Politics House Republicans Cut SNAP

Me report it? No way. I need my job.
I am or was a middle class professional with a B.A. living on 24 K a year in NE Ohio and I have a disabled husband who is still too young for retirement and too injured to work. We have no medical insurance and no kids. We're in that scary gap. Any questions??

Maybe I should learn that scamming game.

 

It's almost like the current economic climate is forcing you to act in morally and ethically questionable ways. Huh.

 

The theme of his commentary is that extreme inequality of outcomes is destructive and that the argument for equal opportunity has a diminished value as a result. Inequality of outcomes are not inherently destructive and the argument for equal opportunity stands. To suggest that inequality of outcomes is destructive, by correlating the obvious concept that, of course there is going to be a top 1% that most can never possibly achieve, is to make a class warefare argument. this is obvious to me. To illustrate, not using a sports analogy but a musical one - very few singers can deliver a maestro opera performance but certainly no reasonable person would conclude that the extreme inequality of outcomes in this arena is destructive. and there is no reason to dislike a maestro simply because he has an ability/talent that you may not have - even-though you might have an equal opportunity to try to develop your talent.

All I am getting from you is repeated statements basically saying I am wrong without giving any support for the claim.
--- merged: Sep 24, 2013 at 6:02 PM ---

Can you read what I write? There are many disincentives in the system for work. Our system in some instances makes honest people do dishonest things. It is out there. Try talking honestly to some poor people and try to understand what it means to be in poverty and having to make hard choices. If free school lunch is available at $x of income and not available at $y level of income - people on the margin will do a few things within their power to show $x income.

what don't you understand about that?

I would suggest we not put people through this! I would suggest we remove the fraud argument. I suggest if we are going to do free school lunches, we simply do free school lunches. Period. If people need financial help with food, clothing, shelter, transportation, heat, etc., give them cash unconditional! And in addition, remove hard, arbitrary cut-offs - at worst do it gradually.
--- merged: Sep 24, 2013 at 6:10 PM ---

I would try and make sure people know that they do not have to stay at minimum wage. I would teach and encourage them to develop market skills of increasing value. My first job was at a McDonald's at minimum wage, it did not take long to get a raise. I know I have shared this before but consistent with the words of MLK, when I was cleaning the lobby and bathroom, I made sure I did a meticulous job. My efforts were recognized.

I would encourage people to understand their market value. If you can't get a raise at McDonald's apply for jobs at competing establishments. If you can cook hamburger, learn to cook steak!

Your message is the wrong message.

 

Ace. You seem unwilling to separate SNAP from other social safety net programs as others have pointed out. Perhaps because your argument about waste/fraud/disincentives fail the test of reason.

But I will play along with your proposal and what you are proposing sounds like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), both of which have little Republican support. In fact, the Republican tax reform proposal eliminates both and would keep more working families in poverty.

 

I agree with this point.

I agree. I would also say that quantitative easing has benefited holders of capital and not working people.

True regarding concentration of wealth. However, the wealthy are not responsible for QE. The wealthy are not responsible for government policy resulting in a system trending towards more part-time work. However, he does not point to the root cause of wage and employment stagnation. He make a fallacious argument casually connecting one segment of the population doing well with another that is not. I consider this a form of class warfare.

Perhaps. I read his commentaries regularly and I may be conflating things he has written - but he is pretty consistent.

And here is where we often run into our problems with economic issues. I believe in order to understand the big economic picture one has to drill down and understand individual behaviors. How do people make economic decisions on a micro-level? Singers are a part of our macro-economy. The millions and millions of what you consider anecdotes are what make up our economy. So, to me it is relevant. Virtually every measurable variable or characteristic is subject to a bell curve distribution. I accept this as a premise. Krugman, and you, I would argue, do not.
--- merged: Sep 24, 2013 at 8:41 PM ---

Right. I made my initial post saying our system is in need of major reform. That is my position. I would not segregate the needs for food from other needs of the poor. I thought I explained why. Poor people have shifting priorities that traditional welfare do not respond to and as a result one consequence of this is exploitation. Poor people often have no alternative to "payday" type loan services - even given recent trends to reduce exploitation - people may still pay exessive annualized rates. This could be avoided if poor people have more flexibility and control.

 

I'm having a hard time getting past the myth of dependency and disincentive...or Reagan's "welfare queens" or, more recently, Paul Ryan's "the safety net is a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives."

 

The prospects of the 2013 class has nothing to do with the 1%. What is the connection? Why was it made? I think he was just taking a jab at the 1%. They are doing well and you are not - what is the point of that? I think it is class warfare.

I can sing, but I am not qualified to sing at the Metropolitan Opera House. So, what? Comparing and contrasting my singing ability with those singing at the Met. is pointless, and obvious. It has nothing to do with me or the people who sing at the Met. If the interest is in helping me to be a better singer, to maximize my singing potential one would need to focus on those issues. Why create envy if it is not a form of class warfare?

It is not a problem. If you think it is a problem, tell me what makes it a problem? The disparity in singing talent is not a problem either. The disparity in writing talent is not a problem. The disparity in (fill-in the blank characteristic) is not a problem! Please clarify what you and Krugman are trying to say?

No. I have stated that!

Again, I repeat what I have written in the past. In some circumstances they do and in some circumstances they don't. I support workers having the right and I encourage workers to collectively bargain. I believe the power pendulum in this regard swings. I support government policy that is neutral. I think in many situations workers underestimate their bargaining power, possibly not knowing they have power at all, and in these circumstances they face exploitation in the market. I have written and I am concerned about the false sense of security workers think they get from the US government - if a worker is passive in the market, thinking the government will protect the worker, they play a fools game.
--- merged: Sep 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM ---

You argue with what you want to argue with, not what is presented here. On this issue, I think my view is more progressive than yours. I say give the poor cash with no conditions. Simplify the mess we have created. To one degree, we already have the Earned Income Tax Credit where some who file taxes not only pay zero tax but get a tax credit refund - cash. I would suggest we can come up with a system that is not conditional on a tax filing but on needs.

 

We are not discussing all aspects of the economy, we are discussing wealth disparity and stagnant wealth growth in the non-wealthy segments of the economy.

In the context of what is being discussed, there is far too much noise in the discussion. I will simplify it.

If the cost of capital is reduced (QE) and the cost of labor is increased (Obamacare and other regulations) what is the result?

Krugman, you, won't address this simple question in the context of wealth disparity and stagnant wealth growth for the non-wealthy. I do not need a Phd. to give an answer. The value of capital goes up and those who own capital (the wealthy) benefit. The value of labor goes down and those who provide labor in the market are hurt.

No. You discuss wealth in arbitrary concepts. I do not. For example if you say a person has a $1 billion dollar portfolio of stock and call him rich, I would not. I would asses the real value of what the person actually owns. $1 billion in stock today can be $500,000 tomorrow. It could be $0. So, what does that really mean? Ownership of capital is different. And by capital I define it as the means of production. The market for capital and the market for labor inter-relate to the degree that capital can be used in place of labor or labor in place of capital - otherwise the markets are separate. Owners of labor are often best served when they enter capital markets and transition into ownership of capital.

And why is this a problem?

Again, there is a lot of noise in this discussion.

What is wealth to you? To me it is nothing, other than a means to keep score. What is meaningful to me is my living standard, my happiness.

Is having 10 automobiles 10 times better than having one? No.
Is having 5 houses, 5 times better than having one? No.
Is having 10 times more than what you want or need, 10 times better. No

Some things I would not trade for $1 million or more:

Summers with my grandmother in Arkansas, she lived in a three room house with a tin roof (not 3 bedrooms, 3 rooms total). I could not careless what rich people had.

Four years at college. Often I couldn't come up with change to buy pizza. I could not careless what rich people had.

1st year of marriage to my wife, perhaps, I would trade years 12 - 15, but not the rest (don't tell her that please) - but again $1 million or more would not have made me happier.

I would even say today, I know who I am and I am comfortable with who I am, I doubt if I had $100 billion in assets that my lifestyle would be much different than it is now - so why do I care about how wealthy others are? why do you care?

 

Oh SNAP!

She's got the Tea Party down to a tee.

 

I would argue the trend in excessive regulation in areas of employment began in the 1920's. Combined with needed regulations there have been regulations, far too many, that have been harmful to labor. We discuss Obama because he ran on a "jobs" agenda. He does not appear to understand the underlying issues. If Krugman understands the issues in his commentaries he seems to obfuscate, i.e. useless comparisons to the 1%.

O.k., now you confuse me. Are you serious, or not with this? Ordinarily I would assume you are not and respond in a non-productive manner.

On a serious note, the S&P 500 is up about 18% this year, but there had been divergence between share price growth and earning growth. Perhaps we are making up for low valuations, maybe not. One thing we know about markets is that price does not always reflect value.


Very slight year-over-year earnings decline projected for the S&P 500 in Q1 2013 — FactSet Research Systems - If I can find a more current chart I will post it.


In addition, there are many examples of corporations having high valuations with no earning and no prospects for earning - they go out of business leaving investors with nothing but paper.
Again, I do not know if your question is serious or not. My initial reaction is that you are simply being argumentative for the sake of argument at this point.

 

And more on SNAP....

$4.45/person/day to prevent food insecurity or:

Fucking hypocritical bastards.

 

Ace, dont go calling yourself a progressive quite yet. The devil is in the detail.

I assume you would exclude entitlement programs for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare) but would include programs for the poor such as Medicaid, SCHIP, along with TNAF, SNAP, WIC, school lunch program, rental assistance programs, etc... something to the tune of $400 billion/year (ballpark) including Medicaid...(or $150 billion if y0u exclude Medicaid and treat it separately like SS and Medicare) just to maintain the status quo for the working poor.

And at the same time, I would assume you would not eliminate the EITC and CTC or that would simply offset the above programs in the form of a tax increase on the poorest among us.

So how would you pay for your consolidated program that addresses all of the needs of the current programs?

The options are limited...either add to the deficit/debt or raise taxes on either the middle class and or the top five percent. I know what I would do (hint: the tax rate on the five percent is at the lowest it has been in our lifetime.)

You can get back to me on your funding mechanism for your "progressive" program.

 

During the financial crisis - the brink - orr whatever, I believe there were 2 or 3 companies that actually went out of business and were the root cause of the greatest financial crisis in the history of the....

But outside of that - what about the multitudes of investors who one day had equity in mortgage backed securities and the next had nothing? My memory is not short.

what about the millions who thought they had equity in their homes only to find....

I could give a list of examples, would there be a point to it - or have you simply concluded I am wrong and nothing else will matter?

Good. What is the argument for even looking at the 1% as a legitimate category for economic discussion (other than class warfare)? What do they have in common as a group (other than being a convenient group to attack for populist reasons)? I would argue more legitimate economic categories would be passive v non-passive holders of wealth. Those who own and control working capital asset v stores of value assets, etc. I have not read everything Krugman has written, but he has written much about the 1% relative to everyone else and has never made his economic argument on why it is important - other than class envy. Again, my needs have almost nothing to do with the 1%'s needs.