4 ms·

You’re not looking at this from the money supply side in a democratically chosen policy environment. I am a high taxpayer and I’d happily vote for increased EBT

by fipple 8y ago

You’re not looking at this from the money supply side in a democratically chosen policy environment. I am a high taxpayer and I’d happily vote for increased EBT distributions at the expense of my own tax rate. I would not do the same for unrestricted money. I’d vote for even more if luxury foods were eliminated from EBT. There are many like me. I don’t want anyone to go hungry but I am also not volunteering my wallet at their discretion.

noelsusman 8y ago
Giving them cash would take fewer of your tax dollars to achieve the same goal.
wool_gather 8y ago
> if luxury foods were eliminated If someone who's dependent on EBT money is spending it on caviar and filet mignon, they're going to go hungry for most of the month. Restrictions just add administrative overhead without benefit. (They also make the program more paternalistic and potentially stigmatizing, but that's a different argument.)
- fipple 8y ago
  I’ve seen a person buying organic ribeye steaks with EBT. I assume they were not going hungry because they were morbidly obese. And paternalistic is fine with me, that means like a father which is what buying someone’s food is, really.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Anecdata: I lost several dress sizes by eating things like organic beef. I have a medical condition that causes malabsorption. It is routinely treated with expensive prescription digestive enzymes, plus large amounts of prescription drugs. I'm a former military wife. Technically, I should be able to get the $100k/year or more worth of medical treatment I am supposed to need for free, at taxpayer expense. Eating right is vastly cheaper, saves all kinds of tax dollars and also gives me a hugely higher quality of life. Win/win/win. Does anybody thank me for doing the right thing here? No. Instead, I am frequently attacked for any number of reasons, some of which seem to be rooted in this idea that poor people aren't entitled to eat well, and their health be damned. You have no idea what that person's needs are. Being able to see that they weigh a lot and what they purchased on a particular day doesn't really give you enough information to know if they were spending wastefully on frivolous purchases or not on that day.
    - fipple 8y ago
      If organic ribeyes is saving this person’s life maybe they need to be in a hospital. How about if you need an organic ribeye you can get your doctor to prescribe you one and then your EBT card works for it. I sure as hell don’t think that people who earn their wages and can’t afford organic ribeyes should be buying them for people who can’t afford them.
rootusrootus 8y ago
Is that really feasible, though? Fungibility of money and all that, how can restricting EBT actually restrict what people use the money to buy? Unless EBT is literally the only money they have.

by fipple 8y ago

noelsusman 8y ago

Giving them cash would take fewer of your tax dollars to achieve the same goal.

wool_gather 8y ago

> if luxury foods were eliminated If someone who's dependent on EBT money is spending it on caviar and filet mignon, they're going to go hungry for most of the month. Restrictions just add administrative overhead without benefit. (They also make the program more paternalistic and potentially stigmatizing, but that's a different argument.)

fipple 8y ago
I’ve seen a person buying organic ribeye steaks with EBT. I assume they were not going hungry because they were morbidly obese. And paternalistic is fine with me, that means like a father which is what buying someone’s food is, really.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Anecdata: I lost several dress sizes by eating things like organic beef. I have a medical condition that causes malabsorption. It is routinely treated with expensive prescription digestive enzymes, plus large amounts of prescription drugs. I'm a former military wife. Technically, I should be able to get the $100k/year or more worth of medical treatment I am supposed to need for free, at taxpayer expense. Eating right is vastly cheaper, saves all kinds of tax dollars and also gives me a hugely higher quality of life. Win/win/win. Does anybody thank me for doing the right thing here? No. Instead, I am frequently attacked for any number of reasons, some of which seem to be rooted in this idea that poor people aren't entitled to eat well, and their health be damned. You have no idea what that person's needs are. Being able to see that they weigh a lot and what they purchased on a particular day doesn't really give you enough information to know if they were spending wastefully on frivolous purchases or not on that day.
  - fipple 8y ago
    If organic ribeyes is saving this person’s life maybe they need to be in a hospital. How about if you need an organic ribeye you can get your doctor to prescribe you one and then your EBT card works for it. I sure as hell don’t think that people who earn their wages and can’t afford organic ribeyes should be buying them for people who can’t afford them.

rootusrootus 8y ago

Is that really feasible, though? Fungibility of money and all that, how can restricting EBT actually restrict what people use the money to buy? Unless EBT is literally the only money they have.