Trump Administration Wants To Decide What Food SNAP Recipients Will Get

This is reallhy not a complicated issue - Donald 'the boss' Trump represents all that the Republcan party really stands for
- The rich, and wanna be rich - Everyone else is a bum, a freeloader interfering with the fascist power hungry agenda
of the rich and powerful

As that 'psycho' [in mhy opinion] news commentator Michael Savage has expressed on mnany occasions - Liberalism
is a sickness - While not telling his loyal followers that being an un-caring right wing psycho nut job might also and more so, be seen as a sickness.

As any Republican worth the Donald's attention, will tell you - There is no such thing as a free lunch
- and if we give these freeloaders and bums food - They should not enjoy it - After all why should you enjoy eating
tor free when the great Donald Trump, who was born rich and inherited millions to start with, might tell you he
worked for his money

So food stamp recipients, public housing benefactors, etc. - get ready to work and fight for a place on the street
to sleep - Homelessness is about to rebound - And what was that dystopian future movie where many were
living in their cars and the tich referred to their servants as 'furniture' ?



Disclaimer Notice: I blogged ceaselessly for Trump during the election - but I am getting old and maybe I was suffering
from premature dementia - At any rate ''if' there is a God in Heaven and if I was capable of praying - I would ask to be
forginven for supporting another hypocritcal lying to the people politician

O yes he is - He [Trump] said he wasn't going to cut-back on benefits, said it while endlessly calling Hillary Clinton
crooked - And soon as he gets into office what does he do - Figures out a way to divide the economy into the
the Conservative ideal where: "The rich get richer - And the poor get poorer"

Yes, he is getting his wall built, isn't he? - The wall between the haves and have nots


Revision addition:

Remember before the election when that other [in my opinion] right wing psycho, Alex Jones, kept harping on Hillary Clinton being
NWO [New World Order], while Trump was the independent savior of the US? - They fooled you! - Trump is solid NWO and this new
thing on cutting back on SNAP [food stamps] is part of the agenda to eliminate 'useless eaters' !!!

But don't worry if you have enough money - But do you have enough money ? - Are you sure ?
- Remember there is going to be a lot of hungry people out there

a reply to: KTemplar

Maybe they should try walking in, if applying online isn’t working.

First you said they been trying for months and didn’t get a call back, now they have jobs but they aren’t the jobs that were wanted by the person.

Here is another tip, not everyone that goes to school for a marketing degree is going to be good at marketing... I got a cousin who wants to be a computer programmer, he also sucks at programming, nobody will higher him.

a reply to: fatkid


I hear what you’re saying. My point is there are not enough jobs that can sustain a family. Many don’t even offer health insurance.

It’s hire not higher btw

a reply to: fatkid

Yes. Thats great and all, but here is the thing. The people have no power. They will not get any power in numbers, because the people doing the dividing will never stop. So the solution has to come from elsewhere, because the people do not have the power to hold their government to account, their business leaders to account. There is no law these days which protects a society from being victimised by its government, there are no laws protecting the people from being controlled and propagandised towards, and so the "solution" you are thinking of, where people just all of a sudden, are FREE to care about one another, rather than hate and fear one another, is NOT practically possible at this time. Nor will it become practically possible in anything like a short while from now. While it remains possible for a President to lie, repeatedly and with incredible frequency, to the people of his country about a range of topics, while it remains legal for the government to spread propaganda, while it remains legal for companies to refuse to pay living wages to their workers, the care you are looking to see, will be washed away under a mountain of what amounts to informational garbage, scrap data, nonsense.

This is why I say that there are no solutions. If people COULD do what you describe, despite the propaganda and the other methods of controlling them, including what amounts to wage slavery, then they already would be doing that, and you would not be looking at a situation where a walking, talking equivalent of an STD is the leader of the free world. If people COULD ignore the propaganda in MASSIVE numbers, and love one another anyway, then you would not have a corporate owned government in general, which you definitely do if you live in America, leave alone anywhere else. If people COULD ignore the propaganda, and care about one anothers safety regardless of their differences, then you would not have a problem in the first place, because your business leaders would also care about their employees, and not make slaves out of them in all but name. If these things were possible now, they would have happened ALREADY, but they haven't, because they aren't.

