Food Stamp Riots? Nation’s Largest Food Bank Sees Falling Skies Over Expired Food Stimulus


The CEO of the Food Bank for New York City, reportedly the Nation’s largest food outreach program, is insinuating that riots could erupt if program cuts slated to kick in this weekend are allowed to take effect.

According to Margarette Purvis, president and CEO of the Food Bank, the scheduled expiration of food stimulus money will shrink the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $5 billion dollars and create instant havoc among entitlement recipients – a recipe for rioting that could boil over as soon as this weekend.

“If you look across the world, riots always begin typically the same way: when people cannot afford to eat food,” Purvis told Salon Monday:

Purvis said that the looming cut would mean about 76 million meals “that will no longer be on the plates of the poorest families” in NYC alone – a figure that outstrips the total number of meals distributed each year by the Food Bank for New York City, the largest food bank in the country. “There will be an immediate impact,” she said.

“The fact that they’re going to lose what’s basically an entire week’s worth food” each month, said Purvis, “it’s pretty daunting.” She told Salon that while policymakers “are attempting to punish people for being poor,” and “people are comforted by believing that they know that a person has to have done something wrong in order to be poor,” in reality, “I can tell you that more and more folks have more than one job and are still needing help.” …Purvis added that cutting food stamps was “not even good business sense,” because each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy.

Purvis went on to add that “the first line of defense against hunger is a food stamp.”

Who knew?

Meanwhile, Neil Cavuto at Fox News has speculated that a recent $80 million outlay by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is directly related to an anticipated (or perhaps hoped for) Food Stamp riot event. DHS spent the funds to beef up armed security at government buildings in upstate New York, adding to the department’s growing list of questionable militarization measures presumably aimed at U.S. citizens who would create civil unrest by galvanizing against government policy.

“November 1st could be a very, very iffy kind of a day,” Cavuto intoned on his Fox News program. “…This could be ‘all-hell-breaks-loose day’…[O]n November 1st, the food stamp program is set to start decreasing the amount that is allocated to food stamp recipients….and they’re worried that violence will ensue.”

The whole chicken-little tone of this impending SNAP disaster almost smacks of bloodlust. The hyperbole coming from the far left and the far right – coupled with the indisputable fact that government itself is incrementally hoarding military-style armaments and equipment for uses that are ostensibly of a “civil” nature – indicate that at least a few rapturous policymakers and pundits are longing for a doomsday episode in which America’s leaders turn against American citizens.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • vicki

    “Purvis added that cutting food stamps was “not even good business
    sense,” because each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of
    spending into the economy.”

    This is why we as a country are in such bad financial trouble. People like Ms Purvis can’t do even simple math

    0+1 does NOT equal 1.70

    • They Call Me Mr. “C”

      But it does mean that for every dollar spent you generate $1.70 spending which would not occur but for the dollar spent.

      Did you read the article?? The government DHS is spending $80Mil. to fend off anticipated riots…..the exact same amount that the F.S. Program is being cut. Wouldn’t it be better to keep the program in tact than use it to allow DHS to rob the American people of another of it’s liberties?

      It’s absolute astounding! Americans bitch and moan about a few million dollars spent to help American but say absolutely nothing about the trillions of dollars spent to help and support multiple foreign countries.

      • Cliffystones

        You’re making sense. stop it! You’ll give the Libs an aneurysm!

      • Robert Messmer

        Its not that we don’t say anything so much as being drowned out by politicians, who as they always assure us, know the BIG picture much better than we do because they make sure we are never given the information.

    • billybob

      There is a monitary factor that says for every one dollar you spend it creates $1.70 in other benefits.

      • vicki

        Absent any evidence your assertion makes as much sense as does that of Ms Purvis. Perhaps you can explain the magic that she failed to explain?

      • Robert Messmer

        Yep but not sure that would really apply here since no money changes hands locally? Just EFT at Government/Corporate level?

  • peter

    People are irrelevant, why don’t they understand that?

    • rbrooks

      the republican/tea party believe most people are irrelevant. that same group believes deficits are irrelevant as well.

      • Don 2

        Thanks to debacles like ObamaCare, that make peoples lives irrelevant, the TEA party can look forward to an increasing Democrat membership.

