Remember When?

[Kathianne]

Doubt we'll see a return to limited government:

http://theweek.com/articles/755025/here-come-big-government-republicans


Trumpublican conservatives love to compare America's 45th president to their revered Ronald Reagan. Both were populist. Both were scorned by the media. And both, of course, delivered bigly cut taxes.

But Reagan's Republican Party, built on enthusiasm toward markets and skepticism toward government, would never have embraced big government the way President Trump's party has.


Consider, for instance, the Trump administration's terrible idea about replacing food stamps with mail-delivered food boxes. Under President Trump's new budget proposal, some low-income households would receive packages with items such as shelf-stable milk, pasta, peanut butter, and canned fruits and vegetables — all purchased, packaged, and distributed by Uncle Sam. It's almost Soviet in its conceit.


It's also an almost perfect example of what Reagan Republicans used to deride as "big government." Instead of giving low-income Americans a debit card to spend on groceries of their choice — a relatively simple policy solution that seems to work pretty well — Team Trump would have government bureaucrats assemble and run a food distribution system across a continent-sized nation for more than 30 million people. It is exactly this sort of ill-conceived, poorly thought-out scheme that led Reagan to famously say, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"


The GOP used to know and appreciate that the government is good at some things, such as cutting Social Security checks, and bad at so many others. But somewhere, somehow, the party lost its way.


At the core of traditional center-right economic thinking is the idea that the world is a pretty complicated place, and no all-knowing bureaucrat or massive bureaucracy has enough information to efficiently distribute society's resources. In accomplishing that goal, decentralized market prices will always beat centralized government planning.


This idea that policymakers should show humility about what they can accomplish is critical to the philosophy of Friedrich Hayek. Indeed, Republicans were so freaked out about creeping socialism during the Obama presidency that they turned Hayek's 1944 warning against central planning, The Road to Serfdom, into an unlikely bestseller. And what better ideological champion for the burgeoning Tea Party movement than Hayek, the gloomy Austrian economist known for his attacks on interventionist John Maynard Keynes? Hayek was also a major influence on Reagan.


But this is Trump's GOP. No one really objects when the Republican vice president says, "The free market has been sorting it out and America's been losing," as Mike Pence did right after the 2016 election. So apparently it's time for big government to step in, whether by nudging companies to keep factories in the U.S., trying to reorder the global trading system, or creating another middle-class entitlement in the form of paid leave. Some big government GOPers are also itching to turn America's tech titans into heavily regulated utilities.

...

[Taco Junkie]

The article fails to mention the $216 billion savings. It poo-poos big government buying and delivering them food but it's a fact that any entity that can buy in the kind of quantity the U.S. government can, it is certainly going to be cheaper than the recipients going to the local hood shop-n-rob and paying 8x the amount for any staples.

The real anger is that their money is cut for buying four-ohs of malt liquor, cartons of Kools, and perhaps drugs? Call it what it is: Trump's people recognize there are real needs for food assistance out there and have found a practical way to prevent a pilferage of the free money the U.S. tax paying citizens supply.

More winning!

[Kathianne]

The article fails to mention the $216 billion savings. It poo-poos big government buying and delivering them food but it's a fact that any entity that can buy in the kind of quantity the U.S. government can, it is certainly going to be cheaper than the recipients going to the local hood shop-n-rob and paying 8x the amount for any staples.

The real anger is that their money is cut for buying four-ohs of malt liquor, cartons of Kools, and perhaps drugs? Call it what it is: Trump's people recognize there are real needs for food assistance out there and have found a practical way to prevent a pilferage of the free money the U.S. tax paying citizens supply.

More winning!

It's not all about Trump, it's about the electorate every bit as much.

[Gunny]

The article fails to mention the $216 billion savings. It poo-poos big government buying and delivering them food but it's a fact that any entity that can buy in the kind of quantity the U.S. government can, it is certainly going to be cheaper than the recipients going to the local hood shop-n-rob and paying 8x the amount for any staples.

The real anger is that their money is cut for buying four-ohs of malt liquor, cartons of Kools, and perhaps drugs? Call it what it is: Trump's people recognize there are real needs for food assistance out there and have found a practical way to prevent a pilferage of the free money the U.S. tax paying citizens supply.

More winning!It's about principle. Fix the system already in place. Don't replace it with something as bad or worse. I don't see $216B in savings. I see a whole new government agency in charge of choosing, packaging and mailing out food no one wants. You ever eaten government food? I saw a big old 100 lb log of burger (alleged) during an UnRep aboard ship. It clearly stated: USDA Grade D - Not fit for human consumption.

So all I really see is expanding government and an adjustment in the black market.

Want to save some $? Get tgose 9-5 government paper-pushers off their butts and investigating applications/recipients more thoroughly. You tighten the controls on who is getting it, and people will start falling from the tree. And definitely if you make government employees actually work for their pay, that tree will be half-empty REAL quick.

[Taco Junkie]

Yes and the electorate is winning because the candidate they put in the highest office is taking actions that benefit them.

Trump's way is to manage like a business, something sorely lacking in our government. And business and government are different but this is a perfect example where the twixt can meet. A government program that has merit in it's need but is also a sore spot in that everyone knows it's abused. Trump's team finds a way to make a practical adjustment that saves billions (for the electorate) yet still provides to those in need. Then they're accused of going all big government.

People see what they want to see and the liberal media - yeah that's redundant - will point out their anti-Trump agenda ad nauseam in their Joseph Goebels imitation of news all the while to cover up anything positive that is being done.

[Taco Junkie]

It's about principle. Fix the system already in place. Don't replace it with something as bad or worse. I don't see $216B in savings. I see a whole new government agency in charge of choosing, packaging and mailing out food no one wants. You ever eaten government food? I saw a big old 100 lb log of burger (alleged) during an UnRep aboard ship. It clearly stated: USDA Grade D - Not fit for human consumption.

So all I really see is expanding government and an adjustment in the black market.

Want to save some $? Get tgose 9-5 government paper-pushers off their butts and investigating applications/recipients more thoroughly. You tighten the controls on who is getting it, and people will start falling from the tree. And definitely if you make government employees actually work for their pay, that tree will be half-empty REAL quick.

So you recommend creating another government agency to oversee a government agency to check on how those recipients are using their free cash and consider that a solution Gunny?

I get your point. I see it as totally unpractical. Where the solution Trump's people have proposed is practical. Just my view.

[Gunny]

So you recommend creating another government agency to oversee a government agency to check on how those recipients are using their free cash and consider that a solution Gunny?

I get your point. I see it as totally unpractical. Where the solution Trump's people have proposed is practical. Just my view.Nope. The oversight is there already. It's not working because they too are government employees. You seem fixated on not giving money to people as a solution when it will solve nothing without a system that works. As I said before, it will only require an adjustment on the black market.

Currently, food stamps go for X amount on the dollar on the black market. The black market will just switch to paying X amount for certain food items. The black market sells for cash and undercuts the price of the commodity by a certain percent, but they turn their profit into cash.

I don't propose adding to a system that isn't working. Make the system work and if you ain't working ... CYA. People are waiting in line for your government job with its bennies.

[Kathianne]

Focusing on snap isn't the criticism, nor as I said is it all about Trump. Infrastructure now is looking to balloon the deficits, but no longer a concern for those that claimed it was unsustainable. The tremendous savings from a change in snap isn't going to offset and that's known to all.

Trump was in favor of Kelo when all were against, no more is 'the new right' as long as it's for what they want.

[Gunny]

Focusing on snap isn't the criticism, nor as I said is it all about Trump. Infrastructure now is looking to balloon the deficits, but no longer a concern for those that claimed it was unsustainable. The tremendous savings from a change in snap isn't going to offset and that's known to all.

Trump was in favor of Kelo when all were against, no more is 'the new right' as long as it's for what they want.

I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence/paragraph. "Kelo"? "New right"? I fell off the rails there :laugh:

[Kathianne]

I don't understand what you are saying in your last sentence/paragraph. "Kelo"? "New right"? I fell off the rails there :laugh:

Kelo SCOTUS decision, states had to pass new laws to moot decision. Unfortunately you're not alone in not remembering..

[Taco Junkie]

I get what you and Gunny are saying but I still see this as a very small expansion of government. And quite possibly just taking an existing department and having them do something different or additional (making them earn their government paychecks). And sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. Our budget is high in part because of big spending to bring our military back up to snuff. The repairs are going to cost but the majority of it is in this budget.

As for the black market, food stamps and cash are more valuable to them than food stuffs. They aren't equipped logistically to handle commodities and it's worth less to them. Additionally it shortens up the supply of those valuable EBT that they can trade for real cash, drugs and high end consumables vs peanut butter, shelf stable milk and pasta.

I know I'm over-simplifying this but this is how I see it. My $.02

[Gunny]

Kelo SCOTUS decision, states had to pass new laws to moot decision. Unfortunately you're not alone in not remembering..I don't remember LOTS of things nowadays :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

Many people may not realize that originally welfare did consist of handing out actual food. Huge blocks of cheese, etc. Our next door neighbor qualified, and I saw the food. IMO, we never should have changed that system.

[jimnyc]

Doubt we'll see a return to limited government:

http://theweek.com/articles/755025/here-come-big-government-republicans

I don't think it's the perfect solution. Maybe pass off the same to the states. Maybe set something up like they have now somehow, but can ONLY be used for certain foods somewhere. It needs to somehow change from what we have now, to forcing the 'goods' of NEED onto these people, getting rid of as much abuse as possible. Anything else, I say no to this, but right now getting rid of the abuse should be priority. But I do think they can alter this plan before it goes into effect, and lessen the feds involvement. And then they need to figure out other ways to stop the abuse in other programs, where folks have made careers out of freebies.

[Gunny]

I get what you and Gunny are saying but I still see this as a very small expansion of government. And quite possibly just taking an existing department and having them do something different or additional (making them earn their government paychecks). And sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. Our budget is high in part because of big spending to bring our military back up to snuff. The repairs are going to cost but the majority of it is in this budget.

As for the black market, food stamps and cash are more valuable to them than food stuffs. They aren't equipped logistically to handle commodities and it's worth less to them. Additionally it shortens up the supply of those valuable EBT that they can trade for real cash, drugs and high end consumables vs peanut butter, shelf stable milk and pasta.

I know I'm over-simplifying this but this is how I see it. My $.02I'll be the first one to say it here ... this budget is a total f*ck-up. There is NOTHING conservative about it. I understand needing to play catch up, and I REALLY understand when the military is treated like orphans for 8 years, but this is too much at one time. There's WAY too much spending and I don't see a lot of it going toward much I consider a priority. The Republicans are acting like Democrats and I'm afraid this one is going to bite us in the ass.