These problems cannot be addressed by central planning.
if you make it so food stamps can't apply to pop, beer, steak, pomegranates, or any kind of "luxury food" a clever person on welfare will simply trade. They will offer a friend with a proposition," I'll get your groceries, you just give me the cash." next stop liquor store, and on food stamps at that.
Trying to legislate common sense? A bit totalitiarianistic isn't it?
Never happen. Talk to someone around 60ish about getting rid of Soc. Sec. Their view is that they've put into for 50 plus years and they want something out of it. Can't say I blame them.
Oh, there's plenty of blame for those in their mid 60s. They've been voting to give themselves my money for nearly fifty years. They (collectively) are far from noble nor hardly entitled to anything for simply gifting themselves the product of their grandchildren's labor.
Voting is an extremely poor way to express one's opinion. In our pluralistic voting system there are two dominant parties, and by its nature voting outside the two party system will simply not yield a winning candidate. Given the multitude of topics a legislature or executive official is appointed to handle, how can we say that they should have voted otherwise when all other topics also bear an influence on how they ought to have voted as well? Our present system is such that government has the power to give to some, while diminishing the appearance of the magnitude of what it takes from others to accomplish this (e.g. inflation & gov't debt) . Is not inevitable that politicians will highlight the benefits, and give less attention to the costs? In my opinion the political system itself is the problem, not the way in which people vote.