  • 4lifeandfreedom

    Interesting that the CEO seems to be advocating the riots to happen because of the “privilege” of food stamps–with half the United States population on food stamps? Had read that some retirees who make hundreds of thousands of dollars actually qualify, so why not take care of those who really need the help and get the others out to work and off the public dole?
    But, the leaders are appealing to the masses who believe they are entitled to everyone else’s profit, hard work, etc.

    • chocopot

      “But, the leaders are appealing to the masses who believe they are entitled to everyone else’s profit, hard work, etc.”

      And at the same time are buying votes for themselves with the taxpayers’ money.

  • dee

    The President said, “No more Wars & our Troops will be Home in 16-24 months.
    They are not home yet! I have a friend who just went on tour #8 in IRAQ!! If you
    took any of that money or some “War on Drugs Money” or ANY of the 30,000
    Drones, 7000 Fully Automatic AR-15’s, 3 billion rnds of Ammo, DHS / TSA Troops and anf of the Military vehicles given to police, we could have the monies to fund food programs. I’m sure they are many other ways to add to them. But
    someone wants this to happen so our Government can call in “Martial Law” & whatever goes along with that. I went thru Katrina & can tell you what happens is
    NOT Nice, by Police, the Thugs in Neighborhoods, or Military who aren’t supposed to be there. They took people guns so Families had NO WAY to defend their very lives. I hope this doesn’t happen, so watch out. Peace & take care of you & yours…..

    • Randy

      Dee, I agree with you ..Lot better way of handling this situation. I think the government wants to cause civil unrest so they can move on the Martial Law situation and I am afraid that is going to start the next civil war. I guess if it is going to happen, we might as well prepare for the worst. I think our government is going to find out that there are a lot more of us then there are of them…

    • Elevenarrows

      Dee, did they literally go door-to-door confiscating guns or only ones found on the streets? Just wanting to know how to prepare should something happen in our area…

      • Robert Messmer

        Elevenarrows remember Boston–door-to-door, usings lists created from mailing list of NRA, any gun/sporting magazines/catalogs, listing of web sites you visit, etc etc

  • Debbie

    Well this is just the start, Life as we know it in America is changing everyday. Now when the people need the Churches the worse, If you remember we were the first food pantry, They are either closing the doors, or the Government is putting such pressure to their will, that they have stopped. Enjoy the America that Obama has made,

  • Jim B

    When you create an army of Serfs’ you can’t just stop treating them like Serfs’. Serfs’ expect to be fed, clothed, housed, and medicated… for free. That’s the life that was offered to them in return for their vote at the booth. Their masters sustained their lives, Serfs’ kept them in power. Now Serfs’ are typically ignorant to pretty much everything in this world as real knowledge i.e. their education has, for the most part, been dumbed down in order to provide them with a path to Serfdom and nothing else. But here’s the thing, their Liberal/Socialist Masters screwed up, they’ve taken all that they can from the productive people and it’s not enough to meet the needs of the Serf population anymore, e.g. the great Cities of Serfdom… like Detroit for instance. There the non-Serfs just left. Pretty much leaving Serfs’ and their Liberal Masters to fend for themselves. But they can’t, because they don’t know how i.e. feed a man a fish and he’s your responsibility forever, teach a man to fish and he becomes responsible. The simplest and truest realism of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and yet ignorance of this simplest of creeds is lost to millions of Americans. I worry about the children though, it is not the children’s fault that ignorance surrounds them. They truly are the victims in this scam.

  • Sunwukong68

    The actual food stamp decrease is not that much…about 30-40 dollars…and it’s not a real decrease considering that extra 30 to 40 was a stimulus…it happens all the time.

    • Robert Messmer

      Our son and daughter-in-law with our two grandkids were cut $218.00. Slightly more than your 30-40 dollars and yes he works full time.

      • Sunwukong68

        Perhaps that is why they were cut so much…he works full time. They have different scale for unemployed, part time, and full time.

  • Bill

    I think I will make up a phony ID as an illegal alien and apply for food stamps. That seems to be the way to get first preference

    • rbrooks

      perpetuating a myth. none of you can ever validate that myth.

      but, you are posting on the right site to sell those myths.

