In some cases, probably part of why they are poor. There are areas where there are “food deserts” though, and for people that aren’t mobile they may only have limited choices. I recall reading something about how in some rural/poor areas that Dollar General type stores have become a grocer of last resort - and those also tend to be in areas where food stamp usage is high. Probably the same in those rural areas where the Wal-Mart Supercenter is the only option, the dollar stores have been filling in gaps for those who can’t drive 30 minutes to wal-mart.
I find it interesting that you phrase a hypothetical reduction in the ability to purchase alcohol and tobacco as a "punishment." One could very well argue that the damage that is caused by allowing them to buy alcohol and tobacco is a greater "punishment." Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
It should have been clear, imo, but the punishment is restricting their rights to buy any legally sellable product with their own money. Aren't Republicans usually the ones talking about slippery slopes with government authority? What happens after taking away their rights to buy alcohol or tobacco? Do we also take away their right to buy fast food because that's also bad for them?
You’re correct and that’s why it’s important to avoid contact with govt as much as possible. But if one has to do biz with the bureaucrats, the slope is slick and filled with pitfalls. No cash. People are taking my money, they shouldn’t be able to purchase a vice.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is good. There's an argument to be had for "freedom," but if you require government assistance, you're not really "free" to begin with. As soon as we recognize that government intervention is beneficial, then the "freedom" argument goes out the window and we've moved on to "in what ways can government intervention be beneficial." I respectfully disagree (if it's your point) that a poor person (to the point of needing government assistance) is better off with said "freedom" than a hypothetical effective mechanism that would restrict irrational purchases. I think a better debate to be had is on the mechanism and its effectiveness rather than on the morality of restrictive actions....just my two bits. I think the value per calorie makes it tough to argue the point (wholesale at least) as being on the same level, but a better argument to be had might be tying in one's level of health to any of these things. Essentially, don't pay people to be a more expensive burden on the system (healthcare related issues). If we can help people and steer them away from destructive choices, that's not too close to a "punishment" in my view. The trick is can we find a financial point of leverage where short term increase in cost leads to long-term decreased cost. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
In reality, how exactly do you plan to stop someone on government assistance from buying whatever they want with their own cash or debits cards? Seems like a dumb thing to even suggest. Is everyone who buys beer or cigarettes supposed to prove to the clerk they are not on government assistance? Also, where do you draw the line. Should be people on government assistance be allowed to use their own cash to go to the movies? Buy pet food? Buy their kids a birthday present?
And while I 100% appreciate the sentiment behind that stance, the reality is that we couldn't successfully police that without pretty drastic increases in government oversight that would still be ineffective. If we could even do what one poster suggested and have their government ID restrict purchase of certain "vice" goods, what's stopping people so restricted from just paying cash to a friend or neighbor? How do we police that realistically? Maybe we just stop at the restriction somehow, but even that would be a pretty large bureaucracy to manage that network timely This whole conversation reminds me of Rick Scott's big Governor campaign promise to institute drug testing for welfare recipients. He implemented it, and it cost cost some absurd amount of money during the pilot and recovered very little welfare funding. The ROI was terrible. Also, let's not forget that the company awarded the state contract for the drug testing was a partly owned by Rick Scott's wife. Show me how to do what's suggested with tight process controls to ensure effective restrictions on only the appropriate people, and without it being an astronomical boondoggle, and I'd open up to the idea. But as reasonable as those asks are, I'm skeptical it's possible.
For me, the morality gets highlighted because the likelihood of effectiveness is already infinitesimally small. I'm not in favor of restricting protected rights of American citizens because of their income status, especially when those restrictions are so unlikely to cause any positive benefits. Almost all historical evidence would point to "no" on this question. Limiting people's constitutional rights and freedoms because of what's good for them is the definition of a nanny state, which again, Republicans usually say they are vehemently against.
Another point I feel the need to make. Carrots work better than sticks for encouraging behavior changes. If the intent behind this OP argument is altruistic in nature (it read much more as spiteful, imo), that people on food stamps should be "helped" to become healthier and less draining on society, there are much better ways to promote healthier habits than "well, you can't buy cigarettes!" that have proven results. If we're going to add bureaucracy, let it be to empower peoples' betterment, not enforce a spiteful punishment. Connect social workers with EBT recipients to get smokers enrolled in smoking cessation programs, AA, etc., and that can follow up with the individuals to ensure compliance with the programs. Give people basic pedometers with their EBT that come with rewards when certain activity milestones are reached regularly, etc. For example, 4K average daily steps for a month gets you a $100 credit for home improvement funds (to help with things like leaky insulation/ventilation that exacerbate utility needs and the individuals' living expenses. Just spit-balling here on the specifics, but instead of punishing poor people by taking away their rights for needing assistance, let's focus instead on incentivizing and empowering them out of the poverty circumstances.
You have to assume people on food stamps are going through pretty tough financial struggles to provide for them and their families. But hey, if someone getting handouts wants to buy a 12-pack of PBR and a carton of heaters instead of using every available dollar to help their families, who the heck are we to question that?
It's amazing that despite all the evidence (for instance, the drug war) that people STILL think we can simply thwart market forces. We could make food asst like a methadone clinic. You must consume on the premises. Sounds efficient. & what about quotas, tariffs, min wage, any & all price controls & subsidies & terrible NEW NAFTA, U of F....ALL of those things create transfers of money & we don't restrict how the "winners" spend their gov assisted gains. ex. Last year alone-, it is estimated that Americans paid an extra $5 billion* because of the import limits. * 80s dollars!!!! https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-costly-truth-about-auto-import-quotas Heck, take kid car seats. Required until 2 y.o. despite evidence that they've long become useless by then. Any restrictions on the welfare the car seat makers get? &, what about the welfare jobs we bought? Were those workers' purchases restricted? https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/trum...ut-at-a-yuge-cost-to-consumers-of-820000-job/ Despite the increase in domestic production and employment, the costs of these 2018 tariffs are substantial: in a partial equilibrium setting, we estimate increased annual consumer costs of around $1.5 billion, or roughly $820,000 per job created.
Agreed. And the reality is that if they want the beer and cigarettes badly enough, they'll find a way to get it.
I am going to bet that there are plenty of people on food stamps who work 75 or more hours per week. So, do you think they ought to throw in five or 10 hours or so of volunteer community work each week? That sounds like a great idea. How about not giving millionaires in Florida $8600 per child for private school? I am pretty sure we can come up with quite a few more examples that are far more outrageous than people on food stamps spending their own money as they see fit.
Perhaps people on food stamps should not be allowed to have any more children. Maybe, they even should be required to give up their children for adoption. For those who don’t think abortion should be legal, perhaps these people on food stamps should not be allowed to have sex other than with their own gender. For those who think that people should not be allowed to have sex with their own gender, perhaps people on food stamps should be limited to masturbation. For those who believe that masturbation should not be allowed, perhaps people on food stamps should have surgery to prevent them from having children. The big question in my mind is whether these people should have cameras implanted in their foreheads, so that the government can enforce these rules. In addition, people on food stamps should probably not be allowed to have bangs because the bangs might cover up the cameras implanted in their foreheads. I am dead serious about all of this stuff.
If you are working 75 or more hours a week then obviously not. But, if you are unemployed, I see no reason why they can't give back to the community that is helping them out. I also don't like the vouchers for private schools. they are private for a reason. The public tax money doesn't need to help them with funding.
What rights are you referring to, specifically here? To me, terms like "nanny state" and "freedom" are misleading. We do have a "nanny state," something about providing for the general welfare. And "freedom" and "dependency" aren't wholly compatible. We're trying to haggle about what these things mean and whether or not certain tweaks can be more effective or not. I recognize that it may be difficult or even impossible to mutually agree on corrective measures, but we should be careful not to accept any given conclusion without proper effort and analysis. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Good conversation!!! I hadn't read any perfect solutions, but I think if first takes all of us who are paying the taxes to be open to differing ideas. Nobody wants to restrict anyone's freedoms, but we are supposed to be a country of laws and what do laws do? Restrict freedoms! Can we all agree that if you are asking for or requiring some assistance from the taxpayers then the ones footing the bill should have the right to put some restrictions on that money?
1. You said you didnt read it. (TLDR) 2. I dont consider it punishment. Telling someone they cant get help if they are blowing their money on harmful things is not punitive. My daughter is in college. She asks me for money. Sometimes I say no. Sometimes I say stop spending $30 a week on Starbucks and then ask me for money for a parking pass closer to your dance dept. Am I "punishing" her? Now we agree that I dont know if there is a way to legally solve the issue. (Big brother and all that.) But discussing this and debating the status quo isnt exactly the same as how you described it. Fair?
