President Trump Wants To Change SNAP Program

[Thekri]

Agreed. Poor people should not be nutritionally short changed. In fact, quite the opposite.

While I will agree with SNAP not being able to be used to buy chips, sodas, candy, etc. it shouldn't be replaced with other empty calories/carbs like pasta and breads. Kids need GOOD nutrition - it not only grows their bodies but their minds as well.

Also, there is so much food in the USA, no person - not a single one - should ever have to go to bed hungry.

Whoa. A Ransath post I completely agree with, that actually seems rational and at least appears to care about people. I never thought I would see this. Good for you, and for once I don't mean it sarcastically. I know you won't change your opinions on other issues, but good to see you are apparently reasonable on something.

[Cthulhu 2020]

....what?

Fuck that's a lot of carbs. Just sayin.

[Breccia]

Fuck that's a lot of carbs. Just sayin.

But not sugar.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But not sugar.

Kashi itself is dipped in sugar, and has a decent amount of sugar in it. When he said shredded wheat, I was thinking of the frosted mini wheats. I wasn't aware of shredded wheat, but that's just because I avoid starchy carb filled breakfast cereals in general anyway. It's healthier than most, but still fits in the "asston of carbs" category where the old food pyramid told us we should have 11-14 servings of carbs a day.

I'd say this is a bit off topic, but when it comes down to it, it's about nutrition as well. Wheat, even whole wheat, when eaten in large amounts throughout the day is pretty unhealthy It's healthier than pure sugars and "white" wheat, but should still be eaten in small amounts with lots of proteins and lipids. And when I say proteins, people usually go "WEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH meat is too expensive!" but beans are packed with protein and are one of the cheapest foods there are. Same with eggs.

And in the US at least, chicken and pork are hitting rock bottom prices.

[stumpy]

Just your daily reminder that America would be immeasurably improved if libertarians were rounded up into camps and worked to death.

[Resurgo]

But not sugar.

you are technically correct, however our bodies end up breaking down excess carbs into glucose (basically sugar) so a lot of that stuff just basically makes us fat regardless since we end up storing the excess.

[Machismo]

I'm genuinely curious how you come to the conclusion the FDA is corrupt? (As opposed to inept, or understaffed, or whatnot). If you have specific examples or details that would be great. Cause what you posted here is more rhetoric than substance.

I get you are a libertarian...but I sure hope you don't think pharmaceuticals should be governed by the free market.

Actually, I do want them to be governed by the free market. Of course, that would mean getting rid of patent protections on those products. A large part of the problem is the patent and manufacturing protections guaranteed by the FDA. For all the complaints about the soaring cost of a single drug (I'm sure don't have to bring up Pharma-Bro), the FDA was the mechanism that not only allowed it, but actually created the situation.

The main examples would be the overall drug approval process. It is far more stringent than almost all other countries, and hasn't been shown to be more effective. There's mandated and protected monopolies, as well as the bribery and kickbacks that have long plagued the agency.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tes-the-media/

https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalIn.../ucm583373.htm

[zenkai]

There's still a middle man. Get over it.

Get over it? How childish. I guess you can't fathom that cutting out a grocery store markup is what everyone but you understood.

[Orlong]

Surely there could be some kind of middle ground? A system that's less rigid, but still comes from existing suppliers and not FEMA rations of govt cheese?

There are millions of people around the world that would get on their knees and beg for that government cheese (Sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia, North Korea,etc...) What is so bad about surviving on things that while maybe not the best tasting, are nutritious until you get back on your feet and you can afford what you like to eat?

[Machismo]

Just your daily reminder that America would be immeasurably improved if libertarians were rounded up into camps and worked to death.

Libertarians hold no power at all. That would be about the same as putting Green Party members in concentration camps.

[Breccia]

There are millions of people around the world that would get on their knees and beg for that government cheese (Sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia, North Korea,etc...) What is so bad about surviving on things that while maybe not the best tasting, are nutritious until you get back on your feet and you can afford what you like to eat?

*cracks knuckles*

1) I'm going to call bullshit on any GOP argument that involves "people around the world" when the GOP is taking strides to cut foreign aid to "shithole" countries. Maybe if your party was actually proving the poor of the world was a source of moral concern, you could have gotten away with it. But, they took the opposite approach, and there goes your argument and feigned indignation.

2) Especially North Korea.

3) Did you just call government cheese "nutritious"? I'm just going to wipe away the tears of laughter with this government cheese nutritional information that has proportionally higher fat content than Cabot Cheddar and no calcium in it.

No calcium.

In cheese.

