Republicans Try to Cut Food Stamps as 15% of U.S. Households Face Hunger

[Brown_Pride]

I said low as possible, not "no taxes". The protection of property rights is best handled by the state.

What right does the government have by your logic to tax at all? You can't have it both ways. Or at least explain which taxes you're ok with and why.

No the initiation of force is morally wrong. I'd be against it wholly... @ where this is going.

let me show you what you wrote, and if you're at were it's going keep in mind that's where your logic takes it....

"I dont expect or advocate for the immediate ending of all social programs as its suggested at times. "

You brought up the "who will pick the cotton" example when I brought up the idea that if people were allowed to choose which taxes to support. I then took that line of thinking mixed it with your above quote on "not immediately ending social programs" to point out that your logic would lend itself to a gradual decrease in slavery over time regardless of the "rightness of it".

Like I said you can't have things both ways. Either it's wrong or right. If there is a degree of "grey" in there somewhere then explain WHEN that is ok vs when it's not..

Blame? no. But I think it would do a lot for our community to have these youngster working learning a trade, instead of hanging out on the street corner together.

That's a fairly common sense thing though. NOt sure how it ties into the overall point of the thread or convo so i'll let it die so we don't get side tracked. I don't think ANYONE is against having teens have access to jobs

as for your second point, "safe" for whom?

for the people who live in them? http://www.newgeography.com/content/003799-crime-down-urban-cores-and-suburbs

You still didnt answer my ?, and its relevant again. Why is what one free man pays another free man your business?

because history has shown that without protection one free man tends to take complete fukin advantage of another free man unless someone tells him not to. (See: The company store for details.)

I know its because you believe we are sharing this pie, and in order to get more of it, some one else ha to get less. But that just isnt true at all. Economics is not a zero sum game.

never argued that it was.

@ the example
The economic cost isnt worth the benefit.

As i said, welfare is broken. I believe that 100%. THe solution though isn't to get rid of it. It isn't to reduce it...at least not yet.

I don't believe our current social programs are whats "best" for "the people"

nor do I. Again they are broken, but the solution isn't to take away the patients pain medicine because it's not fixing the wound.

Economics is what sustains "the people" and government keeps getting in the way. They are all tied together at this point

Sure it HELPS to sustain the people but it not aught to be the main focus of a government. Money< people. Period. Bottom line.

Is it economical to pay 1 million dollars to save the life of a new born baby?

The danger in your line of thinking is that the truthful, statistical answer to teh above question is NO, it's not economical to save that child's life.

But is it "right" to save the child's life?

Quite literally your philosophy takes you to this question and to the answer I just gave. (i mean literally you're advocating pulling the food out of people's hands).

is it economical? No.

 

[DEAD7]

What right does the government have by your logic to tax at all? You can't have it both ways. Or at least explain which taxes you're ok with and why.

Governments need to tax to function, its what functions government should be doing that's in question(for me at least).
I've already said a flat consumption tax is what I'd like to see... or at least I think i have said that lol. The argument is it doesn't hurt rich people as much as poor people, but my question is why is the goal to hurt them in the first place? Progressive vs regressive arguments are attempts to make everyone hurt the same, not pay the same. i disagree with it.

let me show you what you wrote, and if you're at were it's going keep in mind that's where your logic takes it....

"I dont expect or advocate for the immediate ending of all social programs as its suggested at times. "
You brought up the "who will pick the cotton" example when I brought up the idea that if people were allowed to choose which taxes to support. I then took that line of thinking mixed it with your above quote on "not immediately ending social programs" to point out that your logic would lend itself to a gradual decrease in slavery over time regardless of the "rightness of it".

Like I said you can't have things both ways. Either it's wrong or right. If there is a degree of "grey" in there somewhere then explain WHEN that is ok vs when it's not..

The line(for me) lies with the initiation of force, which slavery purely is. Social programs themselves are not wrong... let me repeat, social programs themselves are not wrong. What they aim to do isn't wrong. In fact its great. Its who is instituting them(the federal gov.) and how they are funded that i disagree with.
Me not wanting government to take money from one person to feed another doesn't mean i hate those people or want them to die... as its been suggested at various points in this thread.

because history has shown that without protection one free man tends to take complete fukin advantage of another free man unless someone tells him not to. (See: The company store for details.)

Sure, and we should punish those who do.
What your suggesting is that you(as a third party) can assess the value of some ones production to some one else. I think that's extremely arrogant, and every ad hoc regulation designed to arbitrate these voluntary interaction between citizens is wrong.

Only those directly involved in the transaction and those who suffer (directly) the repercussions of the decision should have say. IMHO.

But is it "right" to save the child's life?
is it economical?

If its a poor economic decision, you must ask, how many other lives will be loss or threw into poverty because of these ill advised decisions/policies? when is it enough?

You want to save and help people at any cost, I want to do it at the lowest cost and i'm sure we both would like to create a situation where people weren't starving in the first place... I feel freeing up the market will facilitate this. You do not.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Governments need to tax to function, its what functions government should be doing that's in question(for me at least).
I've already said a flat consumption tax is what I'd like to see... or at least I think i have said that lol. The argument it doesn't hurt rich people as much as poor people, but my question is why is the goal to hurt them in the first place? Progressive vs regressive arguments are attempts to make everyone hurt the same, not pay the same. i disagree with it.


The line(for me) lies with the initiation of force, which slavery purely is. Social programs themselves are not wrong... let me repeat, social programs themselves are not wrong. What they aim to do isn't wrong. In fact its great. Its who is instituting them(the federal gov.) and how they are funded that i disagree with.
Me not wanting government to take money from one person to feed another doesn't mean i hate those people or want them to die... as its been suggested at various points in this thread.


Sure, and we should punish those who do.
What your suggesting is that you(as a third party) can assess the value of some ones production to some one else. I think that's extremely arrogant, and every ad hoc regulation designed to arbitrate these voluntary interaction between citizens is wrong.

Only those directly involved in the transaction and those who suffer (directly) the repercussions of the decision should have say. IMHO.



If its a poor economic decision, you must ask, how many other lives will be loss or threw into poverty because of these ill advised decisions/policies? when is it enough?

You want to save and help people at any cost, I want to do it at the lowest cost and i'm sure we both would like to create a situation where people weren't starving in the first place... I feel freeing up the market will facilitate this. You do not.

I feel you. But like the underlining says, we just don't agree on the road to get to that point. I don't see how the end game is being people not starving" but the solution to that problem is to remove the very thing feeding millions of people. Like i've said, welfare isn't the solution to the problem; it's an attempt at a solution to the symptom. I really don't know how to highlight this point beyond likening it to a cancer patient on pain meds.

We give pain meds to address the symptom of pain. We wouldn't STOP giving the patient pain meds instead of chemo, we would give him pain meds until chemo worked.

 

[DEAD7]

I feel you. But like the underlining says, we just don't agree on the road to get to that point. I don't see how the end game is being people not starving" but the solution to that problem is to remove the very thing feeding millions of people. Like i've said, welfare isn't the solution to the problem; it's an attempt at a solution to the symptom. I really don't know how to highlight this point beyond likening it to a cancer patient on pain meds.

We give pain meds to address the symptom of pain. We wouldn't STOP giving the patient pain meds instead of chemo, we would give him pain meds until chemo worked.

checks out.

 

[acri1]

Governments need to tax to function, its what functions government should be doing that's in question(for me at least).
I've already said a flat consumption tax is what I'd like to see... or at least I think i have said that lol. The argument it doesn't hurt rich people as much as poor people, but my question is why is the goal to hurt them in the first place? Progressive vs regressive arguments are attempts to make everyone hurt the same, not pay the same. i disagree with it.

You just contradicted yourself.

LIke you said, taxes are inevitable, without taxes there can't be a government. So somebody is gonna be "hurt" any way you go, I don't see why you'd be in favor of tax policy that benefits the rich.

Plus it's poor economic policy. Poor and middle class people spend a much higher percentage of their income on goods and services than rich people. If poor people get a tax break they're much more likely to spend the money (thus stimulating the economy) than rich people. That's why it makes no sense, not only ethically but also economically, to have a regressive tax policy. It's literally a drag on the economy when all the wealth is concentrated at the top.

And make no mistake, a flat tax IS regressive.

 

[DEAD7]

You just contradicted yourself.

LIke you said, taxes are inevitable, without taxes there can't be a government. So somebody is gonna be "hurt" any way you go, I don't see why you'd be in favor of tax policy that benefits the rich.

Plus it's poor economic policy. Poor and middle class people spend a much higher percentage of their income on goods and services than rich people. If poor people get a tax break they're much more likely to spend the money (thus stimulating the economy) than rich people. That's why it makes no sense, not only ethically but also economically, to have a regressive tax policy. It's literally a drag on the economy when all the wealth is concentrated at the top.

And make no mistake, a flat tax IS regressive.

Tax debates make my head spin lol

The issue has nothing to do with the poor... neither side is looking out for the poor or working towards their benefit. A flat tax of 5% or a progressive tax starting at 5% mean the poor pay 5%. It doesn't matter what the system is.
THE POOR ARE NOT HURT MORE BY A FLAT TAX. <--- very important.

You just cant stand the thought of the rich paying a smaller % of their income(even though they are paying more).

Its basically a "fukk rich people" argument, and I disagree with it. We shouldn't be out to hurt anyone, or arbitrarily decide what we think is fair and force it upon others.

Also the concentration of wealth at the top has nothing to do with taxes. its a combination of over regulation, corporatism, ill advised policies, and ultimately a failed citizenry.

Spoiler

Its worth noting I disagree with the income brackets altogether and think they are outdated, and household income statistics are meaningless, and crumble under scrutiny

 

[Kritic]

"govt" or "republicans"? either way i don't give a fuq...

 

[Kritic]

Obama Signing Farm Bill That Trims Food Stamps

President Barack Obama is carrying out a presidential duty that he hasn't had a lot of opportunity to perform recently: signing into law a major piece of bipartisan legislation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-signing-farm-bill-trimming-food-stamps-22404460

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

who is John Galt?

 

[NZA]

i dont want to hear any republicans talking about puting jesus back into the classroom or any other moral nonsense if you can promote anti-christian economic policies.

deal?

 

[Kang Deezy]

I don't blame them at all.

Way too many people take advantage of this, or are enabled to be lazy.

I was hoping more for people using food stamps to be drug tested tho.

 

[Kritic]

I don't blame them at all.

Way too many people take advantage of this, or are enabled to be lazy.

I was hoping more for people using food stamps to be drug tested tho.

but weed is gonna get legal. niccas gonna be even hongrier after smokin. and get lazier.
we'll need more food stamps...

 

[88m3]

I don't blame them at all.

Way too many people take advantage of this, or are enabled to be lazy.

I was hoping more for people using food stamps to be drug tested tho.

cool story bro