Proposed Cuts to Foodstamp Benefits - US

[Rukentuts]

I pay for MYSELF to have a better standard of living, at times working 2 jobs to save a little. I STRONGLY object to paying more of my money in taxes so someone else can have a higher standard of living. Life isnt fair and if you want something, go earn it yourself!

Yeah, and this selfish mentality is what causes social unrest and threatens societies. In addition, when the masses do well, the economy does better.

[Elegiac]

Monetarism explains it quite neatly. When Thatcher stopped supporting inefficient businesses and allowed them to fold, inflation sharply dropped. The unfortunate result of this is mass unemployment. Just as Friedman predicted, the longer you delay a recession, the more the effects are compounded when it's finally permitted to come. In other words, when you artificially push an economy higher than it's supposed to be, it only has that much further to fall.

And I disagree. While yes, recessions are cyclical, Keynesianism does not "make them worse than they are", it softens the severity of the spike. It did not happen as monetarists state; they predict in such a situation the economy enjoys low inflation and high stability. However, low inflation was slow in the coming while lead economic indicators were spiking and falling erratically. Furthermore, it was only "neat" if you consider high unemployment a desirable or acceptable outcome, which I do not.

[Deleted]

Oh, so now it's about principal, not cost?

Building a system that is impossible to cheat is like trying to build a fireproof house.

If I would have to build a system that is imperfect regardless of how you do it, I would rather create something that makes it possible for the financially weaker to cheat rather then letting the financially strong cheat.
Because allowing the financially weaker more financially breathing room will result in a reducement of crime; Less crimes with a RobinHood motive (I need to rob a bank because I can't pay my childs cancertreatment/college/...)

If I had to choose between 2 evils, I would go for the evil that 'helps' the lower classes of society (wich isn't evil in a way)

Allowing the financially strong to cheat will result in more money flooding towards tax havens and fiscal frauds.
Such a system will result in more crime by both ends of the financial spectrum.

[Elegiac]

Personally witnessed events are not anecdotes, they are eye witness testimony. Its why they are allowed to be used in court. Anecdotes are stories you heard from another person (hearsay)

You understand the definition of an anecdote, yes?

[Grizzly Willy]

Personally witnessed events are not anecdotes, they are eye witness testimony. Its why they are allowed to be used in court. Anecdotes are stories you heard from another person (hearsay)

Except it's actually a problem with our legal system that eyewitness testimony is held to such high regard. I'm not sure why you would use it to validate your point.

[Orlong]

The government has to spend money or lower revenues when it has extra, or else it's just taking money out of the economy.

Also, welcome to budgeting. This happens even in the private sector.

The government could actually pay our national debt down instead of keep raising the ceiling. Being debt free is nice

If you consider any of those programs "unnecessary", I pity you in the extreme for your ignorance. They constitute such a small, small percent of the budget (less than 1% in NASA's case) that cutting them wouldn't make a dent.

Exactly what do you plan to do with the troops you pull out?

Man our borders with them and put a stop to illegal immigration.

[Deleted]

The government could actually pay our national debt down instead of keep raising the ceiling. Being debt free is nice

Man our borders with them and put a stop to illegal immigration.

Yes, because shooting at people who just want a better life is ethicly correct.

[Elegiac]

The government could actually pay our national debt down instead of keep raising the ceiling. Being debt free is nice.

Since the anti-public assistance monkeys happen to be anti-tax, never going to happen.

I repeat; that sort of budgeting is common, even in the private sector.

Man our borders with them and put a stop to illegal immigration.

You don't see a problem with stationing two hundred thousand troops on the Mexican border?

[Orlong]

Since the anti-public assistance monkeys happen to be anti-tax, never going to happen.

I repeat; that sort of budgeting is common, even in the private sector.



You don't see a problem with stationing two hundred thousand troops on the Mexican border?

Its a loooooong border. Also you forget we have a Canadian border too that people sneak across. We could have a sentry posted every 100 yards for the entire length of the border. Nobody would get through!

[Rukentuts]

You don't see a problem with stationing two hundred thousand troops on the Mexican border?

Pfft. I'm sure Mexico is cool with it.

---------- Post added 2013-05-21 at 09:56 AM ----------

Its a loooooong border. Also you forget we have a Canadian border too that people sneak across.

So we'll just anchor boats every couple hundred feet in Lake of the Woods and the Great Lakes?

[Deleted]

Its a loooooong border. Also you forget we have a Canadian border too that people sneak across. We could have a sentry posted every 100 yards for the entire length of the border. Nobody would get through!

Why would immigrants looking for a better life try to cross the canadian border towards the USA ? Seems counterproductive

Unless there are still people that believe in the American dream and don't know it has been corrupted since the 18hundreds.

