Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 445005 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13740 on: February 13, 2018, 01:00:14 PM »
@freefourur SHS takes pride in just spewing BS. At least you could hear Spicer's voice begin to shake when he knew he was espousing a provable falsehood.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13741 on: February 13, 2018, 01:00:54 PM »
Can we agree there is a difference between encouraging and promoting nutritional standards for meals in schools and deciding exactly what foods people will eat?  Because if we can't agree on the difference between these two things then there will be no need to have any further discussion on this topic.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13742 on: February 13, 2018, 01:02:55 PM »
^Yeah, there certainly are.

However, they are both means to the same end.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13743 on: February 13, 2018, 01:04:51 PM »
Creating a standard for fuel efficiency in cars and telling you exactly what car you can drive are also means to the same end?  but those are vastly different things right?

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13744 on: February 13, 2018, 01:07:05 PM »
Quote
USDA spokesman Tim Murtaugh said states would have "flexibility" in how they got the boxes to SNAP recipients, adding, "The projected savings does not include shipping door-to-door for all recipients."

Are we sure this would save money?
Very Stable Genius

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13745 on: February 13, 2018, 01:09:12 PM »
^Yeah, and you certainly raise a good point.

As a small-government fiend myself, I'm not all that put-off by Trump's proposal. Though there are some red flags for particular people with special dietary needs. I think this is an area where it's good for government to step in, for two primary reasons:

1. Healthier foods are more expensive, and

2. Many of the people in the SNAP program lack the information and knowledge to make the best nutritional choices for his/her self and family.  Having said that, I would like to see an informational element to this program.

Nonetheless, you raised a very good point about mandating food purchases. I think perhaps casting a larger umbrella would be beneficial, and allowing choice within that realm.

What would be even better is if there was a way to incorporate locally sourced foods into this program at the state level

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13746 on: February 13, 2018, 01:09:38 PM »
It's just amazing that the Trump Budget tries to save money by cutting food stamps and shipping a box of canned goods to poor people instead...when they just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that almost entirely is going to corporations and the top 1%.
Very Stable Genius

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13747 on: February 13, 2018, 01:13:30 PM »
^Yeah, and you certainly raise a good point.

As a small-government fiend myself, I'm not all that put-off by Trump's proposal. Though there are some red flags for particular people with special dietary needs. I think this is an area where it's good for government to step in, for two primary reasons:

1. Healthier foods are more expensive, and

2. Many of the people in the SNAP program lack the information and knowledge to make the best nutritional choices for his/her self and family.  Having said that, I would like to see an informational element to this program.

Nonetheless, you raised a very good point about mandating food purchases. I think perhaps casting a larger umbrella would be beneficial, and allowing choice within that realm.

What would be even better is if there was a way to incorporate locally sourced foods into this program at the state level

I am all for trying to promote healthier options but sending boxes to poor people is not the way to go.  Especially since those boxes will not contain fresh fruits or vegetables.  If conservatives were really concerned about the health of people, it would show in their spending priorities.  This is nothing more than appeasing the sensibilities of "middle-class" families who think that poor people are living high on the hog.

Offline Cleburger

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4663
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13748 on: February 13, 2018, 01:19:14 PM »
It's just amazing that the Trump Budget tries to save money by cutting food stamps and shipping a box of canned goods to poor people instead...when they just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that almost entirely is going to corporations and the top 1%.

Just wait until that trickle starts to run down!   ::)

Offline bfwissel

  • Premium Member
  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13749 on: February 13, 2018, 02:06:17 PM »
The devil really seems to be in the details of the proposed changes to the SNAP program.  What if someone in the home has a food allergy/sensitivity?  What about people who can't stand certain foods or have religious beliefs against certain foods?  Will there be some choice in the foods delivered?  How much are all the costs of delivery to so many people?  The whole thing seems like a nightmare, but maybe it can be well implemented.  I'm pretty skeptical though.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 02:18:02 PM by bfwissel »
"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13750 on: February 13, 2018, 02:16:52 PM »
"Poor people spend their food stamps on steak and lobster!" is a such a BS Republican talking point, it's not even worth responding to.

Trump is just pandering to the people in his base that believe that.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13751 on: February 13, 2018, 02:17:46 PM »
 There were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP
households, no matter how the data were categorized. Similar to most American
households:
 About 40 cents of every dollar of food expenditures by SNAP households was
spent on basic items such as meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread.
 Another 20 cents out of every dollar was spent on sweetened beverages,
desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.
 The remaining 40 cents were spent on a variety of items such as cereal, prepared
foods, dairy products, rice, and beans.
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf

What problem is the food box trying to fix?

Offline mu2010

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13752 on: February 13, 2018, 02:22:01 PM »
Trump just lets Mick Mulvaney do the budget because he doesn't care about it and it's a way to pander to the freedom caucus, everybody knows none of this is happening.

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6146
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13753 on: February 13, 2018, 02:42:56 PM »
I've long thought about a program like Trump's proposed SNAP changes. Here's what I'd do:

1. Partner with grocers like Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc.
2. Work with the grocers to assemble kits on a monthly basis - whatever is healthy and cheap/plentiful that month makes it into the kit.
3. Focus on staples - rice, beans, pasta, vegetables, etc. No salty snacks, desserts, beverages, etc. would be included.
4. The stores would serve as distribution points - each recipient would have a biweekly pickup date/time.

IMO this would cut costs significantly and improve the eating habits and thus health of those on SNAP. Utilizing stores would allow for a wider variety of foods - refrigerated items and fresh fruits and vegetables could be easily included instead of just shelf-stable goods. Stores could supply their house branded items, which are typically significantly cheaper than brand names.

The only side effects I see are intangibles like the stigma and the fact that some people are picky eaters. Neither of those seem like a big deal.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13754 on: February 13, 2018, 02:49:27 PM »
I've long thought about a program like Trump's proposed SNAP changes. Here's what I'd do:

1. Partner with grocers like Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc.
2. Work with the grocers to assemble kits on a monthly basis - whatever is healthy and cheap/plentiful that month makes it into the kit.
3. Focus on staples - rice, beans, pasta, vegetables, etc. No salty snacks, desserts, beverages, etc. would be included.
4. The stores would serve as distribution points - each recipient would have a biweekly pickup date/time.

IMO this would cut costs significantly and improve the eating habits and thus health of those on SNAP. Utilizing stores would allow for a wider variety of foods - refrigerated items and fresh fruits and vegetables could be easily included instead of just shelf-stable goods. Stores could supply their house branded items, which are typically significantly cheaper than brand names.

The only side effects I see are intangibles like the stigma and the fact that some people are picky eaters. Neither of those seem like a big deal.

I don't see how having an apparatus in stores to prepackage meals would save money or solve a problem that doesn't exist. 

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13755 on: February 13, 2018, 02:56:51 PM »
Some times I've been in the checkout line, behind someone buying food with EBT/Food Stamps/SNAP etc., and they misjudged how much food they could get with the assistance they had. So I help them out. I wouldn't have helped them out if they were buying junk food or booze, and each time the person ahead of me was buying basic stuff to make some decent meals. So my limited experience is that persons on assistance aren't abusing their benefits. I'm sure there are some out there, but I have yet to see it.
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline mu2010

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13756 on: February 13, 2018, 02:57:19 PM »
^^^ Sounds kind of like http://freshforkmarket.com which is something I am considering spending big bucks on next summer.

Seasonality could also be worked into it. This is something which was long a part of how people ate but today has become completely lost on the modern American. Foods in season taste better and are cheaper. I was talking to a guy a few days ago who thought I was joking when I said oranges were in season in the winter. He seriously didn't believe me.

You've got to have fresh produce in there though, the idea of expecting people to just eat canned fruit is stingy.

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5501
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13757 on: February 13, 2018, 03:00:54 PM »
I've long thought about a program like Trump's proposed SNAP changes. Here's what I'd do:

1. Partner with grocers like Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc.
2. Work with the grocers to assemble kits on a monthly basis - whatever is healthy and cheap/plentiful that month makes it into the kit.
3. Focus on staples - rice, beans, pasta, vegetables, etc. No salty snacks, desserts, beverages, etc. would be included.
4. The stores would serve as distribution points - each recipient would have a biweekly pickup date/time.

IMO this would cut costs significantly and improve the eating habits and thus health of those on SNAP. Utilizing stores would allow for a wider variety of foods - refrigerated items and fresh fruits and vegetables could be easily included instead of just shelf-stable goods. Stores could supply their house branded items, which are typically significantly cheaper than brand names.

The only side effects I see are intangibles like the stigma and the fact that some people are picky eaters. Neither of those seem like a big deal.

these are good ideas. One big problem is that a lot of poorer people live in neighborhoods that are "food deserts," where decent supermarkets simply don't exist. The only options are overpriced bodegas with limited items, many of them unhealthy. By partnering with large chains, a great variety of healthy, well-balanced options would become available to these people. Also, a lot of poor people (not that this phenomenon is limited to only them) are woefully uneducated in nutrition, and many are just too busy surviving to keep themselves informed on eating more healthily--another bonus to this plan.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13758 on: February 13, 2018, 03:11:53 PM »
I've long thought about a program like Trump's proposed SNAP changes. Here's what I'd do:

1. Partner with grocers like Kroger, Wal-Mart, etc.
2. Work with the grocers to assemble kits on a monthly basis - whatever is healthy and cheap/plentiful that month makes it into the kit.
3. Focus on staples - rice, beans, pasta, vegetables, etc. No salty snacks, desserts, beverages, etc. would be included.
4. The stores would serve as distribution points - each recipient would have a biweekly pickup date/time.

IMO this would cut costs significantly and improve the eating habits and thus health of those on SNAP. Utilizing stores would allow for a wider variety of foods - refrigerated items and fresh fruits and vegetables could be easily included instead of just shelf-stable goods. Stores could supply their house branded items, which are typically significantly cheaper than brand names.

The only side effects I see are intangibles like the stigma and the fact that some people are picky eaters. Neither of those seem like a big deal.

This is a good start, but let me suggest a few improvements.

Obviously grocers are going to have more in-season fruits and vegetables. However, some people may not enjoy the specific fruits and vegetables that are in season now. Or they may have an allergy to a certain type of produce. Maybe instead of the default item, the SNAP recipient could opt for a smaller amount of some other type of produce?

What if the grocery store assigned different types of produce a certain number of "points"? Each SNAP recipient would receive a certain number of "points" that they could "redeem" for different types of produce. A household might be allocated 25,000 points each month. They would then be free to decide whether they want to redeem 349 points for a 2 pound bag of lemons, 299 points for a 5 pound bag of potatoes, or 299 points for a bag of 4 avocados. When certain fruits and vegetables are in season and more plentiful, the points value of that item could be reduced to encourage more people to choose it. When something is more scarce, the point value could be increased to encourage fewer people to choose it.

Perhaps this system could even be expanded beyond produce. SNAP recipients would be able to decide whether they want to redeem 399 points on a jar of peanut butter or 250 points on a box of granola bars. Again, the points values for these items would be increased or decreased by the grocers due to various factors.

And perhaps instead of having grocery store employees pack these items into boxes for pick-up at designated times, the SNAP recipients could just walk through the grocery store and make their own selections at any time. How convenient would that be!

I think this is really quite an innovative system. I don't know why no one has thought of this before.

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13759 on: February 13, 2018, 03:15:44 PM »
^Yeah, there certainly are.

However, they are both means to the same end.

Not really.  There is endless money for the military and rich people, but cost-saving measures only seem to happen with the poor and other already maligned groups with the GOP.  Why is that, again?  All this is saying is that the GOP believes poor people can neither make the tough decision on what food to buy, nor should they be allowed to even if they could.  The idea that this is about improving the health of poor people is so obviously laughable.   

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13760 on: February 13, 2018, 03:23:29 PM »
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fbi-director-we-reported-to-wh-multiple-times-on-porter-before-ouster

Quote
“What I can tell you is that the FBI submitted a partial report on the investigation in question in March, and then a completed background investigation in late July,” he said, noting that the FBI “followed the established protocol” with Porter.

“Soon thereafter we received requests for follow-up inquiry and we did the follow-up and provided that information in November. And then we administratively closed the file in January,” he continued. “And then earlier this month we received some additional information and we passed that on as well.”

Quote
The administration has said in its defense that Porter’s background check was incomplete at the time of his ouster, and that they wanted to allow the FBI to finish its investigation before passing judgement on Porter.

The administration can't even get its cover story straight for the Porter fiasco.  Everything is a lie.

They hired and allowed a credibly accused spouse abuser to handle the most TOP SECRET documents even though he didn't have full security clearance! That's insane!!
Very Stable Genius

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13761 on: February 13, 2018, 03:26:51 PM »
Look @jonoh81 , I can't argue with you about the 1%; you're right.

