Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by temporal1 »

RZehr:
temporal1 wrote: .. if this measure had been proposed by obama? - swoon - genius! :lol:
There's no question in my mind if Obama would have suggested sending food packets, most people against them now would be for them, and most for them now would be against them.
i closely agree with what you’re saying, with some differences (that seem important to me.)

a particulary unhealthy turn has been taken since voters chose a law-school educated community organizer as POTUS. this man deeply-deeply believes in political partisanship, to an extent (many of us) have never before witnessed. he made that clear in office, now, without any restraints of perceived restrictions of that office, he is going willy-nilly for partisan politics, particularly focusing on instructing the younger folks coming up.

i have never known of a retired POTUS, and, a losing POTUS candidate, to overtly take leadership positions for the purpose of unseating a sitting president. that’s a big, eye-popping change.

compare that with the dependably respectful way W treated obama - for 8 years and since, it’s like day+night.

you might recall, W left on bad terms. if he had been bitter and angry, it would have been understandable. he did not choose that path. in my memory, no other retired POTUS has taken that destructive path. the goal is destruction. is there any other word for it? at least, they are not lying about their intent. so, no need of speculation.

so, about citizen grumblers. sure.
that has always happened, i see no change on the cyberspace horizon! :lol:
but, in my understanding, there is a whole different kettle of fish when a party’s highest leadership and ultra-wealthy supporters, including mainstream news+entertainment media are all reciting the one chant.

as well, i see many conservative citizen grumblers as being more respectful of the system of government. unhappy, but, waiting for terms to end, to vote in new reps. liberals seem obsessed with impeachment, assassination, nothing is too awful to suggest - again, to UNSEAT the sitting president. they lack respect of law, have no patience for waiting it out. unfortunately, their leaders are not leading them to respect rule of law. just the opposite.

leaders have different responsibilities. greater accountability.
when W showed respect and grace toward obama, i was impressed. that was the right thing to do.

i was not a W fan. he made bad mistakes. but, after he left office, he did the right thing.

so, on one level, i wholeheartedly agree with you.
on another level, i can’t dismiss the 2 sides as being completely of the same coin.

strangest of all (for me) is how frequently President Trump is accused of being a divider.
he’s definitely a response to a significant divider.
but, between the two, i imagine Trump will actually be remembered as much more of a diplomat than obama was. diplomacy was not obama’s goal. i think of obama as a community DIS-organizer.

he’s not finished. he’s a young man, he has plans. God willing, he may have years remaining to continue what he began in office.
RZehr:
When I look at the "teams" discussing, I see this as 100% partisan political debate. How does the government taking more control from individuals become acceptable to Republicans?
regarding the Harvest Boxes, this is not about initiating a new costly program; it’s about making the existing one work better at a better cost to taxpayers. there does not seem to be much disagreement about the fact there is need for improvement.
RZher:
And I can just hear the angry caterwauling about individual rights the Republicans would perform if Obama tried this. And I'm certain the Democrats would be excitedly caterwauling about details like fresh healthy foods.
guaranteed. unless+until it works well. if so, the grumbling will end.
the obamas pushed an unpopular school lunch program. it’s still unpopular. i’m not sure of where it stands now. but, there was no WWIII in Congress over it. i don’t recall it was discussed on forum. accepted by libs, no big argument from conservatives.

my granddaughter takes her lunch, she doesn’t like the food at her public school.
i understand the kitchen and staff are top-notch.
RZehr:
I'm not impressed with the governments ability to get the best prices on the food boxes, nor the governments ability to efficiently manage the logistics. Its hard to beat the efficiency of electronically filling a card with money and just having the people do the legwork.
While I am skeptical of all the dietary "restrictions" now days, with a card the people can buy what they need. For the government to try to honor these restrictions, that would add additional complications.
the existing gov system has room for improvement. people like mike have to deal with gov demands. their input means a lot (to me.) they see it, they live it!
RZeher:
Also, I don't have a high level of trust that another program won't be susceptible to graft, bribes, kickbacks etc. My expectation is that the graft in a large federal program will equal the amount that is currently being lost/misused/sold at the individual level.
At least now when someone sells their card at the 50% exchange rate to some friend for cash, it is probably being used better than some multi millionaire vendor skimming millions for himself.
do you believe the current program is “multi-millionaire vendor skimming”-free??! :lol:
i’m afraid, this may be an example of that partisanship you claim not to have. :P

i have zero doubt, the junk food industry will do everything possible to squash this entire idea.
as well, any who profit from the present system, like Wayne’s neighborhood grocer.
they will put up a big fight to protect their way of life.
it’s not hard to tell who the winners+losers will be. they will fight to protect themselves.
RZehr:
The thing for me to remember is that this is a fallen world, and many people are in the control of sin. So all these social programs are "fixes" that are necessary because we humans are not operating as God originally designed.
agreed. :)
RZehr:
And the more people live according to Gods plan, the less these programs are needed.
But the core is sin. Laziness. Sinful addictions. Broken homes. Consequences of sin, theirs or someone elses.
agreed. :)
RZehr:
I'm curious what percentage of food stamp recipients are nuclear families with no divorce?
How many single people (in this country) are on welfare who have been living a faithful Christian life and because of that need food stamps?
God knows every one. :)
RZehr:
I'm for a food assistance program.
I also think a lot of people abuse it and there would be ways to improve it.

I'd like to see all prebottled beverages disallowed, and candy, baked goods.

I'd also like if there was a better way to prompt people to provide for themselves without taking such a big hit. I don't like the idea that someone can be on assistance and be penalized greatly for earning income.

Seems like the current formula could be tweaked.

I also think that the definition for able bodied should be broadened, and no able bodied person should be able to just live on assistance.
good points. for some, regarding logistics, those like mike would have important experience to contribute. their input is important! they are left with the nuts+bolts IRL responsibility of dealing with both government regs and store customers.

from what i read, lots of people receiving benefits are employed, i’m not sure how that works, but, i believe former restrictions have been eased over time.

i believe allowances are now made for age, health, disability.
it’s not so much of a “one size fits all” approach, as it may have been, early on.

hope that helps. :D
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by RZehr »

temporal1 wrote:
RZeher:
Also, I don't have a high level of trust that another program won't be susceptible to graft, bribes, kickbacks etc. My expectation is that the graft in a large federal program will equal the amount that is currently being lost/misused/sold at the individual level.
At least now when someone sells their card at the 50% exchange rate to some friend for cash, it is probably being used better than some multi millionaire vendor skimming millions for himself.
do you believe the current program is “multi-millionaire vendor skimming”-free??! :lol:
i’m afraid, this may be an example of that partisanship you claim not to have. :P

i have zero doubt, the junk food industry will do everything possible to squash this entire idea.
as well, any who profit from the present system, like Wayne’s neighborhood grocer.
they will put up a big fight to protect their way of life.
it’s not hard to tell who the winners+losers will be. they will fight to protect themselves.
I think there will be industry groups like the junk food industry that will try to protect their interests. But I find that at least one step about blatant overcharging. I am part of an industry group as well which promotes our industry. But there is still fair competition. I'm talking about a single company being able to make political donations and then winning contracts that are worded so narrowly as to essentially eliminate his competition.
So I don't know if there is this problem in the current system. Maybe there is. Probably there is. But it seems to me that because of the increase in government contracts, the proposed system would be more conducive to the problem than the current system.

I'm curious, which party do you consider me to be partial to?
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by temporal1 »

RZehr wrote: I think there will be industry groups like the junk food industry that will try to protect their interests. But I find that at least one step about blatant overcharging.

I am part of an industry group as well which promotes our industry. But there is still fair competition.

I'm talking about a single company being able to make political donations and then winning contracts that are worded so narrowly as to essentially eliminate his competition. :?:

So I don't know if there is this problem in the current system. Maybe there is. Probably there is.

But it seems to me that because of the increase in government contracts, the proposed system would be more conducive to the problem than the current system.

I'm curious, which party do you consider me to be partial to?
this is quite an accusation. honestly, i have no idea if there is basis for it. maybe you do.
it HAS happened, and, loads of businesses would love for it to happen! - to remove competition, enjoy legal protections, protected profits. lobbies are now known to have tremendous influence n Congress.

but, i would not guess the existing system is better; corruption is calling it into question.
i do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
but, to repeat, lack of accountability in any human construct invites corruption.

i do not know where it will end. i would not hazard a guess.
i do not foresee Trump forcing mandates (like obama did with school lunches and other policies) .. “at all costs.” i see Trump doing more to “pick his battles,” and, move on, rather than obsessing on any one. (for better and worse.)

what is behind the scenes on the top levels? i have no idea. big money decisions.
obama left the White House a wealthy man. trump entered it a wealthy man. did he do it for even more personal profit? i hope not. but i do not know his heart or mind.

your last question? - whaa! no fair! :?
i really don’t know. i believe you avoid politics. i very much appreciate your input on forum.
i would not “label” you. occasionally i read something, like above, that makes me wonder.

personally, i identify with appleman’s view when he points out (to paraphrase) that anyone who believes the left is any better than the right, is (delusional.) :-|

i have never been a party member. in most of my life, i have not voted. i have rarely signed any petition in my lifetime. i have not marched or protested, carried banners, sported bumper stickers, et al. even tho not Anabaptist, this is how i was raised, i stayed by it as i grew older.

i resisted these things in the 60’s-70’s, when it was all around me! things were intensely political.
in 1972, i did vote for Shirley Chisolm for president. i thought she was pretty neat. that was about the extent of what i thought. but. o.well. :mrgreen:

[i file that ^^ under, “why i agree with gene, voting age should be raised to 60.] 8-)

i admit, the deal-breaker for me with the left came with their decision to make for-profit-corporate-abortion part of their party platform. i cannot set that right in my mind. listening to obama, then hillary, speak on it was very hard to take. it seems unreal this could even happen.

i have other grumbles. :P .. but, that one, no. i cannot do that.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:
Josh wrote:Boot, what’s your point?

Everybody who knows anything about ebt knows you get 50 cents on the dollar. I can find more articles to cut and paste to prove it, but again, what’s the point, other than to engage in a personal attack against me?
I'm mostly gathering data - what do we know about how much waste there is, and how sure are we that we know it? I thought you had claimed that 50-60% of SNAP spending is fraudulent and goes to alcohol and such, and that's not what this article is saying. I'm hearing a few people guess that it must be that high, but I suspect that's based on very little data.

Or perhaps I misunderstood what your were claiming? Were you simply saying that those people who do sell EBTs only get 50-60% of the face value? I find that less surprising, but I would have no idea what that value is, it's outside of my experience.

I don't usually know what I think until I start thinking, gathering data, understanding the lay of the land. Trying to find reliable statistics is not the same thing as attacking you. I'm not sure how else to try to understand what's going on.
Dude, I said the black market rate of EBT to cash is 50¢ on the dollar.
Josh wrote:Runs about 50¢ on the dollar.
I’m not sure what the fraud rate is. My guess is a few percent, but obviously such a thing is hard to do research on.

Generally speaking hard data on the life and habits of poor people is harder to come by, and so the real life experience of people who are one or interact with them has value. And if there’s one thing I’ve noticed amongst America’s poor, it’s that everyone knows you can get 50¢ for your EBT and $6 per bar of Xanax. These things form a kind of financial safety net amongst the welfare-dependent poor who count on these things to be able to sell them when they need cash.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:
RZehr wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: I thought you had claimed that 50-60% of SNAP spending is fraudulent and goes to alcohol and such, and that's not what this article is saying. I'm hearing a few people guess that it must be that high, but I suspect that's based on very little data.
Who is saying that? I think what people are saying - at least me- is that the exchange rate is 50%. If person A has a card with $100 dollars on it they can sell it to person B for $50 cash.
OK, I had clearly misunderstood what people were saying. Sorry about that!
Oops, I just saw this. Sorry for my over-reaction, Boot.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by temporal1 »

i enjoy reading Herman Cain’s “tidbits.”
i believe he has a popular radio program, i don’t listen to radio. HC often agrees with President Trump, not always. i don’t recall right now if he was an early Trump supporter (?) .. post-election, he usually supports Trump:
The genius of Trump's food stamp proposal:
You're not supposed to like being on food stamps

https://www.hermancain.com/the-genius-o ... osal-youre
.. And of course, I'm sure part of the idea here is that people can't trade or sell their food stamps or find some clever way to use them to get booze, cigarettes, drugs, etc. ..
• Under the USDA America’s Harvest Box proposal, all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participating households receiving $90 per month or more in benefits will receive a package of nutritious, 100-percent U.S. grown and produced food. Approximately 16.4 million households, or about 81 percent of SNAP households would be impacted by this proposal.

• The amount of food received per household would be scaled to the overall size of the household’s SNAP allotment, ultimately representing about half of their benefits. SNAP participants would receive domestically-sourced and produced food in lieu of a portion of their SNAP benefits.

• 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-eatcereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables) to SNAP households at approximately half the retail cost.

• This proposal creates a new approach to nutrition assistance that combines retail-based SNAP benefits with delivery of USDA America’s Harvest Boxes supporting the President’s leadership on Buy American. This proposal is cost-effective, enhances the integrity of SNAP, and provides for states’ flexibility in administration of the program.

• The remainder of the household’s benefits will still be provided via the current Electronic Benefit Transfer card.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by Bootstrap »

RZehr wrote:When I look at the "teams" discussing, I see this as 100% partisan political debate. How does the government taking more control from individuals become acceptable to Republicans?
And I can just hear the angry caterwauling about individual rights the Republicans would perform if Obama tried this. And I'm certain the Democrats would be excitedly caterwauling about details like fresh healthy foods.
I don't think anybody has objected to sending food directly to recipients, and I don't think anybody has taken a strong stance against this proposal. Mostly, I think I'm raising some of the same questions and concerns you are.

But to me, this is not the same thing as "fresh healthy foods", and I think the proposal should at least be changed to allow people to choose to spend more of the benefit in foods that are.
shelf-stable foods (such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, ready-eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables)
I don't eat ready-eat cereals because they are expensive and not all that nutritious or filling, I eat oatmeal with a cup of frozen fruit every morning. Many nutritionists say that juice is not all that different from drinking sugary drinks and it is much better to eat fruit. So why are these two items a priority? What goals lead to this particular selection of foods? Here's one thing I would like: foods that are not likely to lead to obesity, since obesity causes health problems and the taxpayer winds up paying for a lot of that medical care.

Fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables are generally better for you, and I'm not sure that the price needs to be much higher - I get veggies from http://ungradedproduce.com at a price that is probably similar to canned, and USDA graphics don't seem to show that canned is necessarily the cheapest, e.g.

Image
RZehr wrote:I'm not impressed with the governments ability to get the best prices on the food boxes, nor the governments ability to efficiently manage the logistics. Its hard to beat the efficiency of electronically filling a card with money and just having the people do the legwork. While I am skeptical of all the dietary "restrictions" now days, with a card the people can buy what they need. For the government to try to honor these restrictions, that would add additional complications.
Also, I don't have a high level of trust that another program won't be susceptible to graft, bribes, kickbacks etc. My expectation is that the graft in a large federal program will equal the amount that is currently being lost/misused/sold at the individual level. At least now when someone sells their card at the 50% exchange rate to some friend for cash, it is probably being used better than some multi millionaire vendor skimming millions for himself.
I agree, and I would much prefer to trust a program that let all private industries compete to ship food that meets a particular standard. I imagine Amazon, Walmart, Aldi, etc. would love to be part of such a program. And ideally, you want them to be part of a system they can continue to use when they can afford it themselves, slowly weaning them off as their income goes up at a rate that still incentivizes work.

And this is particularly problematic in an environment where government seems to be making deals with private companies behind closed doors and announcing them after the deal is done.
RZehr wrote:The thing for me to remember is that this is a fallen world, and many people are in the control of sin. So all these social programs are "fixes" that are necessary because we humans are not operating as God originally designed.
And the more people live according to Gods plan, the less these programs are needed. But the core is sin. Laziness. Sinful addictions. Broken homes. Consequences of sin, theirs or someone elses.
I'm curious what percentage of food stamp recipients are nuclear families with no divorce? How many single people (in this country) are on welfare who have been living a faithful Christian life and because of that need food stamps?
Sure - but there's a difference between short-term help and long-term help. A lot of people on food stamps really do have disordered lives. As you mention, the sin may be someone else's - the refugee families I work with, for instance, or children whose parents are not responsible.

And a lot of people on food stamps are working, including some who are working full time, and others may be in between jobs but really do want to work. In one refugee family I work with, the husband works full-time and the wife works part-time, but they don't have enough to get through the month and feed their 5 children without food stamps.
RZehr wrote:I'm for a food assistance program. I also think a lot of people abuse it and there would be ways to improve it. I'd like to see all prebottled beverages disallowed, and candy, baked goods. I'd also like if there was a better way to prompt people to provide for themselves without taking such a big hit. I don't like the idea that someone can be on assistance and be penalized greatly for earning income. Seems like the current formula could be tweaked.
I agree with all of this except for one thing where I may simply not be knowledgeable: I thought I had heard that SNAP was one program where people are better off if their income goes up because benefits go down slowly with income. Did I get that wrong?
RZehr wrote:I also think that the definition for able bodied should be broadened, and no able bodied person should be able to just live on assistance.
I agree, and I think that the government should be the "employer of last resort", finding something useful for people to do if they can't get a job.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by RZehr »

I’ve not read anything about the proposal to send boxes of food, except what is on this thread. My statement about Democrats and fresh food was my attempt at imagining how the Democrats would find some way to spin this concept to their fans if this was an Obama idea.

About the contracts – I don’t know if there would be contracts written in such ways as to favor certain vendors or not. It seems to me could be a possibility. Many times government turns to industry for input on how to write regulations for there industry, and to an extent rightly so.
For example, I just received a phone call this week from a customer bidding on a government contract. This contract specified my competitors product by name and further specified that substitutions would not be allowed. I have seen the data, and I know that our product would be just as good. So I cannot sell to my customer, I have to direct him to my competitor.
I’ll add though that this is very rare, and very small deals. Usually substitutions are allowed, or there is multiple products listed as allowed.

Maybe if each state operated its own program it would be better? But maybe not. When there is low level abuse such as selling a card for cash, I see that as diverse costs (paid by many taxpayers) and diverse benefits (many people benefit). When there is high level abuse, such as overcharging on contracts, this is diverse costs and concentrated benefits.


I don’t know how SNAP works. I just occasionally hear about someone getting X amount of food stamps and then losing them when they earn x amount of income, which discourages them from working.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by Josh »

There are a lot of scenarios now where one earns a negative return from each additional dollar earned.

Since we all seem to agree here the government does a terrible job of everything, why don’t we get the government out of the food business altogether? If people can’t afford food, let the local community (churches, charities, neighbours, private citizens) take care of them. I certainly do this when I am presented with a need and it’s one I can fill.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump Budget Swaps Food Stamps for '100 Percent American' Food

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:There are a lot of scenarios now where one earns a negative return from each additional dollar earned.

Since we all seem to agree here the government does a terrible job of everything, why don’t we get the government out of the food business altogether? If people can’t afford food, let the local community (churches, charities, neighbours, private citizens) take care of them. I certainly do this when I am presented with a need and it’s one I can fill.
Best way to do that is to take care of the poor first so that it's obvious there's no further need for government involvement. I haven't seen private charity rise to that level. And when I look at countries internationally, the poor really are better off in countries that try to provide for them.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply