Except that isn’t how it works. SNAP, by default, does not cover hot or prepared foods. What’s being referred here is the Restaurant Meals Program, which is an optional program states can choose to opt into. If they choose to do so, then certain SNAP recipients can qualify for RMP:
To be eligible for the RMP, SNAP clients must be certified for SNAP in a state that has an RMP and all members of the household must be either:
-Elderly (60 years of age or older);
-disabled (receives disability or blindness payments or receives disability retirement benefits from a governmental agency because of a disability considered permanent);
-homeless; or
-a spouse of a SNAP client who is eligible for the RMP.
This is a program designed specifically to help the elderly, disabled, and people without kitchens. The state has to opt in, and then they decide which restaurants are eligible. It’s almost as if… you didn’t actually research this policy.
I don’t mind if the people who don’t have the means to cook eat some McDonald’s now and then. This is chasing after pennies instead of going after more significant ant drains on taxpayers. Yes, it’s stupid and performative.
Sure, no worries, unless you’re too old to cook, or too disabled, or literally can’t because you don’t have a house. You know, like everyone who qualifies.
The entirety of SNAP costs the average taxpayer something like $34. Between the states that don’t participate, and the individuals who don’t qualify, how much is going to buy McDonald’s? Definitely less than a dollar per person, I’ll bet it’s probably under a dime.
This time and effort is better spent chasing the hundreds of dollars we each pay to corporate welfare, or bloated defense spending, or any of the major expenses I don’t want my tax dollars financing, than scrounging for pennies at the expense of people who don’t have the means to cook for themselves.
Can you read? I answered this already. The states that allow it explicitly chose to allow it. The states you listed didn’t actively decide to disallow it, they just didn’t choose to opt in. Have you considered that the ones who opted in did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to employ? This argument is very stupid.
This isn’t even a case of Iowa opting out, this is a representative from Iowa trying to eliminate the program entirely. A program that directly helps people who don’t have the means to cook at home, for pennies per taxpayer. The qualifications are very explicitly spelled out: the elderly, the permanently disabled, and the homeless.
This program does real good for the vulnerable people who need it. You want to end that program to save a couple pennies. Actually, not even to save a couple pennies, to police how those pennies are spent. You won’t save any money, the only change is that the hungry and helpless will suffer. That’s performative.
Have you considered that the ones who opted in did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to employ? Your argument is very stupid.
Have you considered that the ones who opted OUT did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to discontinue? Your argument is very stupid.
Stay mad. But no one is listening to you on this subject. So be sure to donate your paycheck to people so they can buy mcdonalds. Nothing is stopping you from donating.
Once again, not how it works. They did not “choose” to discontinue. You don’t have to opt out, it’s not an active decision. Opting in is the active decision.
Stay mad.
Typical conservative projection. The rest of us don’t make decisions based on anger. I don’t think this is stupid because I’m mad, I’m not mad. I think it’s stupid because it is stupid.
Why do you want to prevent people who can’t cook from having food? Why is this the issue you’re pushing? It sounds like you’re mad over sometime totally insignificant. It’s kinda pathetic, really. Unless your time is literally worthless, the time you’ve spent defending this would be with significantly more than your share of funding the RMP.
That’s why I keep saying it’s performative. You don’t actually benefit at all. You’re just attacking poor people for the optics. Very pathetic.
Rollins said early data already showed that “186,000 dead people are receiving SNAP benefits,” while another 500,000 people are receiving the benefits in more than one state.
Except that isn’t how it works. SNAP, by default, does not cover hot or prepared foods. What’s being referred here is the Restaurant Meals Program, which is an optional program states can choose to opt into. If they choose to do so, then certain SNAP recipients can qualify for RMP:
This is a program designed specifically to help the elderly, disabled, and people without kitchens. The state has to opt in, and then they decide which restaurants are eligible. It’s almost as if… you didn’t actually research this policy.
I don’t mind if the people who don’t have the means to cook eat some McDonald’s now and then. This is chasing after pennies instead of going after more significant ant drains on taxpayers. Yes, it’s stupid and performative.
And most states don’t allow it. And if it’s so optional and inconsequential, then no worries if it’s removed, yes?
Sure, no worries, unless you’re too old to cook, or too disabled, or literally can’t because you don’t have a house. You know, like everyone who qualifies.
