In economics, you compare the costs to the benefits. Here's an example of the costs. Since we started helping, we made things much worse in this must read article on the consequences of Food Stamps: the recipients are fatter and sicker than those not on it. Under the "you break it, you bought it" truism, since Government got into the redistribution business ( poverty industrial complex), that means they're responsible for how a system they created doesn't work, or the consequences of it:
Naturally when I wrote this, one of my left-of-center friends imagined I said I was against Food Stamps. (I'm not). I'm against how they're being administrated. There's a difference. And because he (and others) have a habit of reading in things I didn't say, here's more details.
His actual post was:
When local government impose a tax on soda, you decry it as government overreach. But then you use the same thing as justification for getting rid of food stamps, because people buy soda with
In the SodaTax case government actively try to force people to not buy soda. That's bad because it's none of their f'in business (anti-Liberty). And people get around it anyways, with smuggling, or the alternatives might be worse. So by getting involved, they own the consequences of getting involved -- like with cigarettes, getting killed for smuggling cigarettes to get around cigarette taxes (E.g. Eric Garner), is on the state and people that voted for it, because it should have never been against the law in the first place. (This applies legally -- if you run from a cop, and the cop chases you, and HE kills someone, you're held responsible, because it was your action that caused it).
In case 2, forcing me to pay for food stamps, wasn't great from a freedom point of view. But my complaint is that they mismanaged the program, and the net result was they contributed to obesity and sickness. They broke it, they own it.
I'm NOT advocating for government micromanaging their diet. But they could -- because they're not forcing anyone to take the money and rules that go with it. Once you accept other people's money, you accept that they get a say in how you spend it. You don't like it? Pay for you own food. But that wasn't my point. What I was saying is since Government got involved, they own the consequences of getting involved (and how it is spent).
If the people sell the food stamps for drugs/alcohol, Government own that fraud or not fixing the system they created. (And that happens all the time, BTW).
If the people buy junk food, and eat themselves sick, the Government owns that too -- since the government gets responsibility for taking over charity at gunpoint (the Poverty Industrial Complex). With great power, comes great responsibility -- and that responsibility comes with being in the redistribution business.
This does NOT mean I'm against Food Stamps. (Actually, I'm more an advocate of a minimum living wage than Food Stamps and a myriad other programs... but in the short term, I'm fine with some Food Stamp program -- and I've worked food banks and food lines before).
But it does mean that since government chose to be in the food stamp business, and they're failing to do a good job, if they aren't controlling its usage well (and people on it, are sicker and fatter than those who aren't) -- then that's governments fault for not managing it well.
When you look at the cost/benefits of a program, you have to look at ALL the costs and benefits, not just the ones that make liberals feel good about themselves. I was just pointing out this belongs in the costs column.
I'm for safety nets. I'm against them turning into hammocks
If Government actively forced people to do X, then they own the consequences of it. You broke it, you bought it (the consequences).