So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

The money is where it was earned. Arbitrarily reallocating further it will result in those doing the earning deciding there's no point in continuing. The earning class pays almost all taxes as it is. The taking class pays almost nothing. Or, you can follow the Nordic mopdel, where everyone is taxed out the wazoo, and almost nobody has a very high standard of living - everything is uniformly lower middle class. The lower class would be delighted with such a change, the rest not so much.

Meritocracy is a lie. No one earns a billion dollars. They steal it through exploitation of labor, tax loopholes, buying elections and politicians, and pass down their ill gotten gains generation after generation. Earning class lol. They are the parasite class. They pay all the taxes because they've stolen all the resources. Get up and stop prostrating yourself for billionaires. It's embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

The money is where it was earned. Arbitrarily reallocating further it will result in those doing the earning deciding there's no point in continuing. The earning class pays almost all taxes as it is. The taking class pays almost nothing. Or, you can follow the Nordic mopdel, where everyone is taxed out the wazoo, and almost nobody has a very high standard of living - everything is uniformly lower middle class. The lower class would be delighted with such a change, the rest not so much.

Meritocracy is a lie. No one earns a billion dollars. They steal it through exploitation of labor, tax loopholes, buying elections and politicians, and pass down their ill gotten gains generation after generation. Earning class lol. They are the parasite class. They pay all the taxes because they've stolen all the resources. Get up and stop prostrating yourself for billionaires. It's embarrassing.

Also, we all need to get comfortable with a simpler standard of living. The way we live is unsustainable and we are destroying the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

How much did we give Argentina? $20 billion? $40 billion?

Not enough to make any difference whatsoever in this conversation. And FWIW, I loathe Trump so take your point scoring snark elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

We aren't subsidizing anyone's defense. We are running a protection racket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

And? Those same countries have higher quality of life. Being unemployed is not life-ruining in those countries. People and their lives can in fact matter more than dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

How much did we give Argentina? $20 billion? $40 billion?

Not enough to make any difference whatsoever in this conversation. And FWIW, I loathe Trump so take your point scoring snark elsewhere.

DP. Trump and Musk killed USAID so sorry Argentina is relevant because we don’t have $40 billion to give away to Trump’s little friends. PP’s comment wasn’t snark and was completely germane to the convo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

And? Those same countries have higher quality of life. Being unemployed is not life-ruining in those countries. People and their lives can in fact matter more than dollars.

You’re romanticizing. There are major tradeoffs. 10%+ unemployment is no joke. Lower economic growth has real effects on real people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

The money is where it was earned. Arbitrarily reallocating further it will result in those doing the earning deciding there's no point in continuing. The earning class pays almost all taxes as it is. The taking class pays almost nothing. Or, you can follow the Nordic mopdel, where everyone is taxed out the wazoo, and almost nobody has a very high standard of living - everything is uniformly lower middle class. The lower class would be delighted with such a change, the rest not so much.

Meritocracy is a lie. No one earns a billion dollars. They steal it through exploitation of labor, tax loopholes, buying elections and politicians, and pass down their ill gotten gains generation after generation. Earning class lol. They are the parasite class. They pay all the taxes because they've stolen all the resources. Get up and stop prostrating yourself for billionaires. It's embarrassing.

HEAR! HEAR! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

We aren't subsidizing anyone's defense. We are running a protection racket.

Don’t be silly. Western Europe exists in its present form solely and almost exclusively because of US military expenditures over the last 75 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

We aren't subsidizing anyone's defense. We are running a protection racket.

Don’t be silly. Western Europe exists in its present form solely and almost exclusively because of US military expenditures over the last 75 years.

We’ve got a sophisticated thinker here, folks! Real intellectual powerhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

We aren't subsidizing anyone's defense. We are running a protection racket.

Don’t be silly. Western Europe exists in its present form solely and almost exclusively because of US military expenditures over the last 75 years.

We’ve got a sophisticated thinker here, folks! Real intellectual powerhouse.

Read Waltz. Then Thucydides. Then review comparative military expenditures since 1947, with a focus on USSR, Eastern Bloc satellites, Western Europe and the US.

Then come back with another snappy one-liner. I’ll look forward to it.