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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
I answered it, we want a solid national security defense, it does not mean we want Obama to use our military to unilaterally invade Libya on Friday, and go golfing all weekend.
Are we supposed to cut the military when warmongers and incompetents like Obama are in office, and then quickly rebuild it when a competent president is in office?
And your point is what? That we should spend MORE on an already bloated military?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
You don't seem to understand what defense spending is all about. You do realize that we have enemies abroad, do you not?
Do you think an unarmed nation and an untrained military will make us safer, and less a target? Why would you think that?
WHO suggested anything remotely close to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Do you think we are better able to defend ourselves against an enemy bent on destroying us if our weapons are superior to those of the enemy, and our weapons stock pile is inexhaustible?
Are we safer having given up much of our nuclear arsenal, while allowing an enemy to keep more?
The last I read we had about 1,800 nuclear warheads deployed with means of delivery. How many do you think we need?
The need to address the increased liability is the first thing I brought up. That doesn't negate the fact that there is a multiplier effect. Additionally, you are incorrect. Asset values can rise without levering a balance sheet. The economy is not a zero sum game. We are talking economics, you are talking accounting. We will never see eye to eye if we are starting from such different places.
In order for assets to gain in value, they must hold more value tomorrow than they hold today.
Food stamps, does NOT have more value tomorrow than today..
He buys a taco. The $1 disappears completely right?
Sigh....Its never that simple.
Mr John Smith spends $1 cash to buy a taco..
Now tell me how the food stamps, generate MORE economic benefit than if he had spent $1 cash, especially given the $1 to give out in food stamps was REMOVED from the economy through taxes payable FIRST...
Now tell me how the food stamps, generate MORE economic benefit than if he had spent $1 cash, especially given the $1 to give out in food stamps was REMOVED from the economy through taxes payable FIRST...
LOL, Sure
So Mr smith has a daughter named.....Jane. Jane eats like crazy! As the income of Mr smith is reduced he buys less expensive food. As a result the nutrition of Jane is reduced. Jane ends up with a reduced IQ
As a result her lifetime addition to GDP is reduced by 10%, or approximately 210,000.
Seriously, good nutrition costs money. As it is YES the poor can survive on what we give them for food stamps, but its very hard to do so in a healthy way-especially as we dont teach good nutrition to people. And nutrition matters. Reducing food stamps has a good relationship with reducing incomes, it is one of the great success stories of the food stamp program that is rarely discussed.
So Mr smith has a daughter named.....Jane. Jane eats like crazy! As the income of Mr smith is reduced he buys less expensive food. As a result the nutrition of Jane is reduced. Jane ends up with a reduced IQ
As a result her lifetime addition to GDP is reduced by 10%, or approximately 210,000.
Seriously, good nutrition costs money. As it is YES the poor can survive on what we give them for food stamps, but its very hard to do so in a healthy way-especially as we dont teach good nutrition to people. And nutrition matters. Reducing food stamps has a good relationship with reducing incomes, it is one of the great success stories of the food stamp program that is rarely discussed.
Now you are moving the goal post and not discussing the issue. The discussion once again is ECONOMIC BENEFIT, not a lack of IQ..
And since you want to really dumb down the conversation, isnt "poor childhood diet" attribued to people who are, by definition POOR? IE on FOOD STAMPS
So what you are now arguing, is you havent gotten a clue about the same economic theories you've been pushing forward.. Dont worry, I know you dont, because THEY MAKE NO SENSE... once again that $1 in food stamps, must be REMOVED from the economy FIRST, thus REDUCING THE GDP, before its given out in food stamps.. The net increase to the nations economy.. ZERO.. because they would have bought the fn taco anyways.. YOU NEED TO EAT..
Simply changing how its paid for doesnt increase the GDP.. one of the dumbest things I've ever heard..
Do you believe that higher IQ doesnt have an economic benefit? Really?
Food stamps are there to avoid this very thing-lower nutrition resulting in lower IQ's.
You asked for for an example, I provided it. We all benefit from Jane being smarter-and theres a corresponding economic benfit to having a population with a higher IQ. I suppose I could have gone for some other routes, but they involve some pretty serious math, and the ability to comprehend the topic in detail-and no offense but I suspect economics is not a major study for you....hmmm that doesnt sound right. I want to put it in a way that doesnt sound like im putting you down, because thats not the intent. I dont think economics is a major study for most people.
And the then requested "proof" would go on and on, so I went for a simple example.
And yes the poor have bad nutrition, if you remove more money their nutrition gets substantially worse. You do understand that right? That Top Ramen isnt great nutition.
Do you believe that higher IQ doesnt have an economic benefit? Really?
never said anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Food stamps are there to avoid this very thing-lower nutrition resulting in lower IQ's.
The discussion once again was
$1 spent on food, or $1 food stamps spent on food..
Now your suggesting that not only is the economic benefit greater, but now also the nutritional one as well..
Tell me, what do you have to validate that food stamps shoppers buy healthier food than cash buyers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
You asked for for an example, I provided it. We all benefit from Jane being smarter-and theres a corresponding economic benfit to having a population with a higher IQ. I suppose I could have gone for some other routes, but they involve some pretty serious math, and the ability to comprehend the topic in detail-and no offense but I suspect economics is not a major study for you....hmmm that doesnt sound right. I want to put it in a way that doesnt sound like im putting you down, because thats not the intent. I dont think economics is a major study for most people.
And the then requested "proof" would go on and on, so I went for a simple example.
And yes the poor have bad nutrition, if you remove more money their nutrition gets substantially worse. You do understand that right? That Top Ramen isnt great nutition.
A $1 cash spent on food, vs $1 food stamps spent on food, is the EXACT same amount..
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.
