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

[mike]

Capture7.PNG (7.3 KiB) Viewed 348 times

Capture8.PNG (4.72 KiB) Viewed 348 times

[mike]

Capture9.PNG (3.1 KiB) Viewed 347 times

Capture10.PNG (1.98 KiB) Viewed 347 times

[mike]

Wait ... we pay the water bill for those in need (separate program, of course) AND pay for their bottled water?

I had a customer for years who bought bottled distilled water using food stamps, for her dogs, which didn't like her tap water.

[mike]

If anybody is interested, I can post snapshots of the receipts of everything purchased with SNAP yesterday in my store. I don't remember the last time I looked that up, but that data is interesting.

But Mike, you only sell fresh, wholesome, nutritious, organic, GMO free food at your store, right?

(i think) it speaks volumes that mike would be ok with reduction in personal profits to improve the overall system. not every store owner would do that. (correct, if i’m mistaken.)

My store is probably not representative of the percentage of sales that a typical supermarket gets in EBT sales. We are at 3%. I believe a supermarket or discount grocery typically has a much higher EBT volume.

[mike]

I'll go ahead and analyze my own data just a bit. You can see that some people are very responsible with how they use their SNAP benefits. I really like to see them buy a bulk case of fresh meat for example. That is a great value for their money. Others use it primarily for staple or healthy foods, and possibly indulge in a bit of sweets along with that. Other people use it to buy predominantly what I would call luxury foods - expensive Starbucks coffee drinks, snacks, and candy.

It's a real mixed bag.

[Bootstrap]

I'll go ahead and analyze my own data just a bit. You can see that some people are very responsible with how they use their SNAP benefits. I really like to see them buy a bulk case of fresh meat for example. That is a great value for their money. Others use it primarily for staple or healthy foods, and possibly indulge in a bit of sweets along with that. Other people use it to buy predominantly what I would call luxury foods - expensive Starbucks coffee drinks, snacks, and candy.

It's a real mixed bag.

Is it very different from what other customers buy?

I'm pretty sure most Americans would be very happy to see SNAP restricted to healthy foods. I don't want my tax money going to junk food.

[mike]

I'll go ahead and analyze my own data just a bit. You can see that some people are very responsible with how they use their SNAP benefits. I really like to see them buy a bulk case of fresh meat for example. That is a great value for their money. Others use it primarily for staple or healthy foods, and possibly indulge in a bit of sweets along with that. Other people use it to buy predominantly what I would call luxury foods - expensive Starbucks coffee drinks, snacks, and candy.

It's a real mixed bag.

Is it very different from what other customers buy?

Probably not.

I'm pretty sure most Americans would be very happy to see SNAP restricted to healthy foods. I don't want my tax money going to junk food.

Well, as we can see for ourselves, a certain amount of tax money really is going to luxury or junk food. The "food parcel" would be one way to address some of that; but so would restricting SNAP benefits to certain foods. For example the WIC program already does that. Either way it would be more of a control on how tax dollars are used toward their intended purpose.

[temporal1]

my impression of the WIC program is that it does pretty well.
as years pass, i notice helpful store labels on food shelves that point to those items that qualify.
no personal experience with WIC, but, i use those store shelf labels as a help (for myself) in choosing good values. it seems to be a sensible program.

[Bootstrap]

I really wish the federal government would try this kind of thing as an experiment in one part of the country and see how it works out before replacing what we have entirely. Yes, I know this is a fantasy, neither party ever suggests this approach, but it's precisely the kind of thing we would have done in private industry back when I was involved in private industry. If it goes badly wrong, that will hurt a lot of people. If it's successful, it could help a lot of people.

They’re talking about letting the states administer the program, so there will be 50 different ways it’s done. That seems great.

In addition, if cash payments are so important, states can do that on their own.

If it were me, I would still prefer to try it in a few states first and see how it works before eliminating what we already have. But it's a fantasy, our government doesn't work that way.

[temporal1]

Wait ... we pay the water bill for those in need (separate program, of course) AND pay for their bottled water?

I had a customer for years who bought bottled distilled water using food stamps, for her dogs, which didn't like her tap water.

there’s a viral petition for that.
SNAP for pets
https://blog.humanesociety.org/2018/01/ ... hases.html

i hope this quickly fades away.
truth is, when gov provides necessities, recipients then have more choices in how to spend “their” money. as your customer already misuses aid for her dogs. Valerie posted earlier about this.
a sense of entitlement comes along.

we knew of a family that was happy to be able to give their college student their used family car.
it was in good operating condition, paid, should have served well for all of college years.

nope. the car was immediately traded for a snappier vehicle with a good-sized monthly payment. loans are readily available to accomodate poor decisions.
in less than a year, it was realized, not affordable! it was sold, replaced with an old “beater,” lots of miles, needed repairs. sigh.

the mindset of leveraging oneself into ever-greater debt is widespread. the temptations are great, peer pressures factor in: everyone’s doing it, everyone’s got one, etc. not healthy.