289

US military spent $9 million on crab legs and lobster in the months before Iran war: report (www.the-independent.com)

submitted 3 months ago by Soulphite@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheFogan@programming.dev 39 points 3 months ago

Sure, but did you think about the fact that food stamp recepiants could legally buy frozen lobster tail if they hoose to use all of their food stamps on it?, there's at least one documented case of someone actually doing it too so, it's a serious problem and justified cutting off half the country from food stamps to keep the epstien files from releasing.

[-] Soulphite@reddthat.com 13 points 3 months ago

Right, and lobster used to be considered peasant food back in colonial times. Funny how times change.

[-] bcgm3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

George Lucas: It's like poetry. It rhymes.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I never understood how Faux was allowed to run wall-to-wall coverage on the horrors of allowing people to buy steak-n-lobster on food stamps (! gasp! clutch pearls!) and most people didn't shut them the fuck off. I also didn't understand the propensity of so many people to police the fuck out of what is in someone's grocery cart if they are on assistance, while they seem to have very little interest in putting any checks at all on the parasitic class/the idle rich.

Then I learned about last place aversion and it makes a lot more sense. Whole lot of people would rather see the Epstein class get even richer than to have someone they think is beneath them jump one rung higher.

[-] kittykillinit@lemy.lol 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Heh, I hate to break this to ya'll, but I used to be on food stamps and ate crab legs all the time. I could've gotten frozen lobster tail; there's nothing stopping that. It's just that crab legs are a better deal and easier.

They really do give more than enough.

[-] TheFogan@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago

Would say overall the point is... they aren't more expensive than regular food, depending on your situation etc... Key thing is crab legs and lobster tails, aren't generally a huge price point beyond other things... and the joke, is of course that someone using their 200 a month and getting something moderately paletable, while a small group of cabinet members are literally spending more than.. well more than a states worth of food stamp recipients get total.

[-] kittykillinit@lemy.lol 1 points 2 months ago

I mean, I agree with you. Why should we have less while others have more? Especially when they're not contributing to civilization, but rather leeching off of it.

At the same time, the $300* a month that I received was way more than enough for my personal needs. It was great. I got to eat whatever I wanted and then some. I was no longer bound to just the bare minimum that I was willing to accept.

[-] titanicx@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

It depends the size of your family and the area you live in.

[-] megopie 12 points 3 months ago

To put that number in perspective, there are 1.3 million active personnel with in the DOD right now, and a 1.5 pound live lobster costs about 34$. So, that’s enough for 1 in 5 active duty personnel to have a lobster with in the given time frame.

I’d say that 9 million dollars on an expensive food category over several months isn’t that much when we’re talking a population of 1.3 million (active duty personnel with in the DOD). But then again, that money probably wasn’t evenly distributed, I doubt they’re serving lobster dinners to all the privates at fort polk. So, some officers are getting some big lobsters once or twice a month. That’s probably a bit much, lobster is a treat, not something to be on the regular rotation.

Ultimately though, all these luxury expenses are just a drop in the bucket of over all spending. Everything when described as a line item will be massive. We could force every officer to live on dog food and it would barely make a dent in the expenditure. Ultimately, the budget is the result of the shear scale of the organization. The only really way to reduce the spending is to decrease the scale of the organization, and that requires reducing what it is expected to do. That means closing some bases, reducing overseas commitments, and giving up capabilities.

The discussion that needs to be had is around what the organization should be focusing on, what the people of the US want it to be doing. Like, maybe, we don’t want it bombing random countries at the whim of a president. The ability to do that off the cuff is quite expensive.

[-] JaymesRS@piefed.world 9 points 3 months ago

Sounds like someone is trying to buy themselves into the popular crowd.

[-] macaro 6 points 3 months ago

This is why the pentagon has never passed an audit.

[-] RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

All those U.S. Navy ships and you can't go fishing for free?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Where's that little chipmunk Kevin Hassett that loves to pop up in front of the camera and gaslight about fighting "waste, fraud and abuse"?

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026

289 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30016 readers

2121 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News