WTF is going on in WI?!?! (bill to disallow foods to SNAP users)

[Imagine20]

Things like this don't even phase me anymore. There is too much to be outraged about and I think I've gone a bit numb inside. I used to be very active in politics, and was very passionate about my causes until I realized you can only do so much when the majority just doesn't give a fuck. Even a well organized group means nothing when met with high rates of apathy. 

Sure there will be limited, short-term outage about this and the next thing, but people have very sort term memories when it comes to things that don't personally affect them. 

These politicians run their campaigns in hating the poor and disadvantaged and they keep getting voted in, sometimes by the very people they wish to disenfranchise. This is the way America is going, unless people take notice that we, unlike banks, are not too big to fail. My guess is the public will take notice just as we've crossed the point at which we'll be so far gone it'll take a few generations to fix. 

There's already Kansas and Wisconsin showing us the American way and previewing the future. There are politicians running for President based on hating Muslims, the working class, science and intelligence, and immigrants; all while championing our freedoms. The magic that made this country great for so many years is fading and religious fascism wrapped in a flag is the future. It's been happening for years, but people don't seem to take notice until it starts personally affecting them. 

[Miranda]

More good news for Wisconsinites! A bill before the governor would make it easier for debt collectors to go after consumers, and removes a considerable amount of protection of consumers from wrongful debt pursuit and unscrupulous collectors.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/02/24/3753102/wisconsin-debt-collector-lawsuits/

Quote

The bill dramatically lowers the standard of proof that collectors have to meet in court in order to bring the justice system to bear on the person they claim owes them money. It also makes it harder for people to recover the cost of hiring lawyers even when they win in collections court, thus encouraging collectors to take matters to court almost risk-free.

Winning a court judgment in a debt case frees collectors to use their most invasive tools. Collectors can start garnishing wages and seeking liens on private property once a judge decides they’ve proven their case.

Wisconsin’s consumer laws currently require collectors to lay out how they arrived at the dollar figure they’re demanding from a debtor. The bill on Walker’s desk, however, would dramatically ease those “pleading requirements,” allowing the collector to simply assert an amount owed without providing detailed substantiation.

The Wisconsin government must really hate its citizens.

[Jingerbread]

7 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

And all the regulations about what size packages you can buy is quite ridiculous when people have different size families that they're feeding. 

The 16oz loafs are bread are sometimes called WIC-loafs.  In my area, one company makes that size, and they're almost $4.  The 24oz loaf is about $3, and another whole wheat break is $1.48 for the 24oz.  That doesn't touch on the Wonder Bread shaped loaves.  Limiting package sizing makes things cost more per unit.

[samira_catlover]

16 minutes ago, Jingerbread said:

The 16oz loafs are bread are sometimes called WIC-loafs.  In my area, one company makes that size, and they're almost $4.  The 24oz loaf is about $3, and another whole wheat break is $1.48 for the 24oz.  That doesn't touch on the Wonder Bread shaped loaves.  Limiting package sizing makes things cost more per unit.

Good heavens!---where the heck ARE you located, hon?

Around here, (USA, Southern MD), the Awful Limp White WonderLoafs in the day-old stores go for maybe $1.25 USD/24 oz loaf. Heck, I can buy Aldi's 100% wholewheat or 12-grain bread, 24 oz. for $1.40./1.80 USD per unit, and that's NOT old, secondhand, or stale.

Considering bread freezes totally OK with no problems in thawing/refreezing, and it's kind of a STAPLE, you know----I'm honestly surprised the CongressCritters are not demanding a min purchase of 20 oz. or more per unit.

[Jingerbread]

23 minutes ago, samira_catlover said:

Good heavens!---where the heck ARE you located, hon?

Around here, (USA, Southern MD), the Awful Limp White WonderLoafs in the day-old stores go for maybe $1.25 USD/24 oz loaf. Heck, I can buy Aldi's 100% wholewheat or 12-grain bread, 24 oz. for $1.40./1.80 USD per unit, and that's NOT old, secondhand, or stale.

Considering bread freezes totally OK with no problems in thawing/refreezing, and it's kind of a STAPLE, you know----I'm honestly surprised the CongressCritters are not demanding a min purchase of 20 oz. or more per unit.

Winco's store brand of whole wheat is $1.48.  I think the reason the 16oz loaves are so much more is because stores know that that is what WIC authorizes, and so may as well get every penny they can.  

[Whoosh]

People around here can get a WIC loaf for 99 cents if they want to.  It isn't great bread by any means, but it is there.  I have tons of problems with many of the restrictions they put on food stamps and this size restriction seems ludicrous to me for a lot of reasons, but in my area you can get a 16 oz loaf for one or two bucks if you want to.

[Granwych]

On 2/24/2016 at 2:17 PM, December said:

Some legislator in NY is trying to pass a similar bill to stop people on benefits buying "luxury" foods. 

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2016/02/18/ny-lawmaker-no-food-stamps-steak-lobster-junk-food/80556866/

Pretty sure some people will only be happy when stuff like SNAP is taken away completely, or reduced to something like only nutritional shakes like that Soylent thing because texture and flavor are unnecessary luxuries. 

Maybe the legislators who are involved with this stupidity can ask the Maxwell family for "approvable" food items--

[samira_catlover]

OK, I'll bite, and will put my dog (cat?) into the fight.

Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) we can agree that people depending on public charity may not have a zillion options on how they'd LIKE to spend their food money. Let's also assume we're all agreed that people should have healthy, tasty, GOOD food, and that letting kids and/or disabled folks Get By on the equivalent of Bread and Dripping is an offense to dignity and humanity.

But how and where would you cut things if you had full authority within your country?  

For myself, I'd totally ban any welfare/whatever support for sodapop, with snack chips and crunchies (e.g., Doritos) coming in a close second. Not a total meanie here: I'd personally OK saltines and a couple very basic cookies (think oatmeal, gingersnaps, or vanilla wafers). But Lunchables, at a good $2 USD per unit?----screw that, make peanut butter sandwiches!

(Also FWIW: we lived on a VERY tight budget for a couple of years, on our own nickel.  Popcorn and saltines were staples, as was canned soup. A Big Weekend Out was going for $0.25 USD burgers!---and I've done my share of trying to rinse out shirts and underwear in the bathtub, with dish soap, to save laundry money. Also FWIW, it really reeks to try and hang wet linen on cords between the towel rack and the shower head.)

Quite seriously, though (please see Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickled and Dimed): if all you HAVE in your single-room-occupancy space (think "cheap hotel") is a half-sized refrigerator and a microwave, plus MAYBE a two-burner hotplate: the stuff you can actually cook in a reasonable time gets REALLY limited---and I'm speaking as an experienced cook.  How do we balance convenience and cost with what actually WORKS? (This is not a new issue: just finished reading Home Fires, where a lot of British countrywomen had to deal with city evacuees who had NEVER eaten a hot meal made by mom, 'cause bread and marge or chips for a penny were easier.)

[catlady]

On 2/25/2016 at 8:26 PM, utter solitude said:

This makes me rage!

However, so does the "remove "junk" food" argument. I've yet to meet or see a person who spent their foodstamps friviously on junk. I have, however, worked with many families who had members with some form of diabetes, and were told by their doctors to keep a can of soda or candy bar handy in case of a drop.

That, and with the hoops already required to even get the assistance, the idea that someone wouldn't be allowed to fix whatever the hell they please to feed themself and their family really gets my eye twitching.

Agreed on the hoop-jumping.  I just recertified my cousin this month for his SNAP (he's deaf and nonverbal, so I get to deal with the agency).  I had to complete a four-page application detailing his income, expenses, and living arrangements; and schedule a telephone interview (because I couldn't get the two of us downtown to meet them in person) which I then had to miss due to a work emergency.  Then they cold-called me for the interview three weeks later, which took up 25 minutes of my work day summarizing the information on the application.  And what does my cousin get for all this effort?  Sixteen dollars a month.  SIXTEEN!!!!!!

I haven't yet read @December's link on the NY proposal (we live in NY) because i'm afraid it will just piss me off more, but since we burn through his sixteen dollars the first week of every month getting produce, we should be ok as long as NY doesn't ban apples, bananas, and tomatoes.

[MarblesMom]

2 minutes ago, catlady said:

And what does my cousin get for all this effort?  Sixteen dollars a month.  SIXTEEN!!!!!!

That's heartbreaking.  Hopefully he has another source of income?

[catlady]

6 minutes ago, MarblesMom said:

That's heartbreaking.  Hopefully he has another source of income?

Yes, luckily he does have income; SSD and a SS survivor's benefit from his late father, but after his Medicaid spend-down, he has $845 per month.  Until he gets a chance to apply for housing (which his piece-of-work mother never bothered to do in thirty years and is now hard to come by in NY), he stays with me and Mr. CatLady, and we pick up the slack when needed.  

(He goes to a day-hab program every weekday, where he gets social interaction that he missed out on because of mom, and the people who work there are absolutely amazing.  Their efforts and successes make the difficult things a bit more tolerable.)

[roddma]

I wouldn't even bother for $16. Yea hate the poor but never mind th 5 % of the upper crust not paying their fair share of taxes.
When will GOP learn cutting food stamps and assistance or policing what they eat will not encourage anyone to get jobs. It only creates frustration.
No meaning to start a PB allergy argument, but some people are allergic to peanuts.I get a bit annoyed by others telling less fortunate how to trim corners and it seems a majority of less fortunate people already know how to cut corners. And usually there is nothing more left to cut.

[Mercer]

I don't in general support imposing additional limitations on how food benefits can be used, for several reasons:

1.) People usually do not respond well to blame, criticism, and restrictions on their choices. It makes them defensive and causes them to dig in and shut down. Rather than trying to force people to do what you want, it's a much better idea to offer positive education about how to prepare affordable healthy meals and to give incentives for positive choices. I would rather see policies focused on education and empowerment rather than just trying to ban certain choices.

2.) Poor people are human beings. Eating is a basic human right that has a lot of emotional factors. Letting people make choices is a matter of human dignity. People on assistance still have birthdays and special occasions, have busy days when they need a convenience meal, have bad days and crave comfort food, etc. Basically we shouldn't be treating people like they don't have the same needs and emotions as anyone else just because they need some help paying for their groceries.

3.) Food benefits are a fixed amount no matter what the person buys. If someone wants to blow their monthly food assistance on a few expensive meals... not to be callous, but they're pretty quickly going to realize they have nothing left and not do that again. It doesn't hurt anyone but themselves and their own household. Sometimes people have to just learn from their own mistakes rather than having their chance to mess up and learn from it legislated away.

4.) I generally assume that those who want to set up all kinds of guidelines don't shop at the same stores as people using assistance, because I can tell you, it's already extremely complicated for customers and cashiers to try to figure out what is and isn't eligible. Adding more rules makes it harder for customers, much harder for employees, and increases the wait times for other customers. Call me selfish, but I don't want my shopping to take an extra twenty minutes because I was stuck in line while the clerk tried to figure out the allowed ounces of bread for a customer or if another person had the exact right type of beans.

On top of all that, these particular restrictions seem completely arbitrary. They aren't about nutrition. (Some of the allowed options are less healthy than the disallowed options.) They aren't about cost. (Some of the allowed options are more expensive than the disallowed options.) It seems to be purely about shaming and punishing people for being poor, and that's a terrible reason to make a law.

[Mercer]

6 hours ago, samira_catlover said:

But Lunchables, at a good $2 USD per unit?----screw that, make peanut butter sandwiches!

Too late to edit my previous post, but I just wanted to add:

This is where I really think education rather than regulation is the key.

These expensive convenience foods are very slickly marketed. The person who buys them probably thinks they're doing a nice thing for their child and getting them a good all-in-one meal. 

A comprehensive nutrition program that provides education would teach the recipient why the Lunchable is not a good choice in spite of the marketing, and suggest practical and available alternatives that are healthier, cheaper, and more tasty. The person would then have the knowledge to make a good choice and a better overall understanding of how to provide a nutritious diet for their family.

On the contrary, if you just banned the person from using their assistance to buy it... well, they wouldn't have the Lunchable, but they wouldn't know why they didn't have the Lunchable except that some faceless bureaucrat told them they couldn't eat what they wanted. They wouldn't learn anything. They wouldn't have any guidance about what they ought to be eating instead. They wouldn't gain a better understanding of how to feed their family. They would just be told no, and that would be the end of it.

Education is more work and has higher upfront costs, but it also has a bigger payoff and more long-term value than just figuratively smacking people's hands for what they want to buy, in my opinion.

[catlady]

13 hours ago, roddma said:

I wouldn't even bother for $16. Yea hate the poor but never mind th 5 % of the upper crust not paying their fair share of taxes.
When will GOP learn cutting food stamps and assistance or policing what they eat will not encourage anyone to get jobs. It only creates frustration.
No meaning to start a PB allergy argument, but some people are allergic to peanuts.I get a bit annoyed by others telling less fortunate how to trim corners and it seems a majority of less fortunate people already know how to cut corners. And usually there is nothing more left to cut.

I actually did stop bothering after the missed interview and a form letter instructing me to reschedule.  my first thought at reading the letter was, "16 bucks isn't worth this hassle," and I promptly forgot about the whole thing.  so I was surprised when they tracked me down a few weeks later (maybe their office has a policy on cleaning up open cases?); but I figured, if they found me, I might as well play along.  so he gets it for another year.

And you know, Mr. CL and I are not wealthy by any stretch, but we dress decently, have nice-enough cars, and live in a relatively good neighborhood; we've also made sure that my cousin is also appropriately attired, etc. (by this I mean that while we don't have North Face coats, we still fit in by appearance).  So naturally when the Benefit card comes out at the register--SNAP benefits are loaded each month like a pre-paid debit card--we sometimes get the sideways glances from judgy people who look like they're wondering why we aren't dressed in rags and buying cases of ramen noodles.

I also agree with you and everyone else--policing how SNAP is spent will do exactly zero on correcting abuses and getting clients off the service, and likely will only make current usage worse.  it's important to remember that these are still people, and they need help.  there may be some deadbeats in their ranks (like every other demographic), but there are still huge numbers of clients who have lost a job, gotten sick or injured, been abused/abandoned by a significant other, and need help getting back on their feet.  and all the while, their children are innocent bystanders who shouldn't be victims of fate by having such basic choices as what to eat taken away.

[jaelh]

11 hours ago, Mercer said:

Too late to edit my previous post, but I just wanted to add:

This is where I really think education rather than regulation is the key.

These expensive convenience foods are very slickly marketed. The person who buys them probably thinks they're doing a nice thing for their child and getting them a good all-in-one meal. 

A comprehensive nutrition program that provides education would teach the recipient why the Lunchable is not a good choice in spite of the marketing, and suggest practical and available alternatives that are healthier, cheaper, and more tasty. The person would then have the knowledge to make a good choice and a better overall understanding of how to provide a nutritious diet for their family.

On the contrary, if you just banned the person from using their assistance to buy it... well, they wouldn't have the Lunchable, but they wouldn't know why they didn't have the Lunchable except that some faceless bureaucrat told them they couldn't eat what they wanted. They wouldn't learn anything. They wouldn't have any guidance about what they ought to be eating instead. They wouldn't gain a better understanding of how to feed their family. They would just be told no, and that would be the end of it.

Education is more work and has higher upfront costs, but it also has a bigger payoff and more long-term value than just figuratively smacking people's hands for what they want to buy, in my opinion.

You think that any government program has even the smallest, half tiniest chance against anything slickly marketed?  

Kids here get "good food" promos at school all the time. The supermarkets encourage kids to take a piece of fruit while in the store. There are discussions about carbs and proteins and so on each year in health education.*

And most children would chose the junk snack they see slickly marketed in a heartbeat, over the stuff they know is better for them.  Much like most adults too. 

I like the sentiment, but I think the actual objective is pretty much impossible. If every brand has a marketing value of X, I doubt even xb =/= sufficient to dislodge the desire, and I can't imagine WI investing heavily in food education at any rate. 

I do think policing food choices is poor, but, more fundamentally than that, I think giving food aid is just ridiculous. Why not give people the dignity of a regular amount of money and let them chose to spend it on whatever they want - clothes, shoes, transport, food, whatever.  If we're talking about the dignity of the recipient, government food aid itself craps on the notion. 