[Elegiac]

Its a loooooong border. Also you forget we have a Canadian border too that people sneak across. We could have a sentry posted every 100 yards for the entire length of the border. Nobody would get through!

Because it's totally practical to have a sentry posted every 100 yards across the entire US-Canadian border. Ignoring the diplomatic fallout and incredible stupidity of trying to protect the US against illegal immigration from Canada of all places.

[Grizzly Willy]

Its a loooooong border. Also you forget we have a Canadian border too that people sneak across. We could have a sentry posted every 100 yards for the entire length of the border. Nobody would get through!

Sounds like government bloat to me.

[Deleted]

Pfft. I'm sure Mexico is cool with it.

As long as they shoot some drugkartels every now and then.

[devark]

Drug testing? Do I really need to bring up what happened when they tried that in FL? Multinational Corporations are the ones destroying the US from the bottom up, and it's by dodging taxes. Don't believe me? http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/me...estroyers3.pdf

Furthermore it's easier to cut form the bottom (which has almost no defense), than to get through any of the army of legal staff these corporations have. If the money these tax dodgers earned was actually taxed their would be no issue, and no cutting from the bottom.

[Laize]

And I disagree. While yes, recessions are cyclical, Keynesianism does not "make them worse than they are", it softens the severity of the spike. It did not happen as monetarists state; they predict in such a situation the economy enjoys low inflation and high stability. However, low inflation was slow in the coming while lead economic indicators were spiking and falling erratically. Furthermore, it was only "neat" if you consider high unemployment a desirable or acceptable outcome, which I do not.

There is no room to "disagree". Facts are facts. Monetarism works and HAS worked every time it's been implemented in the US, UK, Hong Kong, Chile and practically everywhere else. If you actually examine the recession in the UK you'll see that Thatcher is credited with her monetarist policies resulting in the UK being among the first nations worldwide to see economic growth again.

Keynesian economics utterly failed to handle the situation in 1970 which resulted in both rising unemployment AND inflation. It was here that monetarism stepped in and proved itself. When Carter appointed Volker (who ascribed to the Chicago School of thought) to the chair, monetarist policies proved themselves in bringing inflation to a much more stable level.

The unfortunate truth is that recessions are essential. Not merely cyclical... essential. One of the reasons the UK fell so damn hard after Thatcher enacted her policies was that there were thousands of factories which were wholly inefficient wastes of capital. These businesses were not meant to survive and were being kept on life support, keeping their capital tied up and wasted.

You may view unemployment spikes as undesirable, but it IS essential.

[Daelak]

There is no room to "disagree". Facts are facts. Monetarism works and HAS worked every time it's been implemented in the US, UK, Hong Kong, Chile and practically everywhere else. If you actually examine the recession in the UK you'll see that Thatcher is credited with her monetarist policies resulting in the UK being among the first nations worldwide to see economic growth again.

Keynesian economics utterly failed to handle the situation in 1970 which resulted in both rising unemployment AND inflation. It was here that monetarism stepped in and proved itself. When Carter appointed Volker (who ascribed to the Chicago School of thought) to the chair, monetarist policies proved themselves in bringing inflation to a much more stable level.

The unfortunate truth is that recessions are essential. Not merely cyclical... essential. One of the reasons the UK fell so damn hard after Thatcher enacted her policies was that there were thousands of factories which were wholly inefficient wastes of capital. These businesses were not meant to survive and were being kept on life support, keeping their capital tied up and wasted.

You may view unemployment spikes as undesirable, but it IS essential.

When did the US federal government increase domestic and/or military spending in the 1970's?

[Laize]

When did the US federal government increase domestic and/or military spending in the 1970's?

It was a failure in that Keynesian economics could not explain or remedy the problems facing the 70s that were a result of inflationary policies enacted in the years/decades prior. When inflation first hits, the effects are great and everyone is happy. As time goes on you get diminishing returns, however. Right up until the point where inflation is uncontrollable and unemployment starts rising in spite of ever more spending.

In 1979 Carter put Volker in the chair of the FED. He immediately enacted monetarist policies which brought price stability extremely quickly. This had the unfortunate effect of causing a Recession (or more accurately, finally permitting a deferred recession to come). A bad one. A result predicted by Friedman. When you artificially propel an economy further than it will bear, it simply has that much further to fall back to normalcy.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I find irony in someone saying we need to pay down our debt and decrease our deficit while at the same time supporting government programs that "uphold the integrity of welfare" to make sure nobody is exploiting them, when such programs are known to be enormous money sinks, and the exploitation is a minuscule percentage of the overall usage of welfare benefits.

[Rukentuts]

Right up until the point where inflation is uncontrollable and unemployment starts rising in spite of ever more spending.

That doesn't make sense, since Reagan spent like a bat out of Hell.