Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where my tax dollars go and for what purpose is always my business.
No, it isn't any of your business at all. You have no say, interest, control, or right to tax dollars once you pay them. Tax dollars are no different from the dollars you fork over at the end of the grocery store checkout line. They are NOT YOURS anymore. Period. If you don't like what some level of government is doing with ITS funds, write a letter to your representative. That is your sole recourse.
Why you insult my wife? For displaying her experience? Truth touched a nerve?
Why do you put false words into your wife's mouth? It is falsehood that touches a nerve with me. The rest of your post I found about as abosrbing as the squealing of a stuck pig. Aside from the obvious humor value, there simply wasn't any.
Im curious if there has been any discussion or debate about the economic impact on fht end of the SNAP program. Obviously there will be one on households getting this assistance...that there will have to be closer budgeting and reallocations within houshold budgets to cover loss of SNAP $$$, .... but I wonder, also, about the larger economic impact on communities that have a lot of SNAP recipients, groceries and supermarkets that accept SNAP...will there be a hit on them?
Are there any figures on this? It seems an interesting "numbers" question, both for consumers who are on SNAP (what % of food/sundries budget does SNAP cover) and retailers (what % of sales are from SNAP).
Again, this isn't a political post, just curious as to the economic fallout.
Food stamps should cause inflation in the costs of food as it is in fact just a government injection of cash into the overall food market without the coresponding trade off in production.
While food stamps compete with private dollars in the market place for food, they increase both the overall amount of money chasing food, and simultainiously lower the resistance to price hikes. It is more likely a person will be less frugal when shoping with food stamps than if they had worked and had to hand over their hard earned cast for those same groceries.
No, it isn't any of your business at all. You have no say, interest, control, or right to tax dollars once you pay them. Tax dollars are no different from the dollars you fork over at the end of the grocery store checkout line. They are NOT YOURS anymore. Period. If you don't like what some level of government is doing with ITS funds, write a letter to your representative. That is your sole recourse.
This is blatantly false. The people and the government have a contract concerning what power the government has to tax and what that tax may be used for. It is called the Constitution.
The Constitution states that the congress may tax the people in order to pay the debts of the country.
Charity is not a debt. It goes beyond the scope of power that the government was granted by the people.
Food stamps should cause inflation in the costs of food as it is in fact just a government injection of cash into the overall food market without the coresponding trade off in production.
Either that or they simply replace the cash in this "overall food market" of yours that used to be there but then disappeared all of a sudden when idiot laissez-faire free-market capitlaist notions simply wiped out about ten million jobs while forcing millions of others into lower and lower paying ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
While food stamps compete with private dollars in the market place for food, they increase both the overall amount of money chasing food, and simultainiously lower the resistance to price hikes. It is more likely a person will be less frugal when shoping with food stamps than if they had worked and had to hand over their hard earned cast for those same groceries.
Food stamps compete with soup kitchens and food pantries. It's better when the food stamps are winning. Your other unsupported (and unsupportable) suppositions are just as worthless as the first one, if not moreso.
This is blatantly false. The people and the government have a contract concerning what power the government has to tax and what that tax may be used for. It is called the Constitution.
Well, the Constitution says that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. There isn't anything at all in there about people having any say in what the funds so collected are used for. That's a matter for the elected representatives of the people to work out. If you aren't one of those, the only avenue provided to you by the Constitution is to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Today, we call that "lobbying".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The Constitution states that the congress may tax the people in order to pay the debts of the country. Charity is not a debt. It goes beyond the scope of power that the government was granted by the people.
The people ratified what's in the Constitution. The Constitution provides the federal government with broad powers to act in the interests of public safety and the general welfare. The lack of such powers in our earlier forms of government was the principal reason why the Constitution came into being in the first place. You are plainly no expert on these matters.
This is blatantly false. The people and the government have a contract concerning what power the government has to tax and what that tax may be used for. It is called the Constitution.
The Constitution states that the congress may tax the people in order to pay the debts of the country.
Charity is not a debt. It goes beyond the scope of power that the government was granted by the people.
Without wasting words, or getting into another fruitless dialogue the problem here, Jim, is that you believe in a theory of the Constitution that almost no one else does. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and if they believed this there wouldn't be a food stamps program or really any significant federal government at all.
You can believe in your particular theory until the cows come home. It isn't accepted outside of Tea Party circles.
One thing I've always wondered though. Why is it that the right wingers only pull out the Constitution when government has a program that is trying to help the poor, the sick, and most vulnerable groups in this country?
Poor working people like both of my parents went hungry for weeks at a time which is why we have things like SNAP now.
It isn't just SNAP, it's the whole fabric of a social safety net that the devotees of Reaganism and Romneyism have been trying with some considerable success to dismantle for more than 30 years. Mention Social Darwinism though, and all you will hear is "No, no, no!!! Not us!!!"
How much is crop insurance subsidy? How much money are Insurance companies making in the name of Farm Bill?? If we cut SNAP, insurance companies will raise their premiums and then we will have to adjust it by giving more subsidy.
More millions of bonuses for insurance company executives-thats the agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
