Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving family?

Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving family?

  • Total voters
    50
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
I can assure you I am not using GDP. I am speaking to the federal budget, which like it or not includes discretionary spending and entitlement spending.
Click to expand...
Post proof.Statistical evidence and not some right wing bunch of hooey. You can't because you have no idea what you are talking about. In any regard we are idiots for allowing so much treasure to be spent on "defense"of hobglobins that are not going to appear in the United States. Those who want to know the truth rtead about USMC General Smedley Butler and the business Plot.One of the only men to ever be awarded the MOH twice and the only one to receive it in two wars. Unlike Bugeye Butler knew of what he spoke.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
Post proof.Statistical evidence and not some right wing bunch of hooey. You can't because you have no idea what you are talking about. In any regard we are idiots for allowing so much treasure to be spent on "defense"of hobglobins that are not going to appear in the United States. Those who want to know the truth rtead about USMC General Smedley Butler and the business Plot.One of the only men to ever be awarded the MOH twice and the only one to receive it in two wars. Unlike Bugeye Butler knew of what he spoke.
Click to expand...
So math is now a right wing bunch of hooey?
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
"
Defense spending stood at 6.8 percent of GDP at the height of the Reagan defense buildup. But, beginning even before the breakup of the Soviet Union it began a decline, reaching below 6 percent in 1990, below 4 percent in 1996 and bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001, about half the level of 1985.

But 9/11, the terrorist attack on iconic US buildings in 2001, changed that, and defense spending began a substantial increase in two stages. First, it increased to 4.6 percent by 2005 for the invasion of Iraq, and then to 5.0 percent in 2008 for the the “surge” in Iraq.

Spending increased further to 5.7 percent in 2011 with the stepped up effort in Afghanistan. Defense spending is expected to decline to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent GDP by 2020."

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
You are talking about stuff you have NO idea about regurgitation of "facts"that appeal to you. The truth be damned.With that, Like I told you one time before, see my signature for any replies to your hooey.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
"
Defense spending stood at 6.8 percent of GDP at the height of the Reagan defense buildup. But, beginning even before the breakup of the Soviet Union it began a decline, reaching below 6 percent in 1990, below 4 percent in 1996 and bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001, about half the level of 1985.

But 9/11, the terrorist attack on iconic US buildings in 2001, changed that, and defense spending began a substantial increase in two stages. First, it increased to 4.6 percent by 2005 for the invasion of Iraq, and then to 5.0 percent in 2008 for the the “surge” in Iraq.

Spending increased further to 5.7 percent in 2011 with the stepped up effort in Afghanistan. Defense spending is expected to decline to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent GDP by 2020."

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
Click to expand...
Yes, if I was calculating defense as percent of GDP, these are reasonable numbers.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
You are talking about stuff you have NO idea about regurgitation of "facts"that appeal to you. The truth be damned.With that, Like I told you one time before, see my signature for any replies to your hooey.
Click to expand...
Yes, your tag line is a very convenient way to get out of arguments you have lost.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
"
Defense spending stood at 6.8 percent of GDP at the height of the Reagan defense buildup. But, beginning even before the breakup of the Soviet Union it began a decline, reaching below 6 percent in 1990, below 4 percent in 1996 and bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001, about half the level of 1985.

But 9/11, the terrorist attack on iconic US buildings in 2001, changed that, and defense spending began a substantial increase in two stages. First, it increased to 4.6 percent by 2005 for the invasion of Iraq, and then to 5.0 percent in 2008 for the the “surge” in Iraq.

Spending increased further to 5.7 percent in 2011 with the stepped up effort in Afghanistan. Defense spending is expected to decline to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent GDP by 2020."

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending
Click to expand...
Here is a chart taken from the link you provided showing defense as 22% of the budget, as I stated earlier. Suck it.
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why/why not?
Click to expand...
Why not just ask for food? Oh thats right, because ego's of the left. They are entitled to what is not theirs. If you ask for charity from a private entitiy, you have to have some humility. If you get forced charity from government, then you get it from a faceless entity, without the need of feeling humbled to ask for help.

You don't want to lose your pride, but you dont want to starve. You want to have your cake, and eat it too.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
Why not just ask for food?
Click to expand...
Because the hypothetical doesn't allow for asking for food.

The point of the question was to determine where the wrongdoing takes place, the intent, the act or the consequences. A man stealing food to feed his starving family very clearly has morally justifiable intentions; to feed his starving family, most here who believe it's wrong can't argue with the intention, they argue with the act and apparently, context of the situation doesn't change anything.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
So context doesnt matter?

What if the person is stealing food because they spent their government food check on drugs and booze? Is it still moral to steal when you dont have something regardless of circumstance?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So context doesnt matter?

What if the person is stealing food because they spent their government food check on drugs and booze? Is it still moral to steal when you dont have something regardless of circumstance?
Click to expand...
Yes, the context does matter, that's the point, that's why intent matters. If you're stealing food to feed your starving family, under certain circumstances, I would argue that's morally justifiable - stealing food to feed your starving family because you made bad decisions is probably not morally justifiable, but it's understandable why someone would do it
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, the context does matter, that's the point, that's why intent matters. If you're stealing food to feed your starving family, under certain circumstances, I would argue that's morally justifiable - stealing food to feed your starving family because you made bad decisions is probably not morally justifiable, but it's understandable why someone would do it
Click to expand...
If you are a good person, that something bad happened to such as death in family, sudden job loss, economic collapse, then you are still on a moral high ground to ask those with the food for food. In fact, those with the food, seek out those without the food, and give it to them. If you wanted to go with a much more rigid safety net for even more extreme cases, that would drastically reduce the welfare state to a more realistic need then ok, that would be more reasonable and common sense approach that what we have now.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
If you are a good person, that something bad happened to such as death in family, sudden job loss, economic collapse, then you are still on a moral high ground to ask those with the food for food. In fact, those with the food, seek out those without the food, and give it to them. If you wanted to go with a much more rigid safety net for even more extreme cases, that would drastically reduce the welfare state to a more realistic need then ok, that would be more reasonable and common sense approach that what we have now.
Click to expand...
If that would work like you believe it would, why was the idea of a safety social net ever invented? If when people are in need, they can simply ask people to provide the food they can't buy themselves, why are 46.7 million people (14.8%) currently living in abject poverty in the United States?

http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html

 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If that would work like you believe it would, why was the idea of a safety social net ever invented? If when people are in need, they can simply ask people to provide the food they can't buy themselves, why are 46.7 million people (14.8%) currently living in abject poverty in the United States?

http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html
Click to expand...
Did you even read the first paragraph of your quote?

"SEPT. 16, 2015 — The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that in 2014, there was no statistically significant change from 2013 in either real median household income or the official poverty rate. At the same time, the percentage of people without health insurance coverage declined. Unless otherwise noted, the following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2015 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement."

No significant statistical change in the poverty rate. You do know that the poverty rate is simply an arbitrary number the government decides upon and the Obama administration raised it during his term. I guess he gets credit for making a lot more people poor. THANKS OBAMA!!!

Notice that the percentage of people with health coverage declined even though it is now mandatory. THANKS OBAMA!!!
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Lets delve a bit deeper. Into the 2nd or 3rd paragraph....

" This marks the fourth consecutive year in which the number of people in poverty was not statistically different from the previous year’s estimate."

Four years and poverty hasnt been eliminated? This is 4 years under Obama. Why isnt he fixing the problem? There is no hope and change after the president got elected promising exactly that?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Now, lets do a little investigative research... What is the definition of poverty? Well that depends upon dependents!!

PERSONS IN FAMILY/HOUSEHOLDPOVERTY GUIDELINE
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 for each additional person.
1$11,770
2$15,930
3$20,090
4$24,250
5$28,410
6$32,570
7$36,730
8$40,890










Shit!!! A person claiming 7 dependents has made more money than me this year yet the government considers him in ABJECT POVERTY!!! All I need is a few kids and I can sign up for welfare!!!

Boy, it is a really good thing that people never lie about their income or dependents or that would make the poverty rate that much higher eh? LULZ!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top