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.
That would be the manic state of a bipolar disorder with the other pole being conservatives who are in general, raving lunatics. I am all for avoiding the expansions of the welfare state. What I cannot understand is why the fit for an asylum conservatives don't do anything about corn and soy subsidies as just one example.
That is why liberalism and conservatism is a mental disorder.
Conservatives don't like it when the government gives money to 100 poor people. However they do like giving the same amount of money a liberal would give 100 poor people and make one person rich. I guess because they can afford to bathe and afford nice clothes, being so stinking rich in windfall fashion, it just does not scare them.
You can search every post I've ever made.
I don't want government doing any spending outside of its constitutional authority.
Joe Blow is the government - he's in the middle holding both arms out holding:
Me - on the right - paying 5.00 every month to Joe Blow.
My liberal neighbor on the left - getting 5.00 every month to feed his family from Joe Blow. I don't have a problem with that... He's hungry.
Scales balanced... But no way is that "stimulating" anything. All that is happening is that the same 5.00 is being passed from one side of the scale to the other to keep things in balance. The problem is, we've now got more on the left side than the right. And yes.. it is a problem, it's something we all should be concerned about... but to keep adding to the left isn't going to solve anything nor stimulating in the farthest sense of the imagination. It sounds rather simplistic... but I think most people don't get that it's probably the most simplistic things we need to do to get us out of these problems. We've got to balance these scales before we can ever hope to actually figure out how to cure what's throwing them off in the first place........
Who gave the government the power to take from one person and give to another?
I just checked my Constitution again....I just can't seem to find it.
walmart , target and other big box reatailers ceo's say they would
have to shed 100,000 jobs if food stamps were eliminated, plus it would strain local police
budgets and citys and states would have to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas
to deal with crime which would hurt their economy.
So, you're saying that A) Stores would necessarily need to increase wages (if your assertion is true) and B) The recipient class would create a crime spree for $300 a month in food?
[quote=Dane_in_LA;23228051]It sort of is, actually.
Taking my family as an example - we're middle-class working schmoes, and if our taxes went down in an amount matching that of the maximum CA food stamp amount (Google says $367 monthly for a family of two, I have no idea whether it's correct, but let's go with it), we'd not be in a great hurry to spend it. On the contrary, we'd be looking at early payment on the mortgage, IRAs etc. for a good chunk of that cash. Good choices for us, but it doesn't propel the economy a whole lot.
Compare that to somebody properly poor. They tend to spend the ever-loving out of every dime they see simply to stay fed, housed etc. - that's what being poor means.
So with all moral implications aside, with spending being the engine of the economy, Uncle Sam's logical choice when deciding between tax breaks and food stamps is going to be food stamps. It has the best ROI.
quote]
Wait a minute, are you saying that MY money is better for the economy if it goes to my neighbor? Because you assume I would just use it to pay my mortgage?
What if I use it to buy a product? Doesn't it help the company that manufactures that product? Maybe if they manufacture enough, they will hire the guy that would have received that money in food stamps. Now HE is earning a wage to buy more products, which will in turn enable another business to hire more people, etc, etc.
So, you're saying that A) Stores would necessarily need to increase wages (if your assertion is true) and B) The recipient class would create a crime spree for $300 a month in food?
Is this ransom pay or something?
they would have to shed job because they would loose 45 billion.
worth of demand for their products with elimination of 45 billion dollars worth of food stamps
Maybe it is the words being used in this thread? we keep talking about stimulating the economy when I think the word should be propping. And the food programs as we all know is not the only prop, under the AG dept we give billions to farmers. Some one made a comment that the amount spent was minuscule, I would not call 60 billion {unofficial} a small amount.
I agree with Alphamale about constitutional authority but in reality neither party is on board with that idea. I have never heard a {R} running on getting rid of food programs, hell you can't get them to cut subsidies. How about our contenders anyone running on cutting the program by a 1/3rd? Taking away a prop of 20 billion would have to have some negative effect on the economy.
As long as our economy is based on consumer spending our gvt will keep propping it up, I mean who wants to run with UE at 10%?
You've added another piece to the puzzle yes... but your still not stimulating anything...
Okay... going back to the scale example...
Right side me is now paying 3.00 instead of 5.00 cause I got the tax break...
Left side is still getting 5.00 because he's hungry....
Where is the other 2.00 coming from to feed Left?
I probably could have put that clearer - I wasn't suggesting both a tax break and a social service, I was comparing the effects of one with the other.
Imagine you're the government, and you want to see an improved economy by making the citizens spend money. If your options are as follows:
Decrease taxes on the middle class, putting more money in their hands for them to spend, or
Keep taxes where they are and funnel some of the revenue into social services for the poor, giving them more money to spend.
Both represent a net loss - one by lost revenue, one by added expenses.
Which one puts more money in circulation? The latter.
Wait a minute, are you saying that MY money is better for the economy if it goes to my neighbor? Because you assume I would just use it to pay my mortgage?
Pretty much, yes. (As I said, moral implications aside.) The numbers are quite clear - if you want government expenditure to enter the market quickly, direct it at the poor. They spend.
Pretty much, yes. (As I said, moral implications aside.) The numbers are quite clear - if you want government expenditure to enter the market quickly, direct it at the poor. They spend.
Here's the thing: It's not goverment expenditure, it's government confiscation of my money. To call it a govt expenditure is going off of the assumption that EVERYTHING belongs to the govt. There should be very careful consideration before you determine it is absolutely necessary before you go digging into my pocket.
Also, consider this: Maybe I would spend that money on charity. Maybe the food would get to the same recipient, but it would be food from a food bank, therefore instead of the $374 (or whatever) being funneled through the govt bureaucracy and the recipient ending up with approx $250 of food stamps, they would get the ENTIRE $374 in food, because I donated that sum directly to the food bank.
The other difference this represents is the fact that my donating that money was my CHOICE, not confiscation.
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.
