None of which, by any commonly accepted definition, is “junk food.”
How is a homeless person supposed to soak and boil dried beans? No home = no stove.
High enough to clear a turnstile!
Except, of course, for the people in the real world who are allergic to legumes, or for whom rice triggers massive swings in their blood sugar, or who need to be able to pack a lunch for work that doesn’t go bad without refrigeration nor do they have a means to heat it up to make it palatable, or they’re homeless and don’t have a kitchen in which to cook that rice and beans…
Also, rice and beans (or rice and peas) are noticeably lacking in certain vital nutrients, like vitamin C. This can lead to scurvy and even death as soon as 4 months.
Turns out the actual real world can get complicated.
So your version of the parable is used bovine food.
Also - shame are you for repeating the lie that everyone on food stamps is dining on steak and lobster and otherwise living it up. If you think the current system is really that great why don’t you quit your job, spend down your assets, and go on food stamps yourself?
I only said steak and lobster because it was presented upthread. It’s just a metaphor. In reality, I support SNAP buying steak. It’s real food. I think it’s a dumb thing for a recipient to do, but strictly speaking for myself, it’s actual nourishment, so it oughta be allowed. My bar ain’t high.
And the man says. “We do. That’s a thing. That’s how all the food gets into the food pantry. People buy it and donate it all the time. Of course, it’s inefficient labor, so we’d prefer just sending out digital currency and having the end user be a better steward of it.” And then the beggar not only got a lesson in personal finance and nutrition, but also logistics! The wins keep pilin’ up!
I didn’t say he couldn’t splurge on a nice sandwich. I said he can splurge on a nice sandwich when he has roughly $200 or more. That’s akin to the secure future. As in, knowing where the next meal is coming from. In his case, the next 15.
Nobody said he was homeless. Just a beggar. But anyway…camp stove? Shelter kitchen? Friend’s house? Trash barrel fire?
Yeah, there it is. The list of excuses always come next. The person is a beggar, so it’s impossible for them to eat healthy, even when directly given money.
Shame on you for not reading more carefully and misrepresenting what I said. In fact, it’s damn near the opposite.
I’m not against food stamps, but I think the following changes should be made:
-
No federal dollars; the federal government shouldn’t be feeding people. Each state should set up its own “food stamp” system, using state dollars, and run it however they want. Or not at all.
-
It should be the opposite of what it is now: all food items are prohibited, with the exception of certain healthy staples such as poultry, grains, beans, fruits, milk, and vegetables.
I get 298 a month and buy mostly lettuce, tomatos, cheese, peanut butter, ham for sandwiches, orange juice, cereal. I can live on this. Dollar store foods are somewhat cheaper.
How’s a deli salt beef sandwich not “eating healthy”? If you don’t mind poor people eating steak because it’s nutritious, why complain about their eating a beef sandwich?
I get the feeling that you don’t have a consistent metric for acceptable poor-person food purchases so much as just a general objection to poor people making any choices based largely on enjoyment. If the poor person in question had said “Hmmm, given my circumstances and lack of access to secure food storage or cooking facilities, my best bet here for healthy protein-rich nourishment at this point is short-term nutrient-loading consumption, and the most cost-effective way to get that is via that ginormous salt-beef deli sandwich”, I don’t think you’d be tut-tutting him. It’s the fact that he wanted the sandwich that’s bothering you. Poor people should always be in pragmatic self-denial austerity mode until they manage to stop being poor.
There’s that mandated permanent austerity mode again. I have nothing against grains, beans, fruits, milk and vegetables myself, they’re what I mostly live on, and I’m not poor. But I remain skeptical that limiting food-stamp purchases to those specific items would really turn out to be an effective way of giving poor people adequate access to healthy food at low cost. I think the regulatory and enforcement procedures would probably end up being more costly than the occasional steak and lobster.
Wonderful! That way the homeless and destitute gravitate to the states that attempt to provide, bankrupting those systems, while the other states brag about how well off they are.
The cheapest meanest states ridding themselves of the poors sounds like an RW wet dream.
And that’s worked out so well for the Affordable Care Act / Medicaid Expansion.
You’ve switched two different things that I’ve said. One was responding to a parable about a beggar buying a sandwich. Another, separate thing was about the ethics of food stamps. The beggar, at least insofar as the story tells us, isn’t on food stamps. SNAP is a monthly stipend meant to supplement the food budget. The beggar is on a one-time, personal donation and (it seems) must live off of that. Different rules.
I didn’t complain about the beggar eating a beef sandwich. The donor did. And he was justified in doing so, because he has a general sense of the man’s budget, and the beggar made a poor life choice. That poor life choice makes me question the value of the parable.
First off, when you start something by saying “I get the feeling…” it’s a clear signal that you’re about to inject personal bias and conjecture into a conversation. If that’s the way you start, then you’d better end with a clarifying question. Something like “Is that what you think?” But you didn’t ask me that. You just told me what I think, and if that’s the case, then I don’t see why I need to be here. Have the conversation for the both of us, and just let me know when you’re done inevitably winning the argument.
But anyway, if the beggar’s best bet is to buy the sandwich, then you’re violating the spirit of the parable. The donor’s complaint is that he made a foolish purchase and the beggar’s defense was that it was enjoyable. The whole point is that the beggar did something pleasing and wasteful. It’s like telling me the grapes the fox wanted really were sour, and he’s just a smart lil forest animal for noticing. That’s not the moral of the sour grapes story, and the moral of the beggar sure as hell ain’t “short-term nutrient-loading consumption.”
Yeah, I know, isn’t it horrible when the people who represent us actually try to help anyone?
Is it reasonable to expect a poor person to go barefoot until they’ve finally saved up enough money for a good pair of boots, as opposed to something cheap and flimsy that will last only a little while but is available now? As Keynes said, “in the long run we are all dead”. Short-term, live for the day thinking is a hallmark of the poor but in uncertain circumstances that’s not necessarily irresponsible or irrational.
Well, suit yourself about being here, of course. I made it quite clear in my post, as your own words acknowledge, that I was describing my impression of what you seemed to be thinking. If you’re so bothered by the way I phrased it that you need to demand a rewording, maybe indeed this conversation isn’t a good fit for you.
You should look to your state government, and not the federal government, if you need “help.”
In addition to food, the federal government should not be involved in medical care in any way. Any and all medical care or subsidies should be handled by state governments, not the federal government. This is why we have states.
Actually, the parable doesn’t say it’s wasteful. The donor jumps to the conclusion that it must be wasteful, because it’s expensive and the beggar is clearly motivated by enjoyment.
Which is the sort of austerity-for-austerity’s-sake attitude I’m talking about. After all, the price of a deli beef sandwich, even a fancy one, isn’t going to make a difference to anyone’s food security beyond the extremely short term. Indeed, the enjoyable calorie punch of the fancy sandwich might in fact be the smartest bet for this beggar (don’t need to store or prepare it, no other beggar can steal it, etc.). We’re definitely not talking about somebody blowing a year’s wages on a night at the casino here.
But a lot of charitable givers seem to feel that the recipient of their charity needs to work out his “debt” in the form of visible austerity and self-denial, however negligible its actual effect on their circumstances.
I get that reasonable people can disagree about the most effective way to spend a small short-term resource, like the price of one sandwich, on a major long-term need, like chronic poverty-induced hunger. But to say that somebody in that position to whom I’m offering some extremely minor and temporary help should be deprived of that resource unless he obeys my prescription about the best way to expend it? Damn, bit cold.
Well, as long as we’re making unsupported categorical assertions: No, it isn’t.
Seriously, it doesn’t make any more sense to have your access to basic healthcare linked to your current state of residence than to have it linked to your current job. While there are indeed some aspects of the social safety net that are by their nature state- or locality-dependent, basic healthcare’s not one of them. Being a human with a body vulnerable to injury and illness is a characteristic that everybody shares, no matter which side of a state line they’re on.
If this is a hijack, we can drop it, but you can simply look around and see how poorly some of the states have implemented their medical and food programs. If one state is poorer than the one next to them, with not enough jobs, should their residents go hungry when just over the border the next state is rolling in dough? Like others have posted, those states will just lose more and more people (at least the ones who have the wherewithal to leave).
It’s like you have some platonic ideal of how a country should be run regardless of whether it works or not. Look around. It isn’t working.