Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

spacecoyote · 13-02-2018 8:09am

Peregrinus wrote: »

What advantages are supposed to accrue, and to whom, from making this change?

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 · 13-02-2018 8:19am

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

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.

spacecoyote · 13-02-2018 9:27am

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.

100% agree with you, but with Trump, its all about the headline & the optics. 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.

The biggest mistake most Americans seem to be making is thinking that Trump actually gives one sh1t about them

recedite · 13-02-2018 9:44am

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.

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.

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.

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.

listermint · 13-02-2018 9:56am

Eh.... You do know guaranteed Irish still exists and is also not illegal.

At least I hope you know that.

Also your equivalence to purchasing home grown food and handing it out as welfare makes no sense

spacecoyote · 13-02-2018 10:03am

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.

I do understand that, sure their ads generally spend most of their time telling you about the Irish farmer that they use to supply their beef, etc...

But you're applying rational arguments to an irrational man. It wouldn't matter if a German supermarket was using US produce & could supply the food cheaper, there's no way in hell that it fits with Trumps message or rhetoric. Even if it was all American produce & would save the federal government money, there's no way he could go with a deal like that. No doubt some billionaire American buddy of Donalds will be contracted to supply it.

Peregrinus · 13-02-2018 10:04am

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.

Nitpick: I don't think it's at all akin to the Guaranteed Irish campaign, which involved the government spending money to encourage the public to buy Irish produce.

But park that. Whether you simply hand cash to producers, or whether you hand cash to producers in return for food which you distribute to people, these are both mechanisms for giving public money to food producers. But the first mechanism is going to be much more efficient, since involving the food stamp program means that some of the money is going, not to the producers, but to discharging the logistic costs of handing the food, transporting it, making it up into consumer-sized mixed packages, and delivering it to entitled individuals. These are all things the market is supposed to be better at than the government. The money spent doing that confers no benefit either on the food producers or on the recipients of the food, which is why this is inefficient from every point of view.

And I think you're wrong about the Americans regarding subsidies to producers as communistic. They already spend about $25 billion a year in subsidies to agricultural producers, including wheat, corn, soybean, rice and, incredibly, tobacco. Which again underlines the point about efficiency; since the infrastructure for these subsidies is already in place, wouldn't it be simply just to notch up the subsidies for selected food crops a tad than to create an entirely new infrastructure for buying, transporting, sorting, packaging and distributing food parcels?

Christy42 · 13-02-2018 10:23am

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.

How is it similar to guaranteed Irish? How does that involve the government giving money to the farmers etc.? It is just an advertising campaign right?

I could see it being a decent thing if they manage to get more/higher quality goods for people than they could manage themselves (by buying in bulk) but we will see if that is how it pans out. It could well just be a subsidy for the American businesses at the expense of the poor in the US.

Quin_Dub · 13-02-2018 10:43am

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.

Leroy42 · 13-02-2018 11:16am

The key part of this is how to get aid to those who need it most in the most efficient way possible.

The aid they need is food, not stamps. So from that simple POV then surely providing food direct is the best way (I know it won't be packages delivered to their door btw).

Cut out the middle man (supermarket) which takes its cut of the the proceeds. Although I assume, that any distribution centres will have to be paid for and as such the savings will probably be minimal, if not actually higher costs, as the supermarkets are already in place and have the distribution channels working pretty well already whilst this would need new channels and if each state if responsible for their own set up then you are looking at significant double jobbing.

But regardless, like everything else we have seen from Trump, I am afraid that this must be approached cynically. Why is he really doing this. Is the goal to try to better the lives of those that need the aid the most? It doesn't seem that that is the driving force.

Water John · 13-02-2018 11:40am

So, they set up a whole second food distribution system, run by the state. Where did I see that before? The wall came down in 1989.

And this can be used to prop up surplus of a product. Too many water melons. But them cheaply. But I don't like water melon. Well though because that's what your getting this week. This comes close to our own direct provision centres for asylum seekers. Eat what we give you, or go hungry.

mcmoustache · 13-02-2018 11:40am

Personally, I'd have no problem with a system such as that being implemented here where you're provided with meats, cheese, tea, coffee, vegetables, sugar and other basic foods instead of cash. Same with baby and child stuff such as nappies, bottles, bibs and whatever else.

In theory, and I really mean in theory, the food provided by the government could be of a higher standard than what people are willingly spending their money on. A lot of the lifers on social welfare often have poor diets for all sorts of reasons. it would also help to ensure that kids of parents with substance abuse problems could at least have food, assuming a lack of a black market for the food. There are a lot of people in this country who simply cannot look after themselves properly and if as a society we could at least make sure that they're eating properly, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Again, this is how such a thing could work in theory. In reality, what I expect will happen here is that the money will go to a private company who will deliver cheap, substandard rubbish and pocket the difference.

B0jangles · 13-02-2018 12:13pm

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.

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.

Overheal · 13-02-2018 5:58pm

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.

That sounds like breadlines with extra steps. How ironic.

Manic Moran · 13-02-2018 6:37pm

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.

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 · 13-02-2018 6:42pm

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.

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.

Igotadose · 13-02-2018 6:49pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

What advantages are supposed to accrue, and to whom, from making this change?

It's a fox news soundbite idea, brought to life by the Apprentice, WH edition. Evil minorities using food stamps to buy alcohol etc. Instead, "Let's use food stamps for food!" And, while at it, build up a nice juicy budget-hungry bureaucracy ("The Department of Homeland Food distribution!"). All you need is to take a drug test to keep your food rations coming! What's wrong with neon orange USDA cheese? And, while we're at it, we can sign nice juicy gummint contracts with Kraft and Cracker Barrel and whoever. Plus, extra juicy, a chance to humiliate food stamp recipients even more, with fewer choices than what they have today!

Manic Moran · 13-02-2018 6:54pm

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.

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.

Water John · 13-02-2018 7:29pm

The military, as a client, would demand high standards. Ask the Irish beef factories. The poor, as a client has no such power.
It won't even be non first class food, your wonky carrots, but cheap palm oil, corn syrup etc.

BTW the wonky carrots etc, are often used as cattle feed. There is also a growing secondary retail market for savvy shoppers, in such produce, the ugly fruit and veg.

Quin_Dub · 13-02-2018 7:38pm

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.

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 · 13-02-2018 7:53pm

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...

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.

Sonics2k · 13-02-2018 8:40pm

On the topic of Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!, it looks like Trumps own business' have been hiring Foreign Guest Workers to fill roles.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/13/16466542/trump-h-2b-guest-workers

Now, I'll admit I'm no fan of Vox, but they appear to have taken the figures straight from the Dept of Labour and citing numbers provided by Trumps own business.

Professor Moriarty · 13-02-2018 8:48pm

Kelly might finally have to walk the plank. Or, in reality, be thrown under the bus by The Donald. Apparently the White House knew months ago about Porter's behaviour according to testimony by Wray today. Yet Kelly stated that he didn't know about the allegations until Feb 8th. As Chief of Staff he must have been made aware of the FBI file on a senior member of the WH staff. So either Head of the FBI Wray is lying under oath to a senate committee or Chief of Staff Kelly is lying.

looksee · 13-02-2018 9:16pm

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.

Water John · 13-02-2018 9:36pm

Even both her parents are Korean TMK. Moved to California before she was born. Some of these athletes have, nerves of steel. Any mistake and it's serious injury.

Yeah, looks like WH knew enough about Porter, last July. Even got two follow up reports.

Manic Moran · 13-02-2018 10:17pm

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.

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.

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.

Legal or illegal immigrant? Not sure there’s much irony in the former.

pitifulgod · 13-02-2018 10:30pm

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.

Thing is, the military will pressure the powers that be to review tenders if troops performance or health is suffering as a result of poor quality diets. People on food stamps don't have that sort of lobby power.

Quin_Dub · 13-02-2018 11:47pm

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.

Just as suspected..

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.

So - Nothing Fresh - Dry goods or canned/packets.

Meat and Fruit/Veg would all be canned goods - e.g. Low Grade muck filled with chemicals and salt..

Not really surprised as all..

Quite from here.

Cookie_Monster · 14-02-2018 1:23am

From same article, my ephasis

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.

hard to see how tbh, the highlighted items are most carbs or sugars, no fresh or frozen fruit or veg or meat so less vitamins and minerals there too. A lot of that list is simply energy dense foodstuffs that's hardly ideal to be eating in general, never mind with the kind of sedentary lifestyle most Americans live.

Personally any tinned meat outside of fish is usually pretty nasty stuff too.

The guardian link posted by Manic above was interesting and showed insight into what could be done, buy all that "not quite flawless" fruit and veg that is just wasted and distribute that. For example the squash for 6c / lb is insanely cheap and and good quality food to boot.

recedite · 14-02-2018 4:57pm

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.

I take it you didn't watch the recent State of the Union address then, or you'd have seen Trump giving a standing ovation to a Korean immigrant.
His own wife is an immigrant. He has only ever criticised illegal immigrants (especially criminal illegal immigrants) and immigrants who "hate America". Which is fair enough IMO.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Comments