The plan to overhaul SNAP would save a projected $214 billion over a decade, according to the administration. It would give all households receiving more than $90 a month in cash a food-aid package that would include items such as shelf-stable milk, peanut butter, cereal and meat.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dollar-stores-hammered-trump-proposal-200545163.html

The foods in the deliveries would include shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, and canned meat, fruits and vegetables, according to USDA. The department estimates that it could supply these goods at roughly half the cost of retail, slashing the cost of SNAP while still feeding the hungry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-wants-to-overhaul-americas-safety-net-with-giant-cuts-to-housing-food-stamps-and-health-care/2018/02/12/a7cfd03e-102f-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?utm_term=.57b0951435ce

-----------------------

Hmmm, like trump or not, this proposal actually makes a lot of sense.  This is guaranteed to piss off the big businesses like walmart making a ton of money off of food stamps.   

The food aid package could be weighted heavier towards staples and nutritious food such as rice, beans, or other starches, which is ideal for a family that's actually "hungry", and prevents people from using it on random garbage foods or premium items.  I always thought that food stamps should be used for staples only.  Instead 9/10 times at the supermarket, I see people buying premium steak, sodas, and other garbage food.


  States can utilize economies of scale for contracts to purchase the items.... right now the government is paying full retail on whatever the recipients purchase. 

It would also cut back on food stamp fraud where people sell theirs for 50 cents on the dollar to unscrupulous store owners, who then redeem that for full value PLUS a handling fee!  That gives the beneficiaries cash in hand to buy illegal drugs, booze, or anything else that money wasn't intended to buy.

I can't find the news articles, but there was a store owner in Chinatown arrested for paying cash for EBT cards, and then she was arrested again for the same crime 3 days after making bail.   

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/25/the-seven-biggest-takedowns-of-food-stamp-fraud-in-2017/
http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/05/22/news/story5.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap.html
https://www.wkbw.com/news/bail-set-at-2-million-for-store-owner-accused-of-food-stamp-fraud
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/09/29/store-owner-sentenced-food-stamp-fraud/91284734/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/3-people-charged-with-food-stamp-fraud-in-chinatown-international-district/
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/nyregion/30-arrested-in-scheme-to-defraud.html

It would also cut back on food stamp fraud where people sell theirs for 50 cents on the dollar to unscrupulous store owners, who then redeem that for full value PLUS a handling fee!  That gives the beneficiaries cash in hand to buy illegal drugs, booze, or anything else that money wasn't intended to buy.

I can't find the news articles, but there was a store owner in Chinatown arrested for paying cash for EBT cards, and then she was arrested again for the same crime 3 days after making bail.   

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/25/the-seven-biggest-takedowns-of-food-stamp-fraud-in-2017/
http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/05/22/news/story5.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap.html
https://www.wkbw.com/news/bail-set-at-2-million-for-store-owner-accused-of-food-stamp-fraud
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/09/29/store-owner-sentenced-food-stamp-fraud/91284734/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/3-people-charged-with-food-stamp-fraud-in-chinatown-international-district/
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/nyregion/30-arrested-in-scheme-to-defraud.html

Yeah, that's a good point. Forgot about that.   I've also been approached in the parking lot of regular grocery stores before by people wanting to sell me their benefits at half the price of the groceries I'm buying.

I wonder if that's why so many seem to load up on soda, expensive meats, etc.  maybe they simply have arrangement with friends to sell premium groceries  for cheap.

Yeah, that's a good point. Forgot about that.   I've also been approached in the parking lot of regular grocery stores before by people wanting to sell me their benefits at half the price of the groceries I'm buying.

I wonder if that's why so many seem to load up on soda, expensive meats, etc.  maybe they simply have arrangement with friends to sell premium groceries  for cheap.

Yes, I know some will buy things on sale at the grocery store, then resell them to friends and family to pocket the cash.  If they get close to what they paid, they are better off money-wise than selling to fraudsters at 50% value.

How about a govt. warehouse distribution like Amazon to pass NECESSARY subsistence instead of EBT. Why should I pay for others to live off me on steaks, sodas and chips? I am compassionate on those who are on it for a brief time being to get back on their feet, but a lot are on welfare benefits as a career. That needs to stop. Its not fair.

How about a govt. warehouse distribution like Amazon to pass NECESSARY subsistence instead of EBT. Why should I pay for others to live off me on steaks, sodas and chips? I am compassionate on those who are on it for a brief time being to get back on their feet, but a lot are on welfare benefits as a career. That needs to stop. Its not fair.

my honest opinion if I had it my way - beans, rice, or potatoes only.  Basically what people in poorer countries live on.  Keeps bellies full, and cheap.    Liberals would be gnashing their teeth

How are you going to buy votes with that?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/why_does_replacing_food_stamps_with_food_so_anger_liberals.html

Excerpts:

Why does replacing food stamps with food so anger liberals?

If you like your supermarket, you can keep your supermarket.


I can see it now: police, responding to reports of a strange smell, enter a home to find an entire family starved to death, surrounded by dozens of boxes of unopened macaroni.  If only the instructions had contained pictograms!

If people are too dumb to cook a box of noodles, why are they voting?  Or is voting easier than cooking a box of noodles when the Democrats tell you what to do?

The startling thing about this entire discussion is that liberals are outraged that people on food stamps are being deprived of choice.  Liberals didn't care about depriving people of choice when it came to Obamacare, or gun control, or raising taxes.  They didn't care even when Michelle Obama, the cultural tsarina in charge of food tastes, tried to tell our kids what they should be eating in school.

Why such a different attitude when it comes to food stamps?

Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is also most likely the correct one.  The simplest answer is that liberals don't care about feeding the poor.  SNAP and a hundred programs just like it are all about income redistribution, not feeding the hungry.  Any limits on transferring cash from taxpayers to those on welfare interferes with liberals' social engineering schemes.

