Finally some common sense out of DC

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Commonsense might imply that redistributing other people's money is theft. What the other people do with the money, whether it be buying potato chips or buying wholesome food seems to be avoiding the underlying issue.
 
Commander Strax

Commander Strax

Well-Known Member
It is not "their" money, It is the tax payers money being spent by some non working lazy peice of shit. Get a fucking job if you want to buy junk food.

Let take this one step more and if they have more kids give them less money not more.

If you are working then these people are eating your food.
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
Not everyone that's on Food Stamps is a lazy, shiftless bum that doesn't want to work. I have no problem extending a helping hand to the needy, but let's use some common sense about it. WIC is a good program that has limited buying choices based on food needs. You want something not on your WIC list, you pay cash. SNAP should be the same way, based on nutritional needs.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
I can see more people starving soon.
So, what people want to see is people struggling harder to fill their bellies? After constant nutritional reports
on low income people and the effects of not eating right, it is well known that those people are priced out of a
good healthy meal.

So now, those people will have to spend more for their meals and will then put less food into their homes.
Morally sound? I think not.

I find it ironically funny to see the same people who cry foul when the gov does something they don't like
trying to dictate how other people feed themselves.

Oh yeah, taxes are a fact of life, get over it or don't pay them and soon enough you can have a roof over your
head and 3 square a day. Perhaps, instead of picking on people who are trying to eat, those who have issues with how
their tax dollars are spent could start chipping away at some military budgets to cut some costs.....
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I can see more people starving soon.
So, what people want to see is people struggling harder to fill their bellies? After constant nutritional reports
on low income people and the effects of not eating right, it is well known that those people are priced out of a
good healthy meal.

So now, those people will have to spend more for their meals and will then put less food into their homes.
Morally sound? I think not.

I find it ironically funny to see the same people who cry foul when the gov does something they don't like
trying to dictate how other people feed themselves.

Oh yeah, taxes are a fact of life, get over it or don't pay them and soon enough you can have a roof over your
head and 3 square a day. Perhaps, instead of picking on people who are trying to eat, those who have issues with how
their tax dollars are spent could start chipping away at some military budgets to cut some costs.....
Click to expand...
Is it wrong to take something that isn't yours, regardless of how the recipient is going to spend the money? Or if the stolen money is spent in ways that you like, does that excuse the initial theft?
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Is it wrong to take something that isn't yours, regardless of how the recipient is going to spend the money? Or if the stolen money is spent in ways that you like, does that excuse the initial theft?
Click to expand...
The government is not stealing by collecting tax.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Commander Strax said:
^^stupid comment^^ the democrats want you to eat potato chips and mountain dew???
Click to expand...

No, BOTH, the democrats like the republicans want to justify redistributing other peoples money. Before the argument over WHAT is purchased is begun, shouldn't the wrongful act of taking of other people's money be part of the discussion?
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, BOTH, the democrats like the republicans want to justify redistributing other peoples money. Before the argument over WHAT is purchased is begun, shouldn't the wrongful act of taking of other people's money be part of the discussion?
Click to expand...
Why do you have a problem paying your share?
Do you expect everyone else to supply you with roads, bridges schools etc?

Taxes get distributed in many, many ways, how about addressing other outrageous budgets
instead of taking food from a family for example.
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I can see more people starving soon.
So, what people want to see is people struggling harder to fill their bellies? After constant nutritional reports
on low income people and the effects of not eating right, it is well known that those people are priced out of a
good healthy meal.

So now, those people will have to spend more for their meals and will then put less food into their homes.
Morally sound? I think not.

I find it ironically funny to see the same people who cry foul when the gov does something they don't like
trying to dictate how other people feed themselves.

Oh yeah, taxes are a fact of life, get over it or don't pay them and soon enough you can have a roof over your
head and 3 square a day. Perhaps, instead of picking on people who are trying to eat, those who have issues with how
their tax dollars are spent could start chipping away at some military budgets to cut some costs.....
Click to expand...
How would removing items like Red Bull, ice cream, Cheetos, candy, ect and limiting it to basic foods with nutritional value take food out of their bellies? If set up like WIC, it will limit them to pre-approved items at a pre-approved price. I managed grocery stores for years and this is a good idea. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on bread, fruit and meat instead of Red Bull, Cheetos and Snickers. At least I know it's being spent of something nutritional.

Morally sound? Absolutely.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Which way is the "proper way" to redistribute other people's money without their permission...do tell us.
Click to expand...
Once it's payed as tax it's no longer other people's money

Dictating to poor people what they can eat doesn't do anything apart from give people with powertrips a raging hardon
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
How would removing items like Red Bull, ice cream, Cheetos, candy, ect and limiting it to basic foods with nutritional value take food out of their bellies? If set up like WIC, it will limit them to pre-approved items at a pre-approved price. I managed grocery stores for years and this is a good idea. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on bread, fruit and meat instead of Red Bull, Cheetos and Snickers. At least I know it's being spent of something nutritional.

Morally sound? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
No

10 characters
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
How would removing items like Red Bull, ice cream, Cheetos, candy, ect and limiting it to basic foods with nutritional value take food out of their bellies? If set up like WIC, it will limit them to pre-approved items at a pre-approved price. I managed grocery stores for years and this is a good idea. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on bread, fruit and meat instead of Red Bull, Cheetos and Snickers. At least I know it's being spent of something nutritional.

Morally sound? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
I agree that healthy eating is what is needed, the point that I am trying to make is that healthy foods
are more expensive.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
Why do you have a problem paying your share?
Do you expect everyone else to supply you with roads, bridges schools etc?

Taxes get distributed in many, many ways, how about addressing other outrageous budgets
instead of taking food from a family for example.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem paying for that which I use and gladly do so when the opportunity is there. My objection is to the present scheme, which bundles "goods and services" with bads and disservices. This is the method of the warfare / welfare state. It's deigned to keep people subservient to government.

Why DON'T you have a problem with the present scheme that insists that your payments also go to buy things that kill people?

Also, when do you think it is acceptable to redistribute other people's money ?

Taking food from a family, is really missing the point. In order to "give" that food, the government first has to take the funds away from someone don't they?
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
Once it's payed as tax it's no longer other people's money

Dictating to poor people what they can eat doesn't do anything apart from turn give people with powertrips a raging hardon
Click to expand...
Not at all. WIC is a sound, well regulated program that has restricted buying power. I haven't heard any uproar about the way it's run and it has been around for years.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I agree that healthy eating is what is needed, the point that I am trying to make is that healthy foods
are more expensive.
Click to expand...
What is needed is for people to be responsible for their actions and their decisions. Volunteering to help people is a good thing. However, taking other people's money and calling it charity, is word smithing. Charity does not come from theft. It comes from free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top