5 ms·
"Food credits" are an expensive and paternalistic Big Government approach to the problem. Is the idea that poor people don't know they need to buy food? Or that
by eli 3y ago
"Food credits" are an expensive and paternalistic Big Government approach to the problem. Is the idea that poor people don't know they need to buy food? Or that the government knows what you should be eating better than you do? SNAP spends something like $0.15 of every dollar on administrative and has complicated rules.
- paulpauper 3y agobetter and cheaper than the $750 going to drugs or alcohol? >Big Government Food credits or $750, you realize it's still coming from taxpayers either way? If someone is homeless it means that they already failed and need help. There is no way it cannot be paternalistic. The question is what is the best solution.
- ajmurmann 3y agoSometimes people have bad luck and typically people have a better understanding of what would help them the most than someone in a government office who has never met them before.
- eli 3y ago> better and cheaper than the $750 going to drugs or alcohol? It didn't. That was one of the conclusions of the study being discussed. At the risk of stating the obvious: someone who's homeless may need medical treatment or, you know, a home more than they need food at that moment. > Food credits or $750, you realize it's still coming from taxpayers either way? The method that costs much less to administer... costs much less to administer. > If someone is homeless it means that they already failed and need help. That's obviously not true. And also isn't how we view the taxpayer-funded fire department coming to put out a house fire.