No, I’m fine with the them eating government food pellets and drinking from the bathroom faucet. 
Yet you seem to be fine with the notion of wasting taxpayer money on inefficient efforts to control minor details of assistance recipients’ grocery spending.
Like I said, I’m all in favor of good-nutrition initiatives to encourage and enable poor people to develop healthier eating habits. But introducing cumbersome systems for micromanaging their day-to-day food purchases is just plain stupid. And trying to replace the current efficient and flexible system of virtual-transfer monetary benefits with the distribution of millions of government-issue care packages would be even stupider.
Absent some kind of complete plan for how this miracle of food delivery would be pulled of, it’s credulous to the extreme to believe that the crate scheme could possibly be run more efficiently than the free market accomplishes the same end. And to believe this is such a flauting of conservative and republican ideals and beliefs that it’s nigh impossible to believe that such a belief can be seriously held without a strong ulterior motive compelling belief.
The obvious such ulterior motive would be because such pointless and heartless assholery causes liberal tears, which means that pointless and heartless assholery is a good thing now.
“Coming soon to a store near you, Vitamin Fortified Coca Cola!”
CMC fnord!
Then I think the claim to concern about looking out for the health of people with respect to soda is not a genuine concern.
Contrast this to sales of alcohol and cigarettes, which are already limited in sales to the public and then have more limitations for other purchases. Now you are suggesting that there are categories of things that should be available in unlimited ways to the public, but aren’t fit for certain purchases: maybe high-carb items like pasta? Green apples are okay, but not red? Ground beef from Iowa is okay, but salmon from Alaska is too indulgent?
Here’s my point of view: fuck it. This isn’t a real issue. The market would typically indicate that people with little disposable income will not spend frivolously, so there’s a built-in disincentive for SNAP recipients from buying Whole Foods $8 asparagus water. Beyond that, from my googling, it doesn’t seem like the overall purchasing habits of SNAP receiptients varies in a significant way from the general American population. So why would we expend any effort whatsoever to make it slightly more cumbersome for certain Americans to buy food that we have literally no problem with every single person on the planet buying to their heart’s content? It’s the definition of a manufactured issue!
Unless… there is an agenda to make being poor worse for those who are already poor. Which I think is the actual agenda for many parties in this debate.
looks at typo with intensity
I can’t speak for the actual agenda for many parties, but for me, the interest would be in saving taxpayer money. To the extent it would not accomplish that, I’m not particularly interested in the proposal. To the extent that it does accomplish that, I wouldn’t particularly mind the side effect of somewhat limiting the menu choices for a portion of the recipient’s SNAP benefits.
A vegetarian diet would save money and increase health. What do you think about prohibiting meat purchases, or just providing s monthly ration of this stuff:
I suppose I’d like to have an estimate of how much money it might save. For the right price, sure. For some minuscule savings, no, probably not.
Why would the USPS need coolers and freezers to deliver “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables”?
I would argue that it would also be immoral for the charity to impose conditions that are harmful to the recipient or in a coercive manner. Giving peanut butter to a child allergic to peanuts isn’t “charitable”, it’s harmful. Leaving aside all the other possible objections to the “food box”, unless there is a safeguard to avoid that situation it’s not a good solution to anything.
They wouldn’t give the peanut butter to the child, but to the parents, who have control over what their child eats.
In line with this, if the “taxpayers” really wanted to do something for the health of the poor they’d insist that all poor people have full access to basic health care, but the Republitards aren’t doing that, either, if anything they want to cut more poor people out of the system.
It’s not about taking care of poor people, it’s about pissing on them.
Who made this “health of the poor” argument? Kimstu’s quote, which you quoted above, was a response to me, but my post was not about the health of the poor, it was about saving taxpayers money.
And who have now been stuck with an unwanted food item that is not only useless but actually dangerous to the child, in place of a food item they could have chosen themselves in accordance with their child’s dietary needs.
Just another stupid consequence of a stupid, inefficient, ill-thought-out scheme whose main effect would be to place additional unnecessary burdens on poor people trying to feed themselves and their families.
Silly quibble: they’re not trying to feed themselves. They’re asking the government to help with that. if they were feeding themselves, none of this would be an issue.
Among others, apparently, the guy who suggested prohibiting the application of EBT to unhealthy foods:
Why are you advocating this, if not on the grounds that the government should not be subsidizing any consumption of unhealthy food by poor people?
“Silly quibble” is right. They are feeding themselves and their families, by acquiring and preparing food for that purpose. The fact that they are paying for some of the food with nutritional-assistance program money doesn’t mean that it’s not still their responsibility and their efforts that make it happen, often under pretty adverse circumstances.
So you’d think that the rest of us would want to be making that task as easy and efficient as possible for poor people, instead of getting our little power-trip jollies out of thinking up new inconveniences and inefficiencies to impose on them as a punishment for their crime of not possessing enough money to buy the food they need.
It was mostly a retort to Morgenstern’s silly theory that for most people without means, “the desire to buy soda is rather remote”. I know, and I think you know, that poor people buy plenty of soda (cite & extra cite).
So, I don’t think I’m really “advocating” that, but I did mention the possibility of doing it, and my interest in the matter was mostly about saving money, not controlling what people consume. If we could give them all the free soda they want, and cut their EBT down to a level that actually saves the taxpayers money, I’d be fine with that arrangement.
It’s got nothing to do with power trips or jollies, at least in my case. And it’s not out of a desire to inconvenience them, and I certainly don’t want to see a government program (that I already consider rather inefficient) made less efficient. Quite the opposite, in fact.