President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

a reply to: ArchPlayer

IMHO they need to scrap the farm bills and any and all corporate welfare. The farmers have been on the federal teat since the depression. To pay someone not to plant is just simply federal intervention that has run amuck since the middle of the 1800’s.

originally posted by: macman
We are not talking about programming. We are talking about everyone starting at 10, with 0-9 being below it. So, everyone is a 10, just like everyone now starts out at $20hr for work. And it all cascades upwards, eliminating any real use of the arbitrary use of 10.

I'm not talking about programming I'm just using it to quantify the terms as that's how I think and you seemed like you could understand the statement. Guess not.

The world needs people to work the low end jobs. They are paid what their skillset brings.

Their skill set is worth nothing, every job with the possible exception of order taker (and only because speech recognition software is error prone) is a zero skill position. They are not paid for skills, they are paid to push a button. Despite that, if the business is offering the position it needs to be enough for the person to live. If the business doesn't offer atleast that much in wages the taxpayers have to make up the difference. That's called a corporate subsidy.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So, it is offset by taxes then. Interesting.
So, others have to offset life for those that don’t have a car.

That's one of the points of public transportation. There are others like alleviating traffic congestion but the main point is to ensure people are able to travel for work. It's an investment in the economy.

Perhaps you should go and research what extort means…Again, the Alinksy BS won’t fly with me.

I refuse to work for less. But, since they offer a certain wage, and I perform the work for that wage, there is no entitlement nor extortion. If they didn’t pay the wage, I would go elsewhere. YOU would probably riot, loot and protest.

You really do like to label things Progressive and Alinksy. Maybe you should try looking at things for what they rather than as what you want them to be. As to the point, would you do the work for free? If you're not willing to do the work for free then yes you're deliberately making someones business (and the community as a whole) worse off because you want something.

And no, I wouldn't riot, loot, or protest. You see I actually like doing work that involves my skillset. A couple months back I built a database/populated for a guy, then made him a website, and PoS system. He paid me considerably less than it was worth, we agreed to an amount and signed a contract. In the end he gave me 1/20 the agreed upon amount stating he changed his mind about paying me. At that point I could have refused to hand over the work but what does that accomplish? It makes the local business community worse by not having that service.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Sounds like you need more experience and will not have any reason to “demand” a certain wage.

My experience is poor for sure. I'm not completely devoid of experience but job opportunities are tough to come across in this area.

originally posted by: Aazadan
My suggestion is to make choices that lead to success. It is up to you to come up with the plan, spend the money or whatever it takes.

And I'm making those, or what should be those. No debt and getting an education. An education doesn't mean a whole lot though when there's no where to work, and it's real easy to see the choice as a poor one when you're rationing out ramen packets to last for a months worth of meals.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Please, while you research extortion, also look into slavery.

I'm not the one that needs to look into those terms. Slavery is more than just the physical ownership of a human.

So, he had no way of not signing the contract???? That damn Predator!!!! Was it the laser on his shoulder that did it? Maybe those hideous eyes and fangs.

Well, he wanted an education. Then found out that he doesn't have the right personality for college. A literal lifetime of debt repayments is way too much for a year of tuition.

Are you kidding me???
As politician after politician offer up more and more Govt based handouts, you think this isn’t buying votes from those that they are aiming at??

Buying votes from who? The majority of states that are net recipients of tax dollars are red states. Last I checked those aren't the people making these programs.

Gotta have Govt there to provide stuff with no need.

No need in the present doesn't mean no need in the future, and some things are very difficult to monetize. For example a drug that treats an illness with 20 cases annually.

I ask you. Why not 15%?
I never stated I picked it out of thin air.

Because 15% is too low, we've seen from the Laffer Curve historically that 70% is too high and that 35% is too low, Reagan showed both of those quite successfully. I would split the difference at 52% and determine from there, essentially using a binary search every 2 years in order to find the appropriate rate.

That's if I were going to use an income tax. My preferred method would be to eliminate the income tax entirely and put a 1% tax on all Wall Street transactions followed by a good deal of protectionism (companies must be on our exchanges to sell here if public) to keep businesses from leaving our stock exchanges. The estimates I've read have said this would generate $16 trillion in revenue annually, so in theory that tax rate could even be reduced a good bit while still funding the government.

Well, thanks for providing a condensed Google search result for me.

No problem, you didn't ask for something more indepth.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: ArchPlayer

IMHO they need to scrap the farm bills and any and all corporate welfare. The farmers have been on the federal teat since the depression. To pay someone not to plant is just simply federal intervention that has run amuck since the middle of the 1800’s.

This is something I could get behind, if the farmers overproduce and drive down the price of food then it's more affordable without requiring government assistance.

a reply to: Aazadan

If we truly had a transparent government like Jefferson wanted very little federal power over the states. We would be able to see where all of our tax dollars goes. But this will never happen with the Hamiltonian federal government that Lincoln enacted during the civil war. Which was only made bigger by FDR.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Aazadan

If we truly had a transparent government like Jefferson wanted very little federal power over the states. We would be able to see where all of our tax dollars goes. But this will never happen with the Hamiltonian federal government that Lincoln enacted during the civil war. Which was only made bigger by FDR.

I'm a fan of states rights but I don't think they're a catch all solution and there's some things that just work better when handled by the feds like defense or national education standards, the latter being because it's important for a degree in Mississippi to be recognized by California and 50 states will never agree with each other on things like creationism, reading level, and so on. Sometimes standardization can be a good thing. Anyways that's beside the point.

Food stamps are a part of the farm bill, and food stamps in general are just a more politically acceptable way of giving farmers a subsidy. That's not to say they serve no purpose because they do, but it's just like with education. The influx of government money increases the price of goods. In this case not only are we subsidizing what a crop will sell for, but we're paying the farmer to not grow creating an additional reduction in supply.

If farmers could grow twice as much some would for more profits, this would make others grow and decrease the price. Ultimately we would be in a situation where everyone has to grow twice as much for the same level of profit, effectively cutting the price of food in half. On it's own this doesn't solve the problem of declining purchasing power but it does partially alleviate it.

a reply to: Aazadan

Defense is an enumerated power to the federal government. National education is not. We have become so accustomed to the federal government sticking it's unremunerated powers into our lives that we cannot do anything without the intrusion of federal codes. Like how much water your toilet can flush. Or if you wanted to use incandescent lights rather than cfl’s. Read the founding and prefounding writings about liberty and the role of government. We have strayed so far from the original intent of the American experiment of binding down the government with the chains of the constitution that the founders would be totally appalled of how we have traded freedom for security.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Defense is an enumerated power to the federal government. National education is not. We have become so accustomed to the federal government sticking it's unremunerated powers into our lives that we cannot do anything without the intrusion of federal codes. Like how much water your toilet can flush. Or if you wanted to use incandescent lights rather than cfl’s. Read the founding and prefounding writings about liberty and the role of government. We have strayed so far from the original intent of the American experiment of binding down the government with the chains of the constitution that the founders would be totally appalled of how we have traded freedom for security.

I would argue that part of national defense involves having an educated populace that can maintain an economy in order to not just provide a tax base for the military but in order to have the expertise to build weapons and infrastructure.

Resource conservation is again part of the national defense, we have to make sure the nation has enough resources. We all need water from Lake Superior but Minnesota has little incentive to regulate their water usage since the lake is right there. The lightbulb issue is an interesting one. I don't agree with CFL's, partially because they run counter to a solid energy and environmental plan but this goes back a long time. Have you ever watched the lightbulb conspiracy? There's a lot that can be said about CFL's, and they're ultimately a good example of how a corporation has used lobbying money to buy favorable market conditions.

Anyways, water and energy usage are aspects of our lives that do need regulation. The truth is on an individual level we're not going to use more water efficient toilets and that's a bit deal when water shortages are happening more and more often.

Honestly, I see corporations particularly multinationals as a greater threat to liberty than I see the feds. The corporations wield just as much power but we have no democratic process to control them, as the idea of voting with ones wallet has been proven to be a failure. This is part of why the founders put such heavy restrictions on corporations... they actually realized the very scenario we have now could come to pass.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yet 6 years later I am unemployed and collecting food stamps. As I stated before, I long paid for the crimes and if jerks like Macman want to continue to shun me I will be forced to make unwanted information public.

I am human and made a mistake, it should not cut my potential earnings as much as it has.

I will not settle for a crappy job that will hold my past legal problems against me my entire career.

a reply to: Aazadan
Lincoln would of loved your logic. It’s almost as bad as FDR’s. Your scared of multinationals while at the same time the USA has what over 300 foreign bases? Why do we not have boocoo foreign bases here in the USA? Itr would only be fair would it not? Do you want the UN and and every other country that we have a base in to have a base here? We have turned into the global bully that the founders tried to prevent.

a reply to: guitarplayer

And because of this we have a major problem.

