Yes, because of the bolded part I originally wrote, but you chose not to quote.
I didn't quote it because it assumes I would say yes to the question, but any moron could figure that out.
Then why don't we figure it out when it's the government spending our money for us. That's my point.
I am aware that people spend tax dollars on things that are not intended. The catch is I am not getting my panties in a twist about it.
Hence my point. We'd never trust that guy to spend the money on food if he asked us directly, but if he asks the government, and the government forces us to give him the money, it's perfectly ok? Isn't that strange?
Sure some people buy items with the money that isn't the most benificial to their well being. There is the catch. Either you give them freedom and let them choose what they want to get (within reason) or you set up massive walls of what you can buy and waht you cannot buy.
So you would give the random person claiming to need money for food the money he asked for? I thought you said you wouldn't be stupid enough to do that? So you have no problem at all refusing to give someone the "freedom to choose" what to do with the $5 you gave them for food if it comes from you directly to them, but you take the opposite position if the government forces you to give that person money.
That's why I brought up this issue. You're kinda proving my point.
Which then raises the question of are the items you are deciding they pick out best for their health or your wallet? On a side note, are you seriously telling us that you want more governmental oversight and a bigger government? Because in order to not only set up but enforce your ideals on the subject we would need both. Rather amusing.
Hell. I haven't even gotten to how we solve the problem. I'm still struggling to get some people to even acknowledge that people spending food stamp money on things they don't need is a problem in the first place. One thing at a time.
If the condition in bold is true, and the amount allocated is just enough to make up the difference then they should not have extra money to buy luxuries
Last I checked they go "ok, you make <x> amount. Here is <y> amount to cover food expenses." They don't look at how you are allocating your budget and determine how much to give you based on how much you spend every week on groceries like they do in Gbaji land.
Yes. But everything else being the same, if adding y to x results in more money than is needed to cover their food expenses, then the value of y can be reduced relative to the value of x until that's no longer the case. We already make an assessment of how much y should be based on x right now, so this is not some additional requirement. I'm simply suggesting that we're either giving people too much money in food stamps, or we're allowing x to be higher than it needs to be when deciding to hand out y. Either way, our calculation is wrong, right?
Also I am not making a fallacy with my argument. I am stating that the mother didn't have enough for food, as in the mother and child would starve if they tried to live off what little bit of food they can buy. They get food stamps and they find that they could afford soft drinks with the money she used to spend for food.
Yes. Which means that the amount they received in food stamps was more than they needed
. If you have $50, but you need $100 to pay for school books, you need $50 to make up the difference. If your parents give you $100 for school books, they are giving you $50 too much. Similarly, if said mother and daughter are $100 short on money each month, and can't buy enough food, we should only give them $100 to make up the difference. If we give them $200 for food, we're giving them too much. See how that works?
It isn't like she is going out and buying coke to sniff off her daughters back. She is buying a food item that would be considered a luxury items. Pro tip - instead of looking at the page and guessing what a person wrote it helps to actually read, heaven knows you must know the basics about reading with the walls of text you normally type.
I read what you wrote perfectly. Perhaps you should take the time to read what I'm writing?
I'm not sure how anyone's condition as a child has any bearing on the correctness of their position on any issue anyway.
Then may I ask why you tried to use it?
I didn't. Not as proof that I understood the issue better at least. Ironically, I used my own experience to argue that not being able to afford soda in the fridge does *not* make you poor, and said absence did not mean you needed food stamps. I said that we went without a lot of things like soda, but we never needed food stamps. So I don't feel sorry for someone on food stamps complaining if they cant use them to buy soda. Other posters went off on some kind of "you weren't really poor; you don't know about poverty" bit.
So what is "poor' then? Is it just a word we sling around to convince people to support social spending programs? Or does it have an actual quantifiable meaning?
According to merriam-webster it is the condition relating to poverty, which is the following.
[quote]the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
I will let people who are experts on the matter determine what would be the best way to give things like food stamps to the poor than some guy who thinks a person that has a 2 bath home, pool and a lexus as a lower middle class person. [/quote]
So just not be involved at all in the political decisions around you? Kinda defeating the whole point of living in a democracy IMO. If the experts consistently get it wrong, perhaps us non-experts ought to point it out to them. Additionally, if we voters don't apply pressure to those experts, they have no incentive to get it right in the first place. Experts are not magical beings. Blindly trusting them to do the right thing is just as stupid as trusting that guy to buy a sandwich instead of beer. Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 7:42pm by gbaji