Box of Food in Lieu of SNAP

Amarante

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 4:57 pm

seeker wrote:

In fact, I see the opposite problem - I see low income SNAP recipients buying more junk food specifically because it is cheaper, and I think this problem could be addressed by setting up programs that make wholesome food more accessible. For example, we all need snacks for our kids. For less than five dollars, some coupons, and a supermarket sale, I can buy enough nonperishable, easy-to-serve garbage to provide my medium to large family with junky snacks like potato for two weeks of school. In order to send my kids with whole-wheat flatbreads and fresh fruit, I would have to pay about that much for a day or two of snack, and I'd have to deal with some waste and more frequent shopping because fruits and vegetables don't last that long. Bear in mind that somehow the frum supermarkets in Brooklyn tend to have great sales and nice stock of produce; I don't live near one and the regular groceries have much less available and often significantly higher prices.

This is not necessarily true in frum communities because all income levels tend to live together and thus have access to the same grocery stores.

However, in poorer areas where the poor are segregated by income, often there is very little access to good food. There are no supermarkets and the small supermarkets stock expensive processed food and very little in the way of vegetables.

Many of the poor have no access to decent transportation in places outside NYC and driving to supermarkets is difficult. Therefore they are hostage to the poor food choices available in their neighborhoods.

I am not touching on the issue of inadequate education in terms of nutrition because there was a thread a week or so ago by a woman who did not know the slightest thing about cheap sources of quality protein - and presumably this woman had access to frum stores which sold these items and was reasonably close enough to access them.

↑ 33055 ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:18 pm

HappyGoLucky1 wrote:

$500 is $500. If you spend $35 on fancy steaks you're paying for it out of pocket once that $500 is up. SNAP is there to provide food for people who can't afford it. WIC is there for healthy nutrition which is why you can only buy what they say.
You may not like it, and you may want to be judgey about it, but the fact remains that's $500 is $500 whether you stock up on Beans or frivolously waste it on steaks. It's nobody's place to manage someone else's food bill. A monthly SNAP balance is not enough to fit the entire food bill for the month. And no matter how you slice it $500 is $500.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/.....items

Edited for bad information.

Last edited by 33055 on Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ Reality

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:21 pm

The food stamp challenges are a little disingenuous. Most people who receive the help are living in a family not on their own. With the pooled family money there is enough for all to eat. It is very hard to qualify as a single person household.

So when a wealthy person says on an going to live like a person on food stamps for $45 a month they starve. But that is not most peoples reality. Most people on food stamps have dependents so they are allocated more money.

↑ chaylizi ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:21 pm

Squishy wrote:

You are not allowed steak fancy or otherwise on snap. You can't purchase luxury food or junk food. There are already reasonable limits.

You may purchase a birthday cake but not from a bakery. The food is for household consumption, so I am not sure if Pumpkin’s birthday party qualifies. For sure the gift doesn't unless it is allowable food.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/.....items

And I quote:
“Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items.

Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake. “

Your link also notes that changing the definition of food or any other eligibility criteria would require an act of Congress.

↑ 33055 ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:26 pm

chaylizi wrote:

Sorry. I read it fast while multitasking. Anyway, I glad the correct info is part of the discussion.

↑ HappyGoLucky1

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:28 pm

Squishy wrote:

If it's not qualified then it wouldn't ring up at the register as qualified food stamp purchase. It comes up as a separate bill in which you would have to pay for it out of pocket. So what's the problem?

↑ nylon ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 5:42 pm

For most families SNAP is not their entire food budget. At most, SNAP provides 90%, iirc (the USDA bases your budget on their Thrifty Food Plan for your family size). So if someone buys steak, how do you know which pot it comes from?

Maybe someone structures their budget so they eat meat infrequently but when they do, they get something more expensive, and use lentils and eggs for most of their protein. Or they are like a friend of mine who buys the more expensive steak but only serves small portions and fills the meal out with other things. These are perfectly reasonable choices. When you say someone shouldn't budget the way all of us do and should only eat cheap food ever, what you're saying is that it isn't enough to be poor, we need to be sure you feel poor.

Mayflower

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 12:50 am

jkl wrote:

- With social welfare, it creates a dependent society. Where people forever remain poor and are always dependent on society. So again that money spent offers no returns (financial returns).

- With corporate welfare, more opportunities are presented, more job spots open, and more people get hired. So people who are poor or earning very little, can have opportunities to get out of it. And if they are successful, they will be contributing back to society, instead of being on social welfare.

Now lets talk about if the spending were reverse - more on social welfare, less on economic growth.

- if less opportunities are available, more people end up on social welfare and the cost skyrockets. Being that money spent on social welfare offers no financial returns, the money has to come from somewhere, so it comes out of other people's pocket. And when more and more money comes out of a person's pocket, it heightens the chance of them becoming poor or struggling and they may end up on the social welfare, causing the costs to go higher and higher till its completely unsustainable.

So forgive me (and others) who prefer the government spends more on encouraging economic growth than on social welfare. This way is sustainable and in the long run creates better situations for more.

I know this post is from 3 pages back and I'm going off topic, but I just couldn't let this pass...

Corporate welfare does not necessarily lead to job growth. In fact, it often doesn't. Increases in profitability often goes to stock buybacks and dividend increases that benefit the investors, not to wage increases and hiring.

And social welfare does not mean "people forever remaining poor". The idea is to give people a boost and help them get back on their feet. On this site alone, there are quite a few people claiming they survived on foodstamps / benefits and are now off...

Also, European countries with welfare societies do not necessarily have higher unemployment rates than the US, nor do more and more people become poor because of the money they have to contribute to social welfware. These countries just have more income equality.

All the corporate tax breaks have just led to more income disparity. Meanwhile, the group of "working poor" is growing.

california2

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 5:51 am

I agree with that "two pots of money" idea. It's true most recipients have additional income (and don't receive the full benefit). So by the harshest criteria, they should be buying (lowest quality) rice and beans with the SNAP card, and then it would be "OK" for them to buy potato chips with their own money. But perhaps they didn't know someone was there watching, checking which item was purchased with which card! Maybe last week they used their own money on rice and beans, with some healthy yet cheap produce thrown in. And this week the cash has run out and they are relying on the SNAP card, and this is the week they had decided to have a splurge. So they use the SNAP card, because overall for the month it works out.

Policing other people's choices is just such an awful idea. Proven to not work well and leads to anger, resentment, frustration. I have quite enough difficulty filling my own cart with food that meets the criteria for my own family (kosher, some picky eaters some adventurous, busy working parents) I really don't have time to supervise other people's carts as well.

↑ chaylizi ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 6:05 am

I’m pretty sure social welfare that provides nutrition and healthcare means that people are able to remain alive and healthy while waiting for their fortunes to turn. So you’ll excuse me if I prefer this type of safety net, rather than bailing out companies that are padding their executives pockets with big bonuses. This remains true even if a number of people are fraudulently accessing the system. The actual beneficiaries don’t need to suffer because of them. I’m not sure if any of those sure that people are gaming the system work in healthcare. I see very hardworking people using Medicaid/WIC/food stamps to provide for themselves and their children. I don’t work in a frum area at all, but I see women/girls going back to work too early after c-sections because they need to provide for themselves. I see people who would be unable to feed their infants properly if not for the formula that WIC provides. Babies do starve if formula is overdiluted. I do not begrudge anyone, and I’m shocked that a people that call themselves rachmanim bnei rachmanim do.

Optimystic ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 6:25 am

This proposal is based on the fantasy that we live in a capitalist society where people who work hard are able to support themselves. In fact, we live in a cleverly disguised feudal system where the already successful get third, fourth, and fifth chances, while the majority is expected to live on government handouts lest employers be expected to pay their employees a living wage.

People who work hard should be able to afford food (and housing and education and healthcare) without relying on handouts of any kind. We can get there if we level the playing field by breaking up monopolies and penalizing employers and corporations who compensate their employees for only a tiny fraction of the value they generate.

Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats and Republicans in office are working hard to do exactly the opposite. Their disagreements come down to the size of government handouts necessary to keep the majority pacified and the strings attached to said handouts. More often than not, the handouts are there to increase cash flow to businesses by inflating prices for everything. They are not their to foster self-sufficiency.

I tried to resist, but my soapbox was just sitting there... Speechless

Zehava

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:04 am

little neshamala wrote:

Look, I feel very awful for people who are poor, and for children who cant have birthday parties. Like I said, I was that child and I know what its like.

I grew up very very poor.

Every single item was hand me down, until I was about 17 and bought myself, for the first time in my life, some brand new, never worn before, underwear from walmart.
Suppers were tomchei shabbos food stretched a million ways. Gross.
I was the little girl answering the phone during supper, telling the credit card debt collectors that "mommy isnt availabe".
My mother couldnt afford to buy me pads. I made do with other things. I dont want to discuss it.
I used to color on my legs in certain spots with black sharpie so the holes in my hand me down tights would be less visible.
The lights were never on. I lived in a dark house, because the electric bill was too high.
Real snacks, puddings and chips were things id only dream of.
A new knapsack? Forget it. School shoes? Last years ripped sneakers from the thrift shop would have to do.

I know what it is like to be poor.

It is awful. Truly.

However. It is really not the taxpayers responsibility to give every poor child a birthday cake. Hey, why not cater a superbowl party? The poor child has never been able to afford a superbowl party and he feel so mad because all his classmates......why not give a 15$ Walmart gift card for every childs birthday as well?

Its simply not the governments responsibility to give poor families extras.

Hugs to you
I wish I can go back in time and get you what you need.

Mommyg8 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:10 am

Optimystic wrote:

You said this very well! Bravo!

Limiting government is simply not in the government's best interest. The more they give you, the more powerful they are, so it's simple math that they have no incentive to get smaller, only bigger. And the more they give in handouts, the more powerful the government is.

And by the way, Wal Mart, etal is saving money by using the government to subsidize the wages for their employees! They don't have to pay a living wage, because the government steps in to do if for them!

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:13 am

Mayflower wrote:

I read somewhere that European countries are not necessarily socialist. European countries have corporations, businesses, etc. just like America, and likely the taxes are pretty similar to American taxes. So they're not really living a socialistic economy at all.

And it's my very humble opinion that America has almost the same level as taxation as Europe, just that it's structured differently. It's a myth that America is a capitalist country- that has changed a VERY long time ago.

↑ 33055 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:17 am

Optimystic wrote:

And how very do we compete against international companies that can take advantage of economies of scale. We would cripple ourselves of new advances.

Communism doesn't work.

LittleDucky ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:17 am

I can see why the box of groceries won’t work but the way WIC works makes sense. You can only get things from certain categories, stopping buying things deemed “not nutritiously significant” which ends up saving more government funds because people who eat better have better chances of not getting sick, obesity, diabetes etc.
why can’t they change the snap system into the same idea? A certain percentage must be spent on vegetables, fruit etc (fresh or frozen), a certain amount on whole grains and so on.

Give the choice of which whole grains, which vegetables etc to buy but stop the buying of soda. Sorry- no reason the government should be supporting soda or chocolate consumption. We don’t allow alcohol so why junk food? Junk food isn’t a right!