The US military is only as strong as its personal. Many do not blindly support what they are being ordered to do. We have really upset the rest of the world and are in danger of self destructing back home.

I have a difficult time finding positive aspects of the US. The dollar keeps getting weaker.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Yeah create sustainable career jobs for everyone.

You make that sound so easy... There are a lot of dynamics in play here. You have people who hit the highlight of their life in high school, you have a group who do not even go to high school, you have people who work hard but have zero ambition to get past the first job they learn, or go beyond minimum skill type jobs. Then you have the 30 something professional student and the student whose degree can get them the same job as a high schooler can. We also have a group that has decided that subsistence living, no matter how sucky it is, is just fine for them, and this is all the ones that can actually work...

a reply to: jrod

We have this problem because of the over reach of the federal government. Why do you think so many countries hate the USA? Could it be that the federal government holds out carrots (money) to these countries to get our way? We give away more money that should be spent right here in the USA. The war on poverty hell it could of been wiped out by the TARP program. Everyone in America could of had their mortgages paid off on the money given to wall street and foreign banks. They have been screwing us for years and we don't even get a kiss. Your ok with this?

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Aazadan
Lincoln would of loved your logic. It’s almost as bad as FDR’s. Your scared of multinationals while at the same time the USA has what over 300 foreign bases? Why do we not have boocoo foreign bases here in the USA? Itr would only be fair would it not? Do you want the UN and and every other country that we have a base in to have a base here? We have turned into the global bully that the founders tried to prevent.

They're separate issues. We could certainly close a few bases but I don't agree with the idea of becoming totally isolationist either. The problem is we can't close bases, every time we try it inevitably results in cries of military downsizing, not supporting the troops, and being weak on defense. Should we do it? Yes. The political will just isn't there though.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: jrod

We have this problem because of the over reach of the federal government. Why do you think so many countries hate the USA? Could it be that the federal government holds out carrots (money) to these countries to get our way? We give away more money that should be spent right here in the USA. The war on poverty hell it could of been wiped out by the TARP program. Everyone in America could of had their mortgages paid off on the money given to wall street and foreign banks. They have been screwing us for years and we don't even get a kiss. Your ok with this?

The implementation of TARP is what you get when the bankers write the rules they'll follow. Again, it goes back to corporations that are too powerful.

Lots of foreign aid is given under similar circumstances. Foreign Aid is a politically acceptable way of bribing a country to give our corporations preferential treatment for expansion. The large corporations that lobby love foreign aid. It's a bribe that they can make the taxpayer pay for.

a reply to: Aazadan
You have just struck the nail on the head. We never did recover our real economy after WW2. The industrialist found it more profitable doing government work (military industrial) than competing in the global market place. We are seeing that today with more imports than exports high unemployment and generational poverty.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Ike warned us.

The US now has the framework of an oligarchy, not a nation of freemen and women who cherish liberty.

I'm fed up with hearing people yack about there not being enough jobs. I was hired at and quit 7 jobs last year and decided to stick with number 8.

a reply to: jrod

Actually Jefferson warned us first that the government was to be chained down by the constitution. Those chains have been broken by Supreme Court judicial legislation since the beginning of the republic. Hamilton was only the first in a long line of big central government advocates who have shredded the original intent of the constitution which was to limit power in the branches of Republic.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: crazyewok

Yet 6 years later I am unemployed and collecting food stamps. As I stated before, I long paid for the crimes and if jerks like Macman want to continue to shun me I will be forced to make unwanted information public.

I am human and made a mistake, it should not cut my potential earnings as much as it has.

I will not settle for a crappy job that will hold my past legal problems against me my entire career.

O i agree that 6 years after it should be behind you. You paid for the crime and you should have found a few career by now.


I think criminal records need a reform. Unless its a violent or sexual crime or your a ex theif trying to get a job in a vank it shouldnt matter.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: macman

I am one of the hardest workers you will ever meet.

The worst decision in my life was joining the US Navy. I enlisted with a squeaky clean record and left with an arrest record, 'Alcohol Rehab Failure' on my DD-214 and a General Discharge which means no GI Bill.

Do not try and tell me my misfortunes are all my own fault. Because of me getting screwed over by the system I have no problems collecting Food Stamps. It is the least the US government can do for me.

I did sign over my life to them.

UH, an arrest record, failure of alcohol rehab, and a GD is exactly the definition of "all your own fault."