In the richest nation in the history of civilization, where 40% of all food grown is thrown away, the idea that you have to prove anything to get access to food is disgusting. Expanding SNAP to include everyone would be an afterthought, budget-wise. It would also end block grants; we could call it the “Favre Rule.”
3 Likes
There should be an income limit though. You shouldn’t get snap if you’re using it as a means to pocket the difference.
No, no means testing. Make it for everybody, that way it works correctly. Worrying so much about fraud of a few bucks is counterproductive.
4 Likes
There should be a distinction between people who need it and people who want it. If we give SNAP benefits to people who have no need for it we’re just inviting looting. SNAP is intended to help people in need not enrich people with means.
1 Like
SNAP helps companies as much as people. Remember SNAP sale doesn’t exclude profit. In other words you buy a box of cereal with SNAP that company still makes full profit.
2 Likes
It wouldn’t enrich people. They could only use it for food, like anyone else with SNAP. Rich folks just have a private chef or eat out anyway. The pittance of food money would hold no interest for them. But if they in principle wanted to go to the grocery store and buy Froot Loops with it, they can be my guest. Heck, take it over to Whole Foods and buy three things with it for all we care.
1 Like
Well yeah. Where else would that money go? SNAP is a subsidy, the government provides money to lessen the burden of food expenses. If we give SNAP to persons with plenty of money to spare we’re not subsidizing them, we’re enriching them. That’s not the point of SNAP.
1 Like
OK, I can see your issue with it. Let me put it another way: most of us went to public school. Those are open to anyone’s children, even millionaires and billionaires. Now, they can certainly afford to send little Blain and Muffy to private school, and probably will. But the option of public school (and the free breakfast and lunch) is still there for them, because their taxes went into the same system.
Think about it carefully. 
What’s the likelihood of running into Jeff Bezos at a soup kitchen for lunch?
Or maybe Bill Gates paying a visit to the salvation army to get a new wardrobe (I know, it looks like it 
)
Making a project like this universal means it can’t be denied to anyone, even Elon Musk 
The overall goal, in my oun opinion is to meet the basic needs of everyone and for those who earned more than double that would have it taxed back automatically, so no administration required beyond the IRS
For the funding, include all immigrants, documented or not, and provide the essentials for life, as we currently define it.
For me that is:
Food
Shelter - maximum 30% rent or mortgage payment from after tax income
Education - education free of charge with a stipend to the persons maximum potential. Ive met too many brilliant minds who “couldn’t afford” university, my own father among them who had the ability and more…
…but not the cash.
Clothing
This isn’t a hand-out, this is a hand-up and we haven’t had that, yet.
This is the core of a regionally adjusted to lower middle class of a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income program without qualification beyond residence.
There’s a reason why many countries see a free university program as a tax cash cow because higher paid people pay more taxes
…and it can be funded by diverting nonviolent offenders from the correctional system and the decriminalization and safe supply of all narcotics. That’s almost a trillion there.
If governments aren’t filling private prisons then they go away. We’ll eventually look at those buildings the same way we look at slave quarters on a antebellum plantation.
We, everyone you interact with, everyone you see, everyone you think about is, in reality, you.
We are all one people on one planet and the sooner we remember that, the sooner we can change things to improve lives and potential. 
3 Likes
Loved this!
I love that this forum opens up the possibilities of finding so many likeminded persons.
3 Likes
Me too:revolving_hearts:
3 Likes
This can be addressed via taxes. Anyone above a certain income bracket based on number of household. Far less paperwork and need for reviews for SNAP. And less issues of going hungry because of not meeting work requirements. For any social service that is means tested, it means more money has to be set aside for paperwork and salaries for the processors. This is above the SNAP benefits themselves.
That being said, I think it is a hard policy to pass based on this sentiment.
2 Likes
I love this. I think we have the infrastructure to set up blue apron or other boxed meals that get delivered to one’s door step. Make it an opt out option so that it midigates class divide. This helps both provide easy recipies (30 min meals) for families that either dont know how to cook or dont have the time. Its based on family size, has veg/vegan options and is fresh food
2 Likes
Or access to ingredients. What a good idea.
3 Likes
I do recognize that this proposal does require having a physical address. Just to throw that out there
2 Likes
Who is pocketing the difference?
2 Likes
Good point, and how could you? If everyone gets it, its no longer a commodity. It would be valuless in a market, like water from a water fountain.
1 Like