Charlie Rangel says Food Stamps and Social Security is in the Bible

[kaz]

You can't run a economy on food stamps and ssi. Fact.

Food stamps are a perfect stimulus.

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Food stamps are a perfect stimulus.

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

 

[Barb]

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

Thank you
This is just the short list:
Food stamps stimulate the economy by providing the grocers a steady and reliable income. They can pretty much bank on what they can expect to sell, and more accurately order stock according to those projections. They might hire more stock people, cashiers...the farmers sell more at market with more people able to buy, and this all keeps the trucker's loads full. All these people supported by the increased economic opportunity afforded through the availability of food stamps to poor families also spend at other local businesses, pay taxes, pay their bills, and fuel the economy.

 

[Asclepias]

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

They'd rather the money goes to those that don't need it as badly. That way they hope it trickles down.

 

[Barb]

"...but don't like to hear about how Jesus fed the hungry and healed the sick and ministered to the poor and told us to love one another"

Neither do dems. They prefer segregating people into classes and exploiting them along with govt doling out the freebies.

Jesus actually fed everyone, not just the poor, which is why it is absurd to try and argue that Jesus feeding the poor means we have to.

On the other hand, I do know of quite a few churches that feed everyone that shows up for food, without asking them how much they earn first. If Rangel wants to hand everyone in America a basic food allowance, and then tried to argue that it is what Jesus wanted, I would agree he has a point. Unfortunately, he wants to judge them first.

Yes, he did and yes, rangel wants to judge you first. This is why I don't believe in govt handouts. It should come through individuals and private charities. Govt produces waste and generational dependence.

Rangel doesn't want to judge you, YOU personally decide if you're a sheep or a goat. And government works just fine until it is unfunded and understaffed by those wanting to drown it in a bathtub! Government programs generate federal standards, and it is those standards that the right hates so much, and has worked tirelessly to rid their masters (corporation, finance, etc) of.

When President Reagan made social services the responsibility and prerogative of the sates, this eliminated the "equalizing effect" of national standards. This tactic pressured the states to compete with each other for industry by reducing the benefits and bargaining power of labor in order to maintain the low wages and taxes necessary to attract business to their state. States under financial pressures found it difficult to replace federal funding, and they were disinclined to compensate for federal funds lost through block grants implementation. This disinclination was most common concerning social services block grants.

A desperate population makes for a compliant workforce.

Neoconservatives treat with contempt the idea that the government, by helping people meet the basic standards of survival, would help industry and commerce as well by preventing the floor they stand on from collapsing.

 

[kaz]

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

Yes comrade, all money is the people's money. Taking less money from a citizen is actually "putting" more money into their hands.

The most basic answer to the question is incentive. You're taking money from PRODUCERS of economic productivity and putting it into CONSUMERS of economic activity. It's like asking the difference between the guy who's throwing buckets of water into the pool and the guy who's throwing buckets of water out of the pool.

The one spending it on food stamps is taking from our economy and putting nothing in. When someone works for their money, that work created economic wealth. Which they turned around and spent a portion of.

 

[kaz]

This is just the short list:
Food stamps stimulate the economy by providing the grocers a steady and reliable income....

Because of course food stamps come out of thin air, they are just a contribution to our society. It's not like the money was taking from anyone else who earned it and that has to be accounted for or anything.

 

[kaz]

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

They'd rather the money goes to those that don't need it as badly. That way they hope it trickles down.

Excellent point, I hear you, comrade. It's the job of government to decide who gets to keep the money someone earned, and if someone else "needs" it more then they are the ones who should have it. Being a robot, I will of course keep working and investing so Obama can take it and give it to someone else, it's just what I do.

It's not trickle down wealth you're fighting against, it's trickle up poverty you are fighting for.

 

[Truthseeker420]

You didn't know Jesus was on welfare ?

 

[Asclepias]

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

They'd rather the money goes to those that don't need it as badly. That way they hope it trickles down.

Excellent point, I hear you, comrade. It's the job of government to decide who gets to keep the money someone earned, and if someone else "needs" it more then they are the ones who should have it. Being a robot, I will of course keep working and investing so Obama can take it and give it to someone else, it's just what I do.

It's not trickle down wealth you're fighting against, it's trickle up poverty you are fighting for.

Not really. I believe there needs to be limits on how long you get financial assistance and that time should be enforced. I believe in a hand up not a handout. People have to eat in the meantime. You can also volunteer your time if you want to reduce your tax burden. Gets more people off the doles if you make a personal effort to donate your time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

Yes comrade, all money is the people's money. Taking less money from a citizen is actually "putting" more money into their hands.

The most basic answer to the question is incentive. You're taking money from PRODUCERS of economic productivity and putting it into CONSUMERS of economic activity. It's like asking the difference between the guy who's throwing buckets of water into the pool and the guy who's throwing buckets of water out of the pool.

The one spending it on food stamps is taking from our economy and putting nothing in. When someone works for their money, that work created economic wealth. Which they turned around and spent a portion of.

Your premise that no one who gets food stamps has a job is false.

 

[Barb]

This is just the short list:
Food stamps stimulate the economy by providing the grocers a steady and reliable income....

