(April 4, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 11:16 am)Jaysyn Wrote: And what "you're" wanting to do is going to cause American children to starve. That was the situation before public assistance & that is what will happen if you get your wish.

Also, nice strawman.

You think if we gave poor people money they wouldn't use it to buy food? I am all for public assistance....in the form of money. I am against restricting people's freedom just because they are poor.

I get what you're saying here heywood, but it seems like we are expanding their rights not restricting. No one has the righ to take something without paying. Now if you're really poor you have the right to take food without Paying. Before-nothing, now-food.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:10 am)Heywood Wrote: What your doing is forcing your views on how people who are strapped for cash should live....onto people who are strapped for cash.

Why do you want to impose your will on others?

Worst argument against food stamps, ever.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: You think if we gave poor people money they wouldn't use it to buy food? I am all for public assistance....in the form of money. I am against restricting people's freedom just because they are poor.

Ah, yes, by all means - let's support the people's right to spend public assistance funds on booze, cocaine, and heroin.

(April 4, 2014 at 1:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 11:21 am)Heywood Wrote: You think if we gave poor people money they wouldn't use it to buy food? I am all for public assistance....in the form of money. I am against restricting people's freedom just because they are poor.

Ah, yes, by all means - let's support the people's right to spend public assistance funds on booze, cocaine, and heroin.

So instead you wish to punish all the poor people by limiting their freedom just to prevent a few poor people from spending public funds irresponsibly?

Further the bureaucracy required by these programs is itself an unnecessary waste of public funds.

Further still, alcoholics and drug abusers will find ways to convert those public funds to booze, cocaine, and heroin anyways.....usually at a big losses.

So how bout this instead. Give poor people money because most will spend it more efficiently and because public assistance cost a lot to administer and it doesn't stop people from using public assistance funds irresponsibly if that is what they really want to do.

(April 4, 2014 at 10:10 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 4, 2014 at 10:00 am)Heywood Wrote: Why is Walmart obligated to make sure its employees are fed? If you hire a tile contractor to tile your bathroom....are you obligated to feed him and his family?

OK, I'll go really slow for you since you are having so much trouble keeping up.

Let's say you hire me. You offer to pay me a salary that's not enough for me to feed myself. What do you think I will do? Work full time and still starve?

There is a natural minimum wage set by the markets you adore so much. No one will work 40 hours and still be below base subsistence. Even in the Gilded Age of the 19th century, economists and businesses understood this.

So natural market forces are what obliges a corporation or business to pay a living wage. People won't work for less. Why bother if you're going to starve either way?

With me so far?

Now, along comes corporations like Wal-Mart who pay below subsistence. My goodness! How do they get away with it? Because their employees can get government assistance in addition to their pay which allows them to survive.

Therefore, the government program makes it artificially possible for Wal-Mart to pay so low, below the point they could get away with if food stamps didn't exist.

Still with me?

So, since the government is feeding Wal-Mart's employees because Wal-Mart is paying below the subsistence wage, below what they could if we relied on market forces alone, it means the... government... is... subsidizing... Wal-Mart's... labor... costs.

Got it?

I hope so. I can't go any slower.

More or less, people arguing there should be no living wage and no welfare system don't realize they're supporting the ability of large corporations to abuse the welfare system to increase their bottom line, by not paying their employees a living wage.

In effect, the taxpayer is paying for this irresponsible corporation's increased profit margins.

(April 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: More or less, people arguing there should be no living wage and no welfare system don't realize they're supporting the ability of large corporations to abuse the welfare system to increase their bottom line, by not paying their employees a living wage.

What you wrote makes no sense. It would make sense if people argued against the minimum wage and for welfare(as I do....except I just want to give poor people money instead of food stamps, housing assistance, etc.).

Further, its not that Walmart is abusing the welfare system. Its that the welfare system skews the labor market so much that it allows Walmart to attract employees it might not otherwise attract if there were no welfare system to begin with.

You can't just pretend a welfare system has no impact on labor markets.

(April 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm)KUSA Wrote:

Quote:The budget relies on imposing new work requirements on food stamp and welfare recipients.

At least this part sounds good.

Some folks love to screw the poor and the hungry.

---

(April 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm kind of curious how any politician is planning on balancing the budget.

If the total budget was $100 they would still run a deficit.

(April 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Some folks love to screw the poor and the hungry.

How exactly is it screwing anyone by asking them to do something in return for money?