The entirety of SNAP costs the average taxpayer something like $34. Between the states that don’t participate, and the individuals who don’t qualify, how much is going to buy McDonald’s? Definitely less than a dollar per person, I’ll bet it’s probably under a dime.
This time and effort is better spent chasing the hundreds of dollars we each pay to corporate welfare, or bloated defense spending, or any of the major expenses I don’t want my tax dollars financing, than scrounging for pennies at the expense of people who don’t have the means to cook for themselves.
So yeah, stupid and performative.
I don’t know. I guess enough that the majority of states don’t allow it. Are they all stupid and performative?
States that don’s allow:
Here are the ones that don’t allow it:
Alabama Kay Ivey Republican
Alaska Mike Dunleavy Republican
Arkansas Sarah Huckabee Sanders Republican
Colorado Jared Polis Democrat
Connecticut Ned Lamont Democrat
Delaware Matt Meyer Democrat
Florida Ron DeSantis Republican
Georgia Brian Kemp Republican
Hawaii Josh Green Democrat
Idaho Brad Little Republican
Indiana Mike Braun / Eric Holcomb* Republican
Iowa Kim Reynolds Republican
Kansas Laura Kelly Democrat
Kentucky Andy Beshear Democrat
Louisiana Jeff Landry Republican
Maine Janet Mills Democrat
Minnesota Tim Walz Democrat
Mississippi Tate Reeves Republican
Missouri Mike Parson Republican
Montana Greg Gianforte Republican
Nebraska Jim Pillen Republican
Nevada Joe Lombardo Republican
New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte Republican
New Jersey Phil Murphy Democrat
New Mexico Michelle Lujan Grisham Democrat
North Carolina Josh Stein Democrat
North Dakota Kelly Armstrong Republican
Ohio Mike DeWine Republican
Oklahoma Kevin Stitt Republican
Oregon Tina Kotek Democrat
Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro Democrat
South Carolina Henry McMaster Republican
South Dakota Larry Rhoden Republican
Tennessee Bill Lee Republican
Texas Greg Abbott Republican
Utah Spencer Cox Republican
Vermont Phil Scott Republican
Washington Bob Ferguson Democrat
West Virginia Patrick Morrisey Republican
Wisconsin Tony Evers Democrat
Wyoming Mark Gordon Republican
Can you read? I answered this already. The states that allow it explicitly chose to allow it. The states you listed didn’t actively decide to disallow it, they just didn’t choose to opt in. Have you considered that the ones who opted in did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to employ? This argument is very stupid.
This isn’t even a case of Iowa opting out, this is a representative from Iowa trying to eliminate the program entirely. A program that directly helps people who don’t have the means to cook at home, for pennies per taxpayer. The qualifications are very explicitly spelled out: the elderly, the permanently disabled, and the homeless.
This program does real good for the vulnerable people who need it. You want to end that program to save a couple pennies. Actually, not even to save a couple pennies, to police how those pennies are spent. You won’t save any money, the only change is that the hungry and helpless will suffer. That’s performative.
Yes, stupid and performative.
Have you considered that the ones who opted OUT did do the research, and decided it was a worthwhile program to discontinue? Your argument is very stupid.
Stay mad. But no one is listening to you on this subject. So be sure to donate your paycheck to people so they can buy mcdonalds. Nothing is stopping you from donating.
Once again, not how it works. They did not “choose” to discontinue. You don’t have to opt out, it’s not an active decision. Opting in is the active decision.
Typical conservative projection. The rest of us don’t make decisions based on anger. I don’t think this is stupid because I’m mad, I’m not mad. I think it’s stupid because it is stupid.
Why do you want to prevent people who can’t cook from having food? Why is this the issue you’re pushing? It sounds like you’re mad over sometime totally insignificant. It’s kinda pathetic, really. Unless your time is literally worthless, the time you’ve spent defending this would be with significantly more than your share of funding the RMP.
That’s why I keep saying it’s performative. You don’t actually benefit at all. You’re just attacking poor people for the optics. Very pathetic.
I’m not attacking anyone and I’m not mad. My state already keeps people on SNAP from buying McDonalds with their benefits, as do most states.
But oh well, because this just came out: https://www.newsweek.com/snap-benefits-update-usda-completely-deconstruct-program-11071472
Rollins said early data already showed that “186,000 dead people are receiving SNAP benefits,” while another 500,000 people are receiving the benefits in more than one state.
Removed by mod