@marvin100 I find the Jacobin Magazine a dubious source of non-partisan facts. They are unabashedly stilted in one direction. At the risk of getting this thread shut down due to political commentary, I’m going to back out now. Have a good night, everyone!
Exactly. Also, how far do we want to take this in other areas where government directly influences the allocation of food?
Like the regulation of mess hall meals/MRE rations for military personnel? Should we start mandating no sodas, desserts, or candies such as M & Ms in the mess halls/MRE rat packages because they’re “not nutritious/good for you”. Hey, it’s all being funded by taxpayer money.
@khmama - there is nothing in that Jacobin article that can’t be found in the report that the NYTimes purported to be examining. Nothing. Oh, and unlike the Times, Jacobin actually links to the report so you can see for yourself!
(ps: stilted doesn’t mean what you think it means)
MREs are designed for infantry soldiers, who are both space and weight limited. Many carry 80-100 pounds in the field. I see zero reason to think SNAP recipients operate under the same constraints. MREs have other unique constraints too, like surviving parachute drops and a shelf life at room temperature of over 3 years.
@marvin100 sorry I used the wrong word. I would appreciate a less snarky reply next time.
This is not a terribly central part of this discussion, but it bothers me when people insinuate that fruit juices are as bad as soda, as if they had only sugar and water and lacked nutrition entirely.
The frozen juices I buy do (probably) have plenty of sugar in them, but they also contain healthy doses of vitamins like C and E and folic acid, among others. These things are good for us, right? (i know it’s better to eat the fruit; my point is simply that juice is not completely lacking nutrition, unlike soda…)
You’re missing the point that included in those MREs or their C-ration predecessors which date back to WWII are “unnutritious”…but small luxury items like chocolate bars, M & Ms, etc.
Or that in most major mess halls or warships, sodas are freely available to all personnel.
If the government really wanted to adhere strictly to the main mission of providing good nutritious meals for military personnel in regulating meals/rations served, they could do fine without those small luxury items…especially in the field rations. Or eliminating sodas from being served in mess halls/aboard ships.
And I can see some extreme puritanical martinet advocating this…especially considering obesity has become a problem among some US military personnel according to US armed forces press sources and accounts from relatives/friends who served within the last 2 decades.
Sure thing. Sorry!
I think you’re still missing there’s a lot of thought which goes into those field rations(a careful balancing of nutrition, calories per unit of weight, calories per unit of volume, parachute survivability, and a shelf life to survive the zombie apocalypse). I don’t think anyone’s ever gained weight in Iraq and Afghanistan on a diet of MREs, but believe what you want.
The treats/junk fed to soldiers probably has more to do with morale than anything else honestly. Everyone likes occasional treats, even poor people.
That was my entire point…especially considering the puritanical tone taken by some on this thread regarding taxpayer funding of such small treats.
There is a serious obesity problem in the US armed forces as shown by these articles:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/and-the-fattest-us-military-service-is
And I wasn’t just citing MREs…but also the fact sodas and other small treats are also widely served in many military mess halls/aboard warships.
Aren’t mre’s considered a part of the pay(meals) a soldier gets promised in exchange for his/her service?
If I look at it that way, I’m not troubled by my Fed taxes going to the pay even if it offers a candy bar or soda. As I mentioned some time ago, taking taxes for the military is specifically addressed as the responsibility of the Fed gov’t. in the Constitution.
And a few pages back someone said it’s the “government” paying Snap bills, not individual taxpayers. Not exactly. Although it’s true I don’t directly write and mail a check to Mr. Joe Snap Recipient, let’s remember, the government has no money of its own. The only money it has is taken from taxpayers.
And, a few pages back someone mentioned- what if a Snap recipient is buying something some here would disagree with, but with his own money? But it isn’t exactly his own money, is it? When he buys the right food with Snap, that just frees up his own money to but something not-so-right. So did he really buy it with his own money?
And, not relating to any specific topic, but sometimes there are good, caring people, well-intentioned that call on the Fed gov’t to organize or distribute, or in some way assist others but what they seek may not be a power granted to the Feds by our Constitution.
Yes, I have some family experience. I had a sister-in-law that would not hold a job and was on quite a number of federal social programs, and probably state run ones too. She was a prescription drug and illegal drug abuser big-time. The family tried many avenues to get her help. One of those avenues was sending her money for groceries. Nope- little of the money went for groceries. We also tried driving her to the store and writing a check directly to the store. Our thought was that she couldn’t waste it if we were right there purchasing along with her. We bought the right stuff, good and healthy, and a few treats too. Nope, no help. It just freed up her own money for extra drugs. I lost count how many times we got her “out of a hole” or “on her feet” but it was all for naught. What should have been our donating to get her in a position to properly care for herself became her way of life and was money down the drain.
Of course money we gave her directly was voluntary. But likely many of you paid taxes that were given to her, and your well intentioned money was squandered.
I am sorry that your SIL was in that situation but she is the extreme minority.
I am very typical of a SNAP recipient. I was working full time but still couldn’t make ends meet. I needed temporary help.
I can’t believe the idea of a welfare queen (even if that concept hasn’t been named, the idea is floating here) is still alive and well after literally decades of disproving that with statistics and extreme clamp downs on benefits.
I was a single person getting max SNAP benefits that a single person could (at the time, only a few years ago. Not sure if it’s gone up or not.)- $200/month. It wasn’t exactly living high on the hog.
That SNAP budget is nothing! Think about how we pacifists must feel contributing such a huge portion of our taxes to wars! (I keed, I keed. Sorta.)
This is really just to say that we’re quibbling over pennies, budget-wise. SNAP is actually an incredibly effective social program ( http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap ) in a time and place where social programs are constantly under attack. And our taxpayer contributions to SNAP? Paltry: only 10% of federal taxes go to safety net programs, of which only a tiny portion is SNAP.
Perhaps more interestingly, SNAP actually makes money by generating economic activity:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-economic-case-for-food-stamps/260015/
I’m not sure how convincing it is to view it in that light considering with the exception of training situations, they’re usually issued in situations where there’s no other feasible options to provide military personnel with nutritious meals as part of the military’s/government’s efforts to maintain a viable military force.
Especially considering there’s a longstanding idea that militaries and the governments employing them are responsible for feeding military personnel nutritious meals and any failures to do so for whatever reason tends to reflect very poorly on them as effective military/governments/countries.
In any event and getting back to the topic, this mandate by militaries/governments/taxpayers to ensure good nutritious meals doesn’t include candies, soft drinks, or other small treats.
One more data point:
<<
Aren’t mre’s considered a part of the pay(meals) a soldier gets promised in exchange for his/her service?
<<<
Yes, and the mention of what is available to those who serve this country as a comparison is really disgusting.
I totally agree. You simply can’t make a comparison between killing people overseas and putting food in the mouths of children in the US.
( 
)
@marvin100 said:
Marvin, you are an intelligent person, but you do your viewpoint no favors when you link to sites such as the “American family pays $6K…”. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of accounting will laugh at this.