So… the plan is to reduce funds the poor have to purchase healthy food, even though we know healthy food costs more?
Uh, yeah, that’s going to work out just fine…:rolleyes:
This is the common assumption, but it’s wrong. The USDA found that the shopping carts of SNAP recipients contain about the same foods as non-SNAP recipients.
Because they’re taking actions to screw themselves. Maybe I should have said stupid. And 5 years after they vote Republican for the 10 time in their life, they get laid off, and suddenly get dumped onto the very same safety net their collective actions have acted to disassemble. And they find out how shitty medicaid is, how meager food stamps are, how there is almost no cash welfare. And they blame the company for laying them off or the economy.
Yes, but Americans are unhealthy in general. Point is that if it was all lentils and Kale or something, maybe the new way to lose weight would be to lose your job. Maybe poor people would be the best looking. Who knows.
Darn those poor people, expecting that if they can’t afford to feed their kids, they have the right to get assistance!
No.
It is a privilege, not a right. That being said, of course there should be assistance programs, I was just outlining that. Not to be confused with “It OUGHT to be a right” which I am assuming you mean. Please do not put words in my mouth so to speak.
Not even close. Canned produce is almost never as nutritious as fresh, for all the urban myths out there.
Blanching removes a large portion of water-soluble vitamins. Ever wonder why fresh apples have vitamin C in them and applesauce doesn’t, unless it’s added? That’s why. Furthermore, artificial additives are almost never as good as natural ones. But they’re cheaper. Any bets on which a business would use?
Also, cans tend to have other substances added to prevent the degradation of the cans themselves. Ever hear of BPA? It’s carcinogenic. It’s also commonly used for just such a purpose.
Some supermarkets in Belgium offer “weekly boxes”. They have several menu choices in their website which change weekly: you choose which ones you want, for how many people and tell them where will you be picking up your box containing the raw ingredients and the recipes (also available in the website, you can choose not to get them on paper). You can set up your profile for different food restrictions and if there’s one they haven’t considered, email or talk with Customer Service at any of their stores.
To me this seems a lot more useful than a fixed box for everybody. A service like that could be useful for many people: those on EBT could pay it with their EBT, those without would pay with USD (or EUR or whatever the local currency is). There could be options for “I can’t cook” or “I can heat up food but not cook”.
I was going by the definition of 'privilege," which according to the OED is
.
Since anyone who meets the financial criteria gets SNAP, it doesn’t constitute a privilege.
A right, on the other hand, is (also according to the OED)
It’s an important distinction. If I mischaracterized your views, I apologize.
This plan is diabolically clever. It has everybody talking about how much the Poor people and their foodstamps cost the US taxpayer. That is the main aim of this whole plan, and it is already succeeding.
What the Dems should do, is contrast how many times over you could pay the whole of all welfare programs combined ten times over, if you refrained from raising the military budget as Trump intends to raise it.
It’s diabolcally clever because you just know Trump, his family and his mates ARE going to profit from the distribution or substitution of food products for the poor.
Kind of like how staying at his NY apt, meant every secret service dude had to stay on premise and the taxpayers cut a cheque to Trump to cover the inflated rents for each one! Same goes at his golf course!
In the end, a big chunk of the money spent is gonna end up in Trump pockets somehow. Because that’s how he rolls, it’s what he does best.
The food deserts point has been made frequently in the thread. Since the states will be left to decide how the food boxes are delivered, this plans’ effectiveness in solving the issue of deserts would depend on 50 individual states’ solution to the problem.
I have a hard time believing typical food stamps recipients are not making these types of disciplined purchases.
I would expect no less. Since this budget envisions each state having its own plan, my guess is utilizing these distribution networks for delivering food to market would be necessary for this to have any hope of efficiency.
I would love to see a public discussion of America’s unbelievable military budget, but the culture will not allow it. So if I want the government to reduce its budget, these sorts of programs are all that will be discussed.
I read some stuff making similar points this morning, but the plan does allow enough to buy fresh produce so this may be a non-issue.
Many of you seem to be envisioning something more than boxes of packaged and canned goods in this “Blue Apron” style system. This is an unfortunate analogy that hipster journalists are making and I am personally disgusted with it. They are sanitizing the proposal by this comparison.
Of course Trump and his cronies are always looking for graft opportunities, but this is not a major motive for the proposal.
It is quite sad and seems hard to believe but, yes, many Republican proposals aim directly at punishment: punishment of the poor, punishment by skin color, punishment of groups or regions that tend to vote Democratic.
American people need and want to come together as a nation, and to work toward common goals.
By encouraging different groups of the hoi polloi to hate each other, American unity is thwarted. Thus Republican political interests are served.
Believe whatever you wish, but I personally think graft is this man’s sole motivation.
After 30 years of paying taxes and promoting the social safety net, I viewed receiving benefits during a period of unemployment as a “privilege” in the same sense that after years of paying life insurance premiums receiving a check after my spouse’s death was a “privilege”.
Since the way this currently works at the point of sale is for the SNAP system to determine via price code what items are or are not allowed this could be done by changing what is and isn’t allowed - this is already done for WIC to a very precise degree (a 16 ounce box of X is allowed, two 8 ounce boxes of the same thing, same brand, are not, for example) without the need for the government to get into the procurement, storage, transport, and delivery business. If we really wanted to do so we could similarly restrict SNAP purchases with the infrastructure already in place.
Can I say, as a cashier who rings up SNAP purchases that by and large this is the case. If you’re poor enough to have the lion’s share of your monthly food paid for by SNAP, you have to be disciplined in your choices in one way or another. Otherwise your have too much month at the end of your money. If a SNAP recipient does buy a steak (perhaps on sale) it’s more likely to wind up stretched into 2-3 meals (added to chilli, stew, stir fry) rather than grilled for just one meal.
The nosy nellies are inclined to focus on the one steak or the bag of chips and ignore the beans, bread, and bag of oranges.
And, if a poor family is living on beans and rice 6 days out of 7 with oranges or apples for dessert and on Sunday want a whole chicken or a steak dinner I’m not going to get upset. That shows good planning and discipline and don’t we want to encourage that?
Now, for the people getting just $50 for the entire month SNAP is more likely to be for a “luxury” type item. But such a person is likely going to moving out the program soon anyway (because they must have some sort of income to result in such a low benefit). Again, I don’t feel this is worth getting worked up over.
And finally - because most SNAP recipients work most of them are having to pack a lunch. Low-pay jobs typically don’t have lavish break rooms - lunch might have to be something that requires no cooking, no heating, and perhaps no refrigerator. That means bottled beverages and things like a bag of chips - you’re bitching about what people eat as a portable lunch. Get off your high horse.
^ This
Grocery stores typically run a profit of 1-3%. That’s it. There’s not a lot of “fat” to cut there. It’s a cutthroat business where “as much profit as possible” is 3%.
^ This.
There are also food inspections, facility inspections, laws, regulations, and fines (or even forced shut downs) for failing to meet them. And yeah, people tend to not want to purchase food from filthy, vermin-ridden places.
True.
Everyone who brings up the delivery aspect seems to miss the “porch pirate” problem. If no one is home when the box is delivered will it just be left on the door step? Package theft is already a significant problem everywhere. If someone nicks your monthly food box while you’re at work (and 70% of SNAP recipients are, in fact, employed) you’re really screwed. And these will get stolen. People will steal dirt given the opportunity, they’ll definitely run off with anything that might have value.
Yes, stores get full value for anything purchased with SNAP. From the stores viewpoint it makes the same amount regardless of how an item is purchased. The reason just about everyone and their uncle accepts EBT is because there are crapton of people receiving it. Problems with SNAP costs less than problems with bad checks and credit card fraud, both of which stores also accept despite knowing a percentage of transactions are going to be bad.
As I said, grocery profits are typically 1-3%
I don’t, no. Objective evidence suggests it’s a myth.
Even if it’s very occasionally true, people in the United States are not starving to death for a lack of local food choices. That is not a thing that happens.
Even if there are neighborhoods with a dearth of choices for high quality fresh food,
-
The extent of the problem has been exaggerated to an absurd extent, if you can convince me it exists at all, and
-
It’s irrelevant. Food stamps are for people to have food. the marginal difference you’re trying to make here is “has enough food” versus “doesn’t have enough food.” If you think the U.S. government is going to send really high quality food out in Trump Boxes, well, that’s just hilarious. When has government-supplied food ever been good stuff?
If they took away EBT benefits, people will just start stealing food from stores. I’m sure the stores are going to like that. Plus, when you steal food, you don’t steal the cheap stuff, you take the steak and lobster!
It’s an idea that might (and I emphasize might) work well on the local level. Administered by the federal government for the entire US? Not so much. But as I said in the Pit thread, this is a Trump pipe dream and will never get through Congress.
There have been this type of thing implemented before - Angel Food Ministries did this nationally until their downfall due to greed. The Box Food Ministries and New Hope Ministries do this on a local level in Atlanta, GA and Kenosha, WI. Smart Choice Food and OneHarvent Food Ministries do this on a multi-state level. USDA is doing trials with on-line providers including Amazon where EBT can be used for purchases.
In other words, this is already being done as an opt-in for EBT recipients, the difference being that it’s voluntary, and at least some of them are allowing for customization.