trump food stamp proposal

[UCFWayne]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-to-decide-what-food-snap-recipients-will-get

The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP recipients currently pay for food at retail stores — thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years.

This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years — cutting the program by almost 30 percent.

 

[fabknight]

I like it although I really do have reservations about the government being able to do anything more efficiently than a free market solution.

This part kinda pissed me off. A better angle he could take is that maybe it will motivate them to better themselves.
"It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.

Another motivator, not a problem and why is this a concern at this point?
"It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. "We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families."

 

[UCFKnight85]

I like it although I really do have reservations about the government being able to do anything more efficiently than a free market solution.

This part kinda pissed me off. A better angle he could take is that maybe it will motivate them to better themselves.
"It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.

Another motivator, not a problem and why is this a concern at this point?
"It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. "We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families."

I have never understood why it was ever made OK for people to buy the shit they do with SNAP cards. The last thing the government should be doing is promoting the ability for people to use benefits to buy things that will make them obese and fatter, thus leading to more health problems that they already can't afford.

The above comments are asinine. If someone is on food stamps, and getting free food from the government, I would think that a bare bones requirement should be that they learn how to cook. It's really not that hard. And if they're really going hungry, I would think someone could take the 30 minutes it takes to do basic cooking preparations in the kitchen.

Food stamps should be quite literally the most basic essentials required to live so that a person is motivated to get to a position where they no longer need government assistance.

 

[fabknight]

I have never understood why it was ever made OK for people to buy the shit they do with SNAP cards. The last thing the government should be doing is promoting the ability for people to use benefits to buy things that will make them obese and fatter, thus leading to more health problems that they already can't afford.

The above comments are asinine. If someone is on food stamps, and getting free food from the government, I would think that a bare bones requirement should be that they learn how to cook. It's really not that hard. And if they're really going hungry, I would think someone could take the 30 minutes it takes to do basic cooking preparations in the kitchen.

Food stamps should be quite literally the most basic essentials required to live so that a person is motivated to get to a position where they no longer need government assistance.

Agreed 100%.

Instead of allowing the recipients of SNAP to get whatever they want, they ought to have special stores for them or pay grocery stores for an aisle from which they can shop.

 

[bqknight]

I think more info is needed for me to have a valid opinion on it. One one hand, I'm not against it. I don't know the ins and out of SNAP but there's no reason an individual on SNAP should be buying certain items.

However - I also think having ZERO control over what you receive isn't good either.

I'm not opposed to what Fab said, whether it be digitally or through brick and mortar locations - can consumers have a choice in what they receive in their box?

I thought some items weren't allowed to be bought with SNAP - or was that the old way of doing it and now you just receive money?

 

[knight_poster_15]

https://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/receipt.asp

Article where a food stamp purchase of steak and lobster was found to be true and confirmed.

The buyer actually turned around and sold the food at a 50% discount to someone.

But yeah the program is open to fraud and abuse. In fact, a lot of those dingy food stores you see in the ghetto make money off of it by buying the food stamps for 50% but getting full benefit from the government. The money is then used by the seller for anything they want such as drugs etc.

 

[knight_poster_15]

Honestly this could be a good thing. Some people live in what are called food deserts. You can't get fresh produce etc at reasonable prices where they live. So actually short circuiting that and sending actual food to recipients would definitely be an improvement for those recipients who want actual food.

 

[bqknight]

Honestly this could be a good thing. Some people live in what are called food deserts. You can't get fresh produce etc at reasonable prices where they live. So actually short circuiting that and sending actual food to recipients would definitely be an improvement for those recipients who want actual food.

Agreed, HOWEVER - like I said, whether it be online or through brick and mortar pick up locations there needs to be some sort of choice involved. Straight up forcing people to eat what you give them is...very...communist-y?

There needs to be more details released before ANYONE can make an accurate opinion on this.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Agreed, HOWEVER - like I said, whether it be online or through brick and mortar pick up locations there needs to be some sort of choice involved. Straight up forcing people to eat what you give them is...very...communist-y?

There needs to be more details released before ANYONE can make an accurate opinion on this.

Agreed. It actually has the chance to be very beneficial for both sides. If those who are receiving the packages are able to choose from a pre-ordained list of food items that meets needs while also attempting to have a health value, I’ve got no problems. And it would definitely help to stop the purchase of steak and other high priced items that shouldn’t be bought with assistance subsidies.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Agreed, HOWEVER - like I said, whether it be online or through brick and mortar pick up locations there needs to be some sort of choice involved. Straight up forcing people to eat what you give them is...very...communist-y?

There needs to be more details released before ANYONE can make an accurate opinion on this.

Aside from changing the food offering to account for a food allergy, why should there be any real choice involved? The way to drive down costs is to standardize what is delivered; giving every recipient the ability to customize their delivery will only drive costs up. Which is what we're trying to avoid.

If someone is truly so poor that they can't afford basic foods to stay nourished, then they should be getting food to do just that- keep them nourished. Tastes and preferences are not even relevant in that instance. A government assistance program should be structured to get people OFF the program as soon as they can. If someone is sick of the veggies or beans that come with their SNAP delivery, then they need to undertake some type of action to improve their circumstances to get off SNAP and be able to pick out their preferred foods.

 

[bqknight]

Aside from changing the food offering to account for a food allergy, why should there be any real choice involved? The way to drive down costs is to standardize what is delivered; giving every recipient the ability to customize their delivery will only drive costs up. Which is what we're trying to avoid.

If someone is truly so poor that they can't afford basic foods to stay nourished, then they should be getting food to do just that- keep them nourished. Tastes and preferences are not even relevant in that instance. A government assistance program should be structured to get people OFF the program as soon as they can. If someone is sick of the veggies or beans that come with their SNAP delivery, then they need to undertake some type of action to improve their circumstances to get off SNAP and be able to pick out their preferred foods.

Let's just put aside the fact that every human needs different nutrition based on age, diseases, allergy (like you said), there has to be a middle ground. As I stated, I have NO issue with them limiting options but you don't have to be a dick just to be a dick. Oh wait, it's you we're talking about, yes you do.

I love how your brain cannot fathom that someone might end up being on SNAP or some sort of government assistance their whole life, no matter how hard they try. You have ZERO empathy. It's depressing and frustrating.

 

[btbones]

I think more info is needed for me to have a valid opinion on it. One one hand, I'm not against it. I don't know the ins and out of SNAP but there's no reason an individual on SNAP should be buying certain items.

However - I also think having ZERO control over what you receive isn't good either.

I'm not opposed to what Fab said, whether it be digitally or through brick and mortar locations - can consumers have a choice in what they receive in their box?

I thought some items weren't allowed to be bought with SNAP - or was that the old way of doing it and now you just receive money?

Agree with a lot of this . Hopefully it would make healthy foods an option . Right now that’s not the case as it’s so much more expensive . I think it’s a great concept . My concern is that the government will be in charge of it . Think post office and passing a balanced budget . That’s the scary part

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Agree with a lot of this . Hopefully it would make healthy foods an option . Right now that’s not the case as it’s so much more expensive . I think it’s a great concept . My concern is that the government will be in charge of it . Think post office and passing a balanced budget . That’s the scary part

I'm reading this thread and was thinking. Wow, this sounds like a great back deal way to keep USPS around, lol.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Let's just put aside the fact that every human needs different nutrition based on age, diseases, allergy (like you said), there has to be a middle ground. As I stated, I have NO issue with them limiting options but you don't have to be a dick just to be a dick. Oh wait, it's you we're talking about, yes you do.

I love how your brain cannot fathom that someone might end up being on SNAP or some sort of government assistance their whole life, no matter how hard they try. You have ZERO empathy. It's depressing and frustrating.

You’re proving to be more and more of a typical left wing asshat. I have plenty of empathy.

You’re just a cliche liberal dude. Any objection to a social program is met with “YOURE SO MEAN! YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE”. Give me a break.

If someone is on SNAP their entire life then they are the EXTREME fringe. So congrats- you are using fringe examples to make a point. You’ve done it.

 

[UCF11and1]

Let's just put aside the fact that every human needs different nutrition based on age, diseases, allergy (like you said), there has to be a middle ground. As I stated, I have NO issue with them limiting options but you don't have to be a dick just to be a dick. Oh wait, it's you we're talking about, yes you do.

I love how your brain cannot fathom that someone might end up being on SNAP or some sort of government assistance their whole life, no matter how hard they try. You have ZERO empathy. It's depressing and frustrating.

I was going to respond to Moron85 but decided not to.
You are correct. I think the majority of people using SNAP are seniors and they usually have a limited menu due to their illnesses and/or preferences (try to make grandpa eat something different). There is a program for children (I don’t know if it is part of SNAP) where the parents get x gallons of milk, y boxes of cereal, etc, they could do something like that for younger people that qualify for SNAP with some limited options to pick from.

Some people receive cash on top of the food stamps, that should be eliminated

 

[fabknight]

Agreed, HOWEVER - like I said, whether it be online or through brick and mortar pick up locations there needs to be some sort of choice involved. Straight up forcing people to eat what you give them is...very...communist-y?

There needs to be more details released before ANYONE can make an accurate opinion on this.

Communisty? It's welfare, not communism. I think when you're getting something for free, you don't have the luxury of having choice. Choice is always a luxury.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I was going to respond to Moron85 but decided not to.
You are correct. I think the majority of people using SNAP are seniors and they usually have a limited menu due to their illnesses and/or preferences (try to make grandpa eat something different). There is a program for children (I don’t know if it is part of SNAP) where the parents get x gallons of milk, y boxes of cereal, etc, they could do something like that for younger people that qualify for SNAP with some limited options to pick from.

Some people receive cash on top of the food stamps, that should be eliminated

It’s funny when you call someone a moron and then say something that is totally wrong and butthole stupid.

The majority of SNAP users are seniors? Jesus. A 2 second search proved this wrong. The elderly are a tiny percentage of SNAP. The majority of users fall into the 18-59 year old category.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foo...program-snap/charts/snap-participants-by-age/

The next time you want to call me a moron, maybe try making sure you’re not just being a dumbass with totally invented fake news facts.

 

[UCF11and1]

It’s funny when you call someone a moron and then say something that is totally wrong and butthole stupid.

The majority of SNAP users are seniors? Jesus. A 2 second search proved this wrong. The elderly are a tiny percentage of SNAP. The majority of users fall into the 18-59 year old category.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foo...program-snap/charts/snap-participants-by-age/

The next time you want to call me a moron, maybe try making sure you’re not just being a dumbass with totally invented fake news facts.

You are a moron, I am just lazy because I didn’t look for the data (main reason I said “I think”)
You are a moron because you did look for the data and still said “something that is wrong and butthole stupid”
For 2015, the 18-59 year-old category was 45.4% of the users. People that may need the help (children and seniors, the other 54.6% of users) are the majority. Now tell me it is not fair to group the 0-17 with the 60+ categories.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

You are a moron, I am just lazy because I didn’t look for the data (main reason I said “I think”)
You are a moron because you did look for the data and still said “something that is wrong and butthole stupid”
For 2015, the 18-59 year-old category was 45.4% of the users. People that may need the help (children and seniors, the other 54.6% of users) are the majority. Now tell me it is not fair to group the 0-17 with the 60+ categories.

The majority of the 0-17 year olds are being supported by the food stamps the 18-59 year olds are getting. Kids don't get food stamps.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You are a moron, I am just lazy because I didn’t look for the data (main reason I said “I think”)
You are a moron because you did look for the data and still said “something that is wrong and butthole stupid”
For 2015, the 18-59 year-old category was 45.4% of the users. People that may need the help (children and seniors, the other 54.6% of users) are the majority. Now tell me it is not fair to group the 0-17 with the 60+ categories.

Did you or did you not declare that a majority of people on SNAPS were seniors? You did. You’re either a total idiot or totally ignorant. Neither is good for you.

NextZ

 

[UCFKnight85]

The majority of the 0-17 year olds are being supported by the food stamps the 18-59 year olds are getting. Kids don't get food stamps.

No way Bob. There are millions of 5 year olds driving themselves to the supermarket to use their SNAP benefits.

Them and majority seniors using SNAP!!!

 

[goodknightfl]

I watch people with food stamps go buy food for others, while taking back 50 to 75% cash for food stamps all the time at grocery store. than they use $$ for drugs or booze instead. If the gov't could break even while handing out food, and not soda, snacks, and drug $$ I would be all for it.

 

[fried-chicken]

I have never understood why it was ever made OK for people to buy the shit they do with SNAP cards. The last thing the government should be doing is promoting the ability for people to use benefits to buy things that will make them obese and fatter, thus leading to more health problems that they already can't afford.

The above comments are asinine. If someone is on food stamps, and getting free food from the government, I would think that a bare bones requirement should be that they learn how to cook. It's really not that hard. And if they're really going hungry, I would think someone could take the 30 minutes it takes to do basic cooking preparations in the kitchen.

Food stamps should be quite literally the most basic essentials required to live so that a person is motivated to get to a position where they no longer need government assistance.

Some people don't have the power turned on in their homes. How should they eat their potatoes?

 

[bqknight]

You’re proving to be more and more of a typical left wing asshat. I have plenty of empathy.

You’re just a cliche liberal dude. Any objection to a social program is met with “YOURE SO MEAN! YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE”. Give me a break.

If someone is on SNAP their entire life then they are the EXTREME fringe. So congrats- you are using fringe examples to make a point. You’ve done it.

The only problem with this whole statement is that's not at all what I said. I'm not even against the change...just think it needs to be thought out more.

 

[UCFKnight85]

The only problem with this whole statement is that's not at all what I said. I'm not even against the change...just think it needs to be thought out more.

But that is what you said. You went straight to the "empathy" and "you hate poor people" narrative. The tired attack line of the left.

Who says it wasn't thought out already? You've jumped immediately to the position of "The Trump Admin are heartless cretins who want to stick it to poor people".

 

[fabknight]

I watch people with food stamps go buy food for others, while taking back 50 to 75% cash for food stamps all the time at grocery store. than they use $$ for drugs or booze instead. If the gov't could break even while handing out food, and not soda, snacks, and drug $$ I would be all for it.

I saw one big fat lady buying Porterhouse steaks using her EBT cards.

 

[UCFWayne]

Agreed, HOWEVER - like I said, whether it be online or through brick and mortar pick up locations there needs to be some sort of choice involved. Straight up forcing people to eat what you give them is...very...communist-y?

There needs to be more details released before ANYONE can make an accurate opinion on this.

i think the bulk of the money will be used to purchase and ship the box of food, but the remaining balance will be placed on their ebt card. i think thats a good idea as long as they can do a good balance of food and ebt money. like btbones said, its the gov so i dont have high hopes.

 

[UCFKnight85]

How many people who don't qualify for SNAP but had to make it with little money survived in ramen, pasta, and eggs for a long period of time? I know plenty of people like that. For a lot of these people, eating out wasn't even an option. They put away and saved every cent they could and eventually they improved their situations to the point that they can splurge on whatever they want.

If people who aren't taking a dime from the government are surviving on ramen and tuna every night, SNAP recipients can surely take deliveries that contain fresh food that gives them all the nutrients they need. That is more than a good deal for them.

 

[bqknight]

But that is what you said. You went straight to the "empathy" and "you hate poor people" narrative. The tired attack line of the left.

Who says it wasn't thought out already? You've jumped immediately to the position of "The Trump Admin are heartless cretins who want to stick it to poor people".

I never said that about Trump, I never brought him up. If it's thought out already, great, show me the plan and then, as I said, I would have an opinion on it.

Everything is SO black and white to you. If I had any reason to believe you were capable of understanding something other than what you believe, than I wouldn't be calling YOU out on it. I'm only talking specifically about you, not the "right" or "conservatives". Just you.

 

[DuvalKnight]

How many people who don't qualify for SNAP but had to make it with little money survived in ramen, pasta, and eggs for a long period of time? I know plenty of people like that. For a lot of these people, eating out wasn't even an option. They put away and saved every cent they could and eventually they improved their situations to the point that they can splurge on whatever they want.

If people who aren't taking a dime from the government are surviving on ramen and tuna every night, SNAP recipients can surely take deliveries that contain fresh food that gives them all the nutrients they need. That is more than a good deal for them.

We should enroll them in Blue Apron so they can have all the choices they want*

 

[UCFKnight85]

I never said that about Trump, I never brought him up. If it's thought out already, great, show me the plan and then, as I said, I would have an opinion on it.

Everything is SO black and white to you. If I had any reason to believe you were capable of understanding something other than what you believe, than I wouldn't be calling YOU out on it. I'm only talking specifically about you, not the "right" or "conservatives". Just you.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding what you're trying to say. I simply stop listening when you throw around things like "you have no empathy!". It's a worn, tired, and cliché attack phrase for people who want no critique or reforms of social programs.

 

[goodknightfl]

I saw one big fat lady buying Porterhouse steaks using her EBT cards.

At least it was being spent on food. I was about 20 and in line at store in Cocoa fl, spending my last $7 or $8 dollars getting small package of baby wipes and dinner for Wed knight. Used to get paid on Thursday then. Couple in front of me had 2 shopping carts full of food I could never afford at the time, They paid with food stamps, I walk out to get in my old Plymouth Barracuda with 130+ miles on it, and they put food in an almost new Lincoln and leave.

 

[bqknight]

I'm perfectly capable of understanding what you're trying to say. I simply stop listening when you throw around things like "you have no empathy!". It's a worn, tired, and cliché attack phrase for people who want no critique or reforms of social programs.

It's directed at you - not the policy.

 

[UCFBS]

I like it although I really do have reservations about the government being able to do anything more efficiently than a free market solution.

Agreed. Whether it's an 'socialized' (new agency) or 'privitized' (corporate monopoly), it's going to be questionable.

About the only, partial positive I can think of is that this will push it more local, from federal to state.

This part kinda pissed me off. A better angle he could take is that maybe it will motivate them to better themselves.
"It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.

It's already stigmatized with the cards and other things. If anything, it might actually reduce the exposure. But at the same time, it also will reduce the inter-mingling too.

I've helped a few people at the counter over the years. You can almost tell the few that honestly screwed up from those who purposely do it ... and there are far, far more of the former (I help both, regardless).

All I know is that the current 'classifications' are mightily screwed up. That should be addressed. I mean, part of the reason why people 'trade' their benefits is because they really do need things like diapers.

E.g., one of the ways I can tell the former from the latter is that the former have few (if any) 'luxury' foods, while the latter has far more. I'm not one to judge, and help both equally, but still ... the system is broken for what people really need.

Another motivator, not a problem and why is this a concern at this point?
"It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. "We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families."

Which goes back to market v. government.

At the same time, if you have 50 states defining things, instead of 1 federal, might improve.

I think it's the wrong solution for a right idea that it needs a change.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's directed at you - not the policy.

Yes I know that. And it’s lazy and ignorant.

 

[chemmie]

85 has never actually met a poor person. He has no clue what real poverty is like. He lives in his lilly white suburban bliss and pretends everyone out there struggling is just a lazy negro.

 

[Gwoz]

Not everyone abuses the current program, but it definitely happens far more often than should be considered acceptable.

I personally don't have a lot of sympathy. There is opportunities to make a living everywhere, it just depends on how hard you want to work for it. Just not everyone wants to put an incredible amount of effort to live a marginally better lifestyle, and do not think about how opportunities can grow as they continue to work. Majority want immediate gratification, which doesn't just affect the poor as you can see with retirement accounts for working individuals as well.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Just consider this- two of the largest lobbying arms to continue current SNAP policy have been.......Coke and Pepsi. People who make sugar shit in a can.

Under current SNAP rules, people can buy candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, bakery cakes, ice cream, seafood, and steak with their SNAP cards.

There is absolutely no reason why someone taking assistance from the government should be able to go shopping and come home with bags full of coke, Red Bull, gummie bears, moosetracks, and surf and turf.

 

[UCFBS]

85 has never actually met a poor person. He has no clue what real poverty is like. He lives in his lilly white suburban bliss and pretends everyone out there struggling is just a lazy negro.

Sigh, Progressives say this about others, but usually don't have anything to speak of in their own lives, much less don't do community service. "Let the government do it."

My wife grew up on food stamps, and still, sometimes didn't have food at the table. She had a drunkard for a father, which complicated the matter.

I grew up as lower-class, midwest trash in my early youth, and I know what it's like to be poor too, and heavily looked down upon.

Spoiler

My father prided himself on never taking government assistance, whether it was after 3 Purple Hearts in 'Nam (honorable discharge, not medical, despite a metal plate in his head and hearing loss), or when we were fiscally delinquent and in danger of being on the streets.

My father, who grew up on a farm, dealt with a world 100x more harsh than the typical Millennial, and 10x worse than us typical Gen-X'ers had ... given the Baby Boomers didn't want us to suffer the same fate.

Luckily my father finally convinced my mother, and moved us to Florida, away from her family, where he could find work. He actually got his license in Florida 5 years earlier, in case he ever lost his job (which was far worse paying in the mid-west, than in Florida), which he did by '82.

So then it was a matter of traveling v. moving, and we finally moved by '84 (after 2 years of not seeing my dad a few days every 2-3 weeks).

So while I only have a shallow understanding, my wife definitely does.

Progressives I speak to virtually never do. That's why even when people are poor, politicians like Trump are still, very appealing. They point out the hypocrisy of the Progressives, who literally speak from their glass houses.

So be careful where those stones you throw go. My wife, like I, am hard-core Libertarian for a reason. She doesn't want Progressives to use 'the poor' in their arguments any more than I do.

 

[UCFBS]

Just consider this- two of the largest lobbying arms to continue current SNAP policy have been.......Coke and Pepsi. People who make sugar shit in a can.
Under current SNAP rules, people can buy candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, bakery cakes, ice cream, seafood, and steak with their SNAP cards.

Preach it! Preach it! Preach it!

And that's the thing ... corporate America loves bleeding heart Progressives just as much at bible thumping Conservatives. Ralph Nader repeatedly points this out as well.

However ...

There is absolutely no reason why someone taking assistance from the government should be able to go shopping and come home with bags full of coke, Red Bull, gummie bears, moosetracks, and surf and turf.

I'm with @fabknight on this.

I don't think the solution is to switch to a government distribution system. I think the solution is to stay market-based, but cut out the special interest. But it's not going to happen.

Not on Coke and Pepsi's watch.