President Trump Wants To Change SNAP Program

[Antiganon]

When I used the term middle man, everyone but you understood the context I was referring to was the grocery store. Most people understand when you say "cut out the middle man" that you are talking about taking the finished product to the buyer, not having someone else buy it, store it and then sell it with a markup.

Everyone else also rightly pointed out that any savings on the single digit markup you find in grocery stores would not be enough to offset the costs of food storage and delivery on such a large scale.

Not to mention the food in the box is crap.

Not to mention it precludes you from buying things you actually need that are not in the box, like diapers, baby formula, fresh fruits/vegetables/meat/dairy, etc.

Not to mention the only problem it would actually solve is the problem of people illegally selling their benefits for cash, which has an extremely low rate of occurrence, and is, you know, already illegal.

But as a couple of quotes from our esteemed Congressional representatives have indicated, this isn't a serious proposal, it is meant as a distraction from the 30% across the board cuts that the Trump administration is proposing.

[Tijuana]

This just made my day. Ive been saying for 20 years this is what we should do. President Trump wants to drastically cut the amount of food stamps handed out and instead provide boxes of food much like Blue Apron or Hello Fresh does. This way people aren't wasting food stamps on unhealthy garbage like chips, pretzels, soda, and candy. It also will net the families more food because they wont be able to irresponsibly waste food stamps on high value items such as tenderloin steaks, scallops, crab meat, and leg of lamb. If they want that kind of food, then get a job, or if working, get a second job or increase skills and get a raise. We will also save money because we can buy in bulk and distribute the food. We can get 1 million cans of kidney beans for a lot less per can than 1 million SNAP recipients each buying a can in the grocery store.

This will also remove the excuse that poor people have to buy expensive ready to cook food, and soda at convenience stores because they live in a food dessert. The food will be brought to them

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ients-will-get


Of course all the major grocery stores hate it because they will lose a lot of money over it. Boo Hoo Hoo. I only wish he wanted to totally eliminate the program and distribute all SNAP aid in the form of direct food, and all food should be generic branded. No Kraft, Heinz, Kellogg, etc...

As a conservative, I could not be more against this. We would be taking a remarkably efficient system, handing out currency that can be used for anything, and then involve the government in a massive scheme. The government will need to overcome it's inherit inefficiency, and then hope to both save money, and not let anyone die? No thanks. This might be literally the worst idea anyone has ever had.

Even if the government does not fail at delivery, or letting stuff spoil, there are other huge concerns. What goes in the boxes? Who decides that? I can see this being like when the GOP is power, you get oatmeal and more oatmeal, and then when the Dems are in power, it's filet mignon and seafood. No thanks.

Terrible, terrible idea. We need the government to manage LESS things, not more.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I completely disagree, and this stupid idea is reflective of the stupid man it came from, no, if it were up to me I would increase the amount of food stamps for those that qualify, and I would actually increase the amount of those who could qualify for them like for instance college students and so on.

That goes along with any other kind of welfare programs or aide to people who have little or next to nothing. Anyone who has a problem with that and wants to tell me some BS story about responsibility and their lying grandfather telling them about pulling themselves up by their bootstraps can cram it.

The debt in this country has zero to do with what is spent on infrastructure and social safety nets, being part of that in my opinion. There are better and smarter ways to get cost down, especially when Trump has suggested all these jobs and bonuses everyone supposed to be getting.

The guys full of it, one takes care of the other.

I have to be honest, when it comes to stupid ideas like this I am NOT surprised Trumpsters eat this crap up, but my problem is with Democrats who even pause to entertain this idiotic nonsense.

This is the problem going forward in 2018, there are really smart and intelligent people who could go after Trump and break it down why this is Stupid Idea #1011. The Problem with spending isn't on Food Stamps or Social Security, or Medicare.

[Antiganon]

The Problem with spending isn't on Food Stamps or Social Security, or Medicare.

As a life long Democrat and huge supporter of those programs, you are wrong. If there is a spending problem, Social Security, Medicare, and (especially) Medicaid are a huge part of it.

I disagree that we even have a spending problem.

We have a REVENUE PROBLEM and a LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS problem.

While the solution when these problems arise in the household is austerity (because you can't just conjure up more income for yourself), the government literally can.

Here's my solution: take all military spending and move it back into the general fund. Levy a new tax, visible on paycheck next to SSI and Medicare, for all military spending. Set this new tax high enough to fund the current (and recently passed) defense budget. Use the recouped military funds to expand the social safety net and pay down the national debt, at a 50/50 split.

And one other thing - no more tax cuts when we are already running deficits. You can do a tax cut when we have a budget surplus.

[Doctor Amadeus]

As a life long Democrat and huge supporter of those programs, you are wrong. If there is a spending problem, Social Security, Medicare, and (especially) Medicaid are a huge part of it.

I disagree that we even have a spending problem.

We have a REVENUE PROBLEM and a LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS problem.

While the solution when these problems arise in the household is austerity (because you can't just conjure up more income for yourself), the government literally can.

Here's my solution: take all military spending and move it back into the general fund. Levy a new tax, visible on paycheck next to SSI and Medicare, for all military spending. Set this new tax high enough to fund the current (and recently passed) defense budget. Use the recouped military funds to expand the social safety net and pay down the national debt, at a 50/50 split.

And one other thing - no more tax cuts when we are already running deficits. You can do a tax cut when we have a budget surplus.

Well I am glad for you that you feel as a democrat and huge supporter of these programs that you can somehow escape the BS lie that any of the above are a problem with it comes to overall spending.

We have and had a problem with food stamps for example because we recovered from one of the largest economic crises in 2007 on top of which we already had a debt mounting from 2 wars and we hadn't paid for on top of tax cuts.

Less people working or working for less pay means less taxes to collect, meaning more people who qualify and need said program.

As for Medicare and SSI those are funds that were accounted for and paid into, and it was expressly because of borrowing from Social Security, that it has run into the problem it has now, on top of skyrocketing cost for healthcare.

Those don't have anything to do with how much we are spending or waste, it has to do with dealing with one economic crisis after another recovering, and dealing with the social turmoil that has appeared along with it.

We wouldn't have a Revenue problem had we not given tax cuts to those who didn't need them, and if you buy the line that this will create more jobs thuse more taxes and revenue well then we should be fine RIGHT?

Maybe along with simply instead of paying for nonsense like walls and more border agents, simply making people who are already here legal and capable of filing and paying taxes on their wages.

The problem isn't living beyond our means, the problem is stupidity, and people unaware what time it is or what century. So their default position like yours seems to be to apply the same old failed solutions to an even more mounting problem, rather than picking the battles that could easily be won, and have more time on the ones that take more time.

[Lenonis]

And one other thing - no more tax cuts when we are already running deficits. You can do a tax cut when we have a budget surplus.

No. Whether or not deficits are appropriate and how/why tax cuts are made should be driven by the economic conditions at the moment.

When we have a relatively healthy economy near full employment doing tax cuts and driving deficit spending doesn't make any sense.

But tying the hands of government to help manage economic downturns is not a good plan.

[Nehezbegar]

"Socialism is a system that bravely resolves problems that are not known to other systems." - Stefan Kisielewski.

[Spectral]

Does anyone else think that this is intended as a rhetorical move that Republicans will attempt to trot out in universal healthcare arguments?

[Antiganon]

No. Whether or not deficits are appropriate and how/why tax cuts are made should be driven by the economic conditions at the moment.

When we have a relatively healthy economy near full employment doing tax cuts and driving deficit spending doesn't make any sense.

But tying the hands of government to help manage economic downturns is not a good plan.

I would much prefer nonessential spending be cut to taxes being cut. I will concede, that there are times when running a debt-financed tax cut could be a net gain for the economy.

Maybe I should have added the caveat "Tax cuts during a budget deficit are irresponsible, and should only be considered in cases of dire need."

- - - Updated - - -

Well I am glad for you that you feel as a democrat and huge supporter of these programs that you can somehow escape the BS lie that any of the above are a problem with it comes to overall spending.

We have and had a problem with food stamps for example because we recovered from one of the largest economic crises in 2007 on top of which we already had a debt mounting from 2 wars and we hadn't paid for on top of tax cuts.

Less people working or working for less pay means less taxes to collect, meaning more people who qualify and need said program.

As for Medicare and SSI those are funds that were accounted for and paid into, and it was expressly because of borrowing from Social Security, that it has run into the problem it has now, on top of skyrocketing cost for healthcare.

Those don't have anything to do with how much we are spending or waste, it has to do with dealing with one economic crisis after another recovering, and dealing with the social turmoil that has appeared along with it.

We wouldn't have a Revenue problem had we not given tax cuts to those who didn't need them, and if you buy the line that this will create more jobs thuse more taxes and revenue well then we should be fine RIGHT?

Maybe along with simply instead of paying for nonsense like walls and more border agents, simply making people who are already here legal and capable of filing and paying taxes on their wages.

The problem isn't living beyond our means, the problem is stupidity, and people unaware what time it is or what century. So their default position like yours seems to be to apply the same old failed solutions to an even more mounting problem, rather than picking the battles that could easily be won, and have more time on the ones that take more time.

I mean, facts are facts. Mandatory spending is by far the biggest drain on federal tax dollars. To act like that isn't the case is to be willfully ignorant.

Rent and childcare are the largest expenditures in my household. We are living pretty much hand to mouth, but we get by. Were I to look at what spending I could reduce in the household, I would first eliminate any luxury spending, then I would look for ways to reduce the cost of rent and childcare (probably by moving somewhere those things are cheaper).

Just because I need a place to live and I can't leave my 2 year old and 1 year old at home alone while I go to work doesn't mean that the cost of those essential things isn't a problem.

Again, the whole thing is a REVENUE/LIVING WITHIN MEANS problem. If we didn't have enough revenue in the 80's and 00's to fund things, we should have either a) Not gotten the things we couldn't afford, or b) Not cut taxes. As opposed to debt-financed everything and raiding Social Security.

I haven't bought into any line.

I want to expand the social safety net, and I want to RAISE taxes to pay for it. That is as Democrat/Leftist as it gets.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I would much prefer nonessential spending be cut to taxes being cut. I will concede, that there are times when running a debt-financed tax cut could be a net gain for the economy.

Maybe I should have added the caveat "Tax cuts during a budget deficit are irresponsible, and should only be considered in cases of dire need."

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, facts are facts. Mandatory spending is by far the biggest drain on federal tax dollars. To act like that isn't the case is to be willfully ignorant.

Rent and childcare are the largest expenditures in my household. We are living pretty much hand to mouth, but we get by. Were I to look at what spending I could reduce in the household, I would first eliminate any luxury spending, then I would look for ways to reduce the cost of rent and childcare (probably by moving somewhere those things are cheaper).

Again, the whole thing is a REVENUE/LIVING WITHIN MEANS problem. If we didn't have enough revenue in the 80's and 00's to fund things, we should have either a) Not gotten the things we couldn't afford, or b) Not cut taxes. As opposed to debt-financed everything and raiding Social Security.

I haven't bought into any line.

I want to expand the social safety net, and I want to RAISE taxes to pay for it. That is as Democrat/Leftist as it gets.

Well that is your claim, mine isn't as I said spending money to help people fed, clothed, and with shelter I am all for, and as I said as far as spending proportion wise it isn't any greater now that it has been.

It just has has the bigger impact of being a scapegoat because none of the other foolish things we hedged our bets on turned a profit, like wars, and cutting taxes, and taking money out of programs that help bring poverty and cost down.

[Antiganon]

Well that is your claim, mine isn't as I said spending money to help people fed, clothed, and with shelter I am all for, and as I said as far as spending proportion wise it isn't any greater now that it has been.

It just has has the bigger impact of being a scapegoat because none of the other foolish things we hedged our bets on turned a profit, like wars, and cutting taxes, and taking money out of programs that help bring poverty and cost down.

I don't even understand what you are arguing against.

We are in favor of all the same things here.

I am saying "It is factual that SSI/Medicare/Medicaid are huge balance sheet items that are big contributors to the supposed spending problem, if you believe we have a spending problem, which I do not. I believe we instead have a revenue problem, and taxes should be raised to pay for these essential services. We also have a 'Buying things we can't afford' problem, and should raise taxes to pay for new stuff if we want new stuff."

You are saying "No, its not a spending problem, its a Republicans cutting taxes and going on pointless wars problem."

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't even understand what you are arguing against.

We are in favor of all the same things here.

I am in favor of safety nets as a means to an end yes, I view them as a symptom of an overall issue, not the cause of it.

I am saying "It is factual that SSI/Medicare/Medicaid are huge balance sheet items that are big contributors to the supposed spending problem, if you believe we have a spending problem, which I do not.

Ok well then I agree here. Unemployment for example and Food Stamps are a result of not enough jobs being offered that can cover a person individual needs. When Unemployment goes down, and there is an abundance of jobs, the need for unemployment and food stamps is going to go down.

They haven't because unemployment has gone down, but the pay has also.

I believe we instead have a revenue problem, and taxes should be raised to pay for these essential services. We also have a 'Buying things we can't afford' problem, and should raise taxes to pay for new stuff if we want new stuff."

Right, well I believe we should have simply left taxes alone period, there was no need to change them at all, and if there was anything to cut, it should have been on government waste.

Golf Trips should have been on the top of the list. But with Cutting taxes it was sold as a jobs builder, if you have jobs, then you shouldn't need to cut food stamps or medicare, those issues should take care of themselves.

Unless some really believe that $750 a month is really the dream life.

You are saying "No, its not a spending problem, its a Republicans cutting taxes and going on pointless wars problem."

I am pointing to the problem and how we got where we are in the first place. Cost have gone up, there for sure are measures in place to bring spending down, the problem is everywhere else.

And instead of oversight over nickels and dimes, we should really be looking in much larger causes for the amount spent on food stamps, medicare and social security.


Because all of the above I mentioned can be whittled down without cuts, except for perhaps retirement.

[Antiganon]

Right, well I believe we should have simply left taxes alone period, there was no need to change them at all, and if there was anything to cut, it should have been on government waste.

I'm saying that's irrelevant. I understand that unnecessary tax cuts we can't afford are a huge part of the problem, as was raiding social security, and lengthy foreign wars.

I am talking about moving forward, and how to fix this.

You fix it by raising taxes.

That is unless you know a way to go back in time and un-cut the taxes under Reagan and W Bush. That would be preferable.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm saying that's irrelevant. I understand that unnecessary tax cuts we can't afford are a huge part of the problem, as was raiding social security, and lengthy foreign wars.

I am talking about moving forward, and how to fix this.

You fix it by raising taxes.

That is unless you know a way to go back in time and un-cut the taxes under Reagan and W Bush. That would be preferable.

Well if the idiot Trump suggest that the tax cuts that already happen will lead to an economic boom in jobs, then the problem should correct itself no need for cuts.

As for your overall approach yes, I do agree, we need to raise taxes to where they were. I am just in disagreement as to how much SS, Food Stamps and Medicare cost.

Because as I said they are a symptom of a much bigger problem, not the cause.

[Antiganon]

Well if the idiot Trump suggest that the tax cuts that already happen will lead to an economic boom in jobs, then the problem should correct itself no need for cuts.

As for your overall approach yes, I do agree, we need to raise taxes to where they were. I am just in disagreement as to how much SS, Food Stamps and Medicare cost.

Because as I said they are a symptom of a much bigger problem, not the cause.

I'm saying the costs of the social safety net are well-documented, verifiable facts. They are crazy high.

I will use an analogy here.

Say you have a job working for a financial firm in Manhattan. You need to figure out how to pay for Manhattan rent, or how to pay for (and deal with) the costs of living outside the city and commuting every day.

No amount of denying the costs of rent in Manhattan is going to change the fact that rent in Manhattan is crazy high.

Extrapolate to the social safety net.

We need to figure out how to pay for all these people's benefits, or we need to figure out how to make them not need benefits.

No amount of denying the costs of the benefits is going to actually make them cost less.

Any discussion on the topic should be aimed at a path forward.

[Zan15]

As a life long Democrat and huge supporter of those programs, you are wrong. If there is a spending problem, Social Security, Medicare, and (especially) Medicaid are a huge part of it.

I disagree that we even have a spending problem.

We have a REVENUE PROBLEM and a LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS problem.

While the solution when these problems arise in the household is austerity (because you can't just conjure up more income for yourself), the government literally can.

Here's my solution: take all military spending and move it back into the general fund. Levy a new tax, visible on paycheck next to SSI and Medicare, for all military spending. Set this new tax high enough to fund the current (and recently passed) defense budget. Use the recouped military funds to expand the social safety net and pay down the national debt, at a 50/50 split.

And one other thing - no more tax cuts when we are already running deficits. You can do a tax cut when we have a budget surplus.

Please the second these War hawks actually saw the per paycheck tax a military tax would be they would shit themselves.
Would be cold ice water in their face on how huge it really is.

and this includes not only the 700 billion dollar budget but the CIA, NSA, Homeland defense, Wars, Black budget items, Off budget items, ancillary services provided outside the military budget. You are looking at at least 1.2-1.5 trillion a year.

So take a look at your Medicare and SS payment and multiply that like by 7-10

[Antiganon]

Please the second these War hawks actually saw the per paycheck tax a military tax would be they would shit themselves.
Would be cold ice water in their face on how huge it really is.

and this includes not only the 700 billion dollar budget but the CIA, NSA, Homeland defense, Wars, Black budget items, Off budget items, ancillary services provided outside the military budget. You are looking at at least 1.2-1.5 trillion a year.

So take a look at your Medicare and SS payment and multiply that like by 7-10

Kinda the point.

Let the pro-war people who keep electing pro-war congressmen see the actual cost, to them, in dollars, and maybe they will change their stance on supporting it.

I would call it the "Freedom Tax" just for the lulz.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm saying the costs of the social safety net are well-documented, verifiable facts. They are crazy high.

I will use an analogy here.

Say you have a job working for a financial firm in Manhattan. You need to figure out how to pay for Manhattan rent, or how to pay for (and deal with) the costs of living outside the city and commuting every day.

No amount of denying the costs of rent in Manhattan is going to change the fact that rent in Manhattan is crazy high.

Extrapolate to the social safety net.

We need to figure out how to pay for all these people's benefits, or we need to figure out how to make them not need benefits.

No amount of denying the costs of the benefits is going to actually make them cost less.

Any discussion on the topic should be aimed at a path forward.

Hey we come at this from different perspectives, but I do Like what you said here and I agree.

But part of my aggravation is that Social Safety Nets have been the whipping boy on the right since I was a kid grew up on welfare, and now pay into taxes and then some.

It's always the easiest target because the poor and those already vulnerable can't really defend themselves, not with the millions and millions of dollars and organization that other groups do.