- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How are people opposing the food box proposal?
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:30 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:30 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It may be costlier in the long run since private sector logistic chains are more efficient.
Theoretically, yes. But consider:
1) We could ensure healthy food is delivered vs. frozen pizza, soft drinks, and other foods that are expensive from a relative standpoint and cause health issues (Medicaid savings)
2) Amazon might argue with you assertion that the grocery store model is more efficient. Maybe the govt could outsource the supply chain to them, Walmart, or the like.
3) Many would quit welfare because they are using the EBT benefits for reasons they aren't intended. (e.g. fraud). Thus, the overall program would see savings due to reduction in the entitlement rolls.
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 10:01 am
0
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:32 am to SippingOnPurple
quote:
It kills me how welfare recipients think they’re entitled to eat as well as being entitled to an ObamaPhone complete with internet surfing
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:34 am to Schmelly
The problem is that the amount of money these people are getting each month is way more than they actually need.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:37 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why not just pass a law restricting EBT purchases to non-crappy foods. No soda ,no cookies, no candy
And it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Nearly everything you purchase has a UPC label (produce being the main exception). Simply require that certain foods are exempt and the stores can change their computer systems to exclude them.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:38 am to udtiger
Why I said welfare alone
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:39 am to AmericaOverParties
quote:
Why I said welfare alone
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:48 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Why not just pass a law restricting EBT purchases to non-crappy foods.
No soda ,no cookies, no candy
The REAL reason this doesn't happen, and the reason the delivery boxes never will either, is because of the food lobby. It's actually not a partisan issue at all. Mega rich corporations are protecting their revenue streams by lining politicians pockets. This isn't hyperbole either, I actually have close friends who work in this space and know the dynamics well. The ideas you're talking about aren't new.
That said, they're slowly making progress on sugary drinks but even that is a huge uphill battle and not that likely. Candy and cookies will never get taken off the list.
The other reason its challenging is cost of implementation, it's tremendous. Its a lot more complicated than you think to ban certain items, massive administrative task. When you really get down to it you realize just how much grey area there is.
What they need to do is get the program to a WIC model, start there. If the SNAP program had started with this kind of model we wouldn't have the issues we're having now.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:52 am to Quidam65
quote:
And it wouldn't be that hard to implement.
This is incredibly false. Hard and expensive, massive administrative undertaking. Every time you make new rules we get that much more inefficient and you make more ongoing work for someone. There are tens of thousands of products too, and who decides the cut off, what about unsweetened nestea? Ritz crackers? saltines? blue cheese? fatty cold cuts? white bread? whole milk?
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:58 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It may be costlier in the long run since private sector logistic chains are more efficient.
Why not just pass a law restricting EBT purchases to non-crappy foods.
Upvote
Posted on 2/14/18 at 8:59 am to theronswanson
quote:
I am a registered Democrat
the Ron Swanson
What
The
frick?
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:06 am to SippingOnPurple
I don't have a problem with a Green Apron type of setup.
Families with children need to have healthy foods...not the crap they load up on currently.
Families with children need to have healthy foods...not the crap they load up on currently.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:10 am to EKG
quote:Becuase we all know a 2ltr of Mountain Dew and a few bags of Doritos is considered nutrition. Everyone knows this system is abused and the ones who are against any type of reform here somehow benefit from said abuse.
"nutritional freedom"
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:10 am to Jumbo_Gumbo
quote:
The problem is that the amount of money these people are getting each month is way more than they actually need.
They frequently misuse what is on the card and end up short. Doesn't matter to them very much, but it matters to their kids.
IMO the food box proposal would at least ensure that they are feeding their families instead of selling it for $0.50 on the dollar.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:11 am to member12
I think this idea is the best, but I also see this as the opening salvo in a negotiation over a compromise on this issue.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:12 am to udtiger
quote:
opening salvo in a negotiation over a compromise on this issue.
What is there to compromise on? Are Democrats not aware of how misuse of the current program frequently results in hungry kids?
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:15 am to ninthward
quote:
Everyone knows this system is abused
By the food lobby
quote:
and the ones who are against any type of reform
The big food companies paying the lobbyists
quote:
somehow benefit from said abuse
Money
It's the entire root of the problem, get them out and these problems would go away quickly. The people who run these programs are trying to feed people healthy food, plain and simple, I've talked to several of them extensively. Their hands are tied by people above them getting paid to make sure it doesn't change.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:19 am to TBoy
quote:
Because people on food stamps are not beggars and shouldn’t be treated as beggars
There is far more dignity in begging for ones bread than in simply being given it with no effort required.
The modern welfare state is a perversion based on a common noble impulse to help the needy.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:31 am to mwade91383
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/2/21 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:41 am to geauxtigersgirl
I think that's all reasonable and might work, but I'd prefer a WIC model like I was saying earlier. Throw out everything they have now and start a list of approved choices, if it's not on the list, pay for it yourself.
Assemble a panel of nutritionists/community leaders/educators/allergists, etc. who have 0 affiliation with any lobbying group or tied to any major food company. Start with the basics: milk, eggs, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, 100% juice, lean protein, etc.
That list is what the $ can be used for, nothing else. It wouldn't be perfect and there would be some debate about what would or wouldn't make the list but it wouldn't have coke and oreos on it, that's for sure.
I don't have a problem in theory w what they do today but the lobby influence has totally taken away their ability to meaningfully adapt the program to improve and work towards their actual goal. Throw it all out and start fresh (no pun intended).
Assemble a panel of nutritionists/community leaders/educators/allergists, etc. who have 0 affiliation with any lobbying group or tied to any major food company. Start with the basics: milk, eggs, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, 100% juice, lean protein, etc.
That list is what the $ can be used for, nothing else. It wouldn't be perfect and there would be some debate about what would or wouldn't make the list but it wouldn't have coke and oreos on it, that's for sure.
I don't have a problem in theory w what they do today but the lobby influence has totally taken away their ability to meaningfully adapt the program to improve and work towards their actual goal. Throw it all out and start fresh (no pun intended).
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:43 am to udtiger
quote:
TBoy is right.
They are not beggars. Beggars at least do SOMETHING for the money/charity they receive (make a sign, make up a tear jerker tale, etc.). These people do nothing. They receive this $$$ by their mere existence.
The more accurate term is "leech" or "parasite."
So, the question is: Should a leech/parasite have any say in what the host feeds it?
This does NOT describe every person on food stamps.
My wife worked as many hours as her job allowed before we got married, often working the crappiest shifts. She was still eligible for food stamps.
Thing was, they gave her more than she needed and she TOLD them that. She literally tried to return them, but they had no process for that. So she would purchase food for her friends who had children but were having trouble making ends meet.
I've known people like her and I've known people like my friend who had food stamps but got Pizza Hut every day (not with food stamps) and then bought crazy crap with his stamps. One time, to "be nice" for us, he bought us a whole turkey. Should I note that we had no real intention or experience cooking whole turkeys? ;p
My problem is that people hear the words "food stamps" and have this immediate assumption of "leech" or "parasite" when I know two people who get stamps, of which one literally tried to return every one she didn't need and when the government told her no, bought food for children.
So step off this high horse some of you have.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News