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
-
This was not sarcasm by the way. New Hampshire is a slice of woodsy heaven for real.
So...this is off the topic but, agreed. Portsmouth is always a great weekend get away. Franconia Notch is one of my favorite places I have ever been. I visit NH as often as I can. I'll be there in September for the NH Highland Games.
0 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »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.
There's no state earned income tax in New Hampshire and it has one of the highest life quality indexes of all the 50 states. As long as you don't mind an overabundance of strip malls and no good Chinese restaurants. But other than that it's like a slice of woodsy heaven.
As a relatively prosperous state, NH actually has a relatively high per capita tax burden, but as it's levied via property tax, it's much less visible than in states that have sales or income tax.
By nature, property taxes are much more democratic and inherently progressive(not a good or a bad thing, just a descriptor) than income or sales taxes.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.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
The way people think (or feel) about governmental food assistance is often closely tied to their thoughts (or feelings) about taxation. If you want people to discuss governmental assistance without ever getting into taxes, you're essentially asking for them to limit their explanations of how they got to their position.
Given that you were previously going off on corporate responsibility in this very thread, I'm not sure why discussion of taxation and how it may relate to governmental assistance annoys you so much. Taxes are as related to the topic as corporate responsibility is.4 -
janejellyroll 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.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
The way people think (or feel) about governmental food assistance is often closely tied to their thoughts (or feelings) about taxation. If you want people to discuss governmental assistance without ever getting into taxes, you're essentially asking for them to limit their explanations of how they got to their position.
Given that you were previously going off on corporate responsibility in this very thread, I'm not sure why discussion of taxation and how it may relate to governmental assistance annoys you so much. Taxes are as related to the topic as corporate responsibility is.
to me this entire explanation you just gave allows people to sidestep the emotional aspect of people in need and how they feel about helping others, compassion empathy..instead just lets talk about money.
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »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.
There's no state earned income tax in New Hampshire and it has one of the highest life quality indexes of all the 50 states. As long as you don't mind an overabundance of strip malls and no good Chinese restaurants. But other than that it's like a slice of woodsy heaven.
As a relatively prosperous state, NH actually has a relatively high per capita tax burden, but as it's levied via property tax, it's much less visible than in states that have sales or income tax.
By nature, property taxes are much more democratic and inherently progressive(not a good or a bad thing, just a descriptor) than income or sales taxes.
Kind of off-topic, but my dad lives in Washington just across the border from Oregon, and because Washington has a high sales tax but no income tax and Oregon is the reverse, stores would ask you what state you were a resident of and not charge the sales tax if you were from WA (I guess some kind of reciprocity agreement?). The first time I had no clue why and so said, in a puzzled tone, Illinois? "Do you have a sales tax?" was the reply. I laughed and said "oh, yeah." (I suppose if I'd said no she might not have charged me.)1 -
janejellyroll 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.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
The way people think (or feel) about governmental food assistance is often closely tied to their thoughts (or feelings) about taxation. If you want people to discuss governmental assistance without ever getting into taxes, you're essentially asking for them to limit their explanations of how they got to their position.
Given that you were previously going off on corporate responsibility in this very thread, I'm not sure why discussion of taxation and how it may relate to governmental assistance annoys you so much. Taxes are as related to the topic as corporate responsibility is.
to me this entire explanation you just gave allows people to sidestep the emotional aspect of people in need and how they feel about helping others, compassion empathy..instead just lets talk about money.
Well, that's because people are allowed to sidestep the emotional component of the debate if they desire to do so. There is no obligation for people to make appeals to emotion during a debate or to use their emotions to reach a conclusion.
You don't have to use either compassion or empathy in coming to a conclusion about whether or not food assistance should restrict certain foods. If someone wants to approach it purely as a financial issue, they're free to do so.1 -
janejellyroll 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.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
The way people think (or feel) about governmental food assistance is often closely tied to their thoughts (or feelings) about taxation. If you want people to discuss governmental assistance without ever getting into taxes, you're essentially asking for them to limit their explanations of how they got to their position.
Given that you were previously going off on corporate responsibility in this very thread, I'm not sure why discussion of taxation and how it may relate to governmental assistance annoys you so much. Taxes are as related to the topic as corporate responsibility is.
to me this entire explanation you just gave allows people to sidestep the emotional aspect of people in need and how they feel about helping others, compassion empathy..instead just lets talk about money.
When you start talking about feelings instead of facts, especially in this topic you end up talking about the other side of the emotional aspect which is widespread abuse and dependency on the systems. Although, measures are being put into place to reduce, but not eliminate the self licking/self perpetuating elements of the systems.
Let's not forget the emotions a 16 year old boy experiences when both of his parents work, but they can't afford cable or even a television, but the neighbor across the street(his friend) has for the last 10 years had neither parent working but has cable and a Nintendo and his own television.
Yes do lets talk about emotions instead of facts, figures and how the help gets provided in an "hand up" and not hand out manner.4 -
to me this entire explanation you just gave allows people to sidestep the emotional aspect of people in need and how they feel about helping others, compassion empathy..instead just lets talk about money.
I guess I see it the other way. Those suggesting the government should provide assistance are all emotion and little or no action.
I.E. it's easy to say someone (government) should do something. It's hard to actually go out and collect food, or make meals, or donate their own time, talent or treasure.
We don't get to ascribe responsibilities to others. If you think people are responsible for feeding others, that means you are saying YOU are responsible for feeding others.
I'm fine with you deciding you are responsible for feeding others, or believing government should have the funds to do so. What I'm not fine with is assigning that responsibility to others.
Many of the same people who don't want to assign the responsibility to buy only healthy or "approved" foods have no problem assigning society the tax burden of supporting the plan.
Seems contradictory to me.
How is it ok to assign responsibility to one group, the taxpayer or society, but then say we cannot assign responsibility to the recipients to use it wisely?
I say stop assigning responsibility to both groups. Give YOUR money as you see fit and let someone handle it as they please. That's the only consistent position. Well, maybe not only. But certainly more consistent compared to assigning some responsibility to act while not others.5 -
If money weren't a necessary evil, resources would still be allocated to, earned by or available to a disproportionate minority of folks, imo.
Geography, merit, IQ, mental health, family ties, fueds or lacktherof, luck, genes, age and physical attractiveness would all play a part in determining who got their basic needs met and who could go beyond and live in circumstances of surplus.
Religious scripture, philosophy and a basic foundation of ethics try to set up some parameters to keep people from starving or becoming completely disenfranchised but ultimately its up to the individual and how much an individual is willing to give or to sacrifice to help another who's not making it.
And with a money based system, there's taxes. There's no getting away from it.
If you want to talk about feelings though, and I would welcome it and answer to the best of my ability, you'd have to ask very specific questions.
Supporting the food stamp program is no indicator of compassion. Opposition to the food stamp program is similarly no indication of a lack of compassion.
People often trot out "Jesus said feed the poor..." when asking why some don't support government programs.
They fail to realize that Jesus was talking to people. He said YOU feed the poor. He didn't say create a large government apparatus to feed the poor.
Jesus reserved his greatest rebukes for the political and religious leaders of the day. Both Romans and the Jewish puppets kept in place by Rome.
One can quite consistently be in favor of helping others and opposed to it being a government function. In fact, one might say that is totally in line with what Jesus taught.3 -
janejellyroll 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.
then debate the TOPIC not taxes omg. do I have to actually spell this out?
The way people think (or feel) about governmental food assistance is often closely tied to their thoughts (or feelings) about taxation. If you want people to discuss governmental assistance without ever getting into taxes, you're essentially asking for them to limit their explanations of how they got to their position.
Given that you were previously going off on corporate responsibility in this very thread, I'm not sure why discussion of taxation and how it may relate to governmental assistance annoys you so much. Taxes are as related to the topic as corporate responsibility is.
to me this entire explanation you just gave allows people to sidestep the emotional aspect of people in need and how they feel about helping others, compassion empathy..instead just lets talk about money.
In the same way that it's naive to imagine that a political philosophy of the Victorian era has meaningful relevance in the 21st century, it's also naive to imagine that the issue doesn't come down to money. There is meaningful debate around how money is directed. Direct aid, universal basic income, education, healthcare, supply market development or penal reform are all potential routes to mitigating poverty.
Compassion is all very well, but without the resource to address the issue it's of little worth.1 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »This was not sarcasm by the way. New Hampshire is a slice of woodsy heaven for real.
So...this is off the topic but, agreed. Portsmouth is always a great weekend get away. Franconia Notch is one of my favorite places I have ever been. I visit NH as often as I can. I'll be there in September for the NH Highland Games.
I read this and thought why would anyone want to spend a weekend in dogsh!t city?... Then realised you weren't talking about the same place I know...
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »debrakgoogins wrote: »This was not sarcasm by the way. New Hampshire is a slice of woodsy heaven for real.
So...this is off the topic but, agreed. Portsmouth is always a great weekend get away. Franconia Notch is one of my favorite places I have ever been. I visit NH as often as I can. I'll be there in September for the NH Highland Games.
I read this and thought why would anyone want to spend a weekend in dogsh!t city?... Then realised you weren't talking about the same place I know...
I can only assume that an inmate of that hellhole that is Pompey has hit the Woo button. Or maybe it's a cry for help 0 -
Sadly it's a slippery slope. Honestly on grocery day all I see is people buying school foods and canned goods but that could just be the place I go to.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions