4 ms·
> The issue isn't "what people eat," it's "what taxpayer should pay for." I think what he's saying is that the government shouldn't be paying for unnecessary lu
by mempko 3y ago
> The issue isn't "what people eat," it's "what taxpayer should pay for." I think what he's saying is that the government shouldn't be paying for unnecessary luxuries for people who can't afford them. If you're on food stamps, they should be good for healthy but modest food.
Food stamps (SNAP) aren't paid out of your taxes. That's not how the federal government works. Your taxes don't pay for other people's food. Taxes are a debt, an obligation to pay. The money you use to pay those taxes comes from the government (and bank credit) in the first place.
- anthony_d 3y agoOk, I’m at a complete loss… are you being serious or sarcastic? I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.
- mempko 3y agoWhat are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong?
- tivert 3y ago> What are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong? He's not confused: you are. You're letting some weird technical point block your understanding to a surprising and unbelievable degree.
- mempko 3y agoIt's not some technical point but crucial. The person is using the idea of 'my taxes are paying for their blunder' as a moral point. But that's simply not true. It completely nullifies that argument because they are basing their moral pondering on some fiction. We can pretend the world works one way and be mad about how people are taking advantage of the system, or we can understand how it actually works and maybe, just maybe, change it for the better.
- tivert 3y agoYou should just cut to the chase with the absolutely crucial point that nullifies their argument that the the literal dollars they sent the government to pay their taxes are almost certainly not being wasted on X, because those are different dollars!