Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Adder
NO ONE will have to be cut off if they would reinstitute limits on what can be purchased.

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

................

Imma call "Bullsh!t!!!" on that part.

21 posted on 09/19/2013 4:03:29 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: digger48
Imma call "Bullsh!t!!!" on that part.

And you would be correct. Because everything is now automated it takes very little to make such changes. A rotisserie chicken from the deli department is not permitted because it is considered a "prepared" meal, but a Banquet frozen fried chicken dinner is eligible.........it would be very simple to switch the classification on both items with a few key strokes.

42 posted on 09/19/2013 4:15:46 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: digger48; Gabz
However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

The reason this would be a major pain and unworkable is that you would have major lobbying from manufacturers and even lawsuits defending their products. Yes, some really egregious items in the snack section might get cut off but many others would be defended based on vitamin additives, ability to re-hydrate, etc. And some "luxury" foods are normal foods say if you're a crabber or lobster trapper. These things sound ridiculous but would tie up the reform process for years.

89 posted on 09/19/2013 8:29:33 PM PDT by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson