Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

Tydil wrote:

Listen, there is nothing they can repay us without causing negative externalities. I think we can all calmly agree with this. But they committed a crime and need to be punished. We shouldn't spare the rod just because they're poor, just because of anything.

The only problem is that you need to find a way to punish the person that did the deed that also doesn't punish the people that had nothing to do with it.

That's the tricky part, but Louisiana has enough garbage on the roads that need cleaning or other such labor done, that the thieves could easily work off their debt. Community service is the way to go in my opinion.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Tydil wrote:

Listen, there is nothing they can repay us without causing negative externalities. I think we can all calmly agree with this. But they committed a crime and need to be punished. We shouldn't spare the rod just because they're poor, just because of anything.

The only problem is that you need to find a way to punish the person that did the deed that also doesn't punish the people that had nothing to do with it.

That's the tricky part, but Louisiana has enough garbage on the roads that need cleaning or other such labor done, that the thieves could easily work off their debt. Community service is the way to go in my opinion.

Very true.

I would even consider tying the money they spend to income tax returns, and witholding that until the money is paid back. Although I would admit that this could also still end up hurting children to some extend, but less so than simply not giving the families money for food anymore.

I'm also just a bit curious how much money Wal-Mart will end up loosing between the mark-up on food items, the actual cost for those products that Wal-Mart had to spend, and the money they will write off their taxes due to this. Not that this would make it any more right, just curious.

 d-usa wrote:

I would even consider tying the money they spend to income tax returns,

Heh.

Heh.

That's funny.

LA tax rate tends to mean people don't get returns from State Taxes, we pay them. In 16 years, I've received returns from them about 3 times, all of them while under 18.

Lotta guys in this thread who spend crazy money on little plastic space mens. If yanking the food stamps is really that much of an outrage and something you can't abide, I'd be willing to be Louisiana would let you foot the bill for the offenders. You've got the means. Do your part. Make life better for others, not yourself.

That already happens through (A) the tax system and (B) Walmart's profits from people shopping there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That already happens through (A) the tax system and (B) Walmart's profits from people shopping there.

Ah, so it should be other people footing the bill.

Everyone foots the bill who pays taxes or shops at Walmart.

You will find that recovering money from people who have none is a pointless endeavour.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone foots the bill who pays taxes or shops at Walmart.

You will find that recovering money from people who have none is a pointless endeavour.

I don't see anything at all about this potentiality that is an attempt to recover money. It's an attempt to punish people who committed a crime.

So you guys are okay with kids going hungry to meet the requirement for justice?

I reckon it goes to show that most of you have never been hungry, properly hungry, in your lives.

I'm sure the people who took the food weren't saints, most likely a fair few of them were useless and unpleasant people. But their kids are blameless in this. Find a way to punish them that doesn't also punish their kids.

I'd even go as far as to say it's not "normal" fraud because the system broke and was allowing it- they didn't intentionally break or even try to break the system. I wouldn't particularly mind if they got some litter picking duty or something as punishment to satisfy the apparent need for JUSTICE but I am not okay with anything that hurts their dependants to "teach them a lesson".

Though I know it's likely that several of you disagree with the entire idea of food cards, so this is probably a great chance to get rid of them for you.

 Da Boss wrote:
So you guys are okay with kids going hungry

You are, too.

I guarantee you that you do not give every last cent (or whatever the smallest denomination of your given currency is) other than what you need to survive to starving children.

 Seaward wrote:

I guarantee you that you do not give every last cent (or whatever the smallest denomination of your given currency is) other than what you need to survive to starving children.

That's a great case for taxation.

 dogma wrote:
That's a great case for taxation.

Think so?

I thought it was just an example of bleeding heart hypocrisy.

I think people who care about the security of our country should just donate every single penny to the military. I don't care about war and stuff, why should my tax money go towards a war I don't even support.

Let the people who want us to fighit pay for it...

 d-usa wrote:
I think people who care about the security of our country should just donate every single penny to the military. I don't care about war and stuff, why should my tax money go towards a war I don't even support.

Let the people who want us to fighit pay for it...

Sure. Set up a mechanism for the military to accept donations, and your plan would be fine.

Wait. Were you trying to suggest that I've been calling for more tax revenue to be generated in order to increase military funding or something? Or maybe just that I want to be able to say I support the general notion of a military but don't want to make any personal sacrifices for it? Because those would be the analogues. Neither would be true.

I can understand the discomfort it causes you to look at the amount of money you spend on stuff you don't need right after you try to lecture people on starving kids. But you need to come with much better game.

Nice "gotcha" Seaward, but your stunning revelation that I don't give all my money to feed the poor is a complete non sequitor to the argument.

Here is a specific incidence where you are saying that you are in favour of kids going hungry because their parents did something questionable. Can you explain why you think that is a good idea rather than pointing out that I'm not Mother Theresa, as if that is somehow scoring a point?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think people who care about the security of our country should just donate every single penny to the military. I don't care about war and stuff, why should my tax money go towards a war I don't even support.

Let the people who want us to fighit pay for it...

Sure. Set up a mechanism for the military to accept donations, and your plan would be fine.

Wait. Were you trying to suggest that I've been calling for more tax revenue to be generated in order to increase military funding or something? Or maybe just that I want to be able to say I support the general notion of a military but don't want to make any personal sacrifices for it? Because those would be the analogues. Neither would be true.

I can understand the discomfort it causes you to look at the amount of money you spend on stuff you don't need right after you try to lecture people on starving kids. But you need to come with much better game.

I'm okay with my taxes being spent to help vulnerable children and I donate to children's charities (Unicef and Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children) as well as the Red Cross. Not that it matters, of course. This argument is about keeping the level of tax expenditure for feeding poor children at the same level it is right now.

I know you think your argument is a silver bullet for "bleeding heart liberals", and that's wonderful, but not very useful.

 Da Boss wrote:
Nice "gotcha" Seaward, but your stunning revelation that I don't give all my money to feed the poor is a complete non sequitor to the argument.

Not really. It simply demonstrates the notion that you care about starving children, but only up to a point, and that point could be plotted on a graph with axes labeled "How Much I Care" and "How Much It Costs Me".

Here is a specific incidence where you are saying that you are in favour of kids going hungry because their parents did something questionable. Can you explain why you think that is a good idea rather than pointing out that I'm not Mother Theresa, as if that is somehow scoring a point?

Sure. Kids are going to starve regardless. Do you think it's better that they starve in the name of justice, or better that they starve in the name of people having enough disposable income to buy plastic toy soldiers?

Both are going to happen. One at least serves a non-selfish purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm okay with my taxes being spent to help vulnerable children and I donate to children's charities (Unicef and Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children) as well as the Red Cross. Not that it matters, of course. This argument is about keeping the level of tax expenditure for feeding poor children at the same level it is right now.

Something tells me the level of tax expenditure wouldn't go down in this case, so your concerns should be satisfied.

The point you are demonstrating is true, of course it is true! But it is still irrelevant to the argument.

I don't think I will ever understand you.

 Seaward wrote:

I thought it was just an example of bleeding heart hypocrisy.

No, it was another example of you being hyperbolic, and a great case for taxation.

 Seaward wrote:

I can understand the discomfort it causes you to look at the amount of money you spend on stuff you don't need right after you try to lecture people on starving kids. But you need to come with much better game.

Things I have mentioned in this thread:

I think it is easy to forget what it is like to be hungry, and many of us will never know. I also admited that I am guilty of taking stuff for granted because I am in a much better position than many people.

I am against punishing kids for the crimes of their parents.

I am for a solution that would punish the parents, if it can be done without punishing the kids.

I said that I think anybody that had the choice between "breaking the law" and "letting my kids go hungry" would break the law, because having to worry about your kids going hungry is every parents nightmare.

Gave a reply to your usual "If people want to support something they should be willing to pay for it out of their own money or shut up. Quit making me pay for stuff you want" scenario.

You can read whatever you want into those statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward, just a plain quesiton for you then:

Do you support taking nutritional support away from children because of something their parents did?

 dogma wrote:
No, it was another example of you being hyperbolic, and a great case for taxation.

Alright, I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

Why are toy soldiers more important to you than starving children? If they aren't, why do you spend money on toy soldiers instead of giving it to starving children? Letting kids die of hunger when you could prevent it by doing without a box of Space Marines this month is pretty bad, dude. Is it simply a matter of saying that the guy who bought a yacht instead of toy soldiers is worse?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I think it is easy to forget what it is like to be hungry, and many of us will never know. I also admited that I am guilty of taking stuff for granted because I am in a much better position than many people.

I'm in a much better position than most, myself. Still managed to find out what it's like to be hungry.

I am against punishing kids for the crimes of their parents.

In this specific case, or in all cases? If I'm a single dad and I hold up a liquor store, should my sentence be absolved because it'll throw my kid into foster care?

I said that I think anybody that had the choice between "breaking the law" and "letting my kids go hungry" would break the law, because having to worry about your kids going hungry is every parents nightmare.

I think they would, too. Nobody's made the case that this was the choice in this scenario, though.