4) And I can't help but notice you're pushing the "get back on your feet" bit when most people on SNAP work, including active duty military, and many of the rest can't (including children, who need calcium for growing bones, which government cheese doesn't have, seriously what the fuck)

5) And you skipped the part about government regulation and oversight. Yes, the WIC and the hypothetical system I'm asking about would restrict what you could/couldn't get. Mailing people the food changes "you can't buy candy or soda" restrictions into "I hope you like corn because that's what we're giving you". Again, any GOP argument based on increasing restrictions is an argument I'm going to call bullshit on.

6) Plus, you didn't even respond to the question. If perfectly good food -- such as fresh vegetables and non-canned meat -- is already available on local store shelves, why not a system which allows people who need nutritious food, to get nutritious food from there? The proposed FEMA rations (yeah I'm going to keep using that intentionally derogatory term) are not only of questionable nutritional quality (how the fuck does cheese not have calcium?) but the extra delivery could eat any potential savings. A system that follows the spirit of WIC could, for the same costs, get nutritious food to people who need nutritious food, as well as allow a much higher degree of choice than "Oh boy, the government sent corn again. Guess we had another surplus."

[Orlong]

WIC really isn't that rigid, that's the point. We have the available private-sector infrastructure in hand, and a means in which to ensure it's very difficult to abuse. The solution is rather simple. Allow for more brands to be allowed, and still restrict the types of products they are allowed to buy. Make them vouchers, and not debit cards.

I like the idea of making it like WIC in theory. In practicality it would suck. Have you ever got stuck behind someone using WIC in the checkout line? The cashier has to check each item off the list and then when something is rejected (because many WIC recipients are uneducated high school dropouts and don't know how to read product brand names or sizes and grab the wrong one), the person has to go back and grab the correct size or different brand. Additionally, They usually have 3 or 4 different WIC checks because they issue vegetables on one check, juice and cereals on another, milk on another etc..so the payment takes a while too. Now Imagine getting behind 2 or 3 people with full carts. This could take 15 or 22 minutes for each one and make everyone else miserable.

I would rather they just remove all snacks, drinks other than water, milk, or 100% fruit juice, sugared cereal, and any meat/seafood/deli items costing more than $7 per pound from the allowable purchase list.

Even better they could split the SNAP benefits into several different "pots" such as:

$35 available only for produce
$40 available only for meat
$25 available only for dairy (milk, eggs, butter)
$25 for grains (bread, beans, pasta, cereal)
$25 for 100% fruit juice/water (no soda, Hawaiian Punch, iced tea, energy drinks, iced coffee drinks etc..)

No premade food (yes, currently you can buy premade food as long as it hasn't been cooked such as an Italian Sub at a convenience store which you ay $8 for and you could have made it at home for about $3)

This way people cant blow their whole SNAP money on junk, and they will get more food for the money, and they will get healthier food

[draynay]

There are millions of people around the world that would get on their knees and beg for that government cheese (Sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia, North Korea,etc...) What is so bad about surviving on things that while maybe not the best tasting, are nutritious until you get back on your feet and you can afford what you like to eat?

Maybe you should change your avatar to "make america barely better than the third world again".

[Machismo]

I like the idea of making it like WIC in theory. In practicality it would suck. Have you ever got stuck behind someone using WIC in the checkout line? The cashier has to check each item off the list and then when something is rejected (because many WIC recipients are uneducated high school dropouts and don't know how to read product brand names or sizes and grab the wrong one), the person has to go back and grab the correct size or different brand. Additionally, They usually have 3 or 4 different WIC checks because they issue vegetables on one check, juice and cereals on another, milk on another etc..so the payment takes a while too. Now Imagine getting behind 2 or 3 people with full carts. This could take 15 or 22 minutes for each one and make everyone else miserable.

I would rather they just remove all snacks, drinks other than water, milk, or 100% fruit juice, sugared cereal, and any meat/seafood/deli items costing more than $7 per pound from the allowable purchase list.

Even better they could split the SNAP benefits into several different "pots" such as:

$35 available only for produce
$40 available only for meat
$25 available only for dairy (milk, eggs, butter)
$25 for grains (bread, beans, pasta, cereal)
$25 for 100% fruit juice/water (no soda, Hawaiian Punch, iced tea, energy drinks, iced coffee drinks etc..)

No premade food (yes, currently you can buy premade food as long as it hasn't been cooked such as an Italian Sub at a convenience store which you ay $8 for and you could have made it at home for about $3)

This way people cant blow their whole SNAP money on junk, and they will get more food for the money, and they will get healthier food

Yes, I have, and it is rather fast. You are opting for more restrictions, and it can still easily be abused, as the debit card system can simply be circumvented by offering to "buy" someone else's groceries, and getting cash in return. That's far more difficult to do with WIC, which requires identification requirements. The biggest issue with SNAP, is the debit cards.

As for what should be restricted, I'm fine with some of your restrictions. I disagree with the 'sugar cereals" as those are actually fortified, and fairly healthy overall. The same can be said for modern diet sodas, which are considerably healthier than most fruit juices. After all, it's almost entirely water. I have no desire to limit people's dietary intake to that degree. Some people like bread, some people don't.

[Elegiac]

There are millions of people around the world that would get on their knees and beg for that government cheese (Sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia, North Korea,etc...) What is so bad about surviving on things that while maybe not the best tasting, are nutritious until you get back on your feet and you can afford what you like to eat?

Says a lot about America that people who work full time jobs have to live at subsistence off crappy, processed cheese product.

- - - Updated - - -

I like the idea of making it like WIC in theory. In practicality it would suck. Have you ever got stuck behind someone using WIC in the checkout line? The cashier has to check each item off the list and then when something is rejected (because many WIC recipients are uneducated high school dropouts and don't know how to read product brand names or sizes and grab the wrong one), the person has to go back and grab the correct size or different brand. Additionally, They usually have 3 or 4 different WIC checks because they issue vegetables on one check, juice and cereals on another, milk on another etc..so the payment takes a while too. Now Imagine getting behind 2 or 3 people with full carts. This could take 15 or 22 minutes for each one and make everyone else miserable.

I would rather they just remove all snacks, drinks other than water, milk, or 100% fruit juice, sugared cereal, and any meat/seafood/deli items costing more than $7 per pound from the allowable purchase list.

Even better they could split the SNAP benefits into several different "pots" such as:

$35 available only for produce
$40 available only for meat
$25 available only for dairy (milk, eggs, butter)
$25 for grains (bread, beans, pasta, cereal)
$25 for 100% fruit juice/water (no soda, Hawaiian Punch, iced tea, energy drinks, iced coffee drinks etc..)

No premade food (yes, currently you can buy premade food as long as it hasn't been cooked such as an Italian Sub at a convenience store which you ay $8 for and you could have made it at home for about $3)

This way people cant blow their whole SNAP money on junk, and they will get more food for the money, and they will get healthier food

We'll consider it if you consider banning soda sales over a certain size at fast food restaurants, 'kay?

[Lenonis]

Actually, I do want them to be governed by the free market.

Why? You have to know that will result in millions of deaths right? Companies would cut their drugs, take shortcuts on safety measures, skip clinical trials, ignore side effects, pretend drug interactions don't exist, and engage in bribing of doctors and blatantly misleading advertising. Are you aware of why the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics act was passed?

Of course, that would mean getting rid of patent protections on those products.

And the incentive for drug development would be........?

For all the complaints about the soaring cost of a single drug (I'm sure don't have to bring up Pharma-Bro), the FDA was the mechanism that not only allowed it, but actually created the situation.

Wait...the FDA doesn't regulate drug pricing....do they? Or are you saying the costs to meet regulation are what causes high drug prices? You realize the alternative is an untested drug.

The main examples would be the overall drug approval process. It is far more stringent than almost all other countries, and hasn't been shown to be more effective.

What? That's....just not true. The international regulatory agencies often have more strict requirements for drugs than the US. And sure, some don't...

[Machismo]

Why? You have to know that will result in millions of deaths right? Companies would cut their drugs, take shortcuts on safety measures, skip clinical trials, ignore side effects, pretend drug interactions don't exist, and engage in bribing of doctors and blatantly misleading advertising. Are you aware of why the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics act was passed?

And the incentive for drug development would be........?

Wait...the FDA doesn't regulate drug pricing....do they? Or are you saying the costs to meet regulation are what causes high drug prices? You realize the alternative is an untested drug.

What? That's....just not true. The international regulatory agencies often have more strict requirements for drugs than the US. And sure, some don't...

The FDA does regulate who is able to be in the marketplace in the first place. They don't control prices, they simply limit the free market.

[Lenonis]

The FDA does regulate who is able to be in the marketplace in the first place. They don't control prices, they simply limit the free market.

So in your framework how do consumers know their drugs they are getting filled at a pharmacy are safe and effective?

[Machismo]

So in your framework how do consumers know their drugs they are getting filled at a pharmacy are safe and effective?

In short, they don't. They can have things verified by private, independent entities, rather than a government one. Yes, it can be done ahead of time. They can even handle it through their own private insurers. As it stands, we have plenty of examples where the government said something was safe, and it simply was not (Vioxx).

[Gestopft]

In short, they don't. They can have things verified by private, independent entities, rather than a government one.

What would the business model be for an independent drug testing agency? Because the potential for bribery there is enormous.

The reason for the FDA is that the unregulated model doesn't work. There are valid critiques of the FDA, and times they've missed the mark, but can you name one developed country that doesn't regulate pharmaceuticals?