US Bishops: Save SNAP

[stinkcat_14]

In what ways do you think they are different?

Ishii

1. Democrats buy most of the books that have been banned somewhere. Republicans form censorship committees and read them as a group.
2. Republicans consume three-fourths of all the rutabaga produced in this country. The remainder is thrown out.
3. Republicans usually wear hats and always clean their paint brushes.
4. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs.
5. Republicans employ exterminators. Democrats step on the bugs.
6. Democrats name their children after currently-popular sports figures, politicians, and entertainers. Republican children are named after their parents or grandparents, according to where the money is.
7. Democrats keep trying to cut down on smoking but are not successful. Neither are Republicans.
8. Republicans tend to keep their shades drawn, although there is seldom any reason why they should. Democrats ought to, but don’t.
9. Republicans study the financial pages of the newspaper. Democrats put them in the bottom of the bird cage.
10. Most of the stuff alongside the road has been thrown out of car windows by Democrats.
11. Republicans raise dahlias, Dalmatians, and eyebrows. Democrats raise Airedales, kids, and taxes.
12. Democrats eat the fish they catch. Republicans hang them on the wall.
13. Republican boys date Democratic girls. They plan to marry Republican girls, but feel that they’re entitled to a little fun first.
14. Democrats make plans and then do something else. Republicans follow the plans their grandfathers made.
15. Republicans sleep in twin beds–some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats.

 

[SamH]

Uh, import it and naturalize it? Just saying. The conclusions you draw need to be supported by facts to be other than personal opinion.

As do you.

 

[SamH]

1. Republicans sleep in twin beds–some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats.

Liberals kill their children before birth. That’s why there are more conservatives than liberals.

online.wsj.com/article/SB122695016603334449.html

gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

 

[estesbob]

1. Democrats buy most of the books that have been banned somewhere. Republicans form censorship committees and read them as a group.
2. Republicans consume three-fourths of all the rutabaga produced in this country. The remainder is thrown out.
3. Republicans usually wear hats and always clean their paint brushes.
4. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs.
5. Republicans employ exterminators. Democrats step on the bugs.
6. Democrats name their children after currently-popular sports figures, politicians, and entertainers. Republican children are named after their parents or grandparents, according to where the money is.
7. Democrats keep trying to cut down on smoking but are not successful. Neither are Republicans.
8. Republicans tend to keep their shades drawn, although there is seldom any reason why they should. Democrats ought to, but don’t.
9. Republicans study the financial pages of the newspaper. Democrats put them in the bottom of the bird cage.
10. Most of the stuff alongside the road has been thrown out of car windows by Democrats.
11. Republicans raise dahlias, Dalmatians, and eyebrows. Democrats raise Airedales, kids, and taxes.
12. Democrats eat the fish they catch. Republicans hang them on the wall.
13. Republican boys date Democratic girls. They plan to marry Republican girls, but feel that they’re entitled to a little fun first.
14. Democrats make plans and then do something else. Republicans follow the plans their grandfathers made.
15. Republicans sleep in twin beds–some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats.

Lovel it!

 

[stinkcat_14]

Agree!

Every time they propose to cut taxes they are addressing the economy, jobs and the poor. Every time they try to reform social security, foodstamps, or welfare they are addressing the economy, jobs and the poor. But your question betrays a lack of understanding of how economics works: it is not government action that helps the economy, unless that action reduces the role of government.

But since you asked, here is the track record of tax cuts:

1922 - government cut taxes: result was more revenue, jobs and economic growth.

1962 - JFK cuts taxes - result was more revenue, jobs and economic growth.

1981 - Reagan cuts taxes - result was more revenue, jobs and economic growth.

2001 & 2003 - Bush cuts taxes - result was more revenue, jobs and economic growth.

Ishii

I think it would probably help if you took an introductory economics course, because on the first day of class you will learn the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Basically what is says is that correlation does not mean causation. And some of the revenue increases came after a very long lag which makes it even more difficult to tease out cause and effect.

In a previous post you claimed that liberals don’t understand economics, but the truth is that there is a lot of economic ignorance across the political spectrum.

 

[ishii]

That is good innovation - if it is truly as successful as these numbers claim.

This article examines both sides of those claims

Maybe charter schools have worked for NO or maybe the revamping of standards make it look like they have. In any event, there is no evidence of this as the one bandaid for every city/state.

I don’t see how you can point to the fact that the New Orleans graduation rate went from 54% to 78% and say that is “shifting the definition.”

Here is another excerpt:

“The results we’ve achieved in New Orleans are indicative of the success we’ve enjoyed across Louisiana. In addition to graduation rates reaching an all-time high, more of our state’s high school students are passing ACT exams and scoring high enough on Advanced Placement exams to earn college credit than ever before. We announced earlier this month that Louisiana ranks near the top of the nation in charter school performance.”

Jindal is a conservative for sure - I think if you listen to him speak and read his articles you would realize that he genuinely want to improve the lives of everyone through education reform and innovation - but from a conservative perspective. As you say - in a democracy we rightly have different ways of thinking and ideas. But Jindal’s ideas probably threaten the status quo - which is the teacher’s unions and those who are threatened by increased competition.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I think it would probably help if you took an introductory economics course, because on the first day of class you will learn the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Basically what is says is that correlation does not mean causation. And some of the revenue increases came after a very long lag which makes it even more difficult to tease out cause and effect.

Four different examples where the cutting of taxes were followed by economic growth, more jobs, and revenue. And you are still crying “post hoc ergo propter hoc!” LOL. Btw, Thomas Sowell was the one who pointed out those historical examples in his book Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. Should he take an introductory economics class too? Oh wait, he’s a senior fellow at Stanford University and a PhD in economics from the U. of Chicago. Nevermind.

youtube.com/watch?v=rc-bELgAowU

In a previous post you claimed that liberals don’t understand economics, but the truth is that there is a lot of economic ignorance across the political spectrum.

All who don’t understand economics would do well to read up on Thomas Sowell.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

1. Democrats buy most of the books that have been banned somewhere. Republicans form censorship committees and read them as a group.
2. Republicans consume three-fourths of all the rutabaga produced in this country. The remainder is thrown out.
3. Republicans usually wear hats and always clean their paint brushes.
4. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs.
5. Republicans employ exterminators. Democrats step on the bugs.
6. Democrats name their children after currently-popular sports figures, politicians, and entertainers. Republican children are named after their parents or grandparents, according to where the money is.
7. Democrats keep trying to cut down on smoking but are not successful. Neither are Republicans.
8. Republicans tend to keep their shades drawn, although there is seldom any reason why they should. Democrats ought to, but don’t.
9. Republicans study the financial pages of the newspaper. Democrats put them in the bottom of the bird cage.
10. Most of the stuff alongside the road has been thrown out of car windows by Democrats.
11. Republicans raise dahlias, Dalmatians, and eyebrows. Democrats raise Airedales, kids, and taxes.
12. Democrats eat the fish they catch. Republicans hang them on the wall.
13. Republican boys date Democratic girls. They plan to marry Republican girls, but feel that they’re entitled to a little fun first.
14. Democrats make plans and then do something else. Republicans follow the plans their grandfathers made.
15. Republicans sleep in twin beds–some even in separate rooms. That is why there are more Democrats.

And posters who have no answer to a question resort to humor to change the subject.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I think you are the one who doesn’t understand how economics works…or maybe it’s just recent history that you forget…When Obama took over from Bush, the country was hemorrhaging jobs and the economy was growing toward the earth’s core. Cutting taxes is not a ‘comprehensive’ solution unless you can actually show sustainable results on all the three factors I mentioned. For example, right now Wall Street is setting records while the poor can’t support families on minimum wage jobs. For more historical perspective, I refer you to Bill Clinton’s address to the DNC last year.

I never claimed that cutting taxes is a cure all and that other factors don’t need to be addressed. The economy in 2008 was largely affected by the mortgage crisis. Last I checked that wasn’t a function of cutting taxes - but by government getting involved in the mortage industry - Dodd/Frank, etc.

Historically, cutting taxes has resulted in jobs, revenue and economic growth.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

Gee - I wonder where everyone went who was calling this “forced starvation” and “cutting foodstamps” ?

Sleeping?

Possibly it would be good to directly address the topic.

1. “The bishops” are not opposing “cuts” in the food stamp program. The letter is from Bp Blaire alone; the one who previously accused the Ryan plan of “cutting” food stamps when the plan only proposed reducing the rate of increase from 12% to 8%. He is also the one who endorsed Obama’s “gun control” plan before Obama even proposed one. Bp Blaire speaks only for himself. Unfortunately, he does it on USCCB letterhead.
2. There are no “cuts”. It is only proposed that congress enforce the longstanding requirement that ABLE-BODIED recipients with NO DEPENDENTS work 20 hours/week, or be available for work even if it’s community service, or be in job training. The $40 billion “cut” is only an estimate of what it would perhaps save over ten years if those requirements were not waived.

All of this talk about “cuts in food stamps” is totally, utterly without foundation. The only people imaginably affected would be able bodied people who don’t work, refuse employment or training, and have no dependents.

