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

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Why? What difference does it make? What if they need "their" funds for rent and electricity?

It makes no difference. It's just like shuffling a deck of cards doesn't change the value of the Aces, just where they are in the deck.

The hangup is a belief that somehow the money you pay in taxes is still somehow yours to control. Money once collected in taxes becomes public money and like it or not, poor folk are part of the public and have as much right to say how the money is spent as the rich. Unless of course, money determines the value of a person's citizenship.

 

[bilby]

Why? What difference does it make? What if they need "their" funds for rent and electricity?

It makes no difference. It's just like shuffling a deck of cards doesn't change the value of the Aces, just where they are in the deck.

The hangup is a belief that somehow the money you pay in taxes is still somehow yours to control. Money once collected in taxes becomes public money and like it or not, poor folk are part of the public and have as much right to say how the money is spent as the rich. Unless of course, money determines the value of a person's citizenship.

^This.

There is a widespread insanity, particularly common in the USA, that says that taxes are indistinguishable from theft; That error then leads to the bizarre idea that money paid in taxes therefore still belongs to the payer, who should be entitled to spend it as he sees fit, even unto the third generation.

It surprises me that people don't also want to dictate how the food store proprietors spend the money that is paid to them for food; and how the farmers spend the money paid to them by the grocers.

I am not aware of any other nation in the developed world that dictates to benefit recipients how their benefits must be spent.

That those seeking to have government dictate to the people in this way are the same people who claim to want small government is truly weird.

 

[RavenSky]

That those seeking to have government dictate to the people in this way are the same people who claim to want small government is truly weird.

. This is the part that always boggles my mind too. Inevitably, the very same people insisting on massive government oversight into things like what kind of food can be bought with SNAP will be having a cow and a half over environmental regulations, or ACA, or gun control...

 

[Toni]

That those seeking to have government dictate to the people in this way are the same people who claim to want small government is truly weird.

. This is the part that always boggles my mind too. Inevitably, the very same people insisting on massive government oversight into things like what kind of food can be bought with SNAP will be having a cow and a half over environmental regulations, or ACA, or gun control...

It's 'cuz they be taxpayin good upstanding white people. That's how come. And if anybody ever cheated on welfare anytime ever, even one time, then logically, they're ALL welfare cheats.

Now, if the nice white men at Citibank, or Capital One break any rules, it's just a misunderstanding and the rules are unfair and get in the way of capitalism.

D'oh.

 

[J842P]

Shrimp are unhealthy?

They're extremely high in cholesterol.

You realize the science has moved far beyond "high in cholesterol = bad," right?

 

[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.

And clearly the government knows better than the people what money should be spent on. This principle should be extended as widely as possible; perhaps CEOs should be prohibited from wasteful spending on private jets, and told by the government that they must instead buy yachts. Money could be earmarked by the government for investment only in banking stocks, rather than being wasted on venture capital. After all, the government knows best!

If red potatoes happen to be on special at half the price of other potatoes, then tough shit - the government knows best, and you should by only the potatoes they allow. Because reasons.

I've already stated that I didn't agree with all the WI restrictions. I don't see the allergy you are making with what rich people buy although I am a firm believer in the Government regulation of wealth.

 

[Tristan Scott]

That those seeking to have government dictate to the people in this way are the same people who claim to want small government is truly weird.

. This is the part that always boggles my mind too. Inevitably, the very same people insisting on massive government oversight into things like what kind of food can be bought with SNAP will be having a cow and a half over environmental regulations, or ACA, or gun control...

The same could be said for others here who think that the Government should regulate banks and airlines and automobile standards, yet don't want the government regulating how people use government funds for nutrition.

 

[RavenSky]

. This is the part that always boggles my mind too. Inevitably, the very same people insisting on massive government oversight into things like what kind of food can be bought with SNAP will be having a cow and a half over environmental regulations, or ACA, or gun control...

The same could be said for others here who think that the Government should regulate banks and airlines and automobile standards, yet don't want the government regulating how people use government funds for nutrition.

It is already regulated. It can be used for food. Not alcohol. Not cigarettes. Not diapers. For food.