The change you are thinking of is not going to come about while fascists are emboldened by having ideological support from the President. Its not going to come about while the government has MORE billionaires and other wasters in it, than it has EVER had before. Its not going to come about as a result of tax breaks for the wealthy and vanishing savings for the middle and lower classes, and you have quite a while of that nonsense left.

When the US elects a President whose compassion is greater than his ire, whose intelligence and mercy are greater than his tendency to rage and enact violence, when the US elects someone who wants to make sure that people have paying work to do if they can, and the support they need to LIVE, not just exist if they cannot, when the US elects a President who understands that immigration to the US is largely the fault of its own economic and foreign policies, and is not willing to scape goat those who arrive from afar, MAYBE this whole caring for one another and respecting one another thing, will become the norm again.

But if America keeps up this corporatism or bust approach, appeasing fascists and their hangers on at the ballot box, then you can expect no positive change at all.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: joeraynor
So effectively they are saying the government knows best what people ought to eat.

Actually, science has proven what things are best for you to eat. Ever hear of the food pyramid?


Here in AZ you see it all the time where people sell their SNAP benefits for cash. Most of them are illegals who get SNAP for their anchor babies.

They will approach you at the store and offer to pay for all your groceries if you pay them out half or 3/4 in cash. It is quite a racket because people are getting their $100 grocery bill for only $50

AZ is a red state is it not? I'm from Detroit I've had food stamps for over 10 years. I've seen a lot of people use food stamps over the years and I've never seen anyone abuse them. Well once I did see a lady buy 5 bottle of power aide.

It might be a different mentality up north but down here you see SNAP and welfare abuse all the time. Like I said go to any grocery store in Phoenix within the first 2 weeks of the month and you will be swarmed by people selling thier SNAP and other benefits.

Every one of them abuses the system and has no care for people who actually need it. Most illegals I know actually strive to have more kids here in the US. Because the parents cant get welfare/SNAP but their children can.

I used to work for a gas station and you would be appalled with the things you can buy with SNAP. Candy/Milkshakes/soda.

I am sorry but if you need assistance to purchase necessities like real food than you should not be able to purchase luxuries like sweets/alcohol/cigarettes/fast food etc....

Im from Phoenix and never been approached by anyone at a grocery store trying to trade stamps for money. Neither has any of my family members.

a reply to: wickd_waze


That’s because Tweakers don’t eat, and Phoenix is full of those.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Aazadan

You don’t have to pray to get fed, you could get a job.

I have a job now, at the time I didn't, because doing what I do takes 10 years of schooling before you're entry level. At the time, working simply wasn't an option if I wanted to get anywhere in life. So yes, forced prayers to Jesus and the cross, thanking him for the food. I'm Buddhist and take an especially harsh view of idolatry. The whole process was very offensive, sure I still ate it due to a lack of other options, but something tells me that forcing religion on me in exchange for food goes against the intent.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Yes it is an improvement.
I do not think we are seeing it the same.
If they do it similar to how it was done it will be all about product fulfillment and not about name brands.
People do not need choice they need quality nourishment.

Markets run on choice. Removing choice makes the market worse. You're just telling people that their dollars aren't good enough to buy certain foods, so that you can feel superior by buying them.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

Good. It's about time. People get on SNAP, and fill their carts full as can be with snack cakes and soda and candy and top of the line meat products. Dang, I like this plan from Trump. Half of it may not include fresh fruits and veggies, so insteqd of buying zebra cakes they'll have yo use the other half for fresh meat and veggies.

Those are the few and far in between who are scamming it. And plain hamburger isnt top of the line meat. water is as exspensive as soda these days in stores. So where is the savings? In trumps mind thats where.

Few and far between my butt. Those who do not abuse SNAP are the few and far between.

Water generally is not as expensive as soda. That is an absolute lie. It is next to free at home. At the store it is less than $1 for a gallon. You can get 5 gallons for $1.75 right outside the gas station. Soda is two to four times as expensive as water at the grocery store.

