Cleverbeans wrote:The only correct solution is to address the gross income inequality and take from the rich to give to the poor.
Which is exactly what this program is doing. It's taking money in the form of taxes from people who earn enough to pay taxes, and using it to buy food for people who don't earn enough to pay taxes.
Raise taxes and minimum wage.
Taxes are high enough. No, really... The revenue from taxes in the US is higher than it's ever been even despite
the slow economy. We do not have a revenue problem; and we've never had a revenue problem in recent memory. We have a spending problem. Specifically, the problem is that government is horribly wasteful and terribly inefficient at spending money in ways that actually help people directly.
The minimum wage is a political football. It's an issue used to divide people, but not much more. Approximately 4% of workers make minimum wage, and the vast majority of them are not primary wage earners; they're mostly kids or older adults looking for supplemental income. The biggest effect of raising minimum wage is that it tends to suppress hiring for entry level positions.
Give the poor cash instead to reduce the overhead of micromanaging every spoonful of food that some political shill wants to subsidize this election cycle.
The point that you seem to be missing is that, in most cases, these guidelines are originating from the people who actually run these programs. Not elected politicians, but social workers and others who are actually distributing the money and so forth. They are the ones who have noticed that, in many cases, cash gets spent on cigarettes, junk food, or gets used to pay off other debts. And given that the point of these programs is to provide nutritious foods, particularly where children or pregnant mothers are involved, they tend to fall on the side of regulating.
The dirty - and highly politically incorrect - little secret is that a lot of people make really, really bad decisions with money when it comes to buying food, paying bills, and so forth; and that there is a pretty tight correlation between that lack of good decision making and being poor in the first place.
I'm not particularly a fan of government in general, and especially not of government having influence on people's daily lives. However, in the case of a program intended to provide nutritious food
, I don't see anything wrong with the program being limited to nutritious food.
Socialize childcare so having children isn't a significant barrier to employment.
Yes... let's eliminate one form of redistribution by replacing it with a much larger and more expensive form of redistribution. This line of thinking is part of why we have a spending problem.
Make home economics a mandatory course in school.
Oh, definitely. I actually agree with you 100% on that one. And not just home economics, but economics in general. Lessons could include how taxing and spending actually work; and how artificially raising the cost of a commodity (like, say, labor) above what it is worth on the market leads to a decrease in demand for that commodity.
It's going to be very interesting to see people's reaction when, soon after being forced to pay people $15/hr to flip burgers and drop fries, companies like McDonald's start putting in machines to do it. Mark my words, in just a few years you're going to see fast food places with zero or close to zero actual employment in a lot of places - especially lower income areas - as a direct result of the issue being used as a political football. I wonder how many folks will actually see the irony?
I mean really there are so many better ways to solve this problem than trying to force people to eat a certain way because they're poor.
Nobody is forcing anyone to eat any certain way. The government is offering to assist them in buying nutritious food; but stipulating that said assistance actually be
for nutritious food.