Hey, do you happen to know what the winning Lottery numbers for the next big one are? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/general-mills-to-buy-blue-buffalo-pet-food-in-8-billion-deal
Ok, so the cereal giant is adding a dog food brand to its lineup which just means it’s diversifying its holdings but it does make my tinfoil crinkle in a way that sounds like a snort.
Was it Fridays that had a skit parodying the Lorne Greene Alpo commercials? The context of the parody is that in the late-'70s people were scandalised to hear about old people eating dog food because meat was too expensive to buy on their Social Security benefits. Paraphrasing and shortening here…
Lorne Greene: This is Fred. He’s 83 years old. He’s healthy and active. Maybe Fred’s been around so long because Alpo’s been around so long.
Actually it would be one MONTH’s worth of food. Now imagine a family of four that gets, say $500 worth of food stamps. Take half of those funds away and instead fill a box with $250 worth of canned food, shelf stable boxed milk, peanut butter, etc. That box would be so heavy you couldn’t even lift it, much less ship it anywhere. :rolleyes:
Really? So, no treat for the poor? No candies for the kids, ever? No birthday cake? No special meal for Christmas or whatnot?
And who decides what’s good enough for the poor? You think they have way too many choices in life, and deciding what to eat is granting them too much autonomy? Of course, the package proposal is a shame, but what you propose is only marginally better.
I refuse to support the backpack programs, where schools and other entities give backpacks full of food to children who may not eat over the weekend, because in my old town, most of the backpacks and their contents were being traded for drugs, mostly meth. :mad: It was discontinued for this reason.
Not a problem. Just make them beg for their food three times a day at a distribution point situated 5 miles away from the nearest inhabited place. This way, they won’t have too much to carry and that will teach them.
What you do is you take a tour of impoverished areas.
If you see anyone smiling or laughing or in any way enjoying their lives, you cut assistance further.
Yah, that would be a little harsh. There should be a way to limit the everyday purchase of absolute junk, like twinkies and soda, but yet still allow folks to have the occasional treat like everyone else does. Maybe devise a system where no more than x % of the SNAP funds can be used for the junk food categories of food. Don’t know if that’s feasible in reality though.
erm i hate to tell those fools that they already do this or used to …if you went/or go to to a “free food” charity 90 percent of it is/was surplus from the USDA some of it was great and some of it was well … rough … you couldnt make sandwiches with the PB but it makes awesome cookies …
I go to the grocery store several times a week and I can’t tell you the last time I noticed what sort of credit card the person in front of me used to pay for their groceries. Did no one teach you about personal space?
If (or should I say when, if your proposal was adopted) ‘absolute junk’ is fortified to include more “nutrition” that non ‘junk’ foods . . . what do we do then?
Twinkies, but no bread? Coke, but no orange juice?
(You might want to investigate the nutritional value, and cost, of the things you don’t consider ‘junk’.)
CMC fnord!
Can you link to a news article covering this in more detail?
I’m still waiting on how Tan the Conman and his minions, er, supporters plan to reconcile their contempt for those on government assistance with the fact that a number of our active duty military are supporting their families with said government assistance (“food stamps”).
I try to worry about foodstamps, Snap, WIC and other benefits for poor children and families. But first I have to let go of my concern for the absolute waste of food in America. It is an outrage. Go to any grocery store and look behind the store for the dumpster. Take a peek. It’s just wrong. Someone needs to do something about it. I wish I could think of a way and then be able to implement a program.
Make sure you bring a lookout in case they try to bust you for trespassing…
heh i have a relative that thinks we need to make a “people chow” just like we do for the dogs for people "on the govermeant tit " …
Just say you’re looking for boxes. Around here no body cares if you look in a dumpster. Some places do though.
If there was a way to get to that food before it was trashed and before is was passed the sell by date. Get it cooked up and vac-packed and frozen. Then feed to homeless and women’s shelters. Why can’t this be done? If a big company, say Wal-Mart, Costco or someone would do it they would gain so much in public relations and good will. It would be amazing.
Go visit your relative. Take them to the door. Take them outside. Ask them to walk along that paved sidewalk with you. Walk to the public school they graduated from. Walk further to the local library. Browse the shelves or maybe sit in front of the computers there. Then walk further to the water treatment plant. After this hike, take them back to their home and back slap them as hard as you can, while saying, “You’ve been on the ‘government tit’ your entire life!”
Well, maybe you don’t have to hit them. But definitely say that.
It’s kind of addressed in the video I linked - there’s a policy against it coming from on high. Ostensibly it’s because store chains don’t want to get sued if people get sick from the just-expired food that they toss out, although that has never happened.
The *real *reason is probably that they’re afraid people might then game the system : “why should I buy a steak if I can just wait until they toss it then get it for free ?”. So then it would become up to the store to make sure only the “deserving” get to have free food, which is a layer of costs and effort they don’t want to deal with.
They could partner up with specific vetted charities & soup kitchens I suppose, but then again soup kitchens don’t check how desperate for free soup you really are either, for the same reason : it’d cost money and effort, it’s not the business charities are in and (to most actually charitable people) ultimately who gives a fuck if you really need free soup, or rather does the possibility of someone “scamming” for free soup invalidate the real need of the desperate for free soup ? The big difference, then, boils down to the difference between progressives and conservatives re:all welfare. Leftists don’t care if a manageable percentage of people scam off of the social safety net and mark it down as the cost of helping people who do need that help. Right wingers go red in the face at the thought of even just one Lucky Ducky getting a “free ride”, and would rather impose enormous duress on everyone on the safety net to avoid that ghastly prospect or destroy the net altogether.
Same here. Charities don’t care about handfuls of moochers, but IMO Walmart’s CEO doesn’t want anyone getting anything off of him for free. Better to chuck the food altogether !