Food Stamps - The Black Hole

[mpok1519]

Exactly. If your economy contracts, you need people to spend to get it going again. Our economy isn't contracting, but it seems like it could given a number of circumstances. Taking that money out of the hands of the poor means taking a LOT of money out of the economy.

What people don't realize is that just because someone has a job and supports their self does not necessarily mean they are helping the economy more or less.

Basically what the OP is saying is that we need to cut assistance programs to cut the deficit so we can give larger tax breaks to large businesses and the wealthy so they can "create jobs", an the two don't always go hand in hand.

What happens if the "job creators" just pocket the extraoney and don't spend it on job creation? What people don't realize is that this is more common than actually creating jobs.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've already explained why the assumptions are not safe.

I was dissatisfied by your explanation and found it unconvincing. If one has such luxurious possessions why does one think that others who do not have those things should be forced to pay for your food while you still enjoy the luxuries of life that they themselves cannot afford? Again why advocate for food stamps for the rich?

 

[mpok1519]

I didn't say it did. I said JOBS will lead to economic recovery and then cutting unnecessary programs will boost the results.

Not necessarily; statistics show when the wealthy get tax breaks they don't create more jobs here within the US.

What you suggest is that we cut assistance programs(food for the hungry) so the wealthy can have bigger tax breaks to create jobs. However, they're not forced to create jobs with this extra money, and what they often do is simply pocket the money.

Why is it when a hungry person takes advantage of assistance programs they're a lazy good or nothing socialist mooch, but when a fat and wealthy businessman takes advantage of a tax break they're smart businessmen?

 

[kermit]

I'd word that differently, many of us "small government" types have a HUGE problem with how other people spend OUR money.

Most of the people on food stamps have a job.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What people don't realize is that just because someone has a job and supports their self does not necessarily mean they are helping the economy more or less.

Basically what the OP is saying is that we need to cut assistance programs to cut the deficit so we can give larger tax breaks to large businesses and the wealthy so they can "create jobs", an the two don't always go hand in hand.

What happens if the "job creators" just pocket the extraoney and don't spend it on job creation? What people don't realize is that this is more common than actually creating jobs.

Is it then your opinion that it is of vital national importance to redistribute money from the employed lower middle income bracket in order to make sure that the unemployed rich can keep all their toys.

 

[abysmul]

Most of the people on food stamps have a job.

And many of us object when OUR tax money is given to them to "feed them" while they have enough money to buy the latest flat screen TV's, subscribe to cable television, purchase iPhones, buy alcohol, buy cigarets, etc. etc. etc.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Most of the people on food stamps have a job.

If they have a job and all these luxurious toys why is it they need food stamps again?

 

[kermit]

I was dissatisfied by your explanation and found it unconvincing. If one has such luxurious possessions why does one think that others who do not have those things should be forced to pay for your food while you still enjoy the luxuries of life that they themselves cannot afford? Again why advocate for food stamps for the rich?

Did she buy the purse and wallet before or after she was on food stamps? If it was before how do you condone people being forced give up their posessions to qualify for food stamps? If it was after was it a gift? If so, once again we get to forcing people to give up posessions. If she bought it, does she work? If so, how do you condone controlling how people spend their money?

You are assuming a lot.

 

[1whirlwind]

It seems you're implying that if someone has foodstamps, they shouldn't be able to own nice things. Do you know how she got that purse? That cash? I was dirt poor and had a few nice things, mostly gifts that I made last for years.

I don't care how she got the purse, the money, the car. I don't care if they are or are not "nice things" or if she has a household full of nice things.

I care that Americans are so willing to find excuses for a "poor" woman with a $400.00 purse, a car, $800.00 on hand and....is receiving food stamps. I care that you don't care about that and seem so unwilling to question it.

 

[kermit]

If they have a job and all these luxurious toys why is it they need food stamps again?

So you condone controlling how people spend their money. Thats not very "small government" view.

Should the poor not be allowed to purchase some luxuries? How do you know that she didn't save for that purse and wallet for a long time. More assumptions.

