Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
20,216
822
113
B.C.
Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?
No . Do they have to force feed ?
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
14,243
1,033
113
Twin Moose Creek
Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?

Short term hand up, not a sustained handout. Do you think Gov. should be stepping in to guarantee you have enough to eat? How far do you think they should have the right to govern your diet in such a program?
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
1
36
Would you say, as a general principle, that the government of a modern, developed country has an obligation to ensure that each of its people can get 2000 calories per day of a balanced diet?
It would result in major gains in health and education and economic productivity.

Can't have that.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
44,795
285
83
Washington DC
Short term hand up, not a sustained handout. Do you think Gov. should be stepping in to guarantee you have enough to eat? How far do you think they should have the right to govern your diet in such a program?
Good questions.

Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.

I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
32,533
621
113
Northern Ontario,
Good questions.

Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.

I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.
We had a premier in Ontario, Mike Harris, some years ago who introduced something like that and called it workfare...
Liberals didn't like that in southern Ontario, because Conservatives lost the next election while Harris, still won his own riding
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
14,243
1,033
113
Twin Moose Creek
Good questions.
Yes, I think the government should provide such a diet to people who, temporarily or permanently, cannot provide it for themselves. Not as a matter of rights, in the legal sense, but as a matter of policy. I think that the government in such a case should have the authority to dictate what you eat (at least insofar as the government is providing the food or the means to acquire the food). I think the government should also provide shelter to those in need.
I know you didn't ask, but I also think the government should have the authority to require an individual to work in order to receive these benefits, provided that it can provide the individual with work to do that is within the individual's abilities and not excessively hazardous.

Did or does your food stamps require you buy certain food categories within them? Wasn't/isn't there issues of selling some of the stamps for cash?

I totally agree with your last paragraph, and advocated for that here too.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,808
625
113
Olympus Mons
We had a premier in Ontario, Mike Harris, some years ago who introduced something like that and called it workfare...
Liberals didn't like that in southern Ontario, because Conservatives lost the next election while Harris, still won his own riding
Hell, McFlinty even went so far to suggest it was unconstitutional to force able bodied people to work for their money. Can you imagine, having to actually earn your money? That's just leftist sacrilege.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
44,795
285
83
Washington DC
Did or does your food stamps require you buy certain food categories within them?
I'm not fully versed on the rules, but I am aware that there are some foodstuffs that cannot be bought with SNAP. I believe the restrictions are expressed primarily in what you cannot buy with SNAP, rather than requirements of what you can or must buy.

Wasn't/isn't there issues of selling some of the stamps for cash?
Yep. So what? If you restrict yourself to only using commodities that have never been black-marketed, you're gonna look about medium stupid running around your hometown naked with a sharp stick in your hand. Fraud is fraud. Black marketing is black marketing. They're crimes. Last I checked, we had a very large, very complicated government system set up specifically to deal with crimes.

I totally agree with your last paragraph, and advocated for that here too.
What can I say? I'm just a merciless Indian Savage (speaking of running around naked with a sharp stick!), but our basic rule was "everybody works, everybody eats." I understand that a developed modern country is a lot more complex than a North American Indian band, but I don't see why that principle can't still apply.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
44,795
285
83
Washington DC
Hell, McFlinty even went so far to suggest it was unconstitutional to force able bodied people to work for their money. Can you imagine, having to actually earn your money? That's just leftist sacrilege.
It is unConstitutional. Thirteenth Amendment. You cannot be forced to work. And your society cannot be forced to give you money.

If it was up to me, I'd set up a three-tier welfare system. Tier One, the nicest, is for people who cannot work. Tier Two is for those who participate in "workfare" programmes. It's not as nice as Tier One, but it recognizes and rewards the fact that you're working, while at the same time hopefully motivating you to get out of the system entirely. Tier Three is for those who refuse to work. The system keeps them alive, but not much more. About the same standard of living as the county jail or boot camp.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,808
625
113
Olympus Mons
I'm not fully versed on the rules, but I am aware that there are some foodstuffs that cannot be bought with SNAP. I believe the restrictions are expressed primarily in what you cannot buy with SNAP, rather than requirements of what you can or must buy.


Yep. So what? If you restrict yourself to only using commodities that have never been black-marketed, you're gonna look about medium stupid running around your hometown naked with a sharp stick in your hand. Fraud is fraud. Black marketing is black marketing. They're crimes. Last I checked, we had a very large, very complicated government system set up specifically to deal with crimes.


What can I say? I'm just a merciless Indian Savage (speaking of running around naked with a sharp stick!), but our basic rule was "everybody works, everybody eats." I understand that a developed modern country is a lot more complex than a North American Indian band, but I don't see why that principle can't still apply.
Because you "merciless Indian Savages" were just a bunch o' commies. :lol: ;-)
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,808
625
113
Olympus Mons
It is unConstitutional. Thirteenth Amendment. You cannot be forced to work. And your society cannot be forced to give you money.
And yet your society has been forced to give other people money for decades now. Isn't that kind'a what SNAP does?

As for "you cannot be forced to work", I think that has more to do with slavery than actually being expected to earn your govt handouts if you're capable.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
44,795
285
83
Washington DC
And yet your society has been forced to give other people money for decades now. Isn't that kind'a what SNAP does?
No, my society has chosen, through its duly elected legislators, to provide support for the poor.

I know you consider this a terrible thing, but the simple fact is that every society in history has done so. It's hardly a brand-spanking new "liberal" idea.
As for "you cannot be forced to work", I think that has more to do with slavery than actually being expected to earn your govt handouts if you're capable.
Here's the text.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,808
625
113
Olympus Mons
No, my society has chosen, through its duly elected legislators, to provide support for the poor.

I know you consider this a terrible thing, but the simple fact is that every society in history has done so. It's hardly a brand-spanking new "liberal" idea.
So why did you even mention it when we were discussing the constitutionality of making able people earn their "free money". And in history, that help was often provisional on the recipient doing his part. In the book of Leviticus for example, farmers were expected to leave the corners of the farm fields unharvested so that the poor could have access to food. But they STILL had to work to actually harvest the food. The farmer's didn't simply reserve the corners for the poor, harvested them separately and then distributed the food among the poor. Giving able people freebies for nothing doesn't lift them up, it actually keeps them down.

Here's the text.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
None of which prohibits making able people actually earn their govt handouts. Earning your money is neither slavery nor indentured servitude, it's called self-respect, pride, whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
44,795
285
83
Washington DC
So why did you even mention it when we were discussing the constitutionality of making able people earn their "free money". And in history, that help was often provisional on the recipient doing his part. In the book of Leviticus for example, farmers were expected to leave the corners of the farm fields unharvested so that the poor could have access to food. But they STILL had to work to actually harvest the food. The farmer's didn't simply reserve the corners for the poor, harvested them separately and then distributed the food among the poor. Giving able people freebies for nothing doesn't lift them up, it actually keeps them down.
None of which prohibits making able people actually earn their govt handouts. Earning your money is neither slavery nor indentured servitude, it's called self-respect, pride, whatever.
All right, all right. Sorry for making a small play on words with regard to what it obviously a deeply painful and emotional issue to you.