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

You are embarrassing yourself. I identified several instances in which you failed to make a valid logical argument, and several others in which you attempted to use inaccurate statistics to make a point. You have not countered with anything resembling coherence. I suggest taking your own advice and stepping away.

 

You're counting on people to actually have a dollar in the first place. To do that, they need to have jobs, which, a good amount of people on SNAP already have (over 60 percent according to this http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894).

If the people on SNAP use their money to buy food instead of SNAP, then they're not paying something else, like their rent, or their heat, or their medical, or their other bills.

 

It's absolutely a wealth redistribution program. And good for it. I like wealth redistribution programs.

 

Investors and possessors of gold are a Venn diagram whose circles overlap but are not identical. You have to allow for the possessors who have "in case you need to bribe the border guards" echoing in their subconscious.

 

Great thread...it's been like a circular firing squad.
My kind of fun!
I know a fight with a mod ain't ever a fair fight, but I applaud the thread staying unlocked.
As you were. (Jesus is coming.)

 

Ragu, you seem to have succeeded in convincing yourself that the trajectory of this thread was something other than reality. So let's recap.

1. You are provided with three succinct grafs that suggest "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!" is misleading when used in its popular context. You are provided with examples. One of them is that the real issue is aggregate benefit derived from government spending, and for whatever reason the folks who are most vocal about "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!" often fail to account for the many ways in which the rich receive a sizable chunk of the distribution revenues, beginning with defense outlays. The second is the issue of income vs. wealth.

2. You respond with a lengthy diatribe that, among its few concrete points, dismisses the validity of the notion that value derived from defense spending might be weighted according to wealth, as well as the validity of the notion that there is a real distinction between income and wealth.

3. You are provided with evidence that refutes both points that you dismiss. The evidence happens to come from papers that support your overall world view, one of which you had originally linked to, which spells out why defense spending is legitimately believed to benefit the rich more than the poor. Said paper, which you originally cite to make a huge claim about net benefit from distribution of tax revenues, acknowledges that it does not account for this legitimate difference in value and that it instead assigns an equal defense spending benefit to all households, rich or poor, leading to the number you end up citing.

4. Rather than arguing the specific points of contention, you shift the discussion.

Just because you type a lot of words doesn't mean they make sense. From the beginning, my simple point has been that the super rich often do not take into account the value they derive from government spending, most egregiously the work that the Depts. of Defense and State conduct on their behalf to facilitate/protect trade. And that $75 billion spent on SNAP, as flawed as the program may be, pales in comparison to the amount of money big corporations save by living in a country with a government that pays for services that are essential to their ability to survive and thrive. And the gov't spending that protects the welfare of the rich helps them exponentially, because it protects capital (i.e. wealth), rather than simply providing goods of consumption.

That's it. Everything else is you arguing against one of your boogeymen. Which is fine. Like I said, it is amusing.

 

Football season ends and this is how you guys spend your Sundays?

 

What are we supposed to do, watch the Olympics?

 

Trying to find some info on all those food riots that occurred prior to the start of the U.S. food stamp program (1939), and between that initial program's end (1943) and the initiation of the "modern" food stamp program (1964).

 

No you aren't. Or, if you are, you aren't trying very hard.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1931/11/14/1931_11_14_056_TNY_CARDS_000211494

http://www.arhistoryhub.com/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/2/2012/05/1931-England-Food-Riot.pdf

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/G/GR014.html

http://www.timesdispatch.com/special-section/the-civil-war/civil-war-th-richmond-bread-riots-were-biggest-civil-uprising/article_faa79410-99a9-11e2-a04a-001a4bcf6878.html