Some pain may be coming to rural area grocery stores

Let them get what they voted for.

trump gives less than a fuck about any rural people anywhere. He only kind of likes (tolerates) rich, white people. He hates most of them, too.

I hope his rural voters suffer immensely for what they've allowed happen to this country.

This is already mostly true. Read up on eligibility requirements for SNAP benefits here. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...y-and-benefits

The changes to SNAP in the OBBBA will have significant consequences for many people in the poor community and the businesses that support them. Mostly by putting the burden on the states instead of the federal government. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Currently, 3 states have a statewide waiver of the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), allowing them to receive benefits beyond the usual 3-month time limit even without meeting work criteria. These states are California, Illinois, and Nevada. Additionally, 25 states have partial waivers in place that apply to specific areas within the state where unemployment rates are high or sufficient jobs are not available.
It's important to note that these waivers only apply to the ABAWD time limit, and recipients are still subject to the general SNAP work requirements like registering for work or accepting suitable job offers.
State agencies can request these waivers from the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service based on factors like high unemployment rates (above 10%) or a lack of sufficient jobs in the area.

Currently, 3 states have a statewide waiver of the SNAP work requirement for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), allowing them to receive benefits beyond the usual 3-month time limit even without meeting work criteria. These states are California, Illinois, and Nevada. Additionally, 25 states have partial waivers in place that apply to specific areas within the state where unemployment rates are high or sufficient jobs are not available.
It's important to note that these waivers only apply to the ABAWD time limit, and recipients are still subject to the general SNAP work requirements like registering for work or accepting suitable job offers.
State agencies can request these waivers from the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service based on factors like high unemployment rates (above 10%) or a lack of sufficient jobs in the area. Originally Posted by oldman2525

A great response. Informative without the usual political rhetoric.

Thanks for sharing this.

What are the unintended consequences of a rural area losing access to food assistance benefits?

Work through the progressions. What you hope will happen and what's likely to happen if you remove that economic activity to the towns around it and/or it causes migration?

If my local grocery store closed and my closest national chain grocer is in another county?

Curious to why libs only state compassion with issues that they feel will keep them in power like keeping people dependent on government handouts instead of letting them be self sufficient. I never hear compassionate cries when it comes to parent that have lost children to illegals.

Then you're looking in the wrong places. Like when that gets seeded into a thread about an entirely different topic.

That and complying with Guideline #10 likely keep most from going down the path. Notice how I'm not discussing the impact of the BBB on [redacted] and their families?

What are the unintended consequences of a rural area losing access to food assistance benefits?

Work through the progressions. What you hope will happen and what's likely to happen if you remove that economic activity to the towns around it and/or it causes migration?

If my local grocery store closed and my closest national chain grocer is in another county? Originally Posted by HDGristle

The consequences are going to be more responsibility being placed upon state and local governments to pick up the tab for making sure their citizens are being fed. More food insecurity and disruption in our rural communities until (or if) they get up to speed.

Conservatives have been complaining for decades that the federal government is less efficient than local government. We’re all about to see if they are correct or not. I’m betting not.

Any migration?

Curious to why libs only state compassion with issues that they feel will keep them in power like keeping people dependent on government handouts instead of letting them be self sufficient. I never hear compassionate cries when it comes to parent that have lost children to illegals. Originally Posted by standardissue

conflating two different things;
Snap benefits
Illegal immigrant violence

Those two are not even in the same ballpark of similar.


the majority of SNAP benefits, aka EBT are being provided to the following: low-income individuals and families, with a significant portion of recipients being children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients were primarily children (39%), adults aged 18-59 (42%), and elderly individuals (19%). About 73% of SNAP households had incomes at or below the poverty level, and 86% of benefits went to households with incomes at or below that level. White individuals make up the largest share of SNAP recipients (36.1%), followed by Hispanic (29.1%) and Black (22.7%) individuals.

While there is no way to eliminate 100% of fraud or abuse in SNAP applicants or recipients,

• In Fiscal Year 2024, SNAP represented approximately 1.5% of total federal spending.
• For comparison, Social Security spending in FY 2024 was $1.5 trillion, and Medicare and Medicaid spending was also around $1.5 trillion, together accounting for almost 44% of overall federal spending in 2024.
• Historical data shows that SNAP's share of federal spending has typically ranged between 1% and 2% over the past four decades.

If you think SNAP is where the fraud and abuse is, you aint seen nothing till you looked at SSDI. That's where ppl are getting over on all the tax payers and not for 300 a month, but for thousands and thousands.

Personally, I'd rather see kids and elderly folks get food and realize that abuse comes with some of these systems. It's not about able bodied recipients for this program, but certainly more so in other programs. The red meat thrown out by the GOP is just a ruse to get ppl all inflamed and pissed off. Small potatoes when it comes to fraud.

Local grocery stores who are accustom to servicing these customers, will have to change not only what they carry, and what they focus on, but even shutter those stores who disproportionately serve a demographic of elderly, poor, or ethnic communities. The loss to those ppl could be catastrophic. Imagine getting a bus to the local place or walking a mile or two, and then no longer able to get even the basics if you are on a poverty line, no bus, no local store, no ability to get out to the burbs, but simply relying on neighbors or food banks and hoping there is still something left of poor Mother Hubbard.


This is NOT how you fix a system or a broken process. You don't starve ppl in the name of politics or to get a polling number.

Then you're looking in the wrong places. Like when that gets seeded into a thread about an entirely different topic.

That and complying with Guideline #10 likely keep most from going down the path. Notice how I'm not discussing the impact of the BBB on [redacted] and their families? Originally Posted by HDGristle

I was answering you directly...you talked about compassion, this relates to that. Deal with it.

This is already mostly true. Read up on eligibility requirements for SNAP benefits here. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...y-and-benefits

The changes to SNAP in the OBBBA will have significant consequences for many people in the poor community and the businesses that support them. Mostly by putting the burden on the states instead of the federal government. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Good, you have liberal polices that allow illegals for example, the state should pay for them, not the entire USA.

I was answering you directly...you talked about compassion, this relates to that. Deal with it. Originally Posted by standardissue

Any thoughts on how rural communities mightnbe affected if there were 25% less food bought at the local grocery store?

Good, you have liberal polices that allow illegals for example, the state should pay for them, not the entire USA. Originally Posted by Devo

If you had read the linked page you would know.

Who is not eligible? Some categories of people are not eligible for SNAP regardless of their income or assets, such as individuals who are on strike, all people without a documented immigration status, some students attending college more than half time,[6] certain immigrants with lawful immigration statuses,[7] and certain people with drug-related felony convictions in some states. Many adults aged 18 to 54 who do not have children in the home and who do not have disabilities are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years in many areas of the country, and states have broad authority to extend work requirements to many other SNAP households. (See box, “The Three-Month Time Limit.”)

If you had read the linked page you would know.

Who is not eligible? Some categories of people are not eligible for SNAP regardless of their income or assets, such as individuals who are on strike, all people without a ⁹documented immigration status, some students attending college more than half time,[6] certain immigrants with lawful immigration statuses,[7] and certain people with drug-related felony convictions in some states. Many adults aged 18 to 54 who do not have children in the home and who do not have disabilities are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years in many areas of the country, and states have broad authority to extend work requirements to many other SNAP households. (See box, “The Three-Month Time Limit.”) Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I'm not reading shit.

Present your arguments.

I believe people who don't qualify for FoodSnaps, shouldn't get them.

But your post highlights the people who shouldn't get benefits.