*At least, here in my country they do.  The various parts of the US? who knows

[warriorblade8857]

On February 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Miranda said:

You know, it would be so much simpler if, instead of creating arbitrary lists of what can't be purchased, they would just come out with their list of what is allowed. It would look like this:  Gruel.

 

And one serving only, no seconds!

[Maggie Mae]

I was on SNAP for a few years. I got the max amount and I occasionally bought stupid things with it. I ALWAYS had money left at the end of the month. I've also seen some shit. Like people trying to buy cigarettes with their cash assistance (which is a different program) and the checkout person explaining to them that they needed to go take the money out of the ATM first. 

Even so, I don't think we need sweeping reforms. Just better allocation and distribution. I also think there will always be a subset of people who don't want to learn, don't want to work, don't want to do shit and are content to live in squalor and/or meth dens.

That doesn't mean that everyone who can't make ends meet needs to be put through the invasive process of applying for "aid." We talk a lot about SNAP, but it's based on an outdated formula that was created when food was the biggest part of the budget. Maybe that was true, in the 50s, but 60 years later, housing is the biggest part of most people's budget. Project housing didn't work. Section 8 vouchers don't work. 

Since I don't have a solution to housing, other than "stop tearing down forests to build everyone a house, it's unsustainable," I'll go back to food. 

I like the idea of giving everyone under a certain income a base income like Finland is planning on doing makes more sense than the SNAP program. 

I'd like to see less of that prepackaged convenience crap at the store. But, we are a lazy society in some ways. I read a WaPo article last week where supposedly millennials aren't eating cereal because they don't want to wash a dish. Personally, I think breakfast cereal is going out of fashion because it's not very healthy and it doesn't taste great. But I guess the dish washing thing is an actual thing too. If we want to get rid of that stuff, we need to TAX the hell out of the prepackaged precooked shit meals, end the corn subsidies, end the sugar subsidies, end the big agriculture lobbies, and change our culture around food and eating. 

[Mercer]

8 hours ago, jaelh said:

You think that any government program has even the smallest, half tiniest chance against anything slickly marketed?  

Kids here get "good food" promos at school all the time. The supermarkets encourage kids to take a piece of fruit while in the store. There are discussions about carbs and proteins and so on each year in health education.*

And most children would chose the junk snack they see slickly marketed in a heartbeat, over the stuff they know is better for them.  Much like most adults too. 

Children don't generally make the household food purchasing decisions. Their parents do. That's where part of the education gap is happening. Educating kids is great, but ultimately you have to educate the people controlling the food budget or nothing is going to change.

Another part of the gap is that a lot of times people aren't told how to eat healthier. Most people know that you should be eating fruits and vegetables... but a lot of people don't, for example, know that their local farmer's market takes SNAP. Most people know that it's healthier to cook at home than to eat fast food... but some people have never learned to cook and don't know how to find simple recipes with affordable ingredients. Etc. etc.

Teaching people to make changes isn't easy. But if you give up on people without even trying, it's definitely not going to happen.

[AlysonRR]

Wouldn't it be great if, instead of Catalinas (coupons printed at the register based one what one buys) people got a handful of recipes that would work for the ingredients you buy?

Or how about if there was a basic pantry of food that was supplied, but that people could swap certain things for other items?  I used an online organic buying club that allowed that - they gave a basic pantry for $35-ish but we could go through the line items and swap, say, 2 pounds of broccoli for 1 pound of bananas (totally made up). Presumably that was based on monetary value of the commodities involved, but why not let people choose that way?

And yes, I know that many people who are on SNAP or WIC do not have internet - so why not make it available at the store? Most stores are open until 10-11pm at least, these days - what if they had stations where you could pick how you wanted to use your benefits?

I think the way we help those who can't afford regular meals is badly flawed in this country. We don't help them (enough!) to learn how to make the most of what they can get. An example:  a recent cookbook for the "needy" in my area had many recipes including blue cheese, because it was included in the pantry of the chefs who created the recipes - how is that helpful at all for the next week when there isn't any blue cheese?

It's hard enough to make meals when one has the abundance of choice. When choice is lacking, how much more difficult it is...

Our small community supplies dozens of backpacks full of ready-to-eat food to students whose families have food insecurity. They may not have running water. They may not have ready access to cooking facilities. They may not have electricity for microwaves, etc.

These are people living in the USA in 2016. It completely disgusts me that there is this nitpicking involved in the process of ensuring that people are adequately fed. 

In an ideal world people whose incomes were too small for their food needs would be:

• taught how to grow gardens (when they have access to land)
• given information about how to use what they're given (I wouldn't have known what to do with kohlrabi or turnip when I got it from our CSA unless I also received a newsletter with multiple recipes for them)
• helped with purchases of bulk staples (I can't number the meals I've made with rice, beans, potatoes, apples, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, etc.)

I know some of this information is available to people on WIC and SNAP, but from what I've seen, it's not given in formats that people can easily access. I hope that can change, because if one of the most wealthy countries in the world can't feed their people adequately, well, there's something wrong with our country.

[Elementally Amy]

Something also not considered by critics of SNAP: food deserts.  For example, i live about 30 minutes from a grocery store. If i have no transportation (and i don't,) I don't get to buy groceries more than once a month. Healthy, fresh, fruits and vegetables really aren't an option because they go bad before the month is up. Same thing for a lot of staples, although freezing bread is definitely a great option.  Frankly, once the healthy food is gone my options are limited to what i can buy at the local gas station.

I may desire to buy only healthy, organic, or natural foods but it isn't a realistic possibility.  Frankly there are times when convenience food *is* lunch because it is what is available. Eating anything, even if unhealthy, is better than eating nothing at that point. I am also lucky in that i don't have children. A single person can survive on canned food or pasta much more easily than someone with children who need healthy fresh foods that promote brain development. Also I can go with out.  I learned a long time ago that it's cheaper to just not eat but people with families can't do that. I also have free time to do things like garden or freeze prepped food. If i had several jobs like a lot of people on SNAP benefits there is no way i could use that option.

The problem with judging what someone should or should not get benefits is that everyone's life and dietary needs are different.

 

[louisa05]

6 hours ago, AlysonRR said:

 

 

 

 

• taught how to grow gardens (when they have access to land)
• given information about how to use what they're given (I wouldn't have known what to do with kohlrabi or turnip when I got it from our CSA unless I also received a newsletter with multiple recipes for them)
• helped with purchases of bulk staples (I can't number the meals I've made with rice, beans, potatoes, apples, cucumbers, tomatoes, onions, etc.)

 

I'm sorry but most of this is just not realistic. 

Most low income people are renters. Even if they rent a property with land available (which is unlikely), most landlords are not going to be inclined to allow them to plow part of it up for a garden. That is the first problem with your first suggestion. Second problem, most on SNAP benefits are the working poor, working often unpredictable shifts and sometimes multiple jobs, and in most cases have children in the home. When do they have time to a) attend these classes to learn how to garden b)actually care for a garden? And how are they going to pay for the equipment to garden? Even just putting pots on the balcony requires pots which are not actually cheap if you already lack enough resources to buy food or pay the rent. Tell the average voter that they are now paying for gardening equipment for people on SNAP, too. That's going to work...

Time is also a factor in cooking so recipes are not the answer. Most of the working poor lack the time to cook. They also often lack the equipment necessary. If you are living in a rundown motel, you probably only have access to a microwave and very small refrigerator. Many low rent apartments lack working appliances, too. Not too mention having adequate pots and pans, knives, etc...

Bulk staples are not the answer either. If you live in a one bedroom apartment with 3 or 4 people, where are you going to store staples bought in bulk? (We live in a duplex with two people and don't have space to store much of anything in bulk...) If you live in a motel, where are you going to store that? And how are you going to cook it? Bulk cheap staples like dry beans require a long cooking time as well. If you are working different shifts and multiple jobs, when are you going to be home to cook that? Don't say put it in the crock pot--because there likely isn't one. Are we going to give out free crock pots for people on SNAP. Explain that to the voters.  If you live in the motel or your low rent apartment's stove burners don't work, how are you going  to cook dry beans in a crappy microwave? Or even rice? 

It seems the easy answers always come from our own places of privilege. The reality is that there are not easy answers. 

 

 

 

[AlysonRR]

I understand about the working poor and cooking conditions - I've volunteered with our community program that provides backpacks filled with ready-to-eat food for kids to take home for the weekend, with the knowledge that there may be no means of cooking in the home. I understand that some of my suggestions are unrealistic in some people's situations.

But there are ways . You mentioned crock pots being out of the realm of possibilities - you can get one for $3 at Goodwill. So a charity can't give everyone a free new crockpot, but they could possibly gift a used one AND instructions how to use it to make something out of the food they are giving that day. That won't help someone without electricity, but maybe it could help some people.

A family that rents usually can't have a garden or pots on the balcony. But they could be made part of a community garden and benefit from that. I've lived in several communities that have given anyone who asked a patch of ground to cultivate, and advice from experts to make it flourish. Kids came after school to work on their family patch sometimes.

That's another thing - schools should have garden patches to teach kids how to grow different plants, and more importantly, how to use the produce they grow. 

When I say bulk staples, I mean enough food to make basic meals for a month at a reasonable cost (or from food bank donations) because it should be cheaper than buying multiple 6-oz boxes of packaged rice. I mean doing what our community resource group does - drive to the region where apples are being sold (biggest crop near here) to buy apples at the lowest possible wholesale price in order to bring back several truckloads to store at a donated storage room. Those apples were given in the kids's backpacks and at the food bank.

One local store has just started having a bin of fruit with a sign to kids: take one for free to eat while you're shopping. It's not specifically targeted at those on SNAP - it's available to everyone - but what a great way to try to help kids get more healthy food.

Every suggestion won't work for every person. Yes, I understand some of my suggestions are pie-in-the-sky. But I've seen some of them work for some people, too, so I don't think they can be written off as too idealistic.

[louisa05]

Community gardens are extremely uncommon in smaller areas. They don't exist in the smaller towns in my area at all. And again, that takes time and tools that these people simply do not have. 

As for teaching gardening in school...lovely idea. But every problem has a solution that involves adding something to the school curriculum. And there is simply not time in the school day. Go spend a day in an elementary school and tell me where you are going to fit that into days that are too long for young students already and so packed that we are already losing time for visual arts, music, P.E. and even recess. Then there is budgeting and space. The schools I sub at have virtually no space for gardens unless we take away the playground entirely. Should the districts build new facilities to accommodate that? One district can't get a bond issue passed to replace a building that is about to fall in on itself. Try explaining to those voters that they also need extra space for gardens. 

I also object to people being required to do something because they have the misfortune of being poor. If you need SNAP, you have to go take gardening and cooking classes; but since I don't need SNAP, I can sit on my ass watching television and live on gummie bears and cola if I want to. There is an elitism there that is very distasteful. 

There still needs to be enough freedom for everyone to make their own choices. You shouldn't lose that basic right because you don't have enough money. 

[Mercer]

3 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I also object to people being required to do something because they have the misfortune of being poor. If you need SNAP, you have to go take gardening and cooking classes; but since I don't need SNAP, I can sit on my ass watching television and live on gummie bears and cola if I want to. There is an elitism there that is very distasteful. 

There still needs to be enough freedom for everyone to make their own choices. You shouldn't lose that basic right because you don't have enough money. 

I agree. I don't think anyone is saying that people should have to take cooking or gardening classes, though? Just that these should be available to people who want to improve their nutrition or gain skills to stretch their food budget farther. There's a difference between suggestions and mandates.

For what it's worth, a number of my low-income client families have expressed an interest in basic cooking classes. The parents often have unpredictable working hours, but they are generally not thinking of something with an ongoing time commitment but rather something where they could drop in, learn some basics, and then see how to prep a meal.

Different households have different needs. Different areas have different challenges. (For example, in my area people living in motels is really unusual and outdoor space is not at a premium, but a lot of people find gardening a particular challenge because of the weather and there's a major lack of public transportation to get people to a good store.) I think that's why any food program needs the flexibility to tailor itself to the needs of the local community, and we shouldn't dismiss an idea that would work somewhere just because it wouldn't work everywhere.