General

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

John James — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:18:23 GMT

There's a new one:

USDA Ad Says Food Stamps Will Help You Look and Feel Good

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

vive la insurrection — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:10:47 GMT

This is incorrect. If someone spends $100 a week on groceries without food stamps, and then you give them an additional $100 per week in food stamps, all this does is free up the initial $100 for use any way they wish. Sure, they might buy $200 in groceries a week, but its just as plausible that they spend that initial $100 on DVD's or lottery tickets or school supplies.

Bingo. There is no way to tell what is going into the system, all we can say there is now $100 accounted for in food spending via tax. Nothing more can be said

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Aristippus — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:43:17 GMT

Come on, rising obesity is probably the only way for Social Security to avoid inevitable bankruptcy. What's the big deal?

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Clayton — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:32:29 GMT

Food stamps....don't cause obesity

See my response to Consumariat above. The proposition "If you use foodstamps, you will become obese" is false but that does not imply that foodstamps don't cause obesity in the population.

Clayton -

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

saveyourself1 — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:20:55 GMT

Food stamps, mcdonalds, ice cream...etc....don't cause obesity; just like marijuana doesnt cause pot addicts etc....it takes an addictive personality to become addicted to something, such as drugs, food, sex, porn...etc. The presence of a gun, doesn't make me a murderer.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Clayton — Thu, 31 May 2012 21:29:32 GMT

+1 KC Farmer!

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

K.C. Farmer — Thu, 31 May 2012 19:51:07 GMT

Food Stamps (now in the form of a credit card to reduce the stigma of the handout) tend to be used to buy a lot of junk food that can sit on a shelf indefinitely as opposed to fresh meats and vegetables. I've seen this a lot. Folks will buy what's cheap even if there's a hand out. Rather than get better quality food, they'll just get more of it.

By eating right, are you suggesting the Government's way of 'eating right' which consists of eating a boat load of subsidized corn and soy products, including that wonderful and inexpensive high fructose corn syrup?

Still comes down to individual choice. Those who make bad decisions without food stamps tend to make bad decisions with food stamps.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Consumariat — Thu, 31 May 2012 18:07:39 GMT

I have to say, I assumed triknighted was making a racial 'joke' as well. It seemed fairly clear, in fact.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Autolykos — Thu, 31 May 2012 18:01:48 GMT

If by "neurotic" you mean that I stand up for what I believe in and what I think is right, and will not back down for anyone, then, in the words of Richard Dawkins, I heartily accept the rebuke. The same goes if you instead mean that I'm ruining the fun you're trying to have by trying to troll the forum.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

triknighted — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:49:11 GMT

Autolykos:

triknighted:
First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created:

triknighted:

This is more for entertainment than discussion.

What kind of "entertainment" were/are you looking for, exactly?

triknighted:
Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it.

I see no reason thus far to watch my tone.

triknighted:
Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes.

I'm not amused, and I've reported your post for this. No matter how much you might say it's intended for "entertainment purposes", I consider it to be unwarranted and contrary to the intent of the forum.

triknighted:
Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes?

I'd say you did so right here.

triknighted:
I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort.

I don't believe you. Neither does he, I imagine.

triknighted:
Relax.

No.

I agree with a few of the others on Mises.org. You're neurotic. Your signature about JJ says it all, frankly.

Peace.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Autolykos — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:39:58 GMT

triknighted:
First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created:

triknighted:

This is more for entertainment than discussion.

What kind of "entertainment" were/are you looking for, exactly?

triknighted:
Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it.

I see no reason thus far to watch my tone.

triknighted:
Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes.

I'm not amused, and I've reported your post for this. No matter how much you might say it's intended for "entertainment purposes", I consider it to be unwarranted and contrary to the intent of the forum.

triknighted:
Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes?

I'd say you did so right here.

triknighted:
I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort.

I don't believe you. Neither does he, I imagine.

triknighted:
Relax.

No.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

triknighted — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:29:47 GMT

Autolykos:

triknighted:
That is exactly what trolls usually say. Being that I created this thread, how about you heed your own request and "go somewhere else."

Trolls certainly can and sometimes do create threads. As long as they haven't been banned, I see nothing stopping them from doing that.

triknighted:
Back to the topic at hand . . . unless you insist on further derailing the discussion, of course. . . .

I concur with GotLucky. You intentionally provoked an off-topic response by invoking racial stereotypes. Technically that goes against the rules of this forum, so any one of us would be within our rights to report it as abusive. Furthermore, invoking racial stereotypes is itself off-topic, so congratulations for derailing your own thread.

First off, let me quote myself from the beginning of this thread that I created:

triknighted:

This is more for entertainment than discussion.

Hopefully that identifies the proper context of this thread. Next . . . you might want to watch your tone, as you might put it. Next, the way you're defending gotlucky, it's almost as if you're the one he "gotlucky" with. Let me seriously specify, in case the context hasn't been sufficiently relayed: the latter comment was also intended for entertainment purposes.

Also, when did I invoke racial stereotypes? I merely pointed out that gotlucky automatically assumed I was. Seems to be a bit premature on his part. If you're upset, it must be at the fact that I pointed out that he was presumptuous in assuming racist overtones with food. As I pointed out, I meant nothing of the sort.

Relax. This thread was mainly intended for entertainment. I'll resume the serious discourse in the serious discussion threads.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

Autolykos — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:16:47 GMT

triknighted:
That is exactly what trolls usually say. Being that I created this thread, how about you heed your own request and "go somewhere else."

Trolls certainly can and sometimes do create threads. As long as they haven't been banned, I see nothing stopping them from doing that.

triknighted:
Back to the topic at hand . . . unless you insist on further derailing the discussion, of course. . . .

I concur with GotLucky. You intentionally provoked an off-topic response by invoking racial stereotypes. Technically that goes against the rules of this forum, so any one of us would be within our rights to report it as abusive. Furthermore, invoking racial stereotypes is itself off-topic, so congratulations for derailing your own thread.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

mikachusetts — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:21:46 GMT

Clayton:
But you're missing the point that the government has just corralled $1B that previously could have been redeemed for anything and decreed that it can only be redeemed for groceries. In order to flow back into the regular state of being redeemable for anything, those stamps must first go through the hands of a grocer.

Okay. Lets say the City of Baltimore takes in $1B in tax revenue and hands this out directly in the form of food stamps. All tax payers are now collectively poorer by $1B, and all food stamp recipients are now collectively richer (in the form of food alone) by $1B.

If we look only at the tax payer side, we see $1B going (eventually) to the grocers, in addition to the normal amount that taxpayers spend on food. When you look at the food stamp recipients side, you $1B going to the grocers (in the form of food stamps) instead of $1B in cash, not in addition. The food stamp recipients are $1B richer in cash because they shifted that cash away from groceries and towards whatever else they want. As a whole, its a total wash. Its no different than directly transfering $1B in cash from one side to the other.

Now, like I've said, this is assuming that the food stamps is equal to or less than the amount they would have spent on groceries otherwise. If its more than that, then yes, demand for food has increased. But that's an empirical point that you need to make, not a praxeological one.

Go back and think about it again - the government waves a wand and half the dollars in your bank account have been converted to food stamps. Now what do you do? Doesn't matter whether you buy groceries or barter them away for something else, more groceries will get bought than when we all had dollars that could be exchanged for anything.

But this isn't whats going on. Sure, if everyone was suddenly forced to spend half of their entire bank account on food, that would most definitely increase demand for food -- no one would deny that.

Your whole argument rests on the assumption that more money is being handed out in the form of food stamps than what would have been previously spent on food. You have to prove this though. If we aren't going to look over the actual data on this, I think my assumption is much more realistic -- that the amount handed out in food stamps (as a whole) is less than or equal to what would have been spent on food otherwise. The reason why, is becuase most people are not starving to death and they spend money on food before most other goods.

Re: Foodstamps Help You Eat Right. . . .

gotlucky — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:52:08 GMT

Cute, you derailed it with your racism. But sure, you are right. I will stop derailing by addressing your bigotry. The ball is in your court.