So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

We can build new companies. We don't need people here who want to exploit the population, not uplift it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

We can build new companies. We don't need people here who want to exploit the population, not uplift it.

Yup, but if we overtax them, they won’t be built here and/or be able to sustain international competition.

I’m not trying to be snarky and again, I do generally favor higher taxes. But I also recognize that there are limits imposed by reality, and that this is not a panacea for magically changing QOL for most Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

We can build new companies. We don't need people here who want to exploit the population, not uplift it.

Yup, but if we overtax them, they won’t be built here and/or be able to sustain international competition.

I’m not trying to be snarky and again, I do generally favor higher taxes. But I also recognize that there are limits imposed by reality, and that this is not a panacea for magically changing QOL for most Americans.

There's a simple way for them to get out of exorbitant taxes. They could share profits with their employees and pay a living wage or they could reinvest in their company and the economy. If they want to hoard wealth like dragons, we will take it. And if not being able to exploit us and hoard wealth and buy elections means they leave, good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

+1

And if the government is going to tax then tax fairly. Let the billionaires and their buddies fail. New businesses will form. No heartbreak there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

How much did we give Argentina? $20 billion? $40 billion?

Not enough to make any difference whatsoever in this conversation. And FWIW, I loathe Trump so take your point scoring snark elsewhere.

That money could be used in the US to help citizens here. I’m not crying for Argentina. Trump could ask Elon to scrounge
Around for $20 billion in pocket change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

We can build new companies. We don't need people here who want to exploit the population, not uplift it.

Yup, but if we overtax them, they won’t be built here and/or be able to sustain international competition.

I’m not trying to be snarky and again, I do generally favor higher taxes. But I also recognize that there are limits imposed by reality, and that this is not a panacea for magically changing QOL for most Americans.

Obama raised taxes on corporations. It increased tax revenue, profit did not decrease and the companies did not leave the US. We have real life example that proves you can raise taxes and companies will stick around.

We also have the ability to disincentivize companies from decamping from the largest consumer economy in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

Why can other countries take care of their citizens without collapsing, then? How do they do the impossible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

Why can other countries take care of their citizens without collapsing, then? How do they do the impossible?

They make trade-offs: more social support, but higher unemployment and lower overall growth (meaning less overall wealth and prosperity). They’ve also been able to minimize defense spending bc of the security provided by the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

Would I weep if Bezos and bimbo decamped? Not a single tear.

But that’s not the point: if you’re counting on revenue from taxing them, it’s not good for your bottom line.

And if you lose significant numbers of companies, then you’ve got even bigger problems.

We can build new companies. We don't need people here who want to exploit the population, not uplift it.

Yup, but if we overtax them, they won’t be built here and/or be able to sustain international competition.

I’m not trying to be snarky and again, I do generally favor higher taxes. But I also recognize that there are limits imposed by reality, and that this is not a panacea for magically changing QOL for most Americans.

Obama raised taxes on corporations. It increased tax revenue, profit did not decrease and the companies did not leave the US. We have real life example that proves you can raise taxes and companies will stick around.

We also have the ability to disincentivize companies from decamping from the largest consumer economy in the world.

??? Obama repeatedly tried to reduce tax rates on corporations.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/president-obamas-corporate-tax-reform-plan

[Anonymous]

The US is still the biggest economy on the planet, it's where the game is. I say raise taxes modestly on corporations, eliminate a number of loopholes and subsidies, also implement Warren's wealth tax - and at the same time set up severely penalizing taxes or other provisions that kick into effect if they attempt to offshore. Don't let them have their cake and eat it too. If you're an American company that offshores, you get stiff financial impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

Why can other countries take care of their citizens without collapsing, then? How do they do the impossible?

Because they have high taxes on the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

No. This country has enough wealth and resources to guarantee every single person a minimum floor of quality of life. Food, safe quality shelter, education, and healthcare. The money exists. What is unsustainable is average taxpayers subsidizing sub living wages, only for corporations to funnel money to the 1%, and for our government to funnel billions upon billions of dollars into the military industrial complex.

Every other western democracy has figured this out. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of will. We the people need to start demanding that our government start working for US again.

This is a dramatic oversimplification. First of all, those nations generally have lower growth and far higher unemployment than the US (see Spain to take just one example).

Second, they are able to do this only because of US military spending. We’re effectively subsidizing their defense. If we lowered our military spending, (a) it would make their models unsustainable, and (b) wouldn’t begin to pay for what you’re describing.

Is what you describe theoretically possible? Yes, in the short term, but the cost would be very high indeed and we as a whole would be far less wealthy.

And? Those same countries have higher quality of life. Being unemployed is not life-ruining in those countries. People and their lives can in fact matter more than dollars.

You are missing the fact that the reason they have this higher quality of life is because the U.S. pays for their defense. Billions and billions of dollars they should be paying for their military is being footed by the American taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people even got tattoos years ago and then fell on hard times and qualify for snap now. Weird that people are fixating on things that are not necessarily indicators of people's current level of need.

In a country like ours, nobody should go hungry. I can't imagine any person of genuine goodwill actually disagreeing with that statement. What is going on in this thread?

I think 95% agree with that statement. I certainly don’t want anyone to go hungry and support programs (public and private) to feed people.

However, I also believe that every individual is responsible for using their best efforts to feed themselves and their dependents before turning to government or others for assistance.

Obviously, many do and others cannot due to disability, age, etc. They should absolutely be supported.

But there’s also a portion of people (of all demographics) who don’t make that effort and/or persist in making awful life choices. The entire dispute comes down to how to deal with this group.

I get your sentiment but it's more work and cost to try to chase down and punish these people than to just provide a benefit trusting that it will be a safety net for the "right" people. If you are just interested in cost it's a no-brainer. But too many people are interested in ethics, "cheaters" and being hall monitors. I get it; it's human. But it's a scarcity view. We would do better to have a star trek plenty view.

I appreciate the point, but think we’re missing the forest for the trees. Big picture: entitlement programs (SS and Medicare in particular) are unsustainable and, if maintained at the current levels, will literally bankrupt the US.

SNAP is an inconsequential part of this, but the principle is the same: in order for society to function, everyone who is able to do so must take responsibility for themselves.

Of course we should have government support for those who can’t care for themselves, but we can and should enforce the principle to the extent possible. For the good of and indeed the survival of our society.

I think it’s the corporate and billionaire tax cuts that are unsustainable.

In principle, I have no problem whatsoever with taxing billionaires and corporations at much higher rates, and think there’s some room to do that.

However, in the modern global economy, there’s only so far you tax before they leave the US and/or are unable to compete. Too many easy, lower tax places with stable laws and systems offering opportunities to relocate.

And go where? Every other country they would want to go to will tax them more heavily than here. We can't keep allowing these people to hold society hostage.

Not entirely accurate, I’m afraid. Even with the OECD agreement on corporate tax rates, many nations deliberately keep corporate taxes low to attract foreign entities. How do you think Ireland attracted so many companies?

As for billionaires, they obviously have an embarrassment of choices.

Oh no! The people exploiting us, hoarding our resources, and buying our politicians might leave? How terrible!

+1German/South African Peter Thiel who bought JD Vance his Senate seat got dual citizenship in New Zealand while his Palantir makes hundreds of billions off American taxpayers while evading his own taxes in America.