What does Veeky Forums think about this new system of food distribution as opposed to money distribution
I'm torn because on one hand, centrally planned distribution of food resources is always inefficient compared to allowing market forces to purchase food, but the plan is going to cost less overall and is probably going to be more nutritionally dense than what most SNAP recipients buy
Other urls found in this thread:
rollingstone.com
nbcnews.com
fns-prod.azureedge.net
cnpp.usda.gov
twitter.com
>probably going to be more nutritionally dense than what most SNAP recipients buy
when is this meme going to die?
anyway, it should be fine as long as they give recipients some amount of choice in what they receive (people with lactose problems have no need for shelf stable milk, people with blood sugar imbalances have little need for large amounts of grain in general, people without means of cooking like homeless people have no need for dried foods, etc)
I do appreciate Drumpf growing government by putting them in charge of what people put in their mouths.
also...
Is Trump going to accidentally save the USPS by turning them into a food shipping company?
Smells like communism
>switching out beer money for what will end up being MRE's
My time has come.
lol this would be a good meme
pretty much my problems
its hardly growing government when its decreasing the budget and probably putting SNAP recipients into uncomfortable positions by having their food selected for them that will incentivize finding work that puts them over the poverty line to where they can choose their own food again
also most people on SNAP don't completely rely upon the SNAP payments for their food purchases so honestly giving them staples might not be that bad of an idea
Sounds like a great idea. Maybe poor people will want to get jobs instead of mooch of the government now that they can't spend all thier food stamps on cookies and ice cream snickers.
Reading the run of the mill left wing papers NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian and they all bitch about "food deserts" and poor people only buying the cheapest and crappiest processed foods with their SNAP cards.
This would help immensely nutritionally and eliminate the problem of people trading their SNAP benefits for cash or non-SNAP items like alcohol. Since it's Trump everyone will go ballistic and call it Food Fascism or something
>putting SNAP recipients into uncomfortable positions by having their food selected for them that will incentivize finding work that puts them over the poverty line to where they can choose their own food again
did you just suggest that people be punished for being poor?
>lel, you can choose your own food when you be a good boy (pic related)
>[new idea will help people in food deserts]
>by shipping them a box of dry staples commonly found in food deserts
the best thing a welfare policy can do for an individual is help them get off it
self sufficiency is liberating and empowering and I think its bad policy to have programs intended to help in times of hardship make it a comfortable norm, it should get you by not ease you along
>not getting to choose what free food they get
>punishment
Also, yes. I wish we would tax those who dont make enough, would be a great incentive to work harder.
>people on snap can't get pizza at 711 anymore
OH NO
In concept, I like this. I feel like it's going to make it harder to exploit the "food stamps" program. I'm worried it'll cost the taxpayers more, and you know it's going to become part of the democratic campaign for the next election to reverse this the same way Trump is working to remove Obama care.
this can only be a rousing success
>Arbeit macht frei
etc.
>government managed anything
They can't handle a postage system.
They'll just dig a deeper money-pit. The few people that actually need it will be the ones that suffer the most, followed by those whose money is supporting them.
>no more coupon queens spending hours in the grocery line buying ten carts worth of groceries for 5 dollars
can only be a good thing.
article said he's gonna let states figure it out themselves, mostly by sucking fedex' dick
The USPS is dying because it's a thing of the past and no longer needed. We have virtual paper mail, and corporations for packages. I hope trump does away with it.
i'm quitting my job tomorrow so I can make sure I'm first in line for government issued trump steaks
USPS has been dying since the 00's and the .net. The biggest problem is they never changed their infrastructure, always worked for the government to back them up on shit, have a no competition attitude, and never worked directly with internet companies on shipping like others did
usps is dying because of private shipping companies paid lobbyists
no other reason.
Also why should you get to use my hard earned tax dollars for 711 pizza and ice cream sandwiches when I spend my hard earned money on American grown vegetables? If you want to eat poop then get a job and buy it your self.
