comment: >
  
  Damn. I don't even eat meat and even I think that's insane!
context: "The proposed bill would prevent recipients from being able to purchase everyday kitchen staples including white rice, rice noodles, canned vegetables, baked beans, refried beans, chili beans and even butter."
  What in the world? How does any of this make sense at all? >
  
  Legit, this goes beyond not caring about poor people’s well being.  This is actively malicious.  Banning foodstuffs like white rice and beans—food meant to last longer and be more nutritious on average—is a signal that these lawmakers actively want to make poor ppl starve.  I would not be surprised if they’re getting excited over the idea of ppl dying over this. >
  
  Their “argument” is that SNAP should focus on healthier food options, but they also don’t do anything to make healthy food readily available in poor communities.
  That being said - it’s all a front to limit what poor people have access to.  In theory, baked beans, refried beans, and white rice are terrible for people, but that’s the process in this country.  Baked beans (sugar), refried beans (saturated fat oils), and white rice (processed grains) should be avoided by everyone, but we have a system that allows those options to be cheaper than buying bulk dry beans or brown rice. >
  
  Dry beans are drastically cheaper than baked or refried beans where I'm at. >
  
  If you work it out, they’re always cheaper than canned.  But you need to look at the average shopper.  A can of baked beans of $1.99.  A bag of dried beans is also $1.99, but you need to add sugar, molasses, mustard, etc etc etc.
  Also - cooking dried beans takes a day to prep and another 4-8 hours of slow cooking.  Time that poor people don’t generally have. >
  
  Still lower by a lot for me.
  
  Time that poor people don’t generally have.
  
  That's not strictly true as it's usually like 10 minutes of work and 8-12 hours of waiting. My workflow for this used to be wake up, soak the beans while making coffee and then walk to work. Pressure cookers were a game changer for this as it cut the time by 75%.
  Sugar used to cost $12/25lb and flour was like $8/25lb. Bread was the major play for me because of this as I could leave the grocery store with 50lb of food for literally $20. Also dough keeps in the fridge. 
  Sugar has gone up to $16 and flour has gone up as well to about $12ish so the prices aren't as good as they were. For me the big ticket item was always meat.
  Note that this won't get you out of a bad situation, but can prevent you from starving for a pretty long time.
  Edit: i forgot to add that black beans were around $12/25lb >
  
  I grew up with a mom struggling to make ends meet.  I remember her trying to feed my brother and I on ten dollars for two weeks.  I know exactly what you mean…
  Here’s the reality - making beans from scratch is cheap and easy.  Most people don’t know that.  It’s the same as parting out a chicken.  If you know how to butcher, it saves a ton of money.  If you don’t, you’re subject to the market.
  Poor folks in the US don’t know how to cook. >
  
  When I was a kid, my dad got a deal on 200 whole chickens.  He purchased them, and then had the neighbor (who was a butcher) come over and teach him how to part them.  The neighbor helped, and dad gave him a portion of the chicken (I don't recall how many birds he gave him).    The big freezer in the garage was full of chicken and we ate it for ages. >
  
  Buying in bulk is not something the poor can do. >
  
  THIS. >
  
  Maybe the Dept. Of Agriculture should respond by suspending subsidies for Iowa farmers... >
  
  Gods, I wish I had an award for you. Best response I've seen to this unnecessary punching down from the GoP >
  
  I’ll give an award! >
  
  Thanks! They deserved it! >
  
  Gotta stick it to the poor - that'll show em and help the country. Just pay no attention to the massive tax cuts the wealthy have gotten in the last 20 - 40 years. >
  
  They're already having a tough time and needing food stamps. The government micromanaging and telling them what they can and can't eat is just draconian bullshit. Places have tried it in the 80s and 90s. It just led to increased fraud. People selling their stamps for cash to have the versatility to buy the stuff they want.
  Republicans are ignorant, heartless morons. Jesus christ. The entire party, it seems these days. >
  
  Party of “small government” telling you what to do again. >
  
  So small they fit in your panties. And your fridge. And between your sheets. >
  
  Uh... so are they saying meat isn't a part of a healthy diet? That sounds like dangerous talk in those parts. >
  
  I don't know but I suspect this is related to the possibility that someone on foodstamps might at some point eat a steak. Poor people aren't supposed to enjoy their lives at all. >
  
  Heck, there've been a couple times I've gone to the store to find boneless ny strip was on sale cheaper than lean ground beef. You can bet I went home with steak in my cart those days. >
  
  It's expensive AF to be poor. >
  
  The casual cruelty of the GOP never fails to amaze me >
  
  Nothing casual about it, but rather it's overt, premeditated and deliberate!  42% of SNAP recipients are black or Hispanic, while the legislator has 150 lawmakers there are only 4 people of color, & not surprisingly, controlled by republicans!!! RACIST MUCH IOWA? >
  
  I'm on food stamps and have a lot of health problems.  One of them is being anemic, and you're going to tell me I can't buy meat anymore? >
  
  Ya I was on SNAP and disability because of a GI disorder.  White rice/toast/pasta, and chicken breast are all staples for people that are on a bland/restricted diet for health reasons. >
  
  And like... do they know Iowans? Iowa and Minnesota is full of Scandinavians with the blandish food (I saw this as a Minnesota with Norwegian heritage). I don't think I saw my family eat anything but white bread growing up. BROWN rice? I didn't even know what that was till college. Wild rice, yes of course, but outside of that it was white. >
  
  This bill was also proposed by the same political party that forces births, however, once the child is born, who cares if it can be fed? >
  
  "I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
  Sister Joan Chittister, in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers >
  
  I have never read this... but this is truth. There's so much more to raising a child than "just" giving birth, and it leads to rather complicated arguments. >
  
  Fucking Republicans. >
  
  Please don’t fuck Republicans >
  
  Right, we don’t need more of them. >
  
  I'm pretty sure it's not hereditary. >
  
  So children aren't allowed to have meat with the protein and nutrients they need to grow ? Fuck politicians. >
  
  Seems like a lot of beans aren't allowed, either. Good thing poor people have lots of spare time to spend on cooking from scratch. :/ >
  
  My idea for snap would be grocery stores to shop at that were staples such as healthy foods and cooking supplies and spices and produce. What doesn't need to be in that store would be processed snacks and soda. Hell I'd shop at a store like that. >
  
  Or we could just let them buy food and not try to micromanage their lives. >
  
  Part of that is working in pediatric dentistry for years and having little patients that have diets that come from parental poor choices. Perhaps the micromanaging would be unnecessary if there was better education on nutrition. >
  
  So maybe agitate for better diet and cooking education for everyone. Poor people aren't the only ones who don't eat healthy diets. And agitate for an end to food deserts and better pay and childcare and healthcare (including dental). >
  
  Fine.  Since "Iowa GOP lawmakers" propose this bill, they need to include a rider stating that all Iowa GOP lawmakers may no longer use proceeds from working in government to buy food other than off-brand canned tuna  and frozen corn.  They must submit to random searches of their homes and thrice daily drug tests.  They must have lockouts on their voting buttons requiring them to blow a 0.0 BAC before voting.
  Also, going forward, any GOP law maker may not spend their money on dress clothing and must dress only in Tweety Bird sweatshirts that they find at the dump.  They also are not allowed to own underwear.  Bread bags may be worn as shoes.
  Also, they must all change their name to "Tim".
  Is that insane enough? >
  
  Millennials and younger:  y'all need to come together to kick these people to the curb.  I've been voting against them for decades, but my demographic has voted otherwise.  Take the reins, please, and vote them out. >
  
  
  The proposed bill would prevent recipients from being able to purchase everyday kitchen staples including white rice, rice noodles, canned vegetables, baked beans, refried beans, chili beans and even butter. 
  The law would also impact SNAP recipients’ ability to purchase meat. Canned tuna and salmon would be the only allowable meat purchases. This is despite the fact that meat and poultry are a priority expenditure by SNAP households, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Sliced, cubed or crumbled cheese would also be prohibited. 
  The bill awaits consideration by a House subcommittee. It is currently sponsored by 39 Republican state legislators.
  
  Of course a bill whose purpose it is to fuck over and starve the poors is being sponsored by Republicans. "As long as it hurts the other guy more, I'm fine with it." >
  
  Heartless fucking bastards. >
  
  Next they'll have to buy Russian cheese instead. No white bread because that would help support Ukraine. And no meat, because the 1% needs their Filet Mignon, and the rest gets ground up to make cattle feed. >
  
  Cruelty is the point with conservatives. 
  Conservatism is a terrorist ideology. >
  
  Whats with right wingers and completely fucking over poor people? >
  
  I assume thats a rhetorical question? >
  
  If they REALLY and I mean REALLY want to tell people what to eat then they shouldn't have gotten rid of the commodities program.
  You know govt cheese and stuff, but then how would corpo Americans fleece America ? >
  
  I am waiting for the fascists to pass a bill that says "[social safety net fund] recipients will not be able to use their vouchers to purchase food or clothing, or to use vouchers for utility payments."
  From the looks, probably will not have to wait long. >
  
  Republicans: Our cruelty is not accidental. It is a feature. >
  
  This is specially evil as poor ppl tend to live in places where there isn't a lot of food choices to begin with. >
  
  This is wrong as hell - these are American citizens who need these food benefits; not prisoners of war. Jeez. >
  
  With the gop regarding the poor cruelty isn’t a bug it a feature >
  
  Continuing the Republican tradition of hating poor people. >
  
  The food restrictions a smoke screen for adding a twenty hour per week work requirement. 
  The entire purpose is to add people back into the underpaid workforce. 
  Forcing welfare recipients back into the workforce, where they would chose minimum wage jobs so that they didn't loose benefits. 
  Standard Republican build the economy on cheap labor. The attacks on social security is for the same purpose, more low pay workers in the economy. >
  
  soon enough this sort of specific measure wont be needed, if all you can get is simple dollars, they wont buy you real meat at all >
  
  So much for government cheese. >
  
  Let them eat cake. >
  
  This is what happens when ya'll don't vote. Enjoy your RED State :P >
  
  follow the money... see what they CAN purchase and go from there. >
  
  Not to mention, healthier food is more expensive. So unless the amount is increased, they will get less food too. >
  
  Exactly this, "we're making cheap food choices unavailable, but keeping your benefits the same." >
  
  GOP politicians hate poor people so much, it's actually cartoonishly villainous.
  And yet the poor continue to vote for them. >
  
  But Mt. Dew and Snickers Bars are still ok, right? >
  
  Those products have huge lobbying groups behind them. So yeah >
  
  At this point it feels like the southern states are actively competing to see who can be the most cartoonishly evil...
  A week from now Texas is gonna require all residents to drown at least one puppy each week or something >
  
  Not that I don't agree with you, but Iowa is not a southern state. >
  
  What did the Iowa Republicans decide they just didn't have enough evil points. Got tired of Missouri showing them up in the how to fuck the poor category? >
  
  Everyone knows Wensleydale is the best type of cheese anyway. >
  
  Sounds like they're trying to give people pellagra. Cool. >
  
  Is there any way folks outside the state could help prevent this? >
  
  All they can buy is corn and soybeans. And bacon. And that's it. >
  
  Fkn right wing scum >
  
  Ah yes..all the luxury foods.   Pancake mix & ramen are all a body really needs! >
  
  Proud to be an Iowan... smh >
  
  You poor? No protein for you! >
  
  Republicans: “If you’re going to insist on being poor, then we’re going to make sure you’re miserable.  And it doesn’t hurt for us to make sure what little money you do have is spent benefiting us or our political donors.” >
  
  I didn't know Iowa hated its residents, well its residents on SNAP. >
  
  I guess being poor in Iowa is a poor choice.  These legislators are just evil. >
  
  Very expensive to be poor. >
  
  Of course. GOP: Welfare is just so poor people (dog whistle for repubs: minorities) can buy drugs and  food.  /s >
  
  One of Regan's major "accomplishments" was turning Federal programs like food aide into block grants where piles of money were thrown at each state to manage as they liked. This was supposed to "improve efficiency", but the actual purpose was for Red states to be able to find more creative ways to punish poor people for being poor and make sure as little money as possible made it to those who needed it most. A common misunderstanding about the recent Brett Favre Mississippi bribery scandal is that using welfare money on a volleyball facility was part of what was illegal, but without the bribery it would have been perfectly legal. >
  
  That why we in Nebraska that borders Iowa call them Idiots Out Wondering Around. >
  
  Nebraska is a red state, my friend >
  
  Oh I know. But 1 million of us live in the Omaha area and we are a diverse metro that is more middle of the road. The Republicans are in a constant state of trying to gerrymander everything. >
  
  Des Moines metro is pretty large and tends to run blue. Nebraska and Iowa are much the same. A few big cities and a sea of red. >
  
  I'd love to see a list of what is allowed. I'd be very surprised if there really isn't anything more unhealthy than white rice and canned beans on it. >
  
  Perhaps this is right wing Christians proving to us that hell isn't real, given their immoral actions that would ordinarily land them there. >
  
  Proof that republicans don't care about other people >
  
  Complete stretch, but does anyone think they’ll try to pass this bill to have it challenged, sent to the Supreme Court and set a precedent that this is okay? >
  
  They have to petition the Fed gov. for a waiver. I'm hoping that it can be denied as not meeting full nutritional needs of the general public. Have no idea and not hopeful. >
  
  Looking forward to election year, I will be keeping an eye on Iowa >
  
  I couldn’t wait for last November, to vote against Kim Reynolds and that fossil Chuck Grassley. But they both won their elections.. well, enjoy the BS Iowa… I am outta here. Heading west, and never looking back. >
  
  Why does the GOP want to cancel the great American Cheeseburger? >
  
  They don’t, they just don’t want poor people to have them >
  
  Healthy food is more expensive even if it's just labeled as healthy.