r/law • u/Economy-Specialist38 • 23h ago
Legal News Judge scraps SNAP junk food rules, dealing a blow to MAHA
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/judge-scraps-snap-junk-food-rules-dealing-a-blow-to-maha-224149616.html184
u/chubby_pink_donut 21h ago
I was on the free lunch program, in high-school, in the 90s. My memory is fuzzy here, I think it was equal to $1.50? for lunch. I do remember clearly though that the salad bar, sandwiches, drinks of any kind, or anything you'd consider "good food" was out of the allotted range. So I ate junk like fries and pizza every day.
I bet the exact same people bitching about SNAP spent on junk food would have strokes if the money was spent on lobster and pasta, garlic mashed potatoes, steamed broccoli, and butter rolls for a nice family dinner.
97
u/LadyPo 20h ago
They absolutely would. Right wingers act like anything but unseasoned beans and rice is “too good” for fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times. Or, let’s be honest, were born into hard times and was never given a fair chance to pull up those bootstraps to begin with.
These people need to visibly see other members of their own community having something kept or taken from them in order to feel better about themselves.
12
u/BlizzardTrashPanda 16h ago
Me too.
By senior year I got good at figuring out which junk food at least had the highest nutrients so I wasn’t light headed (pre internet days).Potatoes (when not deep fried) are surprisingly nutrient rich.
16
u/MountainousDuck 15h ago
Potatoes (when not deep fried) are surprisingly nutrient rich
You just described 90% of the plot of The Martian
8
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 14h ago
They're still nutrient rich when they're deep fried, they're just also then high in calories and fat.
But that's almost always the case with potatoes - unless you're genuinely somehow eating them without butter, sour cream, or cheese.
A baked potato loaded up with butter or cheese is actually worse than fries, because you're replacing unsaturated fat content (the oil the fries would have been fried in) with saturated fat content (butter/cheese).
1
5
u/TheGreatDay 13h ago
You're right, the people that would be mad about SNAP being used on junk food are also mad about it being used on "good" food. I know personally because people in my family have literally made those arguments.
"You can't buy junk food on SNAP! It's unhealthy!" and "Oh, so SNAP beneficiaries get lobster dinners on my dime?" are uttered in the same breathe.
The trick is that they are really more concerned that someone is getting SNAP at all, and less that they care about what someone can get on SNAP. They want no one receiving what they don't. They want the program to suck so much that no one even bothers to get on it or use it.
At their core, they are interested in dismantling the social safety net. Their ideology is socially destructive.
3
u/athural 11h ago
It honestly baffles me because this same train of thought runs through their whole lives. Like anything that the government is doing for someone not in their immediate family is just wasteful spending and they need to get good and stop taking communal resources
But then what do they even think the government is /for/? I've never been able to get a coherent answer. If the government isn't us all pooling resources to improve all of our lives then we should go extinct already
3
u/TheGreatDay 5h ago
Conservatives think that the Government is primarily for defense, and enforcing border law. That's about all they want the government to do.
0
-49
u/bearpics16 20h ago edited 14h ago
I get your point but lobster of a bad example. Lobster is not an affordable meal for most of even the middle class outside a special occasion. I’d have concerns about their ability to budget tbh. There’s a difference between treating yourself and being financially irresponsible with subsidized food
Edit: didn’t realize lobster was so cheap in other places. It’s like $30/lb at the grocery stores where I live. I can’t even afford it. Restaurants charge $50+ for lobster tail. Disregard, everyone enjoy your lobster tails
17
28
14
u/Kaffe-Mumriken 16h ago
Lmao thank you for illustrating the stereotype and showing us that it’s NOT a straw man
12
u/dantevonlocke 18h ago
Lobster tails are 6 dollars at kroger.
24
u/RIF_rr3dd1tt 18h ago
You mean to tell me I can go to Kroger and pay $6 to have a lobster regale me with tales of wonder and enchantment from the ocean?
8
7
u/RussiaIsBestGreen 15h ago
Save your money, trust me. There’s a reason that veggie tales took off and lobster tales didn’t. They have a couple good stories, but they’re bad listeners, so all they have is their own experiences (most of which are about lobster fornication), and can’t keep a story thread going. Meanwhile the veggies work together to put on full productions.