 

[1whirlwind]

So you shouldn't have any trouble stating it. Are you being politically correct in not stating it?

I am seldom politically correct. LOL

I also try to seldom state the obvious.

 

[mpok1519]

Is it then your opinion that it is of vital national importance to redistribute money from the employed lower middle income bracket in order to make sure that the unemployed rich can keep all their toys.

Do not know how you deduced that from what I stated. I think it's of importance that people who are hungry are fed so they can look for a job.

 

[abysmul]

If they have a job and all these luxurious toys why is it they need food stamps again?

Oh, and I have to admit I honestly get upset when I'm in line at the grocery store or super store having shopped for myself and my daughter (all the while using a calculator and coupons, making sure I don't spend more than I have) and the person in front of me whips their EBT card out for their massive cart load of groceries, then they have the clerk ring up all their alcohol and cigarettes and pay for it out of a wad of cash... then I see them drive out of the parking lot in their automobile that's 4 or 5 years newer than mine.

 

[1whirlwind]

How is it obvious? You don't know when she purchased those item or if they were a gift. You don't know the reason she had that much cash in her wallet nor what percentage of her money that is. Like I said, you're making a lot of assumptions.

LOL. No Kermit. I needn't assume anything. It is you assuming/excusing/enabling.

 

[kermit]

I care that Americans are so willing to find excuses for a "poor" woman with a $400.00 purse, a car, $800.00 on hand and....is receiving food stamps. I care that you don't care about that and seem so unwilling to question it.

I care about it, but I rather than assume I would rather find out for sure. If it turns out that she just bought that purse and wallet with unreported income and that they $800 cash wasn't for some legitimte purpose I'll lead the charge to get her kicked off food stamps. But the fact is that neither your nor I know those things and I'll remind you about the old saying about assuming.

 

[abysmul]

So you condone controlling how people spend their money. Thats not very "small government" view.

Should the poor not be allowed to purchase some luxuries? How do you know that she didn't save for that purse and wallet for a long time. More assumptions.

Everyone is welcome to spend THEIR OWN money as they see fit, my problem is them GETTING MY MONEY when they can afford such luxuries.

 

[1whirlwind]

Oh, and I have to admit I honestly get upset when I'm in line at the grocery store or super store having shopped for myself and my daughter (all the while using a calculator and coupons, making sure I don't spend more than I have) and the person in front of me whips their EBT card out for their massive cart load of groceries, then they have the clerk ring up all their alcohol and cigarettes and pay for it out of a wad of cash... then I see them drive out of the parking lot in their automobile that's 4 or 5 years newer than mine.

And who carries themself with more pride? Who has the right to hold his head higher. Who is teaching his child values? You or the one in the newer car?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Did she buy the purse and wallet before or after she was on food stamps? If it was before how do you condone people being forced give up their posessions to qualify for food stamps? If it was after was it a gift? If so, once again we get to forcing people to give up posessions. If she bought it, does she work? If so, how do you condone controlling how people spend their money?

You are assuming a lot.

I am assuming only what has been factually reported. She has luxury possessions and expects others that do not have such things to pay for her food in order that she can keep her luxury possessions. No assumption, the fact that she has both those possessions mentioned , or at least had them, and the food stamps makes my conclusion inescapable. Since the food stamps are not her money no one is controlling how she spends her money. I see no reason for the government ,that represents the people from whom that money has been taken , not to require those that receive food stamps actually be in real need of them. Asking a citizen that barely makes ends meet to pay for food stamps for a person that is unwilling to give up a few luxuries in order to feed herself seems much more like reverse Robin Hood than anything I've heard from the most avid follower of Ayn Rand.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do not know how you deduced that from what I stated. I think it's of importance that people who are hungry are fed so they can look for a job.

Is it important that people who are rich be allowed to get food for free when they have lying ungaurded in their car the means to feed themselves for quite a long time?

 

[kermit]

LOL. No Kermit. I needn't assume anything. It is you assuming/excusing/enabling.

Please know that I am merely asking questions and raising posibilites. I am not assuming, excusing or enabling anything or anyone.