|
Post by Prenticekid on Feb 14, 2018 23:49:32 GMT
It is simply another way to shovel our tax dollars to corporations, who will cheap it out every way they can. I still remember the canned "meat" my friend's family got from the government when we were young - little pieces of meat in a giant can of brown gelatinous, sinewy swill.
I'm so disgusted by the thought of doing this to human beings, I can't even attempt to think about it in a rational way. It is just plain wrong.
The people that we have put into government are freakishly evil. If they had any sanity, let alone humanity, this is not where they would go looking to cut costs.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,967
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 15, 2018 0:01:45 GMT
I hope you'll excuse my incredulity (it's not aimed you, you're just the one who looked up the reason) that when this administration decides to pursue a "budgetary spending reduction," they target a program which comprises just over 2% of the overall federal budget and which generates more economic activity than it actually costs. I keep using this word in different contexts today but in the face of who will benefit from the tax cuts just passed, to take away from food subsidies for poor people is profane.
|
|
StephDRebel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,658
Location: Ohio
Jul 5, 2014 1:53:49 GMT
|
Post by StephDRebel on Feb 15, 2018 0:01:45 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Problem solved. Gah, why didn't we all realize it was this simple.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Feb 15, 2018 0:22:40 GMT
I've been on WIC and on food stamps and received commodity foods in the past.
When we received commodities - we had to go pick it up. It involved walking to the bus stop, taking one bus, transferring twice, and walking several long blocks to the distribution site (with my preschooler in tow) and then repeating the journey in reverse with a cardboard box of random foods (heavy). Some things were very useful - peanut butter, tinned fruit, tuna fish, block cheese (like velveeta?). Some things were less useful...tinned spinach (in a #10 can mind you) or tins without labels. I appreciated it and we used it (ok - not the spinach...) but it was a mixed blessing as it was so hard to get there and back and carry it all. And since my child was milk-allergic - not everything worked for him (cheese).
Food stamps had a stigma attached to them (but then so did the big box of govt surplus food) but combined with sales and coupons and menu planning, I was able to provide healthy and tasty meals that were suitable for my child's allergies - and that we liked. I wasn't buying steak or lobster or other luxury items, mind you - the food stamps never would have lasted the month if I had.
But I had a stable living situation, working appliances, and for the most part, I was able to keep my electric on (or at least get it turned back on fairly quickly). I knew how to read and I knew how to cook, and coupon, and bargain shop. Not all of which can be assumed to be true for all food stamp receipients.
I think there are circumstances where a box of food might be helpful but I can think of many more circumstances where it will only make poor families' lives harder and their diets less nutritious and their children hungrier.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Feb 15, 2018 0:23:19 GMT
If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Problem solved. Gah, why didn't we all realize it was this simple. You know, you are the epitome of what a person can accomplish with hard work in a positive attitude. I’m sure it wasn’t simple but you worked your butt off in order to make a good life for you and your children
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Feb 15, 2018 0:26:13 GMT
If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Problem solved. Gah, why didn't we all realize it was this simple. especially considering that almost every able-bodied, working-age adult receipient already HAS a job. 47% of SNAP recipients are children - are we seriously begruding food for children? and the elderly? and the disabled?
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Feb 15, 2018 0:48:39 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. More than 80% of SNAP recipients work in the year before or after receiving SNAP benefits (usually due to periods of unemployment) and more than half of families on SNAP already have someone gainfully employed with wages simply too low to feed their family. This means tax dollars are supplementing the labor cost of companies who pay so little to workers they still are eligible to receive benefits. This is not lazy people not working and getting free stuff. My word. It’s like facts don’t even matter.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Feb 15, 2018 0:51:36 GMT
It's hateful, demeaning, impractical, and if you think you should get to dictate what people in need are allowed to eat, you're a special kind of a dick. I saw facebook comments like it will stop people "trading food stamps for liquor" which is not a thing one can do anymore since all the money is loaded onto the SNAP card and the register literally will not allow them to buy anything but food with it. You can't even get diapers or toilet paper with a SNAP card, let alone beer. The disdain and disrespect the privileged are proud to show those in need is fucking shameful. And yes, I feel quite strongly about this. People who receive benefits already have limited privacy and now the party of "small government" wants to insert themselves into the kitchens of the poor and decide what they're allowed to eat for dinner. Fuck. That. Noise. Fuck it in the ass with a cactus. You can sell your card. The going rate is half of whatever is on the card. Happens all the time. They do not ask for id at the checkout counter. And even so, the rate of fraud on SNAP is the lowest of any federal program. 99.5% of people use the program as intended.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,642
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 15, 2018 0:53:00 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? The reported purpose is to reduce costs by leveraging increased purchasing power and taking out the overhead and multiple profit layers by directly buying from farmers/producers. The government can certainly buy in bulk at a lower cost than individual consumers buying at the grocery store (particularly if they are limited in their grocery store selection, many poor areas have higher food costs as there is less competition than suburban areas). I think they're woefully underestimating the added administrative costs of actually implementing. ITA! The logistics of running a program at this scale is complicated and will add extra costs and bureaucracy. To leverage purchasing power they should look at funding some of the community based organizations that provide food services - these are people who are on the ground already running an operation and are in tune with the needs of the people they are helping. Or open government grocery stores where people can still shop and select what works best for the circumstances. I'm just trying to imagine what a program like this would look like and it doesn't seem very efficient. Where are the warehouses/packing/distribution centers for all the goods they will purchase? How many extra people do they need to employ to run these centers? How are they going to address individual needs with the boxes? How dynamic is the setup that they can quickly alter the boxes to reduce waste or balance what people are receiving? Do they have to develop a complete website? Phone hotline? Forms? That all costs money too. I feel like the process is all wrong. A problem should be identified, then a research phase with consulting people who know about this stuff, then some detailed analysis with realistic numbers, modeling, project management breakdown, etc., then some proposals that people can consider. Then decide if the cost/benefit is good and present proposals and craft some legislation. Instead it looks like somebody had an idea (not even sure what was driving it - was it a way to improve efficiency/reduce cost? Or just decided it was easy to target a program with poor people because they aren't rich donors nor have a strong lobby) without any thought or data to back it up and will try to force some changes without trying to understand all the factors. I know there can often be unintended consequences, but what I've seen doesn't even seem to consider logical consequences.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,642
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 15, 2018 0:55:34 GMT
I've been on WIC and on food stamps and received commodity foods in the past. When we received commodities - we had to go pick it up. It involved walking to the bus stop, taking one bus, transferring twice, and walking several long blocks to the distribution site (with my preschooler in tow) and then repeating the journey in reverse with a cardboard box of random foods (heavy). Some things were very useful - peanut butter, tinned fruit, tuna fish, block cheese (like velveeta?). Some things were less useful...tinned spinach (in a #10 can mind you) or tins without labels. I appreciated it and we used it (ok - not the spinach...) but it was a mixed blessing as it was so hard to get there and back and carry it all. And since my child was milk-allergic - not everything worked for him (cheese). Food stamps had a stigma attached to them (but then so did the big box of govt surplus food) but combined with sales and coupons and menu planning, I was able to provide healthy and tasty meals that were suitable for my child's allergies - and that we liked. I wasn't buying steak or lobster or other luxury items, mind you - the food stamps never would have lasted the month if I had. But I had a stable living situation, working appliances, and for the most part, I was able to keep my electric on (or at least get it turned back on fairly quickly). I knew how to read and I knew how to cook, and coupon, and bargain shop. Not all of which can be assumed to be true for all food stamp receipients. I think there are circumstances where a box of food might be helpful but I can think of many more circumstances where it will only make poor families' lives harder and their diets less nutritious and their children hungrier. But tell us, did you have a job? (I'm being facetious of course. Thanks for providing real life experiences related to topic)
