So enlighten me AWB. Food stamps? Bought and sold all the time. Yes, I know all about those state issued cards, but the grocery stores don't verify the users of said cards. Hell, they don't even verify I'm me when I use a credit card.

Any system, that's going to happen with. Someone's going to decide they can get rid of one of the "necessary" pairs of jeans or shoes if it gets them more drug money. You can't formulate a system that won't be abused by some, it's impossible.

So rather than try to find a fraudproof system, it's better to think of a system that will do the most good for the most people. After all, no business model ever expects zero fraud. When I was a retail store manager, we were happy if less than 10 percent of our profits went towards replacing stolen goods. I in fact won an award for that.

Yes, you can totally buy and sell food stamps. I believe that counts as part of the "waste, fraud, and corruption" that politicians are always on about. And with $76 billion being spent on SNAP in FY 2011, there's sure to be some unscrupulous types wasting and frauding and corrupting away.

Even with more people on SNAP than ever in 2011, that's still less than what we were spending on corporate welfare ($90 billion-ish) back in 2006, which was both 1) before the crash and recession, and 2) the final year of complete Republican control of the federal government.

And what liberal, commie, socialist bunch of leftists has $92 billion in government spending labelled as "corporate welfare?" The Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-state-how-federal-government-subsidizes-us-businesses

That's $92 billion being spent for the express purpose of distorting market outcomes, usually on the behalf of and to the advantage of large-dollar campaign donors. It's taxpayer money that gets spent in order to make rich people richer. It goes to fewer people than food stamps and has fewer strings attached.

That's a whopping $92 billion in waste, fraud, and corruption, greater by $16 billion than the entire SNAP budget. Why not go after that at least BEFORE taking food out of actually-needy people's mouths?

@AWB - I never suggested taking the food out of needy persons' mouths. My suggestion was a means of providing for them even better by guaranteeing all the necessities of life while making fraud a bit more difficult (didn't mean to imply it would eliminate fraud altogether) and to provide the needy with *more* than they presently get including wellness care and eliminating homelessness by guaranteeing everyone a safe and clean place to.call home.

As far as "corpprate welfare"... I hated the bank bailouts but the alternative would have meant a collapse of our entire economy. So we do what must be done to keep America healthy and not a collapsed former nation.

AWB was talking about corporate welfare as an expense to the federal government BEFORE the banks were bailed out. He's not comparing the one-time expense of the bailout to social programs, he's comparing corporate welfare's recurring amount on the federal balance sheet.

Let me ask a few rhetorical questions here.

Who employs people?
What happens when these corporations go over seas taking the jobs with them that had been in the US because some other country gives them a tax break?
Do you really think John Q. Public as a whole would be better off if all the corporations that receive this "corporate wlefare" moved everything to India or Central america?

I think that if we can afford to keep them, we could afford to lose them.

Draug:

I don't think there are any simple solutions, but I don't think it's at all out of the question to take reasonable steps to ensure that American suppliers are meeting American demands using American labor whenever at all possible. Whatever corporations would flee would surely open up a vacuum that would be filled by a less greedy entrepreneur (dare I suggest allocating the very funds that we're currently using to subsidize the rich instead for low/zero interest loans for those interested?).

One might consider also remembering we damn well have the right to tax the rich on INCOME as well, so if our corporate masters want to move their projects out of country, we could perhaps make sure they're still paying uncle Sam their fair share through income tax. If they don't like it, I'm sure the great nation of Taiwan will be glad to consider their application for citizenship.

Combine that with a more protectionist trade policy to ensure that American buyers are buying American products if possible, and watch the standard of living jump right up.

I'm no economist, and I don't doubt you or others may find fault with some or all aspects of that - but this is my take on it anyways.

^^ Just realized I've suggested a return to the 1950's :P

But isn't that what you Republicans are all about anyways?

Draug: The companies employ people because the people buy their products. Businesses aren't job creators, the middle class is.

@AWB - I don't think you understand the ramifications. How old are you (roughly like Jr. High, High School, College, 20 something, 30 something, etc.), if I may ask? Not tryign to be agist, but trying to present an age appropriate example .

At it's basic level, think of Corporations as a form of employee for the people. What they do is make this coutnry strong. So now comes this brilliant employee. He has an incredible offer from another employer. You want to keep him, but it will cost you in the short term. However, you know that letting him go means it will cost you in the long term, so you buckle to his demands and give him a better salary with better benefits, maybe even stock options.

But let's say we take you approach and let him go. word gets round that your employees are up for the taking so suddenly all your bets and brightest are getting offers from your competitors. Because you have a policy of not counteroffering to retain your talent, you go under.

Well, the US needs to retain their corporatre talent, and that means giving those corporations incentives to stay. Sure, we could loive without one or two companies, but if all the best and brightest like Microsoft and Apple and GE went overseas, the economy would be hurt terribly.

@YJ - I agree completely. I think we should be doing all we can to encourage american made products sold to americans. I was just pointing out the difficulty in defining "American made" with components made over seas.

@KD - while I agree middle class makes jobs, there would be no jobs because there would be no suppliers if there was no corporations. Demand doesn't produce. Supply does. Corporations are suplly. They produce goods and, with those goods, come the jobs. But, if the public doesn't buy those goods and supply exceeds demand, then the jobs go away. It's a symbiotic relationsship.

The conservative idea that we somehow need to roll out the red carpet and bend over backwards to keep corporations in the US is tragically flawed and assumes a ceteris paribus competitive environment. There is no way in hell Microsoft and Apple would pull up stakes and move to what I would only assume to be China, India, or some other quasi-Third World country with cheap labor and cheap inputs. For one, the US is not a manufacturing powerhouse and no amount of tax breaks is going to overcome the fact that US workers, unionized or not, expect a certain standard of living and wages that make manufacturing overseas a cheaper option. We do not have a competitive advantage in manufacturing. What we do have, though, is a major advantage in talent, which has a lot to do with our education system. We hear a lot of politicians talk shamefully about our poor test scores, but in reality, the US education system is the only one in the world that educates ALL its students for (relatively) free. On top of that, we have the greatest post-secondary education system in the world. Of the top 100 universities in the world, I think about 95 or 96 of them are American (the others being Cambridge, Oxford, McGill, and maybe the Sorbonne). We have a HUGE advantage in brains. High tech businesses need great minds to run them, and they're not going to find them in