President Trump Wants To Change SNAP Program

[Machismo]

No that is the govt not enforcing monopoly laws, not regulating price fixing, not regulating mergers, not regulating collusion....

Of all the monopolies that currently exist, how many are caused by free markets, and how many are caused by government mandate?

[Gestopft]

So, you are no different than the corporations and corporatists. Why should the government fight just for the workers? After all, why can't they fight for corporations? After all, since you have no hang up with force, that shouldn't really be an issue.

-Except that the corporations/corporatists are working for the benefit of a small number of shareholders, and unions are working for mutual benefit

-The government is fighting for the corporations; that's one of the biggest problems in the country right now. They should fight for the workers because they are the vast majority of taxpaying citizens that all have a stake in our prosperity and security, and because bargaining power needs to be balanced in order to create livable wages.

It's not that I have no hangup, it's that I recognize force as inevitable, either through law, or de facto. Because I can see the forest for the trees.

- - - Updated - - -

Of all the monopolies that currently exist, how many are caused by free markets, and how many are caused by government mandate?

Companies naturally seek to monopolize. In the real world, the "free market" doesn't always fix this.

[Machismo]

-Except that the corporations/corporatists are working for the benefit of a small number of shareholders, and unions are working for mutual benefit

-The government is fighting for the corporations; that's one of the biggest problems in the country right now. They should fight for the workers because they are the vast majority of taxpaying citizens that all have a stake in our prosperity and security, and because bargaining power needs to be balanced in order to create livable wages.

It's not that I have no hangup, it's that I recognize force as inevitable, either through law, or de facto. Because I can see the forest for the trees.

So, it is the same, you just want to screw over different people. You are no different than the corporatists.

[Gestopft]

So, it is the same, you just want to screw over different people. You are no different than the corporatists.

1) Shareholders and executives getting lower bonuses hardly qualifies as getting "screwed over." They will still be the richest people in society.
2) I don't want to screw people over, but I recognize people getting screwed over as inevitable. Again, forest for the trees- you don't see a difference because of your philosophical hang ups.

[Machismo]

1) Shareholders and executives getting lower bonuses hardly qualifies as getting "screwed over." They will still be the richest people in society.
2) I don't want to screw people over, but I recognize people getting screwed over as inevitable. Again, forest for the trees- you don't see a difference because of your philosophical hang ups.

People earning a bit less money in their paychecks, because a company doesn't want to pay them as much does not constitute getting "screwed over."

Companies don't WANT to screw people over, but they recognize that their duty is to their shareholders, and people will get screwed over, anyways.

The only difference is who you want to screw over.

[Gestopft]

People earning a bit less money in their paychecks, because a company doesn't want to pay them as much does not constitute getting "screwed over."

I'd say it does if it is widespread, persistent, and results in wages that are unlivable. But I suppose your philosophical absolutism doesn't recognize minor differences between millions of workers not being able to afford homes versus executives not getting another vacation home.

The only difference is who you want to screw over.

I will gladly screw over a gunman to protect the lives of people that he's shooting at.

Extreme example? Sure, but it makes the point that the narrow individualistic focus of your 'harm principle' utterly ignores the broader societal consequences of said principle, as well as contextual nuance that exists in the real world.

[Masark]

The irony is, bread won't even be in there. Bread's perishable.

Depends on your definition of "bread". Hardtack is pretty non-perishable.

[Machismo]

I'd say it does if it is widespread, persistent, and results in wages that are unlivable. But I suppose your philosophical absolutism doesn't recognize minor differences between millions of workers not being able to afford homes versus executives not getting another vacation home.



I will gladly screw over a gunman to protect the lives of people that he's shooting at.

Extreme example? Sure, but it makes the point that the narrow individualistic focus of your 'harm principle' utterly ignores the broader societal consequences of said principle, as well as contextual nuance that exists in the real world.

