Why can’t Republicans be for food stamps? asks James Pat Guerréro. The question is relevant as the Whigs (Liberals) have been claiming food stamps give an economic stimulus for some time now, and the Clios (Conservatives) claim there is a “Great Food Stamp Lie.” If food stamps are an economic stimulus, the proof of this claim must be found somehow. Stating the thesis negatively, food stamps are not an economic stimulus. It doesn’t matter which way one states it. More important is the supporting proof for the thesis.
There are some explicit factors that makeup the thesis itself, and there are many implied factors. For instance, the explicit – food stamps, economic stimulus; and the implied – discretionary spending, transfer payment, the rich, corporations, the poor, and the people. Also, it appears the debaters want to assume the argument settles only in the study of the economics domain, which should be revisited.
Given that the food stamp program only at 1% of discretionary spending and corporate tax rates decreasing over the last 50 years, a full-blown treatise on the subject is not necessary to explain. There are some objective realities that exist, and, furthermore, are easy to see by the simple eye perception, to question by the inquiring mind, and to hear by the receiving heart. And some helpful statistics can be read over a 50-year period of government spending under various presidential administrations since 1964.
Beginning with an excerpt from the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence in Congress, July 4, 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is easy to perceive that there is a certain group of people who are hungry poor, who are not happy and tug at life, for whatever rationality that there may be that they are in this condition. This alienated group of people exist hungry poor, which has nothing to do with the rich or corporations. Like the Clios would have to believe that there is a some connection, like an economic connection, as if there always has to be an economic connection among realities to make sense of reality perceptually.
Taking the argument from this point of view, the objective reality of the hungry poor, one begins the fair rationality – if all men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights.
The right to be well-fed is a certain unalienable Right, for the meaning and understanding of this extends to the family of children to be happy.
It is said in “The Great Unemployment and Food Stamp Lie” by Colin McNickle, Trib Total Media’s director of editorial pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (PA) February 4, 2014 6:55 am Online:
One of the greatest lies about unemployment benefits and food stamps is that they are an “economic stimulus.” The claim has been repeated — and embellished — for years by everyone from politicians, to left-wing columnists, to the compassionate clergy. And in the case of food stamps, it’s the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that keeps planting the seeds from which this lie repeatedly sprouts. [sic] And with our money.
As with any commodity, namely food in this case, real food comes from those to whom it was given. For example, assuming the food was somehow transferred to corporations – as given to corporations would be absurd – the food was acquired from somewhere else, namely a laborious effort. For there is no other way for corporations to acquire the goods except through somewhere else, namely a laborious effort. Even presumptive supply side economics would not admit otherwise.
The food commodity extends to real money another notch in the argument. The question begs whose money transfers to the corporations. Easily, and there is no perception needed to make a simple and honest intellectual deduction, that the money belonged to the laborious effort of people at the lowest denominator of the economy. The money belonged to the people who labored through their effort. Not only could one further extend the unalienable belief that the money belonged to all the people who labor for it, but also to those people who labored interrupted in some life way or who labored through misfortune but could not profit from their labor in some life way.
Thus, the thesis is not significant. Neither is there a theory, nor a stretch of a theory. There is no economic stimulus from food stamps as the Whigs subjectively believe it. There is no great food stamp lie as the Clios would subjectively explain it.
But there is a hungry people, and the food, i.e., money, had already belonged to them. The food is merely given back to them. Hereby, the declaration is achieved in which the unalienable Right to food makes those hungering people a happy people.