*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

The one thing I'm curious about is... you guys want welfare completely gone, right?

I can only speak for myself, but no. I want welfare to be changed to a format that gives incentives to become self-sufficient for those who can instead of giving incentives to stay on welfare indefinitely.

So what would happen to people who currently rely on welfare? And let's cut that down to the those who are not gaming the system but genuinely cannot be employed. There has to be at least one, right?

Let's break people who currently rely on welfare into two groups: people who genuinely can or cannot be employed. For the first group, refer to the above. For the second group, charity is more efficient with less waste and better results than government-mandated programs. However, this second group is a tiny, tiny fraction of the current expense on welfare. I'd probably prefer some sort of combination of government and charity forms of help from the position of a fiscal conservative.

Take a guess at how much money the food stamp program spends on regular Pepsi. It's supposed to be a program to keep people from starving, instead its keeping people in cheetos.

The bold section above is a great example of what I'm talking about here. It's literally tax dollars subsidizing Pepsi in this example you're giving here.

[wufwugy]

The bold section above is a great example of what I'm talking about here. It's literally tax dollars subsidizing Pepsi in this example you're giving here.

An interesting thing here is that attempting to solve this problem suggests a real problem when there is too much centralization.

The amount of Pepsi at his expense a person thinks should be given to somebody designated in need of help that he has never met is most likely LESS than what he would give to a person he knew personally that he was trying to help.