  • Karolyn

    The more this type of negative rhetoric is perpetuated, the more likely it will happen. It is a sad state of affairs when this country sends so much money to feed people in other countries and cuts assistance to those in need here.

    • Don 2

      So, if you don’t mention it, it will not happen? Is that how you see it?

      • Karolyn

        I didn’t say that. It’s just that too many people make a living of negativity. If the world were not so negative, we would live in a better one. “As ye think, so shall ye be.” It’s the same as a person constantly thinking negatively and wondering why things always go wrong. Thoughts are things.

    • CORMAC___NJ

      The reason that so much government money gets sent over-seas is that it’s much easier for politicians to arrange kick-backs and other tit-for-tat relationships that way. Money spent in-country tends to be traceable, while cash leaving the borders often goes into a black hole.

  • jdn

    Math just never adds up . A 5.5% cut adds up to 25% less food . So we could give the budget a 10% increase and everyone would have 50% more food and be fat dumb and happy ?

    • CORMAC___NJ

      2 outta 3 ain’t bad.

  • Alan

    The first line of defense against hunger is work.


    I know people who collect in various ways, including EBT and SNAP, and they are constantly dealing with glitches, screw-ups, errors and SNAFU’s. It’s the government, for Pete’s sake! They’re so used to unpleasant surprises this won’t make a difference.

    These people who describe “riots” at inner-city Wal-Marts, due to EBT outages, might want to go down there on a normal Saturday night and take note of the crowd dynamics. It’s ALWAYS a riot!

    If people riot this weekend, it will be because they were told to. And it won’t be the poor that are driving it, it will be planted union agitators. That’s their only skill these days.

  • Thomas

    Looks like the New York City food bank CEO is telling people to go out and riot to keep his agency funded as usual and his pocketbook flush with cash.

  • mark

    Once again pump up the unwarranted fear machine. Conservatives have nothing left to peddle after all. RACE WAR IS COMING! BUY MORE GUNS! STORE MORE FOOD! THE END DAYS ARE UPON US! What a sad, pathetic joke. Don’t conservatives had any other values – besides fear and paranoia?

    • JimH

      Self responsibility.

  • Sam

    Give the food stamp recipients a broom and tell them to start sweeping the streets. In other words, give them a job! There is no reason for the economy to be in the shambles it is in. The government needs to get out of the way and let people make jobs.

  • rbrooks

    the riots may come from the owners of stores that will close. that loss of revenue will force some out of business.

    • JimH

      People need to eat, if someone has the taxpayer do it for them, or they take responsibility and support themselves. The store will sell food one way or the other.

      • rbrooks

        the store(s), like walmart, report that 40% of their revenue is from food stamps.

        only fools believe that those currently on food stamps are going to be able to replace that amount.

        while walmart may be able to over come that loss, many smaller stores will not.

        you do have a good point. all these folks need to do is go out and apply for one of the many high paying positions that are currently being offered.

        • JimH

          Gosh r, I’m not asking them to do anything I’m not.
          I guess we need to keep paying for these people because it’s harder to find a job. Maybe they can hire on at the grocery store that’s so flush with food stamp money.
          Only “fools”(you) believe that people can’t support themselves if they apply themselves and they should be on food stamps the rest of their lives.
          Make it uncomfortable for them and give them some incentive. Not everyone is as pathetic as you are.

          The status quo right now isn’t desirable.

          • rbrooks

            well gosh, jim, we have so many decent paying jobs. thanks to all of the high wage immigrants that we keep importing. perhaps you could post a few million of those jobs to help the unemployed find work?

            i have seen the results of your policy’s in more than one country. it is amazing how many starve. they did find it uncomfortable.

            the really pathetic part of your scenario is your willingness to allow americans to live in poverty, or worse. why is that?

            perhaps you should address the money we send over seas to provide their citizens with food, shelter and health care.

            it should be interesting to see your reaction when you find out that business and farmers do not agree with your intent to reduce or eliminate food stamps.

          • JimH

            Food stamps are to lend a hand up to people down on their luck. It’s not supposed to be a life style.
            My encouraging people to get out and try to improve their standard of living would be a willingness on my part to allow Americans to live in poverty? Your plan allows them to”stay” in poverty. I want them to improve their lives. The “pathetic” part is your willingness to let people remain in a poverty situation.
            Taking the money sent overseas and using it would just enable more unwillingness to work.
            If not sending money overseas and letting the savings go to the taxpayer, maybe if we kept some more of our own money, more wouldn’t need assistance. They could buy their own food.
            Instead of being grateful for the help they already received,some have gotten the attitude that they deserve this help. Not so.
            I’m not the one importing immigrants. If they can come here and find work, the people already here should find it too. Just keeping our own people at poverty level(your plan) isn’t helping them.

          • rbrooks

            where did you derive that definition of food stamp usage? recipients include social security, the military, disabled, low wage workers, to name a few.

            what is your solution? besides cutting them off.

            you have no intention of improving their lives.

            your plan has been to pay as little as possible for as short a time as possible. that keeps them at poverty. your new plan is to pay less for an even shorter time.

            the same policy you support for wages. paying less is not working well for the worker(s) or the economy. increasing the number in poverty should be a big boost to the economy.

            the immigration you support is the cause of unemployment, under employment and the increase in food stamp recipients.

            were you getting that list of jobs ready?

            so, if we sent less money over seas, then an unemployed individual would have more money?

            end immigration, end foreign aid, end corporate welfare, end the two wars, end the drug war, cut the salary’s and perks of elected officials.

            by doing the above, we increase the number of americans working, we increase wage levels, we save 100’s of billions per year, we balance the budget and we start to pay off the debt.

            why are you so called conservatives against that?

          • JimH

            As far as getting people back to work, we agree. So why do you want to keep enabling people who have no intention of even trying to work. I just believe someone holding a low wage job is better off than someone not working and just taking. They don’t contribute anything.

            Balance the budget. I’ve seen no conservatives against that. Just the opposite. It isn’t conservatives raising the debt ceiling, or not making a budget.

            I’ve had people in front of me at the checkout line, getting better food than I could afford and paying with food stamps.
            If I can eat cheaper, because I’m being taxed to feed them, the person not paying their own way can eat cheaper.
            It’s a cut back, not a cut off.
            Where did I say if we quit sending money overseas the “unemployed would have more money”?That was you.

            I said if the taxpayer wasn’t paying for that money overseas and they got to keep some more of their own money, some of the lower wage earners that get assistance, wouldn’t need it. Then there is more for those that really do. Having a lower wage job wouldn’t be as hard for the worker if the taxman let us keep more of our own money.

            There are also food banks and pantries, that provide food, that operate on donations, not tax dollars. In this country there are a lot of places to get food.
            Where did I say I support immigrants getting jobs ahead of our own people. That is something you assumed about me with no reason to think it.
            Yes I want them back to work as soon as possible, when they are working they will get a better standard of living. To keep them dependent on it just keeps them at a poverty level. Your not helping them keeping them dependent.
            The stores will still sell food, if the person as to support them self.It doesn’t need to be food stamp money.

          • rbrooks

            that low wage job is part of the over all problem. those low wage workers, many of whom are the low wage immigrants, receive, (need), those food stamps to subsidize those low wages. increasing the number in the labor pool by increasing immigration will lead to even more problems.

            reagan and the gop started this borrow and spend, deficits are irrelevant nonsense.
            regulating food stamps is a good idea.

            cut back? well, some will be cut out. and more will be cut out in the future.
            low wage workers would not receive enough from any foreign aid elimination to make any difference.

            you will force some of these folks to find alternative solutions. i guess we can build more prisons. that is a cheaper solution, eh.
            the food banks are overwhelmed now.

            the store can not and will not sell anything without the required customer. a customer requires revenue.
            it has always been the fallacy of the low wage, no help, no benefit, increased unemployed,stance that is often presented.
            a person without the means is not a customer.

            without a customer you no longer have a business.
            you are going to decrease the customer pool.
            and deny the detrimental affect it will have on business.

            there is a reason so many company’s have closed and why even more have down sized.

            it is all about the jobs. without those jobs, you end up with welfare. now you want to end the domestic welfare system for individuals.

            do you expect the economy to improve?

          • JimH

            I don’t expect the economy to improve with the current people in government doing what they are.
            When people can live off the tax payer, why try to work?
            When the money runs out to pay for the person who doesn’t want to work, just go deeper in debt, and keep on the same reckless course.
            Raise taxes on the fewer people still working and their employers to pay for the larger group, that doesn’t want to work.
            Keep taxing and regulating employers until they go out of business,because you need to pay for the expanding group of people out of work.
            Give these people a good lifestyle, so they keep voting for the people that are ruining the economy, so the goodys keep coming.

            No I don’t see the economy improving, but providing a welfare state isn’t the answer.
            While robbing Peter to pay Paul will work in the short term, Paul eventually runs out of money.
            That is where we are now.
            Food stamps aren’t a stimulus.

          • rbrooks

            you blame the current people for following the same policy as the previous people.

            the old hype that people on welfare do not want to work.

            we lower taxes for the wealthy. decreasing revenue. and then have to borrow to make up for it.
            we continue to increase the number of low wage positions. decreasing revenue even further.
            what ‘good lifestyle’ are we providing for people subsisting on social security or welfare?

            it is interesting that the red states have the largest number living in poverty and the largest portion of their population that receives tax dollar funded assistance. they do keep voting the gop back in office.

            supply side economics does work for a short time. the problem with the reagan/gop version is the low wages they coupled with that. it created debt. and nothing more.

            there are several million business’ and farmers that will debate your notion that food stamps are not a stimulus.

            food stamps are not a long term viable solution to the problem.

            it is all about the jobs.

          • JimH

            If food stamps are stimulus and food stamp use is at an all time high, how come we’re not thriving?
            You believe “all” people on welfare really want to work, but just can’t find a job? OK.
            You believe that people on food stamps get only enough to barely subsist? OK.
            You believe the government is so far in debt because we are under taxed? OK. Congress needs to budget better.

            Yes, it is about the jobs. If some one takes that lower paying job, they may have to go through some adversity. They are off the dole. Less burden on the system and they are contributing some to it. After a while of more contributing and less taking, more money is in the system and the economy grows. As it grows more and better jobs are created.
            Create a business friendly environment, not taxing and regulating the job creators to death trying to maintain the welfare state and the jobs will come. In the long run their standard of living improves. It just takes some work.
            Being an enabler isn’t “helping” those people down on their luck.
            A hand out isn’t really a hand up.
            How is using food stamps to prop up the food industry different from other forms of corporate welfare?

          • rbrooks

            how much better will the economy be under your plan?

            your beliefs are one of the problems. very few people on food stamps are living that great life style that is such a popular form of propaganda from the right.

            no one has been able to show that a majority of those on social services really want to be on those services.

            we are in debt due to a lack of revenue. at some point, you must create enough revenue to pay the bills. reducing revenue prior to reducing or eliminating a portion of the debt load will simply lead to increased debt. as we have seen.

            you want to lower, or eliminate, some of the bills. a concept shared by a vast number of americans. we can start with foreign aid, dod, dea, homeland security, etc., rather than starting with social security, medicare or food stamps (social services).

            the job creators have never been the wealthy or business. it has always been the customer. conservatives never seem to grasp basic business economics. low wage, part time and/or temp positions are not customers.

            we have fewer jobs per capita and that trend will not change with new technology.

            dell and hp are great examples of the failure of low wage economics and job loss from technology.

            when were you guys going to start creating jobs? when did you plan on increasing wages?

            one more time. food stamps are not a viable long term solution.

            it is about the jobs.

            over population is a bigger problem, but that subject seems to be totally beyond the grasp of the average conservative.

          • JimH

            We are in debt because of overspending, not under taxation.
            I have heard people that are offered jobs say they can do better not working. Tells me it’s to much incentive not to work.
            Hand up not hand out. Tide them over until they find a job.
            Low paying jobs and temp jobs are not customers. What are they then? They are more like customers than welfare recipients. You seem to think they shouldn’t take the job because it isn’t as good as you want it to be? Yeah keep them leaching off the taxpayer.(your plan)
            The list you gave to cut, yes, but why stop there. The so called lower wage jobs will provide more if taxpayers get to keep their own money.
            The wealthy and businesses aren’t job creators? The wealthy are customers.(they spend some of that wealth) Businesses rely on customers,yes, but they also are customers.(they also hire people)

            The welfare office isn’t a job creator.
            I’ve got to go back to my under paying job now, to support deadbeats and reckless congressional spending. Later dude.

