Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#81

Post by mempko »

anthony_d wrote: post #75
mempko wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Tax…

Ok, I’m at a complete loss… are you being serious or sarcastic? I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

What are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong?

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#82

Post by tivert »

archagon wrote: post #69
tivert wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. But then think of the people who also can't afford these things, but are paying into the system rather than taking from it. They'd rightly feel shafted by people buying luxury items on their dime. The perspective of a well-off person who can easily afford to pay into the system and afford most of th…

I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.

> I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive.

It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program.

> Just give people the resources to buy what they need.

Exactly. People need good nutritious food; not expensive luxury food.

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#83

Post by tivert »

mempko wrote: post #81
anthony_d wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I’m at a complete loss… are you being serious or sarcastic? I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

What are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong?

> 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.

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#84

Post by archagon »

tivert wrote: post #82
archagon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.

> I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they…

People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#85

Post by tivert »

archagon wrote: post #84
tivert wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they…

People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)

> People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity.

Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford.

A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those programs farther, to providing free or subsidized luxuries. And taking them that far, frankly, is a short-sighted own-goal, because it serves to undermine support for the whole endeavor.

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#86

Post by archagon »

tivert wrote: post #85
archagon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)

> People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those p…

Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady.

As for perception, the Republican dogma is starving the beast. "Welfare queens" are just an excuse: any remotely plausible reason will be used to defund social programs, crab legs or no.

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#87

Post by mempko »

tivert wrote: post #83
mempko wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you confused about, maybe I can clarify. Where am I wrong?

> 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.

It'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.

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#88

Post by tivert »

mempko wrote: post #87
tivert wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It'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, j…

You 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!

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#89

Post by merpnderp »

joneholland wrote: post #78
mempko wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except most of that money went into their pockets and not buying food. So how could it affect food prices? The issue is that companies got greedy and decided to charge more because they thought they could get away with it. The money printer went mostly to the top who bought real-estate and other property. Some of it went to regular people and a lot of that went to pay down debt. Money printing doesn't equal inflation…

Both of you are pushing a misleading agenda so I’ll add a third one. Food prices didn’t skyrocket from an excess of demand, and they didn’t purely skyrocket because of corporate greed. They went up because the cost of production went up. Because oil went up so transport went up. Because grain supply chains were disrupted by the war. Every step of production has become more expensive. All of it was supply side driven.…

I don't know how the US treasury and the Fed can pump that much money into the economy and you don't think demand changed at all. You know the basic definition of inflation is having more money than goods and services?

Re: How ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Reached the Top of the Charts

#90

Post by tivert »

archagon wrote: post #86
tivert wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those p…

Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. As for perc…

> Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results.

And that misses an important part of the picture.

> Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady.

Are you a well-off software engineer, who would have no problem buying all the crab legs you want, even if your taxes were higher?

If you are, you might not be able to see certain things from your lofty perch, and therefore may need to put in a little more effort to understand some important dynamics.

Post reply on HN