Regulating banks and airlines and automobiles is for the protection of the general public. How is forbidding a poor person some basil protecting the general public?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Red potatoes are about the same price as white potatoes where I live as well.

White isn't the generic of potato. A quick check of the one store that offers home delivery and thus has all their prices online (note that they rarely have the best prices):

10# Russet potatoes: $4.39
5# Red potatoes: $4.39

This is closer than I've seen them before but as I said this isn't the place to get a good deal.

It makes NO sense to prohibit the purchase of beans in bulk. Bulk dry beans (and rice) ate far less expensive and can be prepared cheaply and much more healthily than canned-- with far less salt, fat and other additives.

News flash: People who purchase dry beans in bulk are planning ahead, making wise use of limited money for food.

How many times do I have to repeat--the prohibition was against beans from the bulk bins. Since almost everything on the list had sizes either highly restricted or exactly specified this makes sense and doesn't represent evil.

A bag of dried beans was on the list.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's always possible to know who is on assistance and who is not, just by looking at them. Hint: look at the color of their skin and do they have kids.


Snort.

When you see them paying with an EBT card--which is run through a separate machine here--there's no question they're on welfare.

 

[Toni]

White isn't the generic of potato. A quick check of the one store that offers home delivery and thus has all their prices online (note that they rarely have the best prices):

10# Russet potatoes: $4.39
5# Red potatoes: $4.39

This is closer than I've seen them before but as I said this isn't the place to get a good deal.

I don't think anybody was doubting that at the stores where you shop--which have home delivery (something not available from any of the grocery stores in the small city where I live and available only at the most expensive grocery stores in large cities), the prices might be different.

But Loren, surely you have realized by now that you are not the world and the entire world does not have the same price for every single good available in the many, many markets.

I stand by my claim: they're the same price where I shop.

It makes NO sense to prohibit the purchase of beans in bulk. Bulk dry beans (and rice) ate far less expensive and can be prepared cheaply and much more healthily than canned-- with far less salt, fat and other additives.

News flash: People who purchase dry beans in bulk are planning ahead, making wise use of limited money for food.

How many times do I have to repeat--the prohibition was against beans from the bulk bins. Since almost everything on the list had sizes either highly restricted or exactly specified this makes sense and doesn't represent evil.

Needless stupidity is evil. Where I live, the cheapest way to purchase dried beans is in bulk from one particular market. They also sell 1 lb packages of dried beans but bulk is cheaper.

Rice can be purchased in 10 lb bags and higher weight. I don't need that much so I don't buy that way.

A bag of dried beans was on the list.

Why is it acceptable to discern between dried beans that have been pre-packaged and those which are not pre-packaged but purchased by weight? Or necessary?

Why? It makes ZERO sense. I don't care if it is cheaper at fancy stores in your neighborhood that do home delivery. Do you think poor people have home delivery?

When you see them paying with an EBT card--which is run through a separate machine here--there's no question they're on welfare.

And HERE, it's all the same machine whether you use credit or debit or EBT card, which is a kind of debit card. It doesn't matter to the machine.

Why on earth would I think it is any of my business what kind of card anybody uses?

But come on, Loren. We're all friends here. You don't even need to see what their card looks like or which machine they use, right? You can just...tell by looking if they are on assistance and therefore require your personal judgment and approval to do anything, including buy food.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The hangup is a belief that somehow the money you pay in taxes is still somehow yours to control. Money once collected in taxes becomes public money and like it or not, poor folk are part of the public and have as much right to say how the money is spent as the rich.

But no more. We are all equal as citizens in a democracy, so we should all have some say and control over how taxes are spent. So yes, money paid into taxes is in some sense still yours to control. Its all of ours to control. And it is everyone's interest to aim for the most efficient spending of tax dollars. That applies across the board, from road construction, to social assistance, to the salaries of members of parliament (on crongress or whatever you USA people call it).

 

[laughing dog]

How many times do I have to repeat--the prohibition was against beans from the bulk bins.

Since "prohibition against beans from bulk bins" means prohibiting the purchase of beans from bulk bins, it makes no sense when beans from bulk bins are typically less expensive.

Since almost everything on the list had sizes either highly restricted or exactly specified this makes sense and doesn't represent evil.

WTF is the babbling about "evil"?