However, just because cost is cut doesn't mean there's a reduction in quality. The budget of several social welfare programs in the US could benefit from trimming to streamline efficiency. The end goal of providing people on public assistance with more nutritious meals is to make them healthier - anything beyond that is purely subjective.

Going off of what @Ram23 said, I would love for there to be a government assistance program that partners with large grocers - especially as this may motivate grocery stores to move into areas that are currently under served. However, I don't think packaging food is necessarily the best idea. I'd love for there to be a "SNAP-eligible" list based on the nutritional values of foods. From that umbrella grouping, SNAP consumers could choose their groceries.

I know stigma isn't a "big" deal to some people. But, I think there is something to be said for avoiding embarrassing situations when possible - even though I'd like to say most people wouldn't think less of someone for being on assistance, I just don't know if that's the case.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13762 on: February 13, 2018, 03:27:55 PM »
The Porter situation just BLEW UP today.

If this administration was ever able to admit even the slightest degree of fault for mistakes, this backlash could have been avoided.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13763 on: February 13, 2018, 03:42:25 PM »
The Porter situation just BLEW UP today.

If this administration was ever able to admit even the slightest degree of fault for mistakes, this backlash could have been avoided.

That's the nature of those with a Nixonian complex. Their over-inflated ego and drive for power to mask their massive insecurities prohibits them from admitting they have any faults whatsoever. Unfortunately, most politicians I've met get into politics to mask their insecurities, not to serve the public.
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline edale

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 529
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13764 on: February 13, 2018, 03:58:35 PM »
I know stigma isn't a "big" deal to some people. But, I think there is something to be said for avoiding embarrassing situations when possible - even though I'd like to say most people wouldn't think less of someone for being on assistance, I just don't know if that's the case.

Trump and his supporters definitely think less of people who are on public assistance, even though I would wager a fair number of them receive assistance themselves. Most Trumpies would be shocked to find out that most welfare recipients in this country are *gasp* white. Wonder how this move will play out among poor whites? Maybe they will finally see that the Republican party does not care about them, even though they are white and socially conservative. Doubt it, though, as many of these people are totally detached from the reality that they are poor and lower class. Republicans have done a really good job of convincing these people that, while they might be struggling, they're inherently better than African Americans, Hispanics, and other poor minorities.


Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13765 on: February 13, 2018, 04:01:05 PM »
Look @jonoh81 , I can't argue with you about the 1%; you're right.

However, just because cost is cut doesn't mean there's a reduction in quality. The budget of several social welfare programs in the US could benefit from trimming to streamline efficiency. The end goal of providing people on public assistance with more nutritious meals is to make them healthier - anything beyond that is purely subjective.

Going off of what @Ram23 said, I would love for there to be a government assistance program that partners with large grocers - especially as this may motivate grocery stores to move into areas that are currently under served. However, I don't think packaging food is necessarily the best idea. I'd love for there to be a "SNAP-eligible" list based on the nutritional values of foods. From that umbrella grouping, SNAP consumers could choose their groceries.

I know stigma isn't a "big" deal to some people. But, I think there is something to be said for avoiding embarrassing situations when possible - even though I'd like to say most people wouldn't think less of someone for being on assistance, I just don't know if that's the case.

I just don't think much of this is realistic in practice.  In the case of the packages, there are too many circumstances to adjust for, and you have delivery and packaging costs that are not part of the current program.  In the case of a limited list of eligible foods, a lot of people in rural or poor urban neighborhoods simply don't have access to a lot of what that might include due to fewer shopping options.  You would effectively be punishing the same people for living in those areas and creating unfair hardships.  So you're not only humiliating them by telling them that they can't make good choices and have to buy only what has been deemed arbitrarily better for them, you're also potentially forcing them to travel farther and spend more money in the process. 
Most people seem to be following the guidelines and are not abusing the current system.  Instead of wholesale change with its own new set of problems, I'd rather see better oversight on abuse rather than punishing everyone. 
Frankly, this whole thing reminds me of the welfare drug testing fiasco, where conservatives were convinced that the majority of welfare users were major drug addicts, but then state after state found incredibly low levels of drug abuse.  So low, in fact, that the cost of the testing was more than the money saved by testing in the first place. 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 04:03:45 PM by jonoh81 »

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13766 on: February 13, 2018, 04:12:02 PM »
"Poor people spend their food stamps on steak and lobster!" is a such a BS Republican talking point, it's not even worth responding to.

