Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#152 Jan 04 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
If we were honest, we'd just end the programs and spend the money on food banks, soup kitchens, meals on wheels, etc. So if someone is actually hungry, they can show up and get a meal any time they want for free. ****. With the money we'd save, we could probably deliver food directly to people's homes. But of course it would be actual food instead of some method which can be used to obtain food, so there's just not enough ability to abuse it, so it will be rejected out of hand by liberals who really do seem to care more about making things as complicated and obtuse as possible in the name of some cause than they do actually dealing with the problem they claim to care about.

Seems unlikely liberals would have an issue with it as having food available to anyone to get if they were hungry is pretty much definitional socialism. Replace "food" with "healthcare" and I think you can imagine the conservative response to such a program.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#153gbaji, Posted: Jan 04 2013 at 7:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And yet, it's conservatives who spend their own money donating to soup kitchens and other such programs. The issue is government involvement Smash. You know darn well that even if we eliminated all food stamp programs tomorrow, not one person would starve to death in the US as a result. Food is so abundant, and private sources for those truly in need so readily available that there really is no need for the government to get involved. Liberals push for the government solution, not because it's needed, but because it's a government solution and they've been indoctrinated into the assumption that if we aren't solving a problem with a government program, then we just don't care. Which leads us to invent problems for government to solve, but most liberals don't notice that either.
#154 Jan 04 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Zymunn wrote:
Now go to whatever online source and look up the definitions of absolute and and selective. Even a thesaurus. Then provide the link to show that those two words share the same or similar meanings.


Why? I never said the definition of the two words were the same. I said that both words apply to the situation at hand. In exactly the same way that "blue" and "fast" aren't synonyms, but it's quite possible for a car to be both "blue" and "fast".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Jan 04 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
297 posts
gbaji wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Now go to whatever online source and look up the definitions of absolute and and selective. Even a thesaurus. Then provide the link to show that those two words share the same or similar meanings.


Why? I never said the definition of the two words were the same. I said that both words apply to the situation at hand. In exactly the same way that "blue" and "fast" aren't synonyms, but it's quite possible for a car to be both "blue" and "fast".


You're right you didn't. What you did was use selective to justify something being absolute. You know how because the car is fast it has to be blue. If it isn't fast it can't be blue.

What he said about not giving money if he chooses has little correlation to the govt taxing you to provide benifits to others. You don't have the choice, unless you work under the table, but to pay.
#156 Jan 04 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Zymunn wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
Now go to whatever online source and look up the definitions of absolute and and selective. Even a thesaurus. Then provide the link to show that those two words share the same or similar meanings.


Why? I never said the definition of the two words were the same. I said that both words apply to the situation at hand. In exactly the same way that "blue" and "fast" aren't synonyms, but it's quite possible for a car to be both "blue" and "fast".


You're right you didn't. What you did was use selective to justify something being absolute. You know how because the car is fast it has to be blue. If it isn't fast it can't be blue.


No. I said:

Quote:
I just find it interesting how you can so selectively apply an absolute argument.


I never said the argument was selective because it was absolute, or absolute because it was selective. Total comprehension fail on your part I guess.

Quote:
What he said about not giving money if he chooses has little correlation to the govt taxing you to provide benifits to others. You don't have the choice, unless you work under the table, but to pay.


Yeah. Welcome to the point. We kinda should have a choice about what our government spends our tax dollars on (and we do, through our representatives). And a good way to make an argument against some form of spending is to ask people if they'd choose to spend their money that way if they had a direct choice. If the answer would be no, then why allow your government to spend your money that way? You're making exactly the same kind of circular (and bizarre) argument I was talking about: That many people have this strange willingness to accept spending by the government in ways and for things they'd never spend money on themselves. As if somehow because the money is laundered through the government, we cease to have any responsibility for how it's spent.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Jan 04 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
And yet, it's conservatives who spend their own money donating to soup kitchens and other such programs.

Nope. They spend roughly the same amount of money as everyone else, on average. Weighted for the offsetting benefit of tax deductions, they spend less of their own money donating to charity than liberals. There have been a lot of studies, here's the most recent:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033


The issue is government involvement Smash. You know darn well that even if we eliminated all food stamp programs tomorrow, not one person would starve to death in the US as a result.


No, actually I don't know that. People *do* starve to death in the US, but sure, let's stipulate that in the wealthiest nation on the planet, it's not a significant cause of death.


Food is so abundant, and private sources for those truly in need so readily available that there really is no need for the government to get involved.


It's hard to qualify "government involvement". We assume these "sources" are private not for profit ventures that receive not only special tax benefits from the government, buy almost all inclusively direct payments. Deductions to them have tax benefits, etc. In a direct capitalist system without these benefits there's nothing to indicate they would be as available. Nothing at all.


Liberals push for the government solution, not because it's needed, but because it's a government solution and they've been indoctrinated into the assumption that if we aren't solving a problem with a government program, then we just don't care.


Well, it could be indoctrination, or it could be the entire aggregate history of western civilization where massive social problems have *only* ever been solved by the state. It'd be great if Polio or Smallpox has been solved by a merry band of John Galts living in they're secret dirigibles and volcano lairs, but it wasn't. Large problems require large actors, and, yes, central planning. It'd be great if they didn't, if reciprocal altruism ruled the day and those with wealth and privileged acted on their own to help those without, but they don't. It'd be a lovely world if local distributed charitable organizations could provide services for the needy without additional funding and logistical support. They can't. I didn't make it that way, humanity made it that way.


Which leads us to invent problems for government to solve, but most liberals don't notice that either.


OF course we do. Everyone see that, idiot, but you've phrased it wrong. People invent *causes* for terrible things that happen, to the fill the vacuum they feel without them. Then "solutions" to the causes they've invented. Hence, kids shot with guns, let's ban guns. If the kids had been killed with a sword, we'd pass laws against swords. Of course it's not a solution, that's obvious. The benefit is the feeling that something has been done to prevent a similar tragedy. The fact that it won't is completely irrelevant. That's not the point. The point is that humans, generally, can't deal well with randomness. Thus God, thus fate, thus stupid laws. Everything has to have an explanation, even when there is none. Gun control laws wouldn't have prevented Newtown, but they would lower the rate of violent deaths in the US, as they have elsewhere. It's a stupid reason to pass possibly useful laws, which is how it works. The rational reason is never enough.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#158 Jan 05 2013 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Liberals push for the government solution, not because it's needed, but because it's a government solution and they've been indoctrinated into the assumption that if we aren't solving a problem with a government program, then we just don't care.


Conservatives somehow believe that there are/will be enough people to cover down on the less fortunate. The best of people aren't the same when dealing with money. CREAM
#159 Jan 05 2013 at 1:27 PM Rating: Default
******
21,720 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It'd be a lovely world if local distributed charitable organizations could provide services for the needy without additional funding and logistical support. They can't. I didn't make it that way, humanity made it that way.


Except for, you know, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#160 Jan 05 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
And they're always pleading for money because people don't donate enough just from the goodness of their hearts.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#161 Jan 05 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
I don't donate money...mostly because I don't think those organizations do what they say they do, to the extent they claim. I remember a while back some Salvation army folk up here got caught sneaking funds into private accounts. I am sure it happens a lot more often these folks just got caught. Its like cancer research and sh*t.

However!
I do donate old clothing and food items. I just don't donate cash.

Edited, Jan 5th 2013 3:55pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#162 Jan 05 2013 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I only donate to specific people that I know that are actively trying to better themselves. I have limited faith in private organizations. My theory is, if everyone did what I do to an extent, then we wouldn't have much of an emphasis on the aforesaid programs and organizations. The fact that as a people, we do not give or even worse prefer independence rather than dependence, I would feel more comfortable leaving that job to the government.
#163 Jan 05 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
catwho wrote:
And they're always pleading for money because people don't donate enough just from the goodness of their hearts.

Given the context of the discussion, "additional funding" means government assistance. Of course charitable organizations have to ask for money. It's called "fundraising".
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#164 Jan 05 2013 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,906 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
catwho wrote:
And they're always pleading for money because people don't donate enough just from the goodness of their hearts.

Given the context of the discussion, "additional funding" means government assistance. Of course charitable organizations have to ask for money. It's called "fundraising".


I'm pretty sure the Salvation Army receives government funding. Red Cross too. It's not all private donations.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#165 Jan 05 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
The problem of hunger in America has never been solved solely with private charity. Never, ever. Sure, there was a time when the government wasn't involved, and there were lots of people who just went hungry.

Given that set of facts, the question of "is it, or should it be, a matter for government intervention?" just really depends on the kind of person you are.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#166 Jan 05 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
The problem of hunger in America has never been solved solely with private charity. Never, ever. Sure, there was a time when the government wasn't involved, and there were lots of people who just went hungry.

Poppycock. There was never a better time to be a poor person than the late 19th and early 20th century. A full belly and warm bed every night, guaranteed!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Jan 05 2013 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I like the word 'poppycock'. We should all use it more.
#168 Jan 06 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It'd be a lovely world if local distributed charitable organizations could provide services for the needy without additional funding and logistical support. They can't. I didn't make it that way, humanity made it that way.


Except for, you know, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.

The US division of the Salvation Army received $384 million in government funding in 2010, which was 10% of its income.

Not sure what the Red Cross numbers are.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#169 Jan 07 2013 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I like the word 'poppycock'. We should all use it more.

Belgian Dark Chocolate Poppycock. Smiley: drool

Edited, Jan 7th 2013 2:42pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#170 Jan 07 2013 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
TirithRR wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
catwho wrote:
And they're always pleading for money because people don't donate enough just from the goodness of their hearts.

Given the context of the discussion, "additional funding" means government assistance. Of course charitable organizations have to ask for money. It's called "fundraising".


I'm pretty sure the Salvation Army receives government funding. Red Cross too. It's not all private donations.

The Salvation Army is a christian organization.

...just saying.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#171 Jan 07 2013 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Except for, you know, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.

http://kmc.redcross.org/faq.html

This Red Cross, right?

The American Red Cross received its first congressional charter in June 1900 and was reincorporated by an act of Congress on January 5, 1905

Christ, you're rock fucking stupid and lazy, aren't you?

This is the same one, right?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/08/nation/na-briefs8.S3

The American Red Cross said it will receive $100 million in emergency funding from Congress to replenish its disaster relief reserves, which were depleted as the charity plunged into debt to provide shelter, food and other services during a string of hurricanes this summer.

Next time you think I've posted something that's obviously wrong, punch yourself in the balls and maybe spend 8 seconds checking your response before you make yourself look like a fat idiot. Sorry, I phrased that poorly; reveal yourself to be a fat idiot, again.



Edited, Jan 7th 2013 9:01am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#172 Jan 07 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, you showed government funding for the Red Cross and Salvation Army but you haven't ruled out "etc" yet, smart guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Jan 07 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we were honest,
Ha.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#174 Jan 07 2013 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Sure, you showed government funding for the Red Cross and Salvation Army but you haven't ruled out "etc" yet, smart guy.

etc is funded purely on the tears of fox news pundits.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#175 Jan 07 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,440 posts
I often see this image blurb on Facebook posted by my wife's relatives over in Red State 'Merica that compares foodstamps to giving food to wild animals. It implies that giving the animals (poor people, many of whom work two or more jobs) food will force them to become dependent on Pepsi and Doritos... you know, as opposed to foraging for acorns and eating the bark off of trees like they should be.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#176 Jan 07 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Luxury. When I grew up I would have been thrilled to be able to eat bark. We had to eat cold gravel.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)