Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (757352)	12/11/2013 4:36:47 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576946

says the lib who give way less to charity than republicans, like 20-1 less, but you sure do like taking money from producers by gun point

To: koan who wrote (757352)	12/11/2013 5:24:34 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By Tenchusatsu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576946

Liberals have to lie about conservatives in order to feel superior.

To: koan who wrote (757352)	12/14/2013 4:11:36 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By jlallen Respond to of 1576946

Except that foods stamps, after having taken off like a rocket going in to space, will still go up even if the Republicans get there way, just not as straight up to the sky as before. As for Obamacare, the main thing convincing young people not to sign up for it is that it greatly increases prices for them. Well that and the fact that many of them didn't want to pay for insurance in the first place. Higher minimum wages are basically "your not allowed to work if you skills are very low" laws. Unemployment benefits are pretty long as it is in most cases. Extended unemployment benefits do discourage the marginal worker from looking for jobs. If you can't get a good job after a year or 99 weeks (or 77 weeks which I think may be the current limit it hasn't stayed the same), then a crappy job is probably the new normal for you. If you can't get a crappy job in that much time then the payments or more welfare payments than they are unemployment insurance, whatever label they get. And none of those things have much to do with the "true meaning of Christmas, which is about charity and giving from what you have, not A stealing from B to give to C. --- More on food stamps Those "cuts" are from a rising baseline. Spending doesn't go down, at least not from legal changes. It may drop if the economy recovers, if not future spending will be higher than it is now. blog.heritage.org

To: koan who wrote (757352)	12/14/2013 4:13:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576946

GOP Food Stamp Bill Will Increase Government Spending Don’t believe what you read in The New York Times Ira Stoll \| September 23, 2013 The food stamp bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month, widely criticized for supposedly cutting the nutrition assistance program to the poor, would actually raise spending over the next decade by 57 percent, to $725 billion from the $461.7 billion that was spent on the program in the last decade. No sooner had the House voted, 217 to 2010, on September 19 to pass the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act than the usual suspects were rushing to portray the measure as stingy and coldhearted. “House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps,” was the headline in The New York Times national news section. The Republican “war on food stamps” shows that the congressmen are “meanspirited class warriors,” wrote Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. That line of attack seems to be getting traction. “I agree with Krugman here,” a prominent New York rabbi wrote on Facebook. A news reporter at the Wall Street Journal posted on Facebook, “It’s stark to have this wonderful Pope preaching charity at the same time House Republicans are defunding food stamps.” Alas, the episode says more about the quality of Republican communications (poor) and of the press (often shallow and reflexively hostile to Republicans) than it does about what would actually happen to food stamps under the 110-page bill the House passed. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimatesthat the House bill would spend $725 billion on food stamps over the years 2014 to 2023. The Department of Agriculture’s web site offers a summary of spending on the program that reports spending totaling $461.7 billion over the years 2003 to 2012, a period that included a dramatic economic downturn. This is a great example of how and why it is so difficult to cut government spending, and how warped the debate over spending has become. The Republicans want to increase food stamp spending 57 percent. The Democrats had previously planned to increase it by 65 percent (to $764 billion over 10 years instead of the $725 billion in the Republican bill), so they depict the Republicans as “meanspirited class warriors” seeking “deep cuts.” Now, one can argue that because of inflation, or the eroding value of the dollar, the Republican increase of 57 percent is really some smaller percentage increase. But that pretty quickly turns into a discussion not of food stamp policy but of monetary policy. Which is a fine discussion to have some time, but not the one at hand here. What’s really in the Republican food stamp bill? The usual mix of special-interest silliness and occasional incremental progress that’s in most big pieces of legislation. My personal favorite is Section 306, which gives the Secretary of Agriculture one year to conduct a review and report back to Congress on “the economic and public health benefits of white potatoes on low-income families who are determined to be at nutritional risk.” There’s also a mandate “to increase the purchase of Kosher and Halal food” for the emergency food assistance program. Another section deals with Indian tribes and the preparation and consumption of “traditional food,” including “marine mammals.” One provision in the bill ends food stamp benefits for households in which a member receives “substantial lottery or gambling winnings.” The next paragraph makes it clear the recipients can get back on the dole if they gamble away their winnings. Another provision ends food stamp benefits for convicted murderers and rapists, but only if the conviction comes after the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act is passed, so as to avoid the Constitution’s Article I prohibition on ex post facto law. The legislation tries to catch up with the “eat-local” movement, authorizing the use of food stamps for buying a Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA, share, and providing $20.6 million a year to support farmers’ markets. Other provisions in the bill are aimed at cracking down on fraud, encouraging able-bodied adult recipients to work, and making sure that state programs that allow food-stamp use at restaurants (a relatively new and growing phenomenon) are aimed at serving elderly, homeless, and disabled clients, rather than at people who would just rather go out to dinner. The bill does not appear to address the desire by the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, to ban the use of food stamps for the purchase of sugary beverages. Nor does it appear to do anything to address the research linking food stamps to obesity among nonelderly women. There will always be some people who are so sick, poor, old, young, or unlucky that they need help with food, and, despite what Professor Krugman would have you believe, there’s a pretty broad consensus in this country about the desirability of helping those people, through both private charity and government programs. The real policy action is over how to strengthen the economy to the point where more people are able to feed themselves without help from the government or from charity. Instead, the politicians in Washington are mandating studies of white potatoes. Look for those spuds soon at a federally subsidized farmer’s market near you, along with some halal marine-mammal-meat. reason.com