Politics House Republicans Cut SNAP

I doubt many of the people who invested their Life savings with Maddoff have regained their losses.

The top 1% is a transient group.

I am curious. In publishing what is the typical fair market value of a consistent annual steam of $1 in royalties? Or, if a person wanted to buy the rights to a publication consistently earning $1,000 in annual royalties what would that person expect to pay? Has this ratio stay constant over time or does it vary? what would happen if the rate of inflation doubles? Does the rate/ratio vary based on the type of publication, i.e. graphic novel series targeting adult males compared to romance novels targeting adult females compared to children's books?

My gut tells me that graphic novel comic book material has exploded in value due to cross-over potential for movies, TV, games, and original content for streaming. I wonder if my gut, is correct. Have any links on how to get into this market from an investing point of view?

 

What does the Maddoff have to do with the economy, Aceventura? His victims were duped by a criminal. They didn't lose their life savings to the recession.

Now, if the players that manipulated the Libor rates and the folks running the financial institutions scamming the housing market could be treated like Maddoff was, we might be able to make some economic headway.

 

Ace is probably correct to some extent in that the fastest growing sector in the top 1% over the last ten years (or since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 90s) are Wall Street bankers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc....folks who contribute nothing to the economy other than trading with other people's money.

And of course, a growing number of corporate CEO's receiving outrageous bonuses despite their respective companies under-performing and laying off workers.

The House Republican plan to extend the debt limit includes eliminating regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Board responsible for protecting consumers from financial fraud.

Always protecting their own...not the rest of us.

 

What data do you want? Personally, I would suggest an understanding demographics as it applies to income and wealth accumulation. On that basis we could look at various age demographic groups and we would see the top 1% tend to be older, in their peak earning years, after 50. then if we accept this, we could make the logical conclusion that eventually these people die. Another suggestion would be the the succession of peak incomes and when they occur relative to when they are earned. We would see the top earning CEO, for example today, earn x% more than CEO of 5/10/15 years ago.

So, tell me what kind of data do you want, assuming you even disagree with the premise.
--- merged: Sep 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM ---

Value is different than price. Arguments are being made about how well the 1% is doing. I believe we should always look at real wealth or real value. The Fed is inflating financial assets with quantitative easing. QE will not last, what happens then. Will the economy be able sustain these values on its own? etc. etc.

Maddoff did not come up isolated from the flow of the discussion on these issues, but was brought up in response to a comment that was not 100% correct.

The housing market is being manipulated. The Fed is trying to keep interest rates artificially low in order to stimulate market activity. some of the activity we see today is artificial. Who are the beneficiaries of this. Recently in the Charlotte area it was reported that about 20% of distressed homes are being purchased by investors - or rich people - at low interest rates and at low relative prices. Rich getting richer. The demand for housing is not going down. People will need housing. Look at rent compared to housing costs trends over the last 10 years - investors are creating some real wealth for themselves, wealth that will eventually be reflected in market prices and not just in rents.

 

The only occupation that has grown significantly among the top 1% in the last 20 years are finance (i.e. Wall Street types)..from 10.6% of those on the top to 13.9% (33% increase). CEOs (non-finance executives....) as percent of total of those on the top have decreased, as have most other occupations.

Data only through 2005 but I suspect the finance types have only continued to grow.

 

Can you tell me why the President, Democrats, progressives, others and you supported the financial bailout? Can you tell me why the government allows QE that benefits the financial sector? Why havn't we addressed the housing needs of people as opposed to the balance sheets of large financial corporations??? Why? I have been on this from the first proposed bailout under Bush - and now 5 years later we still have financial institutions getting virtually free access to money, while limiting lending activity and charging fees and interest rates up the a$$ - sorry but this is a sore issue with me - are you finally seeing the problem?

 

I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that today's Tea Party would have supported Bush's bailout and the recession would have been much deeper and the economy much more fragile.

 

BS. We have data that shows the bailout did not help regular people, it helped Wall St.! The bailout allowed financial institutions to clean up their balance sheet, make record profits, consolidate and increase profit margins - resulting in big Wall St. wages.

You are right most Tea Party people I know did not support the Bush bailout given to Wall St..

 

The Tea Party that cares about regular people by slashing or gutting every social safety net program impacting the working class and not offering any alternative?

 

The Tea Party that cares about out of control spending and excessive taxes - future generations, freedom, smaller more efficient government, real economic growth, competitive markets.

 

And the fact that millions of working poor and those working from paycheck to paycheck will be adversely impacted is just an unfortunate (not unintended) consequence.
--- merged: Sep 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM ---
Freedom? God bless the Tea Party for their patriotism....on the backs of the poorest among us.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

The farm bill reauthorization will be the next big battle to watch, with the conference committee ready to start work this week and SNAP funding at the core.

GOP Picks Anti-Food Stamp Crusader to Determine Future of Food Stamps | Mother Jones

 

Would a more accurate thread title mention that Democrats also voted to cut SNAP funding?

 

The Senate version of the Farm Bill cut $24 billion total with most from cuts in direct subsidy payments to farmers (farmers wont get subsidies when crop prices are rising and subsidies are not needed). It also added crop insurance when crops are impacted by natural disasters. SNAP was cut by $4 billion. The bi-partisan bill passed 66-27.

The House extended direct subsides indefinitely and removed SNAP from the Farm Bill completely in favor of a separate bill at $40 billion less than current spending (10x the Senate bill). Given that there was no willingness to compromise, unlike the Senate, no Democrats voted for either bill.

 

The GOP plan was to cut SNAP by up to 10 times as much as the Democrat plan

 

Food stamp cuts start Friday – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs​

"President Barack Obama borrowed money from "SNAP" to pay for a portion of the first lady's anti-obesity campaign. And he was, perhaps naively, counting on Congress to refund the money he took away."​

​

​

 

SNAP has a component dedicated to food education (SNAP-Ed). Funding for the White House's Lets Move anti-obesity campaign may have been diverted from Dept of Ag, food education programs, but not from any direct funding to SNAP recipients.

There is nothing here to see but another attempt to deflect attention from Republican attempts to cut SNAP funding by $40 billion.
--- merged: Nov 7, 2013 at 6:36 AM ---
We are acollaborative partner in the Let's Move anti-obesity campaign and the funding is all non-profit or private foundation money.