Because of course food stamps come out of thin air, they are just a contribution to our society. It's not like the money was taking from anyone else who earned it and that has to be accounted for or anything.

"SNAP is less than 2.2% of the federal budget."

 

[Barb]

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

Yes comrade, all money is the people's money. Taking less money from a citizen is actually "putting" more money into their hands.

The most basic answer to the question is incentive. You're taking money from PRODUCERS of economic productivity and putting it into CONSUMERS of economic activity. It's like asking the difference between the guy who's throwing buckets of water into the pool and the guy who's throwing buckets of water out of the pool.

The one spending it on food stamps is taking from our economy and putting nothing in. When someone works for their money, that work created economic wealth. Which they turned around and spent a portion of.

Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

2. $696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels

The subsidies mentioned above are federal subsidies. A New York Times investigation found that states, counties and cities give up over $80 billion each year to companies, with beneficiaries coming from "virtually every corner of the corporate world, encompassing oil and coal conglomerates, technology and entertainment companies, banks and big-box retail chains."

$80 billion a year is $696 for every U.S. family. But the Times notes that "The cost of the awards is certainly far higher."

Much More Than an Insult

Overall, American families are paying an annual $6,000 subsidy to corporations that have doubled their profits and cut their taxes in half in ten years while cutting 2.9 million jobs in the U.S. and adding almost as many jobs overseas.

This is more than an insult. It's a devastating attack on the livelihoods of tens of millions of American families. And Congress just lets it happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Forgiveness of sin is the cornerstone of Christianity.

Upon REpENTANCE of the sinner, which is not the case here.

Since when our atheistic rabidly anti-Christian leftards became so interested in the Bible and Church?
Is it a new manual from the master's? And suddenly the komsomol choir is all singing , albeit in a false tune, about the traditions of Christianity

Hypocrisy at it's best

FYI

no, the Bible does not say ''upon repentance''

...when the adulteress was about to be killed via stoning for her sin, Christ said to her FIRST.....''your sins are forgiven''....then secondly He said, ''Now go, and sin no more''....

her sins were forgiven before she even had the chance to repent and change her life....

And, when reading the "Lord's Prayer".... Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins (trespasses) as we forgive those who have sinned against us...

no where in the prayer that Christ gave us does it say forgive the sins of others UPON REPENTANCE.....

Christ died for our sins before we even committed them....let alone have the time to repent for them....

And don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying that repentance is not important.... it is important...I just believe that it comes about because we know we have sinned against God, the very God that sent His son to be sacrificed for those sins, so that us sinners may live...how could anyone not want to change/repent knowing how loving and wonderful God is to them?

So basically, by Christ forgiving the adulteress's sin right there on the spot, before she could even repent, How could the adulteress not WANT to repent and change for such a loving act?

Care

No he didn't.

John 8:10-11 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well no.

I've basically stuck to a self imposed rule, not to personally insult anyone, first.

So far? So good.

Using that rule, you would be able to insult anyone once you were insulted, even if the person you are insulting wasn't the person that insulted you.

Erm..that makes no sense.

And that's obviously not the way I post.

I sometimes post a response to personal insults to the poster.

I generally do not insult someone who insults someone else.

I know it doesn't make sense, that was my point. If you really believed the crap you preach you wouldn't insult anyone, even if they insulted you first.

It looks like how you post to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When did Ed start going to church?

Charlie Rangel: Jesus Said You're Going to Hell if You Don't Support Food Stamps, Social Security - YouTube

food stamps cost the tax payer .008% of the national budget ... way to pick them republicans ... boy that will bring down spending problem ... oh, by the way, the pentagon has 30% wasteful spending in their budget ... I would think if you're a so called stop usless spending is the problem, I would think you would go after the bigger debts instead a debt that is well you tell me ... tell us all here how .008% spending going to bring down the national debt ... this ought to be interesting

I see the point sailed over your head. Considering that it was a ground ball, that says a hell of a lot about you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

they are

The field of economics says you're wrong, but you have a political pick with a made up statistic. Wow, I'm convinced now...

If putting more money into the hands of consumers via tax cuts is stimulative,

how can putting more money into the hands of consumers via food stamps not be stimulative?

Well, for one thing, tax cuts do not put money into anyone's hands, it lets them keep the money they already have. Food stamps, on the other hand, involve taking money from people, spending gobs of it on paperwork, and then giving a few a few cents on the dollar of the collected taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is just the short list:
Food stamps stimulate the economy by providing the grocers a steady and reliable income....

Because of course food stamps come out of thin air, they are just a contribution to our society. It's not like the money was taking from anyone else who earned it and that has to be accounted for or anything.

"SNAP is less than 2.2% of the federal budget."

We have to cut spending everywhere.

By the way, Republicans are actually increasing spending on food stamps by 57%, and you are screaming about cuts. Care to explain why I should care? I am sure you can find a picture of a monkey ranting about all the extra bananas.

 

[Mertex]

Jesus helps those that help themselves

Jesus loves a cheerful "giver." Unless of course, you are conservative.

Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

 

[Seawytch]

Rich man, camel, eye of a needle...any of this ringing a bell?