Maine Gov. LePage threatens to halt food stamp program amid sugar crackdown

[Stacyrect]

And yet to change it in the way you suggest would end up costing the taxpayers even more money...how is that better?

It's a short term vs long term cost/benefit. 50 million people are on snap, if 1 million of those people have 1 kid who has diabetes due to poor diet, that's 10 billion dollars we are saving alone in in future medical costs. That doesn't take into account the costs of other medical and dental related issues due to poor diet.

SNAP can and should be done like WIC. The FDA already has comprehensive lists, guides, suggestions on what is a healthy diet. The information is there.

Not sure why you would think their would be some astronomical cost related to making a change for tax payers. It's the merchants who would have to make the change to stay compliant and make sure they receive credit for the purchase of the SNAP beneficiary.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It's a short term vs long term cost/benefit. 50 million people are on snap, if 1 million of those people have 1 kid who has diabetes due to poor diet, that's 10 billion dollars we are saving alone in in future medical costs. That doesn't take into account the costs of other medical and dental related issues due to poor diet.

SNAP can and should be done like WIC. The FDA already has comprehensive lists, guides, suggestions on what is a healthy diet. The information is there.

Not sure why you would think their would be some astronomical cost related to making a change for tax payers. It's the merchants who would have to make the change to stay compliant and make sure they receive credit for the purchase of the SNAP beneficiary.

One more time then:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

And:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...strictions.pdf

IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS - SUMMARY
By most standards, almost all American diets are in need of improvement. Given interest in using Federal
nutrition assistance programs to promote healthy choices, some suggest that food stamp recipients should
be prohibited from using their benefits to buy foods with limited nutritional value. However, there are
serious problems with the rationale, feasibility and potential effectiveness of this proposal.

No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.

• Federal dietary guidance uniformly applies to the total diet – there are no widely accepted standards
to judge the “healthfulness” of individual foods.

• Foods contain many components that can affect health, and diets contain many foods. As a result, it
is challenging to determine whether – and the point at which – the presence or absence of desirable
nutrients outweighs the presence of nutrients to be avoided in ruling a food “in” or “out”.
Implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and costs.

• There are more than 300,000 food products on the market, and an average of 12,000 new products
were introduced each year between 1990 and 2000. The task of identifying, evaluating, and tracking
the nutritional profile of every food available for purchase would be substantial. The burden of
identifying which products met Federal standards would most likely fall on an expanded bureaucracy
or on manufacturers and producers asked to certify that their products meet Federal standards.

• Responsibility for enforcing compliance would rest in the hands of employees at check-out counters
in 160,000 stores across the nation. While many have modern scanning and inventory control
systems, others – especially small stores and specialty markets – do not.

• New effort would be needed to help participants avoid the rejection of purchases at the check-out
counter, an event with the potential to reduce productivity at the register and stigmatize participants.
Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants

• About 70 percent of all food stamp participants – those who receive less than the maximum benefit –
are expected to purchase a portion of their food with their own money. There is no guarantee that
restricting the use of food stamps would affect food purchases – other than substituting one form of
payment (cash) for another (food stamps).

No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity.

• There is no strong research-based evidence to support restricting food stamp benefits. Food stamp
recipients are no more likely than higher income consumers to choose foods with little nutritional
value; thus the basis for singling out low-income food stamp recipients and restricting their food
choices is not clear.

There are better ways to work towards the goal of healthier diets that do not require such restrictions.
Incentives – rather than restrictions – that encourage purchases of certain foods or expanded nutrition
education to enable participants to make healthy choices are more practical options and likely to be more
effective in achieving the dietary improvements that promote good health.

As has been stated before...there are better methods of guiding people to make better choices regarding what they eat. Methods that can apply to everyone...not just those people on SNAP.

[Stacyrect]

One more time then:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items



And:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...strictions.pdf



As has been stated before...there are better methods of guiding people to make better choices regarding what they eat. Methods that can apply to everyone...not just those people on SNAP.

A demonstration of the ineptitude meant to justify fiscal irresponsibility and lack of care to the poor and most vulnerable

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

A demonstration of the ineptitude meant to justify fiscal irresponsibility and lack of care to the poor and most vulnerable

Perhaps, in your obviously extensive studies on the subject, you have found evidence toward your opinion that invalidates theirs? If so, please, present it to us.

[Tinykong]

In the certain terms of being an option, yes they are. People do not NEED candy bars, people do not NEED cigarettes, people do not NEED alcohol. They are all choices an individual can make for consumption. Stop trying to push ur fucking candy bars on everyone, pusher man

Cigarettes are harmful to yourself and, more importantly, others even from smoking just one. Alcohol is the same in many ways, albeit to a lesser degree. Both substances are also addictive.

