(06-26-2012 04:50 PM)niucob86 Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 10:03 AM)Max Power Wrote:  At the same time, people who lost their jobs or make minimum wage shouldn't feel ostracized for needing food stamps to make ends meet. I know conservatives think the key to growing the economy is incentivizing the rich by giving them more money and poor people less, but studies show food stamps have among the highest multiplier effects on GDP than any other government spending or tax cut plan.

Borrow money we don't have. Then take the loans and spend our way to prosperity. Got it boys?
What some of you must think of my beloved NIU.

Yeah, what some of you must think of me following the school of economic thought embraced by a majority of economists. If you don't generate demand with government spending and just let, say a $20 trillion economy shrink to a $10 trillion economy over 5 years, we've lost in that interval trillions in production and output that we'll never get back, not to mention the incalculable human cost of misery and despair (not to mention crime)brought by long term unemployment. And with interest rates at 1-2% it's a no brainer. Borrow now to get our production and employment running near their capacity and when we achieve that we can talk about spending cuts.

Blazer, even after the cuts France was still spending more on welfare than any other nation, and my point is they are doing as well or better than many of their neighbors who spend less on welfare. Britain, for example, and across southern Europe. No it's not the only factor to consider, but there seems to be no evidence it's been weighing them down. Also I've never said tax cuts are bad for the economy. Yes it sucks that JP Morgan gets a lucrative government contract and our tax dollars as profit, but if we built a large debit card system run by the federal government and Federal Reserve the right would be in an uproar.

Once again, max misleads...

He quotes some stat about fraud, and then relates that to buying potato chips with them.

Buying potato chips with food stamps isn't fraud. Neither is selling them for 50 cents on the dollar. Fraud is something entirely different, and as a lawyer, you know this, which shows you will lie to make a point.

As to the tax rates, in addition to being completely unrelated, one can be against bad ideas, regardless of whom they impact and still have their priorities in order.

It's bad when you are this transparent.


Eta... You posted the above while I was typing, so I missed it... But I love the... They are doing as well or better than most... Comment. It means they are doing better than some, and worse than others... Which probably means that it is something other than their expenditures on welfare that makes the difference.

Their taxation system is completely different, and taxes the poor far more than we do. They get more, but they pay more. As far as I'm concerned, that just puts government more in control. If rather than give every poor person 20,000 in benefits... We gave them 50,000 in benefits and taxed them 30,000 through a vat on what they bought, We would have among the highest welfare expenditures in the world, but the people would get the same net benefit. The only winner there is the government

As to borrow now, pay later.... On top of an unprecedented increase in spending by his predecessor, this President has taken spending t new heights with no endin sight.... Yet we are nowhere near full employment or capacity, nor are we projected to be any time soon.

(06-26-2012 06:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:54 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Healthy foods my ass. I see the sh!t these leaches put in the shopping carts!

Yeah, candy, potato chips, crackers, fruit drinks, steaks.
If you are on food stamps then it damn well better be store brands. Get the most food for MY money, not what you want to eat.

There should be a list of items approved for purchase with Food Stamps. Not a single "treat" or high priced luxury item should be on the list. If you want a reward...earn one. I know that sounds harsh for those in REAL need...but..you have to draw a line somewhere. I expect those in temporary need would have no problem with this policy.

Minnesota tried that some years ago and "poverty advocates" screamed that preventing people from using snap to buy Cheetos and orange soda is hateful..

I was addressing two separate issues raised in this thread.

Fraud is selling food stamps. So actually yes, selling them for 50 cents on the dollar is fraud. Buying name brand food isn't fraud, but some cons here appear to be complaining, and I just find it ironic these are the same guys who will fight to the death to keep billionaires' tax rates from going up a couple points.

(06-27-2012 09:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I was addressing two separate issues raised in this thread.

Fraud is selling food stamps. So actually yes, selling them for 50 cents on the dollar is fraud. Buying name brand food isn't fraud, but some cons here appear to be complaining, and I just find it ironic these are the same guys who will fight to the death to keep billionaires' tax rates from going up a couple points.

Has nothing to do with "will fighting to the death to keep billionaires' tax rates from going up a couple points." has to do with the fact that we know it won't do jack **** to fix the damn problem. There aren't that many damn billionaires in the country.

(06-27-2012 09:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I was addressing two separate issues raised in this thread.

Fraud is selling food stamps. So actually yes, selling them for 50 cents on the dollar is fraud. Buying name brand food isn't fraud, but some cons here appear to be complaining, and I just find it ironic these are the same guys who will fight to the death to keep billionaires' tax rates from going up a couple points.

Taxing people = taking their money
Wasting food stamps on crap food = spending someone else's money

Where the hell is the irony there max?

(06-26-2012 02:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, let's see, France's growth rates in the five quarters (I'm assuming quarters since graph isn't annotated) prior to the crash (not sure exactly what the time frames are, again since the graph is not properly annotated) were 2.6%, 2%, 2.6%, 2.2%, and 1.8%, whereas in the nine quarters after "recovery" they have been 1.2%, 1.6%, 1.7%, 1.4%, 2.1%, 1.67%, 1.55%, 1.41%, and 0.33%. There are words to describe that, but "pulled out of the recession just fine" aren't the ones I would use.

Given the state of the European economy around them, they're doing just fine; but don't let reality stand in the way of another one of your asinine economic lies.

You may have been responding to a few people, but you said "the right". Aren't you vehemently against profiling?

Because raising taxes is bad for the economy, and the rich don't typically claim much income relative to their increase in net worth.

And fraud is bad for the economy.

Why is it an either/or in your mind? Sounds to me like a pretty consistent argument. While you might argue tha welfare is good for the economy, certainly you wouldn't argue that fraud is?

The fact that youd rather trade a billion in fraud for 50byn in receipts is immaterial, irrespective of the fact that the 750mm number is annually and iirc, the 50byn number is over a ten year period... If I'm wrongin that i apologize. It doesn't matter to my point so im not going to look it up. Raising taxes on the rich is not intended to cover the cost of welfare fraud, but of hundreds of billions in new spending. Thats not how you present a budget.

I don't like the government paying $600 for a hammer. I don't like raising taxes on anyone, and think an "income" tax on the wealthy is demostrably stupid. While I have other/better thoughts, things like luxury taxes and gas guzzler taxes on consumption are MUCH more effective means of getting money from the wealthy... Yet even John Kerry tried to avoid a million in taxes on his yacht. That's what the wealthy, even liberals, do.

(06-26-2012 05:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually Sweden, France, Belgium and Germany all spend more on welfare than Italy, Portugal, Spain and Greece.

http://www.businessinsider.com/countries...011-4?op=1

France is the #1 welfare spender-- spending 28% of its GDP-- and has pulled out of the recession just fine--

Wonder how France would do if they had to pay for their own security, i.e. military.

It's easy to spend money on butter when somebody else is covering your guns.

I wonder how we would be doing if we didn't have a military-industrial complex pushing our government to spend nearly as much as the rest of world combined on guns. We can't offer our own citizens universal health coverage, affordable college education, or keep teachers on the payroll, but we've got enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet several times over. That's right-winger thinking for you.

We'd have perhaps tens of millions more unemployed for starters. I don't generally disagree, but let's not act as if building ships and planes and bombs and bullets isn't industry... Or that being in the military isn't a job with good job training opportunities. Most of your airline pilots are ex military... As are many in aerospace and nuclear engineering

(06-27-2012 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We'd have perhaps tens of millions more unemployed for starters. I don't generally disagree, but let's not act as if building ships and planes and bombs and bullets isn't industry... Or that being in the military isn't a job with good job training opportunities. Most of your airline pilots are ex military... As are many in aerospace and nuclear engineering

Thank you for your endorsement of Keynesian economics. Always nice to see a right-winger come around to reality. You have, however, failed to grasp the argument. I'm not arguing for a cut in spending, just a reallocation of those funds to things that actually invest in our nation's future.

(06-27-2012 09:54 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We'd have perhaps tens of millions more unemployed for starters. I don't generally disagree, but let's not act as if building ships and planes and bombs and bullets isn't industry... Or that being in the military isn't a job with good job training opportunities. Most of your airline pilots are ex military... As are many in aerospace and nuclear engineering

I want to reward failure and punish success. This will ensure a Democrat majority.

Translated.

(06-27-2012 09:54 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We'd have perhaps tens of millions more unemployed for starters. I don't generally disagree, but let's not act as if building ships and planes and bombs and bullets isn't industry... Or that being in the military isn't a job with good job training opportunities. Most of your airline pilots are ex military... As are many in aerospace and nuclear engineering

Thank you for your endorsement of Keynesian economics. Always nice to see a right-winger come around to reality. You have, however, failed to grasp the argument. I'm not arguing for a cut in spending, just a reallocation of those funds to things that actually invest in our nation's future.

How you can draw that conclusion from what I said is beyond rational thought.

All of the things I described are investments in our nations future... They also provide current jobs as well as hundreds of billions in research grants for technology with plenty of commercial and private applications. Hundreds of chemical and alloy and plastic applications, many of which have been used in the automotive and aerospace industry, lasers, satellites, gps, camera, light amplification.

I can agree with you that we do too much.. And have now twice... But you keep acting as if there is no tangential benefit to it. When you take out the education, training and pensions and convert them to social programs, you get about a wash. When you convert research grants from dod to NSA, it's a wash... There are LOTS of jobs that you don't need without military, and lots of industry we don't need. That isn't a good thing to lose. I would note that the military is often a case of need superseding profitability... Meaning lots of things that we have now might never have been developed because they weren't a need nor profitable. Among many many other things, Using satellites for tv and phones and Internet probably wouldn't have happened nearly as fast without the military. The "profit" in tv and cell phones is in the major cities. The government would have supported expansion to rural areas on a "equality" basis, but running lines along train tracks would have been much cheaper than developing satellite technology and likely given some senators some local cash. Just an example, and maybe not the best example... But I think if you're fair, you will see my point.

I am hugely in favor of developing alternative fuels and plan on buying a tesla sedan or someone like it as soon as I can so that we can cut back on our military needs... But you can't do without it, and a very nimble and advanced military would still require heavy r and d. The video game industry is set for the foreseeable future.

(06-27-2012 09:40 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 02:17 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually Sweden, France, Belgium and Germany all spend more on welfare than Italy, Portugal, Spain and Greece.

http://www.businessinsider.com/countries...011-4?op=1

France is the #1 welfare spender-- spending 28% of its GDP-- and has pulled out of the recession just fine--

Wonder how France would do if they had to pay for their own security, i.e. military.

It's easy to spend money on butter when somebody else is covering your guns.

I wonder how we would be doing if we didn't have a military-industrial complex pushing our government to spend nearly as much as the rest of world combined on guns. We can't offer our own citizens universal health coverage, affordable college education, or keep teachers on the payroll, but we've got enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet several times over. That's right-winger thinking for you.

Believe it or not, our Constitution -- the very foundation of our government -- states that one of the primary duties of our government is to provide for defense of the states & thus nation.

Does that mean we should be paying to defend our allies? I don't think so. They should share the financial burden.

IF we're going to provide their defense they should be paying us to do so. Rather, what we often hear from them is nothing but complaints and disdain.

I'm OK with leaving all those areas around the world.

Don't know what will end up filling the void, but...

[quote='Max Power' pid='8020693' dateline='1340805295']
It's nice to see the right up in arms over $750 million in food stamp fraud (accounting for just 1% of all food stamps) just months after arguing it's a waste of time to generate $49 billion by slightly raising billionaires' taxes. Nice to see you have your priorities in order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/0...PP20120206
[quote]Kevin Concannon, U.S. Department of Agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, said his agency was doubling efforts to prevent fraud, which accounts for just 1 percent of food stamp benefits, but equals about $750 million each year.

"This is $750 million that isn't being used to provide food to individuals and families and that issue isn't lost on us," Concannon said in a recent phone interview.

"We want to maintain the confidence of American taxpayers because everyone is challenged in this economy - the payers as well as the folks who are benefiting from the program," he said.[/quote]

Also under Obama the USDA has aggressively clamped down on trafficking.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2...aspx#page2
[quote]


To be as well versed in economics as you claim, you sure are short-sighted. What about the lost revenue that will be generated when those on food stamps start becoming more prodcutive members of society? The fact that most pay ZERO income tax and depend solely on the system for support? Take one person off foodstamps and let them provide for themselves, make a living, and PAY INTO THE SYSTEM instead of drawing out of it.

Hence my strong preference for energy independence, umbg.... I believe that we will care less if we need them less, and they will wield less power globally. I don't particularly care if it comes from making their control of the commodity a smaller percentage, or of a reduced global demand for the commodity. As one is impractical, and the other unpredictable, I am in favor of attacking both sides of the equation at the same time. I don't care which solution works, so long as it does.

Give more booze to the alcoholic during these tough times. He'll surrender it when things are better!
Got it boys?
Because we all KNOW that politicians get elected by taking goodies away, right?

I always try to be polite and respectful here. But with a family to feed, I personally don't have the luxury of living outside of reality in some "academic" dream world. A dream world where some believe the government will cut spending "eventually" to a meaningful level after we get thru this. Remind me how great GDP is when we are all wiping are A55es with worthless dollar bills.

(06-27-2012 11:55 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  Give more booze to the alcoholic during these tough times. He'll surrender it when things are better!
Got it boys?
Because we all KNOW that politicians get elected by taking goodies away, right?

I always try to be polite and respectful here. But with a family to feed, I personally don't have the luxury of living outside of reality in some "academic" dream world. A dream world where some believe the government will cut spending "eventually" to a meaningful level after we get thru this. Remind me how great GDP is when we are all wiping are A55es with worthless dollar bills.

Seems to have worked for a particular NIU poster(not me).

my father, who makes over $70 grand, bought a couple hundred dollars worth of food stamps for $50 once. he's very meager. thought i'd share that story.

i have my problems with the food stamp program, but my worries aren't that they are buying name brand potato chips, it's that they are allowed to buy potato chips in the first place. you can buy a red bull on food stamps. you can buy anything that specifically labels nutrition facts on the back of the package. how can anyone liberal or conservative and anywhere in between see any benefit of somebody using a food stamp card to get high caloric, high fat, void of nutrition "food?" michelle obama and her fitness campaign should be appalled. or is it she should applaud?

(06-27-2012 01:05 PM)Lush Wrote:  my father, who makes over $70 grand, bought a couple hundred dollars worth of food stamps for $50 once. he's very meager. thought i'd share that story.

i have my problems with the food stamp program, but my worries aren't that they are buying name brand potato chips, it's that they are allowed to buy potato chips in the first place. you can buy a red bull on food stamps. you can buy anything that specifically labels nutrition facts on the back of the package. how can anyone liberal or conservative and anywhere in between see any benefit of somebody using a food stamp card to get high caloric, high fat, void of nutrition "food?" michelle obama and her fitness campaign should be appalled. or is it she should applaud?

Like this:

Quote:“I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?’ and he responded ‘yes,’ ” Whiton said.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local...34771.html