Not that many Republicans make that point.  There are more of them who *will* argue, with some justification, that poor people tend to spend food budgets on potato chips and Twinkies and other packaged snacks, and will push back on the common liberal complaint that it's just too expensive to eat healthy.  I'll wager I could find a thread on these boards--and I know I could on the old CU ones--where people share fairly cheap meals that they've prepared themselves that still feature whole grains, fresh produce, protein, etc.

That said, I don't even like that line of Republican argument because I share the concerns cited in that NPR article that the government shouldn't be picking and choosing what specific rations of food you get.  The concern cited about saving money by avoiding retail doesn't ring that strongly to me.  Grocery markup isn't usually astronomical, and it saves the government from having to try to manage this logistical and procurement operation--a chance for bureaucracy and bloat if ever there was one.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13767 on: February 13, 2018, 04:27:25 PM »
"Poor people spend their food stamps on steak and lobster!" is a such a BS Republican talking point, it's not even worth responding to.

Not that many Republicans make that point.  There are more of them who *will* argue, with some justification, that poor people tend to spend food budgets on potato chips and Twinkies and other packaged snacks, and will push back on the common liberal complaint that it's just too expensive to eat healthy.  I'll wager I could find a thread on these boards--and I know I could on the old CU ones--where people share fairly cheap meals that they've prepared themselves that still feature whole grains, fresh produce, protein, etc.

That said, I don't even like that line of Republican argument because I share the concerns cited in that NPR article that the government shouldn't be picking and choosing what specific rations of food you get.  The concern cited about saving money by avoiding retail doesn't ring that strongly to me.  Grocery markup isn't usually astronomical, and it saves the government from having to try to manage this logistical and procurement operation--a chance for bureaucracy and bloat if ever there was one.

Of course you can eat healthy foods for not a lot of money, but it generally requires a lot of time for meal preparation. There are people receiving SNAP benefits who work two minimum wage jobs. They last thing they want to do after being exhausted from working 12 hours is come home, open up their kit of government-provided rations, and have to cook a meal from scratch.

While I think the "junk food costs less than healthy food" problem is one we need to solve, I think we need to look at the real reason that many low income people eat unhealthy food. It's because a fast food burger or those darned "salty snacks" may be the only joy and release of dopamines that they get in a day. Let's not pretend like they don't realize that unhealthy food is unhealthy.

Offline eastvillagedon

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5501
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13768 on: February 13, 2018, 04:37:58 PM »
speaking of salty snacks, if you're ever in Trader Joe's, don't ever buy these. They're the most addictive potato chips I've ever had. They must be dusted with crack

Offline edale

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 529
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13769 on: February 13, 2018, 04:58:32 PM »
"Poor people spend their food stamps on steak and lobster!" is a such a BS Republican talking point, it's not even worth responding to.

Not that many Republicans make that point.  There are more of them who *will* argue, with some justification, that poor people tend to spend food budgets on potato chips and Twinkies and other packaged snacks, and will push back on the common liberal complaint that it's just too expensive to eat healthy.  I'll wager I could find a thread on these boards--and I know I could on the old CU ones--where people share fairly cheap meals that they've prepared themselves that still feature whole grains, fresh produce, protein, etc.

That said, I don't even like that line of Republican argument because I share the concerns cited in that NPR article that the government shouldn't be picking and choosing what specific rations of food you get.  The concern cited about saving money by avoiding retail doesn't ring that strongly to me.  Grocery markup isn't usually astronomical, and it saves the government from having to try to manage this logistical and procurement operation--a chance for bureaucracy and bloat if ever there was one.

Of course you can eat healthy foods for not a lot of money, but it generally requires a lot of time for meal preparation. There are people receiving SNAP benefits who work two minimum wage jobs. They last thing they want to do after being exhausted from working 12 hours is come home, open up their kit of government-provided rations, and have to cook a meal from scratch.

While I think the "junk food costs less than healthy food" problem is one we need to solve, I think we need to look at the real reason that many low income people eat unhealthy food. It's because a fast food burger or those darned "salty snacks" may be the only joy and release of dopamines that they get in a day. Let's not pretend like they don't realize that unhealthy food is unhealthy.

Yeah, also a lot of poor people don't have great cooking environments or tools. Cooking in a small kitchen with next to no counter space is pretty damn difficult. You need to have the pans, plates, utensils, etc. too. Some of these items can be obtained through charities or cheaply at places like Goodwill, but it's just yet another barrier to healthy eating choices.