The Food Nazi Says NO SHRIMP FOR YOU: How One State Plans to Feed the Poor.

[RavenSky]

What's better for the hungry kid, a red potato or 5 ordinary potatoes?

They aren't being given enough aid to feed the kids the expensive stuff. If they spend it on the expensive stuff they won't have enough to feed them with.

1. Red potatoes do not cost 5 times the price of "ordinary potatoes". At Publix in Miami they are frequently LESS expensive than any other kind of potato
2. It appears to be your assumption that poor people would rather starve their children than to make reasonable food choices without your help.

 

[thebeave]

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge

From the start, Paltrow’s poorly conceived, if photogenic, effort drew criticism.

The ingredients the actress bought, looking more like the elements of a health food smoothie or juice cleanse, were not only glaringly insufficient to cover three meals a day for seven days, but calorically impractical for sustaining a typical human diet.

She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

What Raven said.

So you two would have no problem with your welfare money buying booze for an alcoholic while their kids go hungry?

booze and alcohol is food? buying shrimp or nuts means you let your kids go hungry?

Seriously Loren, try not to let your prejudices show quite so blatantly next time.

I'm talking about what actually goes on--all too often welfare people cheat and convert their food stamps to cash and use it for their vices rather than feeding their kids.

How often Loren?

The report indicates that the vast majority of trafficking – the illegal sale of SNAP benefits for cash or other ineligible items – occurs in smaller-sized retailers that typically stock fewer healthy foods. Over the last five fiscal years, the number of retailers authorized to participate in SNAP has grown by over 40 percent; small- and medium-sized retailers account for the vast majority of that growth. The rate of trafficking in larger grocery stores and supermarkets—where 82 percent of all benefits were redeemed—remained low at less than 0.5 percent.

While the overall trafficking rate has remained relatively steady at approximately one cent on the dollar, the report attributes the change in the rate to 1.3 percent primarily to the growth in small- and medium-sized retailers authorized to accept SNAP that may not provide sufficient healthful offerings to recipients. These retailers accounted for 85 percent of all trafficking redemptions. This finding echoes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that suggested minimal stocking requirements in SNAP may contribute to corrupt retailers entering the program.

...

SNAP continues to have one of the lowest fraud rates for Federal programs. Over the past several years, USDA has taken steps to improve SNAP oversight through its SNAP Stewardship Solutions Project. USDA has seen declines in the rate of trafficking from four percent down to about one percent of benefits over the last 15 years. While fraud is rare in SNAP, no amount is acceptable, and it will not be tolerated.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-001213

So I will ask again, what in the hell are you babbling about?

That's treating one type of fraud as if it's the only type of fraud.

That is not answering the question.

Here is a direct quote from YOU Loren.

I'm talking about what actually goes on--all too often welfare people cheat and convert their food stamps to cash and use it for their vices rather than feeding their kids.

You named the fraud as converting FS to cash in order to buy vices. That is trafficking. According to the USDA trafficking makes up 1.3% of FS transactions.

Hardly a rampant or runaway problem.

So again, what the hell are you babbling about?

 

[Tristan Scott]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Then shouldn't we limit the food sold?

 

[RavenSky]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Beans, nuts, red potatoes, and not even shrimp are poor nutritional choices. As I said before, IF the list was restricting chips and sodas and other unhealthy food, I could maybe see a valid argument - though my argument would be more from the perspective of government should not be promoting bad food (or cigarettes or alcohol) than because I think a paternalistic government should be making poor people's food choices for them.

But even there, IF it is the proper role of government to ban "bad" foods, then do so... across the board. No rich people get to eat shrimp either.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm talking about what actually goes on--all too often welfare people cheat and convert their food stamps to cash and use it for their vices rather than feeding their kids.

You named the fraud as converting FS to cash in order to buy vices.

There's a variety store downtown that's famous in certain circles for allowing people to spend their food stamps for things that are not on the approved list for food stamps.
According to someone who knew someone who knows a guy who was a part-time shelf stocker there, there are a number of UPC stickers below the counter. Those things get scanned and registered as a food-stamps purchase while the customer walks out of the store with a six-pack.

I don't know how true it is, but I cannot see how altering the list of allowable food will impact this practice in any meaningful way. You put $20 worth of vice on the counter, they ring up $20 worth of righteous goods, you give them $20 in food stamps and everyone goes on their way, happy. And the legislators who think making it law will impact common practice also feel good that they've fought dirty rotten cheaters by limiting their option also feel good about it all.

