The Food Nazi Says NO SHRIMP FOR YOU: How One State Plans to Feed the Poor.

[RavenSky]

More stupid than the other part, definitely.

Dry beans sold in bulk is a very cheap food source and should be encouraged - not restricted. Likewise nuts. And no herbs/species? I guess poor people should be forced to eat bland, crappy food?

What do these politicians have against shellfish anyway (other than the religious prohibition)

I don't have a problem with not being able to use SNAP for cigarettes or alcohol. I wouldn't even have a problem with restrictions against soda or the really crappy bad-for-your-health foods.

But beans and nuts? Who's brain fart came up with that one?

Look into what company is in competition with beans and nuts -- Frito-Lay? -- then look for donations.

Good point. Also explains why the crap food Frito Lay produces is still allowed.

 

[Metaphor]

'Mild' and 'medium' cheddar are allowed, but 'sharp' is banned? Is there some significance I'm missing? Who comes up with this stuff?

Also, despite the fact that 90% of people who buy 'gluten free' anything are neither coeliac nor have any provable non-coeliac gluten sensitivity, gluten-free bread is on the banned list.

US government to coeliacs: FUCK YOU.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A bill proposed by state Rep. Robert Brooks (R) would ban stores from accepting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cards for lobster, shrimp, and any other form of shellfish, and set a long list of additional rules for the first two-thirds of a recipient’s monthly spending. Lawmakers held a committee hearing Thursday on the bill, which would require a federal waiver to implement.

An average of 420,000 households received SNAP each month in Wisconsin in 2014. The average recipient household got $220 per month from the program last year. Brooks’ restrictions would apply to all but $72.60 per month for the average household affected. And even that amount could not be spent on any form of shellfish.

...

The law would restrict access to a whole range of commonplace ingredients. Some of the things that would be harder to buy for poor families who cook include “herbs, spices, or seasonings,” all nuts, red and yellow potatoes, smoothies, spaghetti sauce, “soups, salsas, ketchup,” sauerkraut, pickles, dried beans sold in bulk, and white or albacore tuna. (Cans of “light tuna” are allowed under the rules.)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/01/3653919/wisconsin-food-stamps-shellfish/

Here is link to what allowed in WI on the states WIC (Women, Infants, and Children's) nutrition program: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf

Most of this makes sense--they're dividing food up into necessity and luxury. Dried beans makes no sense, though.

I disagree on the seasonings--they certainly should be permitted.
Nuts are generally expensive for what you get.
Red & yellow potatoes--considerably more expensive than ordinary potatoes, no reason for them.
Smoothies--expensive.
soups & salsas--make your own
sauerkraut & pickles--expensive
Beans--I can't imagine what they were thinking.
white & albacore tuna--expensive.

 

[RavenSky]

Here is link to what allowed in WI on the states WIC (Women, Infants, and Children's) nutrition program: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf

Most of this makes sense--they're dividing food up into necessity and luxury. Dried beans makes no sense, though.

I disagree on the seasonings--they certainly should be permitted.
Nuts are generally expensive for what you get.
Red & yellow potatoes--considerably more expensive than ordinary potatoes, no reason for them.
Smoothies--expensive.
soups & salsas--make your own
sauerkraut & pickles--expensive
Beans--I can't imagine what they were thinking.
white & albacore tuna--expensive.

red and yellow potatoes are no more expensive than any other. I most often end up with red potatoes here because they are more frequently on sale; thus less expensive than any other type.

Although I don't eat most nuts myself, I do know they pack a huge nutritional/health bonus in a very small amount. Banning nuts is almost as nuts as banning beans.

Frankly, though, I am not surprised that you would think it "makes sense" to ban "luxury" foods for poor people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I dunno, I'm not a shrimp kinda guy, but it seems to me that with shrimp, you spend a lot of money, but don't get much in the way of nutrition or calories. At least compared to something like tuna, or pork or chicken. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have restrictions on what can or cannot be purchased for those on gov't assistance. Should they be allowed to buy caviar so they can impress their friends? Filet Mignon? Where should the line be drawn?

Do you really thing people will spend their entire benefit (on average less than $200 a month) on an appetizer that can cost hundreds of dollars an ounce?

No, but I've seen far too many people buying crap with food stamps.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the part that's fucking stupid.

More stupid than the other part, definitely.

Dry beans sold in bulk is a very cheap food source and should be encouraged - not restricted. Likewise nuts. And no herbs/species? I guess poor people should be forced to eat bland, crappy food?

What do these politicians have against shellfish anyway (other than the religious prohibition)

I don't have a problem with not being able to use SNAP for cigarettes or alcohol. I wouldn't even have a problem with restrictions against soda or the really crappy bad-for-your-health foods.

But beans and nuts? Who's brain fart came up with that one?

Nuts are expensive for the nutrition you get.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of this makes sense--they're dividing food up into necessity and luxury. Dried beans makes no sense, though.

I disagree on the seasonings--they certainly should be permitted.
Nuts are generally expensive for what you get.
Red & yellow potatoes--considerably more expensive than ordinary potatoes, no reason for them.
Smoothies--expensive.
soups & salsas--make your own
sauerkraut & pickles--expensive
Beans--I can't imagine what they were thinking.
white & albacore tuna--expensive.

red and yellow potatoes are no more expensive than any other. I most often end up with red potatoes here because they are more frequently on sale; thus less expensive than any other type.

Although I don't eat most nuts myself, I do know they pack a huge nutritional/health bonus in a very small amount. Banning nuts is almost as nuts as banning beans.

Frankly, though, I am not surprised that you would think it "makes sense" to ban "luxury" foods for poor people.

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking over the WIC list posted above:

I find "dried beans in bulk" on the banned list--but a more careful look shows that they don't object to dried beans. Rather, the objection is with "in bulk"--you can't get them from those bins where you scoop out how much you want. Many, many things on that list had specified sizes.

 

[Ford]

Who comes up with this stuff?

Near as I can tell, people who are pandering to other people who have bought into the entirely made-up notion that folks on public assistance are living a life of luxury at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[Bronzeage]

People who make judgments about what other people eat, assume these people have a kitchen and a large refrigerator. They also assume these people have the time to prepare meals from basic ingredients. A box of store brand Hot Pockets may look like junk food, but it's something that can be cooked in a microwave and be ready in time for them to leave for their second part time job. It would be nice if Mom could spend an hour preparing a meat loaf and mashed potatoes, but that's not the life of a single mother on food stamps.

 

[Axulus]

More stupid than the other part, definitely.

Dry beans sold in bulk is a very cheap food source and should be encouraged - not restricted. Likewise nuts. And no herbs/species? I guess poor people should be forced to eat bland, crappy food?

What do these politicians have against shellfish anyway (other than the religious prohibition)

I don't have a problem with not being able to use SNAP for cigarettes or alcohol. I wouldn't even have a problem with restrictions against soda or the really crappy bad-for-your-health foods.

But beans and nuts? Who's brain fart came up with that one?

Shrimp is for good people, working people. Poor people (who obviously don't work hence they are poor) are just trying to act above their station when they dare to eat shrimp.

You said most of them are working or on disability, right? Why can't they use some of their pay or disability payment for shrimp? Not saying that I support this restriction, but they idea that they don't get shrimp because they are beneath it seems like a bogus stance since they still have access to shrimp if they want it.

 

[Axulus]

How did dried, bulk beans get on the list? What could be cheaper and more nutritious than beans?

These appear to be two separate programs. One is called WIC (women, infants, and children) - it's aim is to subsidize/pay for a variety of things in the diet to add more nutrition and variety to the diet to make it more balanced, such as green leafy vegetables, fruits, milk, etc. Dried beans in bulk give a lot of calories for the price but are limited in other forms of nutrition.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Shrimp is for good people, working people. Poor people (who obviously don't work hence they are poor) are just trying to act above their station when they dare to eat shrimp.

You said most of them are working or on disability, right? Why can't they use some of their pay or disability payment for shrimp? Not saying that I support this restriction, but they idea that they don't get shrimp because they are beneath it seems like a bogus stance since they still have access to shrimp if they want it.

We have yet to establish that poor people are eating shrimp in sufficient quantities to worry anyone or strain any food assistance budget.

More importantly, our laws state to the world and ourselves what and who we value and what and who we disdain. Using food assistance to tell poor people and the rest of us that poor people are not worthy of shrimp or sage or any other orbitrary food stuff we, their betters, decide, codifies and moralizes a meanness of spirit the rots us to our core.

That bothers me.

 

[bilby]

red and yellow potatoes are no more expensive than any other. I most often end up with red potatoes here because they are more frequently on sale; thus less expensive than any other type.

Although I don't eat most nuts myself, I do know they pack a huge nutritional/health bonus in a very small amount. Banning nuts is almost as nuts as banning beans.

Frankly, though, I am not surprised that you would think it "makes sense" to ban "luxury" foods for poor people.

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

Ask any moderate libertarian; It's obvious that the government knows best how people should spend money, and therefore has a duty to dictate what they can or cannot buy. Leaving that choice in the hands of the people themselves would be unacceptable government interference.

 

[crispy]

Whats the point of this, except for its symbolic value?

If people on food stamps can afford shrimp by paying for it with their own money, does it matter if the money they used to pay for shrimp comes from their own pocket or food stamps?

If they cant afford shrimp for their own money and then buy shrimp for food stamps then they will be very hungry later, unless they just buy small amounts, thus teaching a valuable lesson in managing your expenses

There is absolutely no good reason for this stupid rule, except for its symbolic value.

 

[RavenSky]

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

Why?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

Why?

What Raven said.

 

[arkirk]

red and yellow potatoes are no more expensive than any other. I most often end up with red potatoes here because they are more frequently on sale; thus less expensive than any other type.

Although I don't eat most nuts myself, I do know they pack a huge nutritional/health bonus in a very small amount. Banning nuts is almost as nuts as banning beans.

Frankly, though, I am not surprised that you would think it "makes sense" to ban "luxury" foods for poor people.

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

Correction: Loren style aid comes with strings. These restrictions are simply an effort to drive people away from aid they may need. I am sure Loren thinks that if a person has a disability or perhaps PTSD, it will help shove them off the welfare lists if the food is tasteless. This list is not in sympathy with the needs of the needy. It is just plain mean spirited.

 

[Juma]

Aid comes with strings, though.

No. True aid doesnt.

 

[Ford]

If they are self-supporting they can eat whatever they want. Aid comes with strings, though.

Why?

Because how else are we supposed to make the poor feel ashamed for being poor?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I dunno, I'm not a shrimp kinda guy, but it seems to me that with shrimp, you spend a lot of money, but don't get much in the way of nutrition or calories. At least compared to something like tuna, or pork or chicken. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have restrictions on what can or cannot be purchased for those on gov't assistance. Should they be allowed to buy caviar so they can impress their friends? Filet Mignon? Where should the line be drawn?

Probably somewhere between luxuries like caviar and spaghetti sauce.

- - - Updated - - -

How did dried, bulk beans get on the list? What could be cheaper and more nutritious than beans?

These appear to be two separate programs. One is called WIC (women, infants, and children) - it's aim is to subsidize/pay for a variety of things in the diet to add more nutrition and variety to the diet to make it more balanced, such as green leafy vegetables, fruits, milk, etc. Dried beans in bulk give a lot of calories for the price but are limited in other forms of nutrition.

Being high in fiber, it takes less beans to make a child not feel hungry than low fiber foods. Restricting beans is stupid.