sturg33
I
My question is whether throwing government at the problem has solved the problem?
And I don't think having shelter is "far down the totem poll" lol
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
My question is whether throwing government at the problem has solved the problem?
And I don't think having shelter is "far down the totem poll" lol
Well food stamps have been around since 1939, so that isn't true. And sure enough, millions of people were starving to death prior to that because of the great depression. But please tell me more how making sure we don't have millions of people starving is somehow not good for our country?
Great example.
sturg33
I
Food stamps were created for farmers from the great depression. Then they were done away with bc they weren't needed.
Brought back in the 70s.
America was at its peak in the 60s I'd say.
Just because leftists are bad at government doesn’t mean everyone will be.
sturg33
I
So is my objection to California's war on homelessness wise, or heartless?
Has throwing money at cancer research ended cancer? Should we stop doing that? Things don't always need an end solution to be beneficial.
People can survive without shelter. It happens all the time. People cannot survive without food.
Incorrect.
I just think government can be done better than how leftists do it. RDS is a great example of that.
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
here's the history
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/history#1939
here's the explosion of the costs
https://www.statista.com/statistics/315032/us-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-total-costs/
A simple law in life is if you subsidize something, you will get more of it. There are no exceptions to this
sturg33
I
Government can be more effective with competent leadership and smaller size.
But the federal government is HUGE. There is no competence and there is no efficiency.
Think about it, if somebody is very talented, do they go work for a federal bureaucracy?
They don't, which leaves a bunch of talentless mediocrity managing $6T every year
I'm not sure why we should strive to live in a country where its citizens aren't starving.
I'm all for changing entitlement structure to be in the form of goods as opposed to actual cash so it won't be waste on useless disrectionary items.
It would be easy to feed the nation if we didn't have 20+m illegals sucking out all of the money.
I'm all for changing entitlement structure to be in the form of goods as opposed to actual cash so it won't be waste on useless disrectionary items.
It would be easy to feed the nation if we didn't have 20+m illegals sucking out all of the money.
Its just my response when you use California as a reason we can't govern effectively. I'll just counter with RDS.
sturg33
I
The problem is you're framing it as if I want people starving. Which of course I don't.
The number of households on SNAP has tripled over last 40 years.
Federally subsidizing hunger is creating more hunger.
Or Globlization taking away good paying jobs and unfettered migration did it.
sturg33
I
I don't know what to tell you. There's more access to food today than ever before in history. and inflation adjusted wages are substantially higher for all incomes since the 80s
But people on SNAP have exploded during that timeframe.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. There are no exceptions to this