My perspective on this changed after I had a daughter. I used to think, “we have to look out for everyone”. But now, my mindspace is occupied with my kid’s safety and wellbeing.

Sure, we should look out for everyone, but my kid comes way ahead. If I had $100 and I had to spent $1 to increase her safety profile, I’ll happily do it.

Having children just underscored the importance of looking out for everyone to me. The better everyone is doing, the safer the world is for my kids.

Same sentiment for me too. I became super vulnerable at first ,but that vulnerability was a healthy thing. I realized how precious my children and their life and future are, and that has inspired me to try raise the bar for everyone around me where possible. Not just my own child.

Sure, but the sentiment changed from "we can all fight this together" to "we can all fight this together AFTER I've secured my child".

Not for me. For me "fighting this together" is securing my children.

ITT: we enact the tragedy of the commons, but justify it because of "muh baby"

Anyone with kids knows the gut instincts that suddenly pop up, but unless you can insulate them for a billions worth, your best bet is still to make sure things are evenly spread enough so there's nobody who thinks they need to topple whatever status quo you've got going. The instinct was not told about how were pretty much shoulder to shoulder on Earth now.

That very mindset is what will put your children in the most danger. You do not live in a vacuum.

That's what I tell everyone who advocates for defunding food stamps. The bread we throw to the poor is the only thing that keeps their knives away from your throat.

Americans think gun ownership is some sort of compensating factor...as though sieges in America have ever ended well for the defending team.

The problem with food stamps is program abuse: about 25% is spent on junk food. And then there's outright fraud, which as a percentage is small but still a lot of money. Who knows how much is spent on uber eats/doordash.

I'm fine with tax spending to feed the poor, but I don't agree with spending on luxury foods and luxury food services that I wouldn't even spend on myself.

That thinking is the problem.

Every government program will see fraud and I don't even see how junk food is a real problem? The point is calories. Sure, healthier food would be better, but there are other efforts to get people of all income brackets to eat healthier. The government should not limit what people are permitted to eat just because they're poor enough to qualify.

How is "that thinking" the problem? A problem for what exactly?

Junk food is a problem because it's vastly overpriced relative to the amount of nutritional value.

In terms of material cost, the dollar amount actually necessary to feed poor people is a tiny insignificant fraction of what is being spent now. That's inefficient.

Not to even mention how junk food contributes to obesity and other health problems, effectively creating a second-order tax unto the health care system.

The max benefit for EBT in ND is $250-ish for a single person essentially making nothing.

The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating.

All prepared food is banned in ND for EBT. Meaning you can’t order Taco Bell through door dash.

If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.

The poors aren’t the ones screwing you.

> The whole point of EBT is to keep people fed. If they are eating junk food and not maximizing their nutritional value to your satisfaction that’s fine because they’re still eating.

They could eat for much less than that. Again, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing luxury spending? Junk food is a luxury.

> If you’re really worried about your tax expenditures look at defense contracting and spending. EBT fraud is a rounding error for some of those program overruns. Also at tax policy when it comes to revenue offshoring, inheritance and millionaires to billionaire tax evasion.

Whataboutism. Two things can be true at once.

I would continue discussing this with you, but if you object to people buying a bag of chips, I can draw a relatively easy conclusion to your overall opinion on the social safety net and probably tax policy.

It's not worth my time.

That would be your assumption due to your own political bias.

That reflects on you, not me.

Like I legitimately just want the system to be more efficient lol. It must be hard for you to talk to people?

If you "legitimately" want efficiency then you support just giving people $250 outright in cash, not locking it behind food stamps. How inefficient is it to give people 250 that theyre locked to spending on only one aspect of their lives? I would posit, having done it myself, that you could easily feed yourself and probably at least 2 people on half that. If the people are left with 125 that they can ONLY use on food, of course they'll use it for junk - at least that gives them some value at least as far as life enjoyment even if it's bad for them. Give them cash and I would bet they'd put it to much better use on bills, outstanding debts, laundry, etc.

What an entitled take.

Junk food is popular for many reasons. Beyond “tasing good”, most of it is readily accessible, requires no prep, and is calorie dense. It certainly lacks nutrients, but it does keep people going.

I know any people take this for granted, but knowing how to prepare food from scratch is a skill. It takesa time, it takes effort, it takes knowledge that some people simply don’t feel they have.

Entitled, like expecting free food? Nice reversal!

Preparing food is a red herring, there's lots of food better than junk food that takes no prep time at all.

What are some tasty ones besides raw fruits and veggies? Penut Butter and Jelly?

> The bread we throw to the poor is the only thing that keeps their knives away from your throat.

Yeah this wouldn't go how you think it would.

You should watch Sam Esmail's latest work, Leave The World Behind.

Spending $3 isn't the same as taking $3 worth of meals from someone's mouth. This is true whether it's done ten or a billion times.

It depends on your moral philosophy.

To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is.

I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly.

Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a frivolous expense in comparison.

I'm not trying to push my philosophy on anyone, but at some point, almost everyone will agree that e.g. spending a billion dollars on a party, while your home is surrounded by starving people, without thinking to help them would be crass and immoral.

I don't see how picking a philosophy then claiming the outcome is rational, while picking a different philosophy will lead to a claim that the outcome is irrational is anything more than just quibbling over inconsistent semantics.

Rational just means that the logic is sound and valid. If each philosophy's axioms change, both can be rational, logically speaking, but be incompatible.

Values don't come from logic. My values can be:

- The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is defined by happiness

... by self-growth

... by adherence to a code of behavior

- Loyalty to family and country

- Improve humanity by euthanizing inferior individuals

- Save the environment from humanity

- Subjugate the environment for humanity

... and so on. Those have no logic behind them. They're just values. They're arbitrary.

Logic comes in after that, in what you do from there.