Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Discussing the Trump budget proposal is rather pointless since it won't be taken up, but this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/whit...od-stamps.html

A proposed food delivery program would replace about half of food stamp benefits for households who qualify for the boxes.
The plan would put the U.S. government directly in charge of what goes on the dinner plates of more than 16 million low-income households.

HA HA HA HA HA HA nanny state

Would actually support this under two conditions though:

1. Rationally constructed for healthfulness and divorced from contractors' pork needs
2. Opt-in and complementary to, not in displacement of, a SNAP-like program

[Husar]

Well, yes, if this is forced onto people it just reminds me of slavery because slaves get their only food from their master.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, yes, if this is forced onto people it just reminds me of slavery because slaves get their only food from their master.

Slaves generally had to work. Those who get money for nothing are called children. I doubt it is forced on to them - they could choose to accept it or choose not to accept it.

Making something"opt in" means it is even more complicated to undertake.

A flat rate of free money at the very least lets them pretend to be adults where they have to make grown up decisions of where to spend the money.

[Husar]

Slaves generally had to work. Those who get money for nothing are called children.

*have to work, let's not forget that actual slavery still exists.

As for being forced to work, depends on your definition. The whole point is to force them to work on getting a job. However, if there simply is no job for them to get, it's a bit much to blame them. And if they just get food and shelter, the things they can actually do become quite limited since even going somewhere beyond what can be reached on foot or bike can become expensive. Taking a minimum wage job in the next city can be impossible unless the government subsidizes the commute.

[HopAlongBunny]

This highlights the way we all subsidize "entrepreneurs".
When work does not pay the cost of living gov't steps in to provide "supports"; public housing, food stamps, welfare...etc.
A common trope is "the poors are picking my pocket!"; when it's just the way we chose to allow the economy to operate.
Is the "welfare state" a necessary outcome of capitalism?

[rory_20_uk]

*have to work, let's not forget that actual slavery still exists.

As for being forced to work, depends on your definition. The whole point is to force them to work on getting a job. However, if there simply is no job for them to get, it's a bit much to blame them. And if they just get food and shelter, the things they can actually do become quite limited since even going somewhere beyond what can be reached on foot or bike can become expensive. Taking a minimum wage job in the next city can be impossible unless the government subsidizes the commute.

Mea culpa - yes, slavery still exists. It always has and it probably always will. And the slavery-lite options called crofting / serfs / bondsman.

I'm not blaming anyone. I accept that amongst both employed and unemployed there are angels (who are genuinely trying whilst life has dealt them a really bad hand / are doing a decent job and declaring all their money) and daemons (who are taking everything they can, whilst also working but not declaring).

Although the view that it is "impossible" to get to the next town / city has changed with time. It used to be something you just had to do as the alternative was probably to starve / become a full time criminal; and of course joining the armed forces was another escape but standards have been increased to such a degree many are excluded when so many places would benefit from some cannon fodder. Having some sort of bus pass as part of the unemployed benefit would be a good idea.

[Strike For The South]

Replacing SNAP with boxes of food (which would presumably be filled with simple grains and sugars) is an affront to these dignity.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wealthy progressives pay big buxxx to not have a choice in the food they get from Blue Apron-style deliveries and/or their local farm CSA program. Setting aside for a moment that government cheese won't be at that level of quality, is there anything about a CSA subscription that lacks dignity if it was part of a government welfare program?

We're talking about people who's kids already get breakfast and lunch at school. Is the lack of a deep and refined menu for those government meals an affront as well?

[Montmorency]

To get it out of the way, it seems like the administration is claiming 'lol I troll you' wrt the proposal, just the standard desire to eliminate the welfare program entirely.

Instead, the idea, according to two administration officials who worked on the proposal, was a political gambit by fiscal hawks in the administration aimed at outraging liberals and stirring up members of the president’s own party working on the latest version of the farm bill. The move, they said, was intended to lay down a marker that the administration is serious about pressing for about $85 billion in other cuts to food assistance programs that will be achieved, in part, by imposing strict new work requirements on recipients.

Now let's clarify what SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy...e-program-snap

SNAP provides important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed incomes. Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; nearly a third are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. After unemployment insurance, it is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns.

The federal government pays the full cost of SNAP benefits and splits the cost of administering the program with the states, which operate the program.

You get a debit card with the prescribed monthly balance and you head to most (eligible) grocery stores or supermarkets to use it. Most recipients work, are often obliged to meet work requirements, are restricted from using benefits to purchase :luxury" goods such as tobacco, alcohol, and in harsher environs even seafood and red meat, yadda yadda.


Taking the Trump admin proposal at face value, instead of permitting SNAP recipients to choose what food to buy for themselves (and conservatives fetishize "choice"), it would simultaneously make applying for SNAP more difficult, reduce the benefits across the board, and replace them substantially with government-selected and assembled items. To be delivered in a monthly package.

And that really is what's at the root of welfare chauvinism: 'To hell with all these regulations and taxes affecting me, I'm a good, honest, hardworking person who doesn't need their hand held or progress restrained. All my virtue deserves to be rewarded with the benefits and entitlements of government - as opposed to those lazy, stupid, immoral people, the undeserving parasites leeching my tax dollars, those ni-BOING. They are the ones who the government needs to monitor and interfere with, for our collective prosperity and security.'


But more than anything, the reason this proposal is/would have been DOA, and why SNAP is a relatively-secure welfare administration, is because it counts as a substantial subsidy to food producers and retailers.