Well, maybe the guy has to spend ten minutes changing the UPCs on the counter because one of the things that used to be allowed no longer is... But fuck him, it SHOULD be painful to cheat.

 

[Toni]

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge

From the start, Paltrow’s poorly conceived, if photogenic, effort drew criticism.

The ingredients the actress bought, looking more like the elements of a health food smoothie or juice cleanse, were not only glaringly insufficient to cover three meals a day for seven days, but calorically impractical for sustaining a typical human diet.

She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

WTF?

Who gives a flying fuck about whatever Gwenyth Paltrow 'thinks?'

The FACT is that beans and bulk purchased rice, as well as other items on the verboten list are nutritionally, calorically and economically sound choices if you are feeding your family on an extremely tight food budget.

Spoken as someone who did so for many years.

Only an ignorant ass would argue otherwise.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge

From the start, Paltrow’s poorly conceived, if photogenic, effort drew criticism.

The ingredients the actress bought, looking more like the elements of a health food smoothie or juice cleanse, were not only glaringly insufficient to cover three meals a day for seven days, but calorically impractical for sustaining a typical human diet.

She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

Why do you think that? What has been said here that says people should $29 on 7 limes.

 

[J842P]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Shrimp are unhealthy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

You must be really stretching here to have read this thread and thought the Paltrow article was remotely relevant to what is being said in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I think many people on this thread must be followers of Gwyneth Paltrow and her food choices when faced with a limited budget:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-gwyneth-paltrow-succeeded-failing-the-food-stamp-challenge



She has $29 to spend, and she bought 7 limes. Seven fucking limes. And a garlic. Please people. Do not pay attention to that woman. Make sensible choices. Use your head.

Why do you think that? What has been said here that says people should $29 on 7 limes.

Wholesale bags of beans are the gateway magical fruit to eventual purchases of expensive limes.

 

[laughing dog]

Until Loren Pechtel provides disinterested data or evidence to support his claims, I suggest they be ignored as unsupported ridiculous statements.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Shrimp are unhealthy?

Relatively speaking, they don't exercise enough, they eat too much junk food, and watch too much television or surf the net for hours to watch cute kitten videos.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Then shouldn't we limit the food sold?

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Restrictions on WIC are nothing new, in fact when I used WIC to help feed my family back in the late 70s early 80s it was much more restrictive than that list. Im probably in a minority opinion on this here, but I see nothing wrong with having reasonable restrictions on what can be purchased through government funded programs. If unhealthy foods, such as shrimp, are restricted I think it makes sense. The whole purpose of these programs is to try to insure people are getting proper nutrition. If we were a country where people were generally healthy due to good nutritional choices, it would be one thing, but we are not-we are a country where people generally make poor nutritional choices.

Shrimp are unhealthy?

They're extremely high in cholesterol.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Then shouldn't we limit the food sold?

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

That doesn't answer my question.

Should we limit the food sold? If, for example, Spaghetti Sauce isn't good a good nutritional food stuff, should we just not sell it, period?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then shouldn't we limit the food sold?

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

If it were solely about nutrition, we probably could just give them military food rations. Calling shrimp unhealthy is a stretch.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

If it were solely about nutrition, we probably could just give them military food rations. Calling shrimp unhealthy is a stretch.

Better yet, kibble specifically developed for human nutrition.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

That doesn't answer my question.

Should we limit the food sold? If, for example, Spaghetti Sauce isn't good a good nutritional food stuff, should we just not sell it, period?

I find spaghetti sauce being nixed as unbelievably short-sighted. It compliments an extra common meal, that is also relatively inexpensive to boot. Of course, the poor probably won't be eating cheese ravioli these days... heck, I'm going to have to make it from scratch based on the price it is today. But normal pasta... sauce... to exclude it is absurd. Here is an idea, encourage the purchase of whole grain pastas.

 

[Tristan Scott]

In my opinion, it's different-as I said in my post, government funded food programs exist to provide good nutrition. I don't see any problem with the programs that endeavor to get the most for the tax revenues expended, nutrition-wise.

That doesn't answer my question.

Should we limit the food sold? If, for example, Spaghetti Sauce isn't good a good nutritional food stuff, should we just not sell it, period?

I did answer your question. I am making a distinction between what can be purchased by a consumer with food vouchers provided by the government and what can be purchased by a consumer with their own funds.