So, all companies are gunmen? Yeah, that analogy isn't riddled with holes. I'm saying you are no different than the corporatists you oppose. Lucky for me, I oppose both.

Your hypocrisy is noted.

[zenkai]

What point? You were wrong. A middle man exists unless the government made their own food. Which would literally be communism.

When I used the term middle man, everyone but you understood the context I was referring to was the grocery store. Most people understand when you say "cut out the middle man" that you are talking about taking the finished product to the buyer, not having someone else buy it, store it and then sell it with a markup.

- - - Updated - - -

You do not get disability simply for being fat. You simply do not.

Morbid obesity is considered a disability.

Thank you for answering his question Nexx226,

[Gestopft]

So, all companies are gunmen? Yeah, that analogy isn't riddled with holes.

I said it was an extreme example. The point is that if you are actually concerned with harm, you would realize that harm to an individual actor can prevent harm to society at large. Yet you are so philosophically concerned with the harm principle as it pertains to individual actors that you are ignoring the deleterious effects that it can have on society at large. Just as extreme collectivism harms the individual, extreme individualism harms the society.

I'm saying you are no different than the corporatists you oppose. Lucky for me, I oppose both.

Your hypocrisy is noted.

I suppose it looks hypocritical from the perspective of philosophical absolutism, but the real world operates in degrees.

You also keep ignoring that your "do no harm" principle, by avoiding direct harm, allows even more indirect harm.

[Hilhen7]

Currently, SNAP beneficiaries get money loaded onto an EBT card they can use to buy what they want as long as it falls under the guidelines. The administration says the move is a "cost-effective approach" with "no loss in food benefits to participants."

The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP recipients currently pay for food at retail stores — thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years.

This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years — cutting the program by almost 30 percent.

What Trump really wants to do is send SNAP recipients crap food and pretend it's worth the same as the SNAP benefits provided previously in order to fund his wall and tax cuts. Also I'm sure that one of his corporate buddies that sells this food will earn a nice profit.

Cut the program by 30% with no loss in food benefits, right...

[Machismo]

I said it was an extreme example. The point is that if you are actually concerned with harm, you would realize that harm to an individual actor can prevent harm to society at large. Yet you are so philosophically concerned with the harm principle as it pertains to individual actors that you are ignoring the deleterious effects that it can have on society at large. Just as extreme collectivism harms the individual, extreme individualism harms the society.



I suppose it looks hypocritical from the perspective of philosophical absolutism, but the real world operates in degrees.

You also keep ignoring that your "do no harm" principle, by avoiding direct harm, allows even more indirect harm.

My point is that trying to justify the harm to others in the name of the "greater good" goes both ways. It's how we ended up with corporatism, it's how you get trickle-down economics. Hell, it's how people justified banning gay marriage, guns, marijuana, and just about everything else.

[Speaknoevil]

1: Hey imaginary friend, these fucking idiot humans don't realize they're living in a caste system and think their poor are poor because they're not working.

2: Yeah, no kidding. They are incredibly stupid. Did you know they cannot, on average think more than 1-2 moves ahead in a game of their chess?

1: Yes, but not only are they obtuse beyond measure, but they are cruel. This guy wants to take away diapers from poor infants.

3: Unreal isn't it. We have devoted so much of our own time helping hungry people in volunteer run food distribution centers, I wonder how much time this trumpkin has. Our money is on 0 minutes.

1: I concur.

2: Samsies.

3: *scornful silence*

[Gestopft]

My point is that trying to justify the harm to others in the name of the "greater good" goes both ways. It's how we ended up with corporatism, it's how you get trickle-down economics. Hell, it's how people justified banning gay marriage, guns, marijuana, and just about everything else.

Well, I'd say Neoliberalism, lobbying, and the bit-by-bit destruction of campaign finance laws is how we ended up with corporatism and trickle-down. But point taken- though I'd have to say that most of politics is an argument about greater good. Every policy is going to have some positive and some negative effects. Any action (or inaction) taken is going to have an element of harm to it. The point of politics is for society to decide who should benefit (and by extension, who should be harmed).

Let me give you a less extreme example: an environmental regulation on pollution. This particular policy is coercive towards or 'harms' a factory by forcing expenses on it, but in the absence of the policy, harm is being done to the health of people in town and the workers of the factory. By not 'harming' the factory, more harm is being done overall.

[Redwyrm]

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney revealed on Wednesday that a military parade requested by President Donald Trump could cost as much as $30 million -- enough to fund food stamps for over 20,000 people each year.

[Machismo]

Well, I'd say Neoliberalism, lobbying, and the bit-by-bit destruction of campaign finance laws is how we ended up with corporatism and trickle-down. But point taken- though I'd have to say that most of politics is an argument about greater good. Every policy is going to have some positive and some negative effects. Any action (or inaction) taken is going to have an element of harm to it. The point of politics is for society to decide who should benefit (and by extension, who should be harmed).

Let me give you a less extreme example: an environmental regulation on pollution. This particular policy is coercive towards or 'harms' a factory by forcing expenses on it, but in the absence of the policy, harm is being done to the health of people in town and the workers of the factory. By not 'harming' the factory, more harm is being done overall.

there's one problem, the coercion isn't really preventing harm, it's preventing free markets. It's intervening between two willing participants, just to that they can make sure everyone is behaving properly. In reality, it's more like the government banning gay marriage, because they think that two gay people getting married may cause problems for others.

there is no implicit harm in a company hiring a person who is not in a union.

[Gestopft]

there's one problem, the coercion isn't really preventing harm, it's preventing free markets.

There is exploitation in free markets. There is harm in free markets. There is coercion in free markets. The distinction between de jure exploitation and de facto exploitation is hardly relevant to the exploited. They don't care about philosophical purity. We wouldn't need labor laws, anti-trust laws, safety regulations, etc etc etc if your Free Market Fantasyland had any anchoring in reality.

It's intervening between two willing participants, just to that they can make sure everyone is behaving properly.

There you are again, with your laser focus on individual actors, ignoring the broader effects on society (and also ignoring the difference in bargaining power between 'willing' participants, as per usual). Like I said: as extreme collectivism hurts individuals, extreme individualism hurts society.

[Machismo]

There is exploitation in free markets. There is harm in free markets. There is coercion in free markets. The distinction between de jure exploitation and de facto exploitation is hardly relevant to the exploited. They don't care about philosophical purity. We wouldn't need labor laws, anti-trust laws, safety regulations, etc etc etc if your Free Market Fantasyland had any anchoring in reality.



There you are again, with your laser focus on individual actors, ignoring the broader effects on society (and also ignoring the difference in bargaining power between 'willing' participants, as per usual). Like I said: as extreme collectivism hurts individuals, extreme individualism hurts society.

Yes, there is exploitation and harm in free markets. That's why I support going after people who cause actual harm, instead of punishing everyone, just because they may cause harm in the future. You seem to think the average employee is being harmed, when that's simply not the case. They willfully agree to work for a price, and their employer agrees to pay them. That means the employee is worth exactly what he's being paid.

As for those laws you mention, you don't NEED them, you want them.

You want to restrict the markets, so your side can get a competitive advantage. Corporatists do the same thing. The only difference is who you want to restrict.

[Zan15]

ISN'T it great these very same people here, were the ones crying about Michelle Obama telling kids what to eat in school lunch programs.

The whole party lost their shit when she did that.

[Lenonis]

The FDA is bad, because they MANDATE those snake oil salesmen, and give them a competitive monopoly.

I'm genuinely curious how you come to the conclusion the FDA is corrupt? (As opposed to inept, or understaffed, or whatnot). If you have specific examples or details that would be great. Cause what you posted here is more rhetoric than substance.

I get you are a libertarian...but I sure hope you don't think pharmaceuticals should be governed by the free market.