Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This crazy idea sounds like something that they would do in a Communist Country, I can't imagine conservatives thinking it's a great idea.
How do you account for special diets? Salt free, diabetic diets, gluten intolerance, nut allergies, religious food restrictions. What about babies - will they deliver baby packages or is mom and dad supposed to put the canned chicken in a blender to feed the kid? Go to a food bank and you can see the crap that will make up these packages, it's surplus $hit and not fit for a dog.
Absolutely the stupidest, least efficient worst idea I have ever heard come of out this administration.
While I think trying to cut costs in this program is a great idea, it all depends on how it is executed.
As far as special diets, It is obvious they will have to account for them. Common sense here, although that seems to lack in our society and in our government.
As far as religious restrictions.... well , that is up to the persons choice. Eat or not. If you have that much faith in an imaginary sky god then they will either forgive you for eating whatever it is that you aren't supposed to or not. Either that or they can provide food for their followers.
Again, common sense. They will need to accommodate for pregnant women and babies.
Here is the thing, if you are surviving on what other people are paying for, you really don't get a choice other than to survive. Now that being said, you also shouldn't have to survive on dog food or worse.
So again, I like the idea of cutting costs, if it can be done correctly.
How can creating an entire bureaucracy in order to dictate what people can and can't eat be a 'reality check'. I can't believe how people advocate for this without even thinking it through.
Have a dietician survey every SNAP recipient to determine food allergies and what foods are precluded due to medical conditions or religious prohibitions.
Acquire distribution facilities hire people to acquire the food, transport it to the distribution facilities sort it and package it.
Ascertain how each person will receive their food box, does USPS deliver to their rural home, or are they homeless? If homeless set up storefront distribution centers in every city where homeless people live.
SNAP benefits provide about $1.40 per meal and people obsess over how that money is spent, absolutely unreal. But OMG they buy soda! and chips!
So do the rest of us, as it turns out SNAP recipients don't spend much more on soda than the rest of us:
"While SNAP shoppers devoted 5.44 percent of their expenditures to soft drinks versus 3.85 percent to milk, non-SNAPers divided their spending share on the products roughly equally: 4.01 percent on soda versus 4.03 percent on milk. For a $100 trip to the supermarket, in other words, non-SNAP recipients allocated on average 18 cents more on milk than their non-SNAP peers. And they allocate just two cents more to milk than they do to soda." https://www.motherjones.com/politics...snap-soda-nyt/
The bureaucracy and accessorial expenses required to implement such a change to the SNAP benefit system means this duck is already dead in the water. I truly believe it was just an opportunity to throw a bone to all the fellow Merricans who want to control what other people can buy.
A smarter solution would be to stop the purchase of items that are sugar laden, like sodas, cookies, and the like. Packaging, warehousing, picking, packing, shipping and delivering are not business of the government. How ridiculous - the geniuses who proposed this calamity have already stated that all that 'messy details' stuff would not be arranged or paid for on a federal level.
This isn't about cutting costs - this is about control. Controlling what people can use their SNAP allowance to purchase. Let freedom ring - unless you are in need of government assistance, then let meddlesome invasive citizens decide for you what you should be eating, so they don't feel like they are eating worse than SNAP recipients. I have seen SNAP recipients paying for their food at the checkout - not once did I see the lobsters, filet mignon, caviar, and the champagne bottles in their carts. Laughable.
The bureaucracy and accessorial expenses required to implement such a change to the SNAP benefit system means this duck is already dead in the water. I truly believe it was just an opportunity to throw a bone to all the fellow Merricans who want to control what other people can buy.
A smarter solution would be to stop the purchase of items that are sugar laden, like sodas, cookies, and the like. Packaging, warehousing, picking, packing, shipping and delivering are not business of the government. How ridiculous - the geniuses who proposed this calamity have already stated that all that 'messy details' stuff would not be arranged or paid for on a federal level.
This isn't about cutting costs - this is about control. Controlling what people can use their SNAP allowance to purchase. Let freedom ring - unless you are in need of government assistance, then let meddlesome invasive citizens decide for you what you should be eating, so they don't feel like they are eating worse than SNAP recipients. I have seen SNAP recipients paying for their food at the checkout - not once did I see the lobsters, filet mignon, caviar, and the champagne bottles in their carts. Laughable.
It also makes no sense.
Food stamp recipients can't BOTH be buying a lot more junk food than the rest of us do AND be buying more lobster than the rest of us do.
I mean what kind of meal is that? A giant bag of Cheetos and a 2-liter bottle of soda paired with lobster or filet mignon?????
They don't just "buy" it, it's the #1 purchase of SNAP recipients.
They are defrauding the American Taxpayer.
Moving forward, I hope they enjoy their hard block of cheese and a glass of water. Justice is sweet!
Oh the horror, they spend 1 cent per dollar more on soft drinks than people who don't get SNAP benefits
"The top two commodities were the same for SNAP and non-SNAP households, namely soft drinks and fluid milk products, although the order was reversed with soft drinks ranked first for SNAP households compared to fluid milk products for non-SNAP households. However, while expenditure proportions were similar for fluid milk products across the two household types (4 cents per dollar), expenditure proportions on soft drinks were slightly higher for SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households (5 cents versus 4 cents per dollar). Overall, the expenditure rankings and patterns should be assessed with caution as a small difference in the expenditure share of a commodity can lead to a major difference in the ranking of the commodity. For example, among SNAP households, the difference in expenditure shares between lunchmeat, ranked tenth, and aseptic juice, ranked sixty-ninth, is approximately one cent per dollar https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites...yPurchased.pdf
Oh the horror, they spend 1 cent per dollar more on soft drinks than people who don't get SNAP benefits
"The top two commodities were the same for SNAP and non-SNAP households, namely soft drinks and fluid milk products, although the order was reversed with soft drinks ranked first for SNAP households compared to fluid milk products for non-SNAP households. However, while expenditure proportions were similar for fluid milk products across the two household types (4 cents per dollar), expenditure proportions on soft drinks were slightly higher for SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households (5 cents versus 4 cents per dollar). Overall, the expenditure rankings and patterns should be assessed with caution as a small difference in the expenditure share of a commodity can lead to a major difference in the ranking of the commodity. For example, among SNAP households, the difference in expenditure shares between lunchmeat, ranked tenth, and aseptic juice, ranked sixty-ninth, is approximately one cent per dollar https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites...yPurchased.pdf
So you're saying they spend MORE on soda, than people who have to pay for their own soda.
LOL thanks for making my point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
