No more Food Stamp???

webexplorer said:
George B would love to set up more prisons especially his favorite capital punishment. I think that Texas has the highest percent of executions than any state.
Click to expand...

If you want to blame anyone for Texas executions, first, blame the criminal. Second, blame me and others like me.

We the voters of Texas support pro-capital punishment candidates. An anti-death penalty candidate has almost ZERO chance of getting elected to the governor's office here in Texas.

Grow up folks. Bush is no more evil than any other president this country has seen in the last 200 years.

Food stamps need to go. Welfare needs to go. If you're legitimately disabled, then I have no problem with my tax dollars helping you out.

I can remember learning about the reality of the food stamp program standing in the grocery checkout line as a child. My parents are hard-working people. We weren't poor by any means. We stood their and watched as people who WOULDN'T work cashed in their food stamps for better groceries than we could afford to buy.

Government programs that take from those who earn it and give it to those who don't are morally reprehensable. They are a cancer on our society and need to go. Aid programs should be taken out of the government sector and should be handled by private charities. The private sector has proven, time and time again, that it is best suited to meet the needs of people in crisis.

Just look at the recent hurricanes. Private charities were mobilized far quicker and with far greater effect than ANY government resource.

I personally have no problem seeing a person who won't work STARVE. There's a big difference between CAN'T work and WON'T work.

brianb
 
We stood their and watched as people who WOULDN'T work cashed in their food stamps for better groceries than we could afford to buy.

Government programs that take from those who earn it and give it to those who don't are morally reprehensable. They are a cancer on our society and need to go. Aid programs should be taken out of the government sector and should be handled by private charities. The private sector has proven, time and time again, that it is best suited to meet the needs of people in crisis.

Just look at the recent hurricanes. Private charities were mobilized far quicker and with far greater effect than ANY government resource.

I personally have no problem seeing a person who won't work STARVE. There's a big difference between CAN'T work and WON'T work.
Click to expand...
True, but the lazy ass folks are in the MINORITY. And I mean more of your tax dollars are going towards corparate welfare and researching new ways to kill people (aka the military) then they are to people who refuse to work!
Oh, and I have a great idear about the private sector....How about we make all those rich folks create charities to help poor people, instead of getting to spend it on some rare and virtuious antique or special food?
 
deafdyke said:
True, but the lazy ass folks are in the MINORITY. And I mean more of your tax dollars are going towards corparate welfare and researching new ways to kill people (aka the military) then they are to people who refuse to work!
Click to expand...

very true.

deafdyke said:
Oh, and I have a great idear about the private sector....How about we make all those rich folks create charities to help poor people, instead of getting to spend it on some rare and virtuious antique or special food?
Click to expand...

no why don't we stop giving rich people money...
and make minimum wage more higher to $15 a hour.
 
Levonian said:
Don’t forget that a lot of people also use food stamps to buy drugs. Almost all drug dealers take food stamps. The drug dealers work in conjunction with dishonest convenience store owners, who buy the food stamps from the drug dealer for 75 cents on the dollar, and then turn around and redeem them for full face value. Which is why we should eliminate food stamps altogether and switch to magnetic debit cards.
Click to expand...

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card's popularity is on the rise. Several local stores are no longer taking food stamps. Only EBT.
 
deafdyke said:
True, but the lazy ass folks are in the MINORITY. And I mean more of your tax dollars are going towards corparate welfare and researching new ways to kill people (aka the military) then they are to people who refuse to work!
Oh, and I have a great idear about the private sector....How about we make all those rich folks create charities to help poor people, instead of getting to spend it on some rare and virtuious antique or special food?
Click to expand...


Not where I came from. The vast majority of welfare recipients were young and able-bodied.

I have ZERO problem cutting 'corporate welfare'. I oppose tax dollars going to the private sector for anything other than 'goods and services rendered'. Corportate bailouts, loan guarantees, grants, etc. are what needs to go.

The military isn't a bad thing dd. A properly utilized military is vital to the protection of a free people.

The UN is another story. If we could kick that group of corrupt ninnies off of our soil, we could put a whole lot of tax dollars to better use.

Actually, liberty, the founding premise of this country, says let's not make those XXXXX type of folks do anything with their $$. They have it. Many earned it. It's theirs. I oppose ALL forms of forced wealth redistribution.

You bring up a great point dd.

Anyone want to guess which state give the most money to charity as a percentage of per capita income?

Mississippi.

It comes as no surprise that the poorest among us are the most giving.

brianb
 
Miss*Pinocchio said:
very true.



no why don't we stop giving rich people money...
and make minimum wage more higher to $15 a hour.
Click to expand...


Because raising the minimum wage causes inflation. Inflation causes job loss. The first jobs to go are minimum wage jobs.

When folks flipping burgers are making $15/hour, the price of burgers will rise to cover the extra cost. Fewer people will buy burgers, thereby reducing the need for workers to flip burgers.

