Skip the EBT cards and start handing out Bachelor Chow to everyone who wants it.

Except it's harder to spend EBT than it is to spend cash. It's harder to disburse EBT than it is cash. So no, you are not helping them just as effectively.

doubt there's a country in the western world that gives out food stamps or something related without restrictions

We don't even have food stamps in Canada. People just get a check every month afaik

Harder to spend on alcohol, drugs? Absolutely. That's the point. And I would argue it's easier to direct deposit into EBT accounts than writing out checks to those who don't have bank accounts.

You could blow the whole check on candy if you want.

It's easier but then they put dumb restrictions like you can only withdraw 25$ cash assistance at a time so folks trying to pay rent end up paying a ton of fees to processing companies.

Again, this is not a philosophical argument. We already restrict tons of things you can buy in the grocery store from EBT. I just want to move a few more things into that spot that have zero nutritional value.

Nobody's going to switch from EBT to straight cash in this current political environment. So barring that I feel like we could be doing a better job promoting good nutrition with this thing.

When the pendulum swings to liberal-land we can talk about switching to straight cash homie. I will probably be against it, but I could possibly be convinced it's better. Right now I don't care because it's not going to happen.

No one seems to be suggesting they should be able to use it to buy tickets into disney world or buy lap dances etc.

The problem is the restrictions suggested are stupid. Most of America drinks caffeine in some form because it works as intended. As for restricting actual food like soup, potatoes, bulk volume beans, tinned tuna and all forms of steak it'd be pathetic if it wasn't so offensive. God forbid food stamps are used on food! Can't let the working poor wake up with a caffeine beverage, eat a tuna sandwich they took to work or enjoy an Irish stew when they get home. Or soup, for some reason.

Then you wind up with things like the Wisconsin list which is immensely stupid. Ultimately this comes down to restricting what you think is a bad use of EBT cards.

If you want to promote nutrition, then maybe subsidize healthy foods when purchased on EBT to try to make them a more attractive option. It might even be an investment against future healthcare costs to do so. But sitting around tut-tutting about people buying energy drinks or candy with food stamps, like good LORD can you imagine the horror of a poor mom buying her kid a chocolate bar, seems like an exceptionally bad use of your energy.

No you don't wind up with things like Wisconsin. The hot food thing has been around for decades w/o creating Wisconsin. Dropping soft drinks and candy is not going to create 49 other Wisconsins.

I have a very strong suspicion republicans in Wisconsin are purposely gunking the whole thing up so they can turn around and kill it, or at the very least point to it as another example that government can't do anything right.

Right, it's a right-wing conspiracy theory, I mean it couldn't possibly be that you're actually just a bit of a right-winger yourself on this particular issue.

I don't think restricting food items would stand the scrutiny of a cost/benefit analysis. He'll straight cash might make sense. Tweakers still sell their benefits at fifty cents on the dollar. The most dignified way to do that is through your dealer but the supply offered outstrips that networks ability to process. if you are standing outside the grocery store selling your benefit you likely have lost the kids.

That's exactly what they are suggesting Phill. That it would be more efficient to just give them cash.

Which is just bonkers. The system has already been set up for the most basic restrictions. It works. It doesn't cost a lot of money. The benefits hugely outweigh the costs. You don't hear too much about how EBT is costing us a lot in this country.

If suzzer, RowCoach, and Phill all agree on something, it's got to be right.

FTR I'm down with just giving cash, it works fine in most countries like here, other places in Europe like Germany Holland etc and apparently Canada works the same way. But it won't happen in America for obvious reasons.

There are cash assistance programs in America.

Afaik most(/all?) countries in the western world give cash. Why add the overhead and headaches (politicians making lists of what you can buy etc) of food stamps?

I suspect they are more efficient to administer than food stamps, that is the point.

Fwiw to be fair, there have been calls to do food stamps here as in there. But the reasoning is exactly the same as it's just poor shaming and thankfully there doesn't seem to be much backing for the idea.

To expand on that point it's not a coincidence that when politicians talk of food stamp users their words drip with offence that the poors aren't more shamed than they already are.

Ronald Reagans welfare queen ldo

Nice that suzzer and rowcoach can come together on BigGov Nanny State cheerleading. "We pay for your doctor visits so we're also gonna micromanage your diet." What's next? Putting time-limiters on their TVs? Exercise commissars?

I have no problem restricting EBT cards in the manner they have been. I don't want to see them being used to buy alcohol and cigarettes. What's wrong with that?

Don't we want govt to encourage good behavior? People need money for food. There it is. It's no more harder to use an EBT card than a debit card.

How does it advance or help society that those requesting food assistance can just go ahead and buy cocaine or a big screen TV or some other unnecessary item in their life?

It's not making cigs or booze more expensive. It's not restricting anyone's freedom to buy booze. And it's a popular assistance program because compared to many others it's cheap, and no one wants to see people starving. And we know where the money is going to. Food.

You just start giving people cash and the program is going to have less popular support and then you're gonna have more poor shaming and less funding for people who need it.

I mean I get that restricting types of
cheese and crab legs and ribs is bad policy. But it's a big jump from that to just cash.

So Big Nanny State Govt is cool when it's just cash redistribution but bad when it's actually directed toward a specific purpose?

Hi Row,

What are your views on the New York big gulp ban?

Keeping people alive isn't the same thing as thought-camps