3 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
RunningLogic's avatar

Non profits? Churches as mentioned above? A combination of different approaches? Don’t we pay politicians and policy makers big money to come up with these kinds of solutions? Why is it up to me to do that? All I know is, since the government declared a so-called “war on poverty” things have only gotten worse even though we spend more money than ever.

Let me turn the question around to you—why do *you* believe government is the best way to help people? From what I have seen in my life, it’s usually the least effective means of solving any problem.

I also challenge how many children are actually “hungry.” How is that even determined? Do they ask kids? What is the basis for deciding this? And why can’t we just feed the ones who really are hungry instead of allowing those who are perfectly capable of providing meals to their children to freeload off of everyone else if they choose to? That’s my problem with all of these government programs, they use exorbitant amounts of money and only end up helping a small proportion of those in real need. I hear people say “oh well I would rather have the programs available even if some don’t need it and at least some in need will also be helped.” But that is totally ignoring the concept of opportunity cost. Despite what some people seem to think, funds are not unlimited. If we use part of our money to help people who don’t actually need it, then less money is available for people who truly do. I am not okay with that. I’m also not okay with financially supporting a cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy to distribute the funds and services to needy people.

Don’t feel obligated to respond, if you don’t want to take the time. It’s been a very interesting discussion that would be far easier in person than typing out long replies 😕 I am in the middle of a very busy week and I am not sure if I will be able to continue the exchange, as interesting and thought provoking as it’s been. 😕

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

The government is bloated and there is a lot of corruption. I do believe we, as a society, need to provide for those children that are truly in need.

Anyhow, I have the impression that you’re against any government involvement or intervention to help others suffering in life. I’m for basic safety nets. We aren’t getting anywhere in our conversations since our perspectives about life annd helping others are so different.

I believe life was much worse for many before government intervention. We would probably still have child labor, slavery, poor & dangerous working conditions, pregnant women going without prenatal care and more without government intervention. I’m not saying the government is run by perfect people or that there isn’t a lot of fraud, waste and abuse. I’m comparing life today for poor people compared to life in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Thank you for engaging with me. I’ve learned a lot from seeing your viewpoint. 🙂 Hope you have a good day.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I appreciate that. Thank you also and have a good day.

A few more thoughts since I have a minute. We do clearly have different world views. I’m not against any government involvement but I believe it should be a last resort and have safeguards in place to keep it from expanding too much. There were good reforms a century or so ago but now government is overly involved and getting more so all the time. I’ve seen the creeping interventionism across the decades and the overreach. Government is generally the worst option for solving problems. And so it should be used sparingly and judiciously. Which I absolutely do not think is the case nowadays and it hasn’t been so for a while.

I also think people are worse off in many ways now than several decades ago, despite the increased government programs. The cost of government makes it more difficult for people to live on smaller incomes. There are so many taxes and fees beyond income taxes that poorer families struggle more than they have in a long time. And it becomes a vicious circle that keeps poor people living in poverty instead of giving them opportunities to get out. It’s like with the Department of Education. We used to be top ranked in education but the more the government has gotten involved, the worse outcomes have gotten. More government does not equal better conditions. And a lot of the improvements you cited either have negatives to offset them (free prenatal care often means government coercion for shots and other interventions that aren’t necessary or beneficial—look at infant and maternal mortality rates in the US, “Despite spending two and half times more per person on health than the OECD average, the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. increased from 12 to 14 deaths per 100,000 live births from 1990 to 2015, putting the United States at 46th in the world.” from the Wilson Center website). Or they weren’t all due to government intervention but other factors—education by nonprofits, cultural changes such as hygiene practices, and so on.

Expand full comment