          • rbrooks

            your lack of basic economics is a problem. a low wage worker has less disposable income. which is why they are being subsidized with social services.
            you remove the subsidies and they have even less to spend. no longer a customer.

            an individual that only has social services, which includes social security, will have no money to spend if you reduce or eliminate those programs. no longer a customer.

            the fallacy of your ‘the wealthy are customers’, is that the wealthy are not going to buy enough to off set the massive loss of customers due to low wages or no revenue.

            which is the problem with our current economics.

            too few customers.

            your plan, the plan we have been using, will eventually collapse our economy.

            and you will still blame everyone else for what you have done.

            it is interesting that so many that support the low wage policy’s are all employees. it would be poetic justice if you were to become a low wage part time worker in the future.

          • JimH

            The poetic justice has arrived already. I still resent seeing people get better food than I can afford using a LINK card. I worked for mine and part of theirs. I get by on less and they can too. My job isn’t the best but at least I make an effort. It’s not like I’m in my ivory tower looking down.
            Your basic knowledge of economics believes food stamps are stimulus. You say I lack knowledge of basic economics.
            Keynesian economics has never worked throughout history and it’s not now.
            What will collapse this economy is to many unproductive people leaching off society and the ones who are working being expected to support the others.
            The money used to “subsidize” these “customers comes from taking other peoples money.(taxation) Now they have less to be a customer with. Money was just “moved” not a job created.

          • rbrooks

            you are now a part time minimum wage worker?
            but you are unable to qualify for food stamps?
            i agree that the current economic policy will not work. the current economic policy’s were put in in place prior to obama.
            what is unproductive. who is leeching.

            a low wage worker is not paying very much in taxes. many will receive more back than they pay in. and we subsidize those low wages with social services.

            public servants leech off of my taxes. we have too many being paid far too much.
            redistribution does not work. the problem is the distribution of created wealth.

            it is all about the jobs.

            the radical right are convinced that the elimination of social services, including entitlements, will force people to obtain jobs that do not exist. they believe that many of these folks have tons of money hiding in some secret bank account.

            we have to produce the jobs, then you can begin to remove people from the dole by putting them to work.

            you go ahead and put your plan of eliminating social services in place and see how that works out for you.

            btw- how much lower do think your wages need to be to help the poor business owner to survive and to start driving the economy.

          • JimH

            I just make that little bit to much to qualify.
            Like I said, I don’t expect these people to do anything I haven’t.
            I’ve seen people get food I couldn’t afford with food stamps. Why should someone not working get that.
            It’s a cutback, not a cutoff. If I can eat on less so can they.
            I guess I’m not stimulating the grocer as much as the dead beat. My bad.
            You never answered, if food stamps are stimulus and food stamp usage is at an all time high, why aren’t we thriving?
            Foodstamps aren’t stimulus, subsidized customers aren’t job creators.

          • rbrooks

            your complaint about the income criteria is a legitimate complaint.

            there are folks with fairly large stock portfolios and money market accounts that receive food stamp assistance.
            there is abuse in the system. people manipulate the system.
            and some simply get left out.
            it is not a guess. you are not spending as much as the ‘dead beats’ at the grocery store.

            a stimulus does not have to create a thriving economy. it can be used to stabilize an economy. which does not equate to driving the economy.

            food stamps are keeping some business going. food stamps are keeping some folks from going without.

            if you are against subsidization, then you must hate the gop supply side economics we have been using.

            why should a company that records several billion in annual profits be given a subsidy. they are not going to increase the number of jobs.

            a subsidy to individuals would create new jobs. those individuals will spend that money. creating demand. the more demand, the more production, the more jobs.

            simply giving a handful of people a lot more money does not create sales or demand.

            it is a fallacy that the wealthy ‘create’ jobs.

            you, and the others, who want to reduce or eliminate food stamps, social security, medicare and medicaid, have yet to show how that reduction in revenue will be better for the economy or the country.

            the solution is simple. it is all about the jobs.

