Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Trump administration is thinking inside the box. President Donald Trump wants to drastically scale back food stamps and replace them with a "food box" delivery program -- like Blue Apron.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters on Monday about the plan by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to redesign the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) as "America's Harvest Box." Under the plan, more than 16 million households would have half of their benefits go toward the food box delivery program.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Ridiculous on it's face. Oh can you say highly processed foods?? I knew you could.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 04:58 PM | Reply

Ridiculous? Why? Food Stamps is supposed to be for FOOD. And Blue Apron isn't bad food. What's wrong?

Beggers cant be choosy..

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 05:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Matthew 25 verses 35 through 45

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 05:45 PM | Reply

--Oh can you say highly processed foods?? I knew you could.

You know nothing about blue apron.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-13 05:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

So the party that doesn't want the government making your health care choices wants the government making your dinner choices.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-13 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

A 300 lb piss guzzler making dietary decisions....what could go wrong?

#6 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2018-02-13 05:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

- You know nothing about blue apron.

You know nothing about the actual proposal. Blue Apron doesn't send their customers a bunch of cheap canned foods.

"The Trump administration is proposing a major shake-up in one of the country's most important "safety net" programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Under the proposal, most SNAP recipients would lose much of their ability to choose the food they buy with their SNAP benefits.

The proposal is included in the Trump administration budget request for fiscal year 2019. It would require approval from Congress.

Under the proposal, which was announced Monday, low-income Americans who receive at least $90 a month -- just over 80 percent of all SNAP recipients -- would get about half of their benefits in the form of a "USDA Foods package."

The package was described in the budget as consisting of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables."

www.npr.org

Another way to reduce safety net costs; kill off the users with highly processed foods.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Another way to reduce safety net costs; kill off the users with highly processed foods.

Or, they could pay for their own foods.

Imagine that.

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--"shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables."

Sounds exactly what my working-class family "endured" when the breadwinner was laid off from a defense contractor for a year or so.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-13 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or, they could pay for their own foods.

Imagine that.

Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:04 PM | Reply

If they could do so they would.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 06:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Or, they could pay for their own foods.

Imagine that.

#8 | Posted by boaz

Or they could come and steal yours.

Imagine that!

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-13 06:09 PM | Reply

"Let them eat high salt canned goods and drive up health care costs!" - Princess Nulli Boaz Antoinette the First

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

"Or, they could pay for their own foods." - #8 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 06:04 PM

Or they could pay for their own foods with their government-issued welfare check.

Like you do, pfc. boazotoes©.

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or they could come and steal yours.

they are welcome to try....and accept the consequences.

Why do you liberals always resort to violence when you don't get something for free?

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:30 PM | Reply

Nothing but insults from the intelligence desert named "Hans".

As usual.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing but insults from the intelligence desert named "Hans".

As usual.

Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:32 PM | Reply

It's better than anything that you've come up with to date. That's for sure.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Nothing but insults..." - #15 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 06:32 PM

I wanted to keep it at your level, pfc. boazotoes©

As usual.

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 06:34 PM | Reply

Thanks, Laura. :-)

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 06:35 PM | Reply

Laura,

You get defensive whenever someone offers a counter to your worldview.

You talk about people picking on you. You talk about people degrading you. You react with glee when Hans throws his unprovoked insults at me, never even arguing or engaging in debate.

I've defended you before from people like Hans, many years ago, on this website...

You sicken me.."Laura"

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:42 PM | Reply

How is this a bad idea. It's pretty clear by the number of obese poor that they're not making good choices on what they eat. And while I would agree that the government telling someone who is self-sufficient what kind of food they're allowed to procure...that's not the case here. This is the government taking necessary steps to provide the right things for people when they can't or won't do so on their own.

And Corky has a good point about the lack of fresh fruit...but as I understand it only half of the money would be going to the food box program. The rest could be used at a grocery store.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-13 06:44 PM | Reply

You get defensive whenever someone offers a counter to your worldview.

You talk about people picking on you. You talk about people degrading you. You react with glee when Hans throws his unprovoked insults at me, never even arguing or engaging in debate.

I've defended you before from people like Hans, many years ago, on this website...

You sicken me.."Laura"

Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:42 PM | Reply

You say you defended me yet you still call me a man. Some defense Sir.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Or they could pay for their own foods with their government-issued welfare check."

There are many junior military members who would likely prefer a food box over what is offered in your average chow hall.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-13 06:45 PM | Reply

#21,

I have come around, and I haven't called you a man lately. I've resigned to not calling you that. You do anger me with your reciting verses, but you conveniently avoid verses condemning your lifestyle.

People have said a lot worse about you and you know it.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 06:49 PM | Reply

Oh and let's not forget the time when I thought they should take Kim Davis for all she had and you telling me I should back off that there's a war coming and we're coming for people like you. Where was the support then Boaz???

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've defended you before from people like Hans, many years ago, on this website..." - #19 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Now Comes the Part Where We Throw Our Heads Back and Laugh!

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 06:56 PM | Reply

"I have come around, and I haven't called you a man lately. I've resigned to not calling you that." - #23 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 06:49 PM

You just call her ...

"You sicken me.."Laura" - #19 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 06:42 PM
The quote marks around Laura are a cute touch, pfc. boazotoes©.

Real resignation.

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 06:59 PM | Reply

Whatever. You two follow me from thread to thread and do nothing but troll.

I don't understand why RCADE doesn't do something about you.

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 07:01 PM | Reply

Blue Apron starts at $11 a meal per person. Let's calculate two meals a day, for a family of four, for a week.

11*2*4*7= $616 a week or $2464 a month.

How much does it cost to provide food stamps?

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-13 07:12 PM | Reply

Whatever. You two follow me from thread to thread and do nothing but troll.

I don't understand why RCADE doesn't do something about you.

Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 07:01 PM | Reply

Sorry but I don't troll. I suck at fishing. No patience.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-13 07:21 PM | Reply

Yes, Laura, you do troll.

For the last few months, you go into every thread I create, you don't comment on the thread, you usually comment on me. The same thing Hans and the other trolls do.

And if I respond, I get banned.

You are becoming a bully Laura and you are hiding behind your trans status to avoid any punch back.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-13 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Boaz- I regretfully have to agree with your assessment in post 30.

#31 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-02-13 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why do you liberals always resort to violence when you don't get something for free?

#14 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Why do you always resort to saying dumb things on every thread?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-13 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Sorry but I don't troll. I suck at fishing. No patience.
#29 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Pro tip: trolling aint fishing .....

#28 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

As Corky said read the proposal ....

As a BlueApron user I can attest to it being good and of high quality, I enjoy the process and the recipes are fantastic.

What Trump is suggesting is incredibly brilliant.

1. The goods would be delivered to those that need it, and don't have transportation.
Remember all those poor people that cant drive themselves to the polls or get an ID this is perfect for them.

2. We know that the money spent will be spent on sustenance, and not exchanged directly for whatever it is exchanged for gambling or whatever.

3. Choose products that are American "certified", making America stronger, literally and figuratively.

4. People could select from a menu of available in season goods. It would employ hundreds if not thousands of Americans to help Americans.

I love this idea, there is no denying Trump is a stable genius.


#33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-13 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...there is no denying Trump is a stable genius." - #33 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-13 07:48 PM

"Blue Apron starts at $11 a meal per person. Let's calculate two meals a day, for a family of four, for a week.

11*2*4*7= $616 a week or $2464 a month." - #28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-13 07:12 PM

Oops.

So much for "stable genius."

#34 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 07:54 PM | Reply

#30 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-02-13 07:39 PM

You have no problem dishing it out with your "liberals are bad" and "real Americans" trolling, pfc. boazotoes©

Then you cry like a little girl when it is served right back at you.

Poor pfc. boazotoes©.

#35 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-13 08:00 PM | Reply

"about what can be bought with the benefits. Alcohol, household items and pet food, among other items, cannot be purchased."

--------! folks will trade their "stamps" in for $.x on the dollar then go buy what they want

#36 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-02-13 08:10 PM | Reply

what's really f*cked up is the our Gov. spends our Tax money to advertise to get people in to apply!

#37 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-02-13 08:12 PM | Reply

what's really f*cked up is the our Gov. spends our Tax money to advertise to get people in to apply!

#37 | Posted by Maverick

They also use your tax money to make the NFL praise the military during every game as if they're all courageous muscular saints who cured cancer.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-02-13 08:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Instead, lower-income families who get more than $90 in SNAP benefits a month would receive something called "America's Harvest Box," items such as canned meat, noodles, juice and shelf-stable milk that the government would buy at wholesale prices.

Canned meat would be something like canned tuna, chicken, Spam? Shelf-stable milk would be powdered milk? So, IOW, not anything like Blue Apron.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-13 08:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

--------! folks will trade their "stamps" in for $.x on the dollar then go buy what they want

"According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own report, the rate of food stamp trafficking has actually gone down in recent years, reaching just 1.5% in 2017, largely due to the more-secure EBT cards."

time.com

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-13 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#40 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Facts will not get in the way of they're narrative. Never had never will.

"like Blue Apron" Lol. Fake news!

#41 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-02-13 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think there could end up being a lot of waste in this "America's Harvest Box" plan. I can foresee people getting food items they don't like and won't eat. How many people, especially kids, would eat Spam even if they were hungry? Too much salt (canned veggies) and food allergies would be another concern (peanut butter, MSG).

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-13 09:01 PM | Reply

Proposed Food Stamp Cuts Would Hit Military Families

www.military.com

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-13 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

send them K-rations. uh-huh. like the prisoners they are.

#44 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-02-13 09:18 PM | Reply

They also use your tax money to make the NFL praise the military during every game as if they're all courageous muscular saints who cured cancer.

#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-02-13 08:19 PM | FLAG: Fine, let's go back to the draft then we do not have to spend money trying to attract people to join the military ;)

#45 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-02-13 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-02-13 08:19 PM | FLAG: Fine, let's go back to the draft then we do not have to spend money trying to attract people to join the military ;)
#45 | Posted by MSgt

How bout instead, we just reduce the military. Win-Win.

#46 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-13 09:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

send them K-rations. uh-huh. like the prisoners they are.

#44 | POSTED BY ICHIRO

K rations are too good for these lazy ne'er do goods.

K rations have chewing gum and toilet paper and even dessert.

They can't have any pudding until they get a job!

A box of bread and water and gubmint cheese is all they need to lay on the couch and watch tv and make free calls on their Obama phones.

If they get a job then maybe they can graduate to MREs.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-13 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What Trump is suggesting is incredibly brilliant.

I love this idea, there is no denying Trump is a stable genius.

#33 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

There is no denying that mAndrea was born on third base with a silver foot in his mouth.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 10:05 PM | Reply

"As a BlueApron user I can attest to it being good and of high quality, I enjoy the process and the recipes are fantastic. "

We've been doing BA for over a year and we love it too, but you'd have to be crazy to equate Blue Apron to "shelf-stable" food; it's the spectral opposite. SNAP recipients won't get the type of healthy, nutritious food BA delivers, they'll get over-processed, over-salted, high-fat crap.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-13 10:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49

Exactly.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 10:58 PM | Reply

There's a pretty big gulf between "Blue Apron" and "Blue Apron Type."

Last time I saw Blue Apron you need a few pots and pans and staple ingredients.
Blue Apron on a desert island is going to suck.

If this is done right I could support it. EBT just turns grocery stores into a profit-taking middleman and by virtue of consumer choice it doesn't necessarily meet the goal of supplementing nutrition. Also, this is exactly the type of thing you should pilot to see if it works.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Last time I saw Blue Apron you need a few pots and pans and staple ingredients.

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Pots and pans, yes. But other than that everything else is included.

My apologies for comment #41. They're = their and had = has. I'm sure most translated it properly though.

I would support an idea such as this if it worked with local (urban or otherwise)farmers that offered solid, healthier offerings. Unfortunately many caught in the cycle of poverty and poor diets might not quite value or utilize fresh produce and healthier options as much as I would like to imagine.

I will not pretend this is a easily solvable situation.

#52 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-02-13 11:43 PM | Reply

I also like the idea of grants for community garden projects in areas considered food deserts. Participating in the growing might contribute to the appreciating of the product.

#53 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-02-13 11:43 PM | Reply

That being said, this will almost certainly not be done right.
Canned vegetables? Blue Apron has fresh vegetables.
Typical Trump lie.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 11:44 PM | Reply

"I would support an idea such as this if it worked with local (urban or otherwise)farmers that offered solid, healthier offerings."

Yes, more options like this:

SNAP and Farmers Markets

www.fns.usda.gov

farmersmarketcoalition.org

It seems like various states have this option (just picking 2 examples):

www.nhfoodbank.org

snaptomarket.com

How 'Double Bucks' For Food Stamps Conquered Capitol Hill

www.npr.org

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#55 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

For some reason newsworthy does not register with my android phone, so NEWSWORTHY.

#56 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-02-14 01:34 AM | Reply

i'm sorry ppl need to shop, any way you like, for their own food.
food stamps should be triple what they are, and/or a ubi, on and on.

the altRight's ideas are completely anathema to righteous self-direction.

#57 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-02-14 04:05 AM | Reply

"food stamps should be triple what they are, and/or a ubi, on and on."

As well as being expanded to include alcohol and tobacco sales. What right does the taxpayer have to set limits on how a recipient spends the tax dollars someone else earned.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-14 07:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People need to shop? WTH?
Yea with their own money!

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-14 07:46 AM | Reply

This is a hilarious thread.
The right-wingers embracing central planning at a level even Communist Russia and China wouldn't go.

#60 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-14 07:58 AM | Reply

except for Boaz.
He's sticking with a Marie-Antoinette theme.

#61 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-14 07:59 AM | Reply

If Trump really wants to save money eliminate Medicare and SNAP. Then build Soylent Green factories and create jobs.

#62 | Posted by patron at 2018-02-14 08:02 AM | Reply

#62 - and finally implement those death panels!

#63 | Posted by YAV at 2018-02-14 08:03 AM | Reply

He's sticking with a Marie-Antoinette theme.

Educate yourself. Marie-Antoinette never said that. That was just left-wing revolutionaries trying to create a boogy man and they succeeded.
What happened in the end? Everyone was just as poor as everyone else..

#64 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-14 08:16 AM | Reply

Poor BOAZ, backs himself into a corner and flails away.
But that's what happens when you've got nothing.
Keeping pace with the changing Party Line is hard werk.

#65 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2018-02-14 08:33 AM | Reply

So the party that doesn't want the government making your health care choices wants the government making your dinner choices.

#5 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2018-02-13 05:50 PM | FLAG:

And the party that does want the government in charge of healthcare, wants people to be able to use their food stamps on coca-cola and frozen pizza.

This thread is incredibly funny.

#66 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 08:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Republican logic: we'll pay a bunch of people to buy crappy food, a bunch more to pack said food, a bunch more to ship said food and expect it to be cheaper than electronically depositing the funds into a person's EBT card.

Oh yeah and if we force people on food stamps to eat pasta and canned fruit every month they will suddenly become thin and their diabetes will go away

#67 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:17 AM | Reply

"Oh yeah and if we force people on food stamps to eat pasta and canned fruit every month they will suddenly become thin and their diabetes will go away"

Actually your diet recommendations would make their diabetes get worse.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 09:44 AM | Reply

The USDA tracks and analyzes what SNAP benefits are actually spent on. SNAP recipients spent more money -- more than $1.9 billion total -- on sweetened beverages, frozen prepared foods, desserts, high-fat dairy, and salty snacks than they did on fruits, vegetables, milk, bread, and crackers, which totaled nearly $1.4 billion. The second largest expenditure for SNAP households was sweetened beverages, whereas the second largest expenditure for non-SNAP households was vegetables. The NYTimes reports that the No. 1 purchases by SNAP households are soft drinks.
Please stop pretending that SNAP purchasers make healthy decisions with the money they have been given. If you truly believe that the end result of a healthier populace should be the goal, then limiting the choices of those SNAP purchasers to healthy choices will provide a 2-fold benefit. First it would provide actual healthy food to the people most in need of it. Secondly, it would eliminate much of the Right's 'welfare boogeyman' claims of people selling/trading their SNAP entitlements for drugs.

Hell, if you are so concerned, take the remaining 50% of the after-food-box funds and convert it to a WIC type system where only fruit/veg/whole-grains can be purchased.

I'm all for people being able to make their own choices with their own money. I'm also all for people getting the help that they need. I am ALSO for the help being given to people really being the help that they need, nutritious and cost-effective food.

#69 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd rather see them prevent SNAP recipients from buying soft drinks instead of sending them the food boxes they are proposing, unless those food boxes really are somewhat like Blue Apron boxes.

#70 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 10:32 AM | Reply

Government Cheese, The Second Helping.

#71 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 10:38 AM | Reply

#69 It looks like SNAP recipients like vegetables more than fruit:

"SNAP households spent 7.2 percent of their money on vegetables, while non-SNAP households spent 9.1 percent of their grocery money on this category of food. When comparing fruit purchases, the gap widens slightly: SNAP households spent 4.7 percent on fruits, and non-SNAP households spent an averages of 7.2 percent in the same category."

I wonder what those percentage differences translates into in terms of actual food? I also wonder if maybe folks not on food stamps buy higher quality fruits and veggies, which makes the cost of those products higher. IOW, might both groups be buying a similar amount of fruits and veggies but the non-food stamp people are spending more on those products, which makes their percentage higher?

#72 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 10:47 AM | Reply

On the surface, I find this to be a good idea. They should go a step further and hook up folks on SNAP with farm shares delivering fresh organic produce and dairy.
On the other hand, expect the Trump Admin. to handle this about as well as they handled the contracts for rebuilding PR. The program will be handled by a company run by one of Trump's cronies with no experience or ability.

#73 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-02-14 10:49 AM | Reply

This from the site that Avigdore's link links to (bold mine):

Differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households were relatively limited, regardless of how data were categorized.

• About 40 cents of every food purchase dollar was spent on basic items like meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread.

• Another 20 cents was spent on sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar.

• The remaining 40 cents was spent on a variety of items such as cereal, prepared foods, other dairy products, rice, beans, and other cooking ingredients.

• The top 10 summary categories (Table 1) and top 7 commodities by expenditure were the same for SNAP and non-SNAP households, although ranked in slightly different orders.

fns-prod.azureedge.net

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 10:53 AM | Reply

More from that link (bold theirs). Notice that basically there isn't that much difference in the buying habits of both groups:

Summary category data show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households focused their spending in a relatively small number of similar food item categories, reflecting similar food choices. The top five summary categories totaled about half of the expenditures for SNAP households and non-SNAP households (50 versus 47 percent).

Commodity-level data (in the full report) show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

• Across all households, more money was spent on soft drinks than any other item. SNAP households spent somewhat more on soft drinks than non-SNAP households (5 versus 4 percent).

• Both household groups were equally likely to purchase salty (bag) snacks (about 3 percent of food purchases), cookies (about 1 percent), and ice cream, ice milk, and sherbet (about 1 percent).

#75 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 10:59 AM | Reply

How much did ,"Blue Apron " give to Dotard campaign. Not a terrible idea, for once, but people will get sick of borscht and caviar real quick.or it might be pay back to Schrutte bet farm.

#76 | Posted by zelkova at 2018-02-14 11:01 AM | Reply

Beet farm

#77 | Posted by zelkova at 2018-02-14 11:02 AM | Reply

"SNAP households spent 7.2 percent of their money on vegetables, while non-SNAP households spent 9.1 percent of their grocery money on this category of food. When comparing fruit purchases, the gap widens slightly: SNAP households spent 4.7 percent on fruits, and non-SNAP households spent an averages of 7.2 percent in the same category."
I wonder what those percentage differences translates into in terms of actual food? I also wonder if maybe folks not on food stamps buy higher quality fruits and veggies, which makes the cost of those products higher. IOW, might both groups be buying a similar amount of fruits and veggies but the non-food stamp people are spending more on those products, which makes their percentage higher?

#72 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-02-14 10:47 AM | REPLY

The reason they buy more vegetables than fruit is price. If I am trying to stretch my food dollars and I have the choice of buying 5 oranges for $2.50 or a 5# bag of carrots for the same $2.50 guess what the kids are crunching carrots.

#78 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 11:06 AM | Reply

It is also important to note in that study that some of the items listed as being bought by food stamps may in fact have been bought with cash by food stamp recipients:

"In transactions made with both SNAP and cash or credit cards, these data could not differentiate between items purchased with SNAP benefits and those purchased with other funds. The data, therefore, represent food purchases made by SNAP households rather than the foods purchased specifically with SNAP. (Most SNAP households use a combination of benefits and their own funds.)"

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 11:11 AM | Reply

#69 When you dig down into the actual study data, you discover The Federalist analysis is disinformation in many ways.

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 11:14 AM | Reply

The data is the only factual information. After that we have a lot of asumptions and conjecture. Nobody thinks that maybe non-snap purchasers spend slightly more on vegetables is because they can afford the $2/lb bagged baby cut carrots while the snap purchaser buys $.50/lb whole carrots.

There is a wide range of pricing and selection even in the produce aisle. Dollars spent on vegetables does not translate directly to amount purchased. I can buy a crap ton of vegetables at one table for the same price some people pay for a few out of season organic veggies on the next table. I can get a head of lettuce, a head of cabbage, a bag of carrots, a bag of onions, abag of radishes, and a stalk of celery for the same price as 4 ears of organic sweet corn.

#81 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#69 When you dig down into the actual study data, you discover The Federalist analysis is disinformation in many ways. - #80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 11:14 AM

The intention of my #69 was to show that many (most?) people being paid by the government to supplement their food intake aren't making good and healthy choices now. The fact that Americans as a whole also do not make good and healthy choices is not a valid reason for the government to spend taxpayer dollars to continue and exacerbate that trend. People's claims above such as 'can you say highly processed foods', ' kill off the users with highly processed foods', and 'Let them eat high salt canned goods and drive up health care costs' are lying by omission. They are pretending that SNAP benefits aren't already being used to purchase the very foods that they are decrying. This change to SNAP benefits could have a positive impact on the lives of those who suffer from inadequate nutrition, but still maintain adequate caloric intake (fat and unhealthy). It can also help to mitigate the impact of food deserts.

No comment above has presented a rational counterpoint to this recommendation other than misinformation about the quality of pre vs post change food.

#82 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 11:39 AM | Reply

"The intention of my #69 was to show that many (most?) people being paid by the government to supplement their food intake aren't making good and healthy choices now. The fact that Americans as a whole also do not make good and healthy choices is not a valid reason for the government to spend taxpayer dollars to continue and exacerbate that trend."

The thing is the study doesn't prove SNAP recipients are using government money to make poor food choices:

"In transactions made with both SNAP and cash or credit cards, these data could not differentiate between items purchased with SNAP benefits and those purchased with other funds. The data, therefore, represent food purchases made by SNAP households rather than the foods purchased specifically with SNAP. (Most SNAP households use a combination of benefits and their own funds.)"

Let's say I'm a military spouse and I purchase $125's worth of food at the store, and I use $100 of food stamps and $25 of my own money. The food stamps could be purchasing meat, milk, cereal, fruits and veggies, and my $25 could be purchasing soda, chips, dessert and other snacks. My money, my choice, right? Don't I have just as much right to use my money on foolish food choices as anybody else?

#83 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 11:48 AM | Reply

#83 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 11:48 AM
Certainly you do. You have every right to use your money to make your purchases.
With the new plan, you still can use your $25 to make foolish choices if you like, but the tax-payer would not subsidize MORE poor food choices that you make. Instead you'll have $25 of non-nutritious food (if that is your choice), and $100 from a Program that will Assist you by Supplementing you with some Nutritious food. My argument remains the same if SNAP purchasers make equal to the choices of those not being subsidized. If SNAP is being used to buy the same crap that the average American eats, we should encourage better choices. We care about the health of the people we are helping feed. We care about the health-care bills that will arise. We care that children are getting adequate nutrition to learn properly in school. We also care that the price-tag is as controlled as it can be.

#84 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 12:01 PM | Reply

"We care about the health of the people we are helping feed. We care about the health-care bills that will arise. We care that children are getting adequate nutrition to learn properly in school. We also care that the price-tag is as controlled as it can be."

Yeah, sure you do. That's why you applaud cutting the program by 22%.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 12:13 PM | Reply

I want to know who will be boxing the food, delivering the food, choosing the foods. I suspect this is just another attempt to privatize food stamps and allow corporations to rake a good portion off the top for the "services" of choosing, boxing and delivering.

#86 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That's why you applaud cutting the program by 22%. - #85 | Posted by Danni at 2018-02-14 12:13 PM

Citation, or do you think that it is ok to just continue lying about me?

#87 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 12:22 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with this as a concept. It could be implemented horribly but I feel that this is a better way of helping people eat than simply giving them cash and a corner store.

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-14 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We care that children are getting adequate nutrition to learn properly in school.

Is that why Michelle Obama's school lunch program was so well supported?

#89 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-14 12:32 PM | Reply

--Is that why Michelle Obama's school lunch program was so well supported?

Probably didn't get much support because the tasteless menu was designed by granola-munching carrot-crunchers.

#90 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 12:40 PM | Reply

- granola-munching carrot-crunchers.

Poster shoots, skins, and stews his own brown kids right from the lawn.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 12:45 PM | Reply

Probably didn't get much support because the tasteless menu was designed by granola-munching carrot-crunchers.

#90 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 12:40 PM | Reply

Keep chewing those Slim Jims, Sonny, you'll be fine.

#92 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-14 12:45 PM | Reply

Is that why Michelle Obama's school lunch program was so well supported? - #89 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-14 12:32 PM

Are you pretending that they weren't?
A new poll by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation finds that most Americans support healthy meals for school kids under the standards set by the USDA and promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama.

86 percent polled believe these nutritional standards for school lunches should stay the same or be strengthened. Almost 70 percent of those polled believe that school meals are excellent or good, compared to 26 percent who believed that in 2010 before the USDA standards went into place.

#93 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 12:47 PM | Reply

--stews his own brown kids right from the lawn.

I don't have a lawn that's tended by brown kids like you guys in 99%-white Naples.

#94 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 01:01 PM | Reply

It could be implemented horribly...
#88 | POSTED BY JPW

In Trumpland, it most certainly will.

#95 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-02-14 01:26 PM | Reply

They also use your tax money to make the NFL praise the military during every game as if they're all courageous muscular saints who cured cancer.

#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-02-13 08:19 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1 | NEWSWORTHY 1

Stop posting, you are too stupid to add to the conversation.

#96 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-14 01:38 PM | Reply

This is a good idea, another would be to set up food pantries for recipients. I have seen so much abuse of the SNAP system or rather really dumb purchasing by some that this type of thing would help to cut waste which means more could actually benefit. Stand in line in a supermarket here and you can really see the abuse.

#97 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-14 01:42 PM | Reply

This is a good idea.

#97 | Posted by fishpaw

Well, that is good enough for me. Don't need to hear anymore.

Now I know for sure it will never happen.

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:49 PM | Reply

"and $100 from a Program that will Assist you by Supplementing you with some Nutritious food."

But the food being offered might not be as nutritious as some food stamp recipients are used to buying with the food stamps. That military spouse could just as easily be buying $125 of solid food purchases but will now be penalized for the poor food choices of other recipients. For example, if said military spouse regularly bought fresh fruits and veggies (rather than canned), she would now get the canned products she doesn't want (is likely not to use) and will also have less food stamps for the products she does want.

Like I said, I'd rather they banned certain foods (like soda, chips, cookies) than force all SNAP recipients to receive the so-called Blue Apron box. It's nothing but a PR stunt to call it that, btw.

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 01:57 PM | Reply

Like I said, I'd rather they banned certain foods (like soda, chips, cookies) than force all SNAP recipients to receive the so-called Blue Apron box. It's nothing but a PR stunt to call it that, btw.

#99 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I completely agree.

Why in the hell do we want bureaucrats dictating what recipients are provided to eat?

Like you said, give those who qualify the voucher, put a few restrictions on it and let the individual determine what food to purchase.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:00 PM | Reply

"We care about the health of the people we are helping feed. We care about the health-care bills that will arise. We care that children are getting adequate nutrition to learn properly in school. We also care that the price-tag is as controlled as it can be."

Well, then you can't support this American Harvest box proposal as it only attempts to address the last item on your list: "We also care that the price-tag is as controlled as it can be." No doubt there are some food stamp recipients who are making better food choices than a lot of Americans (with better health care outcomes), and now you propose to penalize them because of the poor food choices being made by other recipients.

#101 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 02:09 PM | Reply

"Citation, or do you think that it is ok to just continue lying about me?"

From the article the thread is based on:
"The Trump administration proposal could shake up the country's largest program designed to battle domestic hunger issues. The proposed budget, released Monday, would gut SNAP benefits by $17.2 billion in 2019, about 22 percent of the program's total cost last year."

#102 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 02:20 PM | Reply

Headline sucks. It is NOT a Blue-Apron type program.

BA delivers fresh local produce and high-end locally sourced proteins in pre-measured ingredient packages.

This will deliver the equivalent of the old cans you used to donate during your school's "food drive". That and powdered milk.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Notice that basically there isn't that much difference in the buying habits of both groups:

Except for where the money comes from to buy..

#104 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-14 02:28 PM | Reply

"It is NOT a Blue-Apron type program."

I saw on Facebook:
It's the same as the food handouts people get on the Res.
We have about a century of data on the impact of that diet.
Nutritionally it's a disaster.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"a Program that will Assist you by Supplementing you with some Nutritious food."

You're dreaming.

If you really want to get nutritious food to your local hungry, support your local gleaners and food pantries.

This is boxes of high-fat, high-salt, low nutrition crap, and chemicals mixed to seem like milk.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 02:39 PM | Reply

- I don't have a lawn that's tended by brown kids

Has undergrads polishing his tin foil hat collection in his Ivory Soap Tower.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 02:44 PM | Reply

If you really want to get nutritious food to your local hungry, support your local gleaners and food pantries.

#106 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I volunteered at a church food pantry/soup kitchen a few weeks ago.

Most of the food that was given out was produce. Yes, there was some processed food, but most of it was healthy.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply

The package was described in the budget as consisting of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables."

That sounds exactly like Blue Apron.

So here's how it's gonna work. Instead of giving people a $1.83 per day SNAP benefit, they will give them a box meal that is worth $.83 that will be billed by a politically connected donor to the US Government at $5.83 per meal. Then "logistics" delays (from selecting an unqualified crony to administer it) will cause 85% of the meals to not get delivered.

See Puerto Rico hurricane relief and power restoration ---- ups for the blue print.

www.cnn.com

Contractor promised 30 million meals to Puerto Rico. Only 50,000 were delivered.

#109 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-14 03:51 PM | Reply

From the article the thread is based on:
"The Trump administration proposal could shake up the country's largest program designed to battle domestic hunger issues. The proposed budget, released Monday, would gut SNAP benefits by $17.2 billion in 2019, about 22 percent of the program's total cost last year." - #102 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 02:20 PM

That's why you applaud cutting the program by 22%. - #85 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-14 12:13 PM

And the part where I applauded that budget?

#110 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 03:52 PM | Reply

It would be easier to just start sending the poor Soylent Green at this point.

#111 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-14 03:53 PM | Reply

#109

lol... according to rwingers da ebil gubmint is the very worst way to do anything, well, unless it's to feed the poor. Then you need them to be involved directly rather than letting people choose their own food in stores.

#112 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 03:59 PM | Reply

--rather than letting people choose their own food in stores.

My working-class family got through tough times with boxes of government food. Some "modern" people have a massive sense of entitlement.

#113 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"My working-class family got through tough times with boxes of government food."

Thats our Nulli.
Working Class Hero of the DR.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 04:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 6

#113

"Why back in the '30's ebil gubmint food was good enough for us! We waded through Mexicans 10 miles a day to pick it up!"

Some old coots don't know, or don't want to know, that the SNAP program is one of the most successful, efficient, capitalist-based gov programs there is.

They are still worried that somewhere, someone might be wasting their nickle.

www.cbpp.org

www.results.org

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 04:17 PM | Reply

Working Class Hero of the DR.

#114 | Posted by snoofy

Still living on student loans, junior?

#116 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 04:23 PM | Reply

I prefer the term "gubmint cheese."

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

#116 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Student loan = investment.

Nulli = lazy welfare queen

#118 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-14 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I have a problem with the govt buying the food on behalf of poor people, if that is what this program suggests.

I am not anti-govt ranting here but I never trust the govt to buy anything at a discounted rate. They simply can't do it very well.

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 04:33 PM | Reply

"Some "modern" people have a massive sense of entitlement."

NW

and not just the folks receiving assistance...most folks have that sense of entitlement.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 04:35 PM | Reply

--Student loan = investment.

What's the return on snooty? He spends all his time on blogging. You would think he has classes to attend, seminars, papers to research and write, etc.

#121 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"My working-class family got through tough times with boxes of government food. Some "modern" people have a massive sense of entitlement."

When I was a kid and my stepdad's company went on strike, we got food stamps. I remember eating things like canned chicken and dumplings on toast and canned beef stew. We also ate things like canned soup & sandwiches and eggs & pancakes for dinner. My sister and I were just talking about how we both still like to have breakfast for dinner sometimes. I just think letting people make their own choices, and perhaps prohibiting things like soda, is better for them and less wasteful for the government as well.

#122 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 04:48 PM | Reply

--I remember eating things like canned chicken

Oh yeah. Cans of government chicken. A big fav among my siblings with our child palates.

#123 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 04:57 PM | Reply

If it weren't for food stamps my family would have had a real bad time after my dad was almost killed by a drunk driver who had no insurance.

If you ever wondered where my hatred of DWI comes from, that is it. I like to think that ------- is getting his daily pineapple every day, but then I realize it is just a fairy tale.

#124 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-14 04:59 PM | Reply

It does afford freedom, Gal Tuesday. The plan outlined in the article doesn't eliminate all but the boxed food. "Under the plan, more than 16 million households would have half of their benefits go toward the food box delivery program. " So half of their benefits in government determined nutritious options, and half that the user can use as they best determine. The food boxes allow for the USDA to help verify that people are actually getting nutrition out of the Nutrition program, and it will allow the Government to save money for the same groceries due to purchasing wholesale vice retail, allows for utilization of the post office to deliver food to help eliminate food deserts, helps eliminate that Right wing food-stamps-for-drugs trope, and may reduce long term health-care costs arising from poor nutritional choices.
I can't help but think that if Michelle Obama had come up with this plan instead of the Trump administration, the same people crying over it would instead be in love with it.
Hell, I'd be perfectly happy with eliminating the 'savings' from wholesale purchases and utilize that money to support local farmer's market/garden vouchers. The changes would still result in a savings over time.

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 05:04 PM | Reply

"The plan outlined in the article doesn't eliminate all but the boxed food. "Under the plan, more than 16 million households would have half of their benefits go toward the food box delivery program."

Yes, I read the article.

"I can't help but think that if Michelle Obama had come up with this plan instead of the Trump administration, the same people crying over it would instead be in love with it."

I wouldn't if the food was the same food as has been described.

#126 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 05:08 PM | Reply

Dark humor is like food:
Not everyone gets it.
(Image of Stalin)

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 05:09 PM | Reply

I'm waiting for Corky and Snoofy to have to courage to insult 726 and Gal like they did Nulli for sharing a little about their impoverished childhood.

#128 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 05:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#122 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

--I remember eating things like canned chicken
Oh yeah. Cans of government chicken. A big fav among my siblings with our child palates.

We didn't get the canned govt chicken, but we had canned chicken & dumplings that my mom bought at the grocery store. We put it on bread, so it would stretch farther. I didn't mind the chicken & dumplings, but I didn't like the canned beef stew. Ugh.

#129 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-14 05:13 PM | Reply

- sharing a little about their impoverished childhood.

In Nulli's case, that would be justifying his Trumpiness.

But thanks for playing.

#130 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 05:17 PM | Reply

"justifying his Trumpiness."

No, you're just justifying your antinulliness.

#131 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 05:34 PM | Reply

"in government determined nutritious options..."

They're suggesting "shelf-stable" milk. That's not a nutritious option. Neither are canned vegetables.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 05:47 PM | Reply

Canned tomatoes are better than "fresh" tomatoes. Fresh isn't fresh, they're picked unripe and then exposed to gas to turn them red.

#133 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 05:51 PM | Reply

UC Davis studied canned vs fresh, and the results aren't what most people think. It's in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.

"Fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products," the researchers wrote. "Losses of nutrients during fresh storage may be more substantial than consumers realize" and may not be reflected on nutrition labels.

It's a case by case basis.

#134 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 05:53 PM | Reply

--They're suggesting "shelf-stable" milk. That's not a nutritious option.

Worked for my family. Or perhaps it was powdered, forget.

#135 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 05:55 PM | Reply

"They're suggesting "shelf-stable" milk. That's not a nutritious option. Neither are canned vegetables."

well, it is more or less nutritious than what people on assistance currently buy with their allowance? ( or perceived to buy)

#136 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 05:57 PM | Reply

--Neither are canned vegetables.

What about canned tomatoes, key ingredients for a delicious marinara or bolognese sauce?

#137 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 06:04 PM | Reply

Modern "shelf-stable" milk is UHT milk. It's common in Europe. It's the same calories and calcium as pasteurized milk. You can't make cheese with it. There's a small loss of B12, C, and thiamin and less B9 compared to regular milk.

All of this is kind of ironic considering we shouldn't be drinking milk to begin with. Embrace the unsweetened almond milk you fat slobs.

#138 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:05 PM | Reply

"it is more or less nutritious "

You tell me.

"Shelf-stable milk" is a concoction of oils and chemicals. Canned vegetables are notoriously high in salt. Folks who could've or would've made better choices with ALL their assistance will only be able to make HALF the good choices.

And in the long term, any savings in expenditures will be more than made up in public health costs.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | Reply

Sitz,
Thanks for injecting some facts, not drama.

#140 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | Reply

"There's a small loss of B12, C, and thiamin and less B9 compared to regular milk."

And who ever needs vitamins?

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 06:13 PM | Reply

High salt is bad so let's ban salty snacks from food stamp purchases then. That was easy.

#142 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-14 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Shelf-stable milk" is a concoction of oils and chemicals.

#139 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | FLAG:

No, it is not. It's milk pasteurized at 162 F, then sealed in a sterilized container where it can sit for 6 to 9 months. This same process is used on fruit juices, yogurt, wine, honey, pre-made soups, etc.

On the high sodium content in canned foods, it's a simple preservative. Drain and rinse, and that sodium is cut in half. Sodium is critical to muscle and nerve function. Like all food, moderation is the key.

#143 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:15 PM | Reply

Sitz,
Thanks for injecting some facts, not drama.

#140 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | FLAG:

Science is boring. Politics are drama.

#144 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:15 PM | Reply

--High salt is bad so let's ban salty snacks from food stamp purchases then. That was easy

No pretzels or potato chips? This is a humsn rights violation.

#145 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 06:17 PM | Reply

Shelf Stable Milk has been cooked to death so the milk has a very long shelf life. It's basically milk flavoured liquid.

#146 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 06:17 PM | Reply

And who ever needs vitamins?

#141 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-02-14 06:13 PM | FLAG:

You get more than your daily requirement of those specific vitamins from meat/fish/eggs, even the canned versions.

#147 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:18 PM | Reply

Shelf Stable Milk has been cooked to death so the milk has a very long shelf life. It's basically milk flavoured liquid.

#146 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-02-14 06:17 PM | FLAG:

It's cooked for a period of 1 to 2 seconds.

#148 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:19 PM | Reply

Also, 70% of European consumers prefer UHT milk over American cold-stored, pasteurized milk. Your taste buds may vary.

#149 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-14 06:19 PM | Reply

I'll stick to raw milk when I can get it. It's a milkgasm in your mouth.

#150 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 06:27 PM | Reply

They're suggesting "shelf-stable" milk. That's not a nutritious option. Neither are canned vegetables. - #132 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 05:47 PM
Citation? Don't use mine, they claim things like
"While heating [shelf-stable milk] to high temperatures through the sterilization process can deplete some nutrients, it doesn't affect key nutrients such as protein or calcium, and is usually fortified back with many nutrients that it may have lost, including vitamins A and D," says Moskovitz
and
Canned produce can lose some of its nutritional value as well, particularly water-soluble nutrients like vitamins B and C. But over all, the nutrients in canned fruits and vegetables tend to be relatively stable because they are protected from the deteriorating effects of oxygen, a fact emphasized in an extensive report on the subject published in The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California, Davis.

"Fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products," the researchers wrote. "Losses of nutrients during fresh storage may be more substantial than consumers realize" and may not be reflected on nutrition labels.

Of course, both fresh produce and canned produce are still healthy, and either option is better than nothing.

#151 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 06:45 PM | Reply

"It's milk pasteurized at 162 F"

It's 162C.
162F we just call "warm milk."

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 06:48 PM | Reply

"Shelf-stable milk" is a concoction of oils and chemicals. - #139 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 06:11 PM
Is this ignorance or intentionally trying to mislead people?
Shelf-stable milk is milk that is pasteurized to a higher temperature and packaged in sterile packaging.

#153 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-14 06:49 PM | Reply

The Brits have developed a vending machine system which delivers hundreds of food and sanitary items to active cards 24/7. In order for the cards to remain active the card holder must attend a weekly meeting where they focus on getting off the dole. This has improved participation, reduced overhead, and provided the welfare recipients a degree of independence.

#154 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-14 07:43 PM | Reply

I don't eat fake food. I do not eat processed milk that has it's bacteria destroyed. I try not to eat meat ever. Genetically modified foods are killing us - I'm extremely sensitive to digesting them so I go without if I can't get a good product.

The FDA have gotten away with low information dietary requirements and needs reformulation.

This is a giveaway to GMO producers and bypassing local farmers markets and healthy options.

I also wonder how Trump intends "delivering" foods to people, particularly those without homes?

#155 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-02-14 07:52 PM | Reply

I will not pretend this is a easily solvable situation.
#52 | POSTED BY MEMYSELFINI AT 2018-02-13 11:43 PM | FLAG: DEFINE "SITUATION"; IDENTIFY PROBLEM?

#156 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-02-14 08:14 PM | Reply

"It's milk pasteurized at 162 F, then sealed in a sterilized container where it can sit for 6 to 9 months."

And what nutrients are being forsaken?

Again: the concept the government can/will deliver better food than a consumer can choose is ludicrous. Regardless what the average consumer buys, changing to this system shackles the most sensible.

#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 08:45 PM | Reply

"Is this ignorance or intentionally trying to mislead people?'

Ignorance. I was referring to powdered milk and some versions of shelf-stable milk. My apologies.

The rest of my comments stand: this is substituting cheap crap for (at least the possibility of) healthy food.

#158 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 08:51 PM | Reply

In the end, this change will have the same benefits as drug testing or work requirements for welfare will have - lower enrollments in the programs by people currently taking advantage of the system to get free money. It is not necessarily about changing the diet, it is about providing goods that have much less trade value than traditional food stamps or simply giving cash like EBT. I personally know people that bought food stamps at $0.50 on the dollar and convenience stores are routinely doing it too (trading stamps for cash which they then redeem at a profit). In our country, there simply is no reason why 1 in 6 received food stamps. If we went to a 100% government provided food, I would suspect that number to drop to 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 at the most.

#159 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 09:24 PM | Reply

"It's milk pasteurized at 162 F, then sealed in a sterilized container where it can sit for 6 to 9 months."
And what nutrients are being forsaken?

#157 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

=============================

I assume much less nutrients than when the buyers swap out milk completely for Sprite.

#160 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 09:26 PM | Reply

"It's milk pasteurized at 162 F"
It's 162C.
162F we just call "warm milk."

#152 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Actually it is 135C, there is your math problems again. Second, pasteurization is a combination of heat + time. UHT just allows it to occur much faster than using a lower temp and holding it for a longer time. I will also add that almost the entirety of the world drinks UHT milk along with most of the organic milk sold in the US.

#161 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 09:32 PM | Reply

"I personally know people that bought food stamps at $0.50 on the dollar"

Did you turn them in, or look the other way?

"1 in 6 received food stamps. If we went to a 100% government provided food, I would suspect that number to drop to 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 at the most."

That suggests 40%-60% of the current program is fraudulent. Do you have any facts to proffer, or is this just pulled out of your nether parts?

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 09:33 PM | Reply

" buyers swap out milk completely for Sprite."

That's easier to fix than trading out for boxes of crap.

#163 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 09:34 PM | Reply

Republican logic: crappy canned food in a box = blue apron

#164 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:35 PM | Reply

"Actually it is 135C"

Actually he was probably refereing to HTST pasteurization at 162F, which you woild have seen if you had read a little farther in the Wikipedia article.

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 09:36 PM | Reply

"I personally know people that bought food stamps at $0.50 on the dollar"

Why shouldn't food stamps be bought and sold in the aftermarket like anything else?

I did that once. Guy was five bucks short to pay a court fee. I was happy to help him out and get coffee for half price. Store was happy to get the sale; so was Folgers.

Win-win-win-win... especially because it wasn't really Folgers.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 09:39 PM | Reply

In the end, this change will have the same benefits as drug testing had.

It will raise the costs dramtically and have no no effect on the number of people getting benefits

#167 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM | Reply

So should people who get food stamps and free healthcare be allowed to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol?

#168 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM | Reply

"I personally know people that bought food stamps at $0.50 on the dollar"

Did you turn them in, or look the other way?

============================

Nope. This is a systemic problem so picking out one offs to punish does nothing to solve it.

That suggests 40%-60% of the current program is fraudulent. Do you have any facts to proffer, or is this just pulled out of your nether parts?

#162 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

============================

I would suspect 40-60% fraud is about average for any government program (including defense contracts) and I think you would find the same number or higher if the SSDI rolls were actually audited. I wish I had your child-like faith in the efficiency of government but I have seen so much waste in my lifetime that it is no longer possible.

#169 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 09:45 PM | Reply

"So should people who get food stamps and free healthcare be allowed to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol?"

Yes.

That is, if you agree with Ronald Reagan, who said those people shouldn't be turned away from the ER. Do you agree or disagree with Reagan?

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 09:45 PM | Reply

"This is a systemic problem so picking out one offs to punish does nothing to solve it."

IOW, you're part of the problem, and are looking to pass the blame on to someone else.

"I would suspect 40-60% fraud is about average for any government program"

"Suspect" is worth the paper it's printed on. Again, any facts to proffer other than your fevered dreams?

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 09:47 PM | Reply

It's as if you've forgotten you were peddling BS about milk and canned veggies for half the thread...but you want everyone else to be providing links and refrain from making speculations...

#172 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-14 09:51 PM | Reply

"I suspect this is just another attempt to privatize food stamps and allow corporations to rake a good portion off the top for the "services" of choosing, boxing and delivering."

Umm... you do know that big grocery is the biggest supporter of SNAP, right? And they would like nothing more than to have SNAP recipients spending taxpayer dollars on those high margin items...whatever they may be.

#173 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-14 09:52 PM | Reply

#170 | Posted by Danforth
RR is dead. What do you think?

#174 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-14 09:54 PM | Reply

IOW, you're part of the problem, and are looking to pass the blame on to someone else.

====================

Goofy just admitted to this illegal act, in writing, just a few posts up. I assume you are just going to ignore that now and pretend fraud does not occur.

====================

"Suspect" is worth the paper it's printed on. Again, any facts to proffer other than your fevered dreams?

#171 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

====================

Better question, what % of the spending is fraud/abuse in your opinion? For me, we have an obesity problem and charity organizations that provide food not to mention school programs. We literally have zero food insecurity issues in the US so I am being generous at only 40-60%

#175 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 09:56 PM | Reply

"crappy canned food in a box = blue apron"

I read the headline and the article to mean the program is structured like Blue Apron....not an assertion the quality of the food is similar.

#176 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 09:56 PM | Reply

"That is, if you agree with Ronald Reagan, who said those people shouldn't be turned away from the ER"

what does RR's opinion of access to healthcare have to do with cigs and booze?

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 09:58 PM | Reply

"Suspect" is worth the paper it's printed on. Again, any facts to proffer other than your fevered dreams?
#171 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

====================

When even the most basic requirements for work are linked to food stamps, the opt out rate is 85% per Alabama. Maybe not all 85% dropped out because they were fraud, but all 85% clearly did not need the food stamps.

www.al.com

As of Jan. 1, 2017, there were 13,663 able-bodied adults without dependents receiving food stamps statewide. That number dropped to 7,483 by May 1, 2017. Among the 13 counties, there were 5,538 adults ages 18-50 without dependents receiving food stamps as of Jan. 1, 2017. That number dropped to 831 - a decline of about 85 percent - by May 1, 2017.

#178 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:00 PM | Reply

"It's as if you've forgotten you were peddling BS about milk and canned veggies for half the thread"

Feel free to opine on the central issue: is this government box of canned vegetables and lower-nutrient milk going to be better for the recipient, or just cheaper?

And if you don't know the nutritional difference between canned vegetables and fresh ones, educate yourself before looking any dumber. You may be able to reduce the sodium, but you won't be able to replenish the nutrients.

#179 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:04 PM | Reply

"That number dropped"

You've defined the "pain-in-the-ass" factor, nothing more.

Anything about fraud, or is that the bottom of your barrel?

#180 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:05 PM | Reply

"what does RR's opinion of access to healthcare have to do with cigs and booze?"

He never qualified who should be accepted at an ER and who should be refused. He believed no one should be turned away...including the smoker and the boozer.

#181 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:06 PM | Reply

I suspect this is just another attempt to privatize food stamps and allow corporations to rake a good portion off the top for the "services" of choosing, boxing and delivering.

"Suspect" is worth the paper it's printed on"

-Danforth

#182 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:08 PM | Reply

#182

You suspect the same, admit it.

#183 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:08 PM | Reply

179
probably missed 134 while talking out of your ass all thread...

You should thank sitz for trying to educate you.

#184 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-02-14 10:10 PM | Reply

" all 85% clearly did not need the food stamps."

You don't have proof for that conclusion. "Need" could be outweighed by hassle. That doesn't eliminate the need; that just leaves people hungry.

#185 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:10 PM | Reply

Feel free to opine on the central issue: is this government box of canned vegetables and lower-nutrient milk going to be better for the recipient, or just cheaper?

#179 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Frankly, that is not the central issue for me. I want food stamp usage to come with social stigma. They should never be given cash and I would suggest stores provide a flashing light at the register whenever they are used to draw the most attention possible. If it delivered by the government directly, it should be completely tasteless but nutrient dense making it a last resort. As you seem to accept now, a pain-in-the-ass factor leads to massive decreases in enrollments. That is my goal. I want people to be productive in life. I The government needs to be like the gym teacher yelling at fat kid to climb the rope. The last 40 years of handouts without any requirements just breeds more dependents, which is likely the thing Dems like most about the current system.

#186 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:11 PM | Reply

well, I'll have to see Reagan's quote supporting cigs and booze aplenty for folks on social assistance.

Maybe he was for it. But I don't see giving access to ERs without the ability to pay equals support for cigs and booze aplenty for the same folks.

and if it's an important distinction....then someone likely asked him. and his answer is a matter of record.

#187 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:11 PM | Reply

""Fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products,"

Nice use of the word "or".

Frozen retain their nutrients. Canned, not so much. If you put "or" in the sentence, dumb people will assume "and".

#188 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:12 PM | Reply

"I'll have to see Reagan's quote "

All you need is Reagan's principle: we don't turn people away at the ER. If you find qualifiers, let us know.

#189 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:13 PM | Reply

"that is not the central issue for me. I want food stamp usage to come with social stigma."

Then why not gruel?

Are there no prisons? And the workhouses? Are they still in operation?

#190 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:15 PM | Reply

Frozen retain their nutrients. Canned, not so much. If you put "or" in the sentence, dumb people will assume "and".

#188 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

==========================

Go out and buy veggies today and I will go out an buy a can of the same. In two weeks, we send them to a lab for testing to see which retained more nutrients. I suspect my can will have many more making the above statement true.

#191 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:15 PM | Reply

"You suspect the same, admit it."

I suspect the current system is a result of corporate influence, not the change suggested in this thread.

Large AG, grocery stores, etc....they benefit from the current system more than what's being suggested here.

#192 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:16 PM | Reply

Then why not gruel?

#190 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

===================

Works for me but requires cooking. I would prefer the nutrient 'cookie' people were making for staving Africans.

#193 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:17 PM | Reply

"If it delivered by the government directly, it should be completely tasteless but nutrient dense making it a last resort."

This is tasteless crap from a nutrient desert.

But I get it: your central issue it to inflict hurt on those whose sole mistake may be being born less lucky than you.

#194 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:18 PM | Reply

"All you need is Reagan's principle: we don't turn people away at the ER. If you find qualifiers, let us know."

so, Reagan supported the right to engage in all behavior on the part of folks receiving social assistance that may end up in an ER?

cigs and booze

meth and opioids,

car surfing

tide consumption

Reagan supported their access to the ER, so ergo, he believed people be "allowed these things".

okay.

#195 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:19 PM | Reply

"Then why not gruel?"

Now we are getting somewhere.

#196 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:19 PM | Reply

"In two weeks, we send them to a lab"

No thanks. I won't play "let's pretend we're stupid" with you. Play by yourself.

In the meantime, compare canned with TODAY's produce, otherwise you're comparing apples to...mold.

#197 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:21 PM | Reply

But I get it: your central issue it to inflict hurt on those whose sole mistake may be being born less lucky than you.

#194 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

============================

Yes, no one on food stamps is there through any fault of their own. It is just a matter of being lucky in life. "You didn't build that" type of person I see. As for harm, no. The baseline is getting ZERO food. Any food I provide is a step up from that and is a net benefit as such. Your incorrect assumption is that the baseline is the current benefit being provided by an entitlement program.

#198 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:22 PM | Reply

"your central issue it to inflict hurt on those whose sole mistake may be being born less lucky than you."

well, you finally trotted out the racist accusation.

I'll give you credit....you lasted longer than Snoofy or Clownshack would have.

#199 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:22 PM | Reply

"Reagan supported their access to the ER, so ergo, he believed people be "allowed these things"."

NO, but he didn't believe in refusing folks from the ER for ANY REASON.

This concept isn't hard at all. It was a farking law, FFS.

www.hhnmag.com

#200 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:23 PM | Reply

I notice Rex's #178 went thoroughly untouched.

#201 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:24 PM | Reply

"you finally trotted out the racist accusation."

Who mentioned race? I wasn't even intimating it, nor did it enter my mind.

#202 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:24 PM | Reply

"I notice Rex's #178 went thoroughly untouched.'

Notice again.

#203 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:25 PM | Reply

"Yes, no one on food stamps is there through any fault of their own.

I never said that, I merely pointed out you don't give a ---- how or why they got there.

#204 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:26 PM | Reply

"Your incorrect assumption is that the baseline is the current benefit being provided by an entitlement program."

Could I have some dressing with that word salad?

#205 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:27 PM | Reply

"The baseline is getting ZERO food. "

Not just your baseline; your goal.

#206 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:28 PM | Reply

I never said that, I merely pointed out you don't give a ---- how or why they got there.

#204 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

====================

Nope, I don't. My only concern is returning them to being productive members of society as quickly as possible. The worst thing you can do to a person is to break their will by making them a long term dependent on government programs.

#207 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:29 PM | Reply

"This concept isn't hard at all."

the concept of allowing folks access to the ER is not hard at all.

The concept of stretching that 100,000 miles to assign the same person who believed in that must also have believed folks on welfare be allowed cigs and booze.

Maybe you could find another way to say Reagan supported booze and cigs aplenty for welfare recipients.

Perhaps when he said "tear down that wall", he turned and told one of his aides...."and cigs and booze for those rough looking poor folks over there".

LOL

#208 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:31 PM | Reply

Could I have some dressing with that word salad?

#205 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

===================

It is pretty easy to understand for those that aren't dependent on government money. My expectation for money given to me by the government for food is $0. So, any money or food above and beyond nothing clearly can do no harm to me. You and your lib friends keep throwing out how we want to 'hurt' the poor. The only way you can define any free food program as 'hurting' the poor is if you accept the program as it stand today is the absolute minimum that must be given. So, you have raised your baseline for your entitlement. It is an incorrect way of viewing the world. The baseline is $0.

#209 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-14 10:34 PM | Reply

"Notice again."

Oh, I noticed a couple of weak swings....but no contact.

"Who mentioned race?"

Who mentioned cigs and booze for welfare recipients?

#210 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:34 PM | Reply

"must also have believed folks on welfare be allowed cigs and booze. "

This is getting ridiculous.

If you pay out welfare without restrictions on cigs and booze, are you "allowing" them or not?

If you treat everyone at the ER, without restrictions against the boozer or the smoker, are you "allowing" them or not?

Hint: the key word is "allowing" and it's not the same as "endorsing".

#211 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:36 PM | Reply

On topic, I would only support something like this if the quality of the food was at an acceptable level and it prevented some of the poor choices made by folks on assistance that causes them to fight obesity and other health issues as a result of such a terrible diet.

IOW, I support solutions that benefit folks on assistance, not harm them.

#212 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:37 PM | Reply

-This is getting ridiculous.

It got ridiculous at #170.

I'm just having fun with it.

#213 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:38 PM | Reply

"Who mentioned cigs and booze for welfare recipients?"

You.

I mentioned ER access for all, as believed by RR, with no restrictions for behavior.

#214 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:38 PM | Reply

"If you treat everyone at the ER, without restrictions against the boozer or the smoker, are you "allowing" them or not?"

you declared that it is indeed allowing them and also you declared Ronald Reagan wanted to allow them.

#215 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:40 PM | Reply

214

I'm not the one who originally asked you about alcohol and tobacco for welfare recipients.

but you agreed that "yes" they should be allowed and Ronald Reagan said they should be allowed as well.

#216 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:43 PM | Reply

"and it prevented some of the poor choices made by folks on assistance"

What if it made worse choices than some would've made? F them for trying to be better?

I mean, can you at least admit this prevents those who make better choices from making them? That everyone who currently makes better overall choices will be hurt?

#217 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:43 PM | Reply

"IOW, I support solutions that benefit folks on assistance, not harm them."

Eberly, you're operating well outside the cognitive limits of right-wing thought.
They think if you're not punishing, you're coddling.
Heck, merely easing up on the whip hand is a form of coddling.

#218 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 10:45 PM | Reply

"with no restrictions for behavior."

I forgot about armed robbers who were shot during the attempt. access to the ER....yep.....and that means they should be allowed that behavior as well.

#219 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:45 PM | Reply

217

I couldn't agree more with you on that.

218

I wish I could be a mean spirited bastard all of the time

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:46 PM | Reply

#220 Isn't being racist to the core sufficient though?

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 10:47 PM | Reply

"Goofy just admitted to this illegal act, in writing, just a few posts up."

Great. Now they want to outlaw entrepreneurship.
Can't a guy just trade his scrip for other scrip without the government getting involved?
Keep your government off my food stamps!

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 10:48 PM | Reply

222

Danforth did accuse someone upthread of being part of the problem for that.

#223 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:52 PM | Reply

"you agreed that "yes" they should be allowed "

I stated RR set no boundaries when it came to the ER; world of difference.

That said, I'm fine with restrictions on welfare spending...to a point. I get where EBTs shouldn't be redeemable in strip clubs. I understand why alcohol and lottery tickets can't be bought. But telling folks half their food will be decided by the government should turn all our stomachs, pun intended.

And logic alone tells us every person who currently makes better choices for her family will be dragged down.

#224 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:54 PM | Reply

"I get where EBTs shouldn't be redeemable in strip clubs."

Yeah, you really don't want to eat what they're serving.

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 10:55 PM | Reply

"And logic alone tells us every person who currently makes better choices for her family will be dragged down."

how many folks do you suspect that applies to?

% of folks currently on assistance?

#226 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 10:58 PM | Reply

"and that means they should be allowed that behavior as well. "

More ridiculous, I see.

All it means is mortally wounded bank robbers shouldn't be merely observed as they bleed out in the ER.

Why are you conflating "operating on a dying man" with "endorsing his bank robbery"?

Drunk, or just silly?

#227 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:58 PM | Reply

""Fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products,"
Nice use of the word "or".
Frozen retain their nutrients. Canned, not so much. If you put "or" in the sentence, dumb people will assume "and".
#188 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

^
I'm impressed how strong the right-wing lie-with-facts weasel game is around here.
But I wonder: How much of this is original Fake News deceptive content and how much is just being dutifully regurgitated and paraphrased.

#228 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 10:59 PM | Reply

"how many folks do you suspect that applies to?"

If it's you, 100%.

You admit these people exist, yes? Will they be able to opt out, or will they be forced to substitute canned vegetables for today's produce?

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 11:00 PM | Reply

"Why are you conflating "operating on a dying man" with "endorsing his bank robbery"?

See #218.
Because you're providing a "positive benefit" (JeffJ's term) to a Known Criminal.

#230 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:01 PM | Reply

you used the word "endorsed". I haven't once. That tells us all I am the one in this conversation who understands what those words mean.

"I stated RR set no boundaries when it came to the ER; world of difference."

When asked if folks on welfare be allowed cigs and booze, you said "yes" and then attempted to claim Ronald Reagan believed the same.....because of this stance on ERs.

which is a ridiculous stretch.

It's possible that someone could support ER access to everyone and at the same time, believe folks on welfare not be allowed cigs and booze. Not criminalize it....just not pay for it.

#231 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 11:02 PM | Reply

"Not criminalize it....just not pay for it."

That's already the case though.
You can't buy booze with your EBT.

#232 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:03 PM | Reply

229

try again. I asked a simple question and you dodged it

#233 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 11:04 PM | Reply

"you used the word "endorsed". I haven't once."

#219 reeks with it. You're clearly suggesting by operating on the robber, they're condoning the theft.

"It's possible that someone could support ER access to everyone and at the same time, believe folks on welfare not be allowed cigs and booze. Not criminalize it....just not pay for it."

Yeah, that was my #224.

#234 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 11:06 PM | Reply

I'd be surprised if Eberly were to think a guy gets shot robbing a bank, he shouldn't get the same standard of care as, say, the teller who got shot during the robbery, or some innocent bystander shot by the cops.

But you never know!

#235 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:09 PM | Reply

Federalist, on the other hand, doesn't even agree with the Eighth Amendment which gives prisoners health care.

#236 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:10 PM | Reply

"You're clearly suggesting by operating on the robber, they're condoning the theft."

nope. you're just deflecting because you suggested something as absurd.

#237 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 11:12 PM | Reply

Folks on assistance that are capable and willing to make good choices with regard to nutrition shouldn't be punished.

I just wonder how many folks like that exist.

#238 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-14 11:58 PM | Reply

"Folks on assistance that are capable and willing to make good choices with regard to nutrition shouldn't be punished."

I'm fine with taking all the junk food off EBT in theory, but it practice there are millions of things you can buy and new ones coming out every day; it would be unworkable.

The problem isn't EBT, the problem is people have so little money that they are qualifying for EBT in the first place.
EBT treats one symptom of poverty, which is hunger; it's not a cure for the disease of poverty.

As programs go, if someone already rich wasn't making money off of it, it wouldn't exist.
That's just how America works.

#239 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-15 12:05 AM | Reply

And in today's news, ultra-processed foods have been linked to greater cancer risks.
www.cnn.com

Maybe this is part of the Republican health plan of Get sick and die fast.

#240 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:16 AM | Reply

"Drain and rinse, and that sodium is cut in half."

And it's still got gobs more sodium than fresh produce, and is still less healthy.

#241 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:18 AM | Reply

I have a problem with the govt buying the food on behalf of poor people, if that is what this program suggests.

I completely agree.

Based on people republicans elect, the boxed food will eventually be replaced by canned pumpkin.

#242 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-15 12:31 AM | Reply

Ketchup will be next week's vegetable.

#243 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:35 AM | Reply

People need to shut up about what food stamps are being used for.

If even one hungry family can benefit from this program, then it succeeded.

#244 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-15 12:36 AM | Reply

It's 162C.
162F we just call "warm milk."
#152 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I transposed numbers on 2 production processes that do the same thing. UHT is 135C/275F for 1 second, or HTST, 72C/162F for 15 seconds. Flash cool in a vacuum chamber. The milk isn't as tasty as raw, but you won't end up as a statistic on a CDC outbreak study.

#245 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-15 07:28 AM | Reply

It will raise the costs dramtically and have no no effect on the number of people getting benefits - #167 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM
You have a citation for that? The evidence presented in the article indicates that it will lower costs. What's your evidence of the above?

Regardless what the average consumer buys, changing to this system shackles the most sensible. - #157 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 08:45 PM
We're not discussing the Affordable Care Act, Danforth. Stay on subject.

And logic alone tells us every person who currently makes better choices for her family will be dragged down. - #224 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:54 PM
Now why would you bring up the gun control debate? Seriously, Danforth!

But I get it: your central issue it to inflict hurt on those whose sole mistake may be being born less lucky than you. - #194 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-14 10:18 PM
How is providing someone dense, nutritious food hurting them?

Maybe this is part of the Republican health plan of Get sick and die fast. - #240 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:16 AM
From the citation of your article: "Ultra-processed: products that combine processed ingredients. For example, crisps and sweets. "
Do you have any evidence that this type of food would be included in the food box, or are you intentionally misleading people in an attempt to slander Republicans?

So should people who get food stamps and free healthcare be allowed to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol? - #168 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM
Yes, but not subsidized tobacco and alcohol.

#246 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 07:40 AM | Reply

"How is providing someone dense, nutritious food hurting them?"

What's hurting them is idiots who believe this will be dense, nutritious food.

Again, the macro part is easy: ANYONE who currently makes better choices will be hurt.

#247 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 07:44 AM | Reply

What's hurting them is idiots who believe this will be dense, nutritious food. - #247 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 07:44 AM

So, now that there is a Republican administration you don't believe that the same USDA that's been making food nutrition decisions for WIC is ok to make food nutrition decisions for SNAP?

Again, the macro part is easy: ANYONE who currently makes better choices will be hurt. - #247 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 07:44 AM
Why do you insist on discussing gun control legislation here?

#248 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why do you insist on discussing gun control legislation here?"

Why do you insist on feigning stupidity as a baseline for all your arguments?

#249 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't see anything wrong with a food box. I grew up on stuff like powdered milk and cereal. Canned fruit has more nutrients than soda and candy bars. Food stamps were never designed to pay for somebody to go and spend 500 a week at Whole Foods. I prefer knowing my tax dollars are going towards kids getting actual food compared to what other things food stamps can be used to purchase.

#250 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-02-15 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually canned fruit is on par or worse than soda.

#251 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 09:48 AM | Reply

Why do you insist on feigning stupidity as a baseline for all your arguments? - #249 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 09:25 AM

I'm trying to reach down to a level you can understand? /j
Joking aside, it's because I consider you a pretty intelligent conversationalist. As such, I can point out a simple 1-lined statement showing the hypocrisy and futility of that argument without having to spend paragraphs debunking it, because I expect that you will understand the reference and not need it pointed out to you.

#252 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Calorie wise it's not great but nutrition wise it's similar to fresh fruits. So unless the person is diabetic or overweight canned fruit won't kill them.

#253 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-02-15 09:57 AM | Reply

Let's think outside the food box. Why couldn't we create a database of all foods in most grocery stores rated for nutrition, importance to good health, sugar content, salt content, etc. and give each food a rating number from 1-100. Then when a person uses their EDP card a report would be created giving the overall purchase a rating number from 1-100. Those evaluation numbers would go into that person's spreadsheet for each month's purchases and an average rating number from 1-100 would be used by the system as a "carrot and stick" method of teaching people how to eat better. As their rating number rises they would get a few more dollars for food purchases each month but if their number is low or even falling they would see their assistance cut each month so that eventually, on the really egregiously unealthy diets, the government would simply stop supporting them. This way the food assistance could not just quell hunger but also teach those people to eat more healthy diets.

#254 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 10:02 AM | Reply

Calorie wise it's not great but nutrition wise it's similar to fresh fruits. So unless the person is diabetic or overweight canned fruit won't kill them.

#253 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-02-15 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

What it will do is give them diabetes which will kill them.

#255 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-15 10:06 AM | Reply

Actually canned fruit is on par or worse than soda. - #251 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 09:48 AM
Some of the worst fruit juices -might- be comparable to soda, but not canned fruit. Do you have any source for that statement?

#256 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 10:08 AM | Reply

#254 | Posted by Danni at 2018-02-15 10:02 AM
Not a terrible idea, but it still loses out on the added benefit of the savings generated by the government's larger buying power and the ability to deliver foods to the customer instead of requiring the customer to drive/walk to pick them up.

