[MeghanRN]

Originally Posted by ingelein

Even non organic produce is expensive.

Yes, but also some stores have a "quick sale" section, which bruised fruit(or other fruit that needs to be sold quickly) is sold for very cheap - you just have to use it quickly and cut off the bad part.

Its hard, but as previously said, its doable.

[VIXEN007]

Ditto on the above post! I am sorry that some people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and produce children that they are unable to properly care for. I work and make a decent living, however, 45% of my income is deducted for taxes and social programs.
Fresh vegetables can be grown in coffee cans and sawed off milk cartons. Dried beans are cheap and nutritious. You can make bean soup, hummus, cassoulet and even chipatis with cooked, dried beans. You can also take the fatty hamburger and boil the grease out of it and stir it into a pot of black beans and onions. You can eat that for days. I do. Bottom line, I do not mind helping my fellow americans. I give food and cash to the local pantry and homeless shelters. Everyone has their limits. I grew up in the worst projects imaginable. If I could make it, anyone can. This is the greatest country in the world. All you have to do is take advantage of the library system and the free and compulsory education and you can make something of yourself!

[HM2Viking]

I was not clear enough in my post. What I was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. Tax cuts in the form of AMT reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

The war on poverty was working. In the 70's poverty was at about 9% of the populace as a whole. Since the early 80"s with cuts in the social safety net we have actually seen poverty creep up to about 12-13%.

The Bush tax "cuts" are harmful to the economy. (To pay for the cuts we are borrowing BILLIONS from the chinese every year.) An inconvenient truth:

Evidence Fails to Support Administration Claims
That its Tax Cuts are Critical for the Economy

The President’s new budget claims that his tax cuts should be made permanent for the sake of both the economy and the budget. This claim is belied by the evidence.
The years following the President’s tax cuts have seen unexceptional economic growth and unusually weak revenue growth. Despite the large tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, government data show that the current economic expansion is weaker than the average post-World War II economic recovery with respect to an array of critical measures, including economic growth, investment, employment, wages and salaries, and net worth. Employment growth has been slower during the current recovery than during any previous expansion since the end of World War II. Moreover, median income for non-elderly households has fallen for five straight years. In fact, the economy’s overall performance has been somewhat weaker than in the recovery of the 1990s when taxes were increased.
Revenues, meanwhile, have declined slightly over the current business cycle (i.e., between the peak of the last business cycle in March 2001 and 2006), after adjusting for inflation and population growth. In previous business cycles, revenues (adjusted for inflation and population growth) have risen an average of 10 percent. The poor revenue performance in the current business cycle is a major reason why the nation’s budgetary position worsened by a greater amount between 2000 and 2006 than in all but one other six-year period since World War II, going from a surplus of 2.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to a deficit of 1.9 percent of GDP in 2006. (The largest six-year deterioration occurred between 1998 and 2004 and also reflected the impact of the tax cuts, as well as other factors.)

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm

[HM2Viking]

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07tax-f1.jpg


http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07tax.htm

The cost of tax cuts for the highest-income 1 percent of households will exceed the entire 2006 budget of the Department of Homeland Security. It similarly will exceed the entire 2006 budget of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. And it also will be greater than the combined budgets of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Even if the tax cuts’ costs are eventually paid for through a more balanced package of spending reductions and progressive tax increases, data from the Tax Policy Center show that, on average, the bottom four-fifths of households will lose more than they gain from the combination of tax cuts and the financing for them. That is, once the need to pay for the tax cuts is taken into account, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households, as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of households, as a group. (http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm)

[Jolie]

HM2Viking (Quote from above post)
I was not clear enough in my post. What I was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. Tax cuts in the form of AMT reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

Actually, you were very clear. But there are posters who disagree with your position.

None of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. The federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. The money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. It belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

I have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. But the 25% of American children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. They are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. It is absurd to expect the American taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for American law.

As other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. Recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. That many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. It obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

I chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. Why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? Just who is wealthy? What makes up the middle class? Class-envy is a tactic of politicians who convince the masses to support imposing taxes (or laws) on others, but not themselves, a tactic that enhanes the entitlement mentality, and costs us all more in the long run.

[mistirose]

Originally Posted by Cymy

In my house fruit is a special treat, vegetables are from a can or frozen. If I go out and buy $25 worth of fruit my kids eat it all in two days and I'm lucky if I can get a single banana or apple!

I hear you. That is exactly where I am now. It's hard to make ends meet. I am hoping that changes when I am out of school.

[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by Jolie

HM2Viking (Quote from above post)
I was not clear enough in my post. What I was saying was that tax breaks for the upper 1% of the economy wage earners are neither justifiable (or moral) when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty. Tax cuts in the form of AMT reform are most certainly justifiable for the middle class.

Actually, you were very clear. But there are posters who disagree with your position.

None of your charts or resources change the fact that the federal government does not "spend" money on tax cuts, or "pay for" them. The federal government simply collects money from taxpayers and re-allocates it. The money does not belong to the feds, or to the recipients of entitlement programs. It belongs to the people from whose paychecks it was confiscated, and those taxpayers have a right to see their money used in a responsible manner.

I have never met anyone who begrudged federal benefits to those who were truly unable to provide for themselves, such as the disabled, elderly, and those who were temporarily out of work and in need of assistance for a period of time while they sought out new employment and/or education. But the 25% of American children who you state are living in poverty are not likely to be the dependents of disabled or elderly adults, or people temporarily out of work. They are likely to be the children of able-bodied parents who choose not to work, absentee fathers who choose not to take responsibility for their children, or illegal immigrants who are willing to work for substandard wages. It is absurd to expect the American taxpayer (wealthy, middle class, or otherwise) to continue to pay for those who make poor decisions and fail to provide for their own families, or show no regard for American law.

As other posters have pointed out, food stamps were never intended to provide long-term, full funding for groceries. Recipients were expected to use them temporarily to supplement their own resources to provide food for their families. That many have failed to use the program as intended does not obligate taxpayers to contribute even more money. It obligates the administrators of the program to enforce the rules!

I chuckle at your statement that the wealthy are not entitled to tax cuts, while the middle class are. Why do you think that the federal government is entitled to a greater percentage of a wealthy person's money than a middle class person's? Just who is wealthy? What makes up the middle class? Class-envy is a tactic of politicians who convince the masses to support imposing taxes (or laws) on others, but not themselves, a tactic that enhanes the entitlement mentality, and costs us all more in the long run.

Well said, Jolie.

On the surface, 'giving' tax cuts to the upper 1% looks bad, yes. But it is, after all, THEIR money, not the government's!

I personally would much rather see taxpayers' hard-earned money pumped back into the economy, where it helps to provide jobs, than have it confiscated to pay for a war millions of us believe is wrong, and aid programs for people who refuse to help themselves. But that's just me.

[KIAN]

I agree with Jolie. And good point mjlrn, who earned the money. Yes, some have more advantages than others. Warren Buffet for example is giving away money yet what he has left continues to make more and more. It is still his money.
I would have a tough time on $21.00 a week for food, but I'd certainly take responsibility for why I had to live on 21.00 and not keep asking for more handouts.

[Suesquatch]

A lot of people in this area are employed full time and still need food stamps and Medicaid. They are hardly people who "refuse to help themselves."

[pickledpepperRN]

Some go to a lot of trouble to pay $15.00 for $21.00 in food.
They spend their day off at the social services office with little children. Then they wait in line to pay for the card. It is worth it to have an extra $6.00 a week to help feed each kid.