First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out....

Only if we counterbalance it with the moral hazard involved in feeding people.

 

Just say "broken window fallacy" and move on.

 

I'm sure everybody appreciates the internal dialogue.

And, as Rahn argues in the Cato doc that I linked that you probably did not read, the redistribution of income does not really affect the top 1 percent as much as it does the middle class, and this entire discussion spawned from the persecution complex of said 1 percent, and your defense (along with others'), of said persecution complex. The real redistribution of wealth is the estate tax. The whole food stamp thing is just an easy way to distract the middle and lower classes by pitting themselves against each other in order to deflect attention from the real reforms that need to occur in order to create an environment that engenders sustained economic growth without the tax bills that we all currently face. And as somebody pointed out, one might be able to justify SNAP on non-humanitarian grounds. Look at it as a tribute payment to limit low class disaffection that might otherwise turn even more violent than it already is.

 

My friend, we appear to live in two different worlds, yours far more blissful than mine. In my world, we have things called facts, which are verifiable realities that one does not have the option of "rolling with" or "not rolling with." They are not arguments, or premises, or conclusions. They are facts.

You have spent much of this thread treating verifiable facts and heavily-trafficked economic concepts as if they are a kind of hocus pocus that you would consider only in order to humor somebody. Frankly, it's amusing, as is your last question, which pretty much hypothesizes a system that the far, far left has dreamed of for decades.

 

Readng?

Gotta do better than that if you want to play the condescending smart guy.

Stitch had it down. You still have a lot of work to do.

 

What did you have to edit in this post?

And, don't try to work Fart's corners.

You have enough trouble working Stitch's.

 

I don't approve of all this fighting.

 

From what I'm reading, are you assuming that the $1 from the SNAP customer is still going to be spent, only by a non-SNAP customer?

Because if you are, then 1. why aren't the non-SNAP people already spending that, and 2. Where are the SNAP customers going to get their $1 from if they are cut from the rolls, they're not getting it from SNAP and they're not working (for whatever reason)?

If there aren't SNAP customers spending and non-SNAP people making up the difference, then Walmart is going to see a 3 percent drop in their revenues, which means shareholders would be going in a full-fledged panic (at least, that's what's been told to me on here when I've suggested Walmart cut some of their profit and pay their workers better).

 

Well, the good news is that SNAP money gets spent, as opposed to getting parked in some bank account. Let's not forget that ...

 

Reposting to emphasize that I intended to post this before Baron posted his. The deliciousness of the juxtaposition of those two posts is just beyond this world.