Ground beef is not top of the line, but 20 pounds of it plus 38 chicken breasts, 29 pork chops, 5 packs of ribs, 3 thick ribeye steaks, and a turkey is a little excessive especially when you throw in the zebra cakes, yoohoo, and blue bell.

The savings come from forcing them to spend SNAP money on certain things. My wife could grocery shop for a family of 3 for a month for $250 and usually less. We worked hard for our money, and she made it stretch. And we had plenty of food.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Yes it is an improvement.
I do not think we are seeing it the same.
If they do it similar to how it was done it will be all about product fulfillment and not about name brands.
People do not need choice they need quality nourishment.

Markets run on choice. Removing choice makes the market worse. You're just telling people that their dollars aren't good enough to buy certain foods, so that you can feel superior by buying them.

So it's all about having superiority complex? How about the possibility that people want to see their taxes being used responsibly for a change? We're allowed to pay for these programs but can't voice our concerns or opinions on how the programs are implemented and that's bullcrap.

SNAP is a taxpayer funded program to provide sustenance so people dont go hungry. It's a good program for the many need it. Now from a healthcare perspective we know chips, candy, and sodas offer little nutritional value while remaining the leading cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

So we're evil for caring about junk food being purchased but here's the truth. There is nothing wrong with taxpayers who fund SNAP being concerned with recipients buying junk food knowing they also fund Medicaid and will again be footing the bills for the piss-poor eating habits of others. So we take the first screwing and we're expected to just turn and smile for the second round.

a reply to: Aazadan

I agree religion should never be forced, but nobody made you do anything.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You made a long post,

The truth is people don’t take action because it isn’t as bad as we make it out to be, we get all these free hand outs, why would I rise up and speak against all this free stuff.

It’s not that they don’t have the means, it is because they don’t have the will, people are addicted to having it easy, if people don’t work hard as hell for something why would they die to protect it.

a reply to: KTemplar

So it is a immigration problem?

originally posted by: fatkid
Here is another tip, not everyone that goes to school for a marketing degree is going to be good at marketing... I got a cousin who wants to be a computer programmer, he also sucks at programming, nobody will higher him.

Most jobs worth doing generally require moving. The usual hire process is a resume screen, followed by 1-2 phone interviews, followed by an onsite (typically in another city/state), followed by a final phone interview. That's not something you can just walk into from off the street.

Also, programming is a very hard field to get hired in. There's immense demand, far outpacing supply but 90% or more of the interview process is run by people who don't understand coding so they don't accurately understand their needs or what to look/test for in the process.

originally posted by: Anathros
So it's all about having superiority complex? How about the possibility that people want to see their taxes being used responsibly for a change? We're allowed to pay for these programs but can't voice our concerns or opinions on how the programs are implemented and that's bullcrap.

Glass houses and all. I would take these criticisms more seriously when the people making them eat healthy as well. But they don't, for largely the same reason. It's too damn expensive to do so. Watch peoples shopping carts sometime, I have a bad habit of doing this all the time due to the decade I spent on SNAP and having to be extra conscious of what I bought to avoid getting bitched at by people in public. People buy junk food, and they're not all doing it on assistance. Candy, bread, rice, ramen, fruit cups, cookies, frozen foods, chips, soda, processed meats, processed cheese, alcohol, pasta, all of that is junk food. The typical sandwich is junk food these days due to the salt and sugar content. It's all the same. 80% or more of what grocery stores sell is outright horrible for you.

The worst part is, if people on SNAP did buy what's healthy, these criticisms wouldn't disappear, instead it would change to the fact that being poor results in healthier eating and the tax payers would still feel slighted. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

You want healthy eating? Make it so that people (everyone, not just SNAP) can afford a breakfast of fresh (none of that prepackaged crap) plain/vanilla yogurt with some fresh fruit and maybe some granola with a morning coffee. A kale salad with some toppings like fresh avacado, tomato, sunflower seeds and vinegar, a slice or two of nan, and bottle of water for lunch, alongside some spaghetti squash and grilled salmon with a glass of wine or tomato juice for dinner. That's healthy eating, it's also at least $15 for a days worth of food which is far above the majority of peoples budgets.

a reply to: Aazadan

Whether I eat healthy or not is neither here nor there. It's about how our tax money is spent.

But if that's the sole criteria of being able to voice an opinion on this topic, I think I eat healthy enough to have the right to opine.

Did you read that sentence? How much sense does that make? Not a great deal, in my not so humble opinion.

a reply to: seagull

How healthy you eat is very relevant, because that leads to health care costs which get subsidized by taxes. Tell me what costs more? Treating diabetes or supplementing a food budget. The long term medical costs incurred by society through poor eating habits are where the real cost is. The point of sale for food costs very little in comparison.

Let me give some real life example of this. I've been in the Bay Area for work this week rather than my usual rural Ohio living. Every time I'm in central/southern California I'm blown away by the culture here. Because of the state initatives (which have cost tax dollars), being health conscious is much more trendy. Where I live people are fat, Ohio is the fattest state. Most people out here though are slim.
When our office provides us with breakfast, back home it's coke and donuts, out here it's coffee, water, and fresh cut fruit.
Lunch in the cafeteria back home is burgers or hotdogs with fries and some ice cream. Here it's vegetable soup or grilled shrimp and coleslaw and a salad.
There's viable bike lanes to navigate traffic. Back home, you literally cannot ride a bike (weather permitting) because you're a road hazard.
People walk.
Despite the much larger population, the air is cleaner because the cars are either low emission vehicles, or hybrids/electric. Not to mention an electric mass transit system. Back home, a good 1/3 of vehicles on the streets have mods to do what's called "rolling coal".
Where I live, there's more people using those electric scooters to shop than actually walking these days.

Making all this stuff happen has cost the state money, but it's also reducing their health care costs significantly. What people buy with SNAP hasn't required any additional legislation, in fact California is one of the easiest places to use SNAP, you can even use it at fast food restaurants. Instead, they've targeted culture changes to make people more health conscious.

The point is, limiting SNAP isn't going to change much. It's just a power play, most groceries are still purchased with private sector dollars, and those are just as unhealthy. If you want to save money, you need to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles. If you do that, diet changes (within budget) will follow.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah, If you think that is how the “normal” hiring process works I can only say my opinion is different than yours, I’m just not buying that the majority of people searching for a job are doing 3 phone interviews and traveling out of the state they live in.

Maybe for the industry you are working in (maybe it’s oil or space exploration), if you want to be a marine biologist and you live in Oklahoma City, I could see you needing to travel to a different state, so I guess it might be relative.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: fatkid
Here is another tip, not everyone that goes to school for a marketing degree is going to be good at marketing... I got a cousin who wants to be a computer programmer, he also sucks at programming, nobody will higher him.

Most jobs worth doing generally require moving. The usual hire process is a resume screen, followed by 1-2 phone interviews, followed by an onsite (typically in another city/state), followed by a final phone interview. That's not something you can just walk into from off the street.

Also, programming is a very hard field to get hired in. There's immense demand, far outpacing supply but 90% or more of the interview process is run by people who don't understand coding so they don't accurately understand their needs or what to look/test for in the process.

Ive hired tens of thousands employees in my years. Rare that i do more than 2 meetings and more rare than someone moves for the job.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: KTemplar

So it is a immigration problem?

You know, I knew you were trying to lead me there, and I don’t appreciate it. If you have a point to make just say it!


It’s the world is overpopulated problem.
It’s fraud
It’s a cost of living problem
It’s the value of the dollar problem
It’s the breakdown of family values problem
It’s too many parents on drugs problem

You want some solutions:

Enforce the rules and laws
Offer training for those stuck in the system
Put a cap on what snack foods can be bought - say maybe no more than 3% on soda/snacks



(For everyone who wants to stigmatize children for their unfortunate circumstances, I hope you never have to be in their shoes). I refused to eat free lunch when growing up because we had to go through separate lines, and I was embarrassed. So I could never have milk or a damn cookie because my father was an alcoholic?

Let’s just give them boxes so the neighbors can now judge them.