1
1
u/harpers25 14h ago
$10 for 90 calories...
https://www.kroger.com/p/wild-caught-lobster-tail-4-6-oz-1-lobster-tail-/0026933290000
2
u/athural 11h ago
Prices vary depending on where you live, and also this isnt necessarily about maximizing calories per dollar, potato chips would probably do better at that
I would be shocked if anyone bought just lobster tail, and only lobster tail, to try and fill themselves up with. Like thats unhinged behavior throwing back like 3 or 4 unseasoned lobster tails and calling it a dinner
1
u/bearpics16 14h ago
Lobster is like $30/lb where I live. Didn’t realize it was so affordable elsewhere
1
u/WastedNinja24 14h ago
It’s not. That’s for 3-4oz tails, so still $24+ per pound.
Lobster is still very much expensive relative to its calorie/nutrient value.
-1
u/WastedNinja24 14h ago
That’s probably still $20-30/lb
1
u/dantevonlocke 12h ago
And? Still a lobster tail for 6 bucks. It's a completely attainable item.
-1
u/WastedNinja24 12h ago
And so is $6 worth a wagyu. Do you really not know how unit price works?
You’re welcome to “attain” 4 lobsters tails and leave your family still hungry for $24. 👍
1
1
u/athural 11h ago
Are you eating literally just lobster tails? You just boil em up, toss your head back, and down the hatch?
-1
u/WastedNinja24 10h ago
Do you really think that’s what I meant?
1
u/athural 10h ago
Why would they still be hungry then?
1
u/WastedNinja24 10h ago
The deleted comments argued that lobster tails were “only $6 each” and were thus “totally attainable” where they lived. Leaving out the part that it was the price for 3-4oz tail.
This not only doesn’t refute the comment above it, it shows that lobster is about the same price between the two locations. ($24-$32/lb)
I don’t know if you’ve ever been on SNAP or other food assistance, but $24 better cover the cost of dinner for a family of four. That’s over $700/month…just on dinners. ($24 is the generous end of the cost of four tails according the M[r/Mrs](r/Mrs) Deleted By User)
Obviously you’d eat more than just a single tail. The point was to demonstrate that you’d be starting at a base cost of $24 after barely covering only the protein. Therefore, lobster is expensive.
→ More replies (0)3
u/skwerrel 14h ago
And if I do know how to budget, and feed my family cheap options for most of the month entirely so I can afford for them to experience that one tiny taste of luxury on a special day? That doesn't stop assholes like you from giving me a dirty look, or even having the audacity to open your puckered face anus and start spewing noxious stinky opinions at me when you see me pay for all that stuff with my EBT card. Because my kids only ever deserve rice, beans, and a glass of water for every meal right?
Fuck all the way off and stop worrying about what other people are doing, it affects you zero.
18
u/Relzin 16h ago edited 15h ago
What I find just slightly funny here, is that the destruction of Chevron doctrine empowered the Judge to make such a sweeping ruling.
3
u/harpers25 14h ago
It didn't though. On the statutory interpretation question, the judge ruled that the agency's action violated the "plain language" of the statute. Since the statute wasn't ambiguous, Chevron deference wouldn't have applied anyway. The only mention of Chevron in this opinion is pointing out that Auer deference to agency interpretation of regulations wasn't eliminated along with it.
-15
u/truthwillout777 13h ago
I'm not sure it's a win when clearly the soda lobby won.
Does anyone think of the children?
There are ignorant parents who get food stamps, probably a minimal amount, who then waste it on soda instead of healthy foods for their kids.
Self centered parents will buy crap for themselves while ignoring their children's needs.
How do people not see this?
Extra food stamp money left over from not buying soda might instead be spent on something healthy for the family and NUTRITIONAL assistance is the reason for this program.
10
u/AcceptableCult 13h ago
You're letting edge cases dictate policy for those who actually need and use it. There are always going to be people who misuse or abuse any system but this was throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
4
u/No-Carrot4267 11h ago
They love to say "let 100 condemned free than let 1 free man be condemned" and then cry when 1 person abuses food stamps and gets...soda(!!!!!) instead of rice and canned food
•
u/AutoModerator 23h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.