Yes, if you can purchase online and through Amazon, this should be considered. It helps local farmers (instead of global distributors) where those individuals reside.
1 Like
not everything you mentioned i disagree with, just point number 3 " Distribution should be out of the current DHHS offices twice per month. (Yes, if they can make it to appts to apply for benefits, they can make it once or twice a month to collect food, or distribution can be made via Uber (pd for by recipient) but they have to order their limited quantities via DHHS website)"
I dont have the energy to go to appointments to apply for benefits, my weeks are filled with dr. appointments. All SNAP benefits are done through a phone call at this point. Your second point of making ppl pay for uber to get food delivered is also not a solution. People live in the country too and there are no Ubers there. Even if there was Uber, delivery costs would be so expensive that it wouldn be unaffordable for most people. Especially if they are on SNAP because they cant work due to an illness. They’re already living on an extremely tight budget because they have little to no income. I’m currently living on only 1k per month and I’m expected to survive on that when I cant even work. And you want me to pay for Uber to deliver my food? And waste my gas driving 30 miles into the city to apply for benefits in person?
I can see how this plan might make sense in a city, but for people living out in rural areas, this would not work for them. If every food can has to go through strict testing and labeling, it can also go through a system that categorizes weather or not it should be covered by snap or not. Candy being one of the banned that should not. It’s a luxury, not a food for nourishment.
1 Like
Some people rely on food assistance to survive,elderly,low income etc. not all are buying soda etc. to limit what they buy is cruel! Most have worked hard all their lives and now need food. For someone to say “on our dollar” is very unfair to those who can’t survive without it. Without staples and meat etc we would have a bigger health crises. Look more to younger people who are able to work and doctors give them disability and those who really need help can’t get it. Your tax dollars go to many redundant things other than helping people get decent food. It doesn’t even by toilet paper.
that is how it should be!
Better idea, end the food stamp program, you don’t feed the bears at yellowstone because it makes them dependent, same thing happens to humans.
2 Likes
From your post, it appears that there are at least some things that you might agree should not be purchasable with food stamps: you did mention soda, specifically. I would add alcohol and tobacco. Others would probably add that food stamp benefits cannot be converted to cash at ATMs. I remember some headlines a few months ago about how EBT cards were being used to get cash at ATMs in strip bars–probably not what the program architects envisioned, LOL! You stated that “Most have worked hard all their lives and now need food.” I don’t think you will find a single person in this entire discussion who disagrees with that statement. In the context of your post, though, it sounded very much like you thought at least some already do disagree with that statement. The question is: what types of products should be purchasable with charity extracted from taxpayers by force of law. Because that is exactly what we are talking about: charity. I think no reasonable person objects to necessities, including hygiene products, e.g., toilet paper, toothpaste/brushes, feminine products, and the like in addition to basic food staples, to include meats, eggs, milk, vegetables, cooking oils, baking essentials. I’d even support ice cream, since it provides some milk. Feel free to add to my categories and items. But things like candies, potato chips, doritos, fried onion skins and other ‘comfort foods’ probably will not garner widespread support.
1 Like
I did state soda but now that I ponder this a bit , no. No one should dictate what a person should or could eat. It’s obvious you don’t know what it’s like having to except food stamps, as you say-itsEBT. Or reasons why some get them.
You can not purchase alcohol, cigarettes, paper products, feminine hygiene products only food you can not purchase fresh made food, dinners etc. you can not get cash from food allotments, nor use them at restaurants, vegetable stands or some stores. So I would say they are pretty much regulated now as far as getting good food. Although I agree some shouldn’t get them. But if you don’t understand why some do you have a problem. I am 70 yrs old, I have worked 2-3 jobs at a time all my life until I got MS. I can’t hold a ful time job and I also raised 2 of my children and one from alcoholic neighbor( never record a dime of help) I had to stop working at 64 but still work as many side jobs as I can. My retirement is very low not enough to buy food so I do get help not near enough. I paid taxes all my life and still do on SS. That tiny1% that come out to help others does not bother me nor should bother you. You aren’t paying my or their bills. People need to stop degrading people who need help, shaming is not a good thing. It’s there for the people just like rich tax breaks. It’s controlled enough and degrading enough. Would you like to try and buy toilet paper with quarters? But I will agree I know many that are able to work, keep having babies to stay home and just scam the system so stop acting like you are buying my food. Instead get the cheaters out there then maybe we could get real food.
I agree with much you have said. They need to (for younger not disabled) to not give so much cash that they just choose to stay home have more babies to get more money. I have seen this a lot. To make them volunteer part time sometimes. I’ve volunteered either the Red Cross for 31 yrs. It keeps me moving. If I can do it anyone can. That may be incentive to get a job. I don’t get cash as I’m not eligible, sadly I live on 950 a month and paying a mortgage. As I said if I can do it others that I see setting in bars can.
Sadly those that get cash use it for anything. If they could somehow put restrictions on that but I’m not sure they could.
It is just sad that those who need it can’t get the help they need while others abuse it badly.
I am very frugal and save on anything I can and reuse much. I grow a garden and can what I can to use for the year.
Maybe they could apply some mandatory classes to learn to save money, cook, maintain things before they get cash.
I wish I had an answer to help the older generation more.
If you’re using your own money to buy your desires, then yes, you should be able to buy whatever you want. But if you’re using my money, then I have a say in what my money gets used for. Your age and needs are immaterial. Your work history is immaterial. Soda is never a need; it is only a want. The rule of economics is who pays the bill has a say. If you’re paying the bill, you do whatever you want. If the rest of us are paying, we have a say in the matter.