What are they lobbying for?
how could any grocery chain be okay with this?
rollingstone.com
here's babies first article, I can't be arsed to find you more. You can do it yourself by literally googling "USPS + Lobbyists"
Is the grocery store lobby some legislative juggernaut or something? It seems like everyone focuses on that
probably better than getting sheboons in every day robbing them blind
>dude, nazis
comparing free food to a concentration camp. i hate you
>take away people's access to fresh fruits and vegetables will surely make them eat healthier
I read that one already. They have to prepay benefits because when the USPS closes in 5 or 6 more years those people who have already earned those benefits will need to receive thier benefits rather than the post office blowing it on retard schemes that wont work.
Also > the rolling stone
Pfffftttt
yeah I am sure negros buy fresh fruit and vegetables with their government money
nbcnews.com
>I read that one already.
then why did you ask you faggot
>didn't read the rest of your post
I'm sure they'll have the option now that they're receiving a box of sand and twigs
Haha your socialist program is gonna die so that coporations and replace and improve upon it.
>items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish
aka civilian mres
I think SNAP/EBT needs some rework not sure if this is the best way to go about it, but at least it does get people talking about it.
Stuff like this is infuriating, especially when I was working a low paying job just too much for EBT, but had to deal with others getting crab legs, shrimp, or other stuff there was no hope I could afford. The classifications of what is sold needs to be readdressed.
>mres
do you even know what the R stands for?
Most food stamps recipients don't stay on food stamps for longer than a year
Having a shitty system in place for people who need help doesn't make sense if the goal is to help them
to be fair, the ingredients you would need to buy to make a large pizza from scratch would cost at least that much.
This is good.
Old SNAP:
>people buy all their food on the first of the month
>buy tons of soda, candy, unhealthy shit
>complain about not having enough because you didn't budget your groceries
>people can buy almost whatever they want
>fat epidemic increases
>no incentive to get a job and get off SNAP
New SNAP
>first of the month doesn't have the dregs of society packing into groceries store
>you get healthy food now
>fighting obesity epidemic
>you want unhealthy food? Buy it yourself.
>don't like free healthy food? Get off SNAP, you parasite.
Learn to help your self.
ready, meals ready to eat
why?
Getting all food staples including vegetables and meats sounds superior to eating half your meals at 7-11
Do you have any figures or numbers for people who spend money at 7-11?
>most recipients don't stay on food stamps for a year
they are helping themselves, but it doesn't make sense to say they don't need help if they meet the requirements for government assisted funds
>meat, poultry or fish
that means caned tuna and trump steak, right?
better, do you have figures or numbers for the amount of government rations that end up in landfills?
There are tons of articles on every main stream news web sites concerning "food deserts" and other poverty associated nutritional deprivation and a huge portion of impoverished people have a hard time going to a proper grocery store or market so a huge portion of SNAP money is spent at convenience stores and especially Dollar General
Not punished. Just not supported enough to get to choose exactly what they want with other people's money. When you spend your own money you can be picky about the fancy food you want. How are you being punished for getting something you didn't pay for in the first place? Its like saying someone got 'punished' for getting a 50 cent raise when they were expecting (but not entitled to) an dollar raise.
>There are tons of articles on every main stream news web sites concerning "food deserts"
usually focusing on the lack of "fresh vegatables"
and not on the lack of shelf stable staples (including canned vegetables and meat)
fns-prod.azureedge.net
Studies show that Food stamps households are just as unhealthy as the rest of America
That means that the problem isn't specifically with Food Stamp households, but the whole of America
Most of those people are upper middle class
the USPS is only in debt because of Congress forcing them to fund their pensions for 75 years within 10 years of the law passing in 2011, an unreasonable requirement.
Dollar general and corner stores are great places to buy cuts of meat and fish. The fruit and veggie selection rivals Whole Foods or a local farmers market.
They're still getting help. In fact more help, now they'll be recieving healthy American made foods rather than succumbing to the addiction of sugars available at the supermarket.
please don't lie on the internet
The best way to sell it is for Trump to say the idea was inspired by Michelle Obama. It may quiet the inevitable caterwauling
He's right bro I get great deals on fresh meat and fish at the dollar tree and 5 below! -Pic related
>nbcnews.com
Nobody said pizza is a vegetable, that was just a meme by people who didn't read any articles or actually understand what was being discussed. It's just saying if there's enough tomato sauce on a pizza to be considered a serving of vegetables, then consider it a serving of vegetables. There probably isn't, but nobody tried to say pizza is a vegetable.
But it's not a solution that benefits everyone equally
The boxes will assuredly not take into account various factors like dietary needs, caloric needs, or even storage needs
The idea behind food stamps is to help people live their normal lives while they get back on track, why treat them any differently?
I generally am cautious about central governmemt planning, but after working at Walmart and seeing people buy shopping carts full of junk food (and nothing else) for their kids with food stamps, hopefully this will allow kids in poverty to actually eat healthily instead of their dumb parents turning them into nutritionally-stunted landwhales from the cradle.
I dont think we know enough yet to make that assumption. Parents with new born kids or expecting are eligible for WIC in Texas that is based on nutrients. Who's to says it won't be nutrient based?
>the plan is going to cost less overall and is probably going to be more nutritionally dense than what most SNAP recipients buy
Good.
Food stamps are a fucking scam and a waste of the tax payers dollar.
We don't know enough, but the current administration isn't doing the best job of anything so far
I seriously doubt that this will fix any real problems
The flaws of food stamps/SNAP are often overplayed, this plan doesn't really do anything except reallocate a little bit of money away from the plan
This. The fact is that most chronically poor people remain poor because they're not exactly great at making decisions. This isn't neccesarily all on them, as if you grew up in poverty or had a system against you, you probably didn't learn the best life management skills. But regardless of whose fault it is the point still stands, so of course poor people aren't going to do the best job of budgeting their foods if they can't budget their lives. Sometimes you need someone to step in and make good decisions when you're not able to yourself. Getting a steady supply of healthy staple foods is far from the worst tough love you could get.
>various factors like dietary needs, caloric needs, or even storage needs
The fuck are you on about? "Caloric needs?" Nobody needs more then 2,000 calories a day, period. "Dietary needs?" I assume you mean allergies, because taxpayers aren't going to pay for your vegan/Paleo hipster diet. And storage? What do you mean? You can't keep a gallon of milk in your fridge? You can't eat some carrots within a month?
These are all non-issues. What you should be worried about are getting non-rotten fruit and veggies, not where you're going to keep them or if they fit your diet, you moron.
people on SNAP buy basically the same goods as people not on SNAP
it's not a problem with poor people, it's a problem with Americans
Giving poor people better food doesn't solve the obesity epidemic nor does it discourage them from trying to get off the program
>Nobody needs more then 2,000 calories a day, period.
Most adults need more than that, particularly if they aren't lazy slobs
>"Dietary needs?" I assume you mean allergies
There are plenty of lactose intolerant people who could use something other than milk
There are plenty of people who could use specific foods that the box might not have
Poor people experience allergies at the same rate that rich people do
Instead of forcing people to take one box of food for a month, most of which will probably go bad within 2 weeks, why not let people buy food that fits their lifestyle
Not everyone has a fridge, or a house
>NO FRILLS
>Most adults need more than that
t. Obese
>Giving poor people better food doesn't solve the obesity epidemic
Except that the epidemic is caused by people eating shitty food.
>people on SNAP buy basically the same goods as people not on SNAP
So you're complaining that under this program poor people would actually be eating better than better-off people? Because I really don't see the issue.
That is not true at all.
I bet any cashier or bagger could tell who's on SNAP just by looking at their cart.
...
A free box of food from the government shouldn't be enough to live comfortably on. It should be enough to stay ALIVE. Life is all you need in america to get a job, work hard, and better your life so that you can AFFORD to buy the food that fits their lifestyle, and a fridge to put it in.
t. manlet/woman.