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,642
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 15, 2018 0:56:59 GMT
If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. More than 80% of SNAP recipients work in the year before or after receiving SNAP benefits (usually due to periods of unemployment) and more than half of families on SNAP already have someone gainfully employed with wages simply too low to feed their family. This means tax dollars are supplementing the labor cost of companies who pay so little to workers they still are eligible to receive benefits. This is not lazy people not working and getting free stuff. My word. It’s like facts don’t even matter. Help for working, poor people = bad. Corporate welfare = good.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 15, 2018 0:58:26 GMT
If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. More than 80% of SNAP recipients work in the year before or after receiving SNAP benefits (usually due to periods of unemployment) and more than half of families on SNAP already have someone gainfully employed with wages simply too low to feed their family. This means tax dollars are supplementing the labor cost of companies who pay so little to workers they still are eligible to receive benefits. This is not lazy people not working and getting free stuff. My word. It’s like facts don’t even matter. Facts? What do facts matter? Facts schmacks - can’t compare to zippy quasi religious sayings that make the sayer feel superior. Facts don’t make you feel superior. Clearly these people are lazy because ‘god helps those who help themselves’ If only they’d get up and make an effort ‘god has a plan for them’ Blah blah blah facts who cares about facts.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,501
Aug 28, 2015 22:31:17 GMT
|
Post by AmandaA on Feb 15, 2018 1:03:00 GMT
From what little I have seen and heard, there seem to be so many more questions and challenges than problems addressed. But I will say- and I am sure the spreadsheet keepers have me on a die hard liberal GOP hater log- that I at least can respect them trying to revamp a program that doesn't work as efficiently as it should. Is this the answer, probably not. However, I am sure surprised that they just aren't cutting the program all together to let community based charitable organizations fill in the gaping hole that would be left. So while I am not wowed by any means, I at least appreciate an attempt to revamp something. Just because something has been done that way for a long time, doesn't mean it is the best way. Maybe their revamping energies would be better focused on something like oh say... healthcare!? I'll be sure to update my spreadsheet. I don't know all the ins and outs of the SNAP program - what do you think are the inefficiencies or areas for improvement? I also agree with taking another look at programs and seeing if we can do things better. I'm just puzzled that this is the program they are targeting given some of our bigger issues (healthcare, like you mentioned). I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the SNAP program to know what the optimum areas for improvement would be. But I would hazard a guess that any government program has room for improvement, and those best suggestions often lie with the people in the front lines in the programs themselves. But I have little faith that the administration has done a thorough review and assessment of the program including that kind of research to deliver this "improvement". Now healthcare... I could talk to you all day about ways to decrease waste and spending in healtcare, but clearly that isn't a priority for the powers that be right now. Even though I am on the liberal, anti-GOP spreadsheets 😉- I live in a state that not so long ago had a popular Republican governor (that I voted for) who was very innovative in finding ways to be more efficient and build public-private partnerships. The things he did just made good sense. They were fiscally conservative without being a Scrooge McDuck about government. And then he left and Mike Pence came to town and well, it all went by the wayside. And we all know what happened next. It can be done, but I have little faith we will see that kind of governing in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 12:45:45 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 1:03:59 GMT
I think that poor people should get to decide what they like to eat the same as rich people. I think there should be some restrictions on expensive items, but in general I think this is demeaning. I also wonder what happens if someone steals the box from the porch, or an animal gets into it, or the recipient is away from home on the day the box is delivered. And what about allergies and other food/dietary restrictions (low sodium, low sugar, etc.)