Trump Administration Wants To Decide What Food SNAP Recipients Will Get

[Derec]

Absolute bullshit. People have food allergies that a standardized bag cannot accommodate. What if someone is lactose intolerant or allergic to gluten?

I said most of the time. People with food allergies should be able to get substitutes. Buckwheat pasta instead of real thing or something.

And why should people be given food they find distasteful and probably won't eat?
Honestly, only a douchebag or a dumbbell find promote this type of condescending stupidity.

Because it's a cheap way to use up agricultural surplus. If I understand the proposal correctly, it would only replace part of SNAP benefits.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We're not talking about beggars, we are talking about citizens.

Did you seriously just say that beggars are not citizens? What are they to you?

And workers who bust their humps on multiple jobs to make forty hours or more a week and because of stagnant wages still can't make enough money to make ends meet.

But they can get meat ends. That's kind of the point isn't it? Making sure the money spent to feed them actually feeds them food and not buying candy bars?

The easy way to run around this whole thing is to do away with the "we must give them food" and instead just bring in universal basic income. But so long as its marked as food, food it must be.

 

[laughing dog]

Absolute bullshit. People have food allergies that a standardized bag cannot accommodate. What if someone is lactose intolerant or allergic to gluten?

I said most of the time. People with food allergies should be able to get substitutes. Buckwheat pasta instead of real thing or something.

That is not part of the proposal.

Because it's a cheap way to use up agricultural surplus.

That is a moronic rationale. Giving people food they won't eat is equivalent to throwing it out (which would be faster and cheaper).

- - - Updated - - -

We're not talking about beggars, we are talking about citizens.

Did you seriously just say that beggars are not citizens? What are they to you?

Obviously, AA was making the point that these people should be viewed as citizens not beggars.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Do these people even realize that the majority of SNAP goes to the elderly, the disabled and the working poor?

Whatever else they are, vast majority of SNAPers have bloody children that they can't afford to bloody feed. Look at the SNAP eligibility table - if you are single with no kids, you are cut off at about $15k. Very few people make that little. If you have 4 children and a spouse, you are eligible up to $42k. That's hardly poverty wages (it's equivalent to about $20/h full time). I do not see why a person making $20k should subsidize somebody making twice as much just because they never bother to wrap it up!
Maybe there should be a rule that if you have 2 or more kids you must be on birth control to receive food stamps.

You need to stop hating children/

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Absolute bullshit. People have food allergies that a standardized bag cannot accommodate. What if someone is lactose intolerant or allergic to gluten?
And why should people be given food they find distasteful and probably won't eat?

Honestly, only a douchebag or a dumbbell find promote this type of condescending stupidity.

WIC allows changes in baskets. Is there that much complaint about WIC?

WIC is not as large a program SNAP

Here is a list of foods you will receive each month:

Cereal: 36 ounces
Whole grains: 1 pound
Fruits and vegetables: $11.00
Juice: 144 ounces (3 - 16 ounce frozen or 48 fluid ounces)
Low-fat or fat-free milk: 4.5 gallons
Yogurt or low-fat or fat-free milk: 1 quart
Cheese: 1 pound
Eggs: 1 dozen
Beans and peanut butter: 1 pound dry or 4 cans and peanut butter 16 to 18 ounce jar

SNAP menu will be considerably larger.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Actual beggars are just as much citizens as metaphorical ones are.

And yet you use the word beggar and not citizen. The word beggar doesn't convey rights, or respect, the word citizen does.

See my comment to southernhybrid about eligibility cutoffs. Many are still eligible for SNAP well past $40k in annual income. Why should actually poor have to subsidize middle-class income people who have many children?

Did it ever occur to you that when the people got the kids, they had the income to take care of the kids, but circumstances changed? This ain't difficult Derec. And as for paying for other people, We all pay for other people in one way or another. We all pay for things we don't want to. I don't want to pay for bombers, and yet I do. I live with it because I am a responsible adult. it's part of the dues I pay for living in the country.

And workers who bust their humps on multiple jobs to make forty hours or more a week and because of stagnant wages still can't make enough money to make ends meet.

World's smallest violin playing just for people making $40k who think taxpayers should pay for their food.

P.S.: Welcome back. I have started to miss you.

You do realize the median income in this country for household is $57,230 to $59,039. Your 40 grand number is specious at best.

And thank you.

 

[bilby]

Why are the right wing so keen on communist style central planning?

