$5 Billion Cut From Food Stamps
Man: I'm LIVE at a food bank, talking to families about the IMPACT.
Man: So. You think your empty tummies help democrats or republicans in 2014?
Man: This is so showing up in a campaign ad.
That’s about a 4% cut in the program that has doubled in size under Barry. Maybe people will have to cut back on their Snicker bars or Pepsi’s when spending other people’s money. Or maybe they can work and buy their own groceries like the rest of us?
Don’t believe me?So what exactly can SNAP recipients buy with their benefits? There are a few restrictions, against alcohol, and tobacco for instance. But curiously, most junk food is fair game, calling into question whether the “nutrition” in SNAP means much to lawmakers at all. Here are just a few of the items one can buy:
Red BullSugary SodaCandyMixes for alcoholic beveragesArtificial sweetener
5 Surprising Things You Can Buy With Food Stamps | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/11/01/5-surprising-things-you-can-buy-with-food-stamps/#ixzz2jwKR8PeD
Let’s not mention the card holders that now will have to collect a few more aluminum cans to get enough cash for their drug fix either…
Actually Oscar, in my case I am not heartless! I have the heart of a small child and I keep it in a box on my dresser at home!.;)
Your assumption that she doesn’t work is telling.But why couldn’t a healthy person work? Well, it might be because there’s more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available.But I guess she should just start a business of her own, if she could just borrow money from Mitt Romney’s parents….
People are using their EBT cards to purchase luxury items (steak and lobster) as well as junk food. EBT cards should be highly restricted and tightly regulated. We would all be better off if they were only valid to purchase healthy and sustainable food items.
You’re really a liberal mole, aren’t youThere are still plenty of conservatives who think Saddam was behind 9/11, convinced he sent his WMDs to Syria, & that we did the right thing.The architects behind the Iraq invasion are still out there getting on cable news & writing op-eds.http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/10-years-later-the-architects-the-iraq-wa
You mean like the FAIR TAX!!!You mean, “the job-killing consumption tax”.
“You mean like the FAIR TAX!!!!”=-=-=-=-=-=This is the sort of talk that starts out all “ooh” and “ah” and ends up with people being burned at the stake in the public square for dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.And I knew that even before I read the response to your comment wherein the Fair Tax is considered a job killing consumption tax. Because somehow a tax on production is not a tax on consumption if you stand on your head and hold your bong hit long enough. If I refuse to look, it isn’t there.
It is the duty of every citizen to give a tithe for the charity afforded to less fortunate citizens, or else armed men will come to your door and seize your property and freeze your assets and accounts. When a man demands charity at gunpoint, it is best to just give him your money and jewelry and count yourself lucky if you don’t get raped and killed in the bargain.
“What we need is fewer people so easily corrupted by the right-wing radio and TV ideologs…”You are correct, but failed to add that we also need fewer people so easily corrupted by the left wing media and TV ideologs.
“Considering that the median income for Americans has declined for past 20 years while the cost of living has increased”You sure you don’t mean the last 4 years? 20 years ago it was actually lower than what it is now and in 1993 took a pretty steep rise upwards.
Candy, Redbull Assistance Program (CRAP?)That’s funny! I think most of the attention the right gives to abuse & misuse of SNAP, is more about why we need to eliminate the program than it is about any sincere desire to make the program more effective.
Explain? I say it would be a job creator! And considering low tax and no tax states that only have consumption tax are growing while Tax states like NY and Cal. are losing. Florida and Texas thank them.In the long run, Output = Consumption. Fair Tax makes goods more expensive, obviously causing less consumption.Fairtax.org claims a 23% tax would be revenue neutral, but pretty much every outside analysis says the tax would need to be at least 30%. Some go as high as 44%. Low income families would be exempt. High income people would see a big tax reduction. Guess who gets stuck with the bill?Actual 2012 GDP growth rates:Texas 4.8%California 3.5%Florida 2.4%New York 1.3%The growth rates have more to do with the local economic base than anything else. New York will almost certainly grow more than Florida this year. North Dakota is posting double digit growth rates. West Virginia’s coal industry is growing nicely, too.Many more people will turn to barter & black markets to avoid the Fair Tax. Lobbyists who make a living by massaging our current tax code will jump right in on getting their patrons preferential treatment under the Fair Tax. And the IRS will just be replaced by another bureaucracy that tries to make sure everyone pays. One look at the countries that have passed VAT should tell you this idea isn’t so good. At the end of the day, Fair Tax is a pipe dream.
Forgot to add that Fair Tax would free up even more investment capital for the wealthy. Nothing on the site suggests that they will invest that money in our economy. Nothing in real world experience suggests that, either.
My only point was that taxes on production are also taxes on consumption. Increasing the cost of doing business increases the cost to consumers. The consumers pay all the taxes. The trouble is that you can control how much you consume, so that the government then has less control of your money. When they control production through taxation, rather than consumption, it is closer to the Marxist ideal of The People, (The Ruling Party, in fact), controlling the means of production.
I remember a pop quiz in Ministry to Youth class in seminary. To see if the class was keeping current in their reading (sex, at this point), one question involved the text’s “great American fairy tale” (love at first sight). A lot of the class wasn’t current and desperation answers were frequent. One was “the stork brings the baby”, but the one that the class lobbied to have accepted was “that America is a Christian nation”.
“You can’t just pigeonhole things into a snarky one-liner opinion sometimes.”
You can if you want to be elected.The audience you are trying to reach cannot extend their attention span beyond the snarky one-liner. People with greater depth of thought will not be swayed by campaign rhetoric and promises.
I read an article about how the CEO of Panera Bread tried to get by on a foodstamps budget. He was shocked at how little he got to spend, which was about $5 a day. People who think that food stampers live large don’t have a clue. I know a few foodstamp families. They subsist on diets of baloney sandwiches and instant mac n cheese.
You can give money to the poor, but that doesn’t improve their condition. It just funds continued poverty. When prices are low and production is abundant, then poverty is not a crushing burden. Then it is more of a minor inconvenience. Unfortunately, a minor inconvenience doesn’t make for much of a campaign platform. People need to be focused on major problems. Fortunately, making poverty a major problem is as easy as crushing the economy and making life less affordable for everybody. You can even make a few bucks in the process. Solutions come easy to the ruling elite, who need a whole raft of serious problems extant to maintain their balance atop the heap.
While that is a wonderfully caring sentiment, it really won’t stand up to a close inspection, which, I suspect, you will not be conducting. Taxing corporations only takes money from the consumers of their good or services. This includes oil companies. As for the rich in general, these are the people being elected to high places to pretend to care about the lower and middle class people, and whose tender ministrations have, thus far in the history of human governments, resulted in no bettering of the conditions for those middle and lower class persons, while improving conditions for the rich and the most rich. Eventually, one might recognize that the more progress is made in equalizing the differences between rich and poor, the greater the differences actually become, and greater the hardships present for those who lack substantial means. But that is only fact, and cannot stand against the fire and romance of pure idealism, of course.
April 12, 2017
July 04, 2017
July 19, 2017