Feds teach people how to shop for food

[Shangri-laschild]

This has less to do with the government having to teach people how to do things like shop and a lot more to do with how to run a facebook page that happens to be handled by a government employee. You have to post stuff and sometimes at least posting something that is mostly common sense is better than posting nothing. Putting a tip out there hurts nothing and at the very least maybe it helps a couple of people. And actually the recipe tools that they have in the link are kinda cool.

[TheHuckster]

And yet the Feds don't have a "Here's how you drive a manual" website, or a "here's how you plant a garden/go camping" website.

Driving a manual and going camping are not regular things that everyone does or enjoys. Shopping for food is something everyone has to do.

As far as what the feds are doing, this is pale in comparison to a lot of other pork projects that have little benefit considering the insane cost to tax payers, which more often than not only benefit the cronies who helped get the bill passed. This, to me, is an example of a good use of federal government resources. How much does it cost to maintain a friggen social media account with shopping tips?

Like? Honestly, do you know ANYONE who plans out their meals week-to-week? I don't.

Uh, me, for one. And it's really just two of us. Either you go shopping every day to pick up supplies for dinner (a fine option if you have the time to do it) or you go shopping weekly and make sure you, you know, plan ahead and make sure you get everything you need and meet your budget. Because if you don't do that, you're going to realize you forgot some crucial ingredients for one of your meals and have the inconvenience of having to go to the grocery store for that one item.

Bottom line is: How much do we really want to rely on gov't, especially at the Federal level, to make those sorts of decisions and choices for us?

What decisions and choices are the feds making? The feds aren't making choices about what people eat or do at the grocery store. People can still stock up on Ring Dings and Twinkies for their entire weekly meals and the feds can't do anything about it. They're simply making some suggestions based on research and advice from health experts.

I'm more conservative than most people on this forum, and I don't see a single thing wrong with this. There have been programs which do little to actually improve peoples' lives while costing millions of dollars, and there are programs like these which barely cost anything and, if it means families improve their lives, then that could have great benefits, especially to the children who, perhaps, might go to school on full stomachs which can improve their grades and make them feel better about themselves.

[mjr]

How much does it cost to maintain a friggen social media account with shopping tips?

Do I take into account it cost them $650 million for a broken website that cost even more to fix?

What decisions and choices are the feds making? The feds aren't making choices about what people eat or do at the grocery store.

Do you think the possibility is there that they may in the future? I'm not trying to sound conspiratory, because usually I laugh at conspiracy theories, but with our current political climate, and what some politicians are trying to do, would you really put it past them?

I'm more conservative than most people on this forum, and I don't see a single thing wrong with this. There have been programs which do little to actually improve peoples' lives while costing millions of dollars, and there are programs like these which barely cost anything and, if it means families improve their lives, then that could have great benefits, especially to the children who, perhaps, might go to school on full stomachs which can improve their grades and make them feel better about themselves.

I get it from that perspective, I really do. Especially as a fellow Conservative. That said, I'd be willing to wager I learned more from the Food Network show Good Eats and Alton Brown than that website could about how to select and cook foods.

[TheHuckster]

Do I take into account it cost them $650 million for a broken website that cost even more to fix?

Which is exactly an example of a mess that should have been implemented better. But we're not talking about the healthcare website. Unless you have numbers as to how much this specific program cost, you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't point at another program which, for one, was a fuckton larger in scope than this, and say this has to be the same thing.

Do you think the possibility is there that they may in the future? I'm not trying to sound conspiratory, because usually I laugh at conspiracy theories, but with our current political climate, and what some politicians are trying to do, would you really put it past them?

No, but I also don't subscribe to the notion that we should be against anything on the basis that it might lead to something worse sometime in the future. That's a slippery slope fallacy, and has been used in the past to thwart reasonable laws. When someone starts introducing laws that truly dictate who can buy what, then you can argue that they are unjustifiably making decisions and choices for people. Until then, that's not what this is, and the argument has no basis in this particular case.

I get it from that perspective, I really do. Especially as a fellow Conservative. That said, I'd be willing to wager I learned more from the Food Network show Good Eats and Alton Brown than that website could about how to select and cook foods.

Ironically, seeing that you need cable TV to even watch Food Network, you probably spent more of your own money watching those shows than the feds spent for each person benefiting from this.

[s_stabeler]

mjr,

you mention (presumably) the national health insurance website. You do realise that said website had to be set up at fairly short notice? originally, it was supposed to be that every state had to set up their own exchanges. however, several republican states refused- so the federal government decided to set up a national exchange, so at least people in those states could get the benefit of the exchanges. However, it was too late to delay the introduction of the exchanges to allow for a proper job to be done. Honestly, for a rush project- where corners must be cut to get it ready in time- the national exchange website was actually pretty good. (in that it worked for more than 50% of the people who used it)

[mjr]

Which is exactly an example of a mess that should have been implemented better. But we're not talking about the healthcare website. Unless you have numbers as to how much this specific program cost, you don't have a leg to stand on. You can't point at another program which, for one, was a fuckton larger in scope than this, and say this has to be the same thing.

And to tell you the truth, Huckster, I can kind of agree with you here. I don't know how much this "here's how you shop for groceries" page costs.

But at the same time, I don't like the whole "Gov't can do no wrong", and is the 'be all-end all' (as someone put it), and the "solution" to every problem type of arguments.

Even as a Conservative, I'm sure you'd agree there's a place for some government. It's a matter of what the Constitution allows, and what the overall size should be.

then you can argue that they are unjustifiably making decisions and choices for people. Until then, that's not what this is, and the argument has no basis in this particular case.

Akin to the soda size laws in NY?

Ironically, seeing that you need cable TV to even watch Food Network, you probably spent more of your own money watching those shows than the feds spent for each person benefiting from this.

Satellite, but I understand what you're saying. But we don't know how many people are benefiting from this.

[TheHuckster]

Akin to the soda size laws in NY?

Yes. Which, by the way, is not a federal law, and is still completely irrelevant to this issue we're talking about.

Satellite, but I understand what you're saying. But we don't know how many people are benefiting from this.

We can estimate it by seeing how many followers @ChooseMyPlate.gov has, which as of right now is only about 90,000.

ChooseMyPlate.gov is also a website, which has been around for a while. IIRC it's really just an updated "food pyramid" which was introduced in the 1990s. The USDA has assumed the role of nutrition educator since the early 20th century, and this is really just an extension of that part of their department.

[mjr]

Yes. Which, by the way, is not a federal law, and is still completely irrelevant to this issue we're talking about.

I understand that's a state law, so it's a 10th Amendment issue.

We can estimate it by seeing how many followers @ChooseMyPlate.gov has, which as of right now is only about 90,000.

90,000 / 320,000,000 = 0.028125% of the population.

Assuming the Federal Budget is around $4 trillion, that gives...

4,000,000,000,000 x 0.028125 = $112,500,000,000 ($112 billion)

Divide that by 90,000 people = $1,250,000 per person...

My Satellite bill isn't $1.25 million per year.

[TheHuckster]

90,000 / 320,000,000 = 0.028125% of the population.

Assuming the Federal Budget is around $4 trillion, that gives...

4,000,000,000,000 x 0.028125 = $112,500,000,000 ($112 billion)

Divide that by 90,000 people = $1,250,000 per person...

My Satellite bill isn't $1.25 million per year.

Holy crap, that's horribly flawed logic. Your argument would only apply if we used 100% of our $4 trillion budget on that one site. I really hope you don't apply that logic to every government program.

If it took, say, $5,000,000 per year for the MyPlate program (a high estimate but gov't projects admittedly are inefficient) then divide that among 90,000 people, and you get roughly $50 per year spent on each person who at least follows the twitter site.

[mjr]

Holy crap, that's horribly flawed logic. Your argument would only apply if we used 100% of our $4 trillion budget on that one site. I really hope you don't apply that logic to every government program.

If it took, say, $5,000,000 per year for the MyPlate program (a high estimate but gov't projects admittedly are inefficient) then divide that among 90,000 people, and you get roughly $50 per year spent on each person who at least follows the twitter site.

Well, it's entirely possible my logic is flawed there, Huckster.

Though I went on the assumption that if 0.028...percent of the population is 90,000 people, then we could assume a budget of $112 billion -- just for the Twitter feed.

Probably flawed there, yeah.

My broader point, however, is to question whether we're really at a point where we think a website is useful because it's doing something that somewhat replaces "thinking" (i.e. "Maybe I should buy lettuce instead of Twinkies.")

But trust me, I do understand your overall argument.

But why don't we look to cut other places (like the "wasteful spending" places you mentioned earlier) in addition to doing this? If this is effective, and something else is FAR more expensive and wasteful, wouldn't it be prudent (as a Conservative) to reduce money to that program, or work on ways to make it more effective/efficient, possibly concurrently?

Edited to add:

I recently, and purposefully, purchased this shirt:

http://despair.com/products/destructor

It expresses my general, overall attitude toward both parties.

I'm going to wear it on election day, if I can.

[s_stabeler]

pretty much nobody supports wasteful government spending. the problem is, people disagree on what is considered wasteful. For example, benefits paid to poor people are often deemed 'wasteful' because there's at least a subset of people who are never able to get off them. The truth is that the "benefit" of the program, so to speak, is that said poor people can afford to keep food on the table, and the reason they don't get off the benefits is because they either can't afford to get better qualifications , or can't get a job in whatever industry they are qualified for.

[mjr]

pretty much nobody supports wasteful government spending. the problem is, people disagree on what is considered wasteful. For example, benefits paid to poor people are often deemed 'wasteful' because there's at least a subset of people who are never able to get off them. The truth is that the "benefit" of the program, so to speak, is that said poor people can afford to keep food on the table, and the reason they don't get off the benefits is because they either can't afford to get better qualifications , or can't get a job in whatever industry they are qualified for.

The problem with "wasteful" also, isn't necessarily that money is being spent. It's that money is being spent inefficiently, or in the "wrong" way (not necessarily on the "wrong" thing or things).

[s_stabeler]

I think we're making the same point, though- that different people have different definitions of what constitutes wasteful spending.

To use another example- various regulatory agencies. How many companies complain about the amount of regulation they have to deal with? however, it's notable that when regulatory capture occurs (when regulators end up under de facto control of the companies they regulate) abuses the regulator was supposed to prevent often follow. (or, although this isn't a financial issue as such, unions are often stereotyped as offering no actual benefit for the average worker- certainly by people who oppose unions. It's also worth noting that in many industries that are mostly non-unionised, various abuses are common. I'm not saying unions should be all-powerful, however, the pendulum has swung too far towards defanging them. (off the top of my head, it should be made mandatory for a union to be available- that is, a workplace should not be completely non-union. You don't have to join a union- closed shops are rife for abuse the other way- but attempting to suppress unions should be illegal Added to that, if a strike is called, there can be no retaliation for said strike. (so no labelling it as an NCNS, for example. It IS, however, legitimate not to pay workers for the time they are on strike.)

[BlaqueKatt]

There's a lot more to effective grocery shopping than making a list.

And not everyone has trusted family or friends to teach them.

Stop assuming that your life experiences are the be all and end all. It's rather annoying.

yup, my mother was a drunk, possible paranoid schizophrenic, my stepdad definitely was, my foster parents had *THEIR PARENTS* do the grocery shopping while the 9 kids were in school. by the time I was on my own at 16 I barely knew how to cook, let alone plan any meals or pick out groceries.

[mjr]

by the time I was on my own at 16 I barely knew how to cook, let alone plan any meals or pick out groceries.

I'm assuming you learned those skills somewhere along the way?

I actually learned more from watching Alton Brown than any cookbook or website could have taught me about cooking and/or how to select certain foods.

Look, I understand some people don't learn this stuff. I'm just not a "government first, last, and always" (i.e. the government can solve all our problems) type person.

Do I think there's a place for government? Sure. But I'm not of the mindset (as it seems some are) that the government should take care of EVERYTHING for me.

Take care of the young, old, and sick. Why not just take that route?