As a basic principle of capitalist economies, we assume that the individual is best able to prioritize his needs and allocate resources to those needs. People have a finite amount of money to spend, and the way that they choose to spend it signals the economy to respond in appropriate ways to avoid shortages or overproduction of goods, and to minimize waste.

Give a man $1 and he might buy a jar of peanut butter with it. But he might instead buy a candy bar. Or save it towards paying for college, or vocational training. Or donate it to charity. Or pay down his credit card debt. Or put it towards a car purchase. Or use it for bus fare.

Give a man a $1 jar of peanut butter, and you have no idea whether it is what he would have chosen to spend $1 on, or whether that $1 was wasted - perhaps he is allergic to peanuts, or doesn't like the taste; Perhaps he would rather go hungry occasionally in order to save money that can improve his life in the long term.

The right wingers will tell you that the BEST POSSIBLE way to decide how money is spent is to leave the decision up to the individual, rather than to have the government make the decision on their behalf. And then they will completely abandon this principle when the individual in question isn't wealthy enough to qualify as a real person.

If you are going to help the poor, the best way to spend your money on doing that is to GIVE IT TO THE POOR - without strings - and let them spend it as they wish.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

We're not talking about beggars, we are talking about citizens.

Did you seriously just say that beggars are not citizens? What are they to you?

And workers who bust their humps on multiple jobs to make forty hours or more a week and because of stagnant wages still can't make enough money to make ends meet.

But they can get meat ends. That's kind of the point isn't it? Making sure the money spent to feed them actually feeds them food and not buying candy bars?

The easy way to run around this whole thing is to do away with the "we must give them food" and instead just bring in universal basic income. But so long as its marked as food, food it must be.

"It is a matter of opinion," [Harry Hopkins] said, "whether more damage is done to the human spirit by a lack of vitamins or complete surrender of choice."

 

[RavenSky]

I don't like it either, but it's not going to happen. Even the Republicans in Congress are saying it's inappropriate. However, Trump wants to cut SNAP by about 30% and who knows if Congress will go along with that or not. The Trump proposed budget is full of plans to take away from programs that help the poor to help make up for the tax cuts given to the wealthy. Are we surprised?

Do these people even realize that the majority of SNAP goes to the elderly, the disabled and the working poor?

Posted this on Twitter this morning (in response to some dumb shit who was supporting this "proposal")

Children are the largest beneficiaries (44%) of SNAP. Disabled people often can't work. They are the second largest recipient group (11.9%) of SNAP. Senior citizens shouldn't have to work. They are 10% of the recipients. #FACTS

 

[RavenSky]

I agree with the concept though I think they need to expand on the foods and make sure it's the right amount and does include healthy choices. But I will agree with other southern that cutting for the sake of cutting here is bad at the outset. I would rather it go up to make sure they have the correct baskets.

It is a stupid stupid stupid "concept". It would cost far far far more than the current system. It would greatly harm farmers, and small businesses and even Walmart (who has already spoken out against it).

And what about food allergies? Fucking asshole Trump proposes to give them low-grade sugared-up peanut butter instead of letting the parent choose the food their child can eat? You think that is a great "concept"?

I will be charitable and assume you simply haven't thought it through.

 

[RavenSky]

Funny isn't it? The party that freaked out over Michelle Obama making suggestions about healthy foods now wants to select the specific foods poor folks can eat.

bingo!

- - - Updated - - -

If you couldn't eat something in it, too bad. That won't fly today.

Beggars should not be choosers. Most of the time "can't" just means "won't".

horseshit

 

[RavenSky]

Why are the right wing so keen on communist style central planning?

As a basic principle of capitalist economies, we assume that the individual is best able to prioritize his needs and allocate resources to those needs. People have a finite amount of money to spend, and the way that they choose to spend it signals the economy to respond in appropriate ways to avoid shortages or overproduction of goods, and to minimize waste.

Give a man $1 and he might buy a jar of peanut butter with it. But he might instead buy a candy bar. Or save it towards paying for college, or vocational training. Or donate it to charity. Or pay down his credit card debt. Or put it towards a car purchase. Or use it for bus fare.

Give a man a $1 jar of peanut butter, and you have no idea whether it is what he would have chosen to spend $1 on, or whether that $1 was wasted - perhaps he is allergic to peanuts, or doesn't like the taste; Perhaps he would rather go hungry occasionally in order to save money that can improve his life in the long term.

