Food in Lieu of Food Stamps?

[ClearwaterVol]

And you claimed to be a liberal just this morning...

Socially, I am liberal. However, there is too much deference given to those whom are receiving charity from the government. I don't see why this issue is such a fight. It's good enough for pregnant women and children, but somehow the rest of the population is too good for it?

 

[T-TownVol]

If they are all delivered? How?

The person/family would have to prove that NO ONE living in that household can go pick up the food box.
The article said that they are looking at delivering ALL food boxes.......I say not to do that unless hardship picking up is PROVEN.......

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Inch thick rib-eye isn't a staple?

'Tis in my house, but I shop for 'em on sale and pay for 'em with my after tax earnings.

 

[T-TownVol]

FWIW - The food stamp program should be set up like WIC, INSHO. You get staples. Period. I don't pay to have you get ribeyes and junk food. The idea is a worthy one, but we've gotten away from the intent of making sure people didn't go hungry.

Yuuuup.....

 

[Grand Vol]

'Tis in my house, but I shop for 'em on sale and pay for 'em with my after tax earnings.

And you call yourself a liberal...

Those cows that created that ribeye are destroying the environment! And are mistreated!

 

[hog88]

'Tis in my house, but I shop for 'em on sale and pay for 'em with my after tax earnings.

Kroger had whole prime rib-eye on sale this past weekend, $6 something a pound. Got 23 7/8" rib-eyes for $124.00.

 

[golfballs]

Easiest is way is have these distributed at grocery stores.

Create food stamp checkout section with these defined goods. Peanut butter, water, cereal, milk, etc.

No need to create a supply process. Recipients have already proven the ability to get to the stores.

Kroger has started selling meal-in-a-box. And some of them are good and easy to make, not expensive either.

 

[tumscalcium]

FWIW - The food stamp program should be set up like WIC, INSHO. You get staples. Period. I don't pay to have you get ribeyes and junk food. The idea is a worthy one, but we've gotten away from the intent of making sure people didn't go hungry.

Indeed. I took this pic a while ago at a gas station near work.

 

[n_huffhines]

White House wants to deliver food to the poor, Blue Apron-style - Feb. 12, 2018

Claims it can save $130 Billion. Not sure I believe that given the boxes will have to be created, packaged and delivered. I'm sure there will be specific needs with food allergies and what not, creating opportunity for liability if a mistake is made.

It's not a bad idea, but if we aren't saving any more money, it just looks like another layer to a program already rife with fraud and abuse. Also says receipients are still getting benefit vouchers. This may actually cost more in the end.

The one problem I see is the food suppliers become a special interest group, and though it may be cheaper at first, it could get more expensive over time.

 

[red butler]

I can't see how this would save money but if it does, go for it.

It could save in health care costs. Americans aren't exactly making good nutrition choices, maybe the government can help with that.

 

[lawgator1]

Its hard to argue with the logic of this.

My only beef with it (get it?) is that its clearly a nod to the super-resentment wing of the GOP and in my view thwarting what they want has its own value and is pretty much always worth it in the long run.

 

[midnight orange]

Here's a novel idea. Get rid of the unconstitutional ebt program all together. Let states decide what handouts they are going to support.

 

[lawgator1]

Here's a novel idea. Get rid of the unconstitutional ebt program all together. Let states decide what handouts they are going to support.

No.

 

[McDad]

The one problem I see is the food suppliers become a special interest group, and though it may be cheaper at first, it could get more expensive over time.

It will get more expensive. It will outpace inflation. The program will expand. This is cancerous central government we're discussing.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Its hard to argue with the logic of this.

My only beef with it (get it?) is that its clearly a nod to the super-resentment wing of the GOP and in my view thwarting what they want has its own value and is pretty much always worth it in the long run.

It's hard to argue with the logic of the proposal, but since you don't like the one who made it go ahead and oppose it anyway. This is exactly why Washington is in a constant state of gridlock.

 

[lawgator1]

It's hard to argue with the logic of the proposal, but since you don't like the one who made it go ahead and oppose it anyway. This is exactly why Washington is in a constant state of gridlock.

Its got nothing to do with who proposed it, and everything to do with who wants it.

 

[hog88]

No.

That would put way too much control in states hands, the Fed always does a much better job. Right?

 

[jvol1]

Sound like a good idea to me if deliveries not included. Seems pretty easy to come up with a menu for people with special needs. Using a system of contracting with private providers should keep costs competitive.

 

[McDad]

Anyone care to show me where in our Constitution it covers food to citizens?

 

[ButchPlz]

Anyone care to show me where in our Constitution it covers food to citizens?

Must be the same place where the word 'infringe' is meaningless.

 

[midnight orange]

Anyone care to show me where in our Constitution it covers food to citizens?

In before someone erroneously refers to the general welfare clause.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Its got nothing to do with who proposed it, and everything to do with who wants it.

Who wants it? Who proposed it? Either way you're opposed to it because the right favors it, even though in your own words "it's hard to argue with the logic". Again, that is partisan politics 101, and exactly why nothing ever gets done.

 

[lawgator1]

Anyone care to show me where in our Constitution it covers food to citizens?

Every law must be constitutional (i.e. not violate the Constitution). That does not mean that every law must be IN the Constitution.

 

[n_huffhines]

It could save in health care costs. Americans aren't exactly making good nutrition choices, maybe the government can help with that.

The government is a big reason America is obese. The FDA pushed the food pyramid, which was basically a guide to getting fat. They're idiots.

 

[lawgator1]

Who wants it? Who proposed it? Either way you're opposed to it because the right favors it, even though in your own words "it's hard to argue with the logic". Again, that is partisan politics 101, and exactly why nothing ever gets done.

No, no. Not the "right."

The right that is built on resentment, yes.