- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
It is a point I would make.
btw, Not every program is supposed to benefit e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e. that kind of thinking would be silly.
But should the government be in the business of creating programs that help a small minority to the detriment of everyone else? I'm sorry, but I find destroying perfectly good food and slaughtering animals for no reason while the people suffer to be silly.
your premise: to the detriment. bad
if crops were subject to supply and demand an farmers went out of business and the farm economy collapsed. more people would be hurt for longer. and the US would lose big r=time.
the fact that people go without and the destroyed crops could be used (oh wait they are in some cases -- government surplus food... my bad, and yours). ...............
you are mixing issues. the national government has a duty to protect the union.
Your notion that the national government has no duty here is wrongheaded. The federal government's responsibility is to keeping the union from being dissolved by 'angry vindictive persons.'. -Jefferson's buddy Justice Johnson
So the farm economy would have collapsed, because as prices went down and their products became more affordable people wouldn't have bought them?
Destroyed crops could be used? Keyword being destroyed.
No, the federal government has a duty to protect liberty.