3 ms·
The shortest answer is that it’s far cheaper to feed two families than to incarcerate one adult. The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare p
by hluska 6y ago
The shortest answer is that it’s far cheaper to feed two families than to incarcerate one adult.
The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare programs to help people out of poverty. Rather, a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence.
Edit - Also, fuck no, it’s not a teach a man to fish argument. We’re talking about child poverty.
- Chris2048 6y agoSure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). But that's a different plan from "the government" in general. > a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence. You are describing "safety-net" welfare, but how do you ensure any form of welfare remains a safety-net, and doesn't become a norm? welfare for those not in poverty is much more likely to work this way. If you specifically set out to tackle poverty, the most important thing are educational programs, and limited welfare programs. I'm not against welfare in any case, but I see it as a double-edged sword that is too often seen as a "throw money at the problem" solution. > Also, fuck no It's a metaphor, the difference between men and children aren't relevant. The abstract meaning is dependence vs self-dependence. Giving a child food solves their food, but not their poverty. The way it was originally stated: what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly I could just as well say "what if instead of spending so much time wondering why a man can't fish, we spent that money and effort on making sure that man is fed properly", and the answer is the same: because then they will be dependant on us (the government) to provide food. This doesn't mean we shouldn't provide food, but that both are required, since the original post post specifically proposed providing food should displace education i.e. we spend money elsewhere. In fact, what we spend on food is a problem in itself, but unrelated to what we spend on education, we should not cannibalise one in favour of the other as if they are competing solutions - they are both solutions to the same problem, but do not compete because they have different scope: one long term (poverty) the other short (hunger).
- JetSpiegel 6y ago> Sure, but only short-term. And if you only care short-term, because you are a politician with a short term, then fine (for you). Feeding children so that they can be stable adults is one of the most long-term policies I can think of.
- Chris2048 6y agoI think I outlined this pretty well in the previous post. Children can be fed by their parents, or by the government. long-term, it is better that it be the former, short-term it might need to be the latter. It's not sustainable or desirable to have multiple generations dependant on the government. If children become "stable" adults, but their children still require the government to feed them then nothing has been solved. The adults need to be both "stable" and educated to escape government dependence.