Box of Food in Lieu of SNAP

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:20 am

Squishy 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.

Monopolies nowadays are world-wide. That means one company has the entire market. Sometimes in the entire world.

Now maybe I'm naive, but honestly, I can't believe that a company became a monopoly by being a good boy (or girl), playing fair, and following all the rules. If you think so, then I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara desert!

I think that companies should not be allowed to do things that are, well, immoral and illegal. There has to be some blind eyes being turned to allow a company to turn into a world wide monopoly. That's just MHO.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:38 am

Fox wrote:

If you read the details, this isn't nearly as crazy as it sounds, and it could even be a huge boon for kosher recipients. States would be allowed to determine how to distribute food directly, and they would presumably work with existing community infrastructure. In Brooklyn, this would mean the various Community Councils and chesed organizations already involved in food distribution.

This would allow Jewish agencies to negotiate better prices on behalf of poor Jewish consumers, serve kehillas requiring various hechshers, and arrange special distributions around holidays.

So kosher consumers could potentially get more food for the money, and 50 percent of their benefits would still be available for birthday cake ingredients.

Of course, whether this would save money is a different question altogether. I can't imagine the savings would be great; my guess is that it would simply move the money around a little. Instead of grocery stores reaping the benefits, the distributing agencies would be adding staff.

As far as better nutrition goes, I suspect such an initiative would go the way of Michelle Obama's lunches. You can lead people to veggies but you can't make them eat.

One of the problems with Michelle Obama's initiative is that schools continued to serve disgusting slop instead of anything apetizing.

But I digress.

My single-word response to the use of community agencies to distribute food is Rapfogel.

↑ 33055 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:42 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

You are a bit niave. When China is dumpling products to establish markets and you are breaking up companies, you will destroy the economy. China won't have to dump because they will have natural economies of scale.

Your workers won't have jobs.

marina ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:50 am

Squishy wrote:

The government is NOT there to provide fancy steaks. SNAP is there as a safety net to provide adequate nutrition. Adequate nutrition has nothing to do with subsidizing feel good food.

Tax payers should never have to pay for fancy steaks. The policy goals of the program is not to purchase rich man's food.

Why do these conversations always revolve around benefits exclusively for poor people? Why doesn't anyone go off about government benefits that everyone gets?

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for school computers and smartboards and music and gym! If you're getting free education, be happy with math and English on a chalkboard!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for fancy library programs and computers and internet and DVD collections! Just be happy there are some books!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for landscaping in national parks! You're getting the park for free, just make sure the grass is not overgrown!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for higher education government scholarships for college and graduate schools! Just be happy you have a high school diploma!

Oddly, I don't really hear these conversations. Why are there gazillions of threads on what SNAP recipients are entitled to but none on what library patrons are entitled to?

Is that because we can all use the library? Is that because using the library does not reflect on your work ethic?

Imagine if libraries were exclusively for people who couldn't afford to buy books or go online at home. I think we'd immediately start debating whether the library *really* needs that new carpet or if the unwashed masses can do just as well with the old one.

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:57 am

Squishy wrote:

Can you elaborate on your thoughts? Because I'm not getting your point clearly. Thanks!

Breaking up which companies will destroy the economy? Please explain.

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 10:58 am

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Six and marina on this thread, that doesn't usually happen Smile

.

Wow! Moshiach must be almost here!

↑ Fox ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:17 am

SixOfWands wrote:

My single-word response to the use of community agencies to distribute food is Rapfogel.

ITA. The majority of community agencies and their executives are honest and trying to improve life for their constituents, but even when there's no outright fraud, the presence of government money is like summoning pigs to the trough. Combine cronyism with inexperience and whatever local politics is going on, and you've got a bottomless money pit with absolutely no benefit for anyone.

If I'd been appointed to tinker with SNAP benefits (What a mechaya! Think how much less time I'd have to harangue everyone on Imamother!), I'd forget about the boxes. Instead, I'd run a pilot project initially targeting food deserts where semi-monthly farmers' markets would sell government surplus basics along with locally-grown produce at prices significantly less than grocery stores to SNAP recipients.

