A bill co-sponsored by 39 Republican state legislators would limit those getting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to buying food on a more restrictive list from a separate program intended for pregnant women and children.

SNAP recipients wouldn't be able to buy a variety of foods, including white grain bread, buns with added nuts or seeds, white rice, pasta sauce, canned fruits or soups, baked beans, cheese slices, butter, or flour.

This is from 2023.

https://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-republicans-bill-ban-snap-recipients-meat-sliced-cheese-2023-1

I can see not allowing soda and candy, as they have no nutritive value. But foods like pasta sauce, canned fruits and veggies, baked beans?? They may not be perfect foods but they do contain nutrients and they are easy to use.

There’s no way those face eating leopards will ever eat THEIR faces. Living in glass houses blah blah don’t throw rocks and so forth.

I get more than twice a month on it than I do on SNAP.
Wow! Apparently they are making a good decision by mistake.

SNAP is a fixed dollar amount. Why care what types of groceries another person buys with it?

When parents buy junk foods with their SNAP benefits, that reduces the amount of money they have to spend on their child's nutritional needs.

I love my Diet Coke and candy as much as anyone, and am inclined to let people get what they want, but I do think the needs of the child come first.

might bring them a moment of pleasure.

And, in case you are not aware, not every person receiving SNAP help has children.

and I would never begrudge people a moment of pleasure. I'm fine with them buying those things as long as they put the kids needs first. My daughter teaches at a rural school and she sees far too many students with parents who do not put them first. I would actually prefer to give them more money to spend so they can do both easily.

With their actual money. Just like they have to spend cash on shampoo and toothpaste.

I have no problem with taking soda and candy off of approved purchases with SNAP. I don't like the Iowa plan, though, which is so restrictive as to impose a hardship on the families.

I doubt you’d be ok with someone using their SNAP benefits for something like cigarettes or alcohol. So why should it be ok to use those benefits for foods that are not nutritious and are even harmful. Upon writing this, I realize that would account for half the crap on the grocery store shelves…so never mind.

so people with limited means can get a lot more of it and it lasts longer. The goal of encouraging people to eat healthy sounds good but the cost is a major constraint. The farmers markets here take SNAP but people can't buy very much from what I've seen.

Sugar and ultra-processed foods, when eaten in excess, worsen your health and increase medical costs. If you are on SNAP, you are almost certainly getting your health-care subsidized. Healthier population, besides improving peoples lives in general, reduce health care costs.

...and such. No..I'm not in concrete on this one but, seems more fair. example...700 for actual healthy food...125 for fun food.

And per person?

…but if I recall didn’t rethugs have their panties all in a tuck over Michelle Obama’s ideas about improving nutritional values in school lunch rooms?

...at that CPAC event? The MAGA chuds really hated Michelle Obama's health initiatives. IIRC, Trump bulldozed the Obama victory garden at the White House.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143371940#post34
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219729247#post23

...this is NOT about health. As usual, it's about punishment, power and pure cussedness.

Really, Martin 68? You would agree to the government nanny-stating you by telling you you're not allowed to have candy, soda, or whatever because you're a poor person?
While they're dismantling the education department?
Education, not deprivation, ought to be the remedy to ignorance and poverty.
No, I don't believe anyone (including the president) ought to be guzzling soda, or chomping into candy bars on a regular basis. But I do believe that shaking your finger at someone and saying, "No, no!! Bad person! No soda and candy for you!" isn't the way to go about getting the point across. Nor is, "I'm a well-off person and can therefore eat all the candy and drink all the soda I want so nya, nya, nya!"
It all reminds me of my late step-father who used to says he went to church so the leaders could tell him what to think!

a disapproving finger", it is making an intelligent policy for efficient use of federal funding. Health insurance rates go up when the diabetes rate goes up, and that impacts everyone negatively. I could just as easily, in the tone you've adopted, ask why you hate poor people. You object to my brief statement of opinion with a wordy lecture, coming across a great deal more nannyish than my simple statement.

For a poor kid’s birthday?

They don’t give out pop at the food pantry geesh

Good enough?

Or what if- hear me out- what if food stamps paid for flour, sugar, eggs, and vanilla extract? Wouldn't that be rad?

Because wics guide lines wouldn’t allow half of that list

This isn't WIC- which already does not allow box cake mixes, sodas, or candies.

But let’s do the math on your eggs, flour, vanilla, milk

2oz vanilla on sale for $7.99

Carton of eggs? $5.00

Milk /gallon $3.59

Floor $3.00

So nearly $20. Which is more than the two day allotment for one person if you get the maximum

Can you see how easily the budget could be blown with a freaking cake?

12 mini cupcakes and a liter of pop is much cheaper and still not something a food stamp mom can really afford but at least her child’s birthday is celebrated

A gallon of milk, a bag of flour, etc. They're using 3 of those eggs for the cake and the other 9 for a meal or two. Ingredients cost more at the point of sale, and save a lot over the long haul. More importantly, is the health impact of not substituting real food with real nutrients for junk foods and sodas. The yucky stuff is bad for all of us but do you know who is disproportionately burdened with nutrition related acute and chronic conditions? People who live below the poverty line. One of the reasons WIC is so useful and so successful in infant and maternal health is because it is nutrition focused.

Start with no food in the house, nothing because if a family doesn’t have some kind of “cheat “ or “ help “ that’s what you would have when you get your food stamps

Use the maximum amount ( which hardly anyone gets) and then let us know when you’re out of food ( my bet is 3 weeks and 2 days)

Hope you are never blessed with the joy of
“A welfare Christmas “

We actually DO know how to prepare, cook, and store our food.

I think the current SNAP allowances are ridiculously unreasonable and absolutely need to be increased. I also think it shouldn't be used on junky foods with no inherent nutritional value.

Funny you mention storage because that’s a big problem for most people who get most of their groceries once a month…. The little freezer at the top of the fridge doesn’t hold much

There was a baby involved and whoever the father was

If the father contributed and you didn’t claim his income, that would be illegal

Do you regularly make accusatory comments about people on WIC/SNAP suggesting they must have committed fraud?? Do you have any clue the hoops one must jump through to attain these benefits? Believe it or not, people are not just making up babies or disappearing husbands/boyfriends. Seriously, what kind of right wing frippary is that??

Seriously snap users aren’t even allowed to trade food, that’s also against the rules so should the sugar police and the trade police be one person or two separate jobs?

That these folks must be lying and hiding the fathers of their kids, because otherwise why even bring it up? Do you believe a large % WIC and SNAP users are forging documents and lying about their household income and the fathers of their children?

As far as trading food, no one is policing Bertha swapping an egg for a cup of sugar with her neighbor Tiffany. What they DO "police" are rogue retailers who will offer illegal workarounds like accepting food stamps for cigarettes, ringing them up as a consumable item. There doesn't seem to be ANY evidence this is a widespread problem though.

No needs to be "sugar police", in the same way you can't ring up a package of batteries with a SNAP card, it'd be as easy as not being able to ring up Dr Pepper. Retailers who do try to work around the issue through tactics like described above would be guilty of that fraud whether they are selling black market cigarettes or Dr Pepper in that fashion.

To bring things like coats, bikes, new jeans, maybe a hoodie are common and way better than no father in their life at all

But if a person declared those gifts they could risk benefits especially if they have a crabby caseworker

You are the one micro managing food stamp recipients down to what they drink, not i

Btw why doesnt high fructose corn syrup bother you or is that next?

First, you're indulging in stereotyping here. Plenty of folks on SNAP and/or WIC are married couples. Plenty of others are cohabitating with their partners. Plenty of others receive some form of child support (and claim it). People on SNAP and/or WIC are not all just single moms- which seems to be what you're implying with this entire line of conversation.

Also, not sure where you got the idea people must "declare" non-monetary gifts. No, one does not need to claim a new coat from their spouse or a new kids bike from Grandma. Hey, you also don't need to claim items you get from a food pantry or donated clothes from a church. It's literally about cash income. Period. Not sure where you're getting these notions from but here's the actual rules...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits#:~:text=What%20counts%20as%20income%3F,unemployment%20insurance%2C%20and%20child%20support.

"What counts as income? SNAP counts cash income from all sources, including earned income (before payroll taxes are deducted) and unearned income such as cash assistance, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and child support.

What counts as an asset? Generally, resources that could be available to the household to purchase food, such as amounts in bank accounts, count as assets. Items that are not accessible, such as the household’s home, personal property, and retirement savings, do not count. Most automobiles do not count.[5] States have the option to relax the asset limits, and most have done so."

Here is WIC eligibility, which is again strictly income based- https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/applicant-participant/eligibility

As far as HFCS, it's shit- especially in copious quantities. If RFK wants to outlaw it in American foods like they have in other countries, I'll cheer him on. As of now, though, that doesn't seem to be on the table. Or more pointedly- as of now- it's still on many tables.

Part of what "sells" food stamp program, is nutrition. Those foods are not nutritious- or healthy.

Also, both food stamps and WIC are regulated by USDA for a reason! They're, at heart, programs that subsidize farmers.

Food stamps should pay for real food.

Who grow corn that way s made into things like high fructose corn syrup.

Fresh, health foods last all month on one small stipend? I’m sure there will be a lot of suggestions and all may be good but until the price of actual healthy food comes down, this will just leave people starving. You can get a coupon for bread but not for a tomato…I could go on.

