Right, because that’s exactly what’s allowed under current state and national guidelines. There are neither time limits nor means testing, folks. Anyone who wants can suck on that public teat forever, from cradle to grave.
No, but seriously. Does anyone who understands the meaning of language in connection with the political and societal views of the time (preferably one who is not trying to use a third grade knowledge of how George Washington could not lie, and loved all the people, so he didn’t chop down the cherry tree) know whether the Founding Fathers would have intended a public government subsidy system for the poor?
No, but seriously. Who cares? Times change. The definition of general welfare changes. The definition of what is good for society changes.
Apparently the person who posted it in response to what the Founding Fathers thought.
Good reasoning: “What did they think about X topic 200 years ago?”
“They thought Y.”
“I disagree.”
“Who cares, times change.”
Sweet skills you have there. Why even respond if that is what you are going to bring to the table?
If you all want to debate whether the founding fathers would have approved of buying lobster with food stamps, feel free. I’m going to say that what they would have thought of it is completely irrelevant to today’s world. What would they have thought of the Civil War, of 10-year-olds working in factories, of dropping the atom bomb on Japan? It doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. And I, at least, don’t care.
I disagree with this. Your constitution/Declaration of Independence/whatever it is that your government was formed under was the guiding reference point for establishing your country and government, and everything since then has followed from these starting points. They’re not particularly germane to this discussion, but they’re not moot, either.
Yes, but things have evolved, and, well, changed. We’re not locked in time in 1776 or 1788. Certain thoughts the founders may have had are still very relevant today; how society fed the hungry in the 18th century is not.
Appealing to what the Founding Fathers would have thought is not much different from asking “What whould Jesus do?”
The Founding Fathers, who were far from a homogeneous group all sharing the same opinions, managed to hammer out a Constitution that virtually none of them found completely satisfactory. If we want to go by the Constitution as adopted, they apparently thought slavery was A-OK. So, does that mean it should still be OK?
The FF’s gave us a document that was a starting point for a government. It was flawed at the beginning, it has been ammeded numerous times. What the FF’s would have thought of food stamps is irrelevant.
I think you have a point. I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I do know that owning property was a big deal. I think the original writers would be more pissed off about using public funds for the mortgage interest deduction than for assisting those less fortunate.
Yeah. If the founders and constitution can be used by someone when they choose in order to justify a stance, they should not complain that others do so too.
Let’s go ALL the way. Let’s say EVERYTHING they said was too old, too out of date, because, well they’re dead and “It doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. And I, at least, don’t care.”
They the founders also wrote against unreasonable search and seizure - see the Supreme Court words on that and compare it to ummmm, searching library records for the readers of unpatriotic books
They (founders and Supreme Court judges) wrote about speedy trial, by a jury of peers - compare that to Gitmo and Abu Graib. Include indefinite confinement with no charges. Toss in justifying ummmmm torture too, for good measure.
They spoke against foreign entanglements - compare that to wars, invasion for the sole purpose of toppling people someone in power doesn’t like.
They talked about citizen armies and militia - compare that to a captive army, held captive by the backdoor draft.
They talked about basic human dignity - compare that to the people in this thread right here - they are poor, they are stupid, they suck so let’s punish them and degrade them even more. It’s just spite. I’m cool, you suck, so starve and (hoepfully) die.
Let’s toss it ALL out.
Don’t be hypocrites. Don’t dare scream about your rights if you disrespect anyone else’s. Maybe when you are hungry, or laid off, or arrested and tortured with no charges filed, and what little is left gets ransacked, everyone else will say “And I, at least, don’t care.”
It’s sad, that someone (featherlou) in “a whole 'nother country”, Canada understands our “fine old irrelevant words” better than some of you do.
Holy cow. What the fuck does the constitution have to do with whether people should be allowed to buy lobster or Pringles with their food stamps? I’ll cut my answer down to words of one syllable for you: not a fuck ing thing.
I’m in favor of food stamps; I’m against limiting the foods that can be bought with them. Neither of those stances is based on my thoughts of the constitution, because - one more time - the constitution has not a fuck ing thing to do with it.
:rolleyes:
I only had time to skim, so forgive me if the point has been made, but what is the fucking relevence of what people buy with their food stamps? It’s not like they’re sucking more from the “public teat” by buying lobster and pringles instead of beans and rice. The amount you get is fixed, right? So what’s it matter if a person chooses to spend it on junk vs. spending it on “approved” food, whatever the heck that is?
Seriously, I don’t get the point of the OP. If somebody wants to blow their food stamps on filet mignon and lobster, hey, let them. What’s the difference what they buy?
(I also wonder where the hell some of you are shopping where chicken breast is $6 a pound. Here, in Chicago no less, if you go to a local Mexican or Polish shop, you find it fileted for around $2/lb. Shrimp? $3/lb at the Asian markets.)
It doesn’t say a fucking thing about lobsters. Period. My post also has nothing to do with you, except that the very people who want to wield this much control use the same damn argument (irrelevant, I don’t care). Feeding people is not in the constitution unless you read into it - general welfare, domestic tranquility, etc. So, when it suits them, they say it’s not in The Holy Words, go starve. Then in the same breath, they want to grossly control what Someone Else is allowed to eat, and say they can because it’s not specifically forbidden in The Holy Words. If it suits someone’s cause every thing in the universe is relevant. If it doesn’t, everything magically becomes irrelevant. That’s the fucking spiteful hypocrisy that has my bowels in a fucking uproar.
You know, Steve, I have to back you on that. If people want to bring something like a Constitution of the United States of America into this discussion, be prepared for it to not be used as you want it to. I vote for a Straight Dope rule that says the U.S. Constitution can only be used for arguing in Great Debates, where all the Poindexters hang out. 
Yes, but to be fair, when one quotes passages from 200 years ago, as I believe Steve did, one may also need to be prepared to have it pointed out that the language does not come close to meaning what it was analyzed as meaning by that person.
Don’t quote the language and make a half-assed attempt to analyze it if you don’t want it rebutted or want to talk about it. That’s pretty simple.
I see no need to worry about it or feel “guilty”. None at all. Take note that I did not initiate the use of the language (that) does not come close to meaning what it was analyzed as meaning by that person. Note that I did not begin the half-assed attempt to analyze it. If other half assed interpretations of cherry picked words is legit then so are mine. The goose and the gander. Don’t expect me to follow any rule that “the opposite view” feels free to ignore.
I’m bored. It all seems to boil down to “I got mine so fuck you” in one form or another. I’ll remember THAT little tidbit the next time anyone from “the other side” tries to dredge up “Christian values”.