? Will the boxes be customized to allow for the number of people in each household, and the ages of each person? A family with three teenagers will need more food than a family with three toddlers, and will need different food, as well. What about kids who come home from college in the summer, or kids who move from family to family? Or a baby is born? Or when grandma moves in? How long will it take for the government to update the box o' food? I don't even think there should be a restriction on "expensive" food. If someone wants to skew their budget one month in order to splurge for a special occasion, then that's their business. Also, "expensive" food goes on sale just like "cheap" food. I can think of dozens of reasons why a box of food chosen by a government committee is *such* a horrible idea. And I'm absolutely sure that Trump family/cronies own one or more of the companies in this scheme (food suppliers, packaging, shippers, etc.). And before people get all judgey about who receives SNAP, lots of our military are on SNAP because pay at the lower grades is very low. If Trump REALLY wanted to show his gratitude toward the military, he'd trash his plans for the stupid parade and raise military pay. Many, many *working* people receive gov assistance for food because they are under-employed and/or employed at jobs that pay below a living wage. They are not lazy. I so agree with this. Hopefully someone will make THAT happen instead. As far as the food boxes go, we don't know enough about the details that haven't even been worked out yet, but it does seem like extra unnecessary layers to helping people eat. That said, I don't think it's based on hate as someone else said earlier.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 15, 2018 1:09:32 GMT
The reported purpose is to reduce costs by leveraging increased purchasing power and taking out the overhead and multiple profit layers by directly buying from farmers/producers. The government can certainly buy in bulk at a lower cost than individual consumers buying at the grocery store (particularly if they are limited in their grocery store selection, many poor areas have higher food costs as there is less competition than suburban areas). I think they're woefully underestimating the added administrative costs of actually implementing. ITA! The logistics of running a program at this scale is complicated and will add extra costs and bureaucracy. To leverage purchasing power they should look at funding some of the community based organizations that provide food services - these are people who are on the ground already running an operation and are in tune with the needs of the people they are helping. Or open government grocery stores where people can still shop and select what works best for the circumstances. I'm just trying to imagine what a program like this would look like and it doesn't seem very efficient. Where are the warehouses/packing/distribution centers for all the goods they will purchase? How many extra people do they need to employ to run these centers? How are they going to address individual needs with the boxes? How dynamic is the setup that they can quickly alter the boxes to reduce waste or balance what people are receiving? Do they have to develop a complete website? Phone hotline? Forms? That all costs money too. I feel like the process is all wrong. A problem should be identified, then a research phase with consulting people who know about this stuff, then some detailed analysis with realistic numbers, modeling, project management breakdown, etc., then some proposals that people can consider. Then decide if the cost/benefit is good and present proposals and craft some legislation. Instead it looks like somebody had an idea (not even sure what was driving it - was it a way to improve efficiency/reduce cost? Or just decided it was easy to target a program with poor people because they aren't rich donors nor have a strong lobby) without any thought or data to back it up and will try to force some changes without trying to understand all the factors. I know there can often be unintended consequences, but what I've seen doesn't even seem to consider logical consequences. Warehouses - owned by rich friends and/or relatives ( maybe that’s how they’ll pull the Kushners out of debt - taxpayer money - they can use that 666 building they owe so much money on. ) Distribution - other rich friends or relatives Food - other rich friends or relatives companies will provide that! This isn’t a plan to help the poor - this is a plan to make the rich richer while taking advantage of the poor using taxpayer money. Not to mention, if you remove the snap money from at risk area grocery stores ( which are NOT vast chains ) how many cashiers do they need to fire due to the loss. Removing more jobs from the already at risk community. Say maybe Paterson NJ where there is not one big chain grocery store inside Paterson. ( and btw fresh produce is often cheaper there than the big suburban chain stores. Not sure how they pull that off. ) Drain the swamp my ass
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 12:45:45 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 1:10:44 GMT
Does anyone else think that people who have been there done that should be the only people to have say in this?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 15, 2018 1:24:24 GMT
Where is everyone reading that this program is being introduced to reduce SNAP fraud? @scrubologist The real story of food stampsby Tami Luhby @luhby February 13, 2018: 6:31 PM ET Who is eligible for food stamps? Households must meet three tests to qualify for food stamps. Their gross monthly income must be below 130% of the poverty line, or about $26,600 a year for a family of three. Their net income, or their earnings after all deductions have been taken, must be at or below the poverty line. Meanwhile, families without an elderly or disabled person can't have more than $2,250 in assets, while those with such a member may have no more than $3,500. Republicans have long wanted to downsize food stamps, known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. They argue that the program is too large and rife with fraud. ** Who receives them? As of fiscal 2016, 44% of food stamp recipients are children, and 12% were senior citizens older than age 60. The rest were working-age adults. Some 57% are female, while 43% are male. Some 36% are non-Hispanic whites, while 26% are black. Another 17% are Hispanic and 3% Asian. The race of 16% of participants is not known. About 11% of are non-elderly Americans with disabilities. ** How much fraud is there?
Roughly 1.3 cents for every dollar is lost to fraud, according to a 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Much of it happens when benefits are exchanged for cash or ineligible items, which typically occurs at smaller retailers. More at link: money.cnn.com/2018/02/13/news/economy/food-stamps-what-to-know/index.html Lots to think about! Probably the lowest fraud any government agency has ever had.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Feb 15, 2018 1:26:14 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? My money is on who is going to get this very lucrative and probably no-bid contract on our country's poor well being. Follow the money. It's always about how we can privatize something to make our "friends", aka donors and/or family wealthy. That's the only reason I can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2018 1:27:59 GMT
The reported purpose is to reduce costs by leveraging increased purchasing power and taking out the overhead and multiple profit layers by directly buying from farmers/producers. The government can certainly buy in bulk at a lower cost than individual consumers buying at the grocery store (particularly if they are limited in their grocery store selection, many poor areas have higher food costs as there is less competition than suburban areas). I think they're woefully underestimating the added administrative costs of actually implementing. ITA! The logistics of running a program at this scale is complicated and will add extra costs and bureaucracy. To leverage purchasing power they should look at funding some of the community based organizations that provide food services - these are people who are on the ground already running an operation and are in tune with the needs of the people they are helping. Or open government grocery stores where people can still shop and select what works best for the circumstances. I'm just trying to imagine what a program like this would look like and it doesn't seem very efficient. Where are the warehouses/packing/distribution centers for all the goods they will purchase? How many extra people do they need to employ to run these centers? How are they going to address individual needs with the boxes? How dynamic is the setup that they can quickly alter the boxes to reduce waste or balance what people are receiving? Do they have to develop a complete website? Phone hotline? Forms? That all costs money too. I feel like the process is all wrong. A problem should be identified, then a research phase with consulting people who know about this stuff, then some detailed analysis with realistic numbers, modeling, project management breakdown, etc., then some proposals that people can consider. Then decide if the cost/benefit is good and present proposals and craft some legislation. Instead it looks like somebody had an idea (not even sure what was driving it - was it a way to improve efficiency/reduce cost? Or just decided it was easy to target a program with poor people because they aren't rich donors nor have a strong lobby) without any thought or data to back it up and will try to force some changes without trying to understand all the factors. I know there can often be unintended consequences, but what I've seen doesn't even seem to consider logical consequences. FYI the USDA already does this to a small extent. For scale purposes we distributed 10 million pounds of food last year worth about $20 million. Food donations accounted for $18 million. We had to purchase about $1.5 million - directly from govt was about $500k. And our entire budget $3 million. I’d like to see a government agency try and recreate.
|
|
|
Post by fkawitchypea on Feb 15, 2018 1:28:14 GMT
This isn’t a plan to help the poor - this is a plan to make the rich richer while taking advantage of the poor using taxpayer money. Yup. It's so easy to trash the poor. But easy to get a big thumbs up from Trump's base. No matter how SNAP benefits are distributed, there will always be scammers. Always. Someone will start selling the boxes. I will guess that the majority of SNAP recipients are not buying lobsters or selling their cards for drugs. Let's punish everyone instead of making real sense restrictions.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,642
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 15, 2018 1:30:17 GMT
I'll be sure to update my spreadsheet. I don't know all the ins and outs of the SNAP program - what do you think are the inefficiencies or areas for improvement? I also agree with taking another look at programs and seeing if we can do things better. I'm just puzzled that this is the program they are targeting given some of our bigger issues (healthcare, like you mentioned). I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the SNAP program to know what the optimum areas for improvement would be. But I would hazard a guess that any government program has room for improvement, and those best suggestions often lie with the people in the front lines in the programs themselves. But I have little faith that the administration has done a thorough review and assessment of the program including that kind of research to deliver this "improvement". Now healthcare... I could talk to you all day about ways to decrease waste and spending in healtcare, but clearly that isn't a priority for the powers that be right now. Even though I am on the liberal, anti-GOP spreadsheets 😉- I live in a state that not so long ago had a popular Republican governor (that I voted for) who was very innovative in finding ways to be more efficient and build public-private partnerships. The things he did just made good sense. They were fiscally conservative without being a Scrooge McDuck about government. And then he left and Mike Pence came to town and well, it all went by the wayside. And we all know what happened next. It can be done, but I have little faith we will see that kind of governing in the near future. Yes - people who are either using the program or helping currently administer it would good people to ask about improvements. Not some legislators sitting in DC who seemed to be completely out of touch with the realities faced by poor people. Healthcare - yes, you should pop over to the Universal Health Care thread - I think reducing waste and spending in healthcare is important and I love hearing ideas about it. I'm also interested in people from either party who can find ways to smartly cut costs and make things more efficient. Last election I voted for a local Republican because I liked his track record on spending and some local issues, but in the past year he's said some things I find pretty distasteful, so I'm not interested in voting for him again. Blech.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Feb 15, 2018 1:32:11 GMT
It is amazing to me that anyone would use the government can buy in bulk at a discount for this type of program that would add layers of bureaucracy (small government my ass) yet the exact same argument could be made for prescription drugs and...and...crickets...
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,642
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Feb 15, 2018 1:33:57 GMT
ITA! The logistics of running a program at this scale is complicated and will add extra costs and bureaucracy. To leverage purchasing power they should look at funding some of the community based organizations that provide food services - these are people who are on the ground already running an operation and are in tune with the needs of the people they are helping. Or open government grocery stores where people can still shop and select what works best for the circumstances. I'm just trying to imagine what a program like this would look like and it doesn't seem very efficient. Where are the warehouses/packing/distribution centers for all the goods they will purchase? How many extra people do they need to employ to run these centers? How are they going to address individual needs with the boxes? How dynamic is the setup that they can quickly alter the boxes to reduce waste or balance what people are receiving? Do they have to develop a complete website? Phone hotline? Forms? That all costs money too. I feel like the process is all wrong. A problem should be identified, then a research phase with consulting people who know about this stuff, then some detailed analysis with realistic numbers, modeling, project management breakdown, etc., then some proposals that people can consider. Then decide if the cost/benefit is good and present proposals and craft some legislation. Instead it looks like somebody had an idea (not even sure what was driving it - was it a way to improve efficiency/reduce cost? Or just decided it was easy to target a program with poor people because they aren't rich donors nor have a strong lobby) without any thought or data to back it up and will try to force some changes without trying to understand all the factors. I know there can often be unintended consequences, but what I've seen doesn't even seem to consider logical consequences. FYI the USDA already does this to a small extent. For scale purposes we distributed 10 million pounds of food last year worth about $20 million. Food donations accounted for $18 million. We had to purchase about $1.5 million - directly from govt was about $500k. And our entire budget $3 million. I’d like to see a government agency try and recreate. That's some good numbers. I agree that the government is going to have a hard time matching that.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Feb 15, 2018 1:34:17 GMT
I've been on WIC and on food stamps and received commodity foods in the past. When we received commodities - we had to go pick it up. It involved walking to the bus stop, taking one bus, transferring twice, and walking several long blocks to the distribution site (with my preschooler in tow) and then repeating the journey in reverse with a cardboard box of random foods (heavy). Some things were very useful - peanut butter, tinned fruit, tuna fish, block cheese (like velveeta?). Some things were less useful...tinned spinach (in a #10 can mind you) or tins without labels. I appreciated it and we used it (ok - not the spinach...) but it was a mixed blessing as it was so hard to get there and back and carry it all. And since my child was milk-allergic - not everything worked for him (cheese). Food stamps had a stigma attached to them (but then so did the big box of govt surplus food) but combined with sales and coupons and menu planning, I was able to provide healthy and tasty meals that were suitable for my child's allergies - and that we liked. I wasn't buying steak or lobster or other luxury items, mind you - the food stamps never would have lasted the month if I had. But I had a stable living situation, working appliances, and for the most part, I was able to keep my electric on (or at least get it turned back on fairly quickly). I knew how to read and I knew how to cook, and coupon, and bargain shop. Not all of which can be assumed to be true for all food stamp receipients. I think there are circumstances where a box of food might be helpful but I can think of many more circumstances where it will only make poor families' lives harder and their diets less nutritious and their children hungrier. But tell us, did you have a job? (I'm being facetious of course. Thanks for providing real life experiences related to topic) most of the time - yes. When I was pregnant I was working fulltime. I did not work for the first 12 weeks of my son's life (not for the last 4 wks of my pregnancy - my job ended - it was a temp job) and then I was a fulltime college student (and incidentally - not able-bodied - I was on non-weightbearing crutches with a hip to ankle brace and/or cast until I had surgery when he was 2). Once I could walk again, yes, I had a job - I worked fulltime and attended school part-time but I continued to qualify for food stamps until I picked up a second fulltime job when he was 6
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 15, 2018 1:41:20 GMT
I will say this again, I have no doubt that the food will come from expansive operations that have large packing facilities. It will not support local farmers and their crops.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 12:45:45 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 1:49:13 GMT
I have to be honest - after looking at the thread, in no way do I feel welcome over there. Same SaveSaveIf you look at it you'll see everyone is being welcomed and civil to each other.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 15, 2018 1:56:55 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Wow. Herman Melville really had it right. "Of all the preposterous presumptions of humanity, over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms of the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed and well-fed."
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,501
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Feb 15, 2018 1:59:00 GMT
ITA! The logistics of running a program at this scale is complicated and will add extra costs and bureaucracy. To leverage purchasing power they should look at funding some of the community based organizations that provide food services - these are people who are on the ground already running an operation and are in tune with the needs of the people they are helping. Or open government grocery stores where people can still shop and select what works best for the circumstances. I'm just trying to imagine what a program like this would look like and it doesn't seem very efficient. Where are the warehouses/packing/distribution centers for all the goods they will purchase? How many extra people do they need to employ to run these centers? How are they going to address individual needs with the boxes? How dynamic is the setup that they can quickly alter the boxes to reduce waste or balance what people are receiving? Do they have to develop a complete website? Phone hotline? Forms? That all costs money too. I feel like the process is all wrong. A problem should be identified, then a research phase with consulting people who know about this stuff, then some detailed analysis with realistic numbers, modeling, project management breakdown, etc., then some proposals that people can consider. Then decide if the cost/benefit is good and present proposals and craft some legislation. Instead it looks like somebody had an idea (not even sure what was driving it - was it a way to improve efficiency/reduce cost? Or just decided it was easy to target a program with poor people because they aren't rich donors nor have a strong lobby) without any thought or data to back it up and will try to force some changes without trying to understand all the factors. I know there can often be unintended consequences, but what I've seen doesn't even seem to consider logical consequences. Warehouses - owned by rich friends and/or relatives ( maybe that’s how they’ll pull the Kushners out of debt - taxpayer money - they can use that 666 building they owe so much money on. ) Distribution - other rich friends or relatives Food - other rich friends or relatives companies will provide that! This isn’t a plan to help the poor - this is a plan to make the rich richer while taking advantage of the poor using taxpayer money. Not to mention, if you remove the snap money from at risk area grocery stores ( which are NOT vast chains ) how many cashiers do they need to fire due to the loss. Removing more jobs from the already at risk community. Say maybe Paterson NJ where there is not one big chain grocery store inside Paterson. ( and btw fresh produce is often cheaper there than the big suburban chain stores. Not sure how they pull that off. ) Drain the swamp my ass 100 percent SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Feb 15, 2018 2:04:09 GMT
If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Wow. Herman Melville really had it right. "Of all the preposterous presumptions of humanity, over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms of the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed and well-fed." It was not always this way. I grew up extremely poor
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,501
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Feb 15, 2018 2:05:25 GMT
If it's not to reduce fraud, then what exactly is the purpose of the reform? What would be the point of taking away the autonomy of individuals to purchase the food which best meets their needs and circumstances and replace it with a box of "staples" as determined by the federal government? If people want to choose what food they get them they can get a job. Deserves a "wow, just wow' SaveSave
|
|