Current Events > should government guarantee everyone has food?

(+) Yeah! (+)

so no one will go hungry anymore

free food for everyone!

Provide = Yes

Guarantee = No
---

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.
---

They should guarantee access at least, which is part of why public assistance exists. People shouldn't have to starve to death in a first world country
---

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

I think islam should provide food for everyone.
---

They should guarantee access to affordable food.
Basically what we do now with farm subsidies that help keep food prices stable.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

Most denominations do not send their money to the Vatican
---

eston posted...

They should guarantee access at least, which is part of why public assistance exists. People shouldn't have to starve to death in a first world country

They don't have to. Some people would rather buy beer than food. I question the value of feeding them and enabling their irresponsibility.

Often when people say "we don't have money for food" etc. They had plenty of money for drugs and alcohol and a cell phone. I've seen that many times.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

They should guarantee access to affordable food.
Basically what we do now with farm subsidies that help keep food prices stable.

farm subsidies have been shown to be responsible for the degradation of america's soil. our soil's quality has degraded significantly in the last few decades. this is because farm subsidies disincentivize proper crop rotations and soil management.

If by government, you mean the taxpayers whose money is taken by the government to fund such things, then no. No.

It's LaQuanda's responsibility to feed her 15 kids, by 13 fathers. Not mine. Not yours.
---

BillWardsPants posted...

It's LaQuanda's responsibility to feed her 15 kids, by 13 fathers. Not mine. Not yours.

~ but I'm not a racist!
---

BillWardsPants posted...

If by government, you mean the taxpayers whose money is taken by the government to fund such things, then no. No.

It's LaQuanda's responsibility to feed her 15 kids, by 13 fathers. Not mine. Not yours.

What about me? My father fell ill with cancer and now he has a hernia and can no longer work. He gets food stamps. While I pay all the bills. What's wrong with people getting help?
---

I'd love if they could work something out to give people the wasted food that our country produces. The amount of produce that is simply thrown away because it doesn't look pretty is astounding.
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

eston posted...

They should guarantee access at least, which is part of why public assistance exists. People shouldn't have to starve to death in a first world country

They don't have to. Some people would rather buy beer than food. I question the value of feeding them and enabling their irresponsibility.

Often when people say "we don't have money for food" etc. They had plenty of money for drugs and alcohol and a cell phone. I've seen that many times.

So have I. Which is why I'd have to say no. It shouldn't be up to people who are actually worth a damn to provide for people who aren't
---

BillWardsPants posted...

If by government, you mean the taxpayers whose money is taken by the government to fund such things, then no. No.

It's LaQuanda's responsibility to feed her 15 kids, by 13 fathers. Not mine. Not yours.

#Butimnotracist
---

considering i think it should also provide healthcare, absolutely--doing so ensures that the cost of providing that healthcare is minimized.
---

Darkman124 posted...

considering i think it should also provide healthcare, absolutely--doing so ensures that the cost of providing that healthcare is minimized.

minimized how? in the form of higher tax rates for everyone? that's hardly minimizing the costs of anything. it's just shifting them around.

how much food should the government provide everyone with? should the government also guarantee housing and transportation for everyone? what about entertainment?

A government should always work in the best interests of its populace.

These:
Healthcare, education, sanitation, food and water.
Are the main criteria imo.
---

Darkman124 posted...

considering i think it should also provide healthcare, absolutely--doing so ensures that the cost of providing that healthcare is minimized.

I'm not sure there is good evidence that SNAP benefits improve health outcomes or reduce health expenditures. At least, I do not know of any, and I have looked since I worked in program development for state's SNAP workfare program. The issue, I think, being the subsidization of the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages, which sort of crowds out the positive impacts of general access to food -- iirc

There is much better evidence that cash transfers (e.g., EITC, CTC) do this, though.

edit -- there's also pretty good evidence for young kids benefitting from SNAP and WIC
---

We have more than enough food to feed every person in America, not to mention every person in the world. Hell yes.
---

Garioshi posted...

We have more than enough food to feed every person in America, not to mention every person in the world. Hell yes.

we don't actually have enough food to do that. the current grain surplus might give an illusion of that, but it's not sustainable because we are destroying our soil. we've been able to have high yield produce but it's not going to be that way forever.

Yeah, but I do think it's a bit bogus that you can buy shit like Rockstar with EBT.
---

Rome gave bread to every citizen
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not sure there is good evidence that SNAP benefits improve health outcomes or reduce health expenditures.

i think there is stronger evidence that free school lunch programs do

it's a question of what food is being covered. is the food healthy, or is it just cheap?

i agree with you that sugar-sweetened beverages being covered is a problem, and i'd prefer that they not be.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

minimized how?

reduced obesity-related costs

i'd sooner pay to feed someone healthy than let them buy cheap shit exclusively on their own dime and then pay for their medical expenses related to obesity
---

Darkman124 posted...

i think there is stronger evidence that free school lunch programs do

it's a question of what food is being covered. is the food healthy, or is it just cheap?

it was definitely just cheap processed garbage when i was a kid

Darkman124 posted...

reduced obesity-related costs

i'd sooner pay to feed someone healthy than let them buy cheap s*** exclusively on their own dime and then pay for their medical expenses related to obesity

agreed

but how do you achieve that in a sustainable and efficient way?

Darkman124 posted...

i think there is stronger evidence that free school lunch programs do

it's a question of what food is being covered. is the food healthy, or is it just cheap?

yeah, and I tried to clarify with my edit that the general evidence for food support specifically for kids in any form is pretty strong. and of course there are changes we could implement to SNAP to make it more effective in that regard anyway (at least that is my opinion)
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

it was definitely just cheap processed garbage when i was a kid

as i understand it there is some variability in school lunch quality, but it's almost always better than none provided because what they eat instead is much worse when you do that.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

agreed

but how do you achieve that in a sustainable and efficient way?

would probably require a lot of longitudinal studies, but i think some upfront expense in attempting things that are not maximally efficient would have a good long-term return on investment

as a country we're pretty committed to the gov paying for at least some of our healthcare. right now half of our employer-provided healthcare is subsidized by tax breaks. so it is already relevant.

Balrog0 posted...

yeah, and I tried to clarify with my edit that the general evidence for food support specifically for kids in any form is pretty strong. and of course there are changes we could implement to SNAP to make it more effective in that regard anyway (at least that is my opinion)

i think you and i mostly agree on this.
---

and what about people who are being irresponsible with their money and time as opposed to just less fortunate? should they be guaranteed food too?

if i blow my food budget on hookers, should a government worker still bring three square meals a day?

yeah man I wasn't trying to argue

I was sharing because I was actually surprised to find the evidence wasn't stronger, I expected to see across the board reductions in public spending on health or improved health outcomes, but most studies focus on kids or the elderly
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

and what about people who are being irresponsible with their money and time as opposed to just less fortunate? should they be guaranteed food too?

if i blow my food budget on hookers, should a government worker still bring three square meals a day?

yeah i think so

because not doing so means you'll eat garbage and get fat

and then we'll pay many times more keeping you alive

we already do under the tax-subsidized employer system anyway so it'd probably be an improvement even to our existing system's efficiency

my workplace tries it in the other direction and gives us breaks on our health insurance if we demonstrate basic fitness standards. they make their books public and that program saves them money.
---

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

and what about people who are being irresponsible with their money and time as opposed to just less fortunate? should they be guaranteed food too?

if i blow my food budget on hookers, should a government worker still bring three square meals a day?

yeah i think so

because not doing so means you'll eat garbage and get fat

and then we'll pay many times more keeping you alive

we already do under the tax-subsidized employer system anyway so it'd probably be an improvement even to our existing system's efficiency

my workplace tries it in the other direction and gives us breaks on our health insurance if we demonstrate basic fitness standards. they make their books public and that program saves them money.

what about depression? depression costs us money too, and it can lead to obesity. should the government provide entertainment too? so that ppl arent depressed?

can we get government-sponsored hookers?

Darkman124 posted...

my workplace tries it in the other direction and gives us breaks on our health insurance if we demonstrate basic fitness standards. they make their books public and that program saves them money.

a very common way businesses are trying to save money these days

some states are attempting to emulate this sort of thing with public insurance programs, too, I believe. maybe they already have

edit:
FLUFFYGERM posted...

should the government provide entertainment too? so that ppl arent depressed?

can we get government-sponsored hookers?

please don't insult mental illness like this
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

what about depression? depression costs us money too, and it can lead to obesity. should the government provide entertainment too? so that ppl arent depressed?

not how depression works

should antidepressants be covered by single payer healthcare, though? the answer is definitely yes, considering their low cost

FLUFFYGERM posted...

can we get government-sponsored hookers?

lack of sex does not result in medical conditions that increase burden on a publicly subsidized/funded healthcare system.

[insert joke about how you never get laid here]

Balrog0 posted...

a very common way businesses are trying to save money these days

some states are attempting to emulate this sort of thing with public insurance programs, too, I believe. maybe they already have

yeah, i think it will yield good results

well-advertised incentives are quite powerful, and i could see a food program operating as an incentive-based system
---

Godnorgosh posted...

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

Churches have used literal spikes to keep homeless people away.

That's why he said that churches "should" do it.

That isn't the government's purpose, no.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

That isn't the government's purpose, no.

should it be? why is it the government's responsibility to save the day during disaster scenarios? if they can do it then, why can't they do it all the time?

Godnorgosh posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

Churches have used literal spikes to keep homeless people away.

That's why he said that churches "should" do it.

Why should an institution that has tried to drive homeless people away from its premises be depended on to help them?

fantastic question!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html

seems some governments can't be depended on

Godnorgosh posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

Churches have used literal spikes to keep homeless people away.

That's why he said that churches "should" do it.

Why should an institution that has tried to drive homeless people away from its premises be depended on to help them?

fantastic question!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html

seems some governments can't be depended on

So that somehow makes churches Plan B?

That certainly doesn't make governments Plan A.

Did I claim we should depend on churches?

eston posted...

--kresnik-- posted...

Honestly, no. The church should do that, but every dollar they make goes straight to the Vatican.

Most denominations do not send their money to the Vatican

Yeah. We have lots of churches around here that run food pantries and give out tons of food.
---

http://www.freshebt.com/
---