Transcription
So, this is interesting. You know, we recently did an EBT video reacting to EBT TikToks from, uh, which you guys requested in chat the other day, but our tax dollars are getting wasted. Uh, but SNAP does cover food intended to be reacted to on some TikToks, and I guess, you know, we had a lot of people that were getting unhealthy food on here, and I called it out. I'm like, do we want people, uh, getting food, SNAP, EBT, whatever, doing, getting unhealthy cont, uh, content, unhealthy. This is unhealthy content, getting unhealthy food. And the thing is, I don't know, because one, are we, should us sub-taxpayers be subsidizing unhealthy food because it is cheaper? Because it is cheaper. So that would be subsidizing in my brain. And number two, number two, for me, I would actually rather provide more benefits and they get healthy food, because people that become healthier are more likely to have more energy and go out there and provide more in the overall economic structure that we have here and hopefully get off benefits. This is what someone should be aspiring to do, aspiring to do. Instead, you get unhealthy food, you become less healthy. You then are more of a drain on the healthcare system, uh, Medicare, Medicaid. You're more of a drain on food stamps because you become more disabled and more of a strain on disability. So that's why I'm actually an advocate of having SNAP benefits not cover unhealthy food and having that tick away. So, yeah, I'd rather spend more of my taxes to give better opportunities, food to those on assistance. I agree. I agree. It's hard to define what is healthy and what isn't, especially with processed. That is fair. There would definitely just have to be very critical guidances, right? And probably not one-size-fits-all. Tough to eat healthy food in food deserts, though. Uh, fresh isn't always available. Fair enough. Fair enough. And maybe once that's why one-size-fits-all things will work. Maybe it's, you know, more state by state, you know, and that's kind of what's happening here. The Trump administration allows six more states to bar SNAP benefits for processed food. You know, before we read this, I actually, I'd still prefer the Wall Street Journal, honestly. So, let me search SNAP on there instead of The Hill. Relevance. How about newest source only articles? Wall Street Journal. My gosh, I don't give a [ __ ] I don't give a [ __ ] about the rest of the stuff that the Wall Street Journal tries to say. 23 hours ago. Man, the Wall Street Journal website has gotten worse when it comes to searches. And I know for a fact, Wall Street Journal did, I got a push notification. So I know for a fact that Wall Street Journal did a story on this. Whatever. Okay.
The Trump administration on Monday, which by the way, it is Wednesday, so you know, a couple days old, approved six additional states seeking to ban food stamp recipients from purchasing processed food. Colorado, Colorado is a blue state. Colorado is a blue state, by the way. Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Texas, and Florida received federal waivers to adjust Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, guidelines outlining the purchase of junk food with state funds in 2026. Colorado was the first blue state to adapt the measure. Uh, Colorado is one of the healthiest states in the nation, has the lowest obesity rate of any state. Sadly, even Colorado's lowest obesity rate is 24.9%, is too high. Obesogens and shortens the lives of too many Coloradans, says Colorado Governor Jared Polis, said in a Monday release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. Today's waiver is a big step toward improving the health of Coloradans and reducing obesity rates, diabetes, and tooth decay. That is fair. If the government, if the taxpayers are paying for it, if the government is paying for it, you know, obviously you should get a little more say. You're not allowing them to drink alcohol. We're not encouraging alcohol. You're not allowing them to get weed at the dispensary. So it makes sense. Healthy food can be frozen. Yeah, that's absolutely true. You can freeze a bag of blueberries, right? One of the healthiest foods there is. Uh, so it makes sense that, hey, you know, maybe we lower obesity rates, lower diabetes rates, lower heart disease rates, and not subsidize it. So that makes sense. This is the stated purpose of the SNAP program. The law states it, and President Trump's USDA plans to deliver on it, she added. Uh, who's she? Brooke Rollins. Says, "SNAP is a supplemental nutritional program meant to provide healthy food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford nutritious food essential to health and well-being." Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Monday before signing the waivers. Rollins approved the effort in May after Nebraska received the first federal waiver to ban soda and energy drinks from food stamp purchases. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has lauded the measure as a part of his "Make America Healthy Again" campaign, and again, that makes sense. It puts less strain on the overall system if those who are providing, provided benefits are eating healthier food. US taxpayers should not be paying to feed kids, foods, the poorest kids in our country with foods. All right, let me do it like RFK. Going to give them diabetes, and then my agency has through Medicaid and Medicare paying for those. Kennedy said on Monday. We're going to put that to an end, and we're doing it step by step, state by state, he said. Was that good? Did I do good? Why am I good at the RFK phase? I don't. It was my first time doing it, so it was a first attempt. I was nervous if that would go well or not. Researchers have long argued that SNAP restrictions are unlikely to change eating patterns. Yeah, but getting rid of chips and soda would get rid of chips and soda. At least being used by taxpayer subsidies. At least by just the the virtue of it, right? Such a beautiful voice. Thank you. Making fun of his medical. Can get a shame. I'll make fun of anyone and everything. I don't give a [ __ ] who you are or what you got. Okay? I'll make fun of everyone, and I'll make fun of me, okay? So, I don't give a [ __ ] who you are. I'll make fun of everyone. Not going to lie, picking him was so effective because I generally can't listen to anything he says. Truth. He could just do anything and no one will know. Michael J. Fox. Okay, hold on. Let me, let me think about that one first. That, cuz that clip can be taken out of context a lot easier. Let me guess. You're just using an investing app that doesn't invest in you. It is time to change that. Right now, WeBull is offering up to a 3.5% match when you open an IRA with them. That is real money going into your retirement, not just points or coupons. And that's just the start. Deposit $100 and you get 30 days of WeBull premium. Anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 sitting around in your account, move it to WeBull and get $200 in cash. And if you worked your way up to $5 million, that's $30,000 in your account just for moving it over. It is not just about the perks, though. WeBull provides the tools that serious investors want as well. TradingView integration, real-time data, zero commission trades. It actually works on all your devices. And now through September 30th, you can stack even more. Get a $100 cash bonus for a $2,000 deposit, plus a 2% cash back on all deposits and a 30-day premium voucher and a 4% APY booster on any uninvested cash. It doesn't get better than this. So, stop overpaying for a platform that gives you nothing back and make the switch to WeBull. Go to webull.com/kcaleb or hit the QR code or the link below. Let's get back to the show.
And, uh, and that it will be costly for the federal government to track 650,000 food and beverage products on the market and 20,000 new products introduced annually. Now, that's fair. According to economic policy researcher Daniel Diane Whitmer, uh, 2017 testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture. That is fair. It is going to be a lot more expensive to track, but again, it's a government program subsidizing. Let's see, budget goes to SNAP benefits. Let's find out, cuz I mean, if it's just like, you know, [ __ ] half a second, then I don't really care, or half a percent. Uh, but no, it's about 2%. Uh, fiscal year 2023, SNAP accounted for approximately 2% of total federal spending. If 2% goes to veterans benefits, and I can critique that, then, uh, sorry, for veterans disability, and then about 2% goes to SNAP benefits in 2023, then I can also critique that as well. I think it's worth critiquing. And I think it's worth, I mean, if we're not, if we're not able to critique and track and change something that's 2% of the budget here, 2% of the budget there, that quickly stacks to four, stacks to eight, stacks to 16, and then all of a sudden it's like it's massive, and it applies to our debt, and then the interest payments on our debt go even higher, which means taxes at some point are going to have to go higher. So, it is, it's fair to consider this important to talk about as well. However, Trump administration officials have lauded the effort. "I hope to see all 50 states join this bold, common-sense approach. For too long, the root causes of our chronic disease epidemic have been addressed with lip service only." "Fair. That is fair enough," said the U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner, Marty Marqu. That's an unfortunate name. According to NBC News. [ __ ] off. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. You don't get that. You don't get that, dude. That ain't it. President Trump's recently signed "Big Beautiful Bill," which the president aggressively pushed across the finish line last month, cuts tens of millions of dollars from SNAP, as well as close to one, uh, $1 trillion in federal Medicaid spending. Uh, wasn't a, it was less cutting it, but more making the work requirements more strict, right? Did Trump and the BBB cut SNAP benefits? Well, he moved some of the stuff to the state. Let me get my facts correct. He needs to do a financial audit of the government. Over my head, man. Uh, okay. Expanded work requirements. Uh, the bill raises the age threshold for required work participation from participants under the age of 40, uh, 54 to between 18 and 64. So, able-bodied adults up to the age of 64 have work requirements to remain eligible. And of course, work requirements are also volunteering as well. So, if you can't get a job, you can still volunteer. Both Senate and state analysis suggests these stricter work mandates could result in millions losing SNAP benefits. So, it's not cutting it, right? Uh oh. Shifting the cost to states. The law reduces federal support, cuts $186 billion from the federal SNAP funding over the next decade, raises the state share of administration costs from 50% to 75%. Obviously, it makes sense for some things to be state, some things to be federal. I'd love to hear the arguments on this because I'm honestly a little less than informed when it comes to states versus federal when it comes to SNAP funding. So, obviously poorer states would have a harder time finding that, wealthier states would have an easier time, but I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, my mic is a little quiet, isn't it? I got to talk right into the mic, get this set up. At home, I don't have to as much. Requires some states with high error rates program administration to cover up to 15% of the benefit costs themselves. Overall benefit reductions beyond work requirements. The legislation directly cuts SNAP benefits, trimming access for millions. Analysts estimate an annual loss of roughly 6 billion meals due to decreased access. Okay, so that's where that actually stands. Yeah, thanks for the gifted subs. You guys are awesome. Thanks for the prime sub, Brian Z. Uh, right. Cuz it's not government taxpayers' dime. No. Uh, yeah. I mean, it's a benefit that always has to be funded by taxes. Uh, so it's an entitlement. It's a benefit. Uh, I support RFK's plan. S. I don't. What's his S plan? Are you saying S tier? Fed rated a Home Depot in Los Angeles. Home Depot. Feds rated a Home Depot in Los Angeles. Let's see. Uh, we can look at that here in a second, but let's wrap this one up and then we can take a look at that. So, Florida's cutting it. So, we're getting a little cut from Florida. Buy food might have to make some changes to their grocery runs. That's because new restrictions will soon be in place across the state. Why is local to buy food might have to make some changes to their grocery runs? That's because new restrictions will soon be in place across the state. And our Kelly Cowan's in the newsroom to tell us what's behind this update. Hey, good morning. Good morning to you. Yeah, Florida among a dozen states that have been approved to place new restrictions on the types of items that SNAP benefits will cover. Some states have fought for years to stop SNAP from paying for things like sugary sodas and candy. And now the Department of Agriculture, again, I think that's what in itself kind of makes sense, right? Agriculture is allowing individual states to apply for waivers in order to expand limitations on non-nutritious foods. Certain items are already prohibited. SNAP cannot be used to buy controlled substances like alcohol, tobacco, or CBD products. Nor can SNAP be used to purchase prepared or hot food, vitamins, supplements. Cannot be purchased to eat prepared or hot food. There are state-by-state differences in that, though. We learned the other day, or any non-food items. Proponents for the waivers, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., say that they will incentivize Americans to eat healthier. And he argues that federal tax dollars should not be spent on products that contribute to poor health and obesity. Yeah. Because then again, that just causes more strain on the system because if you're on SNAP, you're likely some kind of Medicare or Medicaid, any, uh, who even knows the systems, maybe unemployment. So, it's just like the unhealthier you are, the more of a strain on the healthcare you are, the less, the more unhealthy you are, the less likely you're going to be able to work at your fullest, go get another job, have the energy to do that. So, it means you're going to be on more assistance for longer. So, it makes sense. If you want to buy bad food, it's cheaper, though. I know. Exactly. But still, overall, you could argue that having the obesity rate that we have is actually more expensive long-term and more expensive for taxpayers in general in the system. A sugary soda. You ought to be able to do that. Some can buy, uh, fast food on their SNAP. Uh, it's more on the EBT, and if they have a cash benefit, and there's a variety of things that lead to a cash benefit, but not from food stamps itself. The US taxpayers should not pay for it. Look at the additional restrictions that Florida has been approved to apply to its SNAP program. So, starting in January of 2026, SNAP will not be able to be used to purchase things like soda, energy drinks, candy, or prepared desserts. This year, SNAP served a monthly average of 42 million Americans with about one. That's actually kind of [ __ ] crazy. 42 million Americans. We're going to assume some of them are kids, cuz obviously SNAP applies to families. We got about 300 million Americans, right? That's [ __ ] 14% of America is on food assistance. That's [ __ ] wild. $188 in benefits per person, Kelly. Thank you. Thin itself. $100 than itself isn't the craziest thing. So, yeah. Big change in the world of SNAP. Become like WIC with a list of allowed foods and ingredients. First up here at 11. Yeah, maybe. Hey, Caleb Hammer stream fans, make sure you get your financial score for free. Take the assessment at calebhammer.com or dollarwise.com. It's free. See where you stand in the world of finances.