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

[Heraclitus]

You majored in sucking at reasoning, apparently.

Filosofy, I believe they call it.

I wonder what makes cheaper toilet paper a Filosofy degree or a Feminist Ecology degree (or whatever degree EcoFarm had)

[Al B. Sure!]

KH:

Social policy is about improving human welfare, but that doesn't necessarily mean unleashing them with money like that's going to make everything great. Throwing money at people doesn't improve anything.

Now, with more specific governmental goals (less nebulous and more measurable than make people happy) and relevant guidelines associated with the funding, then you're onto some real social policy betterment.

And you're right... then it's up to the government to determine what is right or wrong. I know you have a problem with this.

[Al B. Sure!]

Majored in Agriculture specializing in Gender.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, the government knows better than poor people do what will improve their lot in life.

Paternalist nonsense, and something which violates the foundations of virtually all modern economic thought.

[Heraclitus]

Majored in Agriculture specializing in Gender.

Yeath that's it. Still cracks me up.

[Kuciwalker]

Throwing money at people doesn't improve anything.

Actually, throwing money at people pretty substantially increases their utility.

[Heraclitus]

I tought we established he dosen't care about poor people's utilities?

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't give a crap about utility in this case. I thought I established that?

Yeah I know... bad Republican. bad Capitalist. tsk tsk.

[Heraclitus]

The funny bit is Liburls with paternalistic policy fetishes don't realize they don't give a crap about poor/black/disabled people's utilities. And this is really shocking when you hear College proffesors people who are supposed to average at 120 with these kinds of opinions.


At least you don't seem to be a hypocrite.

[Dinner]

It seems they do regulate what they can buy to some extent.

What you can buy with food stamps

* Any food for human consumption except hot food (but remember, there is also an exception for approved restaurant meals programs).
* Seeds and plants to grow food for yourself or your family. [7 C.F.R. § 271.2]

What you cannot buy [7 C.F.R. § 271.2]

* Pet food.
* Alcohol.
* Non-food items such as soap, toothpaste, toilet paper, cigarettes, etc.
* Vitamins and medicines.
* Any hot food, including hot food intended for immediate consumption (with the exception of restaurant meals programs).

http://www.foodstampguide.org/using-food-stamps/

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm sure this has been said in the thread but I don't feel like reading it.

Controlling what people buy with food stamps is pointless. When I worked at the grocery store people would buy food with food stamps and cigarettes with cash. Clearly the food stamps were helping pay for their tobacco habit.

[Al B. Sure!]

Oerdin:

Yeah. I said that in the original post. That's why I was saying it's not without precedence.

[Hauldren Collider]

In other words, the government knows better than poor people do what will improve their lot in life.

Paternalist nonsense, and something which violates the foundations of virtually all modern economic thought.

well hurr durr if they knew what would improve their life they wouldn't be poor would they hurr durr

although that's actually probably not invalid in SOME cases

[GePap]

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.

People eat what they eat as part of their food culture - poor people who grew up eating junk food are accostumed to eating it, like the taste, and therefore buy it. It remains JUNK food because of its low nutritional value, and actually, you can find much cheaper calories at a supermarket than junk food, food that is still not great for you, but at least provides mjore nutrition than something like a bag of cheetos.

And you know what, age by itself does not impart wisdom - if paternalism is fine for a ten year old, it will be just as fine for a 30 year old, because there is no rational reason to think that in that time the individual has "outgrown" the reason for paternalism, ie. lack of information or the ability to analyze that information accurately or correctly.

Junk food is not good for someone - period. And how does taste "offset" the health effects???? That something tastes good is a reason people buy it, which is why junk food is designed to appeal to all the primeval food cravings human beings have. None of that makes it any less damaging for people's health. AGAIN, the point of the Food Stamp program is to help poor people by allowing them to buy nutritious food. JUNK food isn't nutritious, and nothing about the tast changes that. It is paternalistic to punish people for not putting on their seatbelts, or for speaking on a cell phone while driving. I approve of both those policies because people have shown, though their actions, NOT to be the wonderful rational agents that you seem to assume they are. And it has nothing to do with being poor or not. I am sure that there are plenty of poor people who know better than to waste food stamp money on junk food. That doesn't stop the correctness of allowing the government to impose further limits on food stamp puchases.

At the end, while you and KH want to makes this an economics arguement, IT ISN'T, at least no for me, so appeals to economic thought and theory mean ****, especially if they hinge on the idea that all individuals always know what is best for them better than anyone else, which is in and of itself patent nonsense.

[Al B. Sure!]

At the end, while you and KH want to makes this an economics arguement, IT ISN'T, at least no for me, so appeals to economic thought and theory mean ****, especially if they hinge on the idea that all individuals always know what is best for them better than anyone else, which is in and of itself patent nonsense.

Exactly. And the purpose of the food stamp program wasn't to increase the utility of poor people... it was to prevent poor people from starving or being malnourished. Why not take it a (small) step further and be concerned not just with preventing malnourishment but also ensuring proper nutrition?

And tastes change depending upon your diet. People who ate a lot of junk, when they're weaned off of it, after a while find that they no longer crave sugar like they used to and things like fruit taste sweet to them again. Ask an obese person if blueberries taste sweet to them. I can almost guarantee you they'll say no because the have become so conditioned to ultra-sweet foods.