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.
People are focusing too much on the disciplinary aspect of this proposed plan (the low hanging fruit, if you will), and not enough on the cost to the taxpayer, which will almost certainly be higher than the current SNAP program in the long run.
It's a lousy plan that serves no purpose other than to appease simple minds that are incapable of seeing the flaws that lie just one nanometer beneath its shiny surface.
A better solution would be to apply stricter rules to the current SNAP program.
That doesn't address my point at all. SNAP recipients spend ONE cent per dollar more on soft drinks than non recipients, I have already posted data to support that. The healthcare costs are not limited to SNAP recipients they reflect the increased consumption of soda by all demographic groups and they are HUGE
"Two out of three adults and one out of three children in the United States are overweight or obese, (1,2) and the nation spends an estimated $190 billion a year treating obesity-related health conditions. (3) Rising consumption of sugary drinks has been a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. (4) A typical 20-ounce soda contains 15 to 18 teaspoons of sugar and upwards of 240 calories. A 64-ounce fountain cola drink could have up to 700 calories. (5) People who drink this “liquid candy” do not feel as full as if they had eaten the same calories from solid food and do not compensate by eating less. (6)" https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...ks-fact-sheet/
And what YOU fail to address is it's not just soda...
People are focusing too much on the discipline aspect of this proposed plan (the low hanging fruit, if you will), and not enough on the cost to the taxpayer, which will almost certainly be higher than the current SNAP program in the long run.
It's a lousy plan that serves no purpose other than to appease simple minds that are incapable of seeing the flaws that lie just one nanometer beneath its shiny surface.
A better solution would be to apply stricter rules to the current SNAP program.
No one on the right will take this pragmatic approach when they are too busy wondering how the butter was that Rush fawning over.
From a purely practical standpoint, you have probably written the best posts in this entire thread. Other than the fact that the food in the boxes, if it is all boxed or canned sounds horrible, both flavorwise and healthwise (anyone check out the amount of sodium in most canned food, or in a box of mac and cheese?) but because I can't imagine how it's going to be anything but a logistical nightmare.
The current SNAP program is actually pretty damn efficient, and the reason for that is the very thing people are complaining about: it places the responsibility for getting to the store, selecting, and transporting the food on the recipients, and not on an army of pickers, packers, and if it IS supposed to be like Blue Apron, delivery drivers. That responsibility does allow for poor choices (poor choices that I don't believe all recipients make, anyway), but it saves a lot of money. Customizing the boxes to accommodate food allergies or sensitivities, if it happened at all, would only add to the cost of implementation. The food itself might indeed be cheaper, but the administrative costs would absolutely skyrocket. Does anyone really think that's a good idea? Really?
Then there is the whole issue of competition. Right now, SNAP recipients can choose a specific grocery store, a specific brand of food, and not all choose the same ones. What would these boxes do to that? It seems to me like they really set the stage for a few companies to benefit at the expense of the competition, particularly smaller, locally-owned stores. Do we really want the government to create this kind of monopoly?
I have really tried to see the potential good in this, and I just can't do it. The whole thing seems to me like a very gimmicky way to appeal to an unfortunate desire to punish the poor, cloaked in promises of savings that will probably never materialize. The bitter icing on this crap cake? Not only would unhealthy foods be a matter of choice for SNAP clients, they would be mandated by the very people who complain that they eat too much junk.
And stores would slash employees since the demand from shoppers would go down. Who works at these stores? Poor people, many who are on food stamps. So, while they'd be eliminating food choices saying these people need to be getting jobs they'd be actually eliminating the jobs of the same targeted people.
No one on the right will take this pragmatic approach when they are too busy wondering how the butter was that Rush fawning over.
It's really quite stupid, but I can see why the simpleminded crowd would find a program like this to be so appealing... On the surface, a box food program seems so pragmatic -- it appears as though it would solve so many practical problems -- but these people fail to see that it's all a smoke and mirrors routine. They are missing what's right in front of their noses... the fact that we already have an efficient and flexible food stamp program!
We can change the rules of the current program quickly and easily. Don't want people buying soda? No soda then. Don't want people buying frozen pizzas? Then block that from the approved list.
See how easy that is? Now explain to me why we need to create, from the ground up, a heavy-handed government program to accomplish the same thing?
Except that I've been saying it for pages now. Reminder: I'm on the right.
Yes, you have been. I totally agree that given that we have a nutritional assistance program, delivering the benefits electronically is the most cost-efficient way to do it. I'm glad that you are here pointing that out.
Somewhat torn on this. On the one hand, I wouldn't want the government telling me what to it, literally forcing me to eat whatever it is they send me.
Other hand, it might motivate me to get my act together to where I'm no longer on food stamps.
I agree with the first part but on all seriousness if you look at some of these people on food stamps more often then not they are very obese. Furthermore they are happy being this way because they also get disability. IMO, this would be a good thing and just to add fuel to the fire they should have to park their arses further away and get some exercise.
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.
