Why doesn't the gov't legislate what people buy with food stamps?

[Al B. Sure!]

The fact is, the government already legislates certain things like prepared food can not be purchased with food stamps. The government also already has a program (WIC) which sets nutritional guidelines and prevents people from buying certain things deemed inappropriate by some government agency.

The gov't has already instituted this stuff for decades now. Why not apply it further to food stamps?

[KrazyHorse]

Umm.. when it's OUR tax dollars going to it, I think we as American taxpayers have the RIGHT to determine what poor people value with OUR money.

Why the **** are you confusing a normative discussion about what authority the government SHOULD CHOOSE TO EXERCISE with a discussion about what authority the government COULD CHOOSE TO EXERCISE?

[Wezil]

Lil Debbie cakes

[KrazyHorse]

It's tax dollars being used for this, KH. That's what makes this bigger than personal preference. Same as how we as Americans should be able to control the food served in public schools. It's our money being used.

You must seriously be ****ing retarded to think that this is at all relevant.

[Al B. Sure!]

WIC-eligible foods:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgregs.HTM

Why not come up with something comparable for the food stamp program?

[KrazyHorse]

The fact is, the government already legislates certain things like prepared food can not be purchased with food stamps. The government also already has a program (WIC) which sets nutritional guidelines and prevents people from buying certain things deemed inappropriate by some government agency.

The gov't has already instituted this stuff for decades now. Why not apply it further to food stamps?

So, because the government already destroys utility by playing paternalist with the wealth it redistributes it should therefore choose to destroy more utility by extending its paternalism?

Is this the extent of your reasoning?

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes because the utility is increased in other ways... like lower health care costs, not dying of diabetes... stuff like that.

In the grand scheme of things... lil debbie cake < not dying of heart disease, diabetes, etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because what will happen is that people will agree to buy your food stamps less a percentage for themselves.

Then they can spend the money on what they want to buy, and the person with the food stamps makes a profit.

This is why food stamps really aren't a great idea, and why limiting what people can buy with food stamps is silly. You might as well just increase the stipend by the amount of foodstamps that people are given.

The only people who benefit from the restriction are the grocery stores, and the people who purchase food stamps.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ben:

THAT already happens. The sale of food stamps. Typically 60 cents on the dollar is the going rate here.

[KrazyHorse]

If people want to take the increased risk of dying of diabetes then they should be allowed to. How the hell am I supposed to judge what value another person SHOULD put on their health?

As far as health costs, ideally these would be borne by the individual themselves. As they are not there is an uncompensated externality. However, it's my suspicion that obesity mostly brings more of the costs earlier rather than changing the NPV of the costs by very much.

[Al B. Sure!]

However, it's my suspicion that obesity mostly brings more of the costs earlier rather than changing the NPV of the costs by very much.

This is something that would need to be further explored. Let's not take this as an established fact yet. Traditionally, as far as I've read and seen, it is viewed that health issues result in higher costs across the board.

[KrazyHorse]

Albert Speer certainly seems to be going out of his way to prove my point that most calls for government paternalism are motivated by an esthetic choice about other people's utility functions rather than any rational argument...

[Al B. Sure!]

And I know you don't give a crap about children but for those that do, to reiterate, another concern is that the children do not have the agency to make these decisions concerning their future health. That is the logic behind something like WIC I suppose, to ensure that children receive a proper diet (a child will not be a healthy growing child if all they eat is tastykakes and drink soda)

[giblets]

Because what will happen is that people will agree to buy your food stamps less a percentage for themselves.

Then they can spend the money on what they want to buy, and the person with the food stamps makes a profit.

This is why food stamps really aren't a great idea, and why limiting what people can buy with food stamps is silly. You might as well just increase the stipend by the amount of foodstamps that people are given.

The only people who benefit from the restriction are the grocery stores, and the people who purchase food stamps.

Since it would further limit the usefulness of food stamps, I think AS's proposal would actually lower the going rate on the black market.

[Al B. Sure!]

1) What's the utility function of a toddler?

2) Who gives a **** about utility?!

There are more important things in this world than economic utility. Like not dying from heart disease. Like human betterment.