• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana Food Stamp Abusers Will Lose Benefits Over Wal-Mart Free For All

LaMidRighter said:
The issue didn't "last a few hours", people were making multiple runs, in my city that would be over an hour a piece.
Click to expand...

Again, you need to research the topic: It lasted from 7-9

<<<Lynd explained the cards weren't showing limits and they called corporate Walmart, whose spokesman said to let the people use the cards anyway. From 7 to 9 p.m.>>>

Walmart shelves in Springhill, Mansfield, cleared in EBT glitch - KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana News Weather & Sports

Even if it lasted an entire day, so what? People do not starve to death in one day of not being able to shop

You can laugh all you want but your case is weak.
Click to expand...

It's clear you don't even know the details of what you are talking about

You are speculating while accusing retailers of a crime
Click to expand...

Know, I simply know the facts of the case and pointing out the obvious

when the real crime is right in front of you.
Click to expand...

Both groups engaged in similar behavior

Anyway, I'm done with you, you keep repackaging the same BS and not even entertaining the counter.
Click to expand...

besides pointing out you don't even know what you are talking about ...
 
Mason66 said:
Is that like pursuing criminal charges against somebody that leaves their front door open when they are robbed?
Click to expand...

They didn't leave their front door open. They sold these items in a very managed setting expecting a third party to cover the costs

That isn't robbery, that is facilitation
 
Mason66 said:
What? What about the people that were shopping that actually worked for what they have?

They should be thrown out of the store because of some theives?
Click to expand...

Many stores simply didn't accept EBT or put limits on it, even other walmarts: read the news and inform yourself
 
cpwill said:
Well, he's probably protected by being Indian from being accused of racism. But there is definitely a belief out there that it is morally appropriate to get everything out of government that you can. Stripping people who "need help" simply because they did so, therefore, will be seen as needlessly cruel.
The most likely line will probably be that he is trying to appeal to the crueler, Randian elements of the Tea Party Base in order to line up for 2016, and he's willing to hurt these poor people to do it
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




Enough people will buy that if it's put out as an explanation to hurt Mr Jindal.
 
Fisher said:
I said at the time that I felt sorry for people in that situation, but if a business is not going to be paid, they should not accept the cards and had every right to refuse service. It was an unfortunate situation caused by Xerox, but was really just a temporary thing akin to the post office being a day late delivering a social security check when they used to do that.
Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches when you are dependent on other folks for something, be it food stamps or anything else
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




People who are drawing Social Security benefits are not dependent on other people.

They are collecting benefits that they and their employers paid for.
 
shrubnose said:
People who are drawing Social Security benefits are not dependent on other people.

They are collecting benefits that they and their employers paid for.
Click to expand...

Yes they are dependent on other people. SS recipients receive back more than they paid in and the SS system is now running on permanent deficits.
 
shrubnose said:
People who are drawing Social Security benefits are not dependent on other people.

They are collecting benefits that they and their employers paid for.
Click to expand...

Some people collect social security that never paid into it.
 
Fisher said:
Yes they are dependent on other people. SS recipients receive back more than they paid in and the SS system is now running on permanent deficits.
Click to expand...

That is not true

Some SS recipients receive more then they paid into it, many do not. People who die before collecting, or die just after a few years of collecting do not get more then they paid in.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
That is not true

Some SS recipients receive more then they paid into it, many do not. People who die before collecting, or die just after a few years of collecting do not get more then they paid in.
Click to expand...

Considering the life expectancy in the US in relation to the retirement age, I would say you have your "some''s and your "many"'s backwards.
 
Fisher said:
Considering the life expectancy in the US in relation to the retirement age, I would say you have your "some''s and your "many"'s backwards.
Click to expand...

In comparison to your blanket statement which indicated all, mine was far more accurate
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In comparison to your blanket statement which indicated all, mine was far more accurate
Click to expand...

Since I did not use the word "All" and you included people who died prior to becoming social security recipients to refute a statement about "social security recipients" I would say that you weren't even in the ballpark.
 
Fisher said:
Yes they are dependent on other people. SS recipients receive back more than they paid in and the SS system is now running on permanent deficits.
Click to expand...

You mean SS has now relied on some of its $2.5 Trillion surplus. There will Never be a deficit since it is illegal for SS to draw from general funds. It amazes me how ill informed some can be..
 
Fisher said:
Yes they are dependent on other people. SS recipients receive back more than they paid in and the SS system is now running on permanent deficits.
Click to expand...

Fisher said:
Since I did not use the word "All" and you included people who died prior to becoming social security recipients to refute a statement about "social security recipients" I would say that you weren't even in the ballpark.
Click to expand...


SS recipients receive more then they paid

Is blanket statement that covers all SS recipients, it does not mean, some, a few, many, most or a majority. It means all.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
SS recipients receive more then they paid

Is blanket statement that covers all SS recipients, it does not mean, some, a few, many, most or a majority. It means all.
Click to expand...

Yada Yada Yada you are still wrong. Social Security is a welfare program that gets its own tax line on a paycheck that is still a tax and category in the budget. The recipient's payments are not "what they paid in". The calculations are indexed using their most profitable 35 years with those contributions inflated as if they were made the year the person retired so whatever contribution you made when you made minimum wage 35 years ago would be treated as the same amount it would today if you made minimum wage and paid in and so on. It is another reason wonks oppose minimum wage increases--it drives up the cost of social security for everyone who retires after the increase, accelerating the collapse of the system.
 
Fisher said:
It is another reason wonks oppose minimum wage increases--it drives up the cost of social security for everyone who retires after the increase, accelerating the collapse of the system.
Click to expand...

Macro economics is not my specialty, but that claim is interesting. Explain?
 
iguanaman said:
You mean SS has now relied on some of its $2.5 Trillion surplus. There will Never be a deficit since it is illegal for SS to draw from general funds. It amazes me how ill informed some can be..
Click to expand...

Yes there will be. 2033 is when the surplus is gone. 20 years to stock up, better hurry before there is a line. Good to see that you believe in that trust fund myth. The reality was just presented to you last month--if the government shuts down too long social security checks get delayed because SS needs the general fund to be solvent. SS is 100% dependent on the general fund because it is hidden in the "debt service" so that old white folks don't get upset that they are on benefits too like the not-white folks they bitch about.
 
ecofarm said:
Macro economics is not my specialty, but that claim is interesting. Explain?
Click to expand...

google about how benefit payments are indexed and calculated and use a little common sense. It is basically how they account for inflation.
 
ecofarm said:
Macro economics is not my specialty, but that claim is interesting. Explain?
Click to expand...

It could increase the benefits of those earning min wage after they retire. Provided the increase in benefits is larger then the increase in SS payments, the cost for others would be higher. I do not know if there is a minimum SS payment for those that retire, with an income below a certain level. If there is not, then it would increase the costs. If there is a basic minimum then it would not as the increase in SS payments would actually mean they are paying more then in the past.
 
Fisher said:
google about how benefit payments are indexed and calculated and use a little common sense. It is basically how they account for inflation.
Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain said:
It could increase the benefits of those earning min wage after they retire. Provided the increase in benefits is larger then the increase in SS payments, the cost for others would be higher. I do not know if there is a minimum SS payment for those that retire, with an income below a certain level. If there is not, then it would increase the costs. If there is a basic minimum then it would not as the increase in SS payments would actually mean they are paying more then in the past.
Click to expand...


I appreciate the effort, but I don't quite get it.
 
Fisher said:
Yes there will be. 2033 is when the surplus is gone. 20 years to stock up, better hurry before there is a line. Good to see that you believe in that trust fund myth. The reality was just presented to you last month--if the government shuts down too long social security checks get delayed because SS needs the general fund to be solvent. SS is 100% dependent on the general fund because it is hidden in the "debt service" so that old white folks don't get upset that they are on benefits too like the not-white folks they bitch about.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is proving your lack of understanding. There is a $2.5 trillion surplus held in T bills that SS will use when needed. SS is just like any other creditor of the US Govt. and simply redeem T-bills when the need arises. The idea the SS is somehow different from any other creditor is false as is the idea that SS money EVER has added one penny to our debt.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Many stores simply didn't accept EBT or put limits on it, even other walmarts: read the news and inform yourself
Click to expand...

I find it odd that you excuse outright theft by the "buyers"

People used to think crime was a bad thing.
 
ecofarm said:
I appreciate the effort, but I don't quite get it.
Click to expand...

The $3.35 someone made in 1985 who retires the week before the MW increase would get a different payment amount than the week after the increase. To save SS, there would need to be multiple things if one includes Medicare as part of SS. You would need something like a 1% withholding increase (preferable on the employer side only) to close the accounting gap in current payments on the 75 year horizon they use. There are other issues such as medicare funding, the acceleration of SSI beneficiaries, the upward distribution of income over the withholding ceiling, the increasing medical costs, and the diminution of benefits that has been used to disguise the problems when there is political will to save SS but no will to raise taxes. Personally, I would like to see the ceiling raised to $150K, go back to the dollar earned is a dollar lost system, the imposition of a direct FICA tax on investment income beyond just the normal income tax system to help reduce the sliding purchasing power of SS benefits, are all preferable solutions.

Nonetheless, we are way off thread topic at this point IIRC.
 
iguanaman said:
All you are doing is proving your lack of understanding. There is a $2.5 trillion surplus held in T bills that SS will use when needed. SS is just like any other creditor of the US Govt. and simply redeem T-bills when the need arises. The idea the SS is somehow different from any other creditor is false as is the idea that SS money EVER has added one penny to our debt.
Click to expand...

You are trying to argue it both ways. It is pretty simple. The SS system has been running deficits since 2010 forcing them to cash out these bonds to pay benefits. It is not expected to buy any more net bonds and will be out of bonds to cash out in 2033, at which point it will add many pennies to our debt. The interest paid on T-bills to the SS is "our debt" so you are wrong on that part.
 
iguanaman said:
You mean SS has now relied on some of its $2.5 Trillion surplus. There will Never be a deficit since it is illegal for SS to draw from general funds.
Click to expand...

CBO: Social Security to run Permanent Deficit Starting in 2011.

FactCheck.Org: Democrats Deny Social Security's Red Ink

Social Security Administration: We Are Taking Money From the General Fund, and We Can Borrow Money From the General Fund if We Have To

It amazes me how ill informed some can be..
Click to expand...

:lol: no kidding ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom