Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do you presume "we" can do anything about wealth inequality? What prescription would you suggest? The most common is taxing the wealthy, but that, it seems to me, does not decrease the inequality, it just give the government more money. You could confiscate the person's wealth (Robin Hood Style), and give it to the needy (this would, obviously have to be something other than an income tax) - and that would provide a temporary lift to the poor, but, as the saying goes, you've just given a guy a fish, not taught him to catch em.

I dont' necessarily think it is a problem. The Soviet Union had very low wealth inequality; yet the poor there were more numerous, and living in worse conditions than our poor today. The poor in China today have a living standard that would be unthinkable here. It does not matter how much the rich have; there is not finite amount of wealth. The biggest problem we have right now is HOW the rich are getting rich - the financial sector; wealth manipulation, NOT wealth creation. We need to raise the capital gains tax to equal other income taxes. Remove the incentive to make money only with money, and not with ingenuity & innovation. We need modern industrialists; creating businesses, getting rich, but also creating good jobs. No time to flesh out the thoughts, but you get the gist...

I agree 100% about the government incentivizing cap gains income over regular income, but to say that wealth inequality in our country isn't necessarily a problem is asinine. You've made it clear you're not a fan of giving a man a fish since it only feeds him for a day (a legitimate argument), but you conveniently ignored the second half of the saying. Are you trying to say that not giving a man a fish is going to automatically teach him how to fish, or are you saying we should tax the rich more but invest in education rather than food stamps? If it's the latter, I agree.

I also don't think giving Lockheed-Martin $40B a year in government contracts for tanks that sit in a military parking lot is teaching it how to fish, but people who argue austerity never seem to mind that for whatever reason.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.

One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?

I only read the first paragraph. I agree with at least that much of it.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.

One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?

It is closely wrapped up in the marginal propensity to spend and the velocity of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margina...ity_to_consume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Investments, sitting in investment accounts don't do much for GDP or growth.

Give people at the lower end of the spectrum more money, and they tend to spend it. Once they spend it, it moves around from merchant, to vendor, to worker, etc.

The answer to your question is:

Sort of. The question is, given the research, not very applicable to what they were doing, as there is no specific direct comparison made.

[RandomGuy]

Do you know what a sociopath is? Why should I give a about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money that they can use on their broods of failure or they drugs and alcohol?

By no means am I in the 1%. I do feel that I am disproportionately taxed - meaning that I overpay for the amount of services I receive from the contract as compared to others in my age group.

"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

Ignore them? Let them starve because their parents are bad people?

The costs of poverty weigh heavily against ignoring them:


Are Food Insecurity’s Health Impacts Underestimated in the U.S. Population? Marginal Food Insecurity Also Predicts Adverse Health Outcomes in U.S. Children and Mothers.
January 1, 2013Advances in Nutrition

WIC Participation and Attenuation of Stress-Related Child Health Risks of Household Food Insecurity and Caregiver Depressive Symptoms
May 1, 2012Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/...peer-articles/

You tell me what your solution is, and maybe we can see if we can find agreement. I am always open to better public policy.

[vy65]

It is closely wrapped up in the marginal propensity to spend and the velocity of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margina...ity_to_consume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Investments, sitting in investment accounts don't do much for GDP or growth.

Give people at the lower end of the spectrum more money, and they tend to spend it. Once they spend it, it moves around from merchant, to vendor, to worker, etc.

The answer to your question is:

Sort of. The question is, given the research, not very applicable to what they were doing, as there is no specific direct comparison made.

Rereading the article, there is no support for the claim that income inequality stalls economic growth. At best, the article suggests there is a correlation (and not causation) between economic inequality and hiccups in economic growth. Considering the fact that the study concerned emerging third world economies and considering the fact that the article concedes that other factors (mainly political economy) also affect growth, I have a hard time believing inequality of wealth is a cause of slow/no growth as opposed to being a symptom of an underlying political social dynamic.

I see what you're trying to argue, but I think that wiki articles defining economic terms do not support the claims you're trying to make.

As it stands, I still don't see the data or support for the claim that the amount of wealth inequality in the US is problematic.

[vy65]

"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

Ignore them? Let them starve because their parents are bad people?

