Thats definitely not the case Suzzer.

Parents fill out a form specifying income to apply for free or reduced price lunches.

Oh yeah. I remember that now. I wonder if it's different in LA? At the school we volunteered at none of the kids had to pay or show anything. Then they all proceeded to throw away 90% of the food - which was way too much for K and 1st graders. It was painful to watch.

I got reduced breakfast/lunch and it was the best thing ever. 50 cent doubles of breakfast pizza? Hell yea. No one really cared about it but one kid tried to shame me saying our family was poor (we were) but I didn't care because I was getting such a sweet deal on the food that I couldn't comprehend why I should be ashamed.

Republicans trying to start up shaming kids to, somehow, make their parents make more money is the grossest thing ever.

Cash aid > aid in kind, always, no exceptions*

*Maybe some exceptions apply, but don’t worry about it.

I would rather see cash aid myself, but I don't think there is anything morally wrong with other forms of aid, and that includes things like not allowing red bull purchases or whatever. Practically is a different story.

Why would toilet paper not be okay?

There are two options:
1. He is saying toilet paper is currently not buyable with food stamps (no idea if he is right).
2. He is saying if you are poor you should wipe with your hands.

Pretty sure I recall the chicken thing being ludicrously denied, so toilet paper is probably denied currently as well.

With the opioid epidemic sweeping America, I’m not sure we can trust poor white people with cash handouts.

Don't think it is ludicrous to deny the chicken. If you're going to not let people buy a bucket of KFC why is it OK to buy a bucket of fried chicken at a grocery store? Like, what's the legal distinction there?

I don't think you can trust anyone with cash handouts but so what? If you blow your cash handout on heroin then I guess you don't get to eat.

I assume you can't buy KFC either? I assume the distinction is you cannot buy "prepared food" or something along those lines, and the hot chicken probably counts as that.

EDIT: Whoops I misread your post. Yeah, I agree.

Why are you singling out poors for this though? Why not tax the **** out of soda and subsidize healthy food more?

We could do that too.

Any empirical evidence on outcomes?

School lunches and housing vouchers seem like a couple of very good aid in kind programs.

Ay, yo, we should probably give the poors TP.

That’s not what a rotisserie chicken is though

I am as liberal as the next guy, but I will sign on to the no food stamps for Red Bull policy. Red Bull is stale and expensive. Did you know that Monster energy drinks cost less then half as much as the leading brand? And with over 300 flavors there is a taste for every palate. Personally, I am a fan of Monster Gronk - it's the only energy drink with the refreshing taste of an all-pro tight end. So get SNAPing with Monster Energy - it's bontoubulous!

I think there is some stuff out there for aid in poor countries. Not sure what empirical analysis there is for developed countries, in part because we're so reluctant to give money to poor people without strings.

EDIT: But really the point here is that telling people what their most pressing need is is morally wrong. I've linked this Venkatesh Rao essay before and no one liked it, but it's one of my all-time favorites:

Maybe that Bin Laden file dump had a more sinister purpose. Please let this not be true.

something something the CIA are the heros of the Resistance and their innuendo and documents are infallible meow chow, absolutely no downside at all to that mentality

how is red bull any worse than soda or coffee?

I mean, sure if they are just spending all of their money on red bull then I guess that is pretty bad. but food stamps in ohio are like 180 a person, which isnt much, so I doubt they are spending a ton of red bull. and red bull at a not excessive amount is a perfectly reasonable substance to ingest.

Bob, I don't think the best solution is either all one-way or all the other. And I think some of the impetus for people who only want to give money is kind of an anti government fear of letting the government do anything. It seems to always be Libertarians who are into this more than humanists. That's fine, but I think maybe people should be more upfront about that. And maybe conservative more than libertarian at least sometimes. I feel like there's some element that wants to be able to say two people who still fail "look you got your $30,000 Ubi if you need something else tough."

Read the previous thread on this guys. Once you start arguing about the minutiae of what should and shouldn't be allowed on the SNAP program, the conservatives already won.

Rockstar is twice as strong and gives you twice as much...but is owned by right-wingers. Red bull tastes better anyway. Redbull tastes better anyway.

As with most public policy issues around the poors, the question is how many you are willing to burden/harm for each type/instance of potential abuse you prevent. I've heard that Tide is like currency in some poor communities. When in doubt, buy Tide and exchange for drugs.

My philosophical objection to aid in kind is that, assuming the thing you're providing can be bought on the open market, providing it in kind seems to imply: (a) you know for sure that the aid recipient's decision to buy something else with cash aid is wrong, and (b) you can't or won't convince them of that. I think (a) is false a lot more often than people believe, and (b) shows a disturbing lack of faith in the judgment of aid recipients.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite here in that I support Against Malaria Foundation (which provides anti-mosquito bed netting) in addition to GiveDirectly (which provides cash money), but I rationalize it on the basis that my wife likes it and there's probably crazy economies of scale in bed netting. I'm not comfortable with it though.

No prison time for Bergdahl. Pepper thy twitters