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

[GePap]

The government does place restrictions on what can be bought with food Stamps. As for junk food, the reason we allow for the purchase of that is because food stamps are seen not only as a way to help the hungry feed themselves, but also because it is seen as a direct boon the the US food industry, of which junk food makers form a power part.

As for junk food, I think the government should place a significant tax on them - and for fairness sakes, call it a nutrition tax. The tax would apply to all food, and be based on a calculation of the amount of calories the food has per serving modified by the nutritional value of them (and the includion of minerals, vitamins, and fiber). As such, some high calorie food stuffs would be taxed less than others assuming they had a high nutritional value (such as whole milk, peanut butter or nuts in general) while hitting junk food and empty calories like in Soda hard. This would move the poor, who are very price conscious when it comes to food purchases, to spend more on high calory high nutrition items, some of which can be bought in bulk.

And I would do this because I do believe that there are clear health costs to obesity and we are better off making the costs to society of these foods fall squarely on consumers. Of course, we also need to change our agricultural policy to end the subsidy of cheap empty calories.

[KrazyHorse]

1 in 4 children are served by FOOD STAMPS, not WIC. that was just a side point.

WTF do children have to do with this? You might as well tell me that 70% of asiatic midgets are served by food stamps.

There are ~40 million food stamp recipients in the US. That's ~12% of the population. Generally, it's less efficient (causes more deadweight loss) to target incentives at a small population rather than distributing them broadly in order to gain the same absolute effect on behaviour.

[KrazyHorse]

Even if one in four people are recipients, they're still outnumbered by non-recipients three to one, so Krazyhorse seems to be right.

It's not one in four people. It's one in 4 children.

[Al B. Sure!]

GePap

[GePap]

Even if one in four people are recipients, they're still outnumbered by non-recipients three to one, so Krazyhorse seems to be right.

1/4 isn't a small portion, and would cover everyone who is considered poor and a chunck of the lower middle classes.

As for the complaint on government paternalism, it is government funding - the feds would have every right to impose terms or conditions on the use of public support. We already do so for most government aid programs. Also, given that the US is a democratic polity, the "government" is "us", so I do get sick of people speaking about it as some alien entity.

[giblets]

1/4 isn't a small portion, and would cover everyone who is considered poor and a chunck of the lower middle classes.

As for the complaint on government paternalism, it is government funding - the feds would have every right to impose terms or conditions on the use of public support. We already do so for most government aid programs. Also, given that the US is a democratic polity, the "government" is "us", so I do get sick of people speaking about it as some alien entity.

It's not an issue of whether the government has the right, but an issue of whether telling people what to eat would result in a better or worse outcome. Telling people the government knows better than they do is "paternalism"

[KrazyHorse]

1/4 isn't a small portion, and would cover everyone who is considered poor and a chunck of the lower middle classes.

As for the complaint on government paternalism, it is government funding - the feds would have every right to impose terms or conditions on the use of public support. We already do so for most government aid programs. Also, given that the US is a democratic polity, the "government" is "us", so I do get sick of people speaking about it as some alien entity.

You're living up to Albert's very low standards of reasoning.

a) Just because the gov't IS paternalist ALREADY does not mean that MORE paternalism is GOOD. I've already been over this

b) I don't give a **** what you get sick of people speaking about. How the **** is it any more acceptable for people to tell me what to do because I got to cast an absolutely irrelevant vote to choose those people?

[GePap]

It's not an issue of whether the government has the right, but an issue of whether telling people what to eat would result in a better or worse outcome. Telling people the government knows better than they do is "paternalism"

Who is telling them what to eat? Putting restrictions on what can be purchased through food stamps doesn;'t restrict what these people can eat, it just means that if they want junk food, they need to buy them out of their own pockets, and not through a government subsidy meant to provide individuals with the ability to get nutritious food. I believe that the public sector would be correct to try to limit the cost they would have to bear through higher costs for public healthcare by not funding purchases of food which adds little nutrition through public funds.

That is merely rational public policy. And you know what, most people don't have a clue what they should be doing, and I have no problem with the public sector trying to limit the collective costs to all of us for dealing with individual failures of common sense which we are expected to bear, at least in a system which has decided that leaving people to die on the street is wrong.

[GePap]

You're living up to Albert's very low standards of reasoning.

a) Just because the gov't IS paternalist ALREADY does not mean that MORE paternalism is GOOD. I've already been over this

I have no problem with rational paternalism. Clearly you do.

b) I don't give a **** what you get sick of people speaking about. How the **** is it any more acceptable for people to tell me what to do because I got to cast an absolutely irrelevant vote to choose those people?

You are free to do whatever the **** you want - just man up and be ready for the consequences of your actions. And as I responded to gribbler above, telling the poor they can't buy junk food with public assistance doesn't stop them from buying junk food with their own money. If they want junk food, let them buy it out of pocket.

[KrazyHorse]

Thank God you're around to tell most people what to do, GePap.

What a piece of ****ing work. Take your ****ing neo-moralist tripe and shove it.

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't see what's wrong with what GePap is saying. He's saying exactly what I said but more pretty like

KH= doesn't give a **** about anyone but himself

I thought an appeal to his tax dollars would've helped.

[GePap]

Thank God you're around to tell most people what to do, GePap.

What a piece of ****ing work. Take your ****ing neo-moralist tripe and shove it.

I find it funny that one of the most intellectually paternalistic inividuals on poly gets so worked up about paternalism.

[Thoth]

It would probably be much easier to set up poor people camps and be done with it.

It would be cheaper to sterilize fat people.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no problem with rational paternalism. Clearly you do.

I guess you're going to go ahead and simply pretend that the argument I was responding to wasn't completely ****ing stupid?

Making a statement about WHAT IS ALREADY DONE has nothing to do with an argument about WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

Dimwit.

You are free to do whatever the **** you want - just man up and be ready for the consequences of your actions

Given that I've spent the last two pages stating my faith in people's ability to weigh the consequences of their actions, I have no idea what the **** this is supposed to mean.

And as I responded to gribbler above, telling the poor they can't buy junk food with public assistance doesn't stop them from buying junk food with their own money

When the **** did I said it did?

If they want junk food, let them buy it out of pocket.

So, your post consists of:

1) Ignoring the fact that you posted a blatant fallacious argument and attempting to move the perception of that subthread to being a statement about preferences

2) Irrelevant truism

3) Strawman

4) Statement of preferences

[Ben Kenobi]

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

So what's the point? If you eliminated the restrictions, poor people would no longer sell their food stamps, because food stamps would just be cash.

AS's increased restrictions on food stamps would lower the price on the black market, because demand for them would go down. The only thing that would change is the price.

My proposal would eliminate the black maket altogether.