|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 01:32 Plansix wrote:
I have no problem with politicians making money off of their time in office as long as they are done running for office(AKA, like Obama, Bush 2 and so on). In the case of Trump, I feel it is worse than the shadiness created by the Clinton foundation, because there is no attempt to even hide it. The erosion that was started by the Clintons and other congress members after the 1990s has reached its peak with Trump just using public office to enrich himself while in office. There is no point is separating Trump from the rest of DC. seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them.
What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them.
In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this.
|
On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see?
I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is.
|
On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is.
Well good, though I humbly submit that you've just made a good case against the pre-packaged delivery of food benefits 
|
On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see?
Also, if you want to do nutritional information, just do it in school for everyone. Way better solution than doing it just for poor people on food stamps. Cooking classes for everyone would probably not be a bad idea in general. Add to that some personal finance stuff too.
I really dislike this "welfare queen" idea that seems to be going around in parts of the US, where poor people are by definition stupid and abuse any aid that is supposed to make their lives better. It always feels like this is basically just a tiny step away from saying "Well if they abuse it, they don't get food stamps anymore".
With regards to actual data on what food stamps are being spent on:
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Summary.pdf
Differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households were relatively limited, regardless of how data were categorized.
Across all households, more money was spent on soft drinks than any other item. SNAP households spent somewhat more on soft drinks than non-SNAP households (5 versus 4 percent).
Both household groups were equally likely to purchase salty (bag) snacks (about 3 percent of food purchases), cookies (about 1 percent), and ice cream, ice milk and sherbet (about 1 percent).
|
On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 01:43 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
seriously? you have no problem with it? this thread has discussed the revolving door between government and private industry plenty of times, including at the SEC, and more recently at the FCC. dont you think ajit pai is going to go work somewhere for milllions and millions after doing his best to trash net neutrality? I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically. What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this.
There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests).
|
On February 13 2018 06:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is. Well good, though I humbly submit that you've just made a good case against the pre-packaged delivery of food benefits
It all depends on how this is done. If it is price competitive and covers the bases that poor households should be using, while not doing things like sending peanut butter to people allergic, I think this can be a great thing.
The amount of cost both financial and human generated by poor health is huge. It very disproportionately impacts poor communities and a big reason is education and awareness.
I am all in favor of increasing funding and making this an awesome thing. But I'm not gonna treat the poor like children. Many can be doing better. If this is done right, it could be an enormous deal from a public health perspective.
|
On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 13 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I will amend my statement to say I have no problem with elected officials making money after they leave office. When it comes to agencies, it is a harder problem to solve. But I agree that the problem exists in the regulatory agencies specifically.
What would be the solution, that a person can only work at the higher levels of the FCC(for example) once? I have no idea if that would be viable. Or do we just restrict the pay of people once they leave the agency? Do people give up the right to ask for whatever pay they they can get take these jobs, and if so, how do we enforce that? The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector. Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts. Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests).
But what if I don’t care about who Illinois elects as governor? Or if their Senators support that candidate? Providence RI has elected criminals as mayor(after jail time, they re-elected him) and their governor is a real piece of work. I don’t give a shit what they do down there as long as it doesn’t impact me up in my state.
|
On February 13 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:10 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
The first thing to pop in my mind is your not allowed to work in a sector for X years after holding a position of influence within a regulatory body of that sector.
Kind of like a non-competing clause in contracts.
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests). But what if I don’t care about who Illinois elects as governor? Or if their Senators support that candidate? Providence RI has elected criminals as mayor(after jail time, they re-elected him) and their governor is a real piece of work. I don’t give a shit what they do down there as long as it doesn’t impact me up in my state.
Please tell me it's readily apparent why people thinking like that is a huge part of the problem.
|
On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is.
That's great. Now imagine your mother instead of being given rice and beans was given pasta, cans of sweetcorn and packs of tomato paste. I'm sure she'd make do. But would she be happy about it?
|
Aren't "ready to eat" meals and canned goods just a pile of preservatives as well?
|
On February 13 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:16 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 06:00 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:30 ChristianS wrote:On February 13 2018 03:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2018 03:02 Plansix wrote:On February 13 2018 02:58 IgnE wrote:On February 13 2018 02:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Those sort of work. But I feel that that will be dodged by the person being hired by a lobbying agency. The value in a former DC employee is their rolodex of contacts in DC and the ability to network. Another solution could be to prohibit existing employees of the FCC/SEC from communicating with former staff members in an official capacity. Limit the ability that person has to peddle influence once they are out of office. How about senior officials are given a modest stipend for life depending on service of a certain number of years, but are banned lifetime from employment in fields related to their official work? Wouldn't that just run into the same problem the Obama administration had with their lobbying and industry restrictions? They straight up couldn't find people to fill a lot of top roles. Most public service jobs at the highest level of short term at best. Especially in the regulatory agencies. Its not like the FBI or Justice department. Maybe if they limited it 5-6 years or so and had the stipend go for that long. I think we place far too much faith in the capabilities of those that are successful in management in their fields. As if the people making the most money doing things are actually the best and that the data doesn't suggest otherwise. [W]e found little evidence to show a link between the large proportion of pay that such awards represent and long-term company stock performance. In fact, even after adjusting for company size and sector, companies with lower total summary CEO pay levels more consistently displayed higher long-term investment returns. SourceTheir problem was they were looking for the wrong people. I asked this before, and got mocked, but to my knowledge never got an answer. What reforms do you propose? If you're gonna mock anyone who objects to violations of the existing ethical guidelines, you really ought to put forward an alternative The first step is to say that the status quo is unacceptable. As long as it's acceptable people won't be interested in tough solutions. For context it shouldn't take (official) ethical guidelines for Democrats to shut down the idea of a billionaire, who tried to buy a seat, from running for governor. That should be a non-starter among people who call themselves Democrats or collect money for them. What does "unacceptable" mean exactly? A lot of times people use it idiomatically to mean "really bad," in which case sure, I'm on board. But as I mentioned, I suspect that for many of these abuses it is difficult to establish clear guidelines to prevent them, in which case we might not have a lot of choice but to accept them. In general, expecting voters to identify the ethical problems and vote against candidates with ethical issues feels like a pretty bad defense. These sorts of ethics considerations are arcane and unintuitive, and it's pretty easy to either gloss over a real problem or invent a fake one and convince voters accordingly. Not knowing anything else about this Illinois billionaire, I'm inclined to agree that people shouldn't vote for him, but in general I think court of public opinion is a bad way to handle this. There is no hope for a party who can't unify around not running a corrupt billionaire. In that way it's clear both parties are hopeless (with current leadership/entrenched special interests). But what if I don’t care about who Illinois elects as governor? Or if their Senators support that candidate? Providence RI has elected criminals as mayor(after jail time, they re-elected him) and their governor is a real piece of work. I don’t give a shit what they do down there as long as it doesn’t impact me up in my state. Please tell me it's readily apparent why people thinking like that is a huge part of the problem.
The people of Rhode Island do not give a shit what the people of MA think. It a state wide hobby. They loved Buddy Cianci and kept electing him. I can’t stop them and I cant tell him what party to run under. Illinois is going to be the state that was best known for organized crime and graft.
|
I don't know about you guys, but I'm looking forward to the financial ties between the makers of the food the government would settle on and the people who make the decision coming to light.
|
On February 13 2018 06:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is. Well good, though I humbly submit that you've just made a good case against the pre-packaged delivery of food benefits
Much better to impose a heavy vice tax on all goods w added sugars and feed that revenue back into food-assistance programs.
|
On February 13 2018 06:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2018 06:04 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:46 farvacola wrote:On February 13 2018 05:43 Mohdoo wrote:On February 13 2018 05:26 Kyadytim wrote:President Donald Trump's new fiscal year 2019 budget includes a radical proposed change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, typically referred to as food stamps, that would see part of the program turn into a meal delivery service.
As part of the budget, the Department of Agriculture — which runs the SNAP program — would send basic food items to households receiving more than $90 a month in SNAP assistance in boxes.
"Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," the budget reads. www.businessinsider.comIn the Republican vision for America, not only is the best health plan for the poor "don't get sick," poor people should also put forth their best effort to not have food allergies or special dietary requirements, because SNAP may just send them food they can't eat. Also, isn't telling people what food they're going to eat exactly the sort of government telling people what they can and can't do that people on the right generally like to complain about? If they have a system to make it so people can express allergies or preferences, I see this as a great thing. The number of times I've seen poor people just fill a shopping cart with totinos pizzas and soda..x_x there's a lot of nutritional education missing from poor America.if the USDA can also include recipes, educational information and other stuff in these packages, food stamps could be even better. Did you ever stop to think that your personal experience in no way countenances against the notion that for every one person you see making poor choices with their food stamps, there are orders of magnitude more making good choices that you just don't see? I know from experience that's the case. I was raised on beans and rice bought with food stamps. My mom made food stamps go an extremely long way. I've also known people who desperately need nutritional guidance and education. Many don't even realize how bad junk food is. Well good, though I humbly submit that you've just made a good case against the pre-packaged delivery of food benefits Much better to impose a heavy vice tax on all goods w added sugars and feed that revenue back into food-assistance programs.
Ugh. We already have something like that shit in Philly and it fucking sucks.
|
|
|
We have a bunch of local taxes in MA that focus on soft drinks and a few other thing. They have pretty wide support locally. There has been a big push to keep it to packaged foods and avoid taxing the local bakeries that make cakes and so on.
|
On February 13 2018 06:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Aren't "ready to eat" meals and canned goods just a pile of preservatives as well?
Depends. They don't have to be. Canned vegetables are basically just those vegetables and boiled in the canning process (it's not really boiling, but that's the closest conventional cooking process). Not as healthy as fresh veggies, but a lot easier to ship wherever.
Ready to eat meals usually contain too much salt and sugar, but it still depends on the exact meal whether it's reasonably wholesome or awfully unhealthy.
|
A nutritionist on NPR recently said that people should focus on “eating food” in the US. That a lot of the food products that exist out there are just that, food like products that are mostly corn sugar and bindings. That if people just cooked more often, they would avoid the majority of the unhealthy food in the super market.
|
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week.
|
On February 13 2018 07:19 zlefin wrote:
A reasonable point. Though from what I hear finding the time and energy to cook is a problem for some people who're already working 60+ hours/week.
Maybe next time these people should elect Sanders instead of Trump. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
