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.
The most recent article I read suggested that recipients would have to pick up the boxes from assigned locations, rather than deliver them... which could present even more problems.
A lot of these issues have already been touched upon, but the problems I view with the boxes are:
1) There is no mention as to whether personal dietary needs will be addressed. There's an ever increasing amount of people with dairy/lactose allergies or intolerance, not to mention wheat, gluten, eggs, nuts, soy, etc, etc. I highly doubt that each box will be custom built for the recipient, and in some families, some of the food will not be able to be consumed.
2) Along with the above, those with special needs and either the sensory or physical inability to eat some of the foods, will also mean that items may not be consumed by the intended recipient.
3) Pasta needs to be cooked, as does things like Spam (to make it vaguely palatable). The description of these boxes seems to assume that every American has a place to cook food. The poorest of the poor may not.
4) The boxes will apparently be picked up at assigned locations. How plentiful will these locations be? How feasible would it be for a person to travel on public transport with (in theory) a months worth of food?
5) There are certainly those who (you would think) would qualify for delivery, such as the elderly. But as others suggested, that increases the chance of porch pirates stealing the boxes, or the food going bad if left on the porch too long in extreme heat or cold.
I'm truthfully all for a Food Stamp system that does not allow Chips, Soda, Candy and 'Junk Food'. However, I still believe that we would be better off allowing families to have free reign to buy non-Junk food items at the store of their choice, because of all of the above reasons.
The most recent article I read suggested that recipients would have to pick up the boxes from assigned locations, rather than deliver them... which could present even more problems.
A lot of these issues have already been touched upon, but the problems I view with the boxes are:
1) There is no mention as to whether personal dietary needs will be addressed. There's an ever increasing amount of people with dairy/lactose allergies or intolerance, not to mention wheat, gluten, eggs, nuts, soy, etc, etc. I highly doubt that each box will be custom built for the recipient, and in some families, some of the food will not be able to be consumed.
2) Along with the above, those with special needs and either the sensory or physical inability to eat some of the foods, will also mean that items may not be consumed by the intended recipient.
3) Pasta needs to be cooked, as does things like Spam (to make it vaguely palatable). The description of these boxes seems to assume that every American has a place to cook food. The poorest of the poor may not.
4) The boxes will apparently be picked up at assigned locations. How plentiful will these locations be? How feasible would it be for a person to travel on public transport with (in theory) a months worth of food?
5) There are certainly those who (you would think) would qualify for delivery, such as the elderly. But as others suggested, that increases the chance of porch pirates stealing the boxes, or the food going bad if left on the porch too long in extreme heat or cold.
I'm truthfully all for a Food Stamp system that does not allow Chips, Soda, Candy and 'Junk Food'. However, I still believe that we would be better off allowing families to have free reign to buy non-Junk food items at the store of their choice, because of all of the above reasons.
All of those things that’s why am not certain about this idea. I see no harm in limiting what could be classified as junk food to say 10% of your food stamps allocation. The rest has to be used on everything else. Although junkfood can also be subjective.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is actually proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
All of those things that’s why am not certain about this idea. I see no harm in limiting what could be classified as junk food to say 10% of your food stamps allocation. The rest has to be used on everything else. Although junkfood can also be subjective.
Very true on all points. Even when rationing was imposed during WWII in the U.K, 12oz/ month of 'sweets' was allowed. A small limit to buy non-nutritious food items doesn't sound unreasonable to me, although they're items that a family could potentially just buy out of pocket if they chose to consume them.
I also agree with you that junk food is subjective. To me, a lot of cereals are junk food but may not be viewed as such by others.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that chips/candy/soda are universally classified as junk food though.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is actually proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
You're comparing humans to wild animals?
Sure, scientifically speaking, humans are a kind of animal. But we live in a civilized, first world nation. We should not be treating our humans with the same approach as we do with animals in the wild, unless you want us to be a 3rd world country.
Sure, scientifically speaking, humans are a kind of animal. But we live in a civilized, first world nation. We should not be treating our humans with the same approach as we do with animals in the wild, unless you want us to be a 3rd world country.
Your lesson has no merit.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
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.
