State of the Union: 11,269 new Food Stamp cases per day

[_krose]

Because there is nothing virtuous about being generous with another man's earnings.

It's a bit frustrating how badly so many libertarian conservatives seem to misunderstand the basics of a representative democracy.

It's as if they don't understand the simple concept that we elect people to represent us all, who then make laws to set taxation levels, as well as decide where to spend that money. If we don't like the choices they make, our option is to either vote for people who will run the government the way we want it run, or accept that we are in the minority and can't do anything about it.

I never wanted my money spent on nuclear weapons, torture, and wars of choice. I would rather see it spent helping those who need help. But I don't constantly whine about the immorality of forcing me to pay for such things, because I realize the majority has voted for people who have made those spending choices. Unfortunately.

[_EAllusion]

Disapproving of the results of a democracy is not the same thing as failing to understand how it works. Living in a democracy doesn't prevent you from being able to criticize a policy or disagree with the actions of a majority. If a democracy elects Adolf Hitler, which - you know - it did, we can have a problem with that while simultaneously understanding how political power is brokered in society.

That you consider opposition to majority rule and criticism to be mere distasteful "whining" indicates that it is you who doesn't fully understand how democracy is supposed to work.

[_krose]

Oh come on, EA. Was it the use of the term "libertarian" that got your knickers twisted?

It is entirely accurate to say that someone who repeats nonstop that it is immoral to spend any tax money helping hungry people is "whining." I have no problem with dissent, but the repeated assertion that the government has no right to "take" money from earners and redistribute it is plain nonsense. We, the people, have given our government that right and responsibility.

By the way, "distasteful" is your word. I would call it annoying and repetitive.

[_Kevin Graham]

What bcspace is saying doofus, is that Obama has done something since his inauguration date to cause the number of food stamp participants to skyrocket. I'm simply asking the question, what did he do? Anyone who understands economics, and who hasn't been living on the moon the past five years, should understand that food stamp usage increased in response to the economy which was out of his control before he stepped foot in office.

But since food stamps are a great way to stimulate the economy, I hope more and more people take advantage of the program. I mean what's the problem here anyway? Food stamps are paid for by taxpayers, and virtually all of the recipients are taxpayers. Are you about to pull an EAllusion, and imply there is something wrong with this because the taxpayers don't pay enough taxes to pay for their own food stamp benefits?

Oh wait, unlike medicare benefits, the SNAP program is actually something that's easily paid for by the tax paying recipients! So you're real beef is that you think fewer of their tax dollars should go back to help them during economic hardship, and should instead be used to paint the finishing touches on an F-22 or Trident Submarine?

What exactly is the argument here? Because all I'm really hearing is "I hate poor people."

[_EAllusion]

Oh come on, EA. Was it the use of the term "libertarian" that got your knickers twisted?

It is entirely accurate to say that someone who repeats nonstop that it is immoral to spend any tax money helping hungry people is "whining." I have no problem with dissent, but the repeated assertion that the government has no right to "take" money from earners and redistribute it is plain nonsense. We, the people, have given our government that right and responsibility.

By the way, "distasteful" is your word. I would call it annoying and repetitive.

The government doesn't have the right to do something merely because it has the power to do so. It does not follow that an action of the government is right and proper simply because it is the result of Democratic will. Happily, you live in the United States where its founders recognized that people's rights precede the government and the government is only acting properly when it respects them. They also recognized that not everything a majority wants is right.

Criticism is an important function in democracy and you don't get to dismiss it as "whining" that is somehow wrong to do merely because you disagree with the complaint. The suggestion that someone doesn't get how democracy works merely because they disapprove of something a democracy does is asinine. They're distinct things.

Something tells me that when Republicans retake full power and start doing a bunch of things you don't like, you're aren't going to be out there taking on their critics by arguing their criticism shows they don't understand that democracy in action and that they should quite their whining and deal with it.

[_EAllusion]

. Are you about to pull an EAllusion, and imply there is something wrong with this because the taxpayers don't pay enough taxes to pay for their own food stamp benefits?

Feel free to point out where I argue this. You appear to be referring to a post where I explained that when people have to pay a small fraction of the market cost of a product they are more likely to demand that product. You dispute this basic fact because?

[_Kevin Graham]

I never disputed that. But you "implied" I said, not argued.

Kevin: I know, it comes from tax revenues. Most of these people pay into that, so they are effectively paying for their own care.

EA: They're not paying the real cost of the service.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28251&p=681926#p681926

I was rebutting cinepro's claim that healthcare would be "free," when in fact we the taxpayers would be reaping the benefits of our own contributions. You jumped in, apparently thinking you had caught me in a snare, to ask me who pays for healthcare under the AFC.

Now your concern that everyone will be running to the doctor once it is "free," creating an unbalance in supply and demand, is probably true but only for the short term. It is the same reaction people have when they see the price of gasoline dropped 50 cents over a few days. They fill up all cars immediately because they don't know how long it is going to last. But if gasoline were set permanently at a low cost, the initial blast of demand would subside and you'd see that people wouldn't really be driving any more then than they were before.

Likewise, where healthcare is universal, you don't see people constantly going to the doctor just because its "free." I've lived in countries where it is universal, and people generally hated going to the doctor for the same reasons Americans hate going. But we have an extra incentive to avoid going to the doctor: we have to pay out the yang for it. And so the result is we see a lot of people skipping out on checkups, preventive care, etc. So once that becomes easily affordable or readily available, then yes, of course you're going to see an initial boom in demand. But that will level out eventually.