I would also hit up the local transportation authorities to provide special buses on those weekends, and I would get some money from whatever job training program is currently funded to hire kids to shlep groceries. Instead of aggravating Imamothers, I'd spend time aggravating local community councils to devote resources to helping their clients get to/from the farmers' markets; deliverying food to those unable to get out; and giving input about what the community needs (e.g., no government surplus ham in Boro Park, but thanks for the offer).

If things went well, I'd expand the whole shebang to give local startup food vendors incentives and opportunities to sell their goods, the goal being to develop a clientele that will support their businesses outside of the special "SNAP zones." These places need capital almost as desperately as they need food.

Milton and Rose Friedman explained the nature of the problem decades ago:

When you're spending other people's money on yourself, you want the best. This explains why my DD selected a $100 blender on BB&B's bridal registry.

When you're spending your own money on yourself, you want value. This is why my blender was about $18 from Walmart.

When you're spending your own money on other people, you want to spend as little as possible. Use a mortar and pestle if you don't have twenty bucks for a blender!

Ah, but when you're spending other people's money on other people, any darned thing will do, and who cares about the price. Which explains pretty much everything the government touches, including school lunches.

↑ alis_al_kulana ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:18 am

There are children starving because their parents use benefits for drugs. This ensures those children will get minimum food. This only affects half the money, poor people will still have discretionary money.

↑ chaylizi ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:20 am

marina wrote:

Remember the outrage when Republicans found out that most welfare recipients can afford a refrigerator? If they were really poor they would have been living in a log cabin in the woods.

↑ Fox ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:24 am

marina wrote:

Why do these conversations always revolve around benefits exclusively for poor people? Why doesn't anyone go off about government benefits that everyone gets?

Cannot like this enough. In fact, this is usually my argument, though I tend to be fixated on farm subsidies. Libraries is probably a better example.

Of all the waste, boondoggles, trickery, and outright scams involving taxpayer money, birthday cakes and even an occasional steak for poorish people (as opposed to those starving to death in the streets, presumably) isn't even a gnat on the radar.

↑ marina ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:26 am

I post this every time this comes up, so here it is:

https://local.theonion.com/wom.....76454

Quote:

NORTHAMPTON, MA—With her remarkable ability to determine exactly how others should be allocating their limited resources for food, local woman Carol Gaither is considered to be one of the foremost authorities on what poor people should and should not have in their grocery carts, sources said Thursday.

As verified by multiple eyewitness reports from supermarkets across the Northampton area, the real estate agent and mother of three is capable of scanning the contents of any low-income person’s basket and rapidly identifying those items which people like that don’t need to be buying, based on the products’ nutrition and cost. Additionally, Gaither, 48, is widely regarded as a leading expert in determining which groceries they would purchase instead if they had any common sense or restraint.

“There’s no reason she should be loading up on those pricey TV dinners if she’s getting the government to pay for it,” Gaither told reporters at a local Super Stop and Shop, training her prodigious faculties on a welfare recipient using a benefit card in front of her in the checkout line. “If I were on food stamps, I’d just buy two whole chickens and a bag of potatoes—you could feed a family for a week on that and still have money left over.”

“All that junk she’s buying is just loaded with sugar, too,” said Gaither, identifying with uncanny speed another critical flaw in her fellow shopper’s grocery selection. “No wonder her kids are acting out like that.”

Sources said that Gaither, in addition to being a noted scholar of how the indigent squander her tax dollars at the supermarket, is able to detect with astonishing frequency instances in which poor people claim they are unable to pay their own grocery bills yet, seconds later, pull out a brand-new cell phone that’s far nicer than the one Gaither herself owns. Moreover, as one of the most respected voices concerning the poor’s flawed eating habits, Gaither reportedly possesses the ability to instantly assess when people on public assistance keep coming back to the same fatty foods that pretty much explain how they came to look like that in the first place.

Despite her stature, Gaither has never shared her insights with any of these individuals, sources confirmed.

“The other day, I saw a woman who bought a box of name-brand Frosted Flakes because, apparently, the generic kind wasn’t fancy enough for her,” said Gaither, swiftly and decisively calculating that bagged cereal would have cost half as much. “And guess who’s going to be paying the difference in the end?”

“But then again, what do you expect?” Gaither added, making eye contact with the reporter.

As noted by her acquaintances, Gaither’s unrivaled expertise extends far beyond her appraisal of poor people’s shopping lists. Indeed, sources confirmed that she is also nothing short of a savant on such matters as whether young children should be given electronic gizmos to play with instead of a book, what homeless individuals are doing with the spare change you give them, and what on earth would motivate someone to go out in public like that.

Additionally, Gaither has earned wide commendation for putting forth a clear, straightforward solution to the behavioral problems she has identified as plaguing the poor population, suggesting simply that needy families stop popping out babies and focus on raising the ones they already have.

“No matter where you go, it always seems like Carol has some amazing new piece of insight about people around her,” said friend Gloria Ferris, who told reporters that she has often marveled at Gaither’s abilities on trips to the mall, the movies, and especially in restaurants. “Whether she’s analyzing exactly how a parent should go about disciplining their child or methodically dissecting the laziness of obese people who ride around in motorized carts, Carol’s on top of it. She just has a gift.”

↑ chaylizi ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:28 am

I want to make an official complaint about things the taxpayers pay for and don't receive. My state raised gas taxes and our vehicle registration fees to fix our roads. Apparently, these funds will be padding the pockets of our state Congress until 2021. They are still patching our already patched roads with asphalt, which disintegrates every single time it snows. I'm all for fixing our roads, but kindly fix them. We didn't vote for this initiative so you can use the funds for other things.

leah233 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:32 am

Food stamps should be limited to healthy food.

People who ask the government to pay for their food should allow the government to have a reasonable opinion about what they should(n't) be eating.

↑ chaylizi ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:36 am

leah233 wrote:

Food stamps should be limited to healthy food.

People who ask the government to pay for their food should allow the government to have a reasonable opinion about what they should(n't) be eating.

The government does have an opinion. Anything that qualifies as food is eligible for food stamps. This includes steak and bakery cakes. The taxpayers don't get to have an opinion. The government doesn't ask our opinion for anything else. There are lots of things I'd like to have an opinion on. SNAP doesn't make the top 100.

Source for my assertion is from here: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/.....items

“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. “

Last edited by chaylizi on Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:54 am; edited 3 times in total

mushkale ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:40 am

alis_al_kulana wrote:

How are they using the benefits for drugs? The cards are only usable for groceries.

↑ watergirl ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:44 am

mushkale wrote:

How are they using the benefits for drugs? The cards are only usable for groceries.

Some people sell their fs for drug money. I imagine the same people would sell their food boxes.

↑ mushkale

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:46 am

watergirl wrote:

Some people sell their fs for drug money. I imagine the same people would sell their food boxes.

Exactly my point. If anything, it's probably easier to sell the food then the benefits.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:46 am

leah233 wrote:

Food stamps should be limited to healthy food.

People who ask the government to pay for their food should allow the government to have a reasonable opinion about what they should(n't) be eating.

What else should the government have a say in?

Right now, about half of all births in the US are financed by Medicaid. Should the government have a say in that? I mean, the cost to taxpayers is in excess of $12,000 per Medicaid birth. Why not tell women receiving Medicaid that they can't expect taxpayers to finance that? It seems a lot more efficient than telling a family they can't spend $5 to bake a birthday cake.

And why are people living in high cost areas? Why not force them to live in Mississippi, where the cost of living is low?

And what else should the government be telling them? I mentioned no private school above. I mean, why should the government give money to people who can afford that sort of luxury.

Why do we want to micromanage people's lives, or take away their dignity just because they're poor. Let them handle their own finances. Like everyone else.

↑ leah233 ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:49 am

SixOfWands wrote:

What else should the government have a say in?

snip

Why do we want to micromanage people's lives, or take away their dignity just because they're poor. Let them handle their own finances. Like everyone else.

Was the bolded a Freudian slip?

That is exaclty what those who oppose programs say.

Ditto for the first question of your post.

↑ LittleDucky ↓

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:55 am

The idea of taking the SNAP challenge is based on the false premise that it is the sole source of food for the family. Kids on SNAP will get free lunches from school and they get them year round. Signs near some parks and public schools in the summer tell eligible families where to get wholesome lunches even when school is out. Many get breakfast at school as well. Kids too young for school would qualify for WIC.

Page 6 of 10

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next