Governments shouldn't be handing out a damn thing. Not one welfare check or food stamp should have ever been printed. Because gov'ts don't create any of it. The only way they can get those items you listed is by forcefully taking it from others.
Americans seem to have forgotten that before 1935, the gov't never printed a single welfare check. And lo and behold, people not only survived, but thrived. There wasn't a single country in the world where you had a better chance to accomplish your dreams than the US.
I have listened to many old-timers who actually lived through the Depression, and they were unanimous on one thing: It was considered embarrassing -- even shameful -- to take government handouts, no matter how badly you needed them. Those on welfare were referred to as "reliefers," and it wasn't an affectionate nickname. If you were on government relief, you damn well did your best to get off of it as quickly as possible.
I totally disagree. First off, I'm talking about the entire history of the US, not just the Great Depression. 2nd, everything is relative. Name a single country where you were better off economically than the US during it's history. You might be able to find some brief moments where you'd be better off elsewhere (like during the Civil War, and even then I'd need to know what you are comparing it to), but that's about it.
Even right in the middle of the Great Depression, I would have 100% preferred to live here. As bad as things were here, unemployment and poverty were even higher elsewhere.
But that is a temporary phenomenon which you can handle in certain temporary ways and with care relative to what is going on. And no, people should not be forced to provide anything by taxes or "legal" stealing by the state. If there are a large-scale emergency, sure, that can be handled as the emergency it is (and handled appropriately).
Repeating from another comment: If you provide support to whomever, you will end up having rapists, murderers, etc. be given resources while they deserve much less than nothing, and since they aren't even working for it, they will have both time and resources to do lots and lots and lots of (extreme or horrifying or worse) evil. A system where people voluntarily provide aid to those they themselves consider worthy of help and support (for instance through charity) makes much, much, much more sense than a system where people are taxed or "legally" stolen from to support whomever, including the absolutely most horrible and evil people.
Natural phenomenon? I see someone hasn't studied farming and what happens when you monocrop cotton for decades. There were way more causes of the great depression than just the dust bowl, but even the dust bowl wouldn't have had nearly the effect it did if people would have rotated their crops. I agree society should provide bare minimums to those in need. SOCIETY. Not GOVERNMENT. Private charities are more than adequate to provide this.
I never claimed they didn't know about crop rotation, I claimed that vast areas of the South CHOSE NOT TO rotate crops. That was a really common problem from the early 1800s through the early 1900s... "king cotton," it was the cash crop, wealthy farmers would monocrop cotton until the soil was near-useless, move west, buy more land, and do it again. It left huge areas of poor soil, which led to the dust bowl.
Governments shouldn't be handing out a damn thing. Not one welfare check or food stamp should have ever been printed. Because gov'ts don't create any of it. The only way they can get those items you listed is by forcefully taking it from others.
Americans seem to have forgotten that before 1935, the gov't never printed a single welfare check. And lo and behold, people not only survived, but thrived. There wasn't a single country in the world where you had a better chance to accomplish your dreams than the US.
I have listened to many old-timers who actually lived through the Depression, and they were unanimous on one thing: It was considered embarrassing -- even shameful -- to take government handouts, no matter how badly you needed them. Those on welfare were referred to as "reliefers," and it wasn't an affectionate nickname. If you were on government relief, you damn well did your best to get off of it as quickly as possible.
I totally disagree. First off, I'm talking about the entire history of the US, not just the Great Depression. 2nd, everything is relative. Name a single country where you were better off economically than the US during it's history. You might be able to find some brief moments where you'd be better off elsewhere (like during the Civil War, and even then I'd need to know what you are comparing it to), but that's about it.
Even right in the middle of the Great Depression, I would have 100% preferred to live here. As bad as things were here, unemployment and poverty were even higher elsewhere.
I will. You do the same.
But that is a temporary phenomenon which you can handle in certain temporary ways and with care relative to what is going on. And no, people should not be forced to provide anything by taxes or "legal" stealing by the state. If there are a large-scale emergency, sure, that can be handled as the emergency it is (and handled appropriately).
Repeating from another comment: If you provide support to whomever, you will end up having rapists, murderers, etc. be given resources while they deserve much less than nothing, and since they aren't even working for it, they will have both time and resources to do lots and lots and lots of (extreme or horrifying or worse) evil. A system where people voluntarily provide aid to those they themselves consider worthy of help and support (for instance through charity) makes much, much, much more sense than a system where people are taxed or "legally" stolen from to support whomever, including the absolutely most horrible and evil people.
That is not at all what I argued, please read my comment again. Did you mean to reply to a different poster?
EDIT: And is it the way of organizing things or else the current level of technology that is to thank for that? And "higher" in which ways?
Natural phenomenon? I see someone hasn't studied farming and what happens when you monocrop cotton for decades. There were way more causes of the great depression than just the dust bowl, but even the dust bowl wouldn't have had nearly the effect it did if people would have rotated their crops. I agree society should provide bare minimums to those in need. SOCIETY. Not GOVERNMENT. Private charities are more than adequate to provide this.
I never claimed they didn't know about crop rotation, I claimed that vast areas of the South CHOSE NOT TO rotate crops. That was a really common problem from the early 1800s through the early 1900s... "king cotton," it was the cash crop, wealthy farmers would monocrop cotton until the soil was near-useless, move west, buy more land, and do it again. It left huge areas of poor soil, which led to the dust bowl.