Amount of added ingredients that all receive subsidies from the government. This helps lower their prices. On top of that you can get coupons to lower that price. When you are trying to feed people enough food to keep them alive, it’s not as important whether the quality is there or not. I am not saying it’s right or good. It’s about choices in the moment with the resources available. I’ve lived on both sides here. I worked for Job and Family Services and understand that the snap benefit most receive is inadequate and meant to be a supplement. But that’s a whole other issue. I’ve worked in grocery off and on for years and often saw customers struggling to make it through, feed their kids, often with whatever was on sale…and that’s mostly junk. And I’m talking a large majority of the food we eat or have available is processed crap. But it is cheap. And it quiets the hunger. And I have been on food stamps and thankful for the ability to buy the food I can actually digest. I can’t eat most crap. This is not an issue for me. But there are a lot of foods I can’t eat and that is not likely to be taken into consideration. Even worse, I’ve been homeless and eaten out of trash cans. If this is allowed to proceed there will be one aisle at the grocery snap recipients here will be allowed to shop. The class war grows.And those in charge will decide what’s good enough for each group.
Is this hyperbole…I would have thought so but here we are.

Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2025, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and there is always a "but"... there is a HUGE problem that exists in many urban areas with neighborhoods that are in what are dubbed "food deserts", where there are no nearby supermarkets and the people living there are forced to go to "convenience stores" or some local "corner store" that is minimally stocked with what people would consider "healthy foods or produce" (if they even sell any fresh produce at all).

This is why the food pantries became critical because many WERE offering fresh produce. But now with the huge grant cuts to orgs who run them, there will be less of them available now.

How right do you think they are now?

GOP has really fooled a lot of lazy thinkers that a one-line conclusion can replace wisdom.

I agree that the amount of your SNAP benefit you are able to spend on these items should be a limited amount. Everyone deserves a snack or dessert that isn't the problem. The problem I have is I see plenty of people at my local Dollar General using this benefit to purchase solely processed horrible food by the cart. If you are purchasing it with your own money, you can do whatever you please. As others have said, if you are feeding this poison as almost the exclusive form of food to kids or elderly dependents I have a problem with that. As was also stated, people on SNAP are generally on public health insurance. Of course the GOP will be needlessly cruel, and limit you to purchasing whatever lobbyists in their particular state advocate for.

Which is more expensive

The real grocery store, with variety and better prices is 4-5 miles away

Without a car, riding the bus it’s difficult to bring too many groceries home

We didn't commonly have soda to drink in the house and we didn't feel deprived. It was a treat maybe on a Saturday at the local candy store. That and other junk food was something we just didn't have. We were convinced that fruit cocktail was desert.

I'm on a fixed income of, well, not a whole lot. Trying to eat healthy every day would break me if I didn't have a garden. They are blaming obesity and being unhealthy on poor people when they do this pure and simple. This is 80's welfare queen repuke bullshit 101 straight up. WTF people? That there are holier than thou's on this thread blows my mind.

based on the fact that they are poor.

And it makes me sick to see so many people here saying this is just fine.

without energy drinks?

Think, people. Think.

Really? This shit??

Unless all the lawmakers who want to institute restrictions like these are willing to swear off eating or drinking ALL of the restricted items (which I'm SURE they are not), they're nothing but a bunch of big old hypocrites afaic.

Mark my words: these people don't give 2 whoops in Hades about poor people being healthy! If they did, they'd realize the amount of the monthly benefit is not enough to keep anybody healthy.

This is about people who can afford to buy food without help resenting the help provided to those who need it and wanting to limit the amount of pleasure poor people are able to derive from that help. It comes from a stingy, meddling mentality that isn't beneficial to anyone.

The funny thing is, Republicans like to scream about the so-called "nanny state" when they think someone on the other side of the aisle is moving too far in the direction of controlling personal behavior (like requiring everyone to wear seatbelts or passing "clean indoor air" laws that ban smoking in public indoor spaces). But they're happy to push nanny state b.s. like this when it happens to suit them.

Hypocrites. They're all hypocrites.

Snap is tied to the farm bill . Changes to one should bring changes to both ,if they want to play that game.
Many small towns don’t have a grocery store to buy those items and convenience stores don’t stock them either .

this has nothing to do with eating healthier, and everything to do with crapping on poor folk

They don't care about "health". If they did, they wouldn't be trying so hard to kill the ACA/Medicare/Medicaid and refuse to phase out coal mining (with no safety/medical support for the miners).

repukes do not give a FUCK if people are healthy and whether or not they have health care

they DO.NOT.FUCKING.CARE.

From the people that shun vaccines
Reject medical expertise and science
Perfectly fine with women bleeding out in parking lots…

honestly, repukes NEVER have pure motives - it's mostly either greed, cruelty, or both

It's just a fact. RFK jr wouldn't understand.

Can’t dispute that