quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Starving the poor to pay of the debt is despicable, Cutting SSDI and medicaid to pay off the debt is despicable, the fact that the money saved by slashing food stamps, SSDI< CHIP, Meals on wheels and other community programs is only going to the 1% is barbaric, dangerous and ugly.
I get you dont understand, but then you have never been there.

Honestly i don't see how they can cut SSDI because it is an insurance policy people paid for. The only people who can collect SSDI are people who worked many years and paid into the insurance plan and paid taxes all of those years. The people who collect SSDI are not on medicaid, they are on medicare.

I fear you are wrong on this, m'dear. It is not an insurance policy at all. It is an accounting entry in the debit side of our national ledger. The successive governments have "borrowed" the money and left behind a barrel of piss stained IOUs. SSDI is part of our national debt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Here is an idea.... Lets make a law that all churches that claim a tax exemption be required to donate 10 percent of their collections to a food fund distributed by states monitored by the Federal government.

Butch

First Amendment violation, Butch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Starving the poor to pay of the debt is despicable, Cutting SSDI and medicaid to pay off the debt is despicable, the fact that the money saved by slashing food stamps, SSDI< CHIP, Meals on wheels and other community programs is only going to the 1% is barbaric, dangerous and ugly.
I get you dont understand, but then you have never been there.

Honestly i don't see how they can cut SSDI because it is an insurance policy people paid for. The only people who can collect SSDI are people who worked many years and paid into the insurance plan and paid taxes all of those years. The people who collect SSDI are not on medicaid, they are on medicare.

I fear you are wrong on this, m'dear. It is not an insurance policy at all. It is an accounting entry in the debit side of our national ledger. The successive governments have "borrowed" the money and left behind a barrel of piss stained IOUs. SSDI is part of our national debt.

That's their problem and the taxpayers problem. Not those who are legally collecting on the insurance policy they paid into.

Oy! The insurance policy is fiction. There simply is no insurance policy.

Lol... it is a social contract that was made. I have every confidence if it went to the Supreme Court they would rule in that manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


And I didn't read through more than three pages before I took a notion to respond.

Maybe four, I don't remember.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

One of the largest transfers of wealth in history, not the largest. But enough to skin the American citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

People just don't even understand that.

Best single book on the subject of the massive fraud, if only reading one book on it;

Chain of Blame

Available at many local libraries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

I didn't watch that movie. Movie producers seem to insist on over-dramatizing everything.

I read Lewis' book 'The Big Short,' to begin with, but I delved a lot further into the matter even before he got to writing his book.

I read the reports, blogs, testimony, etc. from some of the guys in his book, before or at the same time as he did. He is a much better writer and has more direct access that I have, which is why he makes the big bucks.

But I will reiterate that the book Chain of Blame, by Paul Maulo and Mathew Padilla, explains the whole mess much better in one source than any other.

Entertaining as it was, Michael Lewis' book (or movie) explained it only from the hedge fund side of it.

The book I referenced is far more informative and far more comprehensive in regard to how it all matched together, from loan broker fraud, to teams hired to pass on falsification, to investment bank and rating agency shenanigans.

I'm not here for the entertainment value, nor do I contribute to such posts as this to have informative presentation as competition in entertainment value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The SCOTUS has already ruled that the govt. does not owe the taxpayers any of that soc. sec. or SSDI money at all.

1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

“To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

HERE

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) refused to say whether “every American is entitled to eat” and the food stamps program is the best way to ensure that they have the food they need.

NPR’s Scott Simon interviewed Smith on Saturday about the farm bill and President Donald Trump’sproposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. In the president’s budget, the White House is seeking $193 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years, an amount equal to more than one-quarter of the program’s cost over that period.

There is room for “very minor shifts” in SNAP that “make sure we do not harm the most vulnerable among us,” according to Smith.

“Especially for people in need we do not want to leave our most vulnerable without nutrition,” he said. “Looking at that, we always want to keep that in mind.”

But Simon pressed Smith on his views about the program’s underlying philosophy.

“Let me ask you this bluntly: Is every American entitled to eat?” he asked.

“Well, nutrition obviously we know is very important and I would hope that we can look to ―” Smith began.

“Well, not just important, it’s essential for life,” Simon interjected.

Smith conceded that nutrition is essential to life.

“So is every American entitled to eat and is food stamps something that ought to be that ultimate guarantor?” Simon persisted.

“I think we know that given the necessity of nutrition, there could be a number of ways that we could address that,” Smith answered.

As Smith later observed, a president’s budget is merely a set of suggestions that reflect the president’s fiscal priorities. It is up to Congress to allot the funds for federal programs. The president can then sign or veto budget legislation they craft.

Smith refused to rule out reductions in SNAP spending as part of that process, however.

“I want to look at our entire budget, look at all of the details,” he said.

Roughly 43 million low-income Americans receive SNAP benefits, which are vouchers to buy food. Enrollment has dropped significantly since 2014 due to improvement in the economy.

Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, by claiming there are people receiving benefits who do not need them given how long ago the recession was.

The administration has not been clear about its intentions for the means-tested aid program though. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, whose department oversees SNAP, has defended SNAP’s performance and claimed that it will be up to Congress to decide how much it wants to reduce the program’s spending.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congressman-declines-whether-every-173031436.html


im wondering why people are so silent about this....

Probably for similar reasons that people were so vocal during Johnson's reign among others where free (everything) was handed out and it changed nothing and in many ways, made things worse.

It was Pres. Clinton who first said "ya'll gotta do something...if you can....no more free anything".

He cut assistance programs across the board by limiting the time span allowed wherein which people could remain on programs designed for a hand up, that had evolved in to programs that were a hand out.

Productivity (for a lot of other reasons) rose faster than at any recorded time in U.S. history and we quickly approached a rare opportunity to pay off the debt (in full) only to watch the next Pres restore many of those assistance programs and raised our debt (for a lot of other reasons) because we "had the money to do so".

But we don't anymore.

And if we simply wrote off the entire debt...all 20 trillion....we still....don't anymore.

You are mostly correct, with a few exceptions in my memory. Plus there is that peaky aspect called perspective.

According to my memory, there was little in the way of free everything under Johnson. He created what was to be commonly known as AFDC. He also created Medicare. Nixon reformed welfare (calling it AFDC) to mainly deny assistance to families with any able-bodied man living at home, which broke up the family.

Clinton didn't cut programs as much as he put on a time limit of 2 years. Yes, productivity increases exploded but by luck. What the 90's enjoyed was the explosion of both the PC and the Internet. 20+ million jobs and their taxes created an operating surplus and he also in fact reduced fed. mgovt. payroll by 200,000.

The following admin. cut taxes massively twice and started two wars going through $11 trillion. A $5 trillion projected surplus if they had done nothing plus $6 trillion in wars and Part D Medicare which was a deliberate windfall (at retail) to big pharma.

I am not aware of any assistance programs GWB increased. That may have occurred due to SNAP and assistance going up at the bust of the Dot.com boom.

The proper perspective is that no corporate food stamps (welfare) were cut and the MIC flourished, the combination of which put trillion$ in the pockets of the corp. and investor class and at a time just after their taxes were cut.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Probably for similar reasons that people were so vocal during Johnson's reign among others where free (everything) was handed out and it changed nothing and in many ways, made things worse.

Everything was not handed out. The war on poverty failed because the money was diverted to the War in Vietnam after 1964.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

anyhow :)

Eat! Absolutely not.
Own guns! Absolutely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
It is a moral issue, a human rights issue, not a financial issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) refused to say whether “every American is entitled to eat” and the food stamps program is the best way to ensure that they have the food they need.

NPR’s Scott Simon interviewed Smith on Saturday about the farm bill and President Donald Trump’sproposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. In the president’s budget, the White House is seeking $193 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years, an amount equal to more than one-quarter of the program’s cost over that period.

There is room for “very minor shifts” in SNAP that “make sure we do not harm the most vulnerable among us,” according to Smith.

“Especially for people in need we do not want to leave our most vulnerable without nutrition,” he said. “Looking at that, we always want to keep that in mind.”

But Simon pressed Smith on his views about the program’s underlying philosophy.

“Let me ask you this bluntly: Is every American entitled to eat?” he asked.

“Well, nutrition obviously we know is very important and I would hope that we can look to ―” Smith began.

“Well, not just important, it’s essential for life,” Simon interjected.

Smith conceded that nutrition is essential to life.

“So is every American entitled to eat and is food stamps something that ought to be that ultimate guarantor?” Simon persisted.

“I think we know that given the necessity of nutrition, there could be a number of ways that we could address that,” Smith answered.

As Smith later observed, a president’s budget is merely a set of suggestions that reflect the president’s fiscal priorities. It is up to Congress to allot the funds for federal programs. The president can then sign or veto budget legislation they craft.

Smith refused to rule out reductions in SNAP spending as part of that process, however.

“I want to look at our entire budget, look at all of the details,” he said.

Roughly 43 million low-income Americans receive SNAP benefits, which are vouchers to buy food. Enrollment has dropped significantly since 2014 due to improvement in the economy.

Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, by claiming there are people receiving benefits who do not need them given how long ago the recession was.

The administration has not been clear about its intentions for the means-tested aid program though. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, whose department oversees SNAP, has defended SNAP’s performance and claimed that it will be up to Congress to decide how much it wants to reduce the program’s spending.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congressman-declines-whether-every-173031436.html


im wondering why people are so silent about this....