The costs of poverty weigh heavily against ignoring them:


Are Food Insecurity’s Health Impacts Underestimated in the U.S. Population? Marginal Food Insecurity Also Predicts Adverse Health Outcomes in U.S. Children and Mothers.
January 1, 2013Advances in Nutrition

WIC Participation and Attenuation of Stress-Related Child Health Risks of Household Food Insecurity and Caregiver Depressive Symptoms
May 1, 2012Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/...peer-articles/

You tell me what your solution is, and maybe we can see if we can find agreement. I am always open to better public policy.

them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

[vy65]

Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. Do you?

Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?

Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?

It's well and good to speak of some abstract "social-compact" about what level of monetary sacrifice each citizen makes. I'm much more interested in hearing about how the sausage is made.

Still waiting for an answer ...

[DeadlyDynasty]

them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

This. Not all living things are sacred. Not our fault these poor people out kids left and right.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The party that wants to restrict abortion can't stand on the social darwinism platform tbh.

[vy65]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

[AntiChrist]

It is true that progressives are very generous with OPM.

[pgardn]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

By discussing views one does have a tendency to align with a particular political party.
Not on every detail, but in general.

[boutons_deux]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

everything is politics, so you're not in the conversation, and too ing stupid to know it.

[vy65]

everything is politics, so you're not in the conversation, and too ing stupid to know it.

The personal is the political =|= the republican or Democratic Party. Only you would be too ing stupid to know the difference.

[RandomGuy]

Rereading the article, there is no support for the claim that income inequality stalls economic growth. At best, the article suggests there is a correlation (and not causation) between economic inequality and hiccups in economic growth. Considering the fact that the study concerned emerging third world economies and considering the fact that the article concedes that other factors (mainly political economy) also affect growth, I have a hard time believing inequality of wealth is a cause of slow/no growth as opposed to being a symptom of an underlying political social dynamic.

I see what you're trying to argue, but I think that wiki articles defining economic terms do not support the claims you're trying to make.

As it stands, I still don't see the data or support for the claim that the amount of wealth inequality in the US is problematic.

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

[RandomGuy]

them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

Ah, the immoral, irrational, un-American solution.

You are too ignorant, and too evil to argue with.

Now I remember why I thought you were a neo-nazi. There is little doubt in my mind, you would have been goosestepping with that lot if you were alive in Europe in the 1940s.

I'm going to go ahead and put you on the ignore list, with mouses trolls. Please off.

[vy65]

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

We're talking past each other.

I don't disagree with the scenario you've laid out -- I think it makes intuitive sense. However, I don't think that your anecdote substantiates the claim that wealth inequality is bad for the economy. That's because you're assuming that rich people won't spend their money in the same way that poor people would. Isn't that why you think redistribution is a good thing for economic growth: take money from rich hoarders to poor spenders and poof, more money is being cycled through the economy.

I don't see any proof for that assumption (if it is in fact your assumption). Rich people spend money too -- they just spend it on like cars and yachts and jets. And poor people save money. I don't think overarching generalizations like "poor people tend to spend" are productive because they're gross generalizations without much, if any, proof.

And all of this has nothing to do with the article -- which is the only piece of evidence for your claim. I still don't see the relevance of wealth disparity in third world economies to the US.

[vy65]

Ah, the immoral, irrational, un-American solution.

You are too ignorant, and too evil to argue with.

Now I remember why I thought you were a neo-nazi. There is little doubt in my mind, you would have been goosestepping with that lot if you were alive in Europe in the 1940s.

I'm going to go ahead and put you on the ignore list, with mouses trolls. Please off.

Again, who's morals? Your morals are not universal, and your sanctimonious soapboxing doesn't give you a monopoly on determining what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that you resort to "but but but you're a nazi . . ." when someone questions your morals just goes to show how weak minded and feeble you truly are.

Lol threatening me with your ignore list. Like I give a ing . Is that supposed to be a threat? Should I feel bad about that? Why the do I care if some mediocre accountant reads I post on the internet when I'm bored?

[pgardn]

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

This is interesting.

So is there a list of basic goods and services that are thought to be "recycled" in more steps thus possibly having more of an impact on the economy?

And it seems to me that the more diversified your consumers are, the likely hood of stimulating many sectors of the economy vs. stimulating yacht building and slip rental. But this may be an incorrect assumption.

[pgardn]

Again, who's morals? Your morals are not universal, and your sanctimonious soapboxing doesn't give you a monopoly on determining what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that you resort to "but but but you're a nazi . . ." when someone questions your morals just goes to show how weak minded and feeble you truly are.

Lol threatening me with your ignore list. Like I give a ing . Is that supposed to be a threat? Should I feel bad about that? Why the do I care if some mediocre accountant reads I post on the internet when I'm bored?

There are some types of behavior that arise from morals that aid in societies functioning in a more harmonious manner.

The ole

dont steal
dont kill
dont screw your neighbors wife

just basic behaviors that help people get along... Heard of these?

[RandomGuy]

This is interesting.

So is there a list of goods and services that are thought to be "recycled" in more steps thus possibly having more of an impact on the economy?

And it seems to me that the more diversified your consumers are, the likely hood of stimulating many sectors of the economy vs. stimulating yacht building and slip rental. But this may be an incorrect assumption.

It isn't the goods and services that are recycled, it is the money itself that cycles through the system.

Each dollar that is paid each year becomes part of the GDP count.

The money that sits in static investments of the hyperwealthy sits there, unmoving. That is one of the reasons/arguments used to support the assertion that wealth concentration drags economic growth.

[boutons_deux]

sociopath I'm-an-island, Rugged Individual VY said: "substantiates the claim that wealth inequality is bad for the economy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1099135.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-n...ociety-2011-11

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...tens-us-growth

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/bu...cene.html?_r=0

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/da...me-inequality/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-11162011.html

The French Revolution "aux barricades les enfants de la liberte!" was the 99% KILLING the 1% represented by the amalgam of the Royalty/landed class with the corrupt, wealthy Catholic Church.

[pgardn]

It isn't the goods and services that are recycled, it is the money itself that cycles through the system.

Each dollar that is paid each year becomes part of the GDP count.

The money that sits in static investments of the hyperwealthy sits there, unmoving. That is one of the reasons/arguments used to support the assertion that wealth concentration drags economic growth.

Yes. Sorry, I get that.

So are there basic goods and services whose associated dollars are recycled through more steps?
Do economists have some list of basic items?

[RandomGuy]

There are some types of behavior that arise from morals that aid in societies functioning in a more harmonious manner.

The ole

dont steal
dont kill
dont screw your neighbors wife

just basic behaviors that help people get along... Heard of these?

My morals are based on reason and empathy.

I don't wish children to starve to death because their parents are horrible people. I empathize with them in that regard.

Using simple reasoning, I can tell you that capital comes in all forms, including human capital.

Throwing away the children of poor people is wasting capital that can be developed. It is akin to simply cutting down a forest and leaving it to rot. Invest in the capability to convert that forest into wood and finished products and you are better off economically.

Similar arguments can be made for investing in the children of poor people. You can either be an evil who wants to see these children starve to death, or you can realize that they are simply undeveloped capital.

I have both reason and empathy guiding that choice. The moral thing is to help them.

As for social darwinism, I don't have to bother rebutting it. It is held as generally logically flawed and immoral, and others have already done so.

Criticism and controversy

Logical fallacy
Social Darwinism is widely accused of committing serious logical fallacies. The most prominent of these is the naturalistic fallacy, which is the mistaken assumption that whatever is natural must therefore be good. Thus, critics maintain that regardless of whether social Darwinism has its foundation built on natural facts - regardless of whether there is indeed a category of humans who could be considered 'fittest' in natural selection terms - the arguments of social Darwinism are built on illogical reasoning that requires us to believe something is good only because it is natural. Critics hold that many aspects of life in nature would in fact be harmful to human civilization if they were adopted into modern politics, and they argue that the process of natural selection is one of these.

Multiple incompatible definitions
Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:
Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[39]

Nazism, eugenics, fascism, imperialism
Social Darwinism was part of the ideological foundations of Nazism and other fascist movements. However, this form of social Darwinism is different from the laissez-faire version, because it does not envision survival of the fittest within an individualist order of society, but rather advocates a type of racial and national struggle where the state directs human breeding through eugenics.[40] Names such as "Darwinian collectivism" or "Reform Darwinism" have been suggested to describe these views, in order to differentiate them from the individualist type of social Darwinism.[1]
Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics [1] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[41][42]
As mentioned above, social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[43] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races."[43] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[43] With this at ude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[43]

Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Peter Kropotkin argued in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that Darwin did not define the fittest as the strongest, or most clever, but recognized that the fittest could be those who cooperated with each other. In many animal societies, "struggle is replaced by co-operation."
It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the ac ulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term [evolution] which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense only—that of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its "large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." [Quoting Origin of Species, chap. iii, p. 62 of first edition.]
While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that subs ution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. "Those communities," he wrote, "which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring" (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of compe ion between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature.[44]
Noam Chomsky discussed briefly Kropotkin's views in a July 8, 2011 YouTube video from Renegade Economist, in which he said Kropotkin argued
...the exact opposite [of Social Darwinism]. He argued that on Darwinian grounds, you would expect cooperation and mutual aid to develop leading towards community, workers' control and so on. Well, you know, he didn't prove his point. It's at least as well argued as Herbert Spencer is...[45]

Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of "survival of the fittest" as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail - "strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.[46]
The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[47] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[48]
By 1985, the argument has been taken up by opponents of evolutionary theory.[7] Such claims have been presented by creationists such as Jonathan Sarfati.[49][50][undue weight? – discuss] Intelligent design creationism supporters have promoted this position as well. For example, it is a theme in the work of Richard Weikart, who is a historian at California State University, Stanislaus, and a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Ins ute.[42] It is also a main argument in the 2008 intelligent-design/creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. These claims are widely criticized within the academic community.[51][52][53][54][55][56] The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[41]
Similar criticisms are sometimes applied (or misapplied) to other political or scientific theories that resemble social Darwinism, for example criticisms leveled at evolutionary psychology. For example, a critical reviewer of Weikart's book writes that "(h)is historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced."[54]
Another example is recent scholarship that portrays Ernst Haeckel's Monist League as a mystical progenitor of the Völkisch movement and, ultimately, of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. Scholars opposed to this interpretation, however, have pointed out that the Monists were freethinkers who opposed all forms of mysticism, and that their organizations were immediately banned following the Nazi takeover in 1933 because of their association with a wide variety of causes including feminism, pacifism, human rights, and early gay rights movements.[57]
Contemporary Proponents of Social Darwinism[edit]
The concept of social Darwinism and eugenics, by those who attribute the term to themselves, is prevalent within modern Satanism. Social Darwinist ideas are presented throughout The Satanic Bible, authored by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and 20th century Satanism. LaVey describes Satanism as "a religion based on the universal traits of man,"[58] and humans are described throughout as inherently carnal and animalistic. Each of the seven deadly sins is described as part of human's natural instinct, and are thus advocated.[59] Social Darwinism is particularly noticeable in The Book of Satan, where LaVey uses portions of Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right, though it also appears throughout in references to man's inherent strength and instinct for self-preservation.[60][61] LaVeyan Satanism has been described as "ins utionalism of Machiavellian self-interest" because of many of these themes.[62] The Church of Satan webpage heading “Satanism: The Feared Religion," by Magus Peter H. Gilmore, states, “...contemporary Satanism[...]is: a brutal religion of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic...” and, “Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics.”[63]

I have a degree in German, I have seen German propaganda films in their original language, and have read Mein Kampf in all its icky, boring ignobleness. I have read a couple of dozen books in English and German on the period.

I believe I can identify a Nazi when I see one, and vy65's statements fall right in line with Nazi propaganda, chief among them is to first dehumanize that which you hate. It makes it easier to shove people into ovens when you don't think they are people.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. Sorry, I get that.

So are there basic goods and services whose associated dollars are recycled through more steps?
Do economists have some list of basic items?

There is no fixed list from what I understand.

There is just the marginal propensity to spend. poorer = more likely to spend income

If you think about it though, this becomes a bit clearer. The more limited your funds, the more you triage. Let your car limp along with that wobble for month, so that you can have enough for groceries.

Give the person with all that pent up demand for capital spending money and they have a bit more to allocate to those priorities.

Hope that helps.