Entitlement Reform - farm subsidies

[knapplc]

 

Regarding SNAP money going toward staples rather than garbage food, that's a swell idea and all, but that's predicated on the purchaser knowing how to make something nutritious out of what they buy. My experience is that people in this country, by and large, don't know how to make a meal from raw ingredients up. If you can't cook, buying onions, peppers, carrots, celery, garlic and the like won't do you a bit of good.

 

That's a bit of a tangent/personal rant, but it's part of the reality of the situation.

 

Sure, that's part of it, but some of it is time. If you are a single parent (as a lot of these poor families tend to have) I honestly don't know how they could possibly find time to cook while working and taking care of kids. I'm not a single parent and we can barely find the time to cook between working and actually spending some quality time with our two year old.

 

 

That's a good point - it does take time to cook a meal from scratch. I cook pretty much every meal we eat, and it takes about an hour every evening, sometimes longer depending on what I'm making. Time is a huge factor in the equation.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Regarding SNAP money going toward staples rather than garbage food, that's a swell idea and all, but that's predicated on the purchaser knowing how to make something nutritious out of what they buy. My experience is that people in this country, by and large, don't know how to make a meal from raw ingredients up. If you can't cook, buying onions, peppers, carrots, celery, garlic and the like won't do you a bit of good.

 

That's a bit of a tangent/personal rant, but it's part of the reality of the situation.

 

Sure, that's part of it, but some of it is time. If you are a single parent (as a lot of these poor families tend to have) I honestly don't know how they could possibly find time to cook while working and taking care of kids. I'm not a single parent and we can barely find the time to cook between working and actually spending some quality time with our two year old.

 

 

That's a good point - it does take time to cook a meal from scratch. I cook pretty much every meal we eat, and it takes about an hour every evening, sometimes longer depending on what I'm making. Time is a huge factor in the equation.

 

 

Implementing it so it can only be used for non-junk foods would be a pain in the butt too, probably. But there are things like soda and candy that shouldn't go on there, imo. There'd be arguments all over the place from soda companies and candy companies trying to say some/all of their products are okay... 'cause it has 0.1% fruit juice, or whatever.

[darkhorse85]

 

 

 

Regarding SNAP money going toward staples rather than garbage food, that's a swell idea and all, but that's predicated on the purchaser knowing how to make something nutritious out of what they buy. My experience is that people in this country, by and large, don't know how to make a meal from raw ingredients up. If you can't cook, buying onions, peppers, carrots, celery, garlic and the like won't do you a bit of good.

 

That's a bit of a tangent/personal rant, but it's part of the reality of the situation.

 

Sure, that's part of it, but some of it is time. If you are a single parent (as a lot of these poor families tend to have) I honestly don't know how they could possibly find time to cook while working and taking care of kids. I'm not a single parent and we can barely find the time to cook between working and actually spending some quality time with our two year old.

 

 

That's a good point - it does take time to cook a meal from scratch. I cook pretty much every meal we eat, and it takes about an hour every evening, sometimes longer depending on what I'm making. Time is a huge factor in the equation.

 

 

Implementing it so it can only be used for non-junk foods would be a pain in the butt too, probably. But there are things like soda and candy that shouldn't go on there, imo. There'd be arguments all over the place from soda companies and candy companies trying to say some/all of their products are okay... 'cause it has 0.1% fruit juice, or whatever.

 

 

WIC does that. WIC also will set you up with free nutrition and health classes. It'd be hard to fold that into a system that touches a broader range of people like SNAP though I suppose.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Regarding SNAP money going toward staples rather than garbage food, that's a swell idea and all, but that's predicated on the purchaser knowing how to make something nutritious out of what they buy. My experience is that people in this country, by and large, don't know how to make a meal from raw ingredients up. If you can't cook, buying onions, peppers, carrots, celery, garlic and the like won't do you a bit of good.

 

That's a bit of a tangent/personal rant, but it's part of the reality of the situation.

 

Sure, that's part of it, but some of it is time. If you are a single parent (as a lot of these poor families tend to have) I honestly don't know how they could possibly find time to cook while working and taking care of kids. I'm not a single parent and we can barely find the time to cook between working and actually spending some quality time with our two year old.

 

 

That's a good point - it does take time to cook a meal from scratch. I cook pretty much every meal we eat, and it takes about an hour every evening, sometimes longer depending on what I'm making. Time is a huge factor in the equation.

 

 

Implementing it so it can only be used for non-junk foods would be a pain in the butt too, probably. But there are things like soda and candy that shouldn't go on there, imo. There'd be arguments all over the place from soda companies and candy companies trying to say some/all of their products are okay... 'cause it has 0.1% fruit juice, or whatever.

 

 

WIC does that. WIC also will set you up with free nutrition and health classes. It'd be hard to fold that into a system that touches a broader range of people like SNAP though I suppose.

 

When you consider the health care costs...etc. I would be willing to try.

[TGHusker]

Getting back to the core question of the OP - putting SNAP aside - is there room for significant cuts in the farm subsidies and if so where.

 

Not sure how workable this is, but we so much of farming being done by huge corporations now, I wonder if subsidies could be limited by the size of the farm land owned or rented by the 'farmer' - aid more to the family farm vs the corporate farm.

Of course, it is the corporations that provide give all of the donations to the congressmen writing the farm bill - so this may be a no go from the beginning.

We often complain about corporate welfare but it is happening 'down on the farm' as it is on wall street.

[carlfense]

Yes, there is room for significant cuts to farm subsidies. There should be means-testing just like many farmers want for other entitlements.

 

If you're making making large profits in a given year then the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for half of your crop insurance (among other subsidies). Conversely, we should help prop up farms hit with natural disasters and potentially ruinous losses.

[BigRedBuster]

I agree that there is room for cuts in farm subsidies and I'm for that simply because I believe all parts of government should be as efficient with their money as possible and not waste it on people and stuff that doesn't need it. However, there are way bigger fish to fry in that category than farm subsidies.

[Moiraine]

The Warren topic got me to thinking about this again. It's stupid that beef is subsidized. Yes, it tastes great... so that's an argument for it. But it is not very nutritious compared to a lot of other foods that take less land, energy, and money to create. The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content. We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter. And yes, it's an individual's choice to eat whatever food they want, but that doesn't mean we should pay to make it cheaper.

[carlfense]

We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter.

Well, people are also making a lot of money.

[BigRedBuster]

The Warren topic got me to thinking about this again. It's stupid that beef is subsidized. Yes, it tastes great... so that's an argument for it. But it is not very nutritious compared to a lot of other foods that take less land, energy, and money to create. The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content. We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter. And yes, it's an individual's choice to eat whatever food they want, but that doesn't mean we should pay to make it cheaper.

Wow...that's a great over simplification of the benefits of beef. So.....are you saying a vast majority of beef goes into fast food hamburgers? And...really??? The only nutritional benefit of beef is zinc?

[knapplc]

The Warren topic got me to thinking about this again. It's stupid that beef is subsidized. Yes, it tastes great... so that's an argument for it. But it is not very nutritious compared to a lot of other foods that take less land, energy, and money to create. The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content. We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter. And yes, it's an individual's choice to eat whatever food they want, but that doesn't mean we should pay to make it cheaper.

 

You can have my ribeye when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

[Moiraine]

 

The Warren topic got me to thinking about this again. It's stupid that beef is subsidized. Yes, it tastes great... so that's an argument for it. But it is not very nutritious compared to a lot of other foods that take less land, energy, and money to create. The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content. We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter. And yes, it's an individual's choice to eat whatever food they want, but that doesn't mean we should pay to make it cheaper.

Wow...that's a great over simplification of the benefits of beef. So.....are you saying a vast majority of beef goes into fast food hamburgers? And...really??? The only nutritional benefit of beef is zinc?

 

 

Maybe, maybe, and nope.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content.

The only nutritional benefit of beef is zinc?

 

 

and nope.

 

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content.

The only nutritional benefit of beef is zinc?

 

 

and nope.

 

 

 

Not sure why you're quoting that, since those two statements are not the same thing. Cheese has B12 in it, but it's not one of the best sources of B12, therefore I don't consider its B12 content to be great.

[TGHusker]

The Warren topic got me to thinking about this again. It's stupid that beef is subsidized. Yes, it tastes great... so that's an argument for it. But it is not very nutritious compared to a lot of other foods that take less land, energy, and money to create. The only thing beef is great for is the zinc content. We're basically subsidizing corn and beef so fast food companies can make higher profits and what we're getting in return is... fatter. And yes, it's an individual's choice to eat whatever food they want, but that doesn't mean we should pay to make it cheaper.

Please don't put us all on Michelle's student lunch program. But you are correct in this sense, red meat and starchy corn (the kind we know grow - see movie "King Corn" for an eye opener - available netflex) are 2 of the worse food choices we can make if it is a regular large % of our diet. And yes, Knapp - a good Ribeye is still one of my favorite meats to eat - I just do it less now. Doc said in moderation.