Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Simon_Jester]

Okay but see, if you're going to say "the Republicans, not the Democrats, are responsible for a shutdown brought about by a Democratic filibuster, due to this filibuster being a reaction to Republicans not keeping their word," and then say "Schumer is to blame when the Republicans don't keep their word," it's an inconsistent standard.

Schumer isn't at fault for the Republicans breaking their word, but he arguably is at fault if he trades away his best means to counter them when they predictably do so, in exchange for small or non-existent gains.

Again, if "his best means" is a sword that will cut his hands off if he grips it too tightly, his choices in the matter are rather limited. Resisting hard enough to make it clear that he does not approve, then letting a bad thing happen and pointing out what utter shits the Republicans are being, may be a better strategy than committing seppuku in protest of something he can't actually stop.

Either Democrats have agency and should be able to predict Republican intransingence, or they don't and shouldn't.

I'm not sure that I follow.

Democrats should expect Republicans to play false. Logically, then, we have two choices that follow from that:

1. Expect that we will get played and get little or nothing, and accept that.

2. Retain what leverage we can to use against the Republicans.

Yes, we know that using that leverage might lead to a shutdown, and all its negative consequences. However, it is also the Republicans' choice to let the government shut down rather than give us a fair deal. If we say "Deal with us fairly and honestly, or we wont' fund your government", and the Republicans choose a shut down over a fair compromise, I'm sure how that makes it the Democrats' fault.

The point is that if the Republicans simply continue being fuckwits, which is just as predictable if not more predictable than their habit of false dealings...

A situation is reached where the sound of the Democrats scoring some kind of abstract moral win by insisting on fair deals is drowned out by the sound of the American people saying "Mom? Dad? Stop fighting." And the Republicans win anyway, probably in the form of red-state Democratic senators caving because they know damn well that their constituents are propagandized enough to vote them out of office over whatever cute nickname Fox News pins on the shutdown.

You use the phrase "retain what leverage we can." The thing you seem to be skipping over is that using every possible avenue of obstruction maximally is not necessarily the best way to retain leverage.

Again, the Republicans do in fact hold pretty much all the cards here, and are limited more by their own disorganization and fuckwittery than by lack of the power to accomplish what they want. If the majority of American voters have a problem with things like "cancelling the DREAM Act" and "tax cuts that benefit the rich forever and the poor for like three years before raising poor people's tax rates," then the majority of American voters can goddamn well stop voting for Republicans.

Until the time when "is the party of ethnic cleansing" becomes sufficient to actually keep a major party out of power, the Democrats have to balance their short-term and long-term strategy.

[Please do not give a cute reply about Hillary Clinton's popular vote majority, you know what I mean.]

The thing is, I don't think this was ever an issue the Republicans were going to fold on, especially not if they knew they could maneuver the Democrats into a position of having to look like the goons wrecking the government for a change. Donald Trump is a dickhead. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are assholes. They can keep being obstinate and pushing a frankly evil and horrible policy much, much longer than anyone else can keep up a good reputation while getting down into the mud with them.

So just accept that 800,000 innocent people, who are Americans in every sense but a legal technicality, are going to be deported for the sake of racism and xenophobia?

Okay, can you psychologically comprehend the mindset:

"I know this is happening, I do not approve, I do not accept it, I know perfectly well that I cannot actually stop it, I might be able to significantly delay it if I roll the dice and take a high risk of self-destructing. If I self-destruct and fail to stop it, more and just as bad will continue happening for a long time to come, and the people who actually want this are far more likely to remain in power."

Do you understand this mindset, yes or no? Is it somehow alien to you to NOT gamble on self-destructing?

Because if so, you are probably not a good person to run large organizations, or comment on how large organizations should be run.

The thing is, when your head is in the mouth of a tiger, you cannot negotiate, but at the same time, ALL your strength must go into extricating yourself from its jaws. There is nothing left over for any lesser purpose. If all you have is a dinky, badly outgunned position, you pick your battles very carefully, or you lose that position and lose everything else along with it.

Indeed.

Extricating our heads, in this case, means winning in 2018 and 2020. So the question, if you want to leave principle aside and put it coldly in terms of short-term pragmatism, is:

Will being possibly perceived as responsible for a shutdown hurt us more with the electorate than having failed to protect the Dreamers? Keeping in mind that one of the most damaging narratives used against the Democrats (however unjustly) is that they are weak compromisers, or "No different than the Republicans."

I do not want to see depressed progressive and Latino turnout in November because the Democrats are seen as having caved on DACA.

Since this is very literally a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" if BOTH mindless middle voters AND Democrat-hating lefties are too foolish to correctly attribute blame under the circumstances...

Fuckit, I give up. I'm not going to try to decide one way or the other, and as a commonsense precaution I default to the strategy that preserves the institution so that another battle can be fought on another day. I consider the idea of threatening indefinite shutdowns as a way of ensuring ANYTHING to be a terrible strategy, so likely to backfire that it becomes a fool's errand to try. It is therefore not a thing to be pursued under any circumstance where there is a tomorrow, especially not if the alternative is something like "the Republicans speculatively might renege on a promise to hold a vote."

Or Schumer may have a different long range plan, or may have notions that he can make Mitch McConnell's failure to keep his word bite him in the butt in the long run. I can easily see that happening, for instance, if a number of Republican senators who are probably already tired of being treated like 'useful idiots' by McConnell get "I know rights" from the Democrats.

Or it could be spun the other way, as the Democrats not really caring about minorities, being no different from Republicans, etc. There is a large and receptive market for that sort of narrative already.

Not gonna lie, any left-leaning voter out there who is still stupid enough to believe Democrats are identical to Republicans because Democrats don't seppuku hard enough for them... I've written them off as irredeemable. Too stupid to be worth listening to in politics.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about expanding food aid to the poor programs, I'm talking about expanding existing USDA distributes food to various clients programs instead of creating an entire new bureaucratic department.

