[POLL] Do You Support Socialized Food?

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
No way.

Government != babysitter.

The government is here to keep us safe and in order. Not to give us everything we do at the expense of those who worked hard. I think the modern concept of 'needy' is skewed. Some people were born with this idea that they are needy(just because), and are therefore entitled to handouts; and if they don't get them then life isn't fair. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be.

It's kind of difficult to rise above humble beginnings if one is sick from lack of medical care and has a belly that's rumbling because it hasn't seen a decent meal in so long.

 

[K1052]

No, because once it was we would have to raise prices on other things at my work to make up for it.

People would fvcking freak out at how much they would go up and it would be rather inflationary.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

 

[FoBoT]

you get plenty of free food in the military

 

[miri]

I still remember the WIC people. They would get mad because they had to buy the store brand. If your getting something for free, you have little right to complain.

 

[aircooled]

not particularly 'socialized' food, but anyone that can legitimately not afford to eat I think should be offered it.

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
No way.

Government != babysitter.

The government is here to keep us safe and in order. Not to give us everything we do at the expense of those who worked hard. I think the modern concept of 'needy' is skewed. Some people were born with this idea that they are needy(just because), and are therefore entitled to handouts; and if they don't get them then life isn't fair. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be.

yes, there is a fine line between safe/in order and overbearing. For example, you can see how regulations on food import tariffs and agriculture price gouging can be blown out of proportion in to food socialism.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
and free air as well

and free water

and free xBox

and free HDTV

and free cheetos

and free key lime pie

i voted "yes" in protest of .... , something

There ya go!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
The USA is the richest country in the world, nobody should go to bed at night hungry.

So go out and start feeing people. Organize citizen volunteers and help the hungry and the homeless. Move it! But don't just sit there on your self-righteous ass demanding that government do it for you by force of the law, because that just makes you look charitable when it fact you are just selfishly giving with other people's money.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
No way.

Government != babysitter.

The government is here to keep us safe and in order. Not to give us everything we do at the expense of those who worked hard. I think the modern concept of 'needy' is skewed. Some people were born with this idea that they are needy(just because), and are therefore entitled to handouts; and if they don't get them then life isn't fair. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be.

It's kind of difficult to rise above humble beginnings if one is sick from lack of medical care and has a belly that's rumbling because it hasn't seen a decent meal in so long.

However, If we keep giving handouts, nothing will change. I'm not saying we should just just use a 'sink or swim' tactic. I'm not that heartless. Nor do I know exactly what the solution is. I do know that handouts breed sloth.

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
No way.

Government != babysitter.

The government is here to keep us safe and in order. Not to give us everything we do at the expense of those who worked hard. I think the modern concept of 'needy' is skewed. Some people were born with this idea that they are needy(just because), and are therefore entitled to handouts; and if they don't get them then life isn't fair. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be.

yes, there is a fine line between safe/in order and overbearing. For example, you can see how regulations on food import tariffs and agriculture price gouging can be blown out of proportion in to food socialism.

What?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: amoeba

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
The USA is the richest country in the world, nobody should go to bed at night hungry.

yes, but I don't think the US can support our current consumerism for long. We simply don't output enough for us to be this rich.

We don't output enough? We're the world's largest supplier of grain. We pretty much fed Russia and the Soviet Union for a few years.

The European Union nanny state will fall under the crushing weight of its welfare payouts long before the United States.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Who decides what's healthy and what's not? And not all people react to foods the same. For example, it's been documented that some people can at greasy bacon every morning for their entire lives, rarely exercise but still stay thin, and live to be more than 100 (my grandfather smoked 2 packs a day, non-filters, and lived to be 94). While others eat nothing but "healthy" foods, exercise for constant fitness and die of a heart attack at 40.

Your constant attitude of letting government work around the laws through arbitrary taxation is really short-sighted.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.

The government stills buys into that fvcked up food pyramid thing designed more to sell farmers crap than to make people healthier. (Eat 12 barrels of bread a day! Use meat sparingly!)

Interesting post Amused...food is certainly a higher priority than healthcare, but we don't *really* have it socialized...

or do we? Foodstamps are to food as medicaid/old people's scam insurance is to health care aren't they?

 

[DurocShark]

I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

Socialized Sex = Comrade Sutra

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: biostud
If food where free, then more might be able to afford to buy insurance for healthcare.

you don't think very hard do you?

 

[sandorski]

You already have a form of Socialized Food. The difference is that the Money/Socialism(izing) is given to the Producers in the form of Subsidies.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I don't support socialized anything (except maybe sex?)

The government already fvcks you over, what more do you want?

 

[vi edit]

Free lunch programs and food stamps are good enough right now.

That and food is one area where private donations really can be a huge part vs. government inclusion. You really can't abuse or squander away cans of corn or soup like you can pure cash. Private run food shelters and local donations and volunteers are much more effective than the government ever could be.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
No way.

Government != babysitter.

The government is here to keep us safe and in order. Not to give us everything we do at the expense of those who worked hard. I think the modern concept of 'needy' is skewed. Some people were born with this idea that they are needy(just because), and are therefore entitled to handouts; and if they don't get them then life isn't fair. Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to be.

It's kind of difficult to rise above humble beginnings if one is sick from lack of medical care and has a belly that's rumbling because it hasn't seen a decent meal in so long.

However, If we keep giving handouts, nothing will change. I'm not saying we should just just use a 'sink or swim' tactic. I'm not that heartless. Nor do I know exactly what the solution is. I do know that handouts breed sloth.

I think the trick is to give them just enough that they can get out of their hole while still making life in that hole suck big time. Otherwise, they're just going to go "Well, this hole is pretty nice actually...and its really a lot of work to get out of it so..."

Foodstamps should only buy you liver and spinach sandwiches.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused
Think about it. Many here support socialized healthcare and feel it should be a "right" since it is often required to live.

Well, in ALL cases food is required to live. So by that standard, shouldn't food be socialized as well?

Should Our entire food industry be socialized and food be free to all?

Who would get the Lobster dinners then? How about the best cuts of beef? Do I get a choice in what I get to eat?

I would vote a big NO on that one!

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Absolutely not, you get what you pay for. This country is rich enough that anybody can get some food if they make even a small effort. Other countries have problems feeding everyone.

 

[Martin]

Foodstamps already exist in Yankeestan.

 

[PingSpike]

Frankly I think we should change our foreign policy. When we're paying farmers to not grow food...why don't we just pay them to grow food, and then bomb the living sh|t out of Africa with food. If there's any country that could coat the landscape of a continent with big macs, its the USA.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: biostud
It's not like many people die of hunger in US, rather the opposite. But maybe it should be more expensive to buy unhealthy food than healthy.

Well, socialized food would mean an end to unhealthy foods as the government nanny-state would control all food production.

LOLOL nanny-state, is that suppose to be an insult? You conservatives want government controlled of all 'moral' issues, like drug use, profanity and nudity on tv, etc, but when it actually comes to helping people and requires YOU to give up something, you won't.