House bill to cut back on free school lunches

[glenn1]

That is exactly what it means. That is what a government does.

I must have missed the text in the Constitution where it said "government is instituted among men to do the charity that progressives refuse to voluntary self-fund ."

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Progressives know themselves well enough to know they won't voluntarily contribute to charity to address the causes they support and thus want the government to force them to do so via taxes.

Such a lame argument.
Let's apply this logic to Police, do Conservatives that want the rule of Law donate to the Police?
Do they donate to the Military to fund them?
Do they donate money to ICE to staff them (ICE) better? Will they donate to pay for the beautiful wall?

 

[theeedude]

I must have missed the text in the Constitution where it said "government is instituted among men to do the charity that progressives refuse to voluntary self-fund ."

General welfare.

 

[brycejones]

I'm confused. Was the purpose of this thread to discuss the value and merits of the school lunch program or an avenue for the OP to show just how much of a raging douche bag he could be?

Every Glenn post is an opportunity to show how much of a raging douche bag he can be.

 

[Capt Caveman]

nvm

 

[SMOGZINN]

I must have missed the text in the Constitution where it said "government is instituted among men to do the charity that progressives refuse to voluntary self-fund ."

Progressives decide that we need roads because these new fangled horseless carriages tear themselves apart on the dirt paths. No one wants to voluntarily pay for these roads, so we progressives get the government to do it. Conservatives complain about being forced to do something that should have been done by charities.

Progressives decide that we need clean water because people are dying of dysentery. No one wants to voluntarily pay for treatment plants, so we progressives get the government to do it. Conservatives complain about being forced to do something that should have been done by charities.

Government does things to promote the general welfare of the public. It is a basic function of government.

 

[glenn1]

Such a lame argument.
Let's apply this logic to Police, do Conservatives that want the rule of Law donate to the Police?
Do they donate to the Military to fund them?
Do they donate money to ICE to staff them (ICE) better? Will they donate to pay for the beautiful wall?

Police and military are non-rivalrous and non-excludable public goods and thus appropriate to fund via taxes. I have no problems with making "the wall" into a charity project since it's not as clearly a true public good.

 

[glenn1]

Progressives decide that we need roads because these new fangled horseless carriages tear themselves apart on the dirt paths. No one wants to voluntarily pay for these roads, so we progressives get the government to do it. Conservatives complain about being forced to do something that should have been done by charities.

Progressives decide that we need clean water because people are dying of dysentery. No one wants to voluntarily pay for treatment plants, so we progressives get the government to do it. Conservatives complain about being forced to do something that should have been done by charities.

Government does things to promote the general welfare of the public. It is a basic function of government.

No surprise your knowledge of economics is so abysmal.

 

[brycejones]

I must have missed the text in the Constitution where it said "government is instituted among men to do the charity that progressives refuse to voluntary self-fund ."

Awesome why don't you round up some other conservative rejects like yourself and see how far you get in court with that argument. Stand up for your 'principles' and put your money behind them. Or are you really a coward who likes to hide behind a keyboard and hate on the poors?

 

[glenn1]

Awesome why don't you round up some other conservative rejects like yourself and see how far you get in court with that argument. Stand up for your 'principles' and put your money behind them. Or are you really a coward who likes to hide behind a keyboard and hate on the poors?

If Congress passes the bill I have no doubt we'll "go far" in court since the Constitution specifically gives legislature power of the purse.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Glenn...what is the purpose of economic activity and gathering/accumulating wealth? That is, what does the economy supervene on and what motivates humans to engage in economic activity?

Think about the answer to this. And when you realize it, you'll understand why we think the way we do. You're not only evil, you're shortsighted and naive.

And before you even dare accuse me of not "self-funding" any of this, a good 40% of my post-tax income goes to a human trafficking survivor friend of mine who is very ill and has no income, and I barely make enough to keep a roof over my head to begin with.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Police and military are non-rivalrous and non-excludable public goods and thus appropriate to fund via taxes. I have no problems with making "the wall" into a charity project since it's not as clearly a true public good.

Police are neither non-excludable nor non-rivalrous. They are only treated that way by our system. It is pretty easy to imagine a police force that only protects the people that pay, and there are only so many police officers. If I am using one then I have depleted the pool of available officers to handle other crimes. Overall the non-rivalrous and non-excludable definitions are not very useful, we kind of destroy their meaningfulness with copyright and patent laws.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Police and military are non-rivalrous and non-excludable public goods and thus appropriate to fund via taxes. I have no problems with making "the wall" into a charity project since it's not as clearly a true public good.

