> there are much, much larger and controversial line items in the budget to argue about than feeding the poor.

For example, the 40 billion dollar bailout of the Argentine economy.

100B for SNAP vs 850B for defense in 2024. Interest on govt issued debt was 880B.

Imagine if the debt were 1 trillion dollars instead of 38! How hard is it to say "no budget increases this year"? And that wouldn't even eliminate the deficit and they can do it.

What would be the value of the US dollar if we didn't have a military to back it up?

I’d take that trade any day

Ahaha. Wait, did you mean this as ironic comedy, or are you serious?

Answer the question

Oh at this point, with the way we've treated countries with military action, insane tariffs, masked deportations, embargos/blockades, threatening the sovereignty of a G8 country, threatening to annex another, supporting Israeli genocide, the list goes on...

We're on the downward slope now, but it will take awhile.

The future requires investments in education, infrastructure, healthcare, and energy generation (in particular, cheap energy), and we're simply not doing it. Being lonely sucks, and the US govt has alienated long standing allies. Economically they doesn't bode well.

You're going to have to explain your premise, because this question doesn't make sense.

What would be the value of my car without the pile of tires in my garage?

Lol. You are just too ignorant to even begin having this conversation

It's quite possible SNAP is doing more harm than good as overeating kills many more Americans (especially poor) than undernourishment.

Yes we should prevent starvation but the program does need some reform. Far too much of it is spent on junk food and soft drinks. Something like 23% of SNAP is spent on junk food.

Restricting SNAP purchases to be more aligned with health would very likely save lives.

The problem here is that healthier food tends to cost more, so you'd essentially be forcing people to buy less food unless you also simultaneously raised the disbursement. And then a certain wing of the media starts screaming about how the poor are eating organic salads on the backs of taxpayers.

Sounds reasonable in theory but has little basis in our current political reality.

I hate this common trope about health food costing more. Beans, lentil, rice, potatos, carrots, onions, cabbage, garlic don't cost a lot, add some additional cheap proteins like chicken and eggs and you're good to go for like $50 or less per week per person. And if you can buy in bulk and freeze, then it can get even cheaper.

Assuming access to a reliable cooker, safe storage, time to food prep and enough education in cooking to be able to cook. Some people on assistance fail all of those boxes, many fail at least one

It’s not a tripe. A lot of these aren’t even available in food deserts, whereas soda and garbage is ubiquitous in every corner stores and gas station etc.

Could it be because we are subsidizing that soda and garbage via SNAP? Especially in low income areas?

As the great Charlie M used to say: "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome"

but we can't change it because that means we are making poor people miserable

That is part of the problem, yes. Not SNAP itself, which is good, but the fact that it can be used to buy garbage.

You should be restricted from buying soft drinks, chips, candy, etc. with SNAP/EBT, just like you can't buy cigarettes and alcohol with it. But nobody is willing to take on BigFood, and are content to let them prey on the poor with taxpayers footing the bill.

The second problem though is that if you restrict SNAP eligible food, you still have to provide healthy alternatives -- fresh veggies, fruit, grains, etc. -- at subsidized prices for SNAP recipients so they can actually survive on it.

It's such a shameful situation, and one that gets very little attention from either party.

Reform is needed, yes, but this is a stupid comment.

By your own argument 75% of SNAP is spent on normal food, mostly by people who need it

So why not reform it? It seems like an easy way to get bipartisan support and compromise. To put the numbers in perspective, the US only had 3000 deaths due to starvation (almost all of which are mental health issues rather than lack of access to food). This is compared to 280k-500k deaths due to overeating.

Cut the 25% and keep the 75% that is spent on normal food. By the other comments you can see that even that seems quite unpopular as it is seen as policing food for poor people?

Do you know how much money SNAP gives people, and how much junk food and soft drinks cost? Like have you actually done the math on anything that would lead you to your opinion?

Jesus christ, what is wrong with the people in this country? Why are you do obsessed with policing what other people eat?

There are a huge number “poor people deserve to be miserable” people in this country, and even here on HN. It is horrifying.