We already have a food distribution system for the EBT/SNAP/food stamps program (it goes by all of those names). IT'S THE GODDAMNED GROCERY STORE. Do you understand that this costs the government literally nothing to procure, store, transport, or distribute food under the SNAP program at this point in time? NOTHING. Zero. Nada. Zip. It is logically, logistically, and financial IMPOSSIBLE for food "distribution" for SNAP to occur costing the government LESS than zero.

Fuck NO this is not an expansion - the stated intent is to CUT benefits, not increase them! Or even maintain them at the same level.

Cutting the expense of the benefit program while maintaining the overall quantity of food provided seems to be the stated intent.

The current SNAP program allows poor people to access the exact same quality of food you do, in the grocery store. It also will INCREASE government costs because, as noted the current government program COSTS THE GOVERNMENT NOTHING for procurement, storage, transportation, or distribution of this food.

It is impossible to "increase the food quality" because SNAP recipients ALREADY have access to the same quality food as everyone else. It is impossible to decrease costs because the costs are ALREADY zero for everything but the benefit allowance.

Do you know what in "in lieu" means? It means INSTEAD OF. This is in no way an expansion of anything.

See above. Expanding USDA programs, not expanding "quantity of food delivered".

The fucking link describing the program says "in lieu" of. Learn to fucking read for comprehension. This is NOT to "expand" anything, it's explicitly to replace half the SNAP benefit.

And, again - fuck you if you can't digest milk. Fuck you if you have a peanut or bean allergy. Fuck you, you don't deserve fresh fruit and vegetables, enjoy your scurvy.

Is there any reason to believe that there will only be one single "eat it or don't" box, rather than an option to get a "lactose intolerant" box, a "peanut allergy" box, a "gluten intolerant" box, etc?

It took decades to get even those few alternatives for the WIC program, that's what I base it on. That, and this administrations total of lack of desire to deal with details and nuance.

If the USDA is already doing similar food delivery systems to other clients, I'd be surprised to hear that they don't have alternatives available. Here's what they had available for the Reservation system, I'm sure someone can come up with various boxes meeting the above conditions out of this list.

Dude, the treatment of Natives on reservations is NOT anything to compare to, except to say how much better it could be done. I mean, holy fuck, the health status of reservation Natives is appalling, some of the highest rates of diabetes in the country, and their mortality rate for diabetes is three times higher than for anyone else. Sky high obesity, high blood pressure (which is not helped by depending on salt-laden canned foods), and all of it linked to lack of FRESH vegetables and fruit. You are proposing that moving to a system more like that is an improvement? Holy fuck, the ignorance here is appalling.

Know what the current "existing delivery system" for SNAP food is? THE FUCKING GROCERY STORE.

OK, but what's the USDA's existing delivery system for "the National School Lunch Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations"?

There are FORTY SEVEN MILLION people on SNAP in the US right now. If you just used a damn first class stamp to mail each one a letter it would be $2.3 million dollars, and there's no way in hell you're transporting "food boxes" to each - or even 4/5 - for that price. That would be EVERY MONTH. Can you not understand that there are orders of magnitude more people under SNAP than all those other programs combined? That RIGHT NOW the total cost to the government of procuring, storing, transporting and distributing the food in the SNAP program is ZERO.

Right now EBT accounts are filled ELECTRONICALLY - no mail, no delivery of actual material objects. Just electrons. Pray tell, what is cheaper than that in this world? Then the poor people get themselves to the "food distribution center" a.k.a. THE FUCKING GROCERY STORE and pick up the food themselves.

There is NO fucking way this is going to be cheaper. There is not a goddamned reason to set up a parallel food delivery system in this nation. This is a hate-based policy to fuck the poor, interfere with their lives, and reduce the food going to the poor. It's shit, bullshit, and more shit.

In 2012, the Reservation system currently spent ~$38M on administration and ~$65M on food. They covered ~85k people. That's ~$450 on admin (this appears to include delivery to the Reservations) and ~$760 on food per person (total cost ~$1210 per person). SNAP spent ~$74600M on food and ~$3800M on admin to cover ~$46600k people. That's ~$81 on admin and ~$1601 on food per person (total cost ~$1680 per person).

Once more - the SNAP program currently costs the government NOTHING for procurement, storage, transport, and distribution of food. NOTHING. The administration cost to SNAP is mostly because it's "means tested". For the Reservation system it's easy: Are you a member of a recognized Native tribe in the US, check YES or NO. If YES, do you live on a tribal reservation, check YES or NO. That merely a matter of confirming identity and legal address. For SNAP it's based on your income and assets, which means an actual human being has to collect the information and run the numbers. OF COURSE it costs more to administrate because it requires more human time/input. And, oh yes - for SNAP you have to have your eligibility re-assessed EVERY SIX MONTHS. OF COURSE it's going to cost more, because there's more involved.

This proposal estimates an additional expenditure of ~$2500M on admin and a savings of ~$13000M on food each year. Using 2012 numbers, that would put SNAP at ~$135 for admin per person and ~$1322 for food (total cost ~$1457 per person). So that's more expensive than the Reservation system, but cheaper than current SNAP.

One more time - all SNAP does currently is deposit an allowance into a back account. Currently spends nothing to procure, store, transport, and distribute food - this program will require SNAP to start doing all four of those. WHY? What does that improve?

[Wild Zontargs]

The fucking link describing the program says "in lieu" of. Learn to fucking read for comprehension. This is NOT to "expand" anything, it's explicitly to replace half the SNAP benefit.

OK, we're definitely talking past one another here.

Back when I first mentioned this:

Yes, it really is a completely bad idea. It'll [...] require an entire new layer or two of intrusive government bureaucracy.

To be fair, it sounds like they plan to expand existing programs to accomplish this:

See the context there? Esquire suggested this proposal would require new bureaucratic programs to administer the system. I pointed out that the stated intent was to expand existing USDA abilities to support SNAP, rather than creating new bureaucratic programs.

"Learn to fucking read for comprehension" indeed.

Once more - the SNAP program currently costs the government NOTHING for procurement, storage, transport, and distribution of food. NOTHING. The administration cost to SNAP is mostly because it's "means tested". For the Reservation system it's easy: Are you a member of a recognized Native tribe in the US, check YES or NO. If YES, do you live on a tribal reservation, check YES or NO. That merely a matter of confirming identity and legal address.

FDPIR says otherwise:

Low-income American Indian and non-Indian households that reside on a reservation, and households living in approved areas near a reservation or in Oklahoma that contain at least one person who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe are eligible to participate in FDPIR. Households are certified based on financial (e.g., income) and non-financial standards set by the Federal government, and must be recertified at least every 12 months. Elderly and disabled households may be certified for up to 24 months. Households may not participate in FDPIR and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the same month.

Detailed financial breakdown here.

This proposal estimates an additional expenditure of ~$2500M on admin and a savings of ~$13000M on food each year. Using 2012 numbers, that would put SNAP at ~$135 for admin per person and ~$1322 for food (total cost ~$1457 per person). So that's more expensive than the Reservation system, but cheaper than current SNAP.

One more time - all SNAP does currently is deposit an allowance into a back account. Currently spends nothing to procure, store, transport, and distribute food - this program will require SNAP to start doing all four of those. WHY? What does that improve?

I am not a US Government accountant. USGov says that they'll spend $13 billion less per year. In fact, I fucked up the math above, because that savings is after the increase in administrative expenses has been accounted for, so it should have been:

Using 2012 numbers, that would put SNAP at ~$135 for admin per person and ~$1268 for food (total cost ~$1400 per person). So that's more expensive than the Reservation system, but cheaper than current SNAP.

USGov says they'll spend more on overhead, but by buying half of SNAP recipients' groceries for them as bulk staples and still giving the other half of the money out on EBT, they'll save almost $300 per person per year, and everyone still gets the same quantity of food.

[Broomstick]

See the context there? Esquire suggested this proposal would require new bureaucratic programs to administer the system. I pointed out that the stated intent was to expand existing USDA abilities to support SNAP, rather than creating new bureaucratic programs.

Why does SNAP need to get into food procurement and distribution? How does that "support" the program which already uses the food distribution network in place? Insane troll logic here.

FDPIR says otherwise:

Low-income American Indian and non-Indian households that reside on a reservation, and households living in approved areas near a reservation or in Oklahoma that contain at least one person who is a member of a Federally-recognized tribe are eligible to participate in FDPIR.

You fucking moron - THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. The FDPIR is not SNAP. SNAP is not DFPIR. Given the appalling nutritional status on Native reservations it might be better if they ditched DFPIR and made SNAP available instead.

Households are certified based on financial (e.g., income) and non-financial standards set by the Federal government, and must be recertified at least every 12 months. Elderly and disabled households may be certified for up to 24 months. Households may not participate in FDPIR and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the same month.

See - DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. Also, SNAP requires recertification every six months regardless of age or disability status. That alone accounts for a good chunk of differences in administrative costs. Yes, if you recertify half as often, or as quarter as often, the administrative overhead is going to be less you ignoramus. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

So stop fucking talking about FDPIR when the topic is SNAP. They aren't the same program and they aren't connected.

USGov says they'll spend more on overhead, but by buying half of SNAP recipients' groceries for them as bulk staples and still giving the other half of the money out on EBT, they'll save almost $300 per person per year, and everyone still gets the same quantity of food.

No, you fucking moron, that first half is the box AND the cost of procurement and transportation of the box. It means spending less on food, period. And NO guarantee of equal quality. When I was on snap I didn't have to purchase ANY canned vegetables, I could stick with just fresh or frozen, both of which are nutritionally superior. Ditto for fruit.

You fail. You fucking fail miserably. Go crawl back into your cesspit under a bridge you goddamned piece of trollshit.

[Simon_Jester]

Right now EBT accounts are filled ELECTRONICALLY - no mail, no delivery of actual material objects. Just electrons. Pray tell, what is cheaper than that in this world? Then the poor people get themselves to the "food distribution center" a.k.a. THE FUCKING GROCERY STORE and pick up the food themselves.

There is NO fucking way this is going to be cheaper. There is not a goddamned reason to set up a parallel food delivery system in this nation. This is a hate-based policy to fuck the poor, interfere with their lives, and reduce the food going to the poor. It's shit, bullshit, and more shit.

In 2012, the Reservation system currently spent ~$38M on administration and ~$65M on food. They covered ~85k people. That's ~$450 on admin (this appears to include delivery to the Reservations) and ~$760 on food per person (total cost ~$1210 per person). SNAP spent ~$74600M on food and ~$3800M on admin to cover ~$46600k people. That's ~$81 on admin and ~$1601 on food per person (total cost ~$1680 per person).

Once more - the SNAP program currently costs the government NOTHING for procurement, storage, transport, and distribution of food. NOTHING. The administration cost to SNAP is mostly because it's "means tested". For the Reservation system it's easy: Are you a member of a recognized Native tribe in the US, check YES or NO. If YES, do you live on a tribal reservation, check YES or NO. That merely a matter of confirming identity and legal address. For SNAP it's based on your income and assets, which means an actual human being has to collect the information and run the numbers. OF COURSE it costs more to administrate because it requires more human time/input. And, oh yes - for SNAP you have to have your eligibility re-assessed EVERY SIX MONTHS. OF COURSE it's going to cost more, because there's more involved.

Notably, SNAP still costs far, far less on administrative overhead per person, despite delivering more cash value in food*. Like, spending eighty bucks a year per person on all administrative costs related to SNAP actually sounds pretty good. Despite considerably simpler paperwork (as you point out), the 'food to reservations' system still manages to spend around four hundred dollars more per person per year on administrative overhead, probably because (as you point out) they're hand-delivering the food.

There is just no way this remotely works out. If you actually give people enough options that the guys with peanut allergies and lactose intolerance don't starve and the kids are getting plenty of vitamins, then hand-delivering the food AND constantly obsessively checking their eligibility AND pressuring them to Get A Job** is, I agree, not going to save money.
_________________________

*($760 versus $1600 certainly suggests that Indians on reservations are getting a LOT less value in food, because even if SNAP purchases are theoretically nutritionally suboptimal they're not going to be THAT suboptimal).

**(because ignorant arrogant Republican dickheads think people on food stamps are willfully unemployed by choice for their amazing food stamp benefits)

[Wild Zontargs]

Why does SNAP need to get into food procurement and distribution?

It doesn't. USDA does that for them. Why does FedGov want USDA to do this? Because USDA can buy staples and ship them out for less money than SNAP recipients can buy said staples for, saving tax dollars.

How does that "support" the program which already uses the food distribution network in place?

Given that the government has already decided to direct-ship staples instead of having SNAP recipients buy their own, either:
1) SNAP grows bigger to duplicate what USDA already does
or
2) USDA partners with SNAP and each department does what they already do.

You fucking moron - THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. The FDPIR is not SNAP. SNAP is not DFPIR. Given the appalling nutritional status on Native reservations it might be better if they ditched DFPIR and made SNAP available instead.

Broomstick: FDPIR isn't means tested, while SNAP is.
Zontargs: FDPIR says it's means tested. Here's proof.
Broomstick: You fucking moron FDPIR is not SNAP. So stop fucking talking about FDPIR when the topic is SNAP.
...
What was that you said? "Learn to fucking read for comprehension"?

No, you fucking moron, that first half is the box AND the cost of procurement and transportation of the box. It means spending less on food, period. And NO guarantee of equal quality. When I was on snap I didn't have to purchase ANY canned vegetables, I could stick with just fresh or frozen, both of which are nutritionally superior. Ditto for fruit.

You fail. You fucking fail miserably. Go crawl back into your cesspit under a bridge you goddamned piece of trollshit.

Old SNAP: spend $1680 per person, of which $1600 was EBT payments.
New SNAP: spend $1400 per person, of which $1270 is staples + EBT payments.

"According to a summary of the proposal compiled by the Agriculture Department and obtained by CNBC, the boxes would replace about half of the current program's cash benefits."

So now the government is handing out $800 in EBT payments, and spending $470 on the rest of the food, which used to cost $800 for EBT recipients to buy. If the shipping is included in the food purchase price, and not the increased administrative overhead, this is even more impressive.

Using FDPIR as a comparison, since that's a USDA program being used by the USDA as an example of a comparable service, nutrition under FDPIR is higher than food stamp or general population food choices

Individuals meeting their energy needs by consuming FDPIR foods in the quantities provided would achieve a HEI-2005 [Healthy Eating Index-2005] score of 81 out of 100, considerably better than Americans in general (58 out of 100) and Food Stamp Program participants (52 out of 100).

So, USGov says they can provide better food for less money than by letting people do all their own shopping.

[Broomstick]

Why does SNAP need to get into food procurement and distribution?

It doesn't. USDA does that for them. Why does FedGov want USDA to do this? Because USDA can buy staples and ship them out for less money than SNAP recipients can buy said staples for, saving tax dollars.

How does that "support" the program which already uses the food distribution network in place?

Given that the government has already decided to direct-ship staples instead of having SNAP recipients buy their own, either:
1) SNAP grows bigger to duplicate what USDA already does

You fucking moron - USDA doesn't procure, ship, store, or transport food for SNAP. What the FUCK makes you think the USDA can duplicate the grocery supply chain for less money than the current supply chain?

Also, SNAP is PART of USDA. You are so ignorant it's painful

2) USDA partners with SNAP and each department does what they already do.

SNAP is part of USDA. They aren't separate "departments". Is your left hand a separate thing or part of your body?

You fucking moron - THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROGRAM. The FDPIR is not SNAP. SNAP is not DFPIR. Given the appalling nutritional status on Native reservations it might be better if they ditched DFPIR and made SNAP available instead.

Broomstick: FDPIR isn't means tested, while SNAP is.
Zontargs: FDPIR says it's means tested. Here's proof.
Broomstick: You fucking moron FDPIR is not SNAP. So stop fucking talking about FDPIR when the topic is SNAP.
...
What was that you said? "Learn to fucking read for comprehension"?

Yes, you fuckwad dildo muncher, FDPIR is NOT the same program as SNAP. Means-testing is irrelevant to that statement. FDPIR is JUST Natives on reservations. SNAP is everyone else. Natives on reservations have to choose one or the other. In other word - TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS.

So now the government is handing out $800 in EBT payments, and spending $470 on the rest of the food, which used to cost $800 for EBT recipients to buy. If the shipping is included in the food purchase price, and not the increased administrative overhead, this is even more impressive.

What the FUCK makes you think that the government is going to be able to ship this for less than current shipping costs? Have you looked into current shipping costs per pound? The boxes won't be weightless.

Let's get into more nitty-gritty. Who the fuck is going to pack those boxes? Who is going to maintain the shipping addresses? Who is going to load the boxes into trucks and/or airplanes for transport. Who is going to deliver them to individual addresses, unloading the truck? Who is going to drive the truck. Do you think ANY of those people are going to work for free?

Using FDPIR as a comparison, since that's a USDA program being used by the USDA as an example of a comparable service, nutrition under FDPIR is higher than food stamp or general population food choices

Individuals meeting their energy needs by consuming FDPIR foods in the quantities provided would achieve a HEI-2005 [Healthy Eating Index-2005] score of 81 out of 100, considerably better than Americans in general (58 out of 100) and Food Stamp Program participants (52 out of 100).

IIf that is the case why do Native Americans on reservations have the HIGHEST rates of obesity in the US? The HIGHEST rates of diabetes? The highest rates of DEATH FROM DIABETES? HIGH rates of hypertension? HIGH rates of heart disease? Native Americans on reservations are NOT healthy.

Starting on page 36 of your link (did you even fucking read it, or just cherry pick?) it is CLEAR that there is a marked difference between FDPIR as it is "offered" and as it is ACTUALLY DELIVERED. It has categories such as "milk" which most Natives Americans can not digest. Also, the HEI focus greatly on total calories, not the quality of those calories. It offers canned vegetables, which while they will sustain life are nutritionally inferior to the fresh and frozen vegetables at the grocery stores. Ditto fruit.

On Page 55 we have this gem:

Of the 25 nutrient standards established for the latest version of the [Thrifty Food Plan] and assessed in this analysis, the FDPIR food package for the reference household meets 19 and does not meet five standards: calcium, potassium, dietary fiber, vitamins A and E. Magnesium is met by the packages offered, but not by those delivered.

By the admission of the USDA it does not in practice provide adequate nutrition in 6 nutrients. Most of the calcium that is provided is provided in milk - which most Native Americans can not digest (Those with some European ancestry might be able to, but that would not apply even to all of them). Way to go!

So, USGov says they can provide better food for less money than by letting people do all their own shopping

The US government can't even live up to the commitments they already have for the FDPIR, by it's own admission. Why the FUCK do you think they can do that for an additional 47 MILLION PEOPLE?

I will also point out that SNAP is typically NOT intended to be the whole of person's food for the month, and most of them only get enough for half or less... in which case the HEI of 51 - for about half one's needed calories - is about right.

[Simon_Jester]

Why does SNAP need to get into food procurement and distribution?

It doesn't. USDA does that for them. Why does FedGov want USDA to do this? Because USDA can buy staples and ship them out for less money than SNAP recipients can buy said staples for, saving tax dollars.

If so, would the USDA be capable of running a grocery chain that could put, say, Aldi's out of business in the US?

Because it sounds like you think the answer is 'yes.'

[Wild Zontargs]

OK, not doing the broken-record thing with why having an existing department within USDA do something is different than spinning up a new department anymore. Clearly we're just yelling past one another by using different definitions of words. Moving on:

Let's get into more nitty-gritty. Who the fuck is going to pack those boxes? Who is going to maintain the shipping addresses? Who is going to load the boxes into trucks and/or airplanes for transport. Who is going to deliver them to individual addresses, unloading the truck? Who is going to drive the truck. Do you think ANY of those people are going to work for free?

USGov seems to be saying that'll cost them something less than $2.5 billion per year, which is already accounted for.

IIf that is the case why do Native Americans on reservations have the HIGHEST rates of obesity in the US? The HIGHEST rates of diabetes? The highest rates of DEATH FROM DIABETES? HIGH rates of hypertension? HIGH rates of heart disease? Native Americans on reservations are NOT healthy.

First Nations in Canada suffer from the same problems, and don't have anything to do with the USDA. My first guess would be some combination of: choosing not to prepare and/or eat the food provided in the expected way, genetic factors, and lifestyle.

It offers canned vegetables, which while they will sustain life are nutritionally inferior to the fresh and frozen vegetables at the grocery stores. Ditto fruit.

While this was an accepted truth for some time, this may not be the case any longer with current preservation methods:

Studies show that like frozen produce, canned produce – provided it is free of added salt and sugars – has a nutrient value that is often as good as, if not better than, that of fresh produce.

Freshly picked fruits and vegetables typically do start with more vitamins and nutrients. But degradation occurs during shipping, and produce sold in many markets often sits on shelves or in storage for days before it reaches a shopper’s basket.

Canned produce can lose some of its nutritional value as well, particularly water-soluble nutrients like vitamins B and C. But over all, the nutrients in canned fruits and vegetables tend to be relatively stable because they are protected from the deteriorating effects of oxygen, a fact emphasized in an extensive report on the subject published in The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture by researchers at the University of California, Davis.

“Fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products,” the researchers wrote. “Losses of nutrients during fresh storage may be more substantial than consumers realize” and may not be reflected on nutrition labels.

Links to the mentioned studies in the original. I was able to locate any studies with broken links by throwing the link at Google.

By the admission of the USDA it does not in practice provide adequate nutrition in 6 nutrients. Most of the calcium that is provided is provided in milk - which most Native Americans can not digest (Those with some European ancestry might be able to, but that would not apply even to all of them). Way to go!

So, the diet which is still better than what most people would purchase on their own isn't perfect? Well gee, if only they still had an EBT card, which they could use to fill in the gaps with other foods. Oh, wait, they do! And as you point out yourself, SNAP is not meant to provide 100% of the recipients' food, so "that still isn't sufficient" isn't much of a counter-argument.

The US government can't even live up to the commitments they already have for the FDPIR, by it's own admission. Why the FUCK do you think they can do that for an additional 47 MILLION PEOPLE?

I will also point out that SNAP is typically NOT intended to be the whole of person's food for the month, and most of them only get enough for half or less... in which case the HEI of 51 - for about half one's needed calories - is about right.

Perfect is the enemy of good. The proposed changes claim to improve the cost effectiveness of SNAP, while also giving recipients assistance with improving their diets. While it's far from perfect, if the assessments are correct, it would be an improvement over the current system.

Really, this reminds me of an ass-backwards version of the US vs Canadian healthcare debate. In exchange for a government-provided service which is better than what most of us could easily afford on our own in a private system, we accept reduced choices and more inconvenience (wait times, etc). It isn't a perfect "one size fits all", but it's a lot better for most of us than the alternative.

---

If so, would the USDA be capable of running a grocery chain that could put, say, Aldi's out of business in the US?

Because it sounds like you think the answer is 'yes.'

False comparison. Running a grocery chain involves a whole lot of other factors not relevant to the discussion (operating storefronts, advertising, stocking what brands and flavors customers would prefer rather than "inexpensive and nutritious", etc.) Then there's the whole "tax-subsidized and operating at a loss" vs "state-operated enterprise turning a profit" debate. Hence the "we bought most of your staples for you, use the remaining EBT and whatever portion of your own money you were already spending to fill in the blanks" system being promoted.

[Broomstick]

OK, not doing the broken-record thing with why having an existing department within USDA do something is different than spinning up a new department anymore. Clearly we're just yelling past one another by using different definitions of words.

Nope, you're just being stupid, cherry-picking, and willfully obtuse.

Let's get into more nitty-gritty. Who the fuck is going to pack those boxes? Who is going to maintain the shipping addresses? Who is going to load the boxes into trucks and/or airplanes for transport. Who is going to deliver them to individual addresses, unloading the truck? Who is going to drive the truck. Do you think ANY of those people are going to work for free?

USGov seems to be saying that'll cost them something less than $2.5 billion per year, which is already accounted for.

Based on WHAT? Forced labor?

Groceries run at a 1-3% profit margin. So, even assuming the government can run it as efficiently as the private sector (by NO MEANS certain) that is very, very little fat to cut. There is no way the government is going to be able to do this for half the cost unless it uses shit food because there is so little way to pare down the costs and make things more efficient than they already are.

IIf that is the case why do Native Americans on reservations have the HIGHEST rates of obesity in the US? The HIGHEST rates of diabetes? The highest rates of DEATH FROM DIABETES? HIGH rates of hypertension? HIGH rates of heart disease? Native Americans on reservations are NOT healthy.

First Nations in Canada suffer from the same problems, and don't have anything to do with the USDA. My first guess would be some combination of: choosing not to prepare and/or eat the food provided in the expected way, genetic factors, and lifestyle.

So... you're saying Natives are genetically defective? Funny - they didn't have all that disease before being forced onto reservations and fed shit. Indians off the reservations, even those receiving food stamps, are generally healthier than those on reservation. Clearly, the reservation system has some major flaws and is nothing to hold up for emulation.

It offers canned vegetables, which while they will sustain life are nutritionally inferior to the fresh and frozen vegetables at the grocery stores. Ditto fruit.

While this was an accepted truth for some time, this may not be the case any longer with current preservation methods:

Studies show that like frozen produce, canned produce – provided it is free of added salt and sugars – has a nutrient value that is often as good as, if not better than, that of fresh produce.

The low-salt, low-sugar varieties of canned food are more expensive. What makes you think those are the ones going to be offered? It also requires that lost nutrients like vitamin C are added back in - again, no guarantee. You're arguing that the higher-end canned goods are nutritionally superior but there is no obligation for the government to use those varieties and, indeed, to achieve the proposed cost savings they will be unable to use them due to higher costs.

Also, you are completely ignoring that the choice in a grocery store is not between fresh and canned, it's between fresh, canned and frozen. Frozen fruits and vegetables do not deteriorate as rapidly as fresh and are still nutritionally superior to canned. Also, many stores - including the one I work for - feature locally grown produce which is NOT shipped long distance and is offered for sale very rapidly after harvest. Due to less transportation costs, that local food is also cost-competitive.

By the admission of the USDA it does not in practice provide adequate nutrition in 6 nutrients. Most of the calcium that is provided is provided in milk - which most Native Americans can not digest (Those with some European ancestry might be able to, but that would not apply even to all of them). Way to go!

So, the diet which is still better than what most people would purchase on their own isn't perfect? Well gee, if only they still had an EBT card, which they could use to fill in the gaps with other foods. Oh, wait, they do! And as you point out yourself, SNAP is not meant to provide 100% of the recipients' food, so "that still isn't sufficient" isn't much of a counter-argument.

Again, you're ignoring that for one of those nutrients - calcium - it's being offered in a form most of the recipients can't digest and utilize. That's not "less than perfect" that is batshit crazy stupid. Way to miss an important point, goat-felcher.

Perfect is the enemy of good. The proposed changes claim to improve the cost effectiveness of SNAP, while also giving recipients assistance with improving their diets. While it's far from perfect, if the assessments are correct, it would be an improvement over the current system.

How so?

There would be the cost of a parallel procurement, storage, transport and distribution system when we already have one.

It would be a system that is not as flexible regarding individual medical needs as the current one.

The government has demonstrated an inability to not only deliver what is promised in the FDPIR, but what it does deliver is inadequate and often counter-productive (giving milk to lactose-intolerant people, for example).

I don't see anything good here.

Really, this reminds me of an ass-backwards version of the US vs Canadian healthcare debate. In exchange for a government-provided service which is better than what most of us could easily afford on our own in a private system, we accept reduced choices and more inconvenience (wait times, etc). It isn't a perfect "one size fits all", but it's a lot better for most of us than the alternative.

The difference is that while government has been demonstrated as the superior means to distribute healthcare the free market system does a better job delivering food - to the point that even in centrally commanded economies (socialism and communism) there is private food selling. Hell, even fucking North Korea allows some private commerce in food.

Hence the "we bought most of your staples for you, use the remaining EBT and whatever portion of your own money you were already spending to fill in the blanks" system being promoted.

Right, let's just ignore that history government-distributed food has been of middling quality at best, and often inferior. Let's ignore the failures of the FDPIR system, which serves less than 100,000 people and try to scale that up to 47 million distributed over a much, much wider area rather than a mere 200 or so discreet locations. Let's ignore that FDPIR failures to deliver what it promises, and what it does deliver is often inferior and incompatible with the genetics of the recipients. Let's ignore shipping and labor costs.

This idea is shit. It's bad, through and through.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, not doing the broken-record thing with why having an existing department within USDA do something is different than spinning up a new department anymore. Clearly we're just yelling past one another by using different definitions of words.

The point is, you're talking about moving responsibilities from one (efficient) department within USDA to another (less efficient) department, by scaling up the second department to be five hundred times larger than it was before, and take on radically new responsibilities it never had to worry about before.

This is not a mere exercise in 'scaling up.'

Let's get into more nitty-gritty. Who the fuck is going to pack those boxes? Who is going to maintain the shipping addresses? Who is going to load the boxes into trucks and/or airplanes for transport. Who is going to deliver them to individual addresses, unloading the truck? Who is going to drive the truck. Do you think ANY of those people are going to work for free?

USGov seems to be saying that'll cost them something less than $2.5 billion per year, which is already accounted for.

You keep saying "USGov." Who in USGov? Who made these estimates? What assumptions are they making? Will their reputation come to harm if they grossly underestimated the cost?

It makes a big difference whether the part of "USGov" in question is Jared Kushner or the Congressional Budget Office.

By the admission of the USDA it does not in practice provide adequate nutrition in 6 nutrients. Most of the calcium that is provided is provided in milk - which most Native Americans can not digest (Those with some European ancestry might be able to, but that would not apply even to all of them). Way to go!

So, the diet which is still better than what most people would purchase on their own isn't perfect? Well gee, if only they still had an EBT card, which they could use to fill in the gaps with other foods. Oh, wait, they do! And as you point out yourself, SNAP is not meant to provide 100% of the recipients' food, so "that still isn't sufficient" isn't much of a counter-argument.

But what's the point of the delivery boxes then? The assumption you're making seems to be that the USDA can get individual care packages to people's doorsteps more cheaply than discount grocery stores can get bulk food to their shelves. I am pretty darn sure that his is simply not going to be true. Even if it is true, the

Perfect is the enemy of good. The proposed changes claim to improve the cost effectiveness of SNAP, while also giving recipients assistance with improving their diets. While it's far from perfect, if the assessments are correct, it would be an improvement over the current system.

Granting a lot of assumptions that are highly questionable, maybe. Almost certainly not, because as we see in the reservation system, it takes roughly X dollars of administrative overhead to deliver 2X dollars of food. If you're saving money on the program as a whole by doing this, that would require that 2X dollars of "government cheese" or whatever be more nutritious than over 3X dollars of grocery store food.

If that actually works, it's probably because the people on SNAP cards lack the means to prepare bulk staple foods, or cannot consume them. In which case the program won't help much, especially given that nowadays there's a lot fewer poor households with live-in homemakers to do the cooking.

Really, this reminds me of an ass-backwards version of the US vs Canadian healthcare debate. In exchange for a government-provided service which is better than what most of us could easily afford on our own in a private system, we accept reduced choices and more inconvenience (wait times, etc). It isn't a perfect "one size fits all", but it's a lot better for most of us than the alternative.

No, it doesn't. The Canadian government pays for health care, it doesn't hand-deliver it to everyone.

That is precisely equivalent to the SNAP system (government pays for the commodity, private organizations and individuals supply it to the customers as efficiently as they can). Very different from the "meals on wheels" model you're proposing as an alternative.

If so, would the USDA be capable of running a grocery chain that could put, say, Aldi's out of business in the US?

Because it sounds like you think the answer is 'yes.'

False comparison. Running a grocery chain involves a whole lot of other factors not relevant to the discussion (operating storefronts, advertising, stocking what brands and flavors customers would prefer rather than "inexpensive and nutritious", etc.) Then there's the whole "tax-subsidized and operating at a loss" vs "state-operated enterprise turning a profit" debate. Hence the "we bought most of your staples for you, use the remaining EBT and whatever portion of your own money you were already spending to fill in the blanks" system being promoted.

Running a federal delivery chain will involve a lot of factors not paid for by private grocery store chains, too. Grocery stores don't kick out customers for not spending enough hours a week searching for jobs. Grocery stores don't have to maintain secure computer networks with millions of people's secure personal information on it. Grocery stores don't have to worry about getting deliveries to rural Alaska, or if they do they have the luxury of charging through the nose for it.

[Civil War Man]

There is a case to be made that food delivery would have a purpose in some areas, specifically food deserts where SNAP recipients may not have access decent food. But if you go down that route, you are not doing it for the purpose of streamlining the process or decreasing costs, but simply to increase people's access to food. And, when you take into account what others have mentioned about differing dietary needs, whether medical, religious, or simply personal taste, you could probably achieve equal or better results for less cost by incentivizing existing grocery stores to expand into food deserts. That also has the added benefit if bringing new jobs to the area, so it has the net effect of increasing access to food, infusing cash into the local economies that need it most (since food deserts are almost exclusively in poor areas), and potentially reducing the number of people who need food assistance (since the new grocery store employees would have the extra wages).

