Peregrinus wrote: » What advantages are supposed to accrue, and to whom, from making this change?
spacecoyote wrote: » I assume that the idea is you give the food contracts to American producers so the food stamp money is not being spent on foreign produce = more american jobs = MAGA, or something to that effect
Peregrinus wrote: » Then I think it's a bad idea, since it seems the interests of those in receipt of food stamps are being subordinated to the interests of American food producers. While it may (or may not) be reasonable to provide public support to US food producers, I can't think of any argument for saying that the costs of this should be borne by those in receipt of food stamps, who presumably are among the poorest in society. If you want to subsidise food production, then subsidise food production out of general taxation. This will be simpler, more efficient and fairer.
Peregrinus wrote: » Then I think it's a bad idea, since it seems the interests of those in receipt of food stamps are being subordinated to the interests of American food producers.
spacecoyote wrote: » Now he can talk about the great American produce going to people rather than food stamps being spent in Lidl, or some other foreign supermarket chain.
recedite wrote: » Slightly off topic, but the German supermarkets do sell a lot of Irish produce in irish branches (nearly all their meat and dairy AFAIK) and they also sell a fair amount of Irish produce in their branches in other countries. So I don't know the exact figures, but I'd guess they might be of net benefit to the Ireland's trading position.
recedite wrote: » Its not quite the same thing. What you are suggesting is the federal govt. could subsidise US food production, thereby making it cheaper for all consumers in the domestic market. But this would also tend to make the producers themselves overly dependent on subsidies, and uncompetitive on the world market. That's not the American way, its communism! What Trumps plan involves is the federal govt. preferentially buying US produce. That would be something akin to the "Guaranteed Irish" program that our govt. used to promote, prior to the EU making it illegal for EU countries to discriminate against each other in business/contracts.
recedite wrote: » Its not quite the same thing. What you are suggesting is the federal govt. could subsidise US food production, thereby making it cheaper for all consumers in the domestic market. But this would also tend to make the producers themselves overly dependent on subsidies, and uncompetitive on the world market. That's not the American way, its communism! What Trumps plan involves is the federal govt. preferentially buying US produce. That would be something akin to the "Guaranteed Irish" program that our govt. used to promote, prior to the EU making it illegal for EU countries to discriminate against each other in business/contracts. Slightly off topic, but the German supermarkets do sell a lot of Irish produce in irish branches (nearly all their meat and dairy AFAIK) and they also sell a fair amount of Irish produce in their branches in other countries. So I don't know the exact figures, but I'd guess they might be of net benefit to the Ireland's trading position.
Quin_Dub wrote: » The reality of this "Food" program will be fat contracts to Food Produce Conglomerates who will overcharge the government for the lowest possible quality foodstuffs. School Dinners , Hospital Food , Prison food anyone??? I think we all know that if they are for example taking $50 away from food stamps , the recipients will almost certainly not get $50 worth of food in a box.. The only people who will gain will be GOP corporate sponsors from the Food Industry.
Manic Moran wrote: » USDA has put forward a proposal to replace part of the food stamp program with food. The idea is that food stamp aid (actually, a debit card) is cut in half, and instead, food packages consisting of US-produced food is distributed. The government would purchase the food at wholesale, and deliver to the States. The States would figure out the distribution from there. Assuming that the food is reasonably well purchased and selected to be reasonably healthy, it seems like a good idea. There is opposition from the quarters which believe that distribution/packaging costs would negate any savings, and the supermarkets/grocery stores dislike it as it means less is being purchased through them, and some who believe it destroys dignity and brings back images of the soup kitchen lines from the Depression era.
B0jangles wrote: » This. Expect lax regulation of which foods are acceptable both in quality and type to allow for the suppliers to get rid of low quality produce. Expect the response to any complaints about said produce to be greeted with something like 'You should be grateful for anything you get' and 'It's actually good that it's bad because it encourages to you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and to just STOP being so lazy and poor' Expect it to cost more than the existing programs.
Manic Moran wrote: » Perhaps, but I'm not going to dismiss the idea out of hand. Currently some 25% of acceptable US produce is thrown away because it does not meet the aesthetic requirements of the grocery stores. Safeway doesn't want bent carrots or off-yellow cauliflowers polluting its shelves. Perfectly good food, just looks 'wonky'. A company in my local area claims to be able to get this produce delivered to your door for some 30-50% less than the price you would pay at the grocery store. Nobody else is buying the stuff, so it's either the farmers sell it for incredibly cheap, or it goes into the waste dump. (Creating more global warming than CO2 does) This is pretty grim reading on the subject. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect If the government is able to pay wholesale prices for things to begin with, and has huge negotiating clout, and further, can get good food for less than wholesale because they don't care about their image, and if the economics of delivery are such that there are a number of food delivery services in operation (even Amazon is getting in on the business), the idea seems to merit some consideration.
pitifulgod wrote: » Thing is, this isn't currently the case. Food that's used in schools and prisons in the US has a tendency of being of poor quality and filled with rubbish such as corn syrup.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Totally agree with you - It could be a great idea if it was properly managed and done with all the right intentions. However - Governments (any of them) rarely do this kind of thing well and the Trump/GOP track record on Social Services implementation doesn't exactly give a feeling that the right intentions are there...
pitifulgod wrote: » My assumption is that it would go through a tender process where a company comes in that cuts costs to a minimum resulting in the crappiest products reaching the individual. Poor people aren't going to anything comparable to the standard offered to the military.
looksee wrote: » Oh, the glorious irony! The US's new golden girl of the Olympics, a 17 year old snowborder who achieved a score of 98.25 for a gold and became the first female to perform one particular move, is a daughter of a south Korean immigrant to the US.
Manic Moran wrote: » How do you think we get our food in the Army? Most of our DFACs, both domestic and deployed, are run by contracting agencies. The standards are upheld by the contracting officer, who usually is military, on a temporary posting, and not subject to any particular pressures. Apparently this food box idea was submitted up the chain from some humble functionary in USDA, not an idea from the Administration or a Trump Appointee. Said functionary may have his own political bent, but it’s also possible he’s a professional civil servant who knows what he is doing. The idea deserves some assessment on its own merits. Legal or illegal immigrant? Not sure there’s much irony in the former.
Manic Moran wrote: » True, but that's not exclusively the case for government-provided food. The stuff we get in the military is quite good indeed. No, it's not Kobe beef, but it's nutritional and healthy. There's also the matter of who's preparing it. These 'harvest boxes' (God, I hate the American inclination to come up with grandiose names for things) would be unprepared. Prison/school food often is not cooked by people with a particular inclination for the job.
The so-called USDA America's Harvest Box would contain items such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables. The box would be valued at about half of the SNAP recipient's monthly benefit.
The proposal would save nearly $130 billion over 10 years, as well as improve the nutritional value of the program and reduce the potential for fraud, according to the administration.
