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.
In other words, you have no idea. I don't give a rat's backside about all these insults flying back and forth, I thought Conservatives gave a damn about saving money. I'm Conservative, I want to save money, and this doesn't look to be saving any kind of money.
These are not "what ifs", these are reality. The boxes aren't going to appear out of thin air.
Where are you getting these facts, or are you making up what you think should happen? I've seen no mention of prison inmates doing the work or any "back to work" welfare programs. Also, from what I read, stores like Walmart aren't benefiting at all, in fact, Walmart would be one of the hardest hit retailers from this plan.
How have "the Feds...struck a deal with Walmart" when this hasn't even been voted on? Right now it's a proposal, so why would there be any deal making when it's unknown if it would be implemented? And the fact that you said they would use the U.S. Postal Service for only those who have been vetted...which, people on food stamps are already "vetted", reveals that these are not facts, these are your ideas, and frankly, they aren't going to work.
I realize that many on the right absolutely hate and despise anyone who needs help - and I'm not fond of lifelong welfare recipients either, unless it's due to a disability or their age, but here is what everyone seems to miss in all of this pot banging about "lobsters" (I've NEVER seen anyone on food stamps buy lobster):
Essentially they would still be getting crap food, but now there's the extra cost to package, store, and deliver the food. And they STILL get half of their food stamp money on a card - so you're not going to stop them from buying chips, bottled juice, ice cream, etc. with this plan.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply state that they can't buy certain foods with their cards? They already can't buy hot food, they already can't buy non food, they already can't buy beer, wine, etc. So why not just say, "pop, chips, candy, ice cream, cookies, etc" cannot be bought with food stamps?
Wouldn't that be far less costly than setting up a box program with equally crappy food?
I've been telling people on this forum for years that fresh, healthy food is far more expensive than junk. I keep getting people arguing with me about that, but not once has anyone proven that it is cheaper to eat fresh, healthy food. It's not. That's why a lot of the poor are fatter.
Everything that is cheap is filled with starch or is otherwise fattening. I see a lot of frozen foods, juice in a bottle - which is usually laden with sugar, a lot of beans, rice, and potatoes, bread, and lunch meats. I do not see steak and lobster and beer. GMAFB.
To state that they will eat "healthier" by giving them canned food is ridiculous. It's not any healthier than what they are eating now. And like I said, that poor diet of fats, sugars, salt, preservatives is going to cost you in the long run anyway when they go to the doctor for whatever ails them that was caused by a crappy diet. You also pay for their Medical - so how, exactly, is this saving anyone any money?
As a Conservative, I want to SAVE money - I want more of my own damn money when I get paid.
As for the person asking how it's possible to know how they pay, it's easy to see what they are paying with as the swipe machine is right there, out in the open. An EBT card is very easy to spot. What do people look at while in line? Their shoes? I always look at the interaction going on in front of me. I'm not looking at people to see what they are paying with because I want to trash on them in my mind, I'm looking at people who are in front of me currently checking out because I want them to hurry up so I can get on with it.
I can't rep you again right now.
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.
This could work if they pass out food parcels rather than let people buy their own food.
The recipients might get tired of the same ol food, and not have pop and snacks in there, so they might have an incentive to work for their own money where they can spend on their own selves.
You know people will say "that's mean - denying poor people a soda pop is just too mean!!!"
Be patient many tentative deals and agreements take place behind closed doors that you won't hear about. The government is good about bending rules when it had too. WalMart benefits cause they will be getting paid to provide that service. America save because we will be using infrastructure already in place.
Unless you have some inside information on these "deals" that the rest of us have missed out on, you are just blowing a lot of hot air. In addition, even if the infrastructure is in place, the PEOPLE who would be packing those boxes and seeing to their delivery still have to be paid. I don't know about you, but I would rather see the money spent on food than administrative costs, including picking, packing, storing, and delivering.
Lastly, why should the government be in bed with Walmart, or any other grocery store? Do you have a problem with free market competition?
Liberals live in a different world than normal people.
That's why I don't bother responding to your posts. When anyone starts out by dividing the US population into two groups, the 'good guys' and the 'liberals' whatever follows is not worth wasting my time on.
This could work if they pass out food parcels rather than let people buy their own food.
The recipients might get tired of the same ol food, and not have pop and snacks in there, so they might have an incentive to work for their own money where they can spend on their own selves.
You know people will say "that's mean - denying poor people a soda pop is just too mean!!!"
Good God...55% of the adults in SNAP families with children already work. 40% recipients are children, almost 11% are elderly and 13% of non-elderly adults receiving benefits are disabled.
So I pay $100 for soda. I get $49.50 worth of soda, and the guy who pays nothing gets $50.50 worth of soda. That's TOTALLY fair!
You don't see a problem when the guy paying gets less than the other guy (who he pays for). SMH.
Fact is, America does not owe anyone free soda. No one needs free soda. No one even needs soda. It's unhealthy.
So ban effing soda, be done with it, and get over it.
There have been several very good points made about why this proposal is a bad one, and a lot of them have to do with money and efficiency, yet here you are, God knows how many pages in, still obsessing about soda.
Well, Meals On Wheels seems to be able to get hot meals to people without porch pirates. These people getting freebies need to at least work out some of the details for themselves. Many that are elderly or disabled will have case managers and/or agencies that they are working with that would be able to help with details.
Seems to me that plenty of welfare moms and kids in tow seem to be getting out that first weekend of the month for their soda, frozen pizza, sugared cereal and Little Debbies.
I think the elderly and disabled will be taken care of when it comes to their needs, the others need to learn to take some personal responsibility for their situation.
The food packages are a great idea. Don't like the choices, GET A JOB or grow your own!
Also, I was in the military and later worked on a large military post in the dining facility. The soldiers don't go out and shop for what they want, they either eat what is available or use their own cash to buy something elsewhere. They also WORK and are on call 24/7!!! Many of the soldiers I meant had joined the military to better their situations in the long run rather than sit idle drawing government benefits.
Meals on Wheels are delivered to the door when the person is at home, and the volunteer generally not only waits for someone to answer, but talks to them for a few minutes to give a bit of companionship and make sure they are okay.
So ban effing soda, be done with it, and get over it.
There have been several very good points made about why this proposal is a bad one, and a lot of them have to do with money and efficiency, yet here you are, God knows how many pages in, still obsessing about soda.
Get some help.
It's YOU who doesn't get it!
Do you think soda is the only thing that can be used for fraud?
Ban soda, and we move down the line to the next easiest thing to resell. Ban that, then on down the line we go to the next best thing, and so on.
Silly me obsessing about FRAUD. Silly me obsessing about MY tax dollars going to criminals.
Last edited by Colorado^; 02-14-2018 at 12:27 PM..
Do you think soda is the only thing that can be used for fraud?
Ban soda, and we move down the line to the next easiest thing to resell. Ban that, then on down the line we go to the next best thing, and so on.
Which would be what?
The lobster tails?
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.
