Congress Could Save Taxpayers Billions by Repealing President Biden’s Unlawful Food Stamp Expansion

Lol… We could also save billions by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy…

I’m not really understanding the inflation aspect from this partisan source…. People are eating more food due to food stamps?

 

Seems like grocery stores took advantage of rising prices to increase profits:

Greedflation in Groceries Hits Wall of Frustrated Shoppers
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...lation-in-groceries-meets-frustrated-shoppers

 

27% sounds too high when the military, firefighters, and police who risk their lives every day don't get the same raise. Inflation affects everyone, and the gap between rich and poor is skyrocketing. Start with raising taxes for the rich and lowering taxes for the middle class and poor.

 

What kind of jerk looks to save tax money by denying food to the poor?

 

We spent close to 15 billion dollars in OIL and Gas subsidies even thought its a trillion dollar market. For some reason i didnt see anywhere on that website a call to end fossil fuel subsidies? Its not becaues its a disingenuous website funded by dark money only for low iq folks like yourself to parade their message like sheeps huh?

Its so funny when i see ordinary Americans rallying against helping poor while they bootlick and bow down to rich people who are really stealing all the money in this nation. Dumb and dumber

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/sujatha-bergen/congress-should-follow-bidens-lead-fossil-fuel-subsidies

MAGATs

 

The type of people like @TheresTheDagger who probably don't introspect on all the handouts and privileges they had along the way to own property and be part of the bourgeoisie

 

The shitstain who started this thread.

 

Stop paying wealthy farmers not to grow crops
​

1. Scrapping direct government supports for commodities such as corn and soybeans, contained in Title I of the current legislation, would save taxpayers $49.3 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
2. Tightening criteria by which insurance payouts are awarded would cut costs by $24.4 billion over 10 years, the CBO calculates,
   
3. reducing federal support for administrative expenses of crop insurance companies---slicing their government-guaranteed rate of return from 14.5 % to 12 %---would save $7.4 billion

​

 

And I question the study by your partisan source that seeks to eliminate spending in general. However it doesn’t take into account supply chain issues, drought, floods, bird flu, etc.

I’ve already posted another source (Bloomberg) showing grocery chains increased prices because they could, not because of food stamps.

 

Why do right wing people believe they are entitled to having their opinions respected? I will defend your right to not be prosecuted by the government for your speech. I will not defend your entitlement to having your opinion well received.

Stop with that entitlement.

 

The IMF literally openly admitted a month ago that most of the inflation today is a result of inflated corporate profits taking advantage of the inflation narrative.

 

Well… we are just overwhelmed by your Christianity.

 

I just don't see how else the OP would think this conversation would go? You have to be very socially unaware like Ronny D to think making this post would go any other way. Most Clutchfans posters aren't psychopaths.

 

IF we increase the number of kids who die of starvation that will reduce the demand for groceries. With demand reduced, those parents with living kids can pay 3% less for their cereal. We could get that down 5% if we really go ham and just start gassing brown people.

 

In a budget of 6 trillion I'm not really concerned about 11 billion for poor people's food.

 

That study is really odd, the numbers don't add up even if taken at face value.

So food stamp spending is up by 90% in that time period. Based on their cited research of grocery store price increase of 0.08% per 1% increase in food stamps, that should only account for 7.2% increase in grocery store prices.

Food prices in that period increased by 23% in that time period. So food stamps could account of 7.2% out of the 23%.

Yet the conclusion is that the increase in food stamps is responsible for 'at least 2/3 of that increase'? What am I missing?

 

The kind of jerk that approves all the tax loopholes for the rich, so they can pocket billions more every year.