Would you be willing to accept temporary mass starvation to get rid of welfare?

Was there mass starvation going on in the mid 20's?

 

So...would the billionaires get primo seats to view the mass starvation?

- - - Updated - - -

Well heck..if you're a natural selection fan, lets also shut down all the hospitals and put all the doctors out of work.

 

A lot more people farmed the land then too. Not so much any more.

 

Most likely. They could throw a steak to their favorite "poor player" as encouragement.

 

If your a fan of natural selection, you should be tryin to close hospitals and fire doctors too.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. There was.

 

Prove that mass starvation was a problem in the roaring 20's.

 

I hear they taste like pork.

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant.

 

So the lack of mass starvation in the 20's is irrelevant to the bogus claim that there would be mass starvation if we got rid of welfare? I know it's inconvenient to the left's argument, but it's not irrelevant.

 

"Natural selection" would, in such a case, involve peasant with torches and pitchforks.

The fossil record is clear that, in the Darwinian sense, compassion made our ancestors fit to survive.

 

We don't live in the stone age anymore for your information. Such comparisons are moot.

 

The 1920s were a time of economic expansion. When the bubble burst, it took a massive outpouring of both private charity and government relief programs to prevent massive starvation.

 

No. The elite must learn to live like humans or bear the consequences of a collapse of civilization.

 

There are alternative places for these elite to live.

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

When they retreat to Galt's gulch, count on their being ecconomicl;y blockaded and their assets seized by real humans.

 

How about when the economy takes a nose dive during a recession? Are you prepared to let those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own to starve? Are you prepared for the social consequences?

 

We had starvation in during the Great Depression. When we began the draft in 1939 in preparation for the possibility of war, over 35% of young men were rejected as physically unfit, most due to the effects of the privations (i.e. malnutrition) they had suffered as young people during the Depression. The requirements weren't very stringent, you had to be 105 lbs, between 5 ft 1 in and 6 foot 5 in., have half your teeth and be able to read and write. Over a third of draftee's (whites only - black were not drafted) did not meet those minimum qualifications.

 

The farm economy collapsed about 1927. There wasn't mass starvation, but there was mass malnutrition especially among children. People could not afford the proper foods for a balanced diet.

 

I did say unless there was a very good reason you are unemployed. If the job placement agency can't find you work and you are financially eligible you would be entitled to welfare.

 

It's really the old Robin Hood question: should people be able to steal to feed themselves.

 

You are making a huge stretch. We do have better nutrition now---because now our food is supplemented with vitamen and minerals. Rickets was huge problem in the past until we started including Vitamen D in the milk and refridgeration was a factor in milk distribution.

Your assumption is not correct. Plus...welfare was in existance in the thirties. It was in the late 1960's...when it was expanded and led generations of families to depend on it as an entitement and charities lost their purpose.

 

Welfare really did not exist in the 1930's though a number of programs were begun then. Draft rejection rates were considerably higher during WWII than During WWI though the standards were basically the same. During WWI rejection rates were 31% in 1940 they were 45% though they dropped back after that due to changes in dental and vision requirements.

 

At this point you need to come up with some links backing up your assumptions that---people were starving. And fyi---welfare programs have been in existence since the beginning of our country.

 

Private charities yes, but one of the big problems during the early part of the depression was that the needs far outstripped the ability of private organizations to deal with with the results of nearly 1/3rd of the workforce being out of work. There was no unemployment insurance. States had no resources (a number of them couldn't make payroll and paid their employees in script and promissory Notes). In NYC in 1932 there were 20 verified cases of death by starvation, and in 1934 110. Millions were malnourished. Between 1929 and 1932 average family income dropped from $2,300 a year to $1,500. Between 1929 and 1932 over 10,000 banks failed, and there was no FDIC to insure peoples bank accounts, so if they had any savings in those banks, they lost it all. The stock market did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. In almost all major cities and larger towns, hoovervilles sprang up, built of scrap and cardboard, to house the homeless. Here are some images of the one in St. Louis. http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=918017&CategoryID=23105

 

charities like the church can't even support themselves anymore, they require the tax payers to prop them up

 

That simply is not true.