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

[giblets]

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.

If you can demonstrate that there are externalities associated with junk food, then I could agree with a tax on junk food. But imposing restrictions on food stamps is not the way to address that, IMO.

Other than that, if an adult decides junk food is worth the health effects it's their business and no one else's and there's no need to distort the spending habits of people on food stamps.

[Al B. Sure!]

Gribbler:

adults... adults... adults... what about the children of these adults who do not have the opportunity to decide what they eat? I suspect adults on food stamps have disproportionately more children.

[KrazyHorse]

[Q=Albert Speer;5808771]I don't see what's wrong with what GePap is saying. He's saying exactly what I said but more pretty like [/q]

Yes, what passes for his arguments are no less retarded than yours

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

I have no idea where the **** that statement comes from. My concern in this thread is for the utility of people receiving food stamp aid. I don't receive food stamp aid, so if I didn't care about others I wouldn't give a **** about WHAT restrictions the government put on food stamps.

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

Yes, unlike you I pay an enormous amount of tax. I want it to create as much utility as possible, so I'm averse to your suggestion. In fact, I'd rather disband the food stamp program entirely and simply give poor people money.

[KrazyHorse]

If you can demonstrate that there are externalities associated with junk food, then I could agree with a tax on junk food. But imposing restrictions on food stamps is not the way to address that, IMO.

Other than that, if an adult decides junk food is worth the health effects it's their business and no one else's and there's no need to distort the spending habits of people on food stamps.

Very ****ing good.

[giblets]

Gribbler:

adults... adults... adults... what about the children of these adults who do not have the opportunity to decide what they eat? I suspect adults on food stamps have disproportionately more children.

I made a post related to that:

It might make sense to have a special class of food stamps for families, and require people to buy food that is deemed "healthy" with them, if your argument is that people should teach their kids to eat healthy.

This would help children just as much, while not affecting adults that don't have kids, so it seems like a better proposal to me.

[GePap]

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

As for #3) I couldn't be bothered to read all your posts before, nor did I care to.

As for 1) I think what is already done is correct, and thus there is no problem with applying such a policy somewhere else. I feel no need to have to argue why the public sector should be allowed to place conditions on public assistance to individuals, anymore than I would feel the need to argue why anyone should be allowed to place conditions down when they are giving someone money.

[Al B. Sure!]

There are conditions on Section 8 housing... conditions on WIC...

No one seems to be taking issue with these conditions. Why not food stamps?

Or KH, would you propose admitting convicted drug dealers to Section 8 housing is somehow not maximizing utility?

[KrazyHorse]

GePap, thinking that what is already done is correct IS NOT THE SAME AS STATING "IT IS ALREADY DONE"


HOLY ****, YOU MUST BE A ******.

[GePap]

If you can demonstrate that there are externalities associated with junk food, then I could agree with a tax on junk food. But imposing restrictions on food stamps is not the way to address that, IMO.

Other than that, if an adult decides junk food is worth the health effects it's their business and no one else's and there's no need to distort the spending habits of people on food stamps.

People are not entitled to food stamps. They can apply for them. If an adult feels that restrictions placed on the program are such that it violates their desire to eat whatever they want, then they need not apply for food stamps. Given that the whole purpose of food stamps is to carry out a public policy goal (stopping malnutrition and hunger) I personally see no problem with the same public sector seeking to accomplish another public policy goal (improving general public health) with it as well.

[KrazyHorse]

There are conditions on Section 8 housing... conditions on WIC...

No one seems to be taking issue with these conditions

Have you been ignoring everything I've said in this thread? As far as the WIC there is an agency problem there.

. Why not food stamps?

Or KH, would you propose admitting convicted drug dealers to Section 8 housing is somehow not maximizing utility?

Hey, ****:

1) Placing a restriction on which people actually get aid is completely different than placing restrictions on what people can do with the aid once they get it

2) If convicted drug dealers don't get section 8 housing they will simply disappear and not bother anybody ever again

[KrazyHorse]

And GePap is back to the floydian rights "argument"

[giblets]

People are not entitled to food stamps. They can apply for them. If an adult feels that restrictions placed on the program are such that it violates their desire to eat whatever they want, then they need not apply for food stamps. Given that the whole purpose of food stamps is to carry out a public policy goal (stopping malnutrition and hunger) I personally see no problem with the same public sector seeking to accomplish another public policy goal (improving general public health) with it as well.

I never said they were entitled! Like I said, the issue here is whether the purchasing decisions people make are currently optimal, or if they are making the "wrong" choice. I think the most qualified person to appraise the value of food is the person who will be eating it because things like taste are so subjective. I think people who buy junk food do it because the taste offsets the health effects and I think telling people that the government is more qualified than they are to decide what to put into their bodies is paternalism. Paternalism is good when dealing with children, but not adults.

[Heraclitus]

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.

Also there have been studies pointing to not just correlation of higher body mass index with lower sperm counts, but causation. Higher body fat also correlates with reductions of testosterone levels, which is probably the casue for the sperm drop but I don't really feel comfortable just stating that since I don't recall the study explicity endorsing that line of tought.


Since no one is proposing a return to malthus for the lower classes, its probably better they be kept fat, tranquil and infertile.


In addition over the run of several generations (considering the fattening of America has stopped) this should eventually reduce the frequency of things like diabetes or heart problems in the general population

[Al B. Sure!]

1) Placing a restriction on which people actually get aid is completely different than placing restrictions on what people can do with the aid once they get it

How so? I mean I get how it's different from a logistically standpoint but... you give Section 8 housing to someone who then promptly turns it into a drug house.

Suppose instead, the government only gives food stamps to those who will buy appropriate food (ie- by setting restrictions on what can be bought... people make a choice to elect to receive stamps... therefore, if they are willing to accept those restrictions to receive benefits, then you're effectively placing a restriction on which people actually get aid and not quite on just what they do with it). My point is there's little difference between the two.

[Heraclitus]

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)

What about the mentally deficient? Don't they lack the agency to make these decisions concerning their future health.




[sociopath]Anyway why should one give a hoot about other people's utilities?[/sociopath]