Exit question: If you were President Trump's adviser on food policy, what foods would you advise him to distribute to people on welfare?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/why_does_replacing_food_stamps_with_food_so_anger_liberals.html

Excerpts:

Why does replacing food stamps with food so anger liberals?

If you like your supermarket, you can keep your supermarket.

"It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. 
"It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz,
whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid."

I can see it now: police, responding to reports of a strange smell, enter a home to find an entire family starved to death, surrounded by dozens of boxes of unopened macaroni.  If only the instructions had contained pictograms!

If people are too dumb to cook a box of noodles, why are they voting?  Or is voting easier than cooking a box of noodles when the Democrats tell you what to do?

The startling thing about this entire discussion is that liberals are outraged that people on food stamps are being deprived of choice.  Liberals didn't care about depriving people of choice when it came to Obamacare, or gun control, or raising taxes.  They didn't care even when Michelle Obama, the cultural tsarina in charge of food tastes, tried to tell our kids what they should be eating in school.

Why such a different attitude when it comes to food stamps?

Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is also most likely the correct one.  The simplest answer is that liberals don't care about feeding the poor.  SNAP and a hundred programs just like it are all about income redistribution, not feeding the hungry.  Any limits on transferring cash from taxpayers to those on welfare interferes with liberals' social engineering schemes.

Exit question: If you were President Trump's adviser on food policy, what foods would you advise him to distribute to people on welfare?

To me, it's amazing that people who supposedly can't afford to put meals on the table can afford to be so picky.

I'm all for overhauling SNAP but logistically I don't think this will work. Delivering boxes of food is substantially more expensive than delivering a card. Especially in rural areas.

Supply chain and distribution network will need to be huge and that costs $$$. Easier to just limit what you can purchase with the card.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

First impression is that I’m for this. I have long said that food assistance needs to be focused (I was going to say limited) to certain products. I too am tired of spending within my means and eating reasonably where I see folks either EBT splurging on nice steaks, seafood, etc and use their cash for alcohol and tobacco. I mean their cash is theirs to spend freely, but come on man...

I’m also for drug testing for assistance. While I believe assistance programs are good for society, there’s too much abuse. Folks depending or even feeling like they are owed the assistance.

I'm all for overhauling SNAP but logistically I don't think this will work. Delivering boxes of food is substantially more expensive than delivering a card. Especially in rural areas.

Supply chain and distribution network will need to be huge and that costs $$$. Easier to just limit what you can purchase with the card.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

USPS flat rate delivers to everywhere in the country already.  The delivery infrastructure is already there.   For truly remote areas, they could retain the food stamp cards usage 100%.   Through studies, they already projected the cost savings will be at least 50%, utilizing economies of scale.   It's going to be way cheaper to drop off a large prepackaged box at wholesale cost to people's door steps monthly.  Just look at the cost savings you normally get from buying from wholesale clubs, now imagine that on a much larger scale.  Existing food banks and other charitable organizations can be used for people without "permanent residences".

They could contract out the distribution network to a company like amazon as well, who already have large warehouses nationwide and packages and distributes huge quantities of packages.

The civil liberties groups pushed for EBT cards instead of the paper food stamps long ago partially to save money, but mostly because using food stamps in line at the supermarket was "embarrassing" for the recipients.  They argued it stigmatized people by letting everyone near them know they are on public assistance.  The EBT cards resemble any other debit card when used at point of sale, so the only people who know you're using it are you, the cashier and the government.

Watch for the same argument with this plan.  If the box is identifiable in any way, even if it's the frequency, size, weight and/or return address, they will argue it lets everyone who sees it know you're getting federal food assistance.

Making public assistance easier just ensures more people will stay on it longer.  If there is a stigma attached, maybe that will help motivate people to get off of it as soon as they possibly can.  I speak from experience.  My mother & grandmother who raised me were on food stamps for a short time.  Lots of rules then to follow, such as keeping receipts to show what was purchased with them.  Protecting peoples' feelings and making it "comfortable" to be on welfare is part of the problem, IMHO.

USPS flat rate delivers to everywhere in the country already.  The delivery infrastructure is already there.   For truly remote areas, they could retain the food stamp cards usage 100%.   Through studies, they already projected the cost savings will be at least 50%, utilizing economies of scale.   It's going to be way cheaper to drop off a large prepackaged box at wholesale cost to people's door steps monthly.  Just look at the cost savings you normally get from buying from wholesale clubs, now imagine that on a much larger scale.  Existing food banks and other charitable organizations can be used for people without "permanent residences".

They could contract out the distribution network to a company like amazon as well, who already have large warehouses nationwide and packages and distributes huge quantities of packages.

While that's true, the smallest USPS box is $7 or so. Sure economies of scale can bring down the cost but shipping 3 meals per day is a huge undertaking. Perhaps if they can integrate with the existing grocery supply chain but why not just exclude SKUs? Seems like a much easier answer that accomplishes the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

" foods in the deliveries would include shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, and canned meat, fruits and vegetables, "

Shipping individual boxes is crazy, pretty sure that's not what they're thinking. Just USPS parcel post a big box once a month, probably going to be like $10.  As they mentioned, they already did the study, and with the delivery method they have in mind, it'll half the cost.  The fact that if they use an existing government postal service for the delivery is almost like taking money from one pocket and putting it in another.  Volume may be higher, which is what the post office wants,  and the postal workers will be running the same routes regardless of boxes dropped off at more houses.

I contribute to charities I trust.
I've had many people do the song and
dance at  gas stations.
I offer to buy the food and fuel
I never give anybody cash.
I can't remember a time
when someone let buy
them a dinner or a tank
of fuel.