>t. Obese
cnpp.usda.gov
>Except that the epidemic is caused by people eating shitty food.
yes, but it's a problem with all americans, not poor ones
If you want to solve the obesity problem, forcing change upon one socioeconomic class isn't a solution
>So you're complaining that under this program poor people would actually be eating better than better-off people
If the box is actually a good thing, that provides more than enough nutrient dense foods, then they would be eating better
But there's literally no guarantee that it will be anything good, nutritious, and that it meets the needs for every household
Can confirm, "guess if they're on food stamps" was one of the little games I played to get me through the days at my miserable job. Sounds terrible, but retail jobs are one of the most sure-fire ways to turn you into a cynical misanthrope.
I never said that they should be living comfortably on the box of food
I'm saying that the box of food might not even be what it's promising to be
>Most adults need more than that.
No they don't. The only exception are body builders and marathon runners. If you eat more than 2,000 calories a day you are fat.
I'm sure the government won't be giving out milk to the lactose intolerant or peanuts to people who are deathly allergic.
>Buy food that fits their lifestyle.
You don't get to have a lifestyle. You're on government handouts. Your lifestyle should be shame.
>If you want to solve the obesity problem, forcing change upon one socioeconomic class isn't a solution
It certainly is a solution for that socioeconomic class, who are statistically the most obese
>But there's literally no guarantee that it will be anything good, nutritious, and that it meets the needs for every household
I guarantee that whatever it is it will be better than what they're currently buying
>No they don't.
cnpp.usda.gov
>I'm sure the government won't be giving out milk to the lactose intolerant or peanuts to people who are deathly allergic.
Hopefully, but it doesn't sound like the harvest box approach is one that lets you pick and choose what goes in your household's box
>It certainly is a solution for that socioeconomic class, who are statistically the most obese
Not even
The best way to get people to stop doing something is to teach them to stop doing it
>I guarantee that whatever it is it will be better than what they're currently buying
No you can't
I bet you overestimate your activity, you're more than likely sedentary
Literally the first result on Google, which I'm sure you ignored.
>What should my daily intake of calories be? Within a healthy, balanced diet, a man needs around 10,500kJ (2,500kcal) a day to maintain his weight. For a woman, that figure is around 8,400kJ (2,000kcal) a day. These values can vary depending on age, metabolism and levels of physical activity, among other things.
From NHS.uk
>The best way to sell it is for Trump to say the idea was inspired by Michelle Obama
I could see Trump doing this, the cognitive dissonance on the left would be delicious.
>cnpp.usda.gov
>Male, Age 21-25, Sedentary
>2,400 calories
Also, Moderately active just means you do the equivalent of walking 2 miles daily
I'm posting results from the USDA, which is the organization behind Trump's Harvest Box
If we're going to use any data, why the fuck would it not be the USDA's own fucking data?
But tomatoes aren't a vegetable. They're a fruit.
Different government organizations classify things differently for tax purposes
You're a fruit, who's counting?
Not unreasonable. They're going out and need to fund pensions for when thier workers get laid off. They literally want to waste workers pensions on attempting yo keep themselves afloat with ridiculous ideas that don't work. They already cost tax payers $18 billion in subsidiaries. Let them die, faster the better
there's literally nothing wrong with government cheese
Why not just make it so that you need to show identification tied to your EBT card to use it, therefore eliminating people trading it/selling it and then putting more restrictions on what they can buy?
I used to work for the usps. Most of us we paid so little we were on SNAP.
USPS is incredibly incompetent, but they also kinda get shafted by having to contract out to other companies to ship via plane
>SNAP, which supports roughly one in eight Americans, by reducing cash spending by about one-third from current levels.
we wuz first wurld
>It would give all households receiving more than $90 a month in cash a food-aid package that would "include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish,"
This boosts domestic producers while slimming workshy slobs. Double win, so long as the system isn't gamed (it will be)
I have many friends who work for the USPS and they get paid around $25 an hour which if you Google. Is the average. That means some people make more than that.
You're actually supposed to but no one enforces it before kids get food for home with thier parents card
>Land of the free
Unless you are poor, then you are told what to eat by the state.
>Poor people are lazy
Wow, I don't say this often but you need Jesus.