• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think of Trump's idea to have food boxes for SNAP?

independentusa said:
Trump says in his budget that part of the SNAP program will be food boxes. He says it will save over 200 million dollars. What do you think of the idea? I wonder how it will save money when you have to pay companies to make and then deliver the boxes to SNAP program recipients. I mean it would be a boon to those companies that got the Federal business, but it has to cost more than the present program. And who is to say what is in the boxes? It just doesn't make either financial or program sense to me, but what do you think?
Click to expand...

Just more government from the party of allegedly, small government.
 
Lursa said:
All that takes time and labor=$$$

Way too complex.
Click to expand...

The people who use SNAP have to get themselves to the government agency to apply for SNAP and they have to get themselves to the store to buy groceries.. It would not be any hardship to have them pick up a box of food at assigned locations to do that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The people who use SNAP have to get themselves to the government agency to apply for SNAP and they have to get themselves to the store to buy groceries.. It would not be any hardship to have them pick up a box of food at assigned locations to do that.
Click to expand...

Yes, they discussed having distribution centers. I was addressing his discussion about having to create different boxes for multiple needs.
 
AlbqOwl said:
My husband and I were $21 overdrawn at the bank on our wedding day, and just about the time I found out that I was pregnant two months later, through no fault of our own, we lost jobs constituting about half our income. We were living paycheck to paycheck and often it didn't stretch all the way to the end of the week and by anybody's standards we were among the very poorest of the working poor right up to the time our son was born. There were absolutely no government services to help in any way and we didn't think we were poor enough to ask for help from charitable organizations.

That son never went hungry, never went without anything he needed, was given as much opportunity and advantages as most of his peers, and he obtained a good college education and is now a successful senior engineer earning a very handsome six figure income. As is his little sister who, without government assistance, obtained her PhD and also earns a very handsome six figure income. I, though we were never considered rich, enjoyed a wonderful professional life along with raising kids, but our kids were never neglected or disadvantaged even though the government provided no help with child care in any way. Of my generation, our story is not in the least bit unusual.

When the government doesn't do it, responsible parents get it done. And we do it legally and of our own initiative and without expecting the government to confiscate hard earned dollars from other people to give to us.

That doesn't mean that we do not feel compassion for those who are struggling and refuse those who need help the help they need. We do and we have. I have devoted quite a bit of my life, both as a vocation and avocation, working with the poor and low income people.

And again, we do people no favors--it is not compassion--when we make people so comfortable in poverty many have no incentive to put in the considerable effort necessary to take care of their children. They just let the government do most or all of it. Such people should not have custody of children.

And I don't think there is any information as to what will be in the food boxes if they go that route either.
Click to expand...

Your story is inspiring and definitely shows that through hard work and dedication, one can make things work even in difficult situations. Regardless, I still strongly believe there is a role for government in assisting the poor via food programs, housing, job training/placement assistance, childcare, and education. Keeping family units whole is a good thing for society in general, and removing children from households because the people aren't putting in enough effort for you is a poor choice societally and for the well-being of the children involved. Our foster care system is a shambles and children who are shifted around between other family members or foster homes are more likely to have educational issues or behavior problems than those who are not. Obviously, children should be removed from homes where there is abuse, but using government programs is not child abuse.

And there is information on what is planned to be included in the SNAP boxes. It consists of shelf-stable items like ready-to-eat cereals, grains, pasta, beans, canned meats and vegetables, peanut butter, and shelf-stable milk. Those are not healthy options for people who are in desperate need of healthy food, like fresh fruits and vegetables. We should be incentivizing the purchase of those types of foods with government dollars, not cheap, less healthy options.
 
independentusa said:
Trump says in his budget that part of the SNAP program will be food boxes. He says it will save over 200 million dollars. What do you think of the idea? I wonder how it will save money when you have to pay companies to make and then deliver the boxes to SNAP program recipients. I mean it would be a boon to those companies that got the Federal business, but it has to cost more than the present program. And who is to say what is in the boxes? It just doesn't make either financial or program sense to me, but what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think that it's a dumb idea due to the logistics of getting the boxes delivered. I'd rather see a sliding scale for the products you buy with SNAP. If they are high end brand items, you get charged a premium. If it's non-essentials or junk food, you get charged a premium. If it's essentials, you get a discount.
Fresh fruit and veggies - discount.
Flour sugar, butter, etc. discount.
Twinkies - premium.
Milk - discount.
Coke - premium.
Raw chicken - discount.
Cooked chicken - premium.
Betty Crocker Cookbook - first one is free.
 
AlbqOwl said:
My husband and I were $21 overdrawn at the bank on our wedding day, and just about the time I found out that I was pregnant two months later, through no fault of our own, we lost jobs constituting about half our income. We were living paycheck to paycheck and often it didn't stretch all the way to the end of the week and by anybody's standards we were among the very poorest of the working poor right up to the time our son was born. There were absolutely no government services to help in any way and we didn't think we were poor enough to ask for help from charitable organizations.

That son never went hungry, never went without anything he needed, was given as much opportunity and advantages as most of his peers, and he obtained a good college education and is now a successful senior engineer earning a very handsome six figure income. As is his little sister who, without government assistance, obtained her PhD and also earns a very handsome six figure income. I, though we were never considered rich, enjoyed a wonderful professional life along with raising kids, but our kids were never neglected or disadvantaged even though the government provided no help with child care in any way. Of my generation, our story is not in the least bit unusual.

When the government doesn't do it, responsible parents get it done. And we do it legally and of our own initiative and without expecting the government to confiscate hard earned dollars from other people to give to us.

That doesn't mean that we do not feel compassion for those who are struggling and refuse those who need help the help they need. We do and we have. I have devoted quite a bit of my life, both as a vocation and avocation, working with the poor and low income people.

And again, we do people no favors--it is not compassion--when we make people so comfortable in poverty many have no incentive to put in the considerable effort necessary to take care of their children. They just let the government do most or all of it. Such people should not have custody of children.

And I don't think there is any information as to what will be in the food boxes if they go that route either.
Click to expand...

To be honest, your story does not apply to all. Let me guess, you are white? And what era did this occur? And how were you raised, middle class? Being a minority, living in the ghetto, poor, exposed to violence, and held down and discriminated against, most don't have the same opportunities. And some may not have the genetics, the smarts, to get it down. Simply working hard does not get you out of poverty this day and age,.

Good for you for getting through it, but I guaranteed you were already in a better situation than many. You say you lost consulting jobs, so I'm assuming you had college education, and had job experience, correct? So it was a hell of a lot easier for you to get another job. People who have no or little education or means, little job training, in todays world where all they can work is low paying service jobs, hard manual labor for little pay and little to no upward mobility, is the reality of today's world.

It's disingenous to take your personal experience and apply it to others. It really shows a lack of empathy. Even though you had a hard time and got through it, you were likely a hell of a lot better off than most people. So I don't think it is good to act like it was solely because you were so awesome and buckled down.

I've gone through layoffs, have a PhD and had to work at Amazon and a cook in a nursing home, and it sucked. THe pay was a joke, the work back breaking (because I have work ethic, even for a low paying job- yes, some people do not). I felt for some of the people there, the ones that weren't completely lazy and actually worked hard. They have little options of upward mobility. Oh, and the only reason I was able to do this is I had someone to live with while I was unemployed. Not everybody has that
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
My husband and I were $21 overdrawn at the bank on our wedding day, and just about the time I found out that I was pregnant two months later, through no fault of our own, we lost jobs constituting about half our income. We were living paycheck to paycheck and often it didn't stretch all the way to the end of the week and by anybody's standards we were among the very poorest of the working poor right up to the time our son was born.
Click to expand...

What if your husband had abandoned you and the kids? How would you work and watch the children?
 
faithful_servant said:
I think that it's a dumb idea due to the logistics of getting the boxes delivered. I'd rather see a sliding scale for the products you buy with SNAP. If they are high end brand items, you get charged a premium. If it's non-essentials or junk food, you get charged a premium. If it's essentials, you get a discount.
Fresh fruit and veggies - discount.
Flour sugar, butter, etc. discount.
Twinkies - premium.
Milk - discount.
Coke - premium.
Raw chicken - discount.
Cooked chicken - premium.
Betty Crocker Cookbook - first one is free.
Click to expand...

Various local programs have experimented with discounts for fresh produce and have had very good results.
 
RationalPolicy said:
Poor people especially may not have a long-term stable address, especially if they are on SNAP already. Often, people are evicted from apartments or residences when they are extremely poor. I moved myself a year or so ago and the mail forwarding process was nuts. I still get tons of rerouted mail all of the time that has been confused or hasn't gotten to me when it should. What do you think would happen to monthly boxes of food?
Click to expand...
If they don't have a stable address they can pick up their box at the post office or have it delivered to their local church.

I moved before and where I lived mail forwarding was easy. You just filled out a card telling them your new address and everything gets forwarded to your new address

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
AlbqOwl said:
The people who use SNAP have to get themselves to the government agency to apply for SNAP and they have to get themselves to the store to buy groceries.. It would not be any hardship to have them pick up a box of food at assigned locations to do that.
Click to expand...

Private charity is already doing that. Why compete with the private sector with that, instead of infrastructure?
 
Lursa said:
Yes, they discussed having distribution centers. I was addressing his discussion about having to create different boxes for multiple needs.
Click to expand...

I'm sure something could be done for special needs - severe allergies, etc.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sure something could be done for special needs - severe allergies, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they can...for a ridiculous cost (in logistical costs like added administration and tracking) and that wouldnt be necessary if people could continue to choose their own items. (Which they can to some extent under this program...they wont be getting all their food benefits in a box.)
 
AlbqOwl said:
It could ensure that those receiving SNAP would be getting real food, hopefully nourishing food, instead of junk food, potato chips, cookies, etc. I would have to see how it would be structured and administered, but at face value I think it could be a very good idea.

I still like this piece that is still on the Waco-Herald Tribune website:
Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.​
LETTERS: Fixing Social Security; Put me in charge of welfare, Medicare and housing grants | Letters | wacotrib.com
Click to expand...

Like most rabid right wingers, your solution is always "Bring back the Gestapo". They are the solution to all our problems. That's why you will fail.
 
I bet WalMart could do it, easily, and cheap.
 
Praxas said:
My understanding is they haven't figured out exactly HOW they are going to get the boxes to recipients. One suggestion would be just to deliver them to a central site and have the recipients pick them up which of course is going to cause undo hardships for those that don't have vehicles. If they are delivered to each recipient directly, the costs are not going to be seen.

There is also the question of not knowing what will be in the boxes from week to week or month to month, however they decide. Not to mention, food allergies, dietary requirements which vary from individual to individual. This thing is doomed from the start IMO. The card is still the most economical way to go IMO.
Click to expand...

But you see that's just the beauty of the program, it would break a working welfare program. Take a functioning part of government, screw it up till it will be a nightmare, that will justify cutting the program entirely. This is REpublicans showing us that goverment will fail. It's just a way to justify ultimately ending SNAP entirely.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It could ensure that those receiving SNAP would be getting real food, hopefully nourishing food, instead of junk food, potato chips, cookies, etc. I would have to see how it would be structured and administered, but at face value I think it could be a very good idea.

I still like this piece that is still on the Waco-Herald Tribune website:
Put me in charge ...

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.​
LETTERS: Fixing Social Security; Put me in charge of welfare, Medicare and housing grants | Letters | wacotrib.com
Click to expand...

I do find it amusing that its 22 inch rims and low profile tires and not laptops and cellphones.
 
markjs said:
But you see that's just the beauty of the program, it would break a working welfare program. Take a functioning part of government, screw it up till it will be a nightmare, that will justify cutting the program entirely. This is REpublicans showing us that goverment will fail. It's just a way to justify ultimately ending SNAP entirely.
Click to expand...

The right wing seem to be the point of failure. Nothing but repeal, is simple failure, not a goal of better solutions at lower cost.
 
danielpalos said:
The right wing alleges to be for Individual Liberty.
Click to expand...

The right wing, for the most part, IS for individual liberty. Taking good money and throwing it at problems, however, does not encourage people to take advantage of their liberties. It DOES encourage people to become more willing to be dependent on other people's money and less incentivized to do what is necessary to not need/want it.

Several people on this thread have pulled out the same tired leftist talking points and make the same kinds of hateful insinuations and personal insults whenever anybody on the right proposes a solution that isn't the big government fix that is part of the problem. Instead of making an argument for the flaws in a proposal, they are pretty consistent in attacking the person proposing it. And most of those attacks are from people who have pretty much never done anything hands on for the poor or disadvantaged.

I applaud the right wing for looking for real solutions, even if they come up with some ideas that aren't practical or won't work and have to be discarded. I do not applaud those who demand a status quo that has created the problem more than it has addressed it and who accuse those who see and understand that.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The right wing, for the most part, IS for individual liberty. Taking good money and throwing it at problems, however, does not encourage people to take advantage of their liberties. It DOES encourage people to become more willing to be dependent on other people's money and less incentivized to do what is necessary to not need/want it.

Several people on this thread have pulled out the same tired leftist talking points and make the same kinds of hateful insinuations and personal insults whenever anybody on the right proposes a solution that isn't the big government fix that is part of the problem. Instead of making an argument for the flaws in a proposal, they are pretty consistent in attacking the person proposing it. And most of those attacks are from people who have pretty much never done anything hands on for the poor or disadvantaged.

I applaud the right wing for looking for real solutions, even if they come up with some ideas that aren't practical or won't work and have to be discarded. I do not applaud those who demand a status quo that has created the problem more than it has addressed it and who accuse those who see and understand that.
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree. You impute social morals under our form of Capitalism. You merely have a fallacy of false Cause. Capitalism merely requires capital circulate. It is up to Government to ensure the electorate has adequate capital management skills.
 
What if...? said:
I do find it amusing that its 22 inch rims and low profile tires and not laptops and cellphones.
Click to expand...

I'd call it a dog whistle but it's not subtle enough to qualify.
 
markjs said:
But you see that's just the beauty of the program, it would break a working welfare program. Take a functioning part of government, screw it up till it will be a nightmare, that will justify cutting the program entirely. This is REpublicans showing us that goverment will fail. It's just a way to justify ultimately ending SNAP entirely.
Click to expand...

The real motivation is lining the pockets of big agricultural businesses that are going to suck up major contracts to ship out the ****tiest, low-quality, filled with preservatives garbage they can possibly make. Five bucks says some really low-grade corn is going to magically be considered to meet all sorts of nutritional requirements.
 
The party of individual liberty wants to control what people eat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom