It isn't a good point of discussion; it's a "classic flamewar topic" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) that leads to the same predictable, angry discussion every time it's invariably raised in stories about India, especially India's space program.
We need the intellectual maturity as a community to resist such temptation and differentiate one topic (e.g., a good thing people are doing) from another (e.g. the worst known fact about those people). This is more important the more complex a system gets, and it's hard to imagine more complex systems than a country or more complex countries than India.
I really don't think it is a good point of discussion in this context. The scientists who are working on these rocket launch missions are not in charge of administration of the towns and villages where the toilets need to be built.
Of course they are not. But the merits of India's space program are a debate worth having in my opinion. All the other space programs (except for NK) were started when their nations were doing okay socially at least. Sure, the profits may be redirected to fixing those social issues but lives are being lost the longer they delay that.
And what do you want to discus? It will start just another flame-war. Indian program is pretty cost effective, and there is a good chance it will become profitable.
That's how social programs work. It wouldn't be working if they weren't giving them out to the lower distribution of the US income.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, that food stamps imply the country is poor? Would highlighting that the UK has 100% of its people on NHS also imply that their citizens are poor?
European countries used food stamps during WW2. It implies that country does not have enough food, if it has to ration its food supplies. I know it is social assistance, but it has really bad name.
NHS is paid health insurance, sometimes pretty expensive, not much relevant.
US 'food stamps' (for which the actual name is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) are actually just a government-issued debit card that can only be spent on food at most private retailers. There's absolutely no connotation of rationing in the US nor is there any stamp involved.
You are confusing rationing with (essentially) gifting.
Ration stamps merely represented a limited ability to buy a resource in short supply. For example, if you had ration stamps for gasoline/petrol, you could buy up to whatever quantity you had stamps for -- you handed over the stamps and cash.
The term "stamp" in this context is used to refer to a system of payment using a proof-of-purchase (the stamp). Another example, a postage stamp is evidence that you have paid for the delivery of your letter. Some countries use stamps to pay for government services like deeds or passports.
You are confusing this with a ration system using stamps, which allows the purchase of a good, but does not actually pay for the goods.
the point being relevant to the news about the satellites how?
people bringing up problems with developing countries infrastructure/politics in threads about their achievements has nothing to do with the achievements and everything to do with that pervasive feeling of us vs them