Gave a reply to your usual "If people want to support something they should be willing to pay for it out of their own money or shut up. Quit making me pay for stuff you want" scenario.

Oh, that wasn't the point. I'm well aware you'll never stop making me pay for stuff I don't particularly want.

Do you support taking nutritional support away from children because of something their parents did?

Nope. Doesn't mean it doesn't have to happen sometimes. Doesn't mean it's not at least a slightly more valid reason for letting kids starve than the desire to pick up a new codex.

Your "you picking up a codex is proof that you don't care about starving children" is a nice strawmen, and it would probably would make sense if any of us would advocate some sort of "no disposable income for anybody as long as people are hungry" agenda.

Personally, I am advocating the "everybody is forced to give a portion so that everybody has a portion and still has money for disposable income" agenda.

I'm heartbroken if you think my "donate some (not all) money and personal time to charity to support those less fortunate than me" somehow contradicts my "take some (not all) from people who have it to support those that have less" political views.

You'll also never stop making me pay for stuff I don't particularly want. So I guess we are even there.

And people have made the case that "breaking the law to make sure their families have food" has been a potential choice in this scenario. Sorry if you are missing those posts.

 Seaward wrote:

Alright, I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

How courteous of you.

 Seaward wrote:

Why are toy soldiers more important to you than starving children? If they aren't, why do you spend money on toy soldiers instead of giving it to starving children? Letting kids die of hunger when you could prevent it by doing without a box of Space Marines this month is pretty bad, dude. Is it simply a matter of saying that the guy who bought a yacht instead of toy soldiers is worse?

'
I invite you to occupy Wall Street.

 d-usa wrote:
Your "you picking up a codex is proof that you don't care about starving children" is a nice strawmen, and it would probably would make sense if any of us would advocate some sort of "no disposable income for anybody as long as people are hungry" agenda.

Because, again, you care about starving children, but only up to a point.

Personally, I am advocating the "everybody is forced to give a portion so that everybody has a portion and still has money for disposable income" agenda.

And the cut-off point is right at your particular level, I'd imagine. If not, I'm not sure why you don't just overpay on your income tax return.

I'm heartbroken if you think my "donate some (not all) money and personal time to charity to support those less fortunate than me" somehow contradicts my "take some (not all) from people who have it to support those that have less" political views.

I think it contradicts your implied claim that children starving is intolerable.

You'll also never stop making me pay for stuff I don't particularly want. So I guess we are even there.

True. I'd just make you pay much, much less.

And people have made the case that "breaking the law to make sure their families have food" has been a potential choice in this scenario. Sorry if you are missing those posts.

Nah. They've tried to make it a, "Clearly, the only reason people broke the law in this case is because their children were starving!" point, but without any supporting evidence. Frankly, I'm a little surprised you'd let unsubstantiated claims like that go by. Since, you know, you're always so diligent.

So "don't tell me that you care about something and try to make me pay for anything unless you are willing to personally give every single penny away"?

Because so far all anybody is really getting from you in this thread is "if these kids starve to death because we took away their food stamps for something their parents did it is really the fault of people who post on this forum and spend money on stuff like DCM status..."

 Seaward wrote:

I think it contradicts your implied claim that children starving is intolerable.

The implied claim was that starvation in the US is intolerable, and it is.

 d-usa wrote:
So "don't tell me that you care about something and try to make me pay for anything unless you are willing to personally give every single penny away"?

Because so far all anybody is really getting from you in this thread is "if these kids starve to death because we took away their food stamps for something their parents did it is really the fault of people who post on this forum and spend money on stuff like DCM status..."

Nah. It's the parents' fault.

Claiming that it's somehow unbearable, though, is rather hypocritical. It sucks, but unless we want to start letting parenthood become a get-out-of-jail-free card to prevent kids from becoming victims of the system, you might as well embrace the suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
The implied claim was that starvation in the US is intolerable, and it is.

Sure it is. Try telling yourself that before hitting 'Complete Purchase' on your next Amazon order.

At least this thread has tought us that we will never see Seaward calling for increased spending on our military or veterans.

 d-usa wrote:
At least this thread has tought us that we will never see Seaward calling for increased spending on our military or veterans.

Not at the expense of higher taxes, no.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
At least this thread has tought us that we will never see Seaward calling for increased spending on our military or veterans.

Not at the expense of higher taxes, no.

So increasing money for food stamps is okay as long as we don't increase taxes?

 Seaward wrote:

Sure it is. Try telling yourself that before hitting 'Complete Purchase' on your next Amazon order.

Are you trying to represent yourself as a protectionist?