Also, just spitballing here, but we can also reduce the amount of money we spend on SNAP by paying our soldiers a living wage. Census data estimates that about 23,000 military families rely on SNAP for purchasing food, while the DOD estimates that close to half of children in DOD schools are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

[Simon_Jester]

To be fair, 23,000 military families is a small fraction of all military families. It sounds like just about plausible for the number of military families where a single low-ranking member of the military is the sole income provider, possibly with multiple children, and at some point it becomes a bit uncertain whether we can afford to pay 1.2 million servicemen enough that, separately and individually, all of them can single-handedly support (say) a family of five. Handing out the SNAP cards may be more cost-effective.

The DoD estimates on FARMs is more relevant, though. That's a fair point.

[Elheru Aran]

I've been in a few food deserts. My father-in-law lives in one. Rural Mississippi-- you pick the wrong spot to live, you'll be a hour or two away from the nearest Walmart. There will probably be convenience stores closer than that... but we're talking like a few canned goods, sodas and beer, maybe a selection of boxed items, a little bowl of assorted fruit if you're lucky. Some of the stores I saw did advertise milk and eggs. Local little grocery stores are a thing of the past thanks to the crushing effects of both rural poverty (farming simply doesn't pull in the kind of money it used to, not that it ever pulled down much unless it's a massive commercial enterprise) and Walmart coming in and hoovering up all the competition. Imagine how much worse it probably is in far more rural states like Montana.

[Dragon Angel]

Really, this reminds me of an ass-backwards version of the US vs Canadian healthcare debate. In exchange for a government-provided service which is better than what most of us could easily afford on our own in a private system, we accept reduced choices and more inconvenience (wait times, etc). It isn't a perfect "one size fits all", but it's a lot better for most of us than the alternative.

No, it doesn't. The Canadian government pays for health care, it doesn't hand-deliver it to everyone.

That is precisely equivalent to the SNAP system (government pays for the commodity, private organizations and individuals supply it to the customers as efficiently as they can). Very different from the "meals on wheels" model you're proposing as an alternative.

Speaking of which, last I remember of talk about Meals on Wheels is that Trump and the Republicans wanted to cut the budget for it, if not remove it altogether...

Which kind of puts a new shade of darkness over this whole proposition, doesn't it.

[Thanas]

Trump: FBI spends too much time on collusion to stop school shootings.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... llusion-to


Trump is the very definition of Backpfeifengesicht.

[Broomstick]

I have never hear of that word before, but it's marvelous. And so true.

[Lonestar]

Looks as if Trump signed some EA directing the AG to declare all accessories that speed up the rate of fire MGs.

The meltdown is at full tilt in a lotta gun social media.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It is stupidly brilliant for Trump.
The AG has NO power to enforce it.
Any attempt to enforce it will be tangled in the courts.
Nothing actually happens.
And Trump can claim he "passed Gun control" and then when it fails, blame it on the democrats.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is stupidly brilliant for Trump.
The AG has NO power to enforce it.
Any attempt to enforce it will be tangled in the courts.
Nothing actually happens.
And Trump can claim he "passed Gun control" and then when it fails, blame it on the democrats.

When will people figure it out? Trump has one true skill- as a con man. And everything he does that's not a selfish whim he'll just forget about tomorrow is part of a con.

[MKSheppard]

It is stupidly brilliant for Trump.
The AG has NO power to enforce it.
Any attempt to enforce it will be tangled in the courts.
Nothing actually happens.
And Trump can claim he "passed Gun control" and then when it fails, blame it on the democrats.

more of a long term strategic defeat for the NRA (which started this whole thing) after vegas. epitome of short term tactical victory but long term butt-fucking.

[Lonestar]

Is it too late to use Slide Fire's discount code, 'MAGA', for 10% off?

[The Romulan Republic]

Former Trump campaign aid Rick Gates pleads guilty:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/p ... ation.html

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON - A former top adviser to Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign pleaded guilty on Friday to fraud and lying to investigators in the special counsel inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and will cooperate with the investigation.

The adviser, Rick Gates, is a longtime political consultant who once served as Mr. Trump's deputy campaign chairman. The plea deal could be a significant development in the investigation - a sign that Mr. Gates plans to offer incriminating information against his longtime associate and the former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, other members of the Trump campaign in exchange for a lighter punishment. He faces up to nearly six years in prison.

The deal came as the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has been raising pressure on Mr. Gates and Mr. Manafort with dozens of new charges of money laundering and bank fraud that were unsealed on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. Mr. Mueller first indicted both men in October, and both pleaded not guilty.

Appearing with his attorney in a Washington courtroom on Friday afternoon, Mr. Gates changed his plea, acknowledging that he participated in the financial conspiracy with Mr. Manafort.

He also admitted that he lied to investigators earlier this month - after he was under indictment and was negotiating with the prosecutors - about the details of a 2013 meeting in Washington that Mr. Manafort had with a member of Congress and a lobbyist, during which there was a discussion about Ukraine, where Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates worked as political consultants.

A couple significant points here:

1. Rick Gates was highly-placed in the campaign. If there was collusion, he probably knows about it.

2. He lied to Mueller about a meeting with a lobbyist and a sitting member of Congress regarding the Ukraine. Other reports indicate that the Congressman is likely Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R. California), a notoriously Russia-friendly member of the House. As far as I know, this is the first solid indication of possible collusion by members of Congress as well as the Trump campaign.

3. I hearby nominate Robert Mueller for the Batman Award for World's Greatest Detective.

[Crossroads Inc.]

With everything else going on. It is good to remember how utterly loathsome Trump is in other regards. Case in point, at his much lauded meeting with shooting victims he was caught holding “cheat sheet” of reminders

1: What do you want me to know about your experience?
2: What can we do to help you feel safe?
3: Do you see something something effective?
4: Resources? Ideas?
5: I hear you.

This is real, the man needs a reminder of such basic human emotion like “I hear you”
https://mobile.twitter.com/davidmackau/ ... 5554700288

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Trump's a sociopath.