LogFAQs > #913488878

s0nicfan posted...

The link provides better examples of how it was expanded multiple times over the lifetime of the program. You're correct in that the junk food example specifically is an example of potentially pairing back benefits, but it still makes a compelling use case for how difficult it can be to define the specifics of the program. For example, one study found that something like 60% of SNAP benefits went to soda and junk food. Does the program need more money to cover people if it's having financial troubles, or are people wasting the money they're being given? (No need to answer here, just wanted to touch on how those sorts of things play out)

well yeah I'm not disputing there are tough questions around these things, I just mean that the idea that programs are going to drift aimlessly toward expansion doesn't seem to be born out by past experience.

granted SNAP is an example of a program that's means-tested that I do feel has been pretty expansionary (more expansionary than most universal programs)
---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.