Missouri Lawmakers Don't Want Food Stamp Recipients To Buy Steak

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: NavyDoc

As a business owner...it bristle at the notion that we are going to pass the costs of reconfiguration/upgrading onto me instead of it being absorbed by the government. Otherwise, I may not choose to participate in EBT. Especially if i have to reconfigure multiple locations.

Bar code scanners are getting cheaper. I get mine for about $130. Not a big deal, really. But if i were running my own mom and pop shop on a corner in the inner city? Just upgrading to a scanner might be more than I care to invest in.

But that isn't even the worst of it. An example from a vendor I deal with: i pay all my beverage bills via a company called "Fintech". They just draft the cash out of the account directly, and make sure that all payments do not violate TABC law. I like it because I don't have to write a check when beer is delivered, and I don't have to rearrange my work schedule around check runs that meet TABC guidelines (bills paid by the 10th and 25th). My problem: 2 of my vendors do not have POS systems that can account for it. One of them uses a pen and paper to account, while the other has a computer system that was originally purchased in 1984 and is DOS based. While this is booze....the same can be said for several establishments in the area. I could tick off 3 convenience stores (which, if we are honest, may be the only grocery accessible for someone who is walking) that still track their Z tapes based on the category button the clerk pushes, and the amount applied to that account. I know there are more, and if you go way out in the sticks, in the little farming communities, that singular "grocery store" with its 5 aisles of stale goods will be the only place you can spend your EBT.

No...not this time. Every time the government decides to switch things up, its small businesses that take it in the keister. I can't tell you how many tens of thousands we have spent on ACA, because we feel it is our duty to provide insurance to our employees. And, Uncle Sam being the genius he is...decided to make this personal duty as painful as possible.

So as a business owner, as am I, do you not bristle at the taxes taken from you and your employees that you pay every quarter?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I would be willing to bet you that absolutely if you took all the taxes ever paid in total by people who've ever benefited from wellfare that you would find more taxes have been pain in than have come out.

a reply to: Indigo5

Your right

Que James Earl Jones voice *And as we look at Macman's heart we see that his heart has stayed the same. Still broken because money is taken from his family to give to other*

Annnnnnd music * You're a mean one, Mr. Macman.....you're entitled to exercise your speech. You're as rotten as those that want to keep what you have earned....dah dah dah dah dah daaaaaaaah*

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

He isn't talking about keeping his money.

Who's more entitled? Like I said entitlements apply to different things. Everyone in the US is entitled to speak their mind. The guy saying "it's free food" and Mac saying "it isn't free".

Mac is entitled to vote and complain to his representatives if he feels they are not working for him. Mac is not entitled to tell people what they can and can't buy with their EBT/food stamps. He has made it clear that he feels entitled to do so. Even though he said his CPA will make sure he gives as little of his money to the government as possible he still feels entitled to a say oin what happens with other peoples money, you know, everyone else paying taxes.

If the shoe fits.

Actually he is perfectly entitled to vote and have his representatives try and stop the waste of his taxpayer dollars which is what the politician in this thread is doing. Those of us who put into the public pot certainly have the right to speak our opinions in how our money is being used.

"The beginning of then end of the democracy is when the public discovers they can vote themselves funds form teh public pot."

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: NavyDoc

I would be willing to bet you that absolutely if you took all the taxes ever paid in total by people who've ever benefited from wellfare that you would find more taxes have been pain in than have come out.

Those who have never held a job? How is that even possible?

a reply to: daskakik

And where is the Right to Public Assistance you speak of?
Is it next to the Separation of Church and State?

a reply to: NavyDoc

The place where they appear in applicable law and the dificulty in getting them changed doesn't change the fact that all citizens enjoy those rights.

nobody is entitled to the fruits of another's labor.

They are if it is part of the social contract.

a reply to: macman

The law of the land isn't made up of just the constitution and the bill of rights.

a reply to: Puppylove

Here is a question for ya.

2014...and you don't have to give numbers....for 2014 what did you pay in taxes, and what was your refund....just wondering.

There is NO right to Govt assistance.

a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

The place where they appear in applicable law and the dificulty in getting them changed doesn't change the fact that all citizens enjoy those rights.

nobody is entitled to the fruits of another's labor.

They are if it is part of the social contract.

LOL. "Social contract." That's nonsense. Where did I sign this "social contract?"

a reply to: daskakik

Oh this will truly be grand....let's here this newly devised Law of the Land not bound by the Constitution or BoRs.

Can you provide a Wikilink to this?

a reply to: macman

We're not keeping what you have earned. I paid into it same as you, and once again willing to bet you, if you total up all that's been paid out in welfare, with the taxes put in by every human being who has ever benefited by welfare that you find more money has come in than has come out. As long as this remains the case, you can't say we're using your money, as no one who's had to rely on welfare is going to demand it be nixed or overly restricted.

You don't even need to pretend your money went to other things besides welfare when it didn't, because if you asked all these people where they want their taxes to go, they'd more than being willing to cover all of welfare with their portion of their taxes. So in truth, as you wouldn't be willing to use your taxes that way, but more than enough people to cover welfare would be wiling to distribute their taxes that way.

As long as this remains true, that more people with their tax money are in favor of paying for welfare are greater in number and amount than the cost of welfare itself, then arguably you aren't paying a cent of welfare yourself. Or are you opposed to others supporting welfare with their tax money?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I do. Payroll taxes are enormous.

But, as I have mentioned multiple times in this thread, SNAP only accounts for 0.06% of the annual budget. It is fruit up there on the upper branches. The only reason to really pull out your ladder to go get that fruit is to just simply make a point. Im not about being like that to people.

If i am really worried about the budget, i'd focus my attention on the division that is spending 7% of the budget, one of the largest expenses: the military. Or maybe before sticking it in my neighbors eye, I go after the welfare we give other countries.

Because if we are honest, EBT is nothing other than a food subsidy. And we all already get those, since the government subsidies given to farmers/ranchers keeps food prices down for all of us. And the energy subsidies help a little, too, since freight is a huge cost.

But to try to go after what someone is doing with their "free" $200/mo, when that entitlement only costs the nation about 6/100th of a percent of its annual spend....its insanity. Its like trying to cuts costs around your house by turning 2 ply into 1 ply. The return is so small, the only reason I can think of is to make a point.

a reply to: macman

How is that your business? Also is irrelevant cause I'm 35 and even if I paid barely nothing last year and got a huge refund, you'd be discounting all the 18 years I've paid taxes.

You seem to be of the opinion that, the second you stop paying taxes even for a minute, that it completely nullifies all the taxes you've paid prior to that moment.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Some context: if you want a rebate on your taxes for "your share" of the annual spend on SNAP, and we assume you paid in $4000 in taxes in 2011 (the most recent year i can get SNAP data), your "opt out" rebate would be $2.46

LOL

a reply to: Puppylove

More people are NOT in favor of paying into welfare.

a reply to: Puppylove

Well, it has become the business of the group here because you have offered it as a basis.

So, I ask again, without numbers, over the last 5 years, the amount withheld from your paychecks, is it higher or lower then the refunds you have received.

You know that details matter. Time to put your money, or SNAP card where your mouth is.

a reply to: macman

I disagree, where's your proof that more people are opposed to paying welfare than the cost of welfare itself. I argue that more paying taxpayers by a lot are contributing to the taxpool with their money that are in favor of welfare than the cost of welfare itself.

a reply to: Puppylove

It appears to be residing in the same space and same time as your claim.

The rules of such is that this can't happen. SOoooooooo.