The right wingers will tell you that the BEST POSSIBLE way to decide how money is spent is to leave the decision up to the individual, rather than to have the government make the decision on their behalf. And then they will completely abandon this principle when the individual in question isn't wealthy enough to qualify as a real person.

If you are going to help the poor, the best way to spend your money on doing that is to GIVE IT TO THE POOR - without strings - and let them spend it as they wish.

excellent post.

 

[J842P]

We're not talking about beggars, we are talking about citizens.

Did you seriously just say that beggars are not citizens? What are they to you?

And workers who bust their humps on multiple jobs to make forty hours or more a week and because of stagnant wages still can't make enough money to make ends meet.

But they can get meat ends. That's kind of the point isn't it? Making sure the money spent to feed them actually feeds them food and not buying candy bars?

The easy way to run around this whole thing is to do away with the "we must give them food" and instead just bring in universal basic income. But so long as its marked as food, food it must be.

Candy *is* food. There is no good reason to micromanage food benefits other than a deep contempt for people receiving benefits.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is no good reason to micromanage food benefits other than a deep contempt for people receiving benefits.

Then let them spend it on porn and beer. If you are going to designate it as "for food" then you are already restricting what they can do with it.

 

[J842P]

There is no good reason to micromanage food benefits other than a deep contempt for people receiving benefits.

Then let them spend it on porn and beer. If you are going to designate it as "for food" then you are already restricting what they can do with it.

I honestly cannot follow your argument here. I support something like a UBI. Moving from a SNAP card to a curated box of goods is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Ford]

Why are the right wing so keen on communist style central planning?

Because deep down - well, maybe not so deep - they're authoritarians. They make a noise about government being bad, but have no problem with the government leading school kids in prayer, or deciding which corporations shouldn't pay taxes, or handing out advice on sexual morality.

As a basic principle of capitalist economies, we assume that the individual is best able to prioritize his needs and allocate resources to those needs.

Yes, but...

Give a man $1 and he might buy a jar of peanut butter with it. But he might instead buy a candy bar. Or save it towards paying for college, or vocational training. Or donate it to charity. Or pay down his credit card debt. Or put it towards a car purchase. Or use it for bus fare.

Give a man a $1 jar of peanut butter, and you have no idea whether it is what he would have chosen to spend $1 on, or whether that $1 was wasted - perhaps he is allergic to peanuts, or doesn't like the taste; Perhaps he would rather go hungry occasionally in order to save money that can improve his life in the long term.

The right wingers will tell you don't give a man a dollar. But if you must, then don't give him a choice on how to spend it because...

The right wingers will tell you that the BEST POSSIBLE way to decide how money is spent is to leave the decision up to the individual, rather than to have the government make the decision on their behalf. And then they will completely abandon this principle when the individual in question isn't wealthy enough to qualify as a real person.

Exactly. The poors are stupid and must be led around by the nose to keep them out of trouble. "Why give them money...they'll just spend it on drugs and candy bars!" goes the refrain. Anyone who's poor makes bad decisions (or else they wouldn't be poor...heaven forbid we consider other factors) so someone in a position of authority must make their decisions for them.


But wait, there's more! What the right wingers really want to do is punish the poors for being poor. They think that shaming them is motivation. See, the problem with modern "food stamps" is that it comes on a card that looks like any other debit card. You get in line at the grocery store checkout and if you've bought approved items, there's no way that the other people in line will find out that you're buying your groceries with food stamps. This makes right wingers angry, since it takes away the shame element. If you're on food stamps, you should have to hand them over in full view of the other customers so that they can look down their noses and silently judge you for buying brand name cheese slices instead of the generic store brand.

I'm betting that in an ideal right wing world, these food packages would be delivered to the door of the poor family in a van with something like "Government Assistance For Lazy Welfare Queens" emblazoned on the side in big letters. Because the poors need that extra bit of shame to motivate them into becoming entrepreneurs!

If you are going to help the poor, the best way to spend your money on doing that is to GIVE IT TO THE POOR - without strings - and let them spend it as they wish.

And you make a critical error here at the end. You think right wingers actually want to help the poor.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the idea as an option, a choice.

I wonder if you could improve people's nutrition by offering a package worth more than the stamps.

If it were mandatory I can easily imagine it degrading into packages full of nacho cheese tootsie rolls or something.