A proposal is being bounced around now for replacing Foodstamps with canned and packaged food. I was raised on welfare by my Mom… so I can relate to this one. I think restricting certain non foods for poor could be a good idea. Though I don’t have confidence that’s how it will actually be implemented in a useful/meaningful way. Also discussion about it being delivered, not sure what I think about that. Just curious about the boards thoughts on this one…
It’s Trump’s proposal, so oppose out of general principle. I reckon it will probably be along the lines of being forced to take a can of Trump Peas that cost $10.
I don’t think we should encourage people who need assistance with food to pretty much remove fresh food from their diet in it’s entirety. I know there’s been bitching for years from people who don’t like individuals on the program enjoying junk food but then again they get made about steak so the public has this weird idea that we can force the poor to eat good food only, but not better food than me and… it will just be a mess.
Seems like a ploy so that the people that benefit from waste, fraud and abuse will shift from the poor themselves to government contractors/Trump cronies. Also seems designed to limit the quality of food available to recipients.
I would welcome a program that designed and managed the distribution of a healthy and balanced package of food and necessities to households, especially those with children, that qualified to receive them. Ideally the program would invite those receiving benefits to also view short presentations (in-person or online) on how to prepare said healthy meals and give advice on issues such as household budgeting, healthcare, job hunting, etc. so that people in the program could gain the skills and assistance they required to no longer need the program. Welfare for the Well Being of participants, so to speak.
Of course, that’s not what’s being proposed here. Instead I suspect the idea here is that the Trump Administration and Federal Government will simply contract the production and distribution of these “welfare food packages” to the lowest bidder, therefore all but ensuring that the program is a dismal failure where participants receive rotten or expired food, or a box with a dozen cans of generic green beans or something along those lines. Maybe they’ll contract it out to the lady that was supposed to run the FEMA meal program for Puerto Rico, and then 90% of the participants can starve to death. On the bright side, at least then Trump can claim he reduced poverty by 90%!
I’m under the impression the packages would contain zero fresh food, all shelf stable stuff.
This is insane. We already have a vast infrastructure in place for distributing food and it works just fine. There’s no way in hell this would be as cheap or as healthy as people just going to the store and buying what they need.
If anything, this is good news. It won’t pass in congress and it will derail Paul Ryan’s quest to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids.
It’s wasteful and also condescending to give food instead of just giving money and letting people use it how they see fit. Food stamps are worse than straight cash, and this proposal is even worse than food stamps.
It’s based on the idea that the poors are only poor because they’re too stupid to take care of themselves, and therefore need “us” to tell them what to do.
If they wanted to do this, they should set it up as a subsidized food delivery service that people could opt-into, which would include fresh food and food education (Medicaid, but BlueApron). But they don’t care about health or anything else, so much as about opportunities for graft and the satisfaction of lecturing the poors what to do.
I can’t imagine a more extreme “mommy state” than one where the government picks what you’re going to eat for dinner.
Yup, my biggest concern here would be who would be getting the contracts, especially given the BS we’ve seen with Puerto Rico, including with meal delivery.
Not to mention, what if someone has special dietary needs? Or what happens if the service in an area gets screwed up? The whole thing just sounds like a logistical nightmare.
I don’t know. If we have to give massive, pointless subsidies to farmers, might as well jus take pay them for something that actually goes to and helps the poor.
I like things like the WPA. If the government has to pay for something, I like for something tangible to come out of it.
I had relatives who got government cheese, and other similar things. They didn’t mind. They were hungry. I can guarantee if you gave them the option of getting more food directly or food stamps that would be enough to buy less food, they would take the “more food” option.
I also have no problem having the government give people what they need (food, shelter, etc.) directly. I do think some human dignity is important, and would like to see some choice in the food that is available though.
Food stamps and government aid really aren’t sufficient. If there is a way to save money so as to provide more food for hungry families, I’m all for it.
I see no reason to force some families to eat canned corn if they prefer a head of cabbage instead. Not everyone eats corn, even if we do subsidize it. We’re a pretty mixed group of people in this country. And those meal delivery services he was talking about, they serve fresh food, and they’re ultra expensive, comparing themselves to restaurants not grocery stores.
Look at all these poors, enjoying lobster and caviar while hardworking patriots foot the bill!
That is exactly the motivation for this. There have been efforts in various states to prohibit food stamp recipients from buying “luxury” food.
This kind of thing makes me irrationally angry.
I’ve seen this happen right in front of me. It wasn’t just the lobster but also a number of REALLY nice cuts of meat. Also a huge flank of beef. Totaling way over $200. Now the huge flank I can see. cook that up and have food that can go for days… great idea. the lobster at $9.99 a lb is just a luxury. (I love me some good lobster, but I wait for it to be on sale) Clearly the money isn’t about putting food on the table (maximizing money for food) but rather is just extra goodies.
So? Some people will drop 40-80 dollars on one steak at one meal, at a restaurant the poor typically don’t go to because they’re poor. Pretty soon we’ll see the complaints about cakes again, as if poor kids shouldn’t have birthday cakes and should be restricted to PBJ sandwiches only… which some are actually allergic to and some school districts won’t let you bring anymore.
It’s funny, though, because now it’s the height of cool for the better off to subscribe to a service that sends you food every week. Granted, it’s usually fresh local food or random luxury snacks, but having food chosen for you doesn’t seem like a humiliating slight.
Granted, if they do try it, the US gubmint will screw it up, probably on purpose.
Clearly, these dirty lazy poors are luxuriating in their ill-begotten largesse while I make do with sirloin and small frozen shrimp. Where is my free king crab? Why isn’t my table set with foreign cheeses and boutique mustard? Damn my native birth and adequate income!
This is probably driven by one of the /pol/ readers in the Whitehouse. There’s always threads around those card things and “misuse”