You have put your finger on one of the baser features of fallen human nature. In 1832, the English concluded a Royal Commission on Poor Relief, launched due to the explosion of applications for relief among the English nation. One of the commissioners was the economist Nassau Senior, who wrote, “persons who would legislate for extreme cases–who would rather encourage any amount of debauchery, idleness, improvidence, or imposture, than suffer a single applicant to be relieved in a manner they think harsh… [They] would reward the laborer for throwing himself out of work, by giving him food better, and more abundant, than he obtained in independence… They are governed by their feelings, and their feelings are all on one side. Their pity for the pauper excludes any for the laborer or the tax-payer.” In using yourself as an example [accepting all your personal statements as true], you would ensure an open door for the frauds and the lazy. Let the taxpayer carry that burden, as long as you are not inconvenienced. But the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. It is a universal law. I would suggest that, in your own self-interest, you offer suggestions and support measures that spare the taxpayer needing to support the frauds and the lazy. And don’t be too open about a sense of entitlement that you may spend other people’s money however you please.
1 Like
See there’s where I differ for you. You are not paying the bill. The government is are you contributing to it? Yes but every single person in the country is also it was past many years ago after the war you have no say in that just like all the rest of the money that comes out of your pay goes to some stupid Study or some other agenda so maybe people should start fighting all these stupid studies that they’re doing and regulations that might help for more money to help those in need see the difference is that doesn’t affect me at all giving to someone else 8% of the federal budget goes to paying welfare so if you divide that up between say 300 million people in the country, it comes out to about one cent from your paycheck
What??!! The “government is paying your bill”?? 
Sweet summer child, you are 70 years of age and still have so little understanding? Where do you think the gubmint gets the money? School is in session: The gubmint has no money of its own. It has nothing to give anyone that it has not first taken from someone else by force of law. Method One is through taxation, easily understood. Method Two is through inflation, in which the gubmint increases the money supply by printing it. These magically produced dollars are an invisible theft from the savings of citizens, by their savings are quietly robbed of purchasing power. This is why prices go up; the intrinsic value of the good or service purchased has not changed but it takes more dollars to equal that intrinsic value. Inflation is not some shopkeeper increasing the price on an item. The economic definition of inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit. There is only one entity that can lawfully increase the supply of money and credit: the government. Anyone else who does that is deemed a counterfeiter and prosecuted as such. You think you should be provided for? You certainly should, and your children should be first in line to do it. They have infinitely more duty to you than anyone else has. If they are not chipping in, but leaving you to barely make it on SocSec and food stamps, then they are poor excuses for family.
1 Like
What “tiny 1% that comes out to help others” are you referring to? Is that what you imagine the SocSec tax is, instead of the 15% reality? Not sure what the Medicare tax is, but it is smaller than the SocSec tax.
I appreciate the focus on encouraging health, but I disagree with the idea of restricting EBT purchases based on a subjective label like “junk food.” Limiting choices for people who rely on this support is not the answer and undermines individual autonomy. It suggests that just because someone needs temporary assistance, they should lose the right to decide what they eat. People use EBT for different reasons, from job loss to supporting children. Imposing such restrictions comes across as punitive rather than supportive.
Rather than restricting purchases, a more constructive approach would be to expand access to affordable, healthy options in communities where they’re scarce. For example, incentivizing grocery stores to stock more fresh produce, funding nutrition education programs, or providing discounts for healthier items would all be positive ways to support wellness.
It’s important to remember that healthy eating is about education, availability, and choice, not about forcing restrictions. Let’s respect the dignity of people on EBT by trusting them to make their own choices, just as anyone else does. Empowering people instead of limiting them will lead to better health outcomes in the long run.
1 Like
Yes, and what about soup kitchens everywhere where Moms can pick up ready made, healthy meals for a determined number of stamps? Much “junk food” is perhaps used by folks who have no time or means to cook.
What if there were some sort of coupon system in put in place to incentivize people to purchase fresh meats and produce, not too dissimilar from what the person from NM mentioned remembering.
I say this as a SNAP recipient due to being on disability while raising a child alone. Too many times I have had to pass up the fresh products because it was more affordable to purchase the frozen processed food items.
It’s cheaper to buy 2 jars of pasta sauce that contains sugar and artificial ingredients than it is to buy the ingredients to make it from scratch most of the time.
If as a parent I could practically double the amount of food I could buy when purchasing fresh, you can bet I would opt for that and reserve frozen meals for my high pain & fatigue days.
This would be especially beneficial in food desert regions.
As a SNAP recipient and a single parent on disability, there are occasions like holidays and birthdays where a cake, ice cream, or pie come into play.
An incentive to purchase fresh or frozen produce and meats over processed meals is something I would fully support, as not everyone has the time or the ability to cook from scratch every meal. Limiting options would definitely feel degrading, especially during a child’s birthday or holidays dinners.
Imagine having a family birthday meal for a minor without cake & ice cream, Thanksgiving & Christmas meals without pumpkin or apple pie, or Easter brunch without warm peach cobbler and vanilla ice cream. People do receive benefits for various reason, like you stated. Many times those reasons were beyond their control.
Thank you for your statement & ideas.
Photo ID is a problem for some, what about eligible, homebound seniors who have someone who shops for them??
Please consider voting for my proposal to ban the pharma industry from unnecessarily adding lactose to medications and forcing patients to pay for an expensive lactase enzyme dietary supplement to digest the lactose in their medications.
Ban unnecessary use of lactose in medications
If successful, this proposal will be a game-changer for millions of Americans suffering from lactose intolerance.