I find it interesting, that the article seems to view the fact that the family has to supplement their SNAP assistance with visits to a food pantry as a problem, rather than something to be happy about.
Indeed, poverty, hunger and food insecurity are awful, but why is it more attractive for amelioration of these conditions to come from the Federal government, than from non-governmental actors?
Seems to me a government mandated program might seem more limitless and be less personal and thus you don't feel like your taking advantage of the kindness of caring people or stopping resources going to those who are possibly even more needy.
On a related note: One of the things I somewhat like about taxes for welfare rather than "rely on the largess of charitable billionaires/private entities" argument is that it helps ensure expenses from charitable acts wouldn't be a drain on a business competing. Thus 'asshole' private entities wouldn't have a concrete market advantage over 'nice' private entities.
I'd say this is false dichotomy. Version 1 does not have to control your life. They would have to use more reporting on peoples' lives, (so that it's known who is actually poor and whether people are paying into the pool) but that doesn't mean controlling them. At least not in the way this sentence seems to imply.
Taxation is just fungible control. I largely meant paying more taxes. But some amount of control might be needed. E.g., more stricter drug laws, there should be some financial friction on reproduction based on number and age (9 kids at 31 is just amazing).
Um. Yeah. I was not talking about human biology here. The quality of life of the lady mentioned is not that different from an 1800s American middle class person.
1. Govt 1: Nanny state. Will support you if you get poor, but you agree to controls on your life.
2. Govt 2: Do whatever. Don't come crying if you crash and burn.