# SNAP Budget Proposal - Is Individual Delivery of Food Packages Really Going to Save Money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2018, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794 "2018-02-13T21:56:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/201 "2018-02-15T20:30:44Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Should the government be involved in the day-to-day decisions of what poor people have for lunch? If the government is paying for it, yes, that is reasonable. When charity is given, and this is charity, the giver can add conditions on that charity. In fact, imho, it is immoral to _not_ impose conditions if the end user of the charity is likely to use the charity in ways that are bad for them. K9bfriender, the boxes will not have perishables so all you need is space. At least understand what the program entails before telling us it is impossible. As to putting the boxes together, think of it as a jobs program. Lots of liberals like jobs programs… Slee ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/202 "2018-02-15T20:48:51Z")
Just going to leave this here: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html) > [@](#): > > In reality, administration officials on Tuesday admitted that the food-box plan — which the president’s budget director Mick Mulvaney compared to the Blue Apron grocery delivery service — had virtually no chance of being implemented anytime soon. > > Instead, the idea, according to two administration officials who worked on the proposal, was a political gambit by fiscal hawks in the administration aimed at outraging liberals and stirring up members of the president’s own party working on the latest version of the farm bill. The move, they said, was intended to lay down a marker that the administration is serious about pressing for about $85 billion in other cuts to food assistance programs that will be achieved, in part, by imposing strict new work requirements on recipients. It isn’t going to happen, they never really were serious about it happening. Feel free to keep arguing for this proposal, but you are wasting your time. It isn’t a real proposal. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/203 "2018-02-15T20:54:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That seemed to be the gist of Ann Hedonia’s post: > > If you’ve got a quibble with the phrase “the government dictating what people ate”, I suggest you take it up with her, because she’s the one that said it. I merely quoted. Well, a few things. One, when people are in school, getting a meal provided to them by the school (sometimes free of charge if they qualify), then pretty much some govt entity has to be in charge of determining what they eat (for one meal a day 5 days a week). I’m not sure how else that would work. Two, the kids in school are not being dictated what to eat, they can bring their own food. Three, Michelle was not the one who created this system. She was not the one who said that kids in school have lunch, free or otherwise. The only thing she did was to try to get the schools to offer healthier choices. Four, the only quote in that was the current Ag Sec, appointed by trump, and not affiliated at all with the Obamas. I just don’t see where she said anything like you are claiming. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/204 "2018-02-15T22:02:05Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > If the government is paying for it, yes, that is reasonable. > > When charity is given, and this is charity, the giver can add conditions on that charity. In fact, imho, it is immoral to _not_ impose conditions if the end user of the charity is likely to use the charity in ways that are bad for them. So your position is that it is reasonable for a “generous” giver to choose to be assholes for the sheer and sole sake of being assholes and literally no other reason. Understood. However, that wasn’t really the entire question. It is reasonable for the government to waste staggering amounts of time, effort, and money in the pursuit of being assholes for no reason? (Why am I even asking? Assholery is its own reward!) > [@sleestak](#): > > As to putting the boxes together, think of it as a jobs program. Lots of liberals like jobs programs… But you have to pay people in jobs programs, which is yet another rocket booster on the ever-rising costs of this idiotic idea. I realize that it’s worth a certain amount of money to make poor people miserable and/or dead, that’s a really valuable and desirable outcome, but exactly how much money are you planning to burn towards this outcome? (Pretending for a moment that the program won’t promptly canceled for being too expensive _without_ reinstating the reduced SNAP payments, as it doubtlessly would.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/205 "2018-02-15T22:05:24Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Just going to leave this here: > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html) > > It isn’t going to happen, they never really were serious about it happening. Feel free to keep arguing for this proposal, but you are wasting your time. It isn’t a real proposal. Well of _course_ it was never real - they never proposed any plan at all, just ludicrous lies about imagined “savings” that couldn’t possibly be achieved by any plan that _could_ have been devised. But that doesn’t mean we can’t keep debating this retarded idea in a completely abstract sense. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/206 "2018-02-15T22:33:39Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … I just don’t see where she said anything like you are claiming. It was right here (emphasis added by me): > [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > … Funny how the Republicans understood these points back when they hated the idea of **the government dictating what people ate**. … ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/207 "2018-02-15T22:45:21Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > If the government is paying for it, yes, that is reasonable. > > When charity is given, and this is charity, the giver can add conditions on that charity. In fact, imho, it is immoral to _not_ impose conditions if the end user of the charity is likely to use the charity in ways that are bad for them. No, this is not charity. Charity is a voluntary activity to which one has no legal claim. This is an entitlement, for better and for worse. If we are to take that the government may attach any conditions to its dollars, how about conditions that any recipients of any Federal grants, entitlements, salary, or anything else shall not be allowed to own a firearm? I think there are a raft of good conditions that can be put on Federal spending. That receiptients should follow the law, for example, and not engage in civil rights violations or criminal acts. Then there’s areas in which some gentle nudging is a-ok, like a percentage of highway funds being withheld for certain drunk driving standards. But making legal behavior illegal by withholding funds? It’s tyrannical. Whether that’s owning a gun or drinking soda, it is nanny statism, pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/208 "2018-02-15T22:48:06Z")
It was the _Republicans’_ claim that the government was trying to dictate what people ate, not Ann’s. Ann Hedonia’s comment was sardonic. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/209 "2018-02-15T23:37:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, this is not charity. Charity is a voluntary activity to which one has no legal claim. This is an entitlement, for better and for worse. > > If we are to take that the government may attach any conditions to its dollars, how about conditions that any recipients of any Federal grants, entitlements, salary, or anything else shall not be allowed to own a firearm? > > I think there are a raft of good conditions that can be put on Federal spending. That receiptients should follow the law, for example, and not engage in civil rights violations or criminal acts. Then there’s areas in which some gentle nudging is a-ok, like a percentage of highway funds being withheld for certain drunk driving standards. > > But making legal behavior illegal by withholding funds? It’s tyrannical. Whether that’s owning a gun or drinking soda, it is nanny statism, pure and simple. No one is making “drinking soda” illegal (possible exception for NYC, I’m not sure what the current state of their laws are - but anyways, Trump isn’t proposing making it illegal), we’re just saying we, the taxpayers, aren’t going to _buy_ your soda for you. If you want it, great, buy it yourself and you can drink all you want. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/210 "2018-02-15T23:41:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No one is making “drinking soda” illegal (possible exception for NYC, I’m not sure what the current state of their laws are - but anyways, Trump isn’t proposing making it illegal), we’re just saying we, the taxpayers, aren’t going to _buy_ your soda for you. If you want it, great, buy it yourself and you can drink all you want. You need to realize that most people, without means, have too much month left at the end of the money. The desire to buy soda is rather remote for them. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/211 "2018-02-15T23:46:28Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You need to realize that most people, without means, have too much month left at the end of the money. The desire to buy soda is rather remote for them. Then it sounds like they won’t mind at all if we prohibit EBT being spent on soda. They weren’t going to buy it anyways, right? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/212 "2018-02-15T23:54:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Then it sounds like they won’t mind at all if we prohibit EBT being spent on soda. They weren’t going to buy it anyways, right? I assume you’ll agree that the only reason to do this would be to be assholes. There is literally no common good served by doing this, other than to make lots of people unhappier so that joyless conservatives can feel better in comparison. But yes. If we for some reason decided the poor didn’t suffer enough, we could adjust EBT so that you can only buy gruel with it. We most certainly wouldn’t have to resort to some harebrained crate scheme to achieve this evil end though. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/213 "2018-02-15T23:54:43Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > we’re just saying we, the taxpayers, aren’t going to _buy_ your soda for you. No, what you’re saying is “we, the taxpayers, are so addicted to petty assertions of dominance that we’re going to waste money and effort on inefficient and costly systems for micromanaging your nutrition and spending while sanctimoniously telling you that we’re just thinking of your health”. Nanny-state finger-wagging at its finest. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/214 "2018-02-15T23:59:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No one is making “drinking soda” illegal (possible exception for NYC, I’m not sure what the current state of their laws are - but anyways, Trump isn’t proposing making it illegal), we’re just saying we, the taxpayers, aren’t going to _buy_ your soda for you. If you want it, great, buy it yourself and you can drink all you want. Which again is quite a different proposition than literally choosing what food a family ought to eat by sending it to them in lieu of subsidizing groceries. ETA: if you really are concerned about soda and obesity, where do you stand on soda taxes? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/215 "2018-02-16T00:10:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Which again is quite a different proposition than literally choosing what food a family ought to eat by sending it to them in lieu of subsidizing groceries. > > ETA: if you really are concerned about soda and obesity, where do you stand on soda taxes? You’re right, it’s a separate / side issue. To answer your question though, I’m not a fan of soda taxes (or various other “sin taxes”). To clarify: I don’t particularly mind how people choose to spend their own money. If they want to gamble it away, spend it at the strip club, buy soda with it, or burn it, that’s all fine with me. If the taxpayers are providing the money, I’m a bit more sensitive to waste. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/216 "2018-02-16T00:12:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I assume you’ll agree that the only reason to do this would be to be assholes. … You assume wrong. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/217 "2018-02-16T00:19:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You assume wrong. Well, there’s no _other_ reason to do it. Don’t even pretend you can micromanage millions of people’s health by twiddling with their purchasing ability. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/218 "2018-02-16T00:23:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … Don’t even pretend you can micromanage millions of people’s health by twiddling with their purchasing ability. Isn’t that precisely what NYC is doing with its soda tax? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/219 "2018-02-16T00:24:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Isn’t that precisely what NYC is doing with its soda tax? Are we going to pretend that’s going to work, now? “But dems do it too!!” ain’t compelling argument. ETA: I haven’t paid a lick of attention to NYC’s behavior regarding soda, but I would hope that if they’re raising taxes on it that their stealth intent is to make money. I can’t imagine it having a lot of effect on people’s consumption thereof. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794/220 "2018-02-16T00:29:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Are we going to pretend that’s going to work, now? > > “But dems do it too!!” ain’t compelling argument. I’m certainly not pretending that. I think it was a stupid Democrat idea. There’s a thread about those things in a place I don’t post. My primary interest in the “America’s Harvest Box” proposal is the estimated savings for taxpayers. I don’t, despite your many assertions, have as my primary motivation a desire to deprive the poor (or anyone else) from finding joy in their lives, but our government is going many billions of dollars deeper into debt every year, and I think we ought to take steps to trim that down, and ideally reverse that trend. One way to do that might be to save $12.9B by sending food directly to the needy rather than having them go to grocery stores / convenience stores and paying the marked-up retail rate. It doesn’t strike me as a horrendous, or cruel, plan. It seems rather reasonable to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snap-budget-proposal-is-individual-delivery-of-food-packages-really-going-to-save-money/808794.md?page=12)