 

[Axulus]

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?

If the taxpayers give out aid with the goal of reducing or eliminating hunger, isn't it a worthwhile goal to do that for as few dollars as possible and still achieve that result?

If people spend their own money on something, isn't the criteria different?

 

[Toni]

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?

If the taxpayers give out aid with the goal of reducing or eliminating hunger, isn't it a worthwhile goal to do that for as few dollars as possible and still achieve that result?

No. Shouldn't the goal to be the most effective?

Do you know how long most recipients are on food stamps?

If people spend their own money on something, isn't the criteria different?

It IS all their own money.

 

[bilby]

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?

If the taxpayers give out aid with the goal of reducing or eliminating hunger, isn't it a worthwhile goal to do that for as few dollars as possible and still achieve that result?

If people spend their own money on something, isn't the criteria different?

The taxpayers don't give out aid; they pay taxes.

They don't pay taxes with any goal, other than to avoid being jailed for not paying their taxes. Taxes are not a charity, towards which the taxpayer donates; nor are they a purchase for which the taxpayer is a customer. Taxes are funds levied by the government to pay for the activities of government.

The government does a LOT of different things with taxes, and has a number of different objectives when doing so. These objectives and the means by which the government attempts to achieve them are determined by the various branches of government, via representative democracy; in principle, the goals are set by the electorate as a whole, although in practice they seem to be set more by lobbyists, and to a lesser extent by voters, who are a subset of the electorate.

Despite the fact that most lobbyists, most voters, and most of the electorate pay taxes, resulting in a significant overlap between these groups and the group of 'taxpayers', it is not correct to say that 'taxpayers' have a say in how the money is spent; 'Voters' and 'Taxpayers' are two very different sets - not least in that individual taxpayers have very different levels of input into government coffers, but each voter has, in principle*, a very similar level of influence on the way that money is spent.

No matter how much you pay in tax, your input to what the 'goal' of spending that money might be is theoretically much the same as the input from people who pay no tax at all, or who are even net beneficiaries of the government, receiving more in government payments than they contribute in taxes. The idea of 'one man, one vote' is pretty solidly enshrined in the constitutions of most developed nations (and was modified to 'one person, one vote' over the course of the 20th Century). While it would certainly be possible in theory to weight voting power proportionally to taxes paid, I am not aware of that ever having been attempted; other systems designed to allow only the wealthy to vote at all have been tried, but been discarded in favour of universal suffrage, and even those usually took the form of a qualifying level of wealth, with all qualified voters having votes of equal value. Taxpayers are not like shareholders, where voting power is determined by the number of shares purchased.

Whether 'Taxpayers' would be any better or worse than 'The Government', at deciding in advance how poor people should choose to spend their money, is irrelevant. Only two entities can, in principle decide the best way for the money to be spent - the recipients of the money, acting as individuals; or the Government, acting as a monolithic proxy for the desires of the electorate.

I find it very odd indeed that you are apparently supporting the idea that the government is a better decision maker than the individual, given your exact opposite stance on other subjects; I can only guess that your change of heart in this instance comes from your conflation of 'The government' with 'Taxpayers', despite these being two very different things indeed.








*Of course, this ideal is rarely actually achieved, and wealthy people have disproportionate influence on government; But that's a bug, not a feature.

 

[arkirk]

The republicans are slowly working their way to their ultimate goal....no food for you if you need help...no food at all. I think they would, if not pestered by those of us with a little guts be perfectly happy if debtor's prisons were to return.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as I can tell, regarding the bulk bag of beans, it seems as if it may be more about spoilage. A lot of products are limited in size (e.g. 16 oz box of rice).

Simply put, it isn't their money. It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats"). Allow people to buy whatever, but they can't go above a certain number of points per dollar spent at the register. People should be able to be free to choose foods that the general public is offered to purchase. Obviously certain luxuries need to be limited, but are we really having a problem with poor people trying to buy 20 lbs of lobster?

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

I like the idea.

As for 20# of lobster--I haven't seen that. I have seen an awful lot of expensive meat being bought by people paying with food stamps, though. We do most of our produce shopping at Hispanic markets and a substantial percentage of the customers are using EBT cards.

Well there you have it. Nothing can replace solid evidence like good ole fashioned anecdotal evidence.

Simply put, it isn't their money.

It is as much 'their' money as it is yours or mine. More, since it is something THEY were awarded.

Awarded is a bit off. Supplemented would be more accurate.

It isn't unreasonable to set limits especially when the money has a very specific purpose.

I ponder there has to be a better system. I'd think assigning negative and positive points to foods would be better (encourages getting fresh veggies and fruit and then being able to get a few "treats").

Please. It is not possible to assign points in such a way that EVERYBODY will agree that they are fair and just and do not allow poor people to enjoy their lives even a little bit. That's the real point, isn't it?

Could you please not treat me like someone that has a posting history of talking negatively about people that are in programs like SNAP. You don't have to agree with what I've said, but the attitude can be checked at the door.

It is very possible to assign health values to food. Fresh fruit and veggies, definitely healthy. Canned veggies decently healthy. Oreos, not healthy. While the system I suggested can be arbitrary, it offers a larger area of freedom over the existing system.

Since EVERYBODY will not agree on what is fair, why not let the people who are eating the stuff make the decisions? Or maybe we should just round up all the poor people and put them in some kind of prison--except, let's not call it 'prison' but WE who have been smart enough to never need help will make all their decisions for them. What better possible way to help people regain control over their lives and plan ahead and make good decisions for their future and that of their children?

Yes Toni, what I suggested would exactly be like that.

The system should be to help ensure the money goes where intended, allow for flexibility of the person receiving the funds, and to also help foster good eating habits for down road.

I am a BIG believer in healthy eating habits. I'm not a believer at all in making food choices for adults. Period.

That's the thing, the choices would still be up to the adults. Almost everything would be up for grabs in a grocery store. Including shell fish.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The republicans are slowly working their way to their ultimate goal....no food for you if you need help...no food at all. I think they would, if not pestered by those of us with a little guts be perfectly happy if debtor's prisons were to return.

Google the words Debtors' Prison and you will find that DP are alive and well in living in the USA.

 

[KeepTalking]

A bill proposed by state Rep. Robert Brooks (R) would ban stores from accepting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards for lobster, shrimp, and any other form of shellfish, and set a long list of additional rules for the first two-thirds of a recipient’s monthly spending. Lawmakers held a committee hearing Thursday on the bill, which would require a federal waiver to implement.

An average of 420,000 households received SNAP each month in Wisconsin in 2014. The average recipient household got $220 per month from the program last year. Brooks’ restrictions would apply to all but $72.60 per month for the average household affected. And even that amount could not be spent on any form of shellfish.

...

The law would restrict access to a whole range of commonplace ingredients. Some of the things that would be harder to buy for poor families who cook include “herbs, spices, or seasonings,” all nuts, red and yellow potatoes, smoothies, spaghetti sauce, “soups, salsas, ketchup,” sauerkraut, pickles, dried beans sold in bulk, and white or albacore tuna. (Cans of “light tuna” are allowed under the rules.)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/01/3653919/wisconsin-food-stamps-shellfish/

Here is link to what allowed in WI on the states WIC (Women, Infants, and Children's) nutrition program: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf

SNAP and WIC are not the same thing. Having utilized the WIC program as a young parent over 20 years ago, I know a bit about the program. You are issued coupons for specific items, such as formula, milk, juice, cheese, fruits, and vegetables. Within each of those general groups of food, you are usually restricted on what specific items you can buy. For example, you can buy brick cheeses, but not shredded, and you can buy 100% fruit juice, but not fruit juice with any sugar added. It is really common sense stuff that reduces the cost of the program and makes sure that expecting mothers, infants, and children are getting the proper nutrition. WIC is also more accessible than SNAP, and WIC does a lot more than just provide food. They give free immunizations, for example.

That said, I doubt that many SNAP recipients are going to use the program to buy shrimp, unless it is on sale at a deep discount, but there is no reason to put WIC like restrictions on SNAP. I think some lawmakers just want to distract people from how they are getting paid for doing absolutely nothing worthwhile. Perhaps we should put restrictions on what they can buy with their government provided funds.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Has anyone here said the SNAP and WIC are the same thing?