Sugar isn't addictive. Eating a candy bar isn't unhealthy, dangerous to others or yourself.

What exactly is the problem with this anyways? Not saying this would be something I support. If the government ships you a box of food that will provide ALL the nutritional value you need, why do you get to complain what it is? The problem again, is you. You want to use the government to eat luxuries foods, rather than be thankful the government gives 2 shits about whether you eat or not.

Do you know how much food the government would have to send? Who is paying to ship it? Who is paying to store the perishable foods at safe temperatures? Who is paying to package and box 40 MILLION of boxes of food every single month.

You clearly don't know what SNAP is. You think it is a golden ticket to Willy Wonkas Chocolate Factory.

It's a supplemental program. 70% of the recipients are expected to pay for a portion of their own food needs. Is this really that hard to understand?

[Kathandira]

That kind of solution would only affect the people on SNAP...and only in their direct use of their SNAP benefits for junk food. It wouldn't have much impact overall on medical costs.

- - - Updated - - -



So, you're against them using SNAP to pay for junk food...but you are in favour of giving basic income which the same people using SNAP to buy junk food...can then use to buy junk food?

Doesn't seem that your solution would fix the problem you have with the program

If we were to distribute basic income. I would like to see it in the form of vouchers. Starting with housing, the vouchers would only be able to be used for Rent/Mortgage. Removing/Reducing the cost of living would be a great help to many in the U.S. From there, your earnings could go towards what ever you want.

For those who are unable to work due to disabilities, the disability program can stay, and perhaps be improved. But I would like to see the food stamp program dissolved. I feel taking a large burden (housing costs) off of the masses would be a great help.

[Gamdwelf]

If we were to distribute basic income. I would like to see it in the form of vouchers. Starting with housing, the vouchers would only be able to be used for Rent/Mortgage. Removing/Reducing the cost of living would be a great help to many in the U.S. From there, your earnings could go towards what ever you want.

For those who are unable to work due to disabilities, the disability program can stay, and perhaps be improved. But I would like to see the food stamp program dissolved. I feel taking a large burden (housing costs) off of the masses would be a great help.

I kinda like the voucher idea, but housing costs vary for very standard economic reasons, and if a voucher system was good on any housing no matter the cost it would really shake that up.

Having trouble even beginning to think of the ramifications of that.

[Kathandira]

I kinda like the voucher idea, but housing costs vary for very standard economic reasons, and if a voucher system was good on any housing no matter the cost it would really shake that up.

Having trouble even beginning to think of the ramifications of that.

It would require a lot of discussion and planning, no doubt about that. I would guess the Basic Income would have to vary location to location.

[Spectral]

It would require a lot of discussion and planning, no doubt about that. I would guess the Basic Income would have to vary location to location.

There's an enormous problem with this plan - direct subsidy of goods raises the total cost of those goods. In this case, housing is already artificially expensive as a result of subsidies such as the mortgage interest deduction. Funneling more money into the housing market further increases prices.

This may still work out to the advantage of people receiving subsidies, but it also provides additional wealth for those holding capital while hurting those in the middle. These sorts of subsidies pretty much always have the sandwich effect of helping the poor and wealthy and hurting the middle.

This may be possible to workaround, but it's not obvious how.

[Kathandira]

There's an enormous problem with this plan - direct subsidy of goods raises the total cost of those goods. In this case, housing is already artificially expensive as a result of subsidies such as the mortgage interest deduction. Funneling more money into the housing market further increases prices.

This may still work out to the advantage of people receiving subsidies, but it also provides additional wealth for those holding capital while hurting those in the middle. These sorts of subsidies pretty much always have the sandwich effect of helping the poor and wealthy and hurting the middle.

This may be possible to workaround, but it's not obvious how.

I agree that it wouldn't be easy to figure out. Sadly I am not educated in how to make something like this happen. But it is something that has been done elsewhere. I'm sure we can figure it out over time.

[Gamdwelf]

It would require a lot of discussion and planning, no doubt about that. I would guess the Basic Income would have to vary location to location.

But even then within my city there are apartments that vary from about 300 a month to almost a thousand based on location for similar sqft. Because of the neighborhood or quality.

If was a voucher that was basically "1 month rent" instead of a value it would undervalue the lower valued property even more and put more demand on the higher value property because it could be renting by anyone.

