If you could devise a scenario where dictating what the cop / mayor feed their families ends up saving taxpayers billions of dollars, I’d certainly be open to hearing your proposal. Personally, I can’t see how that could be, but I can see how the America’s Harvest Box proposal might. That’s the reasoning here.
I actually work in the grocery industry. Wholesale costs are generally 85% of retail. That’s right, only a 15% markup. Less for the loss-leader items. The private grocery industry in this country feeds 300 million people. It keeps the food coming to the cities every single damn day. There is no way the government is going to improve on that enough to cut costs in half because the government will have the exact same infrastructure and transport issues as the private industry, and no wholesaler is going to be able to sell at a loss, which is what this scheme would require to save money.
There seems to be this notion that the grocery business is wallowing in money. It’s not. It’s a 1-3% profit margin. You can’t have much fat and waste with that low a margin, there’s enormous incentive to pinch pennies. This proposal expects to cut padding that does not exist.
You mean… the election cycles where a Democrat was elected to the White House twice in a row? Uh, yeah, sure…:rolleyes:
They’ve already spilled the beans that they were just trolling liberals with this proposal. Its not a real proposal. You are taking the bait harder than the liberals by legitimately trying to defend this as if its a real thing that might actually happen.
Nobody needs to prove that this won’t save the money that has been claimed. Its up to those arguing for this proposal to prove that it will do what they say. Your side is making the claim of savings, so your side needs to defend that, not expect us to just accept it simply because someone asserted it.
But again, this is a fake proposal. The equivalent of a ‘piss off the libs’ right wing facebook meme, coming from the White House. And you fell for it and continue to defend it as if it is a real thing. So were you actually trolled by this and believe this to be a real thing that might happen? Or are you doing something else here…
So… by that reasoning you’d be OK with your boss dictating what you can eat, right? Or your company’s customers dictating what you eat, because it’s “their money” that’s paying your salary?
If you aren’t OK with that - the people paying the money paying your salary dictating what you can and can’t eat - but you want to dictate to SNAP recipients what they can and can’t eat you’re a hypocrite.
Since there’s nothing to the estimate other than a single page explaining the reforms, I don’t think it is possible to substantively refute a proposal with no details.
However, as we are sometimes reminded on this board, “a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.”
By the way, let’s just look at the math of this. The proposal is that half of one’s SNAP benefit will come in the mail. And that this will result in roughly a 15% savings to the overall program, which means that nailed groceries must cost 30% less than groceries in a store.
First, if this is doable, why the fuck isn’t everyone buying peanut butter and canned fruit by mail at 30% off??
Second, part of the box is supposed to include shelf stable milk. So far the best price I’ve found online is 6 cartons of 32 ounces each for about $20, or about 11 cents an ounce, from Amazon. A gallon of milk here costs about $4, or just abou 3.1 cents an ounce. So somehow, using Mick Mulvaney Magic of Volume Purchases, the price of shelf stable milk is going to drop by 80% beyond the best Amazon price. Is there any better prices out there?
I’m putting this into the same category of the Trump predictions that tax cuts will pay for themselves by generating about 5% GDP growth for the next ten years.
That’s quite an exaggeration, isn’t it?
A sealed jar of peanut butter in a box of food isn’t going to hospitalize or kill anyone.
I had another response, but let’s try this instead: who, precisely, said the purpose of this proposal was to “troll liberals” or that it was “not a real proposal”?
I don’t believe the proposal was that they had to be mailed. That’s one distribution option, but the proposal listed others. You might want to try to not get too hung up on the “mail” thing specifically.
I’m not sure I’m following your math here. The proposal says:
They’re claiming they can procure the food at approximately 50% less than groceries in a store, not 30%.
Because they’re not buying it by the ton?
That’s the claim, but I certainly don’t have access to the USDA’s price sheet to verify.
What am I not proving? That the cost savings won’t be that, or that they didn’t run the numbers.
I know they didn’t run the numbers, because they said it wasn’t a serious proposal.
It would be on them to run the numbers, and prove that there are savings. They don’t just get to say, “It’ll save $X”, and ask others to prove that it won’t.
Oh, that’s easy. If you are a govt employee, instead of 1/2 of your pay, you get a box of non-perishable food stuffs.
My employer buys food by the ton. If they could save 30% or 15% or, hell, even %5 more they would. But they can’t.
Great. Let’s see the proof.
You know who buys this stuff by the on?
Hitler!
No, wait — got carried away there. Safeway, Walmart, Harris Teeter, etc.
Now that I think about it, it could work.
Not that the govt can actually get better bulk deals than walmart, that’s just not something that is going to happen.
But, the govt can leverage farmers. Right now, crop insurance subsidies are on the chopping block. Without the subsidies, they cannot afford crop insurance, and without crop insurance, if they have a crop failure, they go bankrupt.
The govt can demand to farmers to sell their products at 50% the cost that they sell to commercial distributors as a condition of continuing to receive agricultural subsidies.
Sure, some farmers will go bankrupt and go on SNAP themselves in the process, but that’s okay, they voted for this.
Who, precisely, said it wasn’t a serious proposal?
The Republicans who now say they were just trolling.
I’m sure they can procure food calories at a lower price than can be purchased at the store. One way is by buying in bulk, but the other way is by buying lower-quality or less desirable foods. And given how the conservatives currently view the needy, I foresee they would actively seek out the lowest quality both to save money and to increase the misery in order to “incentivize” people to get off SNAP.
For example, look at the canned fish in the grocery store. Generic tuna is about .16/oz, but mackerel is about .10/oz. So the govt could save 1/3 of their fish cost by providing mackerel instead of tuna even buying retail. But the govt can save even more by purchasing lower-quality mackerel at wholesale, which probably can bring their price to under $.08/oz for canned fish. But mackerel isn’t nearly as good as tuna, and I would guess most people would tire of it quickly.
Give me a name, and a quote, please, and as you can imagine, if that name is something other than Sonny Perdue, we’re going to have a discussion about it.
To be fair, I can’t tell you precisely what their names are, is that what is important to you?
ETA: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/harvest-box-snap-food-stamps.html?mtrref=www.google.com
Cite is in post #202
You’ve been had.