Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.
Are you also against public education?
I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.
I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.
In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.
You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.
In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.3 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.
Are you also against public education?
I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.
I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.
In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.
You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.
In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.
I feel like "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. "Better" for who? There are a lot of value judgments attached to your opinions and I'm not sure what they are grounded in.
Are you against all taxation?2 -
Here in the UK the way those down on their fortunes are treated is appalling. Imv from what I've read here its far worse in the US. In both countries its a dog eat dog attitude and the devil take the hindmost.
I believe this. Its good to be everyone's equal and no one's better. Probably I favour a national income.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.
Are you also against public education?
I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.
I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.
In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.
You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.
In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.
I feel like "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. "Better" for who? There are a lot of value judgments attached to your opinions and I'm not sure what they are grounded in.
Are you against all taxation?
Better for freedom.
The more power one concentrates in one place, the more dangerous any corruption is.
Give people the freedom to decide issues for themselves as much as possible.
Like I said, if you wish to make your contributions to the centralized government system, I would not deny you the freedom to do so. I simply ask that others who have different values be given the same level of freedom to choose otherwise.
I believe people should be free to decide issues for themselves, not have a greater good imposed on them by left leaning, nor right leaning authoritarians.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I guess I see a distinction between the potential implications of people going without food or medical care and my fellow citizens making sexual decisions that I may personally disagree with.
Are you also against public education?
I don't assume you're against private donations. That's why I specifically asked about your opinions on social safety net programs, not, say, charity. Private donations are a whole different discussion.
I don't make a distinction. It is no better to impose values regarding a social safety net than it is to impose sexual values.
In both cases, you are robbing someone of their freedom.
You cannot impose values on another AND say you are pro-freedom. If I make you donate or prevent you from marrying your desired partner, even if I believe it is for the greater good, I have robbed you of the freedom to decide the issue for yourself.
In a free society, both impositions are equally bad.
I feel like "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. "Better" for who? There are a lot of value judgments attached to your opinions and I'm not sure what they are grounded in.
Are you against all taxation?
Better for freedom.
The more power one concentrates in one place, the more dangerous any corruption is.
Give people the freedom to decide issues for themselves as much as possible.
Like I said, if you wish to make your contributions to the centralized government system, I would not deny you the freedom to do so. I simply ask that others who have different values be given the same level of freedom to choose otherwise.
I believe people should be free to decide issues for themselves, not have a greater good imposed on them by left leaning, nor right leaning authoritarians.
So all taxation should be voluntary?1 -
The argument about whether food stamps/SNAP should exist is kind of irrelevant to the topic of the thread, IMO, and purely political. (I don't mind it, but worth pointing out.)
The question is, since SNAP exists (or assuming that we agree it should), should it be a program that pays for any food/beverage items, a program that is slightly limited in the way it currently is (no prepared foods, no alcohol), or should it incorporate additional restrictions.
The evidence is that people using SNAP don't eat differently than those not using it, and I suspect that not allowing it to be used for soda wouldn't make a difference in how much soda people consume (since it's largely supplemental), so I don't see a huge reason to say "no soda." On the other hand, I don't really think of soda as food (it doesn't really have nutrients beyond calories and isn't a very good source even of pure calories if someone needed to gain), and see adding that restriction as a super minor change (and think it's actually more of a shame that certain types of prepared foods cannot be purchased).
So I don't really care.
The main reason I think anyone gets bothered/objects to demands for restrictions (specifically on soda) tend to be combined with one of two attitudes, both of which are, IMO, objectionable:
(1) soda is poison and no one should be consuming it, it's terrible for you in any amount.
(2) poor people can't be trusted to make decisions about what to consume, they are clearly drinking soda and not eating healthy foods.
An additional reason is the ever popular fear of the slippery slope.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »[And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.
If you're receiving assistance from the government, it is no longer your personal life. It's being paid for by taxpayers. If you earned the money, spend it on what/how you please. If you are receiving a free benefit, use it the way they stipulate you should use it. WIC specifies exactly what you can purchase with the vouchers provided. I see no reason why TANFF shouldn't as well. And, yes, I have received assistance in the past for a very short time so I am familiar with the process and the stigma with being a welfare recipient.
Just to be clear, we are talking about SNAP, not TANF.
Thank you - my mistake. My opinion is still the same whether it is SNAP, TANF, WIC or any other similar program.
0 -
Social welfare programs aren't just humanitarian aid. They actually promote stability within the community, which is the only reason we have government in the first place.7
-
debrakgoogins wrote: »[And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.
If you're receiving assistance from the government, it is no longer your personal life. It's being paid for by taxpayers. If you earned the money, spend it on what/how you please. If you are receiving a free benefit, use it the way they stipulate you should use it. WIC specifies exactly what you can purchase with the vouchers provided. I see no reason why TANFF shouldn't as well. And, yes, I have received assistance in the past for a very short time so I am familiar with the process and the stigma with being a welfare recipient.
well put.
0 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »[And at what point do you want the government to NOT micro manage? It may not bother you if they micro manage sofa, but what about other parts of your private life? It is a very slippery slope once they start to interfere in any aspect of your personal life.
If you're receiving assistance from the government, it is no longer your personal life. It's being paid for by taxpayers. If you earned the money, spend it on what/how you please. If you are receiving a free benefit, use it the way they stipulate you should use it. WIC specifies exactly what you can purchase with the vouchers provided. I see no reason why TANFF shouldn't as well. And, yes, I have received assistance in the past for a very short time so I am familiar with the process and the stigma with being a welfare recipient.
Yep, most government $ handed out to an entity has specific uses assigned to it. For example a community receives a grant, in most cases the money can only be spend for certain things.1 -
I'm actually interested in a conversation here, so it would be nice to know what the person who marked my post "woo" disagrees with in it. Seems silly not to actually engage in a thread like this.1
-
I didn;t but the woo is bad?...I thought woo was good lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm actually interested in a conversation here, so it would be nice to know what the person who marked my post "woo" disagrees with in it. Seems silly not to actually engage in a thread like this.
2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
Every person I know personally who receives food stamps, does so gratefully, and also works 50 or more hours a week. What about demanding a livable wage instead of assuming every poor person is lazy?
Livable wages, while a very prominent and powerful political rallying cry, are a self-defeating proposal - ask any of the small business owners who used to have businesses in downtown Seattle or San Fran.
I think I've made this observation upthread, but if a business doesn't pay people enough, and they need state support, then that's essentially a subsidy to the business owner. Is it appropriate that the state keeps businesses afloat?
No it isn't - it is a subsidy of the life choices that the EMPLOYEE made, not the business owner. Put the responsibility where it belongs. The employer made a contract with the employee - you work for me, I pay you 'x'. As long as the employer keeps up his side of the bargain, he has satisfied his responsibility. Anything beyond that falls squarely on the shoulders of the employee.
I disagree with this completely. business have an obligation to have a social and communal conscious and make the appropriate contribution to its people and community. AND if that company cant do it on their own the gvt has a right and obligation to impose it.
With statements like this....it is very easy to see how fascist regimes get their foot hold.
i feel like i'm in Orwell's 1984
you two guys are too funny...who ended slavery? THE GOVERNMENT...the government DOES impose social norms and community contributions either by law or PRESSURE or money. right now social norms and community contributions are being changed and pushed backwards...by our new president and his business buddies - where do you live under a rock?
...but you believe you can forcibly take the labor of one man to give to another?
Sounds like you would have been on the losing side of that war.
I have never been on welfare, food stamps or any other kind of assistance. so no I am not losing any war. READ CURRANT EVENTS...that should help you.
Currant events? Like wine tastings?
- - no like the congressional hearings w facebook ceo. O I FORGOT GVT DOES NOT REGULATE BUSINESSES
or make them do what is best for society or communities . 0 -
I didn;t but the woo is bad?...I thought woo was good lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm actually interested in a conversation here, so it would be nice to know what the person who marked my post "woo" disagrees with in it. Seems silly not to actually engage in a thread like this.
Nope
Although fwiw I'm glad that my observations are upsetting someone.3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.
Things are more complex than just 'parents are failing'. When you have a government that looks the other way when these mega corporations put everything including poison to preserve the shelf life of products and make it so hard for small farmers to compete it costs you an arm and a leg to eat healthy then we shouldnt just pin this on parents. Capitalism ensures profits will be above any health concerns, point blank. Whatever makes the food and drug industry make more money, even if it means more cancer, more diabetes and more obesity, then that is what will happen.
Pretty sure there's no poison being added to any US foodstuffs.
Pretty sure you are wishful thinking. Plenty of articles to back my statement up. Quite sure the USA looks the other way on things we ban here in Europe. http://www.eatthis.com/worst-food-additives
http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/13-banned-foods-still-allowed-us
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-safe-us/
Eat This, Not That and Shape magazine. Don't recognize the third.
You will find a fault with any article I post. Do the search yourself. I posted the first three articles from a google search that yielded thousands. Want an RT one? https://www.rt.com/usa/banned-additives-food-outlawed-089/
The Chicago Tribune? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-21/news/ct-met-banned-food-practices-20130121_1_safety-of-food-additives-bvo-ingredient
Face it. A country that pays the drug industry hundreds for medicines that costs pennies elsewhere will lobby and benefit from an unhealthy population. On both ends of the issue. Obesity, cancer and diabetes epidemic is not just because people are overeating, its because the food is not healthy at all.
Obesity IS because people are overeating. Diabetes IS because people are overeating.
I honestly don't know enough about cancer, but I do know "all things in moderation" and most cancer studies (rats and aspertame comes to mind) is because they fed the subjects 100s of times the normal amount.
If a food is legitimately laced with poison, then it will put you in the hospital. Immediately. Clickbait "science" articles are just fear-mongering woo.
Not all diabetes is caused from over eating. My Dad is very thin and 140 pounds. He eats like a bird, yet he developed diabetes. I do agree though that most diabetes could be avoided if people did become obese from over eating and eating crapola.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
So all taxation should be voluntary?
Here in the US, I certainly believe DC should be out of just about everything that cannot be done locally. The role of the Federal G is pretty small going by the Constitution.
This isn't an all inclusive list, but it give the reader an idea of what I believe the Federal G should be involved with.
Defense (and we can argue if it really needs to be as much as the next 10 nations defense budgets combined.)
Foreign Policy
Federal Judiciary -- To make sure people don't try to make slavery and other freedom violations legal again.
That's pretty much it. We don't need to send money to DC so that politicians can argue about who gets to buy votes in their district with it. So that stop light, or school, or county road project or whatever doesn't need money taken from Lawrence Kansas and sent to Mississippi or Minnesota or Montana. Let them figure out how they want to fund their schools, stop lights and other road projects withOUT DC power brokers trading favors for their benefit, not necessarily the taxpayer.
I'm more amenable to local taxation. But really think other than public safety, most things should be handed and funded in a voluntary fashion.
I know it will never happen. So, at the very least, I want my waste, fraud and abuse local so I can go talk to the legislator who is spending this money at the local diner, instead of him or her being a thousand or more miles away in DC where I can never speak to him and where she doesn't really live here with the consequences of the choices made far, far away.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
So all taxation should be voluntary?
The following is probably more eloquently stated than my words above: https://mises.org/wire/how-1960s-made-everything-worse
Especially the part about Liberalism. I tend to be liberal in the original, classical sense of the word. Not the modern day corruption of the word where an illiberal, paternalistic class knows best and should be followed, for the greater good of course. (As defined by them, but to be funded by others.)7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »I tend to be liberal in the original, classical sense of the word
Interesting self definition. I'd consider your words as suggesting anarchist, or minarchist. Haven't followed the link but I'm familiar with the Mises Institute. They have a very close association with the Adam Smith Institute here.
The ASI do tend to be a bit more real world though. Their consulting business had a lot of activity in the developing world, that's been quite successful. I'm not sure how they're doing now, when the liberal party exited government and we went to a conservative majority they've lost some influence.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I tend to be liberal in the original, classical sense of the word
Interesting self definition. I'd consider your words as suggesting anarchist, or minarchist. Haven't followed the link but I'm familiar with the Mises Institute. They have a very close association with the Adam Smith Institute here.
The ASI do tend to be a bit more real world though. Their consulting business had a lot of activity in the developing world, that's been quite successful. I'm not sure how they're doing now, when the liberal party exited government and we went to a conservative majority they've lost some influence.
Not self-definition, that is how liberal was defined in the 19th Century. The word was co-opted to mean something other than liberal.
True liberalism doesn't really care about how individuals behave other than if they bring harm to others. They don't care who you marry or if the bakery will or won't bake a cake for the wedding. Each has the freedom to do their own thing and live with the natural, not government imposed consequences, good or bad.
I find Republicans and Democrats simply different sides of the authoritarian coin. Neither better than the other when it comes to preserving freedom and liberty.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So all taxation should be voluntary?
Here in the US, I certainly believe DC should be out of just about everything that cannot be done locally. The role of the Federal G is pretty small going by the Constitution.
This isn't an all inclusive list, but it give the reader an idea of what I believe the Federal G should be involved with.
Defense (and we can argue if it really needs to be as much as the next 10 nations defense budgets combined.)
Foreign Policy
Federal Judiciary -- To make sure people don't try to make slavery and other freedom violations legal again.
That's pretty much it. We don't need to send money to DC so that politicians can argue about who gets to buy votes in their district with it. So that stop light, or school, or county road project or whatever doesn't need money taken from Lawrence Kansas and sent to Mississippi or Minnesota or Montana. Let them figure out how they want to fund their schools, stop lights and other road projects withOUT DC power brokers trading favors for their benefit, not necessarily the taxpayer.
I'm more amenable to local taxation. But really think other than public safety, most things should be handed and funded in a voluntary fashion.
I know it will never happen. So, at the very least, I want my waste, fraud and abuse local so I can go talk to the legislator who is spending this money at the local diner, instead of him or her being a thousand or more miles away in DC where I can never speak to him and where she doesn't really live here with the consequences of the choices made far, far away.
So we just differ on the scope of what should be funded voluntarily, the scope of what actually serves the public interest?
I see my local representative frequently, he is very connected to our community. I'm sorry you live in a district where you aren't able to do that. I agree with you that it's a good thing to be able to connect with your representatives.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »I tend to be liberal in the original, classical sense of the word
Interesting self definition. I'd consider your words as suggesting anarchist, or minarchist. Haven't followed the link but I'm familiar with the Mises Institute. They have a very close association with the Adam Smith Institute here.
The ASI do tend to be a bit more real world though. Their consulting business had a lot of activity in the developing world, that's been quite successful. I'm not sure how they're doing now, when the liberal party exited government and we went to a conservative majority they've lost some influence.
Not self-definition, that is how liberal was defined in the 19th Century. The word was co-opted to mean something other than liberal.
True liberalism doesn't really care about how individuals behave other than if they bring harm to others. They don't care who you marry or if the bakery will or won't bake a cake for the wedding. Each has the freedom to do their own thing and live with the natural, not government imposed consequences, good or bad.
I find Republicans and Democrats simply different sides of the authoritarian coin. Neither better than the other when it comes to preserving freedom and liberty.
It could be argued that it DOES harm others if schools are not funded, infrastructure is not maintained, etc.. I live in a state that regularly experiences a budget surplus, which means that a lot of my taxes actually go to support states like Louisiana and Mississippi, who regularly run a steep deficit. A part of me wants all of that surplus money to go back into my state, but not at the expense of those other states. Having all taxes be voluntary seems nice in practice, but if you wanted to see lack of taxes at work, go to Somalia and see the great lives the majority there are leading when they had no taxes for 23 years.6 -
how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?1
-
how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.
I believe that's called a poll? Perhaps we need a new topic to debate the difference between a debate and a poll.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.
I believe that's called a poll? Perhaps we need a new topic to debate the difference between a debate and a poll.
a poll STAYS ON TOPIC as does a debate ...taxes politics etc is NOT on topic. and the sarcasm dripping off the posts - ick.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
Evidently.
For example. someone says "no, because" or "yes, in order to" and someone else responds that the example cited doesn't actually work and cites counter examples or alternative courses of actions.
Oh, and Without taxes, how do you propose paying for SNAP?
Ergo, taxes are an appropriate tangent.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »how does this conversation happen when all that is asked is...should food stamps have restrictions?
Because during a debate people often won't answer just "yes" or "no," they'll elaborate with "Yes, because . . . " or "no, due to . . . " and then people get to discussing the elaborations.
Just saying "yes" or "no" wouldn't be much of a debate.
I believe that's called a poll? Perhaps we need a new topic to debate the difference between a debate and a poll.
a poll STAYS ON TOPIC as does a debate ...taxes politics etc is NOT on topic. and the sarcasm dripping off the posts - ick.
Just because you don't LIKE the topic doesn't mean we're off topic.4 -
a poll STAYS ON TOPIC as does a debate ...taxes politics etc is NOT on topic. and the sarcasm dripping off the posts - ick.
When the topic for debate is whether food stamp restrictions are ok, then talking about the government and taxes ABSOLUTELY is on topic. Food stamps are a government run program paid for by taxes. Did you think the money for food stamps just magically arrives by the SNAP fairy? That was dripping sarcasm by the way.
4 -
Whether or not food stamps/aid for poor people should exist at all is a separate topic from "should food stamps be more limited in what they pay for than they currently are."
That someone says "yes, they shouldn't pay for anything, because I don't think that's a legitimate gov't function" is actually arguing about a quite different topic than someone who says "food stamps shouldn't pay for unhealthy foods."
I don't mind the argument, but it doesn't seem to me to be addressing the real question of the thread which is whether it's specifically a problem that people can use food stamps to buy caloric/low nutrient foods or should be encouraged more aggressively (like by limits) to spend them on nutrient dense foods.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions