25 Mar 13
Originally posted by moon1969You are high. No it wouldn't. It would be a lot cheaper to have the government simply buy the food and have people come pick it up.
That would be so much more expensive and bureaucratic, though in general such as with food warehouses I think it would ok to give food in addition ot monetary help.
The original post just comes idiotic and naive, however. Sorry.
Why do libs think that government supplied food is more expensive, but government supplied healthcare is less expensive. Pathetic.
25 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarI don't think it matters what is given away. If it becomes perceived as an entitlement, it is bound to attract people on the border of the standard to it, and to forgo productive work. Whatever the standard of poverty is, if a person can get within a couple of thousand dollars of it via welfare, it doesn't seem to require high level math to determine that all that work is just for the difference between welfare and work. Many find that they can work under that table, collect welfare, and be way ahead of the game.
You are high. No it wouldn't. It would be a lot cheaper to have the government simply buy the food and have people come pick it up.
Why do libs think that government supplied food is more expensive, but government supplied healthcare is less expensive. Pathetic.
It is remarkable that the people to first propose negative income taxes were Milton Friedman and Henry Hazlett. Both saw their mistake and repudiated the idea. The problem with defining people as poor is that they seldom stay poor, and sometimes those defined as poor by income, are not poor as determined by assets.
Your point on health care vs. food is right on, and food is arguably more vital to survival than health care. You can get all the free surgery and medicine in the world, and still starve to death.
Government supplied food is often so bad as to remain unused even by people in very poor circumstances. I've seen porches full of government canned goods, cereal and cheese that people said they wouldn't feed to their dog.
The trick is to give the help required, without enabling sloth, or rewarding gaming the system.
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSomeone who needs their labor. Trouble is, at the very bottom of the labor market there is all kinds of monkeying around with the market Which hinders the hiring of marginally productive workers who may well be a lot more productive later on.
Who do you think is reponsible for giving the poor jobs?
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignI wonder if people who are literally starving to death would turn their noses up to the government's food? If the government food is so bad, then perhaps it would give people a reason to get a job, but keep them alive and kicking until they do.
Government supplied food is often so bad as to remain unused even by people in very poor circumstances. I've seen porches full of government canned goods, cereal and cheese that people said they wouldn't feed to their dog.
The trick is to give the help required, without enabling sloth, or rewarding gaming the system.
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by EladarAssuming that a significant number of those poor enough to qualify for food stamps sell them for alcohol, drugs and sex says everything about YOU and nothing about the vast numbers who need this assistance. Shame on you.
Perhaps some, others sell it for other things. Those other things include things like alcohol, drugs and sex.
Back in the 1960's then then mayor of Newberg, NY claimed that the vast number of those recieving assitance in his impoverished city were using the help to buy drugs, etc. A huge and expensive investigation was launched. They found something like two people who might have been abusing the system.
If you want to live in a country with little government and no social services, move to Somalia.
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by PhrannyThe fact that you are unwilling to admit that people abuse the system as I've described speaks volumes about you. As long as people like you are in charge, people will be enabled to continue milking the government for all the government is willing to give.
Assuming that a significant number of those poor enough to qualify for food stamps sell them for alcohol, drugs and sex says everything about YOU and nothing about the vast numbers who need this assistance. Shame on you.
Back in the 1960's then then mayor of Newberg, NY claimed that the vast number of those recieving assitance in his impoverished city we ...[text shortened]... f you want to live in a country with little government and no social services, move to Somalia.
26 Mar 13
Originally posted by PhrannyGreat idea. I'm all for doing away with all welfare and quit using the power of the government to transfer wealth to anyone.
Here's a thought. Let's stop giving handouts to those who have quite a bit of wealth and are not going hungry and homeless: big agriculture, oil companies, etc.