1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics House Republicans Cut SNAP

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by snowy, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I doubt many of the people who invested their Life savings with Maddoff have regained their losses.

    The top 1% is a transient group.


    I am curious. In publishing what is the typical fair market value of a consistent annual steam of $1 in royalties? Or, if a person wanted to buy the rights to a publication consistently earning $1,000 in annual royalties what would that person expect to pay? Has this ratio stay constant over time or does it vary? what would happen if the rate of inflation doubles? Does the rate/ratio vary based on the type of publication, i.e. graphic novel series targeting adult males compared to romance novels targeting adult females compared to children's books?

    My gut tells me that graphic novel comic book material has exploded in value due to cross-over potential for movies, TV, games, and original content for streaming. I wonder if my gut, is correct. Have any links on how to get into this market from an investing point of view?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Why the myopic view?

    Do you have data to back that up? I'd like to see even an estimated percentage of how many are "transient."

    With few exceptions, investing in publishing is like throwing good money after bad. You shouldn't look into it for the money, but rather as a labour of love. I know publishers who lose money year after year but continue what they do for the love of it. Many others can't quit their day jobs.

    Does this actually have something to do with home equity? Please tell me you aren't planning on pouring your home equity into a graphic novel project.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. snowy

    snowy so kawaii Staff Member


    Show me the data.
     
  4. What does the Maddoff have to do with the economy, Aceventura? His victims were duped by a criminal. They didn't lose their life savings to the recession.

    Now, if the players that manipulated the Libor rates and the folks running the financial institutions scamming the housing market could be treated like Maddoff was, we might be able to make some economic headway.
     
  5. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Ace is probably correct to some extent in that the fastest growing sector in the top 1% over the last ten years (or since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 90s) are Wall Street bankers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc....folks who contribute nothing to the economy other than trading with other people's money.

    And of course, a growing number of corporate CEO's receiving outrageous bonuses despite their respective companies under-performing and laying off workers.

    The House Republican plan to extend the debt limit includes eliminating regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Board responsible for protecting consumers from financial fraud.

    Always protecting their own...not the rest of us.
     
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Their greatest fear, I'm sure, is a level playing field.
     
  7. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    What data do you want? Personally, I would suggest an understanding demographics as it applies to income and wealth accumulation. On that basis we could look at various age demographic groups and we would see the top 1% tend to be older, in their peak earning years, after 50. then if we accept this, we could make the logical conclusion that eventually these people die. Another suggestion would be the the succession of peak incomes and when they occur relative to when they are earned. We would see the top earning CEO, for example today, earn x% more than CEO of 5/10/15 years ago.

    So, tell me what kind of data do you want, assuming you even disagree with the premise.
    --- merged: Sep 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM ---
    Value is different than price. Arguments are being made about how well the 1% is doing. I believe we should always look at real wealth or real value. The Fed is inflating financial assets with quantitative easing. QE will not last, what happens then. Will the economy be able sustain these values on its own? etc. etc.

    Maddoff did not come up isolated from the flow of the discussion on these issues, but was brought up in response to a comment that was not 100% correct.

    The housing market is being manipulated. The Fed is trying to keep interest rates artificially low in order to stimulate market activity. some of the activity we see today is artificial. Who are the beneficiaries of this. Recently in the Charlotte area it was reported that about 20% of distressed homes are being purchased by investors - or rich people - at low interest rates and at low relative prices. Rich getting richer. The demand for housing is not going down. People will need housing. Look at rent compared to housing costs trends over the last 10 years - investors are creating some real wealth for themselves, wealth that will eventually be reflected in market prices and not just in rents.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  8. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The only occupation that has grown significantly among the top 1% in the last 20 years are finance (i.e. Wall Street types)..from 10.6% of those on the top to 13.9% (33% increase). CEOs (non-finance executives....) as percent of total of those on the top have decreased, as have most other occupations.

    Data only through 2005 but I suspect the finance types have only continued to grow.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Can you tell me why the President, Democrats, progressives, others and you supported the financial bailout? Can you tell me why the government allows QE that benefits the financial sector? Why havn't we addressed the housing needs of people as opposed to the balance sheets of large financial corporations??? Why? I have been on this from the first proposed bailout under Bush - and now 5 years later we still have financial institutions getting virtually free access to money, while limiting lending activity and charging fees and interest rates up the a$$ - sorry but this is a sore issue with me - are you finally seeing the problem?
     
  10. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that today's Tea Party would have supported Bush's bailout and the recession would have been much deeper and the economy much more fragile.
     
  11. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    BS. We have data that shows the bailout did not help regular people, it helped Wall St.! The bailout allowed financial institutions to clean up their balance sheet, make record profits, consolidate and increase profit margins - resulting in big Wall St. wages.

    You are right most Tea Party people I know did not support the Bush bailout given to Wall St..
     
  12. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The Tea Party that cares about regular people by slashing or gutting every social safety net program impacting the working class and not offering any alternative?
     
  13. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Tea Party that cares about out of control spending and excessive taxes - future generations, freedom, smaller more efficient government, real economic growth, competitive markets.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    And the fact that millions of working poor and those working from paycheck to paycheck will be adversely impacted is just an unfortunate (not unintended) consequence.
    --- merged: Sep 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM ---
    Freedom? God bless the Tea Party for their patriotism....on the backs of the poorest among us.

    Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2013
  15. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
  16. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    Would a more accurate thread title mention that Democrats also voted to cut SNAP funding?
     
  17. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The Senate version of the Farm Bill cut $24 billion total with most from cuts in direct subsidy payments to farmers (farmers wont get subsidies when crop prices are rising and subsidies are not needed). It also added crop insurance when crops are impacted by natural disasters. SNAP was cut by $4 billion. The bi-partisan bill passed 66-27.

    The House extended direct subsides indefinitely and removed SNAP from the Farm Bill completely in favor of a separate bill at $40 billion less than current spending (10x the Senate bill). Given that there was no willingness to compromise, unlike the Senate, no Democrats voted for either bill.
     
  18. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    The GOP plan was to cut SNAP by up to 10 times as much as the Democrat plan
     
  19. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    SNAP has a component dedicated to food education (SNAP-Ed). Funding for the White House's Lets Move anti-obesity campaign may have been diverted from Dept of Ag, food education programs, but not from any direct funding to SNAP recipients.

    There is nothing here to see but another attempt to deflect attention from Republican attempts to cut SNAP funding by $40 billion.
    --- merged: Nov 7, 2013 at 6:36 AM ---
    We are acollaborative partner in the Let's Move anti-obesity campaign and the funding is all non-profit or private foundation money.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013