Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood

[Boss]

Reason being, the first rule of commerce... business doesn't pay tax.

When has this ever been the case in the USA?

It's always the case in any free market capitalist business.

Oh wait... I forgot I was talking to a complete retard.... sorry this went over your stupid little head.... Yes, the company writes a check to the IRS and pays it's tax bill.... it does not pay the tax. Ultimately, the consumer or employee pays it.

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.

 

[Boss]

Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy. They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier.

Here you can see what is happening to the so-called "middle class."

 

[Moonglow]

Reason being, the first rule of commerce... business doesn't pay tax.

When has this ever been the case in the USA?

It's always the case in any free market capitalist business.

Oh wait... I forgot I was talking to a complete retard.... sorry this went over your stupid little head.... Yes, the company writes a check to the IRS and pays it's tax bill.... it does not pay the tax. Ultimately, the consumer or employee pays it.

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.

Yet the company is presented the bill and pays it under their name, not the consumers...After WWII the US had a 90% tax rate, yet business flourished...and this rate went in to the 1960's yet US business flourished...

 

[Boss]

You say that people should be paid what the market will bear. That's not working out too well for the workers.

Well then the "workers" need to be something else. You see, this argument ONLY works in a closed Socialist system where "workers" are a class and you have no freedom to be anything else. In America, you can choose to not be a worker, you can own the business and be the CEO.

 

[Boss]

Reason being, the first rule of commerce... business doesn't pay tax.

When has this ever been the case in the USA?

It's always the case in any free market capitalist business.

Oh wait... I forgot I was talking to a complete retard.... sorry this went over your stupid little head.... Yes, the company writes a check to the IRS and pays it's tax bill.... it does not pay the tax. Ultimately, the consumer or employee pays it.

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.

Yet the company is presented the bill and pays it under their name, not the consumers...After WWII the US had a 90% tax rate, yet business flourished...and this rate went in to the 1960's yet US business flourished...

Again, they do write the check to the IRS... they don't pay the taxes.

And the personal top marginal income tax rate was 90%... not corporate taxes.

 

[Boss]

Those unionized manufacturing jobs that all went to Mexico and Asia, were middle class jobs. The people who used to have them, aren't middle class any more. They're barely over the poverty line.

And you should ask yourself why those jobs left. The unions simply priced labor out of the market and the capitalist found another alternative. This should prove that stomping your foot and demanding business pay labor what they want regardless of the value to the business, is NOT a winning proposition.

 

[BlueGin]

Hmm how about the government gets out of the food business! And let the churches give out food stamps, they are tax free institutions anyway who claim to help the poor. or maybe not, the churches need the money to push politics and build additions and of course pay the preacher 6 figure salary. Lol. And besides all the church would say is pray for it, and pass the donation jar for more bonuses. perhaps if the churches actually applied what they preach they could help people out?

It would be a good way for the gov to save money, and if churches refuse to do what they say we should do then yank the tax free status.

I just dropped off 8 cans of tuna and 4 cartons of Almond milk to our churches soup kitchen this week. I think everyone should donate what they can.

Most food banks can even accept monetary donations online now which make it easy.

 

[KissMy]

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.

^^^ Total Lie ^^^ The CEO's pocket & the corporate bank account will be impacted by increased corporate tax liabilities

 

[Dragonlady]

Those unionized manufacturing jobs that all went to Mexico and Asia, were middle class jobs. The people who used to have them, aren't middle class any more. They're barely over the poverty line.

And you should ask yourself why those jobs left. The unions simply priced labor out of the market and the capitalist found another alternative. This should prove that stomping your foot and demanding business pay labor what they want regardless of the value to the business, is NOT a winning proposition.

The unions didn't price themselves out of the market. Bush's Republicans gave tax breaks to corporations moving manufacturing offshore making such moves very profitable for corporations.

Corporations have taken advantage of these tax breaks to increase their profits and the resultant glut of available workers in order to drive down wages for their remaining jobs.

Reagan's gutting of anti-trust legislation in the 80's has lead to corporations becoming larger and larger. It's impractical for smaller manufacturers to offshore their manufacturing but easy for larger companies to do so.

It wasn't union greed that lead to off-shore manufacturing, but corporate greed coupled with Republican policies.

 

[Boss]

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.

^^^ Total Lie ^^^ The CEO's pocket & the corporate bank account will be impacted by increased corporate tax liabilities

Can't... not possible.

The corporate bank account is ultimately there as a result of the consumer. Every single penny of money in that account now, in the past, in the future, will be the result of consumer's dollars. Therefore, any liability or expense will be paid for with dollars from a consumer.

You can do some imaginary pretending that we somehow stick it to the big wigs when we increase their corporate taxes but the consumer is who pays them. But not JUST the consumer... let's be clear. Sometimes the consumer can't be demanded to pay the increase because of competitive capitalism and markets... and that means the extra expense has to come from other means, like jobs. Someone loses a job and some other people may get a few more hours or have to become more productive.

 

[Boss]

The unions didn't price themselves out of the market.

That's exactly what happened to the manufacturing sector. THAT along with NAFTA and GATT screwed the pooch. I believe that was Clinton and Bush Sr.

In any event... why pay someone in Cleveland to build washing machines for $28 hr. when you can have them built in Mexico for $3 an hour? Make any sense to you? Oh... and you don't have to give the Mexican 12 weeks of paid leave, pensions, bonuses, perks out the ass... all of that is included with the $3.

 

[Dragonlady]

If American unions are the reason corporations moved their manufacturing overseas, why didn't it happen in other countries? Why didn't German countries move manufacturing to China?

Canada lost some manufacturing. American owned companies aren't manufacturing in Canada anymore but Canadian companies stayed here.

U.S. manufacturing was hollowed out because Bush gave tax breaks. Sure the Republicans party deflected the blame into unions. They don't want to be seen as the reason you lost your job. Besides, everybody hates unions so they're more than ready to believe it.

European countries retained their manufacturing and they're unionized, paying higher wages and higher taxes than the U.S.

 

[skookerasbil]

If these zombies want steak, Im all for it............but the progressives can foot the bill thanks!!!


Fuck these people who want lobster on the people's dime.They get caught doing that, no more government assistance!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Here ya go...........they want steaks, they can get a few of these >>>

1 Steaks at Dollar Tree - Mojosavings.com

 

[Boss]

If American unions are the reason corporations moved their manufacturing overseas, why didn't it happen in other countries? Why didn't German countries move manufacturing to China?

Canada lost some manufacturing. American owned companies aren't manufacturing in Canada anymore but Canadian companies stayed here.

U.S. manufacturing was hollowed out because Bush gave tax breaks. Sure the Republicans party deflected the blame into unions. They don't want to be seen as the reason you lost your job. Besides, everybody hates unions so they're more than ready to believe it.

European countries retained their manufacturing and they're unionized, paying higher wages and higher taxes than the U.S.

Why is it you SOCIALISTS want to always "look at other countries?"

We're NOT them! They are NOT us! Understand? We're two different people, two different cultures, different types of government, different democracy, different economies, different policies, different trade agreements, different constitutional rights, different legal rights under the law... on and on and on!

Bush's goddamn tax breaks didn't cause 80% of our manufacturing sector to go elsewhere since 1970. Most of them were gone before a Bush ever sat his ass in the Oval Office.

 

[Dragonlady]

Right wingers are very quick to look at other countries when making a point about the failure of some proposal you don't like.

The cold reality is that the Republican Party sold out American workers and the American middle class to corporate interests.

Then they lied to you and told you the unions made it happen. The poor are living off your hard work. And you believe them.

 

[Boss]

Right wingers are very quick to look at other countries when making a point about the failure of some proposal you don't like.

The cold reality is that the Republican Party sold out American workers and the American middle class to corporate interests.

Then they lied to you and told you the unions made it happen. The poor are living off your hard work. And you believe them.

Rhetoric. Politicians like Hillary and Bill have sold out to corporations... I'll add the Bushes as well. Crony corpratism (which is not capitalism) is a big problem. That's not why the jobs left the US.