End result....more people out of work and more working poor. The inflation effect absorbs all gains that were temporarily realized by the increase in income to the workers.

Raising the minimum wage only SEEMS to help poor workers.

brianb
 
well that is not true....

even if hamburger prices go up, people still will buy burgers...

I was in LAX, los angeles airport

their burgers are $6 :-o
but the mcdonalds resturant is full of people!!!!
I had to be in long line
and had to wait for table to sit to eat my meal.

and when I was in New Orleans, those resturants
have expensive meals... I paid $30 for a plate...
it was just one piece of fish...

Emeril made a fortune for doing that... and his chefs make a lot of money too.

but in Captain D's, I can get 5 pieces of fish for $3.

I don't get it.
 
why people pay money on cigarettes and beers, I feel that just
a waste of money?

why people pay money on sidekick, when most people
only use it once or few times?

why some people pay for caviar?

why people have expensive wedding and then
divorce a year later?

And SUVs owners ain't gonna give up their SUVs,
so they rather pay $4 a gallon gas.

my point is, people are going to pay for expensive price burgers
anyway....
and anyway most people who buy burgers... are the working people
who are on lunch break. So boost up their salary.
 
Miss*Pinocchio said:
and anyway most people who buy burgers... are the working people who are on lunch break. So boost up their salary.
Click to expand...

You just made my point for me. Working people who can afford to buy items produced by minimum wage labor, but who can't afford more expensive items, in the economy's current position are the most vulnerable to an inflationary scenario.

When wages are increased, employer expenses for having an employee also go up. Because few companies actually produce their products from raw materials to finished product, there is a compounding effect of the added employment expenses, proportional to the number of companies involved in producing the product. Cost of goods/services increase makes the additional expense of production that is passed on to consumers greater than the increase in wages will bear. Those who have recieved the wage increase actually experience a LOWERING of their disposable income due to price increases. Many who could afford burgers for lunch are now unable to afford the luxury of taking lunch 'out' and begin to bring cheaper alternatives from home.

If profits are impacted significantly enough, job creation in the lower paying levels may slow, stop, or even regress. Fewer opportunities for people in the lower economic strata exist in this scenario. Some lose their jobs and then are simultaneously faced with reduced job opportunities.

brianb
 
it is very disgusting to go to McDonalds...
because you have teenagers working there...
and people working minimum wages...
and the burgers are so soggy and too gross to look at...

all I am saying is...
why not just increase the salary
by hiring good chef and make burgers look more delicious
to eat...
and give good service to customers....

I took economics at college and
I know all about demands and supply....

the lower the supply, the more demands, and higher price.
the higher the supply, the less demands, and lesser price...

Just like gas...is lower supply, and more people demand, and the price is high.

So I think if the minimun wages increase, a lot of people work, more supply,
less demands = less price...

And because of the gas prices, I don't think it will ever go down...
and government threatening to cut food stamp and welfare...
and plus people with cars will have hard time going to work at McDonalds...
and there is no way for people who make $7 an hour, can afford
to pay for gas for car and house... when they have other bills to pay...

they need to increase salary.
 
I am surprised to learn that Martha Stewart never took a Marketing class (not sure including economic). She is very smart and super wealthy. Peter Jennings dropped out of his high school, and he was also wealthy, too. It's unbelieveable! They were smart enough to save their money to reach their goal instead of going to a college.
 
Not where I came from. The vast majority of welfare recipients were young and able-bodied.
Click to expand...
Yes, but overall most welfare recipiants utilize welfare to get through a tough spot, and don't abuse it. I mean I definitly think that there needs to be ways to cut the abuse.....there are dumbass slackers....BUT there have ALWAYS been dumbass slackers.......and I mean I wonder how many of the dumbass slackers are folks who fell through the cracks.....
I have ZERO problem cutting 'corporate welfare'. I oppose tax dollars going to the private sector for anything other than 'goods and services rendered'. Corportate bailouts, loan guarantees, grants, etc. are what needs to go.
Click to expand...
GOOD!!!!
The military isn't a bad thing dd. A properly utilized military is vital to the protection of a free people
Click to expand...
True, but the thing is that the US's military budget is the HIGHEST in the world. Need I remind you of the thousand dollar hammers of the Reagan era?
 
webexplorer said:
I am surprised to learn that Martha Stewart never took a Marketing class (not sure including economic). She is very smart and super wealthy. Peter Jennings dropped out of his high school, and he was also wealthy, too. It's unbelieveable! They were smart enough to save their money to reach their goal instead of going to a college.
Click to expand...

yeah but colleges are for people who are not talent, not creative,
and not motivated enough to go out and do things on their own
to make money.

If you really want to go out and make money, then do something
creative, or stay with something you are very good at doing...
and work very hard with that.

college is for people who wanna work for somebody, show
their resume off, sell themselves... serve others (lawyers and doctors).

So anyway... if you really wanna go out and do things...
don't need a professors to tell you to read these and those books...
and those college loans really slow you down from making any investment
if you plan to have your own business...
don't need professors to motivate you to do something...

Why those professors ain't successful?

Really need MOTIVATION!!!!!!!!
 
USA > Economy
from the October 13, 2005 edition

Inflation surge: Here to stay?

A sharp rise is expected in September's consumer price index, to be released Friday.

By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK – If it feels like money is flowing out of your pocket, it isn't your imagination.
In the wake of the hurricanes, the cost of living across the nation is skyrocketing.

Thursday, 10/13/05

• In Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Jerry's Café is telling customers it will raise breakfast prices by 10 percent.

• It used to cost Jacques Stambouli of Via Trading $650 to move a truckload of goods from Reno to Los Angeles. Today? $750. He's passing the hike on to consumers.

• And in Bethlehem, Pa., Linda Cameron complains that a paperback book is now $15. "It's crept up from $11," she says.

Such changes are expected to show up Friday when the government reports the September consumer price index (CPI). Economists expect this inflation indicator to show a rise of between 1 and 1.5 percentage points.

This would be the sharpest spike since January 1990, when the CPI rose by 1.1 percent after a cold snap in December shot energy prices higher.

It is a number that will be scrutinized carefully by the Federal Reserve as it weighs whether to continue raising interest rates. And the financial markets will also be parsing the inflation number to determine if the September event is a one-time price shock, or something more worrisome.

"It will be ugly," says economist Lynn Reaser of the Investment Strategies Group at Bank of America in Boston. "In any case it's only one month's number, but it could either alleviate or exacerbate inflation concerns which have recently accelerated."

Inflation fears will be lessened if the numbers indicate the price spike has only taken place in the more-volatile areas of energy and food. However, if inflation has spread to what economists call the "core rate" - the less-volatile areas - there will be concern. At the moment, some economists expect this core rate to increase by 0.2 or 0.1 percentage points.

"I think [the core rate] will be slower now than six to nine months ago," says Anthony Chan, senior economist at JP Morgan Asset Management in Columbus, Ohio. "Business is not passing along all its additional costs."

Oxford & Hill Home Products is a case in point. The Miami-based firm produces home closet storage systems. Some of the products are made with petro-chemicals, which have risen sharply in price over the last several months. "The higher costs are recognized by the retailers and some are willing to work with us in sharing the burden," says CEO Jonathan Mayer.

However, he says it's more difficult for the retailers to pass along the higher costs. "It's still a competitive retail market and the ability to pass on the costs does not always exist."

Still, some businesses are passing on their higher costs. For example, Headway Corporate Resources in New York has a large contract to do national research for the National Institute of Mental Health, a federal organization. One thousand of the company's employees drive 100 miles a day to do their interviews.

"We estimate the incremental cost just to the price of gasoline in the last twelve months is costing our company $10,000 per day, which is passed on to the customer," says Headway CEO Jean-Pierre Sakey.

One of the effects of higher energy prices is that it will absorb any salary increases employees receive, says Bill Coleman, senior vice president of Salary.com, in Boston. The firm estimates that the average worker will receive a raise equal to 3.7 percent of their current pay. But higher gasoline prices will total 3.3 percent of an individual's pay. "The good news is that people will get a raise this year; the bad news is that it's all going into the gas tank," he says.

Although gasoline prices have backed off their recent highs, there won't be much relief for many consumers because the cost of staying warm this winter is expected to rise sharply.

Wednesday, the Energy Information Administration, in its winter-fuels outlook, estimated consumers would pay, on average, 48 percent more for natural gas, 32 percent more for home- heating oil, and 30 percent more for propane.

Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, estimates the average family will spend about $1,700 more for energy this year. "For low- and some moderate-income families this is most of their discretionary income," he says.

Inflation is starting to show up as a concern for consumers. In a survey of consumers by the Conference Board, a business-research organization, inflation expectations soared in September, up sharply from the summer.
"We think a lot of that is reaction to the spike in prices at the pump following Katrina," says Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's consumer-research center. The last time the Board's surveys showed such an increase was in 1990 when the US entered a recession.

However, economists hope this is only a one-month spike. "Productivity gains are still good and workers are not receiving large pay increases," says Ms. Reaser. "Labor costs are still contained."

Despite the sharp increase in energy prices, Reaser points out that they represent just 8 percent of the CPI.

However, they can still have a significant impact. Last year, consumer prices rose 3.6 percent. Soaring gasoline prices represented 1.6 percentage points of the CPI. "Without gasoline rising that much, the CPI would have only gone up 2 percent," she says.
 
BigDaddy.....just a great, great series of posts on this topic!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top