Good news: $5 billion saved by cuts

[chucky2]

You're essentially advocating a guaranteed income system. Here people, have money. Spend it on whatever you want. We don't care, because it drives the economy.

You're assuming he wants to give them money for the economy. The Spender side isn't about that. To keep getting voted in as a Spender, you need to satisfy the voting demographics that got you there. Do you really think Politicians on the Spender side are going to risk losing votes (whether by voters voting for the other side, or, just not turning out) by making systems operate as they should, rather than how they operate now?

No. F*cking. Way.

That they can get/keep even more potential votes from businesses who enjoy higher revenues from the current system is just icing on the cake - and the bone thrown to the other side of the aisle to keep the systems in place going. How do you think the illegal invasion has been allowed to happen so long? How people buying Pepsi and Cheetos on Links cards has been allowed to happen for so long? This isn't be accident. The Politicians and their ilk know about it, because they're making sure the systems operate just so.

Votes man, it all comes down to votes.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course it depends on how much money they need for food.

If I were to give you $1000 to spend on food next month the only way you could possibly spend it would be to be wasteful.

If I gave you $100 to spend on food next month you would have to be frugal or you would be going hungry a lot of the month.

You have to have a certain amount of food money before you can afford to be wasteful. So unless you are arguing that food stamps is at that level you have no point.

Either that or different people in different situations have different needs that can't all be accounted for.

How does something that simple even need to be explained.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Defense industry employees tend to be more highly paid. The purpose of economic stimulus it to inject demand into the economy. More highly paid employees are less likely to immediately spend their stimulus money, therefore it is less effective at achieving the desired result.

Not to mention that feeding hungry people is probably a more worthwhile activity than building another tank.

I can dump 2k per month into the local economy.

That compares to $300 in food stamps?
Food stamps money will get cycled directly to food bundlers out of the area

 

[Engineer]

Funny how temporary increases that are scheduled to go away are called cuts and result in some kind of disaster.

Same can be said for temporary SS tax cuts that expire and was called raising taxes.

If WIC can be run as a specific item food program, then so should food stamps.

 

[fskimospy]

I can dump 2k per month into the local economy.

That compares to $300 in food stamps?
Food stamps money will get cycled directly to food bundlers out of the area

This post doesn't make any sense.

The government is spending X dollars in stimulus, either in extra defense salaries or in extra food stamps. $2k per month in defense salaries isn't as stimulative as $2k per month in food stamps.

This is a national policy, not a local one. Federal money being cycled out of the area is irrelevant to national policy.

 

[nixium]

Let me explain this for you - his (retarded) point: Because tax payers that pay for these food stamps, instead of saving for things (you know - like retirement), they are instead supplying it to bottom feeders that will IMMEDIATELY spend that money, and they will immediately spend it on retailers such as Walmart so they can make their investors happy, and they will thus acheive new highs. Thus, GDP growth - all of which - is no basis for actually helping the poor get off their feet - it is simply the basis of money exchanging hands to corporate instead of sitting in a responsible person's investments.

Haha, I thought you crazy right wingers were *for* the free market and economic activity?

I suppose you're only for them as long as liberal policies don't drive it.

So what's your plan for "getting the poor off their feet" starve them till they find work? LOL.

You idiot sociopaths don't realize that all your "riches" and "responsible spending" and whatnot are not permanent. Unless you're a part of the 1%, all that stands between you and being a "bottom feeder" is one nasty accident - maybe health, maybe a lawsuit, something that suddenly stops you from carrying on your "cushy" "responsible lives".

I've been there, and I appreciate a social safety net for what it is. I'm ok with people ripping it off than dying on the streets.

Disgusting.

 

[BoberFett]

You nailed it, I hope the other idiots on this thread understand it now at least.

$5 billion is chump change, and no matter what they buy it's coming back to the economy anyway.

Republican (Tea Party) sociopathy strikes again.

Cut 5 billion from the defense budget which really isn't causing any economic activity except funeral/crematory services in the countries in which are getting bombed.

Then make it $5 trillion. Why not?

 

[nehalem256]

You nailed it, I hope the other idiots on this thread understand it now at least.

$5 billion is chump change, and no matter what they buy it's coming back to the economy anyway.

Then clearly no need to get so butt-hurt over the cut right?

Cut 5 billion from the defense budget which really isn't causing any economic activity except funeral/crematory services in the countries in which are getting bombed.

I thought the sequester cut like $40B from that?

 

[nixium]

Then make it $5 trillion. Why not?

I'm against the defense budget. Cut it all the way down and I'd be fine with it. But the rabid neo cons and the military industrialist complex will never make that happen.

Hell, something that was making people spend money in the local economy - guaranteed money - has been cut while the defense budgets are at least 2x higher than the next major spender. It's already illogical.

 

[chucky2]

snip

I've been there, and I appreciate a social safety net for what it is. I'm ok with people ripping it off than dying on the streets.

Disgusting.

But when you use the social safety net, do you buy Pepsi and Cheetos on the taxpayer dime, or do you spend the money as frugally and responsibly (in the national interest) as you can? Do you take your card and sell it for 70c on the dollar and use that money to go buy drugs, clothes you don't need, sh1t you don't need, or do you buy bulk meat, rice, healthy fruits and veggies?

There is having and using a social safety net, and having and abusing a social safety net. I've met very few conservatives that think there should be no social safety net...rather, they simply want a proper social safety net. And by proper, one that is setup to curb abuse.

On the other side of the fence, we have super smart Spenders who want to give multigenerational welfare individuals untracable cash and expect these intellectuals will be using it properly.

Do you not see where fiscal conservatives would have a problem with that?

 

[nehalem256]

Either that or different people in different situations have different needs that can't all be accounted for.

How does something that simple even need to be explained.

Because you can't eat off $10/month?

Lets put it this way think about all of the children that come to school hungry. Seems to me like we already have issues with parents spending the foodstamps on food for them.

How is giving the parents cash going to improve things? :hmm:

 

[nixium]

Then clearly no need to get so butt-hurt over the cut right?



I thought the sequester cut like $40B from that?

Because it actually hurts people you nincompoop.

Good, cut 5 billion more and give people money for food.

 

[nixium]

But when you use the social safety net, do you buy Pepsi and Cheetos on the taxpayer dime, or do you spend the money as frugally and responsibly (in the national interest) as you can? Do you take your card and sell it for 70c on the dollar and use that money to go buy drugs, clothes you don't need, sh1t you don't need, or do you buy bulk meat, rice, healthy fruits and veggies?

There is having and using a social safety net, and having and abusing a social safety net. I've met very few conservatives that think there should be no social safety net...rather, they simply want a proper social safety net. And by proper, one that is setup to curb abuse.

On the other side of the fence, we have super smart Spenders who want to give multigenerational welfare individuals untracable cash and expect these intellectuals will be using it properly.

Do you not see where fiscal conservatives would have a problem with that?

I don't like the free money idea as well mainly because as you said there are too many self centered idiots in society who'd blow it on stupid things instead of spending it responsibly. And then we'll be back to the lack of food problem.

And I don't like the fact that food stamps money is spend on random crap.

My solution is this: Food stamp cash can't be used just in any store. Then setup a nationwide system of stores that only sell products deemed essential. Only the people who get the EBT cards (with ID verification) can shop here. Imagine costco, but only for food stamp enabled people. Also, rather than increasing the cash available, subsidize the sales of groceries in these stores. Finally, make the cash carry over month by month.

Unfortunately, this plan won't work because it's not politically correct.

Anyway, the point of my thread was if you had to cut, why cut the 5 billion from people who use the $$ immediately (and drive 1.7x as Eskimo's link posted)? Instead cut 5 billion from the bombs & mines industry.

 

[fskimospy]

Because you can't eat off $10/month?

Lets put it this way think about all of the children that come to school hungry. Seems to me like we already have issues with parents spending the foodstamps on food for them.

How is giving the parents cash going to improve things? :hmm:

So your argument is that because some parents sell their food stamps for cash and don't feed their kids, that giving people who don't do that cash instead of food stamps would make them not feed their kids. Truly, your logic is impregnable.

If anything giving those unfortunates who are selling their food stamps cash instead would cost the government the same amount of money and provide more benefits to those families as they wouldn't have to get cents on the dollar for them.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm against the defense budget. Cut it all the way down and I'd be fine with it. But the rabid neo cons and the military industrialist complex will never make that happen.

Hell, something that was making people spend money in the local economy - guaranteed money - has been cut while the defense budgets are at least 2x higher than the next major spender. It's already illogical.

I'd like to see defense slashed drastically too. But that doesn't mean we should be giving people money every month with no concern for the amount, or how it's spent.

If you're so in need that you can't buy food, here have a bag of potatoes, a couple of loaves of bread, and a gallon of milk. See you next week.

 

[sm625]

Above graph uses OECD data to show adult obesity rates (2010). Thought that that would make an interesting data point.

It is ironic because the rates of obesity are directly linked to the rates of food stamp usage. Giant megacorporations control the media and the food supply and use that control to push the types of foods that make people obese. And then they lobby congress to spend more money on SNAP handouts to keep the sheeple fat and happy while these megacorporations finish looting and bankrupting the country. It is sheer laughable irony that these handouts are spent mostly on exactly the type of GMO laden refined sugar garbage that they find so profitable. Food stamps are as much a handout to these megacorporations as they are to the poor and middle class.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to see defense slashed drastically too. But that doesn't mean we should be giving people money every month with no concern for the amount, or how it's spent.

If you're so in need that you can't buy food, here have a bag of potatoes, a couple of loaves of bread, and a gallon of milk. See you next week.

No one said we should be giving people money every month with no concern for the amount.

Additionally, the government distributing goods like that would almost certainly cost far more and accomplish far less than food stamps already do.

 

[waggy]

lol "we give them $300 in food stamps so why not give them $300 in cash" AHHH FUCK NO.

I am for food stamps. it does need some work. I think a program like WIC would be far better. EBT should never cover beer, lotto tickets etc.

BUT they should never be given cash. ever.

 

[nixium]

I'd like to see defense slashed drastically too. But that doesn't mean we should be giving people money every month with no concern for the amount, or how it's spent.

If you're so in need that you can't buy food, here have a bag of potatoes, a couple of loaves of bread, and a gallon of milk. See you next week.

Agreed, though keep in mind that asking the government to distribute goods that way is very socialist thinking, something you're opposed to on principle I think

My intent with this thread was not to debate the merits of how the food stamp program is run. It's just that if you had to cut 5 billion now why not cut it from the bombs & mines department than the domestic spending dept.

I shared my thoughts on how it should be run a post or two above.

 

[nehalem256]

So your argument is that because some parents sell their food stamps for cash and don't feed their kids, that giving people who don't do that cash instead of food stamps would make them not feed their kids. Truly, your logic is impregnable.

If anything giving those unfortunates who are selling their food stamps cash instead would cost the government the same amount of money and provide more benefits to those families as they wouldn't have to get cents on the dollar for them.

So you argument is that people who spend the food stamps to feed their children will keep doing so with cash.

And those that sell their food stamps for drug money will now be able to get more drugs easier.

The logic of what you are proposing just jumps out at you

 

[nehalem256]

Additionally, the government distributing goods like that would almost certainly cost far more and accomplish far less than food stamps already do.

So you are saying single-payer doesn't work

 

[fskimospy]

So you are saying single-payer doesn't work

No, I'm saying setting up a parallel food distribution network is economically inefficient.

Seriously, don't you ever get tired of people mocking you for saying stupid things?

 

[nixium]

So your argument is that because some parents sell their food stamps for cash and don't feed their kids, that giving people who don't do that cash instead of food stamps would make them not feed their kids. Truly, your logic is impregnable.

If anything giving those unfortunates who are selling their food stamps cash instead would cost the government the same amount of money and provide more benefits to those families as they wouldn't have to get cents on the dollar for them.

I'm sure some people would find that very useful, but I have a dim view of human nature in general. No psychological studies to back this up, but I bet people behave differently if they get free cash vs. that cash being artificially limited.

I was brought up in a rags to riches family and let me tell you - even today, if I win a bonus at work for whatever reason - a couple hundred bucks free money - I have this temptation to blow it on stupid stuff that I otherwise would not have gotten.

Just anectodal evidence.

 

[BoberFett]

Agreed, though keep in mind that asking the government to distribute goods that way is very socialist thinking, something you're opposed to on principle I think

My intent with this thread was not to debate the merits of how the food stamp program is run. It's just that if you had to cut 5 billion now why not cut it from the bombs & mines department than the domestic spending dept.

I shared my thoughts on how it should be run a post or two above.

If I were a dictator, I'd probably let people starve. Starvation is a powerful motivator.

However in this country we choose not to let that happen, so I'll argue that we should feed people in a way that makes sense. Given away billions in cash does not make sense, so I'm not opposed to the cuts. Cutting other areas is a different conversation.

 

[chucky2]

I don't like the free money idea as well mainly because as you said there are too many self centered idiots in society who'd blow it on stupid things instead of spending it responsibly. And then we'll be back to the lack of food problem.

And I don't like the fact that food stamps money is spend on random crap.

Agreed.

My solution is this: Food stamp cash can't be used just in any store. Then setup a nationwide system of stores that only sell products deemed essential. Only the people who get the EBT cards (with ID verification) can shop here. Imagine costco, but only for food stamp enabled people. Also, rather than increasing the cash available, subsidize the sales of groceries in these stores. Finally, make the cash carry over month by month.

Unfortunately, this plan won't work because it's not politically correct.

I understand what you're saying here. The problem is, that would cost far more than we're paying now, and would in reality, itself turn into a jobs, and thus votes, buying program. It would be far better to have items marked WIC (and scrutinize that list to ensure it's not being overly generous with the taxpayer dollar), and treat the WIC card like an alcohol purchase. You need to actually make the correct identification of the WIC card before use like verifying age for alcohol. Improper verification means not only the person incorrectly verifying gets into trouble, it means the establishment and their owner get into trouble. When stores are losing the Gov access to charge items being bought by WIC, thus losing that business, the stores will be making sure their employees are doing the verification they're supposed to. Same as alcohol stores losing their license because of improper ID.

Anyway, the point of my thread was if you had to cut, why cut the 5 billion from people who use the $$ immediately (and drive 1.7x as Eskimo's link posted)? Instead cut 5 billion from the bombs & mines industry.

Because we're good that the bombs and mines industry. We're as good or better at bombs and mines as the people who scam EBT. Why cut where you're a success?

Chuck