I have exactly zero faith that anything Trump’s administration proposes in regard to helping the poor is going to be anything but a complete clusterfuck. I’m also baffled that anyone thinks he cares about the poor at all or that he’s capable of actually implementing a program like this. I mean holy fuck, have you not been paying attention this past year?
No. You need to take step back. The corn comes from the fact that the GOP is in bed with that agricultural group so yeah, they’ll be corn. The peanut butter is because people have allergies and it’s loaded with sugar.
I’ve also been poor, by the way.
Central distribution of actual food is a terrible idea. It is bonkers that it is the Republicans proposing this. What’s next, factory quotas?
We are talking about starving to death or eating corn. I can’t even begin to imagine how stupid this conversation would sound to someone actually starving to death in the third world.
No, we aren’t. We’re talking about exchanging the current program for food boxes.
Yes, you’re right. But the argument being bandied about here is that some how free food is bad, and that choice is paramount over starvation. I can’t even.
If we want to argue that the program will be inefficient, that’s a great argument and I tend to agree. But arguing that people must be able to choose Fritos and lettuce? Come on, that’s a ridiculous argument. The government is preventing these people from dying, I can’t imagine they are so entitled that they argue against it. It’s crazy talk. It’s like you guys are arguing that a starving man will refuse a meal, I just can’t imagine this is true.
I don’t know who you’re having that conversation with.
If the argument is that food boxes are better than nothing, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I’m not seeing anyone here arguing against that.
Do you have even the slightest clue as to what the goal of SNAP actually is?
This website here gives me the impression it’s to try and feed people:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
In order to actually talk about a replacement, you should probably understand how we measure the program today and what their goals actually are.
Filling bellies with whatever we have available is not a stated goal.
Try again.
And while you’re looking, see if you can find out which population makes up almost half of the program; it’s a key group.
No, that is not the argument. At least not from @Dan_Theman or @Rod_Humble or me. The argument is that right now, the program offers choice of purchase to program participants, revenue to local stores, and depositing money and issuing debit cards is a lot more efficient than distributing actual food. This proposal eliminates options, bogs the program back down in overhead, logistics, and contracting inefficiency. On top of that it increases food waste since not all items will be used by everyone, opens the door to a zillion health and legal issues, and is damn dehumanizing to boot.
Why not go further? What about all these layabouts on unemployment enjoying their luxury apartments and driving fancy sports cars? Why not make them all move out to some kind of government dole village and bus them into wherever every day?
Part of the thing about “govt cheese” and bread lines were because the past economy didn’t have this enormous surpluses of consumer goods. Breadlines existed because there was no other way to get food. Govt cheese existed adjacent to war time mobilization and creation of large amounts of prepackaged rations - remember the horrible SPAM and k bars were probably significantly better than any other armies’ in the field food supply system at the time.
Our grocery stores today throw millions of pounds of food away regularly due to spoilage. Getting food to people is (usually) not the problem - and things like Meals On Wheels are programs that are designed around food delivery to those who can’t obtain it.
If we had huge surpluses of MREs going to waste and nothing to do with them… sure, why not. But there’s no reason to start buying MREs for civilians who could just go the grocery store.
If there is food stamp abuse i’d wager its adjacent to the off-the-books economy. Just speaking from experience, i have seen people roll out two grocery carts full of stuff bought on food stamps or SNAP and get into a brand new truck worth 3x my car at the time. If you only get paid in cash, as far as the government can see, you’re broke. Lax enforcement of employment and immigration laws tend to be root cause of that though.
We did. All the way up to E5.
I’m old enough to remember a time (the 1980s) when many conservatives were in favor of cash grants for things like food stamps because it involved less government waste. They mocked people who wanted in-kind transfers as supporting Big Brother telling others what to do.
That’s back when the a big chunk of the GOP cared about minimizing government waste, though. They hadn’t yet had the revelation that the real mission of conservatism was to shame poor people as much as possible. (See also: drug testing.)
So I agree on the inefficiency argument, I think I’ve made that clear. I don’t see how this would be more efficient unless the government bulks in huge bulk and figures out distribution in scale. I don’t agree on the “you must be able to pick out whatever suits your fancy” argument. Perhaps that is more clear.
Have you ever eaten government ‘cheese’? I have. It’s shit. Have you ever had to steal food from a store? I have. Have you ever been really hungry and drank tap water to fill your stomach so that you might go to sleep? I have. And so have millions more. I remember making fried bread. Government bread and margarine. Fried and salted. Tasty when you have nothing else.
If your argument is just academic, then what do you care? If you agree that this proposal would likely increase inefficiency, then why play devil’s advocate here? Almost everyone in this topic against the Harvest Box program has cited inefficiency as at least part of their objections. We all know that distributing healthy food boxes to low/no-income folks would be an utter shitshow.
Beyond that, we’ve had multiple people here, right here in this thread, tell you that they grew up or were in the old program and it sucked to eat that food. The bread was always stale and the blandest least nutritional white bread ever baked. The cheese was waxy and flavorless. The powered milk - well, it was powdered milk, so it went down like sandy dishwater. And it was damn embarrassing. I know that probably means nothing to you, but believe me there is some real psychic damage to serving your friends sandwiches made with welfare cheese, bread, and bologna.
I begrudge exactly zero people that would rather pick out their own groceries than eat food picked by some bureaucrat whose primary goal was insuring his own job.
Here is the thing. A lot of poor people have guns (or at least knives). They wont fucking starve. But if you want to see a massive rise in crime as people try not to die, feel free to cut them off. Part of the reason we give poor people food is humanitarian, but a big part of it is also selfish. If you want to see Great Depression levels of crime, go ahead and tell people they’re gonna starve. If it comes to armed robbery or watching your kid starve, very few people are going to pick their kid starving.
You’re arguing from a position that doesn’t exist: that it’s this or starvation. Except we’ve been going for over half a century without it being the case. And the suggested system is a massive waste of money that will prone to graft and require a massive government agency that controls the lives of millions. It’s the most Nanny State thing anyone has suggested probably in my life time. And it will fix a problem that barely exists?
Look at fucking Puerto Rico and see how this ends. It ends in massive graft and sick or dead people while costing more than the current system.
First world problems. I think some of you people should travel and see real misery abroad before complaining about how free cheese tastes or how it’s embarrassing to get free food. Its pathetic in my opinion and an insult to real starvation and real hardship. Sorry I intruded on your echo chamber. I think I might not engage in P&R anymore, it seems like a waste of time.
Literally no one here is arguing that starving is better than free food. Not a single person. Why are you still arguing that point?
I officially cede the point for everyone here that any food is better than no food. You’ve won that argument. Good job. Now since you asked for our opinions on this, why don’t you actually think about it and engage instead of just taking your predetermined idea of what the “real answer” is and arguing past everyone.