[Laraven]

I'm ashamed to be from Maine, where we voted this idiot in not once but twice......

[Spectral]

But even then within my city there are apartments that vary from about 300 a month to almost a thousand based on location for similar sqft. Because of the neighborhood or quality.

If was a voucher that was basically "1 month rent" instead of a value it would undervalue the lower valued property even more and put more demand on the higher value property because it could be renting by anyone.

This would also be pretty soul-crushing for people that are currently willing to pay to avoid living around those that are of similar socio-economic status. Having the government pay extra money to surround them with lower-class people would be pretty aggravating.

[Gamdwelf]

This would also be pretty soul-crushing for people that are currently willing to pay to avoid living around those that are of similar socio-economic status. Having the government pay extra money to surround them with lower-class people would be pretty aggravating.

I feel like neighborhoods would come up with stuff like home owners associations fees that would drive the poor out.

Apartments I think have much less recourse.

[Kathandira]

But even then within my city there are apartments that vary from about 300 a month to almost a thousand based on location for similar sqft. Because of the neighborhood or quality.

If was a voucher that was basically "1 month rent" instead of a value it would undervalue the lower valued property even more and put more demand on the higher value property because it could be renting by anyone.

I hear ya. I feel it should be based off of the average cost of living. If you decided to buy a house which costs much more than the average mortgage in the area, that would be your call. You would have to pay into your housing more than others would. If your mortgage is $2000 a month, but the average is $1200, that would be your decision to take on that house, and the additional investment on your part. Even if the house is identical to one in a lesser neighborhood, but costs more because it is a better neighborhood, that is your call.

It kind of answers the question of, "Then why would people even work if they are given free money." Not everyone is satisfied with being average, or even living at the bare minimum. Some (And really, I think it is more than the minority) want more out of life, and are willing to work hard for it.

[Laraven]

I would imagine in a state like Maine, there isn't a lot of jobs. Most of the jobs in maine are at walmart and fast food. People from maine, I would like your opinion on this. This governor of maine would be doing a better job if they were more focused on why people were qualifying for food stamps rather than trying to tell them what they can eat or drink.

I'm from Maine. Maine is very agricultural. We have seasonal work like Potatoes, Blueberry raking, and fishing. All are hard labor and pay very little. The local paper mills have been shutting down one by one. Paper mill town which are out in the middle of no where rely on these. Some of those town are being abandoned completely. People move nearer larger cites for housing and work which is all limited to begin with.

To hell with LePage and his bullshit. He could use a diet and a muzzle.

- - - Updated - - -

Idiots who get off on power trips should not be in charge.

Pretty much this.

[Gamdwelf]

I hear ya. I feel it should be based off of the average cost of living. If you decided to buy a house which costs much more than the average mortgage in the area, that would be your call. You would have to pay into your housing more than others would. If your mortgage is $2000 a month, but the average is $1200, that would be your decision to take on that house, and the additional investment on your part. Even if the house is identical to one in a lesser neighborhood, but costs more because it is a better neighborhood, that is your call.

It kind of answers the question of, "Then why would people even work if they are given free money." Not everyone is satisfied with being average, or even living at the bare minimum. Some (And really, I think it is more than the minority) want more out of life, and are willing to work hard for it.

See I generally want less than most people. I kinda miss my studio apt now that I have a house. So basic income would be baller.

[Kathandira]

See I generally want less than most people. I kinda miss my studio apt now that I have a house. So basic income would be baller.

I too do not have extravagant needs. I don't want to own a boat, or any of that nonsense. Though I would love to be able to go on a real vacation at some point in my life. I would love to get on a plane (35, never been on a plane). I've never been to Disney, would love to see that place.

There are experiences I want to have in my life that I currently cannot afford. It would be nice to have some of my financial burden loosened up a bit so I can be more of an active consumer.

[Laraven]

Yeah, there are no jobs except Walmart in the metropolis of Portland which is about the size of Boston. There are also no beaches, tourist destinations, or larger small cities either

Not entirely true. Maine relies on tourist $. We have the BEST hunting, camping and fishing around, clean air/water, and untouched wilderness to enjoy. Acadia park, Sugar Loaf skiing, Old Orchard Beach, Bar Harbor are all great assets to New England and bring in tourists.

I do agree that there are no big cities here. I live in Bangor and I find Portland too big. lol. But that's why I love Maine. The only thing I would change is it's governor.

[Tinykong]

Y'all got anymore more of that low cost housing?

A relative of mine pays $560 a month for a ~3,000 sq. ft. house in West Virginia. I'm paying $1750 for a town house rental...