#257 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 10:13 AM | Reply

Fruit juices can be mixed with water to cut down on one's sugar intake. That's what we do. Adding water also makes the juice last longer.

#258 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 10:16 AM | Reply

"Not a terrible idea, but it still loses out on the added benefit of the savings generated by the government's larger buying power and the ability to deliver foods to the customer instead of requiring the customer to drive/walk to pick them up."

All of your cost savings will evaporate when you consider this will all be privatized, the packaging of the foods, the profit margins for the private vendors will cause them to use cheapest foods possible and then you add in delivery costs...you won't save anything. Better to let people choose their own foods with guidance to help them eat healthier. We don't need to insert private vendors into the process.

#259 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 10:33 AM | Reply

"Calorie wise it's not great but nutrition wise it's similar to fresh fruits."
It is not even close to true.

#260 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 10:34 AM | Reply

#260 | POSTED BY DANNI

I like the idea Danni, its sort of what I proposed above, but you took it to the next level.

It could use some tweaking. My biggest concern is implementation, or more concisely the government runnning it.

#261 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-15 10:43 AM | Reply

Not a terrible idea, but it still loses out on the added benefit of the savings generated by the government's larger buying power and the ability to deliver foods to the customer instead of requiring the customer to drive/walk to pick them up.
#257 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

It doesn't have too, the gov would be able to manage the line card of whats available based upon pricing.

Combine a BlueApron like service (website & delivery) with Danni's idea of getting more tokens the better you eat.

#262 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-15 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Again, the macro part is easy: ANYONE who currently makes better choices will be hurt. - #247

I am HURT, I could make better choices with my money than someone else, do I have a choice not to fund it?

I see nothing wrong with limiting choices when its free.

My concern is government running it into the ground.

#263 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-15 10:51 AM | Reply

For the record I miss government cheese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#264 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 10:51 AM | Reply

All of your cost savings will evaporate when you consider this will all be privatized.. - #259 | Posted by Danni at 2018-02-15 10:33 AM

WIC is very similar to the SNAP food box idea in terms of food type pre-selection. It isn't in any way privatized (other than having to purchase from someone who accepts WIC cards). Why do you assume that SNAP boxes would be privatized, or do you have some evidence? Is that really your only objection, 'I think it would be a good plan, but I don't want capitalism involved'?

#265 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 10:52 AM | Reply

For the record I miss government cheese!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#264 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Thats what I am sayin :)

In fact I would make the government website allocate say 100tokens, but price the healthy foods cheaper.

Psychologially this is manipulative by ommission.

#266 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-15 10:54 AM | Reply

Bottom line is the scammers will still scam and the people who really need the help will have fewer choices

Funny how the right wing that was upset about the government making school lunches healthier now demands that the same government control what poor people eat

#267 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-15 11:24 AM | Reply

In fact I would make the government website allocate say 100tokens, but price the healthy foods cheaper.
Psychologially this is manipulative by ommission.

#266 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2018-02-15 10:54 AM | REPLY

The reason food stamps are used the way they are is to minimize the work participating stores have to do to participate. If stores have to price foods differently depending on who is buying it and have a different currency for some items and are not compensated for the extra time and effort they will just not participate. What makes food stamps work is that they are the same dollars everyone else uses and the same prices everyone else pays so there is no extra work for the grocer

#268 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-15 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

People are forgetting that food stamps is ultimately welfare for the rich. Just more hands get to use it in the process.

#269 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 11:48 AM | Reply

#268 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-15 11:45 AM
So the changes to the system would have the dual benefit of having the business perform only half the work and lowers prices for the program (due to wholesale purchases).
All with the downside of making SNAP more like WIC in providing only nutritious foods.

It will raise the costs dramtically and have no no effect on the number of people getting benefits - #167 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM
You have a citation for that? The evidence presented in the article indicates that it will lower costs. What's your evidence of the above?

#270 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 11:55 AM | Reply

"Why do you assume that SNAP boxes would be privatized, or do you have some evidence?"

It's an idea proposed by Republicans, they wouldn't propose anything that doesn't take federal dollars and send the to private enterprise which invariable reduces quality and increases costs.

#271 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 11:58 AM | Reply

"You have a citation for that? The evidence presented in the article indicates that it will lower costs."

Yeah, by eliminating choices to buy fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, or most other things people will actually eat. They want to throw a bunch of processed foods in a box and the tell people to feed that crap to their kids.
Privatization is always a scheme to siphon off dollars from federal programs to the private sector.

#272 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 12:01 PM | Reply

"The reason food stamps are used the way they are is to minimize the work participating stores have to do to participate."

That's why the recipient of aid would have their available balance on the card adjusted according to the health ratio number, the merchant would be uninvolved.

#273 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 12:02 PM | Reply

Such a program could also be designed to communicate with the cell phone of each individual recipient so that as they made poor choices they could receive texts suggesting smarter choices and the health ratio numbers associated with each so they could clearly see the value in choosing healthier.

#274 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 12:04 PM | Reply

So the changes to the system would have the dual benefit of having the business perform only half the work and lowers prices for the program (due to wholesale purchases).
All with the downside of making SNAP more like WIC in providing only nutritious foods.
It will raise the costs dramtically and have no no effect on the number of people getting benefits - #167 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:40 PM
You have a citation for that? The evidence presented in the article indicates that it will lower costs. What's your evidence of the above?

#270 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2018-02-15 11:55 AM | REPLY

The evidence is that you are adding layers of work that has to be paid for.

Instead of just a digital transfer to a card, no you will transfer part to the card at the same cost, Then you have to have the government buy food, store food, pack food for, and ship 2 million packages a month and pay people to do all the work involved which means hiring a small army when 1 computer can do the work now automatically

#275 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-15 12:06 PM | Reply

The easiest, cheapest way to make the SNAP program more nutritious would be to ban certain categories of food from being purchased. You can't buy everything in a grocery store with food stamps (non-food items). They must do that somehow electronically. In this age of computers, it should be relatively easy to add something like all varieties of soda to the list of items not covered by the funds.

#276 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 12:12 PM | Reply

They want to throw a bunch of processed foods in a box and the tell people to feed that crap to their kids. - #272 | Posted by Danni at 2018-02-15 12:01 PM
That is untrue, please stop passing off lies in an attempt to discredit the plan.
"USDA would utilize a model similar to that currently used to distribute USDA Foods to other nutrition assistance programs to provide staple, shelf-stable foods (such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, ready-to-eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables) to SNAP households at approximately half the retail cost"

#277 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 12:22 PM | Reply

The evidence is that you are adding layers of work that has to be paid for.
Instead of just a digital transfer to a card, no you will transfer part to the card at the same cost, Then you have to have the government buy food, store food, pack food for, and ship 2 million packages a month #275 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-15 12:06 PM

That is a reasonable assumption that it may increase some costs, however you have not factored in the savings from wholesale purchase of foods, the lower health-care burden in federal and state dollars due to a healthier populace, the higher tax income resulting from well nourished children finishing school and getting better jobs, and the elimination of the profit margin imposed by those businesses that are now selling goods.

and pay people to do all the work involved which means hiring a small army when 1 computer can do the work now automatically
What makes you think all of that work can't be automated?
And if it isn't automated, we've instead moved people from needing to be employed as cashiers at the corner mart and as delivery drivers to at least federal contractors making significantly higher (living) wages.

#278 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 12:29 PM | Reply

In this age of computers, it should be relatively easy to add something like all varieties of soda to the list of items not covered by the funds. - #276 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 12:12 PM

I'll ask my lobbyist to look into it. But she says it might get some push-back.

#279 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 12:30 PM | Reply

"I'll ask my lobbyist to look into it. But she says it might get some push-back."

True, I understand this whole food box idea probably will too.

#280 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 12:35 PM | Reply

It's astonishing reading so many anti government libertarians and smaller government republicans discussing the benefits of our government controlling and providing food to the poor.

Humans aren't cattle. We don't all eat the same feed. There are allergies, food restrictions, food preferences...

If the worry is people receiving food stamps aren't using the food stamps on the approved food items, then restrict what food stamps can be used for. Meat produce and dairy products only. Or whatever.

#281 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-15 12:38 PM | Reply

If the worry is people receiving food stamps aren't using the food stamps on the approved food items, then restrict what food stamps can be used for. Meat produce and dairy products only. - #281 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-15 12:38 PM
Personally, some of my opposition comes from the fact that my tax dollars are used to profit businesses who lobby for stuff like preventing soda from being removed from the list of appropriate SNAP foods. If we all accept that we are willing to pay towards feeding those in need, why do we want to shave a portion of that off to pay Wal-Mart, Pepsi and Coke boards of directors?

#282 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 12:48 PM | Reply

"Personally, some of my opposition comes from the fact that my tax dollars are used to profit businesses who lobby for stuff like preventing soda from being removed from the list of appropriate SNAP foods. If we all accept that we are willing to pay towards feeding those in need, why do we want to shave a portion of that off to pay Wal-Mart, Pepsi and Coke boards of directors?"

Fine, but what you are proposing is only going to replace one group of food manufactures and their lobbyists with another. Canned and other shelf-stable food companies along with their distributors will replace Pepsi, Coke and Wal-Mart. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Let's face it, Congress will only make this change if they think money from the companies you mention will be replaced by money coming in from someone else.

#283 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 01:30 PM | Reply

"Another way to reduce safety net costs; kill off the users with highly processed foods."

So much worse than letting them sell their food stamps and buy drugs and alcohol

#284 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-02-15 04:48 PM | Reply

Ultra-processed foods 'linked to cancer'

www.bbc.com

#285 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-15 05:26 PM | Reply

"So, now that there is a Republican administration you don't believe that the same USDA that's been making food nutrition decisions for WIC is ok to make food nutrition decisions for SNAP?"

I don't believe canned or nutrition-drained food is the healthiest choice for anyone...regardless their party, or the party of those making the decisions. But kudos for deflecting to BS politics when you couldn't fight the central claim: that anyone currently making better choices will be hurt by this nanny-state paternalism.

#286 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 08:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort