The most recent attempted transfer of funding just hit the news today, which you may have noticed had you bothered to read the cite.
There are many grades of meat below steak that are more cost efficient. All of them better than cheese doodles. And you’re arguing the ridiculous with 3 lbs of cheese. I used 16 oz for 6 servings.
Many on the Left consider Obama and the Democrats to be rightwingers. Just slightly less right wing than the Republicans.
Is that it? My parents lived through the great depression and what they taught me got me through some very tough times.
Sometimes. Depends on the sales that day, as has been mentioned, repeatedly.
Was that by any chance government cheese?
Really? I thought I had heard about cutting food stamps to improve school lunches last week, or maybe the week before.
I dunno… I get at least four servings out of 1 pound steak when making something like stir fry. After I get done cooking 1 pound of ground beef I usually only get two. Depending on the prices when I buy, steak might actually wind up cheaper per serving, especially if it’s on sale. I’m talking about something like “family steak”, not filet migon or porterhouse (which, frankly, I usually find too greasy for my taste)
Cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound, cost per pound.
Let me know when it sinks in.
No. Is that cheese better, worse…?
At less than $3 per child per day assistance do you think cheese doodles are appropriate nutrition?
and the metric for your decision was cost per pound.
We don’t have food programs because of our noble desire to be generous to the poor. We have them because Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill, and others can yank a string and have fifty congresscritters blubbering and sobbing for the family farmer. Boy howdy, if there’s one person in the world that your average congressman loves, its the family farmer.
That, and the fact that corn is an intelligent hive-mind bent on world domination.
How many food stamp recipients are actually using their benefits to buy premium meat for no good reason? I venture it is an extremely small number of people, many of whom have a reasonable explanation for their choices.
You might actually read it. It not only says may, but says Pelosi has an option of choosing a Senate Bill which would not cut the programs. So the Dems have slated no cuts. But it is on the table for a couple years in the future. The problem of course is they promised to pay for programs. The Repubs of course make no such promises.
But you’re dealing with multiple issues here. Feeding your kids nothing but junk food is a bad idea, yes, and has far-reaching consequences that taxpayers may be on the hook for. Should this, in and of itself, be illegal? It really should have nothing to do with being on food stamps or not. If it shouldn’t be illegal for some, it shouldn’t be illegal for everyone. I think that’s the point.
That said, to me, the bigger issues are the practical ones. It’s easy to mock a system that allows someone to buy lobster and expensive steaks with their allotment. Most people would be frustrated seeing this, no matter where they stand. But what’s the actual solution? Adding more requirements and complexity adds to cost.
Unfortunately, I don’t trust politicians – or many of the people in this thread – to make sensical regulations about what poor people should and should not be eating. I think it’s better for those people to make those decisions, and to save the expense and difficulty of nannying people. In short, it’d be nice if we could just take out the abusers – but we can’t. What rules we make affect everyone, and there are so many extenuating circumstances that can occur that will challenge a one-size-fits-all solution. As many people have mentioned, this includes geographical problems like lack of access to real grocery stores, logistical problems like lack of access to cooking facilities and/or equipment as well as lack of time/experience to cook complex recipes, and dietary issues like allergies, religious restrictions, conditions that affect eating like diabetes, and so on.
Personally, I don’t really care if someone who is on food stamps can’t buy all junk food. But the problem is if you start with this, where does it stop, and what are the effects. I wouldn’t want a system where people can’t get what they need or can’t buy anything that they have actual access to in stores because of rules that didn’t think through every scenario, and nor would I want a system of rules so complicated that it’s an undue hardship on participants as well as stores that sell food. To me, it makes more sense to have a few morons living on Gatorade and Snowballs than to risk those things, and I haven’t seen a system that substantially improves what we have now.
And excused by you on the pretext that most people receiving food stamps still have other money coming in which can be used to buy food.
The government does not give this money out freely and what it does give is minimal. If it has been determined by the government that a family of four at a certain income level requires $290 a month (other expenses having already been factored in) in order to adequately feed itself, it is very likely that that amount is a bare minimum. For Congress and Obama to take $60 dollars of that away and use it in a baldfaced attempt to prop up its support among teachers and teacher unions in the face of the upcoming elections is unconscionable in my opinion.
OK, I’ll ask one more time, then I won’t bother any more, because it’s become pretty clear you’re not interested in answering: if the people on SNAP find a last-day sale on steak that makes it cheaper than ground beef, is it ‘OK’ in your view for them to buy it, even though ‘poor people have absolutely no need to buy steak’? If a person on EBT lives in, say, New England, where lobster is dirt cheap, is it still not OK for them to buy it because, in your view, ‘a poor person never has a reason to buy seafood’?
And no (not that I have any hope of getting through to you), it’s not just ‘cost per pound’. The 70/30 ground beef is cheaper, per pound, than the 80/20. But if I use the 80/20, which has far less shrinkage, I can actually use 2/3 of a pound for a recipe that calls for a pound of ground beef. Plus, as pointed out before, ‘nutritional sawdust’ like bologna is much cheaper per pound than roast beef. But roast beef has a much higher nutritional value.
So, in your opinion, which is the government supposed to be limiting: nutritionally empty foods? Or foods that are ‘too high-falutin’ for poor people’?
Again, I’ve phrased this question towards you a number of times in a number of ways, so I’m certainly not expecting an answer this time, either.
Just thought I’d toss it out there one last time for grins and giggles. And shit.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/217184.asp
About four years from now. Still I’m sure the poor and oppressed of our nation are thrilled to have Starving Artist as their stalwart protector and paladin, shielding them from the iron grip of Big Labor. Baffled, but thrilled.
what part of cost per pound do you not understand? Seriously. It doesn’t mean the cheapest. it means there is a ceiling on the cost of meat or cheese or whatever commodity the price is set on.
About 2 years from now they’ll be voting with empty stomachs.
I already answered your question so I’ll ask you one.
Does the government set standards for fuel efficiency in cars or safety?
I normally eat a cheese sandwich for breakfast.
Under the price-per-pound system, I’m sure the little ball of goat cheese I normally use would not be allowed, despite the fact that they last a long time and provide me with the dairy I need. But I could buy pounds and pounds of nasty Kraft singles. I’d be totally free to pack six slices on to my sandwich- a pointless and unhealthy thing to do. But God forbid i have my goat cheese, right?
Maybe I’d decide to smear something else on my bread. What limits are there on jam? Could I buy the super premium primrose and chantrelle jelly, or would I be stuck with Smuckers grape. Would I be able to buy 100% fruit jams even though it is more expensive, or would I have to get the cheap colored corn syrup stuff?
Since soda and juice are really nutritionally not all that different, could I still get some OJ to go with my breakfast? My grandmother is suffering from osteoporosis and it’s made me think a lot about my calcium intake- can I get the calcium fortified stuff even though it is a premium brand? Does it matter than I’m lactose-intolerant, so I don’t get my calcium through milk?
I’m a semi-vegetarian, and I don’t buy meat at the store. I’m perfectly happy with a bean-based diet. Beans cost about 7 cents a serving. Why the hell should people get to spend even two bucks a pound on meat when they can get that same nutrition from beans? But people like to eat meat. Okay, I like to eat my goat cheese. If I am willing to use a cheaper substitute for a premium product (beans for meat) why shouldn’t I get to spend a bit of the savings on a different premium product?
What about spices? They don’t add much nutritionally, and they are expensive.
What if I come from a culture where special food products are integral. Do Jews still have to buy the cheap store brand bread during passover, since matzo is more expensive? Is halal meat an unsupported luxury?
This could go on and on. The point is that when you are micromanaging other people’s diets, you are not going to be able to come up with a one-size fits all solution.