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
    Do you want me to review the above and look for the flaws? Do you simply take this at face value? How does the logic work - one type of dollar returned into the economy by government does one thing and a different dollar does another? And it is due to the fact that people don't spend tax savings, but they spend food assistance dollars??? I have a thought if we increase consumption of corn, compared to increasing our consumption of automobiles, what would have the bigger impact economically? On employment? No farmer is going to hire anyone to increase corn production. Auto makers may hire people to make more cars - or maybe not, but certainly this is worth thinking about and a factor in a multiplier. I bet that might be your flaw without even looking at the methodology.
    --- merged: Nov 11, 2013 at 8:34 AM ---
    You present false alternatives.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2013
  2. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I would suggest you read the CBO's analysis of the multiplier effect of the Bush tax cuts as well as its contribution to the current debt...as opposed to SNAP spending.
     
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Is this a real-life example, or simply a straw man?

    Can we be sure to talk about real life?

    I don't recall hearing stories about government banning private charity work, let alone in a free-lunch program. Do you have any links?

    If not, we can just return to our subject at hand.

    No one said there wouldn't be any negative impacts. I think the issue is that many overstate the negative and downplay the positive.

    You're confusing the issue by suggesting that all things should be equal. Nor does "redistribution of wealth" require a command economy, if that's what you're implying here.

    And I find it interesting that you consider pollution but not low wages a social cost. Both are clearly the result of industry practices, and without government intervention or regulation, they would likely be far worse problems.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Indigo Kid

    Indigo Kid Getting Tilted

    We'll be lucky if SNAP is the biggest program they cut into. I work at Head Start and already we've been cut back. 1,000 less kids are getting the care & meals available in the program in NE Ohio. Some are homeless. Many have disabilities.
    It's getting sadder by the month.
     
  5. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    Oh, those kids are probably just lazy sponges sucking on the teats of hard working 'real Americans.' They should get jobs if they want to eat. Actually in this economy if they want to eat and live indoors they should get two jobs.
     
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Child labour laws are just more Big Government meddling in the free market.
     
  7. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    Maybe it's time for a Swift and modest proposal?
     
  8. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Look, do you want a truly free market or what?
     
  9. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    Who's defining this concept of "free market?"
     
  10. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    It is a straw man carrying one bag of groceries when 24 bags are needed.

    [​IMG]

    Food benefits from federal nutrition programs amounted to $96.9 billion in 2011 compared to $4.1 billion distributed by charitable organizations (churches, food banks and other private charities) in the same time period. In other words, federal nutrition programs delivered more than 23 times the amount of food as did charities.

    And it is not like private charities are overflowing with funding these days. They certainly aren't in a position to replace $4 billion/year in cuts (requiring doubling their current level of funding).
     
  11. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    So clearly not $97 billion either. Considering charitable giving in the U.S. is around $300 billion annually, I don't think $97 billion (or about a third) for food assistance alone is realistic.

    And I don't think it's simply a matter of "Americans aren't charitable enough." I think there is an important role for the welfare state, as this demonstrates.
     
  12. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Giving the lower and middle classes more buying power is never, ever a bad thing. All that wage increase will go directly back into th economy.

    Giving more tax cuts to rich people who won't spend the money they're saving is pants-on-head retarded
     
  13. Indigo Kid

    Indigo Kid Getting Tilted

    Glad that I know you're always kidding & very sarcastic!
    --- merged: Nov 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM ---
    Man - the "smoke" in Mexico must be powerful.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2013
  14. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Location:
    Yucatan, Mexico
    I don't smoke anything. Used to smoke fish and wild game but quit when I moved south.

    And you know there's a GOP out of Utah (?) who recently proposed we do away with all child labor laws. I forget his reasoning but remember thinking "what the hell, wonder if he wants that for his children?" when I read it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2013
  15. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The House passed a farm bill today, with cuts of $8 billion in SNAP funding....far less than the $40 billion the Republicans wanted, but more than the $4 billion that was the Democrat target.

    As it notes, "It’s hardly a progressive breakthrough, but the compromise largely mitigates the most offensive provisions of the House GOP bill."

    With compromise, no one is entirely satisfied or in the words of the Rolling Stones, "you cant always get what you want, but you get what you need" and the need is to protect the most vulnerable first.

    It should pass through the Senate by the end of the week.
     
  16. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    So congrats, then?
     
  17. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    No. I wouldnt go that far.

    With $800+ million in cuts per year, nearly 1 million working families may still lose their SNAP benefits while fat cat agri-businesses will still reap $millions even with the most significant reform that eliminates direct payment subsidies for crops they are not even growing.

    No family in America should ever go hungry or be forced into choosing between food and other household expenses. But the political reality is that a better bill that puts families over corporate interests would never pass the House.