Such a lame argument. You remind me of those "Sovereign Citizen" dummies.

 

[zinfamous]

I have yet to reconcile how a party that continually styles itself as "pro-life" seems to be anything but.

as long as they aren't insentient cells, they can die of starvation, fetal crack addiction, poverty, whatever.

As long as they aren't cells, then there is no reason to care about this so-called human "life."

The GOP in a completely shameless nutshell, right there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No surprise your knowledge of economics is so abysmal.

I see yours is elementary. Those definitions might be useful in a high school economics class, but not in the real world where we blithely ignore them and make laws defining excludable products as non-excludable and treat rivalrous goods as non-rivalrous simply because we don't want to be bothered managing them.

 

[glenn1]

Glenn...what is the purpose of economic activity and gathering/accumulating wealth? That is, what does the economy supervene on and what motivates humans to engage in economic activity?

Think about the answer to this. And when you realize it, you'll understand why we think the way we do. You're not only evil, you're shortsighted and naive.

And before you even dare accuse me of not "self-funding" any of this, a good 40% of my post-tax income goes to a human trafficking survivor friend of mine who is very ill and has no income, and I barely make enough to keep a roof over my head to begin with.

Economic activity no more has a "purpose" than evolution or erosion. Economic activity no more is supposed to improve the lot of the poor than natural selection was trying to create homo sapiens from microbes or water was trying to carve the Grand Canyon. Even judging the effects of economic activity in a framework like Pareto Efficiency involves an inherent subjective judgment about what the "best" outcome should be.

 

[Grooveriding]

These are good Christian Republicans doing the lord's work. Jesus approves, he doesn't want these kids eating.

 

[glenn1]

These are good Christian Republicans doing the lord's work. Jesus approves, he doesn't want these kids eating.

Unlike the liberals here, Jesus actually fed poor people instead of saying "let Caesar handle it."

 

[brycejones]

If Congress passes the bill I have no doubt we'll "go far" in court since the Constitution specifically gives legislature power of the purse.

So stop whining about the constitution and how it doesn't specifically mention school lunches.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Economic activity no more has a "purpose" than evolution or erosion. Economic activity no more is supposed to improve the lot of the poor than natural selection was trying to create homo sapiens from microbes or water was trying to carve the Grand Canyon. Even judging the effects of economic activity in a framework like Pareto Efficiency involves an inherent subjective judgment about what the "best" outcome should be.

Wrong answer, Glenn. I'm not just asking what the teleological end of economic activity is, I'm asking what it emerges from and why we do it.

Besides which, to sit there and tell me there's no purpose is a category error, doubly so when you compare it to naturalistic, unthinking processes. By definition any activity initiated by a sentient being with a sense of causality has a purpose.

Here's what you missed: we engage in economic activity to improve our lives. To promote human flourishing. Therefore, economic activity that does the opposite is more or less committing the informal fallacy of the stolen concept, i.e., using a concept to argue against that concept's genetic roots.

Got all that? You are committing idolatry here, in a way: you're glorifying an object (the economy/money) and objectifying people.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Just taking a page from the illegal immigrant proponents that say why should the States fund holding illegal aliens for the Feds? Whys should the Feds fund the States education money?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Unlike the liberals here, Jesus actually fed poor people instead of saying "let Caesar handle it."

Holy broad assumption!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just taking a page from the illegal immigrant proponents that say why should the States fund holding illegal aliens for the Feds? Whys should the Feds fund the States education money?

So this excuses not feeding kids whom are in need?

 

[Jaskalas]

Unlike the liberals here, Jesus actually fed poor people instead of saying "let Caesar handle it."

It would appear that, overall, your statement here is to oppose ANY social safety net.
Is that correct?

If kids get food, what does it matter that it was provided by the lunch program?

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

I spent 11+ years studying the Bible, some of it in the original Hebrew (OT) and Koine (NT). Jesus says feed the poor. Period.

He doesn't specify a method. He says just do it. And Glenn, pay afuckingttention here, Mt. 25 specifically states that you will go to Hell for not helping the poor. Either shut up and start helping, or make sure you're buried in asbestos long johns, because you're gonna need 'em where you're going if you keep this up, Mr. Good Christian.