Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

The changes to foodstamps leave me wary. I don't think Congress would allow them to stand, but I wouldn't put any of my money on that bet, either...

The other big story of the Trump Budget is its insane red ink. It's projected to raise the deficit to more than $1 Trillion, and given that the economy seems to finally be doing better, and that interest rates are rising... its a really odd time to be investing in deficit spending (unless Republicans start cutting welfare and other entitlements dramatically, but they're not likely to get away with that without a fight and a half). And of course, the unlimited hypocrisy of the Republican Party, which so easily switched from ragging on Obama about the debt in the middle of an economic crisis, to agreeing with all this in the middle of a boom. Debt is not only meeting the gloomy projections of the Budget office, but actually exceeding it in terms of reduced revenue... But of course, it's not just a political issue. We could be left with a legitimate debt crisis for no goddamned reason (if it at least was being invested in infrastructure that would be one thing...), and if the economy makes a downturn it'll become a huge problem. Let's pray it doesn't, I suppose.

[Dunamisdeos]

I can tell you folks how WIC works, which is the for-babies version of SNAP (broadly speaking).

We get a card with a certain amount of FOOD on it. There's no dollar amount whatsoever referenced. We get so much milk, so much cheese, so much cereal, etc etc.

Refills at the start of the month. If they started sending a portion of the stuff via delivery it wouldn't actually change much for us.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Alex Jones identifies Obama's sperm

[Reelya]

That video was there a minute ago, but now says the user removed it. Here's another version.

[Doomblade187]

I can tell you folks how WIC works, which is the for-babies version of SNAP (broadly speaking).

We get a card with a certain amount of FOOD on it. There's no dollar amount whatsoever referenced. We get so much milk, so much cheese, so much cereal, etc etc.

Refills at the start of the month.

Are allowances made for dietary restrictions? (I assume no, but I can hope.)

[Lord Shonus]

I can tell you folks how WIC works, which is the for-babies version of SNAP (broadly speaking).

We get a card with a certain amount of FOOD on it. There's no dollar amount whatsoever referenced. We get so much milk, so much cheese, so much cereal, etc etc.

Refills at the start of the month. If they started sending a portion of the stuff via delivery it wouldn't actually change much for us.

WIC and SNAP are fundamentally different programs. The sole purpose of WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) is to ensure that expecting mothers, newborns, and small children get a precise level of nutrition during developmentally critical periods. Thus, it is strictly regimented to only items that fulfill that very specific need.

SNAP (Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program) is an entirely different beast. The purpose of SNAP is to reduce the amount of poor people's grocery bills. You get an allowance every month (varying according to income level and the number of people in the household) that can only be used for nonprepared foods. This is placed on a restricted debit card from which no "cash back" can ever be applied, and which will not pay for anything that isn't food. Anything somebody else didn't cook for you is fair game. There are no "junk food" restrictions, because the purpose of the program has never been "force people to eat healthier", nor is it a "bare minimum to live" program. It is a subsidy for the poor, and is one of the best such programs we've come up with yet. Not only does it greatly ease the burden on lower-income households, it is a major boost to the economic sector of the neighborhoods that those lower-income households are part of. Cuts to it are a bad, bad, bad idea that should be embraced by nobody.

[Dunamisdeos]

I can tell you folks how WIC works, which is the for-babies version of SNAP (broadly speaking).

We get a card with a certain amount of FOOD on it. There's no dollar amount whatsoever referenced. We get so much milk, so much cheese, so much cereal, etc etc.

Refills at the start of the month.

Are allowances made for dietary restrictions? (I assume no, but I can hope.)

They are to a degree. They took his info down when we signed up to check if he had any major allergies, but the categories for food seem pretty broad. It's things like "vegetables" and "fruit" so if he's allergic to bananas or something I could get something else. There are beans for protein, it's fairly wide-ranging nutritionally.

This food stamp program doesn't look like a cut (at least that's not how they are presenting it) but it probably would place restrictions on items like junk food.

[Lord Shonus]

It is a massive cut. Any cost savings gained by buying the food wholesale (which won't happen, due to government being government) will be more than offset by the ludicrously expensive cost of distribution. Just as importantly, it would wipe out the whole "subsidize the grocery stores in lower-income areas" aspect of SNAP, which would cause many such stores to go bankrupt and make the food desert far worse. There's a reason the program was set up the way it was - direct food packages simply don't work.

That's before you get into the entire "You will eat what I tell you to eat, peasant. Or you will starve." aspect of the thing. The government does not have the right to do that.

[Madman198237]

That's before you get into the entire "You will eat what I tell you to eat, peasant. Or you will starve." aspect of the thing. The government does not have the right to do that.

Warning: Playing Devil's Advocate (a little bit)

So the government doesn't have the right to ensure that it's money is being spent as well as possible, but the citizen who needs the help has the right to waste it?

[Lord Shonus]

That is correct.

[Reelya]

Yup, but that argument falls flat, because generally we say that the person who has the money tends to make a better decision for themselves than a bureaucratic system does for them.

That fact doesn't change just because the government gave you the money vs an employer gave you the money.

EDIT: note that in this case "having the right to know" that the money is being spent as well as possible is an extremely expensive thing to monitor. It's cheaper just not to monitor it at all. Conversely, handing out pre-packaged goods means you need to continuously optimize that based on nutrition research, and you might not be taking human psychology into account. e.g. I read people complaining that some food stamps get spent on soda or snacks. However, soda and snacks are extremely cheap sources of calories, plus they break up the monotony of eating bland food all the time, so they in fact help you stay sane and feel "human". Giving people a food hamper of only "healthy" canned / preserved food would be like living on prison food for the rest of your life - bad for mental health and motivation.

[Lord Shonus]

Yup, but that argument falls flat, because generally we say that the person who has the money tends to make a better decision for themselves than a bureaucratic system does for them.

That fact doesn't change just because the government gave you the money vs an employer gave you the money.

Well phrased.

[Madman198237]

That is correct.

The point was actually to see somebody generate some proof, or at least something hypothetical.

Yup, but that argument falls flat, because generally we say that the person who has the money tends to make a better decision for themselves than a bureaucratic system does for them.

That fact doesn't change just because the government gave you the money vs an employer gave you the money.

Except for the people that don't spend it better, of course. But I suppose I can't complain about people making bad decisions, because the government also gives people cell phones and whatnot, too, which is hardly the most effective way to spend money to improve things.

[Frumple]

So the government doesn't have the right to ensure that it's money is being spent as well as possible, but the citizen who needs the help has the right to waste it?

Irrelevant question, really. We know as flat fact at this point that giving the citizens who need help control over what the funds get spent on is ensuring the money is being spent as well as possible.

Cuts to it are a bad, bad, bad idea that should be embraced by nobody.

... yeah, as a rule if you're doing something to SNAP that isn't expanding it, you're indulging in a farcically fucking stupid idea. There's maybe exception for just straight giving people money, iirc.

Incidentally, to mostly reiterate what you typed while I was kicking the kindle into making this post, food directly to door replacement is another layer of farcical fucking stupidity on top of that. Like holy shit stupid. Mind bogglingly stupid logistics fuckup that only sounds good it you are the business equivalent of too goddamn stupid to tie your own shoes. There is no goddamn way you're going to save money by decentralizing delivery like that, never mind the issues with having to rebuild and renegotiating routes damn close to from the ground up.

I'd be pretty confident saying it's literally physically impossible. It's basically looking at that economy of scale thing that lets transport costs and whatnot be what they are when interacting with centralized distributors (e.g. grocery stores) and somehow coming to the conclusion they're shit and you're going to save money by making delivery services travel what would have to range into the tens to hundreds of miles extra per transit. If the drug cocktail exists that can lead someone to that conclusion without already being brain damaged, it would take the finances of someone like trump to afford to buy it.

[Dunamisdeos]

I didn't think about the subsidizing of lower-income grocery stores, but it does say that grocery store purchases tend to only be about 7.5% food stamp. That seems relatively minor if this saves billions.

I guess a good question would be: do other nations have restrictions on what their food stamp analogue can buy, and how does it affect their citizens?