Again, it was the combo-effect of ever-increasing demands from organized labor AND the implementation of NAFTA and GATT. When NAFTA was being bandied about, myself and many other business-minded conservatives said it was a BAD BAD idea because we couldn't compete with the cost of labor in these countries.

And I don't think poor people are living off my work... I think my work is being taxed to excess and the money is being wasted on nonsense. And I am tired of it.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Well certainly you don't want to pass any blame on to the unions for outrageous pension and medical plans.

No need to blame the worker for their insatiable greed for benefits and wages.

Don't even consider how the arrogant American liberal worker spurred on by the unions worked themselves right out of a world market ................

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

By the way you didn't want to mention that fucking liberal mayor in NYC that wants to ban the buying of sugary drinks with SNAP ............

Missouri Food Stamps Good For Steak And Lobster For The Foreseeable Future
Posted: 04/08/2015 4:06 pm EDT Updated: 04/08/2015 4:59 pm EDT

Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin (R) introduced HB 813 in February with zero co-sponsors. The bill has not been referred to a committee, no hearing has been scheduled and there are no plans to take it up before the Missouri House of Representatives adjourns for the year in May.

And yet HB 813 is one of the most notorious pieces of legislation in America right now.

The Washington Post reported on the bill last week, prompting follow-ups from Missouri TV stations, CNN and a plethora of blogs this week. (The Huffington Post noted the bill in March after seeing it on a local blog.) Post columnist Dana Milbank blasted Brattin in a Tuesday column.

"This is less about public policy than about demeaning public-benefit recipients," Milbank wrote.

Brattin's one-page bill would prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients from using their benefits to buy "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak."

"I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards," Brattin told The Washington Post, referring to the electronic benefit transfer cards used to distribute SNAP benefits, which can pay for any food item as long as it isn't a hot prepared meal or an alcoholic beverage. Brattin did not respond to interview requests from HuffPost.

There's at least one big obstacle to Brattin's bill, aside from its apparent lack of support in the Missouri legislature. Try as they might, states aren't allowed by federal law to make up new restrictions on who can get SNAP benefits or what they can buy. If Missouri tried to implement Brattin's legislation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would probably threaten to take away the administrative funding the state uses to run the program. That's what happened last year in Georgia, where lawmakers almost incorporated a drug test into the state's SNAP requirements before Gov. Nathan Deal (R) backed down.

Jeanette Mott Oxford, director of Empower Missouri, an anti-poverty advocacy group, said she was surprised by the amount of attention Brattin's bill has received.

"Maybe it's because there's been so much attention to that surfer dude and other things like that on the Web," Oxford said, referring to Jason Greenslate, a lobster-loving food stamp recipient from San Diego whom Fox News profiled in 2013. The liberal news watchdog Media Matters also traces the current kerfuffle to the Food Stamp Surfer.

Brattin's measure has also been compared to recent Kansas legislation that would ban welfare recipients from spending cash assistance at tattoo parlors and on cruise ships. The Kansas bill has passed through the state legislature and is awaiting a signature from Gov. Sam Brownback (R).

Oxford said Brattin's bill may not have gotten much traction in the legislature because lawmakers have been busy with other welfare legislation. The Missouri House and Senate have both approved a bill that will reinstate a three-month time limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed able-bodied adults without dependents. That bill will also put in place shorter time limits for benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Lamenting what poor people buy with food stamps, whether it's fancy food or junk, is a political tradition that dates back at least to former President Ronald Reagan, who said he'd heard sad stories of "strapping young bucks" using stamps for T-bone steaks.
Missouri Food Stamps Good For Steak And Lobster For The Foreseeable Future

 

[Andylusion]

Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy. They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier.

View attachment 45879
Here you can see what is happening to the so-called "middle class."

Tell me if I'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.......

Is that chart showing the a larger group of Americans are moving UP from the middle class to the upper class? Because the lower class percentage remained the same.

That's the first time I've seen the data laid out like that. Why isn't this on every major news network? Oh wait... never mind.