One Day’s Worth of Millionaire Tax Cuts Would Feed Needy Families for a Year

[ChasC5]

This week the House will debate a GOP proposal to cut $101 million from food assistance for low-income seniors and local food banks. The bill slashes $38 million (a 22 percent cut) from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or CSFP, which provides nutritious food packages to more than 600,000 low-income families every month (96 percent of whom are seniors). The bill also cuts $63 million from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP, which provides our nation’s emergency food bank network with food commodities and storage and distribution support. These cuts come at a time when food prices are rising and food banks are already struggling to serve their existing caseload.

Conservatives claim these cuts on the backs of our nation’s most vulnerable families are necessary to bring our fiscal house in order. But here’s the rub: One day’s worth of Bush tax cuts for millionaires would more than offset these cuts to seniors and food banks. Here’s the math:

Infographic: One Day?s Worth of Millionaire Tax Cuts Would Feed Needy Families for a Year



What’s more, conservatives often claim that private charities will simply pick up the slack. Yet this bill cuts support to the very private charities that conservatives claim will step up to fill the gap. TEFAP funds supply about 25 percent of the food provided by local food banks, soup kitchens, churches, synagogues, mosques, and other emergency feeding institutions.

Cuts to the program would be particularly devastating as food banks face a projected 50 percent decline in USDA bonus commodities and grapple with a trend of falling charitable donations. Similarly, the CSFP is generally distributed through local public and nonprofit community organizations like food pantries and hospitals.

In short, these cuts will inflict enormous suffering on some of our nation’s most vulnerable populations while undermining the ability of private charities to meet rising need. And yet today our Treasury will lose more money in tax cuts for millionaires than it would take to avert these cuts.

[73sbVert]

They will lose more from the reduction in charities that those same people give voluntarily than you will gain from forcing them to give via taxation.

Anytime the gov't is involved, the process is less efficient. Out of that supposed $120 million that is collected, I'd bet only half of that actually gets TO the programs.

Allow those evil millionaires the opportunity to give that same $120 million to charity, a much, much higher percentage of that would get TO the program.

[ChasC5]

I'm sure it's working as planned ...

[sanchez]

So?

[Chris Fowler]

And one day of rich Democrats paying extra taxes that they want to force others to pay would pay for how much?

We can make crap up all day long...spending is the problem, not taxes.

[LATB]

47 million Americans on food stamp assistance.

NO WAY you can tell me that 47 million Americans will starve to death if the program was stopped dead today.

Maybe a few million AT THE MOST would sincerely need help or starve. I, along with other Americans would gladly assist those folks in need.

But NOT 47 million. No effin way.

It is not charity...it is a lifestyle.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by sanchez

So?

As thus explains why I'm a Progressive.

Now you know why I Vote the way I do ... Like it or Not.

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

47 million Americans on food stamp assistance.

NO WAY you can tell me that 47 million Americans will starve to death if the program was stopped dead today.

Maybe a few million AT THE MOST would sincerely need help or starve. I, along with other Americans would gladly assist those folks in need.

But NOT 47 million. No effin way.

It is not charity...it is a lifestyle.

What he said.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

47 million Americans on food stamp assistance.

NO WAY you can tell me that 47 million Americans will starve to death if the program was stopped dead today.

Maybe a few million AT THE MOST would sincerely need help or starve. I, along with other Americans would gladly assist those folks in need.

But NOT 47 million. No effin way.

It is not charity...it is a lifestyle.

You are correct ... I'm sure there are corrupt individuals taking advantage of the System, no different than each and every System. Good Leadership will work to resolve the problem, not take the each way out. Anyone can one just throw the baby out with the bath water, it doesn’t take any special skills to do that. Skilled problems solvers fix broken systems, not just unplug it.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

You are correct ...

I know.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

You are correct ... I'm sure there are corrupt individuals taking advantage of the System, no different than each and every System. Good Leadership will work to resolve the problem, not take the each way out. Anyone can one just throw the baby out with the bath water, it doesn’t take any special skills to do that. Skilled problems solvers fix broken systems, not just unplug it.

You mean like Obama?

under his watch the food stamp program has increased 30%...

a 50% increase since 2007, under democratic leadership.

These skilled problem solvers?

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

You mean like Obama?

under his watch the food stamp program has increased 30%...

a 50% increase since 2007, under democratic leadership.

These skilled problem solvers?

Oh geesh … yea President Obama personally ordered millions of Americans to voluntarily register for Food Stamps. And naturally their reason had everything to do with the Economy after January 2009.

Sure … I believe that.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Oh geesh … yea President Obama personally ordered millions of Americans to voluntarily register for Food Stamps. And naturally their reason had everything to do with the Economy after January 2009.

Sure … I believe that.

the food stamp program has increased 50% since Dec. 2007...under Democratic leadership. 30% under Obama's watch. We, you & I...have already been through this. I have provided links to facts.

you are welcome to remain w/ head in sand.

You think 50% more folks are starving as of Dec. 2007 as opposed to, say...Dec. 2006?

[RetiredSFC 97]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

As thus explains why I'm a Progressive.

Now you know why I Vote the way I do ... Like it or Not.

That's very noble. I commend people who wish to help others. The problem though with this ideology is this. It's never enough, human nature dictates, that those who take from others, continue to take. When that's not enough they take more, then more, then when the giving stops and people run out of giving, they will take it by force.

What's going on in this country is not charity Chas. It's stealing, just like robbing from a bank. It pisses me off because there are those who need help, and I'm willing to help. But now these people are lumped into the same category as those who steal and are looked down on.

It's an injustice to those who fall on hard tmes and need help. Then these people, when they get back up and strap em back on, will give themself. I know this from personal experience. But when the majority doesn't have incentive to strap em on, they take and demand more.

A lesson can be learned here if one wishes to learn.

YouTube - ‪One Tin Soldier - The Legend of Billy Jack‬‏

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Oh geesh … yea President Obama personally ordered millions of Americans to voluntarily register for Food Stamps. And naturally their reason had everything to do with the Economy after January 2009.

Sure … I believe that.

Your attempt at humor has some basis in fact.

Obama, along with the 110th & 111th Congress set forth to specifically 'redistribute' wealth.

Each and every action has consequences, many times unintended.

As a consequence of the Democrats actions as far back as 1993 (Frank/Dodd) the NINP (no income no problem) mandates by them and the Progressives ended up eliminating housing for millions, and considerably affecting the net worth of additional millions of US citizens.

Subsequently, and with the absolute approval of Obama (look it up - he voted Aye) the Affordable Housing Act (2003) went further to destroy any possibility of addressing the stupidity of 1993.

Then the Progressives forestalled any attempts, not once, but MULTIPLE times, by the Republicans to rescind the stupidity of Franks/Dodd/Obama stupidity.

So, collapse of the housing market occurred (average underwater percentage of the population = ~25% today). IOW, these people need to determine whether to spend money on food, or on a place to live.

As housing slowed to a stop, and then went negative Progressives doubled down - they provided bail outs to companies like AIG, both Fannies, most brokerage houses and banks, etc. with US taxpayer money.

Money for the above was taken FROM the economy, and then reinserted into the economy - equaling a net zero.

The economy reacted by a downturn in GDP, resulting in lay- offs of employees, stagnation (into negative territory) of new employment, etc. IOW, 'stopping' the economy in its tracks.

So, as LarsAtTheBeach notes the above resulted in an massive increase in people on food stamps.

If all (100%) taxation of income over $250,000 occurred it would pay for three (3) days Federal spending requirements presently, and in two (2) years less than one (1) day. These are facts.

Now, Progressives want to vilify the individuals making money today, and make them into the same class as those on the Fed.gov dole.

These are the same people paying over 95% of ALL Federal taxes TODAY. As they are eliminated from the tax rolls 'provider' of wealth (as they will be since they, like myself will find recourse in taking $1 less in income to forestall higher taxable rates) then what? Tax those at $200k? And then when those take $199k the Progressives reset and tax those at $150k? Then $100K? Then $50K? Then $25k? Then $10k? Then $1?

Someone once said that when you run out of other peoples money to pay for others, then what? The USA has reached that plateau.

CNBC reports, “It’s official: The housing crisis that began in 2006 and has recently entered a double dip is now worse than the Great Depression:”

Prices have fallen some 33 percent since the market began its collapse, greater than the 31 percent fall that began in the late 1920s and culminated in the early 1930s, according to Case-Shiller data.The news comes as the Federal Reserve considers whether the economy has regained enough strength to stand on its own and as unemployment remains at a still-elevated 9.1 percent, throwing into question whether the recovery is real.

“The sharp fall in house prices in the first quarter provided further confirmation that this housing crash has been larger and faster than the one during the Great Depression,” Paul Dales, senior economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in research for clients.

A couple of years ago in Commentary, John H. Makin reminded readers that the real estate bubble and its aftermath was “A Government Failure, Not a Market Failure:”

The idea that home ownership confers special benefits on American society is deeply embedded in our culture—so much so that our national tax policy confers a special benefit of its own on it. Home ownership is granted an advantage over all other forms of ownership in the form of an enormous deduction on the interest payments most individuals incur in financing their homes. Nothing else in the tax code comes anywhere near that deduction in scope or size. We have decided, as a nation, that home ownership is not only a good thing for an individual or a family, but that it is beneficial for the public at large and the country as a whole. Otherwise, why would it be necessary for the government to give it this kind of preferential treatment? Without it, clearly, we believe that the national rate of home ownership would be lower, and that a lower rate of home ownership would be deleterious to our common weal.

After 2000, the national push toward home ownership intensified in three dimensions, leading to a doubling of housing prices in just five years’ time. First, the Federal Reserve Board’s interest-rate policy drove down the cost of borrowing money to unprecedented lows. Second, a common conviction arose that home ownership should be available even to those who, under prevailing conditions, could not afford it. Finally, private agencies charged with determining the risk and value of securities were exceptionally generous in their assessment of the financial products known as “derivatives” whose collateral resided in the value of thousands of mortgages bundled together. The rating agencies understated the risks from these bundled mortgages by assuming that home prices were simply going to rise forever.

When the housing bubble burst in 2006, the damage to the financial system pushed the global economy into the worst contraction since the Great Depression. In the midst of the pain and suffering that have accompanied financial collapse and economic contraction—over $15 trillion in wealth has been lost by American households alone while, to date, more than 6 million job losses have boosted the unemployment rate to 9.4 percent—much of the blame has been placed on unregulated financial markets whose behavior is said to have revealed a terrible flaw in the foundation of capitalism itself.

This was a market failure, we are told, and the promise of capitalism has always been that the self-correcting mechanisms built into the system would preclude the possibility of a systemic market failure.

But the housing bubble only burst after government subsidies pushed house prices up so fast that marginal buyers could no longer afford to chase prices even higher. A bubble created by rigged financial markets and a government-sponsored obsession with home ownership is not a result of market failure, but rather, a result of bad public policy. The belief that home ownership, per se, is such a benefit that no amount of government support could be too great and no pace at which home prices rise could be too fast is the root of the crisis.

There was no market failure.

And thus the feedback loop continues. The Obama administration continues to push the policies that led to this meltdown, which puts further pressures on banks, which causes further taxpayer-funded bailouts. Shampoo and repeat — but perhaps, not for all that long:

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

That's very noble. I commend people who wish to help others. The problem though with this ideology is this. It's never enough, human nature dictates, that those who take from others, continue to take. When that's not enough they take more, then more, then when the giving stops and people run out of giving, they will take it by force.

What's going on in this country is not charity Chas. It's stealing, just like robbing from a bank. It pisses me off because there are those who need help, and I'm willing to help. But now these people are lumped into the same category as those who steal and are looked down on.

It's an injustice to those who fall on hard tmes and need help. Then these people, when they get back up and strap em back on, will give themself. I know this from personal experience. But when the majority doesn't have incentive to strap em on, they take and demand more.

A lesson can be learned here if one wishes to learn.

YouTube - ‪One Tin Soldier - The Legend of Billy Jack‬‏

That’s what makes me different … I’m not a Bleeding Heart Liberal; I’d rather call myself a Solutions Based Progressive. We’re a country who sent Men to the Moon and Built (after fixing the screw-up) a telescope that’s cruising to the edge of our planet system. So I know we can provide for the needy, not just the greedy if we stop borrowing money from China and Japan to fight Arab Wars. I honestly believe, if this country has the power to call Americans to die or it, it sure as hell can’t take care of the people it’s ordering to their deaths. 9 times out of 10, it isn’t the kids from rich wealthy families that are sent to the trenches, it’s the ones who are in search of a better way of life. So if I’m called a Bleeding Heart Liberal then the least I can do is thank you for the complement, because I do care about all Americans without limits.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

the food stamp program has increased 50% since Dec. 2007...under Democratic leadership. 30% under Obama's watch. We, you & I...have already been through this. I have provided links to facts.

you are welcome to remain w/ head in sand.

You think 50% more folks are starving as of Dec. 2007 as opposed to, say...Dec. 2006?

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by LarsAtTheBeach

You think 50% more folks are starving as of Dec. 2007 as opposed to, say...Dec. 2006?

I don't know, what does the Administration that was in charge have to say?

[AC54ME]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

That’s what makes me different … I’m not a Bleeding Heart Liberal; I’d rather call myself a Solutions Based Progressive. We’re a country who sent Men to the Moon and Built (after fixing the screw-up) a telescope that’s cruising to the edge of our planet system. So I know we can provide for the needy, not just the greedy if we stop borrowing money from China and Japan to fight Arab Wars. I honestly believe, if this country has the power to call Americans to die or it, it sure as hell can’t take care of the people it’s ordering to their deaths. 9 times out of 10, it isn’t the kids from rich wealthy families that are sent to the trenches, it’s the ones who are in search of a better way of life. So if I’m called a Bleeding Heart Liberal then the least I can do is thank you for the complement, because I do care about all Americans without limits.

The first couple of sentence's are total :bs - you are a Progressive through and through. A Progressive is a Communist, in manner, thought and deed.

As to the ability for our citizens to successfully address technology issues - correct, but your attempt to equate social problem to borrowing for wars is idiotic, wrong and a lie.

Take a look at the budget - the majority of US spending (thus borrowing to pay) is for SOCIAL programs - the very ones you want to expand ("....we can provide for the needy...").

Charity in the USA was alive and well - needy were cared for and then along came the Progressives to eliminate that and screw over the poor and needy (I.e., welfare as a part of government) in order to control those people and place the Progressives into power.

Problem is, the Progressives have spent all the money, thus the needy will suffer as charity contributions are down since the Progressives have reduced the ability of the average person to contribute, as well as have forced the 'programs' to include much, much more that the respective program was ever intended to provide (I.e., SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.).

You as a Progressive really care little about the needy, in fact you have supported the very actions that have made the poor, poorer.

The vast percentage of charity contributions had, and have come from those with wealth, the very ones you disdain.

Show me where the Progressives (lets talk about Clinton, or Obama, or Pilosi, et al) supporting charities across the board from their wealth. We'll wait, and yes they show 'charitable contributions' on their tax returns for a small percentage of their income (less than 5% if memory serves, while tiding in church normally is greater).

Last "sent to the trenches" ignores the fact the US military has been for decades volunteer. Do not attempt to make the argument that 'well, the poor enter the military to better their lot in life argument and then are the one killed in fighting' as I will rip you a new one - again with facts starting with the US Military does not hire on the basis of 'monetary net worth', or lack thereof.

No, Progressives are the problem, not the solution.

[ChasC5]

I like my way better.