Now, who is willing to defend opposition to that on its true terms?

Completely incorrect. May I direct you yet again to the words of Rep. Richard Hanna (R - NY), who was an adamant no on the measure:

However, the bill also included provisions which I was unable to support. The bill would allow states to impose work requirements on adults with children, including mothers of young children in certain cases. While this would be a state option, the bill would strongly encourage states to place work requirements on adults with dependents by denying states which do not impose these requirements a 50 percent federal match for dollars spent on employment and training activities. This provision strikes me as an unnecessary and troublesome addition to an otherwise acceptable bill which would bring about savings and promote personal responsibility in our social safety net.

The SNAP program provides a lifeline for millions of Americans and thousands of my constituents in upstate New York. It serves a vital role and I support it. But there is much room for improvement in the program to make it operate more efficiently and find savings for taxpayers who should not foot the bill for those who are not truly in need of assistance or would game the system. Public assistance should never become a path to permanent dependency and we need to uphold principles of personal responsibility for those who temporarily need help in our society. I supported reforms to that end when I voted for H.R. 1947 earlier this year, and I support work requirements for SNAP recipients who are able to work and do not have children.

Ultimately, however, I voted against this legislation due to the high probability that should it be enacted work requirements would be imposed on struggling parents from all walks of life – including mothers of young children who may need or want to be at home to care for them during the day. Despite several positive reforms in this bill, on balance, a more thoughtful and compassionate approach could have easily been struck that would better uphold personal responsibility while understanding and accommodating the unique situations faced by some of the most vulnerable parents in our communities.

(emphasis mine)

hanna.house.gov/vote-explanations1/why-i-voted-no-on-hr-3102/

 

[stinkcat_14]

Four different examples where the cutting of taxes were followed by economic growth, more jobs, and revenue. And you are still crying “post hoc ergo propter hoc!” LOL.

Yes, because when we don’t cut taxes we also get economic growth, more jobs and more revenue. So it appears that in our economy over the past hundred years, economic growth, more jobs and more tax revenue happen the overwhelming majority of the time.

Btw, Thomas Sowell was the one who pointed out those historical examples in his book Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich. Should he take an introductory economics class too? Oh wait, he’s a senior fellow at Stanford University and a PhD in economics from the U. of Chicago. Nevermind.

youtube.com/watch?v=rc-bELgAowU

Tom is for the most part a good economist, but we have to remember, he is not a tax expert. He could not get his claim that lower tax rates caused increased tax revenues published in the Journal of Political Economy, because the evidence that he presents does not establish cause and effect. And the JPE is published by the University of Chicago, if you could prove that lower tax rates cause higher revenue they would love to publish such a paper because it would fit their bias.

All who don’t understand economics would do well to read up on Thomas Sowell.

Ishii

Reading Tom’s books is a good start, but to really understand economics you also have to read more broadly as well. I would suggest starting with Greg Mankiw’s books.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And posters who have no answer to a question resort to humor to change the subject.

Ishii

I think that both republicans and democrats believe in social engineering they just have a different spin on how to do it. They both like spending, that is amply true. Republicans however like social engineering through tax policy. Take the home mortgage deduction, economically a very bad idea. It does not really get more people into homes because at the low end of the scale the tax deduction is not worth much. But if I buy a $1 million home I can get a huge tax break if I borrow the money to do so. The problem is that we just took a $1 million and put it into consumption which is not productive, without the tax break I might invest it in a way that creates jobs. But republicans love tax breaks, no matter how dumb they are. Democrats love more government regulation rather than tax policy for social engineering.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sleeping?

Completely incorrect. May I direct you yet again to the words of Rep. Richard Hanna (R - NY), who was an adamant no on the measure:

(emphasis mine)

hanna.house.gov/vote-explanations1/why-i-voted-no-on-hr-3102/

Quite possibly Rep Hanna was talking about the bill prior to amendment.

As amended, the bill allows for states to experiment with requirements of parents of dependent children who are NOT the sole parent and NOT the primary caretaker. So, the state might require that Billy Bob work 20 hours or be available for work or be in job training. But the state is not required to do that. It does not allow the state to require that Betty Mae work if she’s the sole parent or the primary caretaker.

gop.gov/bill/113/1/hr3102

 

[stinkcat_14]

The economy in 2008 was largely affected by the mortgage crisis. Last I checked that wasn’t a function of cutting taxes - but by government getting involved in the mortage industry - Dodd/Frank, etc.

Historically, cutting taxes has resulted in jobs, revenue and economic growth.

Ishii

I hate to tell you this but Dodd Frank was not passed until after the mortgage crisis. Also, there were other factors that resulted in the crisis. Probably the most important factor was excessive risk taking by financial institutions. While one can claim the government made the banks give those bad loans, the fact remains that businesses tend not to go wild when the government tells them to do things they don’t want to do. Businesses tend to drag their feet and do as little as possible, which is not what happened in the mortgage market. Making subprime mortgages for a while was profitable and bankers being not terribly bright just kept originating mortgages. It didn’t hurt that they could pass off the risk onto others as well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, so we have different ideas on how to fix the economy, create jobs and help the poor get off assistance. That’s fine - disagreement is a good thing when searching for solutions in a democracy. So point me to the republicans’ offering of comprehensive legislation that would address all three (the economy, jobs and the poor). What do they propose, suggest, support or envision? Just one glimpse of vision, I beg you (and no, Trickle Down economic theories don’t count - I mean real, drafted legislation supported by some kind of forecasts of job creation, economic growth and poverty numbers).

Some have mentioned education, so I’ll address it briefly. Sometimes on the job training is an entirely adequate education. A substantial number of people who knew nothing at all about oil production moved to the Dakotas and got well-paying jobs, learning on the job.

I don’t know that the Repubs could offer “comprehensive legislation” that would address the economy, jobs and the poor. What it could do, and would probably have to be done piecemeal, if at all, are:
-Repeal Obamacare, which is a job killer for sure.
-Force acceptance of the Keystone pipeline.
-Require that the government allow exploration and petroleum production on government lands.
-Allow coal plants that are minimally polluting through state of the art technology, and remove CO2 from the “pollutant” list.
-Improve approval of nuclear power plants.
-Repeal obamacare.
-Repeal Dodd Frank.
-Repeal Obamacare.
-Improve SSI benefits to or beyond the poverty line.
-Allow for actual adversary hearings in SSD cases instead of only allowing the claimant representation.
-Repeal Obamacare.
-Penalize states that do not allow fracking by cutting off federal highway funds (that are derived from fuel sales)
-Repeal obamacare.
-Cut off all support for abortion.
-Provide funding to faith-based organizations providing medical, housing and job aid to pregnant women who have no support, without requiring that they sell abortion in doing it.
-Reinstate the Bush capital gains rates for new rental housing.
-Cut off federal education aid for states that do not allow for vouchers.
-one could probably go on all day, but I don’t have all day.

Of course, in order to do any of that, they would need a Repub senate and president. So there’s really not much the Repubs can do at present to improve the economy, jobs or the condition of the poor.

 

[SamH]

I hate to tell you this but Dodd Frank was not passed until after the mortgage crisis. Also, there were other factors that resulted in the crisis. Probably the most important factor was excessive risk taking by financial institutions. While one can claim the government made the banks give those bad loans, the fact remains that businesses tend not to go wild when the government tells them to do things they don’t want to do. Businesses tend to drag their feet and do as little as possible, which is not what happened in the mortgage market. Making subprime mortgages for a while was profitable and bankers being not terribly bright just kept originating mortgages. It didn’t hurt that they could pass off the risk onto others as well.

He wasn’t talking about the law Dodd Frank I believe he was talking about the personal involvement of Dodd and Frank.

ecominoes.com/2012/05/frank-and-dodd-started-mortgage-crisis.html

While Frank and Dodd’s tinkering with the CRA forced lending institutions to make a quota of bad loans that certainly contributed to the mortgage crisis, the primary cause of crisis was Frank and Dodd’s push to reduce mortgage buying standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who provide liquidity to mortgagees by buying the loans they (the mortgagees) make to the public. Before Frank and Dodd were able to pass legislation weakening Fannie and Freddie’s buying standards, all mortgages purchased off the primary market by these two Government Sponsored Enterprises adhered to Federal Housing Administration standards, i.e. they were “prime” loans. But Frank, Dodd, and their cohorts “rolled the dice” in regards to subprime lending, and, in effect, drowned Fannie and Freddie with junk mortgage paper. This began a series of cataclysmic events that eventually crashed the financial system and led to this unfortunate period of chronic unemployment and reduced standard of living.

 

[seekerz]

Some have mentioned education, so I’ll address it briefly. Sometimes on the job training is an entirely adequate education. A substantial number of people who knew nothing at all about oil production moved to the Dakotas and got well-paying jobs, learning on the job.

I don’t know that the Repubs could offer “comprehensive legislation” that would address the economy, jobs and the poor. What it could do, and would probably have to be done piecemeal, if at all, are:
-Repeal Obamacare, which is a job killer for sure.
-Force acceptance of the Keystone pipeline.
-Require that the government allow exploration and petroleum production on government lands.
-Allow coal plants that are minimally polluting through state of the art technology, and remove CO2 from the “pollutant” list.
-Improve approval of nuclear power plants.
-Repeal obamacare.
-Repeal Dodd Frank.
-Repeal Obamacare.
-Improve SSI benefits to or beyond the poverty line.
-Allow for actual adversary hearings in SSD cases instead of only allowing the claimant representation.
-Repeal Obamacare.
-Penalize states that do not allow fracking by cutting off federal highway funds (that are derived from fuel sales)
-Repeal obamacare.
-Cut off all support for abortion.
-Provide funding to faith-based organizations providing medical, housing and job aid to pregnant women who have no support, without requiring that they sell abortion in doing it.
-Reinstate the Bush capital gains rates for new rental housing.
-Cut off federal education aid for states that do not allow for vouchers.
-one could probably go on all day, but I don’t have all day.

Of course, in order to do any of that, they would need a Repub senate and president. So there’s really not much the Repubs can do at present to improve the economy, jobs or the condition of the poor.

Sooo, you have this long list of ideas, but at the same time say that Repubs can’t do much to attack the problem because they need the senate and the WH. What prevents them from proposing comprehensive solutions anyway? It’s not like that would be their first time proposing doomed legislation just to justify their re-election…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sooo, you have this long list of ideas, but at the same time say that Repubs can’t do much to attack the problem because they need the senate and the WH. What prevents them from proposing comprehensive solutions anyway? It’s not like that would be their first time proposing doomed legislation just to justify their re-election…

Let’s see. They have proposed eliminating Obamacare how many times? 40 isn’t it now? Always dies in the Senate and Obama has threatened to veto it besides. They have tried to include Keystone Pipeline approval in debt ceiling negotiations, but were defeated in the Senate by Democrats. They tried to include it in a transportation bill, but the Senate rejected it. articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/08/nation/la-na-congress-keystone-20120309

And liberals accuse them of wasting time trying to do the impossible with these things.
How many times do you require that they propose those things to be defeated in the Senate?

 

[MJE]

Let’s see. They have proposed eliminating Obamacare how many times? 40 isn’t it now? Always dies in the Senate and Obama has threatened to veto it besides. They have tried to include Keystone Pipeline approval in debt ceiling negotiations, but were defeated in the Senate by Democrats. They tried to include it in a transportation bill, but the Senate rejected it. articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/08/nation/la-na-congress-keystone-20120309

And liberals accuse them of wasting time trying to do the impossible with these things.
How many times do you require that they propose those things to be defeated in the Senate?

And don’t forget attempts to allow the poor inner city parents to transfer their children from failing neighborhood schools to successful private or public schools using vouchers. Most recently the legislation in Louisiana by Gov. Jindal (where almost 1/2 of schools get D or F grade) to allow parents access to quality schools is being challenged by Obama administration. They do not want materially poor people to have access to the type of schools they send their children to. Why can’t the poor have access to quality education?

There have been attempts by Republicans for years to allow the poor to have housing vouchers so they do not have to live in the miserable drug-infested/rodent infested federal housing projects.
Or how about the time GW Bush proposed the option that a small % of SS withholdings get invested and research showed over 25-30 yrs the return was much more $ then a typical SS payment would be. The working lower income would win win win!

 

[JimG]

I hate to tell you this but Dodd Frank was not passed until after the mortgage crisis. Also, there were other factors that resulted in the crisis. Probably the most important factor was excessive risk taking by financial institutions. While one can claim the government made the banks give those bad loans, the fact remains that businesses tend not to go wild when the government tells them to do things they don’t want to do. Businesses tend to drag their feet and do as little as possible, which is not what happened in the mortgage market. Making subprime mortgages for a while was profitable and bankers being not terribly bright just kept originating mortgages. It didn’t hurt that they could pass off the risk onto others as well.

Well really, I think that the ability of lenders to pass off the risk is one of the main factors. No lender wants to lose money. If every lender had to either keep the loans it originated in its own loan portfolio, or assume the obligation to repurchase the loan at par if it went bad, they would be very careful with underwriting.

The want the risk either assumed by a governmental agency, like FHA or VA or FHLMC, or they want a substantial down payment on any loan that’s not backed by the government. And if they pool loans for sale, they don’t want any of the loan pool risk–that’s assumed by GNMA or FNMA or another agency. It seems that the only persons at risk when a loan is originated are the homebuyers or the taxpayers.

But homeownership for everyone is pretty much government policy, and so government is willing to assume the risk.