Again, I’m not actually arguing this point. But you don’t smash a window because the lock breaks so that you can replace the whole thing. You fix the part that’s broken. Claiming a policy that would affect thousands of families and drive the entire government toward having to train thousands of new employees at once is fine because the jobs shouldn’t exist in the first place is a short-sighted view.
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
Again, I’m not actually arguing this point. But you don’t smash a window because the lock breaks so that you can replace the whole thing. You fix the part that’s broken. Claiming a policy that would affect thousands of families and drive the entire government toward having to train thousands of new employees at once is fine because the jobs shouldn’t exist in the first place is a short-sighted view.
Yes, that limit simply exists somewhere above letting people die of hunger.
sturg33
I
That's very virtuous.
I don't know the data on hunger. But I will commit to looking into it.
But as a parallel, I also am in favor of eliminating the department of education.
You and Carp probably translate this as sturg33 wants kids to be stupid
But sturg33 would point out that *every* metric we measure of educational standards has gotten worse since it's creation, and we are spending more per student today than we ever have.
I do not want kids to be stupid. I want the opposite, actually. Do you?
Like Sturg, we are literally talking about feeding the hungry. If you want to come to me with viable alternatives to some of the inefficient ways in which we attempt that today, I’m all ears. I don’t think government must be ineffective, but it very often is. So let’s talk solutions that aren’t “well do we really want to take tax money to feed the hungry?”
I think we fundamentally disagree on two key points:
1) You tend to present everything to do with the federal government as a dichotomy: either we continue to see poor results from the program or we eliminate it. You leave no room for nuance and assume the appropriate response is to throw it out.
2) You either assume more altruism in the world than I do, or are willing to let people suffer if the public sector cannot or will not replace governmental aid. I think the reason you need the government in some of these spheres isn’t because they’re the best at it, but because it happens even if it doesn’t break even. I think we can and should run budget deficits to feed the hungry if we must. Audit everything, reduce the waste and red tape where you can, but you don’t just let people not eat.
sturg33
I
1. The federal government makes everything worse, every time. There are no exceptions to this, outside of the military
2. There have been tons of research done here that displays that private will fill the void for charity when needed. When government takes over, private money reduces. In these examples, outcomes are worse because the federal government makes everything worse, every time.
A great example of this is medical costs before and after the creation of medicaid and Medicare
For a permanent minority in government therefore never getting anything you want?
Sturg is mentally ill right now. His ideology is now “trash trump” and nothing else.
They provide over 40 million meals.... Not the same as feeding 40 million people food for 365 days of the year.
Who is going to fund these charities? In total, US charities receive around 60 billion annually in donations. But we spend around 120 billion to fund SNAP alone? How the **** are you expecting charities to provide these benefits, when all charitable donations together don't even add up to half the funding for SNAP? I mean Jesus dude, do you realize 1 in 8 households have issues putting food on the table consistently in our CURRENT system?
You clearly can't understand the gargantuan task of funding a program like this on a national level, staffing a program like this on a national level, and having a proper system in place for the ease of access to these sort of charitable benefits. Charities not only CAN'T provide this, but they shouldn't be called upon to do this.
Last edited:
Because it removes certain checks and balances that ensure we don't have a dictator. The founding fathers precisely designed the role of the President this way. We want the POTUS (and by extension, the Federal government) the least involved in our lives as possible.
Ending the department of education without providing some sort governmentally funded replacement is indeed being ok with millions of kids being stupid. Glad you are catching on.
The POTUS needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible. Limiting his powers to affect that is something that anyone truly for small government would agree with.
Right now the past few decades it’s been the administrative state that has had an unduly impact on our lives. The president is elected by the people and any impact from the executive branch should flow from the president.