4 ms·

Like any government program, or anything really, it could be operated well or poorly. We can examine what about the proposal might make it hard to implement pro

Like any government program, or anything really, it could be operated well or poorly. We can examine what about the proposal might make it hard to implement properly, such as the wide variety of dietary restrictions as well as peoples' personal tastes and the fact that food for many people is a central part of their family and culture. Maybe that means such a program should focus more on the raw ingredients than delivering prepared food. I'm not sure because some soup kitchens are bad, we should discount all publicly funded food. For one, it does in fact feed lots of people today via free school lunch programs.

fvdessen 9y ago
The difference is that when a private program is run badly, it goes bankrupt and is closed. When a public program is run badly, it keeps going on forever.
- jbarciauskas 9y ago
  I think this is a bit naive. Badly run corporations find ways to keep themselves alive, it's not like owners and shareholders look at a bad situation and just say "Oh well, we tried" and go home. I think there's a strong case to be made that shareholders should be much more willing to just close up shop and cut their losses when the world changes around them, but that's not how people work.
  - Doji 9y ago
    You are of course right, but it is nevertheless mostly true, and in this case mostly true happens to be sufficient. Evolution works despite the fact that unfit animals don't always die. More importantly, private companies preserve choice (assuming no monopoly). Government provides no choice. My ability to make my own choice is what is most valuable to me.
    - jbarciauskas 9y ago
      I don't mean to be too harsh, but you might value your ability to choose less if you didn't know when your next meal would be.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I was homeless for a long time. Valuing my agency above all else helped me solve my problems and get off the street. When you start eroding rights on the excuse that someone is too poor to have any right to care about such high minded frivolities as rights, you deprive them of hope of resolving their problems.
        jbarciauskas 9y ago
        I don't think anyone here is talking about taking away anyone's rights. The implication above was that government providing free food might lead to less choice as government crowds out business, but not removing someone's "right" to choose. The tradeoff between more choice in food and people starving doesn't seem to be much of a tradeoff. There's plenty of room for a middle ground.
        DoreenMichele 9y ago
        My comments are in regards to your statement here: but you might value your ability to choose less if you didn't know when your next meal would be. I am telling you that when I was so poor that I often had no idea when my next meal might be, I valued my own agency -- my right to choose and to make choices -- tremendously. But it looks to me like, overall, most folks here don't want to hear the opinions of someone who actually ate regularly at soup kitchens for a time. They want to say nice things about being generous people who will feed the hungry, and let's not let actual facts get in the way of our pretty ideas that this is always a good thing with no down side. It is a form of virtue signaling. It is also a form of pity, which is fundamentally disrespectful. You assume you are in a better position than the people of whom you speak to decide for them, while completely dismissing the opinions to the contrary of someone still poor enough that food security is an ongoing question mark. This seems to be par for the course.
    - kybernetikos 9y ago
      I know lots of situations where horribly inefficient companies continue to operate, and I know of situations where poorly run public programs have been stopped, either because of public pressure (because governments are accountable to their voters), or just because the administrators realised that they could do more effective things with the money. It's also possible to find a middle ground; food providers could be paid by the government based on how many people they feed, giving the opportunity for competition between providers.
  - m00g00 9y ago
    Even if a failing corporation manages to keep themselves afloat, you don't have to pay for its services, and can shop somewhere else. Not so with government run taxpayer funded services. You can shop somewhere else of course, but you still have to pay for the crappy service you don't want or use. Regardless, it is far easier and more likely for a private corporation to outright fail (as in be shutdown) than anything involving government.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
we should (not) discount all publicly funded food. I am all for food stamps. I wish that were made more readily available. Due to the lengthy and complex application forms, it is hard to apply to the program. I have six years of college and only managed to fill it out successfully because an agency helped me. I lost my food stamps due to a bureaucratic snafu and my attempts to reapply on my own were not successful having to do with barriers for me in the application process. The EBT card itself is done very well. I would be completely fine with people suggesting we make this program easier to access and also increase the funding by about 50 percent. I don't see any reason why we need to dream up some imaginary American Diner for feeding people instead of making some modest improvements to an already existing program with a proven track record that has already worked out a lot of the bugs. (When I was first on food stamps, using the EBT card was not as smooth as later. I know from firsthand experience they have worked out some of the bugs to make it work more smoothly than it used to.)

fvdessen 9y ago

The difference is that when a private program is run badly, it goes bankrupt and is closed. When a public program is run badly, it keeps going on forever.

jbarciauskas 9y ago
I think this is a bit naive. Badly run corporations find ways to keep themselves alive, it's not like owners and shareholders look at a bad situation and just say "Oh well, we tried" and go home. I think there's a strong case to be made that shareholders should be much more willing to just close up shop and cut their losses when the world changes around them, but that's not how people work.
- Doji 9y ago
  You are of course right, but it is nevertheless mostly true, and in this case mostly true happens to be sufficient. Evolution works despite the fact that unfit animals don't always die. More importantly, private companies preserve choice (assuming no monopoly). Government provides no choice. My ability to make my own choice is what is most valuable to me.
  - jbarciauskas 9y ago
    I don't mean to be too harsh, but you might value your ability to choose less if you didn't know when your next meal would be.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      I was homeless for a long time. Valuing my agency above all else helped me solve my problems and get off the street. When you start eroding rights on the excuse that someone is too poor to have any right to care about such high minded frivolities as rights, you deprive them of hope of resolving their problems.
      - jbarciauskas 9y ago
        I don't think anyone here is talking about taking away anyone's rights. The implication above was that government providing free food might lead to less choice as government crowds out business, but not removing someone's "right" to choose. The tradeoff between more choice in food and people starving doesn't seem to be much of a tradeoff. There's plenty of room for a middle ground.
        DoreenMichele 9y ago
        My comments are in regards to your statement here: but you might value your ability to choose less if you didn't know when your next meal would be. I am telling you that when I was so poor that I often had no idea when my next meal might be, I valued my own agency -- my right to choose and to make choices -- tremendously. But it looks to me like, overall, most folks here don't want to hear the opinions of someone who actually ate regularly at soup kitchens for a time. They want to say nice things about being generous people who will feed the hungry, and let's not let actual facts get in the way of our pretty ideas that this is always a good thing with no down side. It is a form of virtue signaling. It is also a form of pity, which is fundamentally disrespectful. You assume you are in a better position than the people of whom you speak to decide for them, while completely dismissing the opinions to the contrary of someone still poor enough that food security is an ongoing question mark. This seems to be par for the course.
  - kybernetikos 9y ago
    I know lots of situations where horribly inefficient companies continue to operate, and I know of situations where poorly run public programs have been stopped, either because of public pressure (because governments are accountable to their voters), or just because the administrators realised that they could do more effective things with the money. It's also possible to find a middle ground; food providers could be paid by the government based on how many people they feed, giving the opportunity for competition between providers.
- m00g00 9y ago
  Even if a failing corporation manages to keep themselves afloat, you don't have to pay for its services, and can shop somewhere else. Not so with government run taxpayer funded services. You can shop somewhere else of course, but you still have to pay for the crappy service you don't want or use. Regardless, it is far easier and more likely for a private corporation to outright fail (as in be shutdown) than anything involving government.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

we should (not) discount all publicly funded food. I am all for food stamps. I wish that were made more readily available. Due to the lengthy and complex application forms, it is hard to apply to the program. I have six years of college and only managed to fill it out successfully because an agency helped me. I lost my food stamps due to a bureaucratic snafu and my attempts to reapply on my own were not successful having to do with barriers for me in the application process. The EBT card itself is done very well. I would be completely fine with people suggesting we make this program easier to access and also increase the funding by about 50 percent. I don't see any reason why we need to dream up some imaginary American Diner for feeding people instead of making some modest improvements to an already existing program with a proven track record that has already worked out a lot of the bugs. (When I was first on food stamps, using the EBT card was not as smooth as later. I know from firsthand experience they have worked out some of the bugs to make it work more smoothly than it used to.)