You asked a couple questions.
I'm not saying there are inefficiencies here. Speaking broadly when DOGE first started there were talks of sending checks to everyone. Don't, Keep making cuts to dead end projects to fund ones like this.
On Handouts; I never said I was against all government programs. I do however think they should be limited, and the ones we have should be limited in scope. Obviously we have worked ourselves into a position where farming is not sustainable without a low wage class of worker. The path out of that could be sticker shock to shoppers, but that would be more harmful to the economy and to low wage earners who wouldn't be able to absorb that hit. The other then is that my general take on what a governments role is to do or provide that which it can do better as a service than an individual. Roads, Police, Military, Fire, etc.. I don't think it stretches my position much to say that food production could be under that umbrella. So, while the country learns how to restructure how we run our food industries without relying on slave wage labor I think this is where a government program would be best used.
I liken it to a time where I was at a sub shop, and an older teen, probably out of highschool was making sandwiches. I was watching him take orders and start to make the order. You could see his brain racing, this basic task was pushing him to his limit. He was not going anywhere higher than this job, and wasn't doing that well either. Seeing this I realized, it was in no way fair to make this sub shop pay him a salary to raise a family on, but that this kid needed to survive. If we had gov't programs that allowed you to "benefits" but still be underemployed, I could support that. I feel these are similar situations.
You asked a couple questions.
I'm not saying there are inefficiencies here. Speaking broadly when DOGE first started there were talks of sending checks to everyone. Don't, Keep making cuts to dead end projects to fund ones like this.
On Handouts; I never said I was against all government programs. I do however think they should be limited, and the ones we have should be limited in scope. Obviously we have worked ourselves into a position where farming is not sustainable without a low wage class of worker. The path out of that could be sticker shock to shoppers, but that would be more harmful to the economy and to low wage earners who wouldn't be able to absorb that hit. The other then is that my general take on what a governments role is to do or provide that which it can do better as a service than an individual. Roads, Police, Military, Fire, etc.. I don't think it stretches my position much to say that food production could be under that umbrella. So, while the country learns how to restructure how we run our food industries without relying on slave wage labor I think this is where a government program would be best used.
I liken it to a time where I was at a sub shop, and an older teen, probably out of highschool was making sandwiches. I was watching him take orders and start to make the order. You could see his brain racing, this basic task was pushing him to his limit. He was not going anywhere higher than this job, and wasn't doing that well either. Seeing this I realized, it was in no way fair to make this sub shop pay him a salary to raise a family on, but that this kid needed to survive. If we had gov't programs that allowed you to "benefits" but still be underemployed, I could support that. I feel these are similar situations.