Maine Governor wants to stop EBT being used for candy/soft drinks

Rana said:
Well, that is another discussion and one that experts don't agree with you. We have had this argument for over 10 years, you are a want to privatize and I think it is foolish.
Click to expand...

Good lord. This has nothing to do with privatizing. Today's benefits are not sustainable into the future. That is a fact.
 
CFM said:
As long as if you're on it, and that means you've demanded someone else be forced to fund your food, no demand is unreasonable. It's unreasonable to demand someone else be forced to buy your food then get mad when they want to set rules. It's easy. Don't like the rules, don't demand the help.
Click to expand...

then let's make it real easy on everybody and hand out all the spoiled and expired food to EBT people, since no demand is unreasonable.
 
cawacko said:
Is your belief that if we didn't have food stamps more poor people would stop having children?
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone that would say that. What it would mean is that when a poor person that had kids they already couldn't support had more, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to offset their results of their choice.

I don't care how many kids someone has as long as they support them. That means if someone has kids they can't support, it doesn't matter to me how many more they have as long as they don't demand I am one of those that is forced to fund THEIR choice.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then let's make it real easy on everybody and hand out all the spoiled and expired food to EBT people, since no demand is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Let's make it easier. Don't have any of those unconstitutional programs at all. Let each person decide for themselves who they want to help. If the one voluntarily giving help deems the request is worthy, he/she can help. If they don't, they can refuse to do so. In the end what happens is I don't dictate to someone else what should and shouldn't be done and vice versa.
 
CFM said:
I don't know of anyone that would say that. What it would mean is that when a poor person that had kids they already couldn't support had more, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to offset their results of their choice.

I don't care how many kids someone has as long as they support them. That means if someone has kids they can't support, it doesn't matter to me how many more they have as long as they don't demand I am one of those that is forced to fund THEIR choice.
Click to expand...
But that's essentially what you're asking for though isn't? If people have kids they can't afford you don't want food stamps or gov't aid going their way right?
 
Rana said:
Well, that is another discussion and one that experts don't agree with you. We have had this argument for over 10 years, you are a want to privatize and I think it is foolish.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone be forced to be part of a program like SS? Why shouldn't people be able to save/invest the money they make the way they see fit?
 
CFM said:
Let's make it easier. Don't have any of those unconstitutional programs at all. Let each person decide for themselves who they want to help. If the one voluntarily giving help deems the request is worthy, he/she can help. If they don't, they can refuse to do so. In the end what happens is I don't dictate to someone else what should and shouldn't be done and vice versa.
Click to expand...

i'm happy getting rid of social welfare programs as long as we get rid of corporate and government welfare programs as well.
 
cawacko said:
But that's essentially what you're asking for though isn't? If people have kids they can't afford you don't want food stamps or gov't aid going their way right?
Click to expand...

My answer to your question above was "no, it wouldn't mean poor people would stop having kids". What it would mean is that those of us forced to pay for a choice they made and in many situations told us to butt out of when it was being made would no longer have to pay for something THEY chose to do. Do you believe that people should pay for the choices they make including having kids?

What I expect from you is that if you think someone that chose to have kids they can't afford should get another person's money, is for you to write a check and do it with your own money. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to help someone should I make the determination it's a worthy cause. It means I don't think it's the government's or anyone else's place to force me to do so.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i'm happy getting rid of social welfare programs as long as we get rid of corporate and government welfare programs as well.
Click to expand...

I've heard the term corporate welfare although I'm not sure I would call it welfare in the sense the term is used. Can't say I've heard the term government welfare. Give an example.
 
CFM said:
I've heard the term corporate welfare although I'm not sure I would call it welfare in the sense the term is used. Can't say I've heard the term government welfare. Give an example.
Click to expand...

adding 100,000 to a budget bill so a congress critter can have a park built in their district that has their name on it. giving grants to local police departments to buy a bearcar or mrap
 
SmarterthanYou said:
adding 100,000 to a budget bill so a congress critter can have a park built in their district that has their name on it. giving grants to local police departments to buy a bearcar or mrap
Click to expand...

You mean wasteful pork barrel spending? Sure

Do you oppose state/local governments taxing you to raise funds for local police and fire? That's 10th Amendment compliant.
 
CFM said:
How does something being a need make it a right?
Click to expand...
good pick up. I was wondering if I could slip that thru unchallenged.
it's obviously not a Constitutional right, nor is it an innate American right (sic) like "the pursuit of happiness",
anymore then health care are those rights.

But they are basic biological human rights of survival, along with shelter and clothing.
So we make them a high priority as a society (i.e.) "human rights"

Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow's pyramid http://thefutureofgolf.eu/maslows-hierarchy-needs/

heirarchyofneeds-e1412171967833.png
 
anatta said:
good pick up. I was wondering if I could slip that thru unchallenged.
it's obviously not a Constitutional right, nor is it an innate American right (sic) like "the pursuit of happiness",
anymore then health care are those rights.

But they are basic biological human rights of survival, along with shelter and clothing.
So we make them a high priority as a society (i.e.) "human rights"

Think Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow's pyramid http://thefutureofgolf.eu/maslows-hierarchy-needs/

heirarchyofneeds-e1412171967833.png
Click to expand...

Nothing you've said validates one group being forced to fund it for another.

If it's not a Constitutional right or an innate American right, the rest is irrelevant.

To use what you say, what's to keep someone needing a car having that funded by the taxpayers using the argument that the car allows someone to go to work in order that they provide themselves with "basic biological human rights"
 
CFM said:
Nothing you've said validates one group being forced to fund it for another.

If it's not a Constitutional right or an innate American right, the rest is irrelevant.

To use what you say, what's to keep someone needing a car having that funded by the taxpayers using the argument that the car allows someone to go to work in order that they provide themselves with "basic biological human rights"
Click to expand...
we have a transportation system. people can walk to work. It's clear you have no use for a social contract -Ok - but society as whole does.
 
anatta said:
we have a transportation system. people can walk to work. It's clear you have no use for a social contract -Ok - but society as whole does.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

I have no use for fucking freeloaders that expect people to provide for them what their sorry asses are too lazy, stupid, or unwilling to provide themselves. Apparently you're stupid enough to do for people what they won't do for themselves.

Strange that many of those in society that believe in that bullshit concept don't fund what they say should be in place.
 
CFM said:
Not necessarily.

I have no use for fucking freeloaders that expect people to provide for them what their sorry asses are too lazy, stupid, or unwilling to provide themselves. Apparently you're stupid enough to do for people what they won't do for themselves.

Strange that many of those in society that believe in that bullshit concept don't fund what they say should be in place.
Click to expand...

We are a Christian nation and don't want to see people starving to death on our streets. There are people who take advantage of the system and there are people who work hard but for a couple of bad breaks are in a position where we need help. The reality is the government safety net will never be taken away. The discussion has turned to issues like this one where should people who get government help have choice over what they choose to purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top