3 ms·

I said this up thread. Trying to get 20% of GDP (or probably even a bit less then that) out of the economy and into the Federal government hasn't worked histor

I said this up thread. Trying to get 20% of GDP (or probably even a bit less then that) out of the economy and into the Federal government hasn't worked historically. I would encourage you to look at what people really paid when rates were 90%. They didn't pay 90% of the money that was coming through their door. I'll agree that eliminating SNAP is an extreme measure that in the overall picture saves little (unlike modest cuts to SS and Medicare) but consider that 20% of Americans are to some measure dependent on SNAP. There's something wrong with that in my view.

8note 1y ago
> consider that 20% of Americans are to some measure dependent on SNAP. There's something wrong with that in my view. but what interpretation leads to "therefore SNAP is the problem" ? compared to land management or anti-trust, etc as a policy alternative, we could say, ban the exports of alfalfa until the SNAP usage is 5%, and split up cisco into 2000 different food distribution companies. funding for social spending i think is a very strong chesterton's fence, in that the program was introduced to mitigate a problem. getting rid of the mitigation isnt going to get rid of the underlying problem