T1B

Left Seater wrote: Why if you are collecting food stamps would you be going to a club anyway?

Left Seater wrote:Why if you are collecting food stamps would you be going to a club anyway? Shouldn't you be working a second job or saving every $ you could so you could get yourself off of food stamps?

Martyred wrote:
Because being poor shouldn't be a prison sentence.

Sudden Sam wrote: You really think it's okay to spend money drinking, while other people pay for your food?

Sudden Sam wrote:
But if other people are footing your food bill, maybe you shouldn't be shamelessly promoting your dependency on the largesse of those others.

I think I'm far more offended at the promotion itself than I am at any attendees.

Van wrote:Counting on lowlifes to flaunt their shamelessness will never not be a solid marketing strategy.

Roach wrote:I saw some homeless starving people and it made my Big Mac taste better.

Wilson says patrons will not be able to use their food stamps to purchase alcoholic beverages. He says he hopes the novel approach will draw people to the club.

Roach wrote:I saw some homeless starving people and it made my Big Mac taste better.

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Counting on lowlifes to flaunt their shamelessness will never not be a solid marketing strategy.

What a horrible thing to say about Wall St. banksters. The nerve!

Carson wrote:Solyndra?

Diego in Seattle wrote:More to H4ever's point, I don't see anyone in this thread or any others noting how we're giving over $2 BILLION in subsidies to companies that have been setting profit records. People here throw tantrums about the poor (some probably work anyways) having a night out, but are mute about taxpayer subsidies to corporations (run by executives paid tens of millions of dollars) that rake in billions each quarter?

Think about that the next time you fill up your car.

Left Seater wrote:Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

Helping by hurting

Can food stamps be regarded as economic stimulus? | Marvin Olasky

The Department of Agriculture in recent years has announced that every $5 billion spent on food stamps generates $9 billion in economic activity—which means that we purportedly help others by going on welfare. The Eureka Times-Standard reported that "the local economy" could be saved, "one food stamp at a time."

Newspapers uncritically accepted that figure, which originated with a 2002 study, "Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy." But are food stamps truly an economic stimulus? A closer look at that report shows that they are only if Washington borrows the money and increases our gargantuan federal deficit. Otherwise, they hurt the economy and increase unemployment.

First, authors Kenneth Hanson and Elise Golan concluded that borrowing by the U.S. government to expand food stamps would "allow recipients to shift cash income previously spent on food to nonfood spending, recipient households increased their spending on nonfood items by $3.7 billion."

In other words, three-fourths of food stamps made no difference in the quantity or quality of food that families had: Instead, parents would save money on food and use that money to buy other things.

Second, Hanson and Golan concluded, "If the same recession-driven increase in [food stamp] benefits is financed through increased taxes or other budget-neutral means, the stimulus effect of the increase in expenditures is dampened or even reversed." In their simulation, "Low-income households increased spending on non-food goods, but mid- and high-income households reduced spending by even more."

More money for government, but less overall household income and spending, led to less economic activity. In this scenario household income fell by $1 billion and 14,400 jobs were lost. So much for the food stamp stimulus.

BSmack wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

Food stamp money gets recirculated back into the economy at a 100% rate. It doesn't get any more stimulative than that.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:More to H4ever's point, I don't see anyone in this thread or any others noting how we're giving over $2 BILLION in subsidies to companies that have been setting profit records. People here throw tantrums about the poor (some probably work anyways) having a night out, but are mute about taxpayer subsidies to corporations (run by executives paid tens of millions of dollars) that rake in billions each quarter?

Think about that the next time you fill up your car.

Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

As a citizen I would much rather see a corporation get a tax break when they invest in a new plant or hire new workers. That is a much better use of my money than another handout.

Typical envy response with your fill up line. Your anger is misplaced. Oil and gas companies have some of the lowest profit margins around, despite having the most regulation and the highest costs. Why are you only pissed when you fill up your car? Do you have any devices from Apple? They bring in profits of damn near 50% on each device. What about lumber? They bring in three times what the oil and gas companies do percentage wise. What about that adult beverage you had, yep, almost three times oil and gas. Cigs, magazines, drugs, books, Coke, Pepsi, and even dying newspapers all produce higher margins than oil and gas companies.

Better yet, before you bitch about the small margin oil and gas companies make while you fill up your car, look at your state. Your freaking state charges you 37.5 cents per gallon on top of the Feds 18.4 cents per gallon. In Washington you pay 55.9 cents per gallon in taxes. The average fill up is $11.18 in taxes. Meanwhile the oil and gas companies that took the risk to find it, then had to extract it, transport it, refine it, transport it again, only to pay taxes on three of those steps, only make a profit of $1.55 on that same fill up.

Yeah, we should totally bitch about the oil and gas companies profits. X 1,000

Carson wrote:It's (still) all Bush's fault.

Sin,

Libs with heads up their asses.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
Hey dumbshit...in order for people to buy stuff they have to have money. Who's going to hire when there's nobody other than the upper crust who can afford to buy?

H4ever wrote: Do you suppose all this barely scraping by (never mind the record profits...on record) is the reason refinery capacity doesn't keep up with demand? Supply....demand...price....profits.

Jsc810 wrote:So many statistics show that the rich have an ever-increasing share of the wealth in our country, yet Republicans argue that the billionaires and millionaires need more tax breaks in order to create more jobs.

Since they already hold the wealth at historic levels -- the top 400 richest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people -- it seems that they would already be able to create those jobs, if that argument was valid.

Jsc810 wrote:More than they are now. Taxes should be progressive, not regressive. If you make more money, you should be taxed at a higher rate.

Jsc810 wrote:...yet Republicans argue that the billionaires and millionaires need more tax breaks in order to create more jobs.

Jsc810 wrote:Yes, a flat tax is regressive. I think billionaires and millionaires should be taxed at a higher rate than you and me, and I think we should be taxed at a higher rate than those in poverty.

Jsc810 wrote:Sure, everyone should pay taxes.

Left Seater wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Sure, everyone should pay taxes.

We agree on that part.


It is also very easy for many Millionaires to say they support a higher tax rate because many of them don't earn traditional wages. Very few of them are actually earning pay checks of multiple millions. Investment income isn't taxed the same way.


But what do you feel the highest tax rate should be? 40% 50% 75% ?