• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Washington Could Push Gas Prices Higher


CalGun said:
It's what what you get when you let one tiny state go first in pres primaries every time. Some one early in this thread said it started 10 years ago, but try 20
Click to expand...

The problem would be the distribution, not the concept. People can't live on rice alone and many of the LEGITIMATE food stamp recipients don't have transportation. Remember, don't judge people by the young, healthy ones milking the system. My little old ladies wouldn't have a way to pick up 42 pounds of rice. Funny though, my ex last month used her food stamps to buy some brown rice (she's diabetic). What do you think about the shipping costs? Is that in addition to the food cost? Who does the packing and shipping? Govt. employees? I'm asking these because there is merit to the idea, it's the execution that concerns me.

Not sure about the one state thing. Can you amplify?
 
Helix said:
i'm against upping the ethanol content. my car doesn't like even ten percent very well.
Click to expand...

Mine doesn't either. Ten percent ethanol reduces my mileage by ten percent, and one radio call-in said he lost 25% of his mileage when he went to E-85.
 

That is a terrible idea. Food in the supermarket has minimal shipping costs because it uses economy of scale in massive trucks to move bulk products. Individual shipping is vastly more expensive. Even worse, it would require the government to create a central planning committee to determine dietary needs, which then runs into problems because of individual medical requirements, like say a gluten allergy.

If you wanted a better solution, you would create an electronic payment system that would have lower distribution costs and much better auditing.
 
I've never been a fan of "here, eat this bland boring tasteless crap that I won't even eat 2 days a week, let alone 7 days a week" proposals.
 

A frightening thought indeed! :shock:
 
Food stamps were never intended to provide a complete diet - they are a supplement. Sending rice / beans helps supplement a can of soup into a full blown meal quite easily. Shipping costs? The prices I quoted are higher than Costco's prices including shipping. We have a postal service in desperate need for revenue - shipping should be a blessing to them.

I would imagine a senior citizen could easily receive smaller packages on a more routine basis.

Please know I have no trouble with the nation helping out the poor and those who need help, but I am tired of those who abuse it. I've seen it first hand. I tried to do something about it and my government laughed at me for caring and bothering. I saw a family of 5 milk EBT for $140 a week laughing all the way simply by under reporting their income which was from businesses they owned (major franchises). I realize these individual cases hurt the whole, but they NEED a system that stops those people from abusing it; and if we sent out "bulk" food instead of handed out an electronic card the poor would not have to travel to stores and have the supplements they need.

Finally I just got an ad in my email from a place that sales dehydrated vegetables. All you need to do is add water and cook. A ONE YEAR supply of vegetables for one person delivered was $255 and this is an over priced retail outlet. Still that is less than $5 per week for vegetables.

I also think it'd be fair for people on food stamps to explain why they can't grow fresh foods - and by that I know some in apartments and buildings can't. Still a lot of people CAN and just don't want too. I do, I have too, and I don't mind it one bit.


 
So its better that we ignore an efficient shipping operation for the US postal service and engage in the inefficient shipping / collection process the poor must pay for to obtain their food - by this I mean their travel to the grocery store.

I'll repeat, food stamps DO NOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE DIET, they are supplement. Rice, beans, and other staples are a SUPPLEMENT to a good diet.


 

If you're willing to assume for discussion sake that the great majority of food stamps go to people who actually need them, then I looked at postage rates and 40 pounds of rice looks like about $40 to mail. And why are we doing this? Why not let people have some diet variety from the local grocery store? I was amazed when I saw that EBT cards could be used at convenience stores, just ridiculous. But standard groceries at a regular store isn't something negative.

Otherwise, we'll get a whole new inefficient bureaucracy to pack and mail all this stuff. How about meats and fruits? Really, all thats needed is better enforcement so the ones abusing th system are caught and punished. I tried to calculate the USPS charges for a 42 lb. package and it looks like it's $40. Plus, then the grocery stores will freak out about losing this business.

You're very big on self-reliance but most people aren't and imposing this on them is a bit much. I sure won't grow anything - hell, I don't even grow my own pot. Black thumb I think they call it.

...be a lot easier to quit the ethanol program to pay for this and just regulate it better. But I bet 7-11 paid off some Congress people so they could take the EBT. We're really just too corrupt to fix much of anything.
 
The $40 shipping charge makes little sense?
380 Total Servings White Rice 42 lb. Bucket Emergency Food Storage By Shelf Reliance® THRIVE

Costco ships a 42 lb bucket of rice for $54.99 - 380 servinces - more than 1 a day for a year.
Please note their price includes shipping and handling.


 
CalGun said:
So its better that we ignore an efficient shipping operation for the US postal service and engage in the inefficient shipping / collection process the poor must pay for to obtain their food - by this I mean their travel to the grocery store.
Click to expand...

You get lower costs by shipping items in bulk with predictable delivery schedules and fixed pickup/dropoff locations. That is why you can buy a container of OJ in California that weighs 10 pounds for under $5. Try shipping that same container of OJ in the mail from Florida to California and the cost will be much more than the value of the juice itself. There is reason why the market has chosen grocery stores to distribute food instead of the mail.

I'll repeat, food stamps DO NOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE DIET, they are supplement. Rice, beans, and other staples are a SUPPLEMENT to a good diet.
Click to expand...

That only makes your idea even less efficient. That means the person still has to make trips to the grocery store to buy food, but you also have the shipping costs for sending stuff in the mail.
 
a) I 100% agree the ethanol subsidy should be long gone,
b) I'm 100% in favor of a support program, but we should strive to make it better

For example what if the solution simply enabled those willing to take bulk foods by mail available to them, and in doing so they'd get more than those who need "cash" (I call ebt cards cash). The homeless could select a shelter to send their bulk food supplies too and would be far better off. And finally the whole program should contain a sustainable element for those who can - but don't want too.

BTW I grew a few veggies as a child as demanded by my father, but until I lost my business I never grew a thing - then I had to - and I did.


 


You know we're not like totally disagreeing, just discussing strategy. I also want to be sure that food is what's provided and that it goes to those in actual need.

I don't think you can ask families (and lets just assume these are legit) to live on rice and dehydrated vegetables. They can, but I just can't support that. There are food pantries to supply bulk grains already. But IF we were confident that the people receiving these benefits were real, what is your objection to the grocery (private enterprise) supplying this instead of some agency? As far as I know, EBTs aren't usable for non-food items and if you're going to let the occasional scandal "OMG, I bought lobster with an EBT!!!!" be the basis for everyone, it's not fair or practical.

So, no matter what, nobody wants to "let them starve". But the ethanol issue just takes a signatore and we recover hudreds of millions and nobody misses a meal. Priorities.
 
Totally understand we're not totally disagreeing.

I'm not opposed to private enterprise providing the stores, and already provided a link from one private entity that delivers staples at a pretty good price with shipping. Also I would not expect people to sustain off these staples. As I noted the food stamp program was intended to be a supplement not a 4 course meal. Would it not be prudent for us to send the people that which they need to incorporate into their meals - veggies, grains, beans, etc? I'm sure you would agree that'd be a better expense then McDonalds, Taco Bell or Burger King? Which by the way - all accept EBT - for the price of one value meal a person could have a rice serving every day for a month.




 
You're doing a great job of arguing your case and I'm coming around to your POV.

Yes, I think we could make a partial allocation of staples the way you suggested, remove all EBT use outside of genuine grocery stores - certainly NOT for fast food or 7-11 purchases. I suppose in small towns we could waiver the grocery store mandate but yes, this is a good idea and I hope you will write a detailed letter to - Obama. Believe it or not, a careful, respectful, registered letter will go fairly high up the chain. You'll get a bunch of ecuses in reply but it might, just might, chip away at the current notions. Be humble, friendly and positive in your wording. I'm serious and I've done this and there was some backlash (I wrote to LBJ about balnce of payments waste and I did catch some flak but I was breaking some rice bowls while this topic shouldn't piss anybody off).
 

At that point wouldn't it just be easier to fund food banks rather than individuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…