I think most of the subsidies to farmers, are to limit supply, to keep the price high,
OKay, you prefer starvation in a recession, TY Ayn Rand.
Again, you want greater levels of stress in depressions, yer sticking to the Ayn playbook.
If you need a thesaurus, get one.
I wonder, is this more ironic, or hypocritical....since you were making an accusation of complacency.
The US was not experiencing "famine" in the 30's.
Again, you still ignore the meaning of YOUR OWN WORD, yes, there was widespread suffering from hunger.
We have established there was widespread hunger, ergo, yer wrong again.
Again, it is stupid argument to argue for private charity to handle something they did not, and could not, it is beyond their capabilities, it is far more inefficient, there is no guarantee that it will be fair, especially when it is religion based.
Whoo hoo, that works out to a whopping $15.57 per year for each 2013 SNAP recipient....or 4.2 cents per day.....A BOUNTY!!!
The causation of food insecurity in a depression...is lack of income. If you want to argue that the low income for the majority of SNAP recipients is due to laziness, I'm afraid you are permanently stuck in rw memes.
Yes, when incomes have declined to zero, you want folks to starve, I got that already, it is an insane idea, but there you are.
0.30 cents per meal is....insane.
You need to prove your point, you don't get to do so by repeating a rw meme.
Uh, only one "famine" hit in the entry...for Africa. Again, I think you need to look up "famine" and then prove your point. You are in college, right?
SNAP is a US program, we are focused on the US during depressions, we know starvation was a real condition during the 1930's, where as it was nearly unheard of during this depression and recovery.
It is a no based on previous research, private charities can only supply roughly 10% of current needs.
It isn't my argument to prove, the burden is upon you, your argument is that private charity can fill the need. Of course, your argument will include figures like 30 cents per meal.
There are all sorts of work and income limits in place that have to be reported on a continual basis to remain qualified. But again, when you have argument where you think folks should only get 30 cents per meal, we are not dealing with serious argument or intellectual honesty. Again, if you want to show all of the households that should be cut, go for it, I don't have to prove your point.
I'm sure that is what you believe.
If you are going to stick with 30 cents a meal argument, I would stop too....since it is an insane argument.
Yes, you have a habit of repeating the same thing over and over without supporting it.
Hint: Don't deal in absolutes, show your work, provide real world evidence of the level, stop relying on rhetorical questions....this is an academic forum, raise your standard.
You didn't show changes in US yields, I can show corn did not, wheat data is not so available, and I know that crops were being destroyed to cause price increases for farmer support.....but again, here I am proving YOUR point.
Another rw meme used as a diversion from the argument at hand. I 'll take it as a concession, yer argument is running out of gas. The point is that the supplements in this recession kicked in to maintain food security
If you have data on food insecurity being met during the various depressions by charities in those periods, bring it on....instead of again relying on rhetorical questions.
