And if you were a lobster fisherman, you might wonder why Tyson's chicken gets taxpayer subsidies but not you.
That isn’t the issue here.
Whether we give government assistance to people in need or not is certainly a debatable point, and I side with those who say there is not only too much, but it it ill used and corrupt.
I will say that while I believe the private sector, churches, and citizens should voluntarily shoulder a larger role if they are willing (and as they had at one point in our history) I believe the government has a role as well.
That is completely open to debate, and I understand there are those who say the government should have no role at all, or a bare minimum. I understand those arguments too.
In this discussion, we are not contesting whether people should or shouldn’t get government food assistance.
We are discussing whether certain types of foodstuffs are or should be eligible...do you agree?
In my opinion, if we have agreed to render assistance, we should have a say in how that money is spent by the recipients, not just give them an open checkbook.
If that is the case, that means a recipient of aid shouldn’t be able to use that money to buy candy, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, caviar, or imported serrano ham. Or lobsters. While those are delicious,
Beef, poultry, dairy and grain have long been considered staples of diet. If we are agreed to give assistance, these should be all that is allowed for the most part.
What are your thoughts on this?
And with technology today, I do not see why this could not be implemented, tight controls on both who has been given the money to spend, and what it is spent on.
Anything else has and is been turned into simple redistribution of wealth, which is where we stand.