federally Funded programs.
32 Likes
EBT should only be able to purchase food, that’s it. No non-food items, no cash back, no cigars, no CBD.
13 Likes
It should be more like WIC and provide you the necessities not the ability to buy anything. I hate seeing people wastefully spending their EBT money on things I wouldn’t even spend my own money on. No Junk and No Luxury foods that I cant even afford at 100K+ single income 200K+ family income. If I have to spend wisely because I pay taxes, they shouldn’t be eating wealthier than I am.
8 Likes
I’d rather start at industry level: care for it that healthy
nutritious foods are the cheapest foods, a lot of the problem will solve itself.
care for it that every one has access to kitchen /cooking facilities, so the food can be prepared, too.
don’t tell people what they should, or should not, buy.
5 Likes
I am not suggesting that we tell people what they should or should not buy, I am saying that they can buy anything they want with their money, but with the taxpayer’s money they can not buy junk food.
Federal aid programs should be provided for those who are unable to provide for the basic needs to live - Red Bull and Doritos, along with a vast number of other products, are not basic needs.
2 Likes
poor people have a life that’s hard enough - if one of their very few pleasures is the sweetness and coffeine from a sugary drink, or a doritos crunch, don’t take it away from them.
give them meaning - something to strive for - they won’t need these things any more, eventually.
addictive substances are crutches. you would not take away a crutch from a guy who broke a leg, wouldn’t you? first, healing needs to happen. only then one can safely let go of a crutch.
5 Likes
You are confusing a need with a want. I volunteer a tremendous amount of time with numerous Disaster Relief organizations and we go in and meet the immediate NEED, not the wants.
So basically you are suggesting that we should be buying cigarettes with taxpayer dollars if a person on federal aid is addicted to smoking?
A crutch for a broken leg is not an addiction, it is a necessity until it isn’t any more at which time the taxpayer’s money should not be spent continuing to provide it - so yes, under those circumstances I would take it away. What you are implying is called enablement and encourages dependence on the Government dole instead of an incentive to rise above one’s status and get off the dole.
Someone who is perpetually on the government dole despite being able bodied and of reasonably sound mind needs to be forced to end the addiction of being a dependent of the taxpayer or at least required to devote a minimum number of hours working in a program that provides for the betterment of the local community or be actively enrolled in an education or training program (which granted, needs to be provided) and even those alternatives should have a time limit. Way too many are being supported by the taxpayer not because they need to be, but because they choose not to put in the work to get off the government dole.
If you feel that strongly about it, create or join a Social Non-profit and pay for the junk food to then give to those “addicted” to it. But your desire to enable slackers should not be forced on my wallet via the taxes I pay.
However, statistically, people who are advocates to spend taxpayer funds for social program entitlements that go above and beyond the “basic needs” test are usually the same folks who just talk the talk and won’t walk the walk - you know, the “For Thee, but not for Me” types. Kind of like those who created Lockdown rules during COVID but then went to get their hair done at a salon or sent their family to Florida for vacation when the rules they created and enforced prevented the common citizen from doing the same.
4 Likes
Just give people a budget and then let them buy with it whatever they want. if they prefer cigarettes to food, so be it.
you can’t end addictions by taking away a substance. the addiction will just move to another substance or behaviour.
overcoming addictions is a hard and long process, and yes, the drug or behaviour is a crutch - stabilizing the person - very much like a crutch helps walking with a broken leg.
Taxpayers are paying for safe streets. if the addicted people get their stuff and enjoy it quietly in their corner, that is a lot better than addicts stealing it, or robbing people, or getting aggressive. you don’t do them a favour, you do first a favour to all normal middle class people who just mind their business and want to go about their day.
you do a favour to police who need not deal with aggressive addicts on withdrawal.
you do a favour to children who find safety and cleanliness in parks and playgrounds.
work programs are a good thing, so yes, organize them.
never forget that we live in a highly productive world - we can produce everything we need easily with a small fraction of the available workforce. one day per week per person is probably more than enough.
so give people time and space and don’t make the poorest of the poor more miserable by denying them even the very few pleasures they have.
1 Like
Before this happens tho we need food reform
1 Like
If you look at statistic it’s mostly disabled. People are on food stamps.
1 Like
Where do I suggest anywhere that this will end addiction to anything? What it will end is the use of Taxpayer funds to pay for JUNK Food for a savings to the taxpayers - that is the sole goal of this proposal.
If you want to give drugs to drug addicts, cigarettes to smokers, junk food to junk food addicts, find, I will not stop you - provided that you do it on YOUR dime, and not my taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to provide PLEASURE (as you suggest) to anyone. Period.
2 Likes
So what? Whether they are white or black, disabled or perfectly able, Hindu or Christian I could care less. Taxpayer funds should be spent to meet a need, not a want.
1 Like
Yes but already prepared food is considered junk food in most cases, alot of ppl rely on junk food because of their situation we need food reform
1 Like
As a disabled person who is on ebt i completely agree with you with one caveat if junk food is banned it needs to be cheaper for us to eat the way we are supposed to be able to eat people who buy junk food buy it because it’s cheap most of us are surviving on 700 dollars a month its all for bills none of it is for food the extra 150 per month i receive because i cannot work provides me 1 months worth of food but i cannot buy what i should be eating because of prices. Now i know some of youd rather i just die because all i do is …live off the government crebral palsy being born with it wasn’t my choice i didn’t wanna be this way but i guess asking for a little compassion is too much. People think im handicapped because im fat no i was born with it if you need education please look it up obviously everyone here knows how to use Google also not everyone disabled or on ebt takes drugs please quit that stereotypical stuff
2 Likes
I am 57 single woman, and I am on SSDI ($960 a month) I get Food stamps of ($189 a month) All the food is junk food. I cannot afford to buy anything else after I pay my bills. I only have $189 to buy all my food for a month. I should be allowed to have ANY FOOD I choose even if you deem it junk. I cannot buy HOT FOOD, which I think should be allowed. I know that is controversial, but I have seen to many homeless people that don’t have the option to cook a meal.
2 Likes
Brandon, I make no judgement of you and I agree with you about food costs, food quality, etc.
That said, there is a world of difference between a bottle of water and a can of Red Bull. The junk food I refer to, since apparently it needs to be defined, is that which has absolutely zero nutritional value.
For instance, a box of Triscuits has some nutritional value and costs $0.355 per oz where a bag of Ruffles, which has virtually zero nutritional value and costs $0.385 per oz is actually more expensive. In fact, Red Bull is $0.196 per oz where a gallon of 2% Reduced Fat Milk is only $0.028 per oz.
So in these cases, the difference between JUNK FOOD and not (quite) junk food is not only healthier for us, but cheaper as well.
2 Likes
You are more than welcome to have ANY food you want, my proposal would simply make it so that us taxpayers are not paying for the JUNK FOOD you want. See my reply to Brandon for more on this.
1 Like
you are aware that high quality food costs more than junk food?
I’m sure every one will be happy to be treated to organic eggs, grass fed beef steaks or french raw milk cheeses. but this stuff is expensive.
poor people go for maximal calories per money unit. they don’t have much choice.
introducing the possibility to grow their own food, at least partially - in their backyard, or on common land - maybe have some chicken, or a goat for milk - would certainly be a big help in many cases.
No. Ban EBT.
Dang, what gold-plated food are you eating with a 100k personal income that’s too expensive?
But yes. this proposal is a great initiative.