          • JimH

            Social security, medicare are paid for out of our paychecks for however long we work, don’t lump that in with foodstamps and welfare.
            As I’ve said, when all this started it was to be just to tide someone over until they got back on their feet. I’ve nothing against that. With like everything, someone found a way to abuse it. (third generation welfare families)
            I can’t afford to donate much money, but I do volunteer my time at the food bank.(I’m not that cold hearted)
            Where I work, I know who are “customers” are. It isn’t the foodstamp crowd. The company is a customer, buying vehicles and parts for maintenance. Those are customers.
            I would like to see a crack down on the cheats and abusers. That’s where to cuts should be made.
            As far as corporate subsidies goes, those should go.(but wouldn’t that be foodstamp stimulus on steroids?)It’s not all The GOP, in 09 the Dems had both branches of congress and the Whitehouse and didn’t pull the plug.
            Farmers shouldn’t be paid not to grow things either
            The national Endowment for the Arts shouldn’t subsidize bad art.
            I could make a list.

          • rbrooks

            the democrats have no plans to end any of the subsidization. but they do not run as the party of small govt. or as fiscal conservatives.

            the system has problems. it can be fixed. no one seems to want to do that. they only cure being offered is elimination.

            so how do your customers acquire the revenue to purchase from you. it is all tied together.
            corporate subsidies are a bit different. eliminating those would force company’s to find ways to increase revenue. to increase sales. to grow. to expand. that creates jobs.

            social security and medicare are being lumped in now. entitlements are being called welfare. the tea party and the right wing gop is trying to reduce both programs. again.

            i agree with your list and could add a few more.

            it is still about the jobs.

            increase the number who are working. increase the wages. you increase revenue for all.

          • JimH

            But my employer buying fuel, vehicles, parts, uniforms etc. would be a customer, right?
            You do have a few wrong preconceived notions about conservatives, Tea Party etc.
            You lump alot of things together that aren’t that way.
            Our customers are from all walks of life. Sometimes corporations hire us, sometimes small business, hire us, or private party’s that earn money from any kind of job.
            The ARE customers.

          • rbrooks

            your employers is a customer. he requires customers. his customers require customers. without customers there is no business.

            cutting back on customers is not a sound business plan.

            cruz, ryan, rand, etc.

            read some of the posts on this site.

            earning money. without those jobs there are no earnings.

          • JimH

            Taking money from people to give to others to spend isn’t sound business either. I understand their has to be some government spending. Road construction companies make money and hire people etc.
            But when the government is going into debt, that they have to borrow just to pay the interest, not sound judgement.
            Sometimes you have to say enough is enough.
            Tax dollars aren’t the best way to get things going.
            Keynesian economics still doesn’t work.

          • JimH

            Taking money from people to give to others to spend isn’t sound business either. I understand their has to be some government spending. Road construction companies make money and hire people etc.
            But when the government is going into debt, that they have to borrow just to pay the interest, not sound judgement.
            Sometimes you have to say enough is enough.
            Tax dollars aren’t the best way to get things going.
            Keynesian economics still doesn’t work.

          • rbrooks

            we are not using keynesian economics, regardless of all of the claims.

            taking money from people to give to others is exactly what business does.

            would you prefer a increase or decrease in your wages.

            would your employer prefer a increase or decrease in the number of customers and the amount they spend.

            it is all about the jobs.

            without those jobs, we will continue to manufacture stability.

            if we stop doing that, you will no longer have your job.

          • JimH

            So my job relies on food stamp recipients. Uh Huh.

            To use tax money to try to stimulate the economy is the basis of Keynesian economics. It doesn’t work. Never has, doesn’t now.
            Over a trillion dollars has been spent on the war on poverty, they’re still poor.
            Our debt grows by over a trillion a year and the unemployment rate is still as high as ever.
            Just not working.
            Now take your stamps and public aid check and go out and get our country thriving again.

          • rbrooks

            your job relies on the current subsidies that are given. that includes, but is not inclusive of, food stamps.
            you need to learn a bit more about keynesian economics. using tax dollars to stimulate the economy is not the basis of that economics.
            it is based on aggregate spending.

            we are not doing that.

            our debt will continue to grow. nothing is being done to stop that.

            unemployment will continue to increase. as will under employment.

            you have conceded your economic plan is a failure and your lack of knowledge of economics has reduced you to the typical childish insinuations so common on this site.

            take away all of the govt you despise. don’t complain when you no longer have a job and wind up on the streets with the others.

            this is just an exercise in an attempt to educate.
            it is amusing, and ironic, that those of us you think should be supporting your economics, those of us that you claim would benefit the most, are the ones that are against your economic policy’s.
            let me know when you become the one writing the payroll check instead of the one cashing the payroll check.
            you will never make it the point where you no longer need to write or cash a payroll check.

          • JimH

            You need to re-read your Keynes.

            This all started when you made a statement about how cutting back on food stamps would devastate the grocery business.
            I just pointed out that these same people will need to eat no matter who pays for it. It wouldn’t hurt that much.
            You didn’t refute that.
            You then accuse me of supporting bringing immigrants in to take up all the jobs. How did you leap to that conclusion from the one or two statements I made.
            You needed to change the subject, but you call me infantile.
            It then goes to all of us conservatives and I hate social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. Then you say I want to deprive,disabled people and low wage earners and military people. Military? They feed their people. How mature of you, but I’m the infantile one. If I want to see less abuse of the food stamp system I must HATE all those other things.
            But since you couldn’t refute my original statement, you had to go there.
            Then you state that food stamp people are customers and infer that the rest of us aren’t as much customers.
            Yes you need customers to run a business. Their also needs to be a business to have customers. They both create jobs. For some reason you can’t get past the need for tax,or aid dollars to be used to be a customer.
            Not true. But I’m the infantile one who doesn’t know anything about money.
            Even with all this back and forth you never answered my questions. You never said why after trillions of dollars spent on aiding the poor and to stimulate the economy and job growth, there are still poor people and the unemployment rate is still up as high as ever.
            With food stamp “customers” at an all time high, why aren’t we rolling in it?

            Why, because you can’t.
            But I’m the one who doesn’t understand money.
            A hand up, not a lifetime handout.
            May that third generation welfare family not start a forth generation welfare family.
            It’s just a cutback, not a cutoff.

          • rbrooks

            the basics.

            Keynes stated that if Investment exceeds Saving, there will be
            inflation. If Saving exceeds Investment there will be recession. One
            implication of this is that, in the midst of an economic depression, the
            correct course of action should be to encourage spending and discourage
            saving. This runs contrary to the prevailing wisdom, which says that
            thrift is required in hard times. In Keynes’s words, “For the engine
            which drives Enterprise is not Thrift, but Profit.”

            Keynes took issue with Say’s Law – one of the economic “givens” of
            his era. Say’s Law states that supply creates demand. Keynes believed
            the opposite to be true – output is determined by demand.

            Keynes argued that full employment could not always be reached by
            making wages sufficiently low. Economies are made up of aggregate
            quantities of output resulting from aggregate streams of expenditure –
            unemployment is caused if people don’t spend enough money.

            In recessions the aggregate demand of economies falls. In other
            words, businesses and people tighten their belts and spend less money.
            Lower spending results in demand falling further and a vicious circle
            ensues of job losses and further falls in spending. Keynes’s solution
            to the problem was that governments should borrow money and boost demand
            by pushing the money into the economy. Once the economy recovered, and
            was expanding again, governments should pay back the loans.

            Economically and socially successful economies have significant contributions from both the government and the private sectors.

            Keynes’s view that governments should play a major role in economic
            management marked a break with the laissez-faire economics of Adam
            Smith, which held that economies function best when markets are left
            free of state intervention.

          • rbrooks

            a need to eat does not equate to the means to purchase. a point the conservatives never address.

            the military does not feed the numerous dependents of military members.

            you stated that the person on food stamps was buying more than you.

            we do not spend trillions on food stamps per year.


            you are unable to grasp that low wages, or low annual revenue, is the criteria for receiving food stamps. we are not providing a big enough increase to drive the economy. it is barely keeping the economy static.

            perhaps you can show how low wages were beneficial to dell or hp?

            you are correct. i should not have called you childish. your grasp of economics is infantile.

            if cruz, ryan or rand ever get their policy’s passed, you can say adios to your job.

            but you can always live like this.


            the welfare program has provided numerous luxury’s for these folks.

  • John

    The leaders of this country have already turned against the american people, all you have to do is look at california’s worker’s comp system and the new penalty trend, first with everone on medicare and now everone else with healthcare.