Yes. But if the reality doesn't match the intent, perhaps we should re-assess what we're doing?
Hence why I said it should be reevaluated.
Of the middle? Yes, there was. Starvation?
Yes. Food insecurity? No. But that's missing the point. The average person will avail themselves of a soup kitchen or food bank or shuffle around their spending before resorting to crime. That's the middle that you're excluding.
Nothing was excluded. The average poor person will commit a crime before starving or to get out of "food insecurity". There's only so many peanut butter sandwiches a person can eat.
Sure. But that does not preclude us adjusting our thinking with regard to food stamps and those who are not quite in that condition (or even close to it). That problem is that there appears to be a point of diminishing returns with regards to food stamp spending. The first portion, targeted at the most destitute, certainly helps a lot. But when we start expanding it to more people, the ratio of money spent to food insecurity prevented decreases. There should be a point where simply pointing to the stats on food insecurity should not be a legitimate argument for increased spending on food stamps. Right?
No, because we want to have our citizens be able to produce something for society. If the only thing our citizens can do is eat, that doesn't really help us to advance.
My argument is that no amount of food stamps will "end" food insecurity. If your objective is to ensure that everyone actually receives sufficient nutrition for a healthy life, then more spending on food stamps is not the way to do it. That's the point I'm making.
Your point is wrong. It is often misused to the point that it wont change anything, but it doesn't mean its incapable of making any change.
Then lets stop pretending that's the objective of food stamps then. Let's stop accepting that when a politician points to hunger statistics and then calls for more spending on food stamps, that he's making a valid point. Let's truly accept that what we're buying with food stamps isn't food, but other items.
The point is food. The government is providing food. As a result the citizen doesn't have to make a choice between their rent and food. It's not a difficult concept. When I give money to families, I would pay just enough to pay their rent and a little extra for food. This guaranteed a place for them to live. How they managed the money is on them, but I provided shelter.
In short. Let's be honest with ourselves. If you truly are ok with spending money to allow people to have food *and* other things and not have to make a choice between them, then argue for spending on that grounds. The point is that people don't argue on that grounds because they know that most people will not think that's a good use of public funds. So instead, they lie. They pretend that food stamps are just for buying food, and that it has no other effect. And when people like me point out that food stamps really doesn't buy food, but frees people from those choices, they vehemently deny it. I guess I just don't understand why people feel they need to pursue their social agenda with lies. Why not be honest about what you're really trying to do and then if enough people agree with you, it'll happen? And if they don't, then don't get all butt hurt because most people don't agree. And certainly stop trying to call us heartless and pretend that when we oppose more spending on things like food stamps we're somehow taking food out of people's mouths.
We're not. I happen to think that it's a good thing that people who are poor are forced to make tough choices. It's what gives them incentives to work hard to get out of poverty. If you remove the need to make those decisions, where does it end? What level of luxury do you think we should guarantee for everyone? If you've already decided that simply having food and shelter isn't enough, then what is "enough"? Isn't that really the problem here? I don't have any problem with helping out those in need. But I do believe that people should be required to do the maximum they can to help themselves if they want more than just the bare necessities.
Food stamps isn't about feeding the hungry. Maybe for some of them, yes. But for many, it's about providing people with a better standard of living than they can obtain via their own actions. And while that may sound charitable at first, it's harmful to those who receive it in the long run. You don't do someone favors by enabling their poor choices. Not at all.
You're confusing the line. Food stamps is to cover down on food expenses, period. Rather or not it allows the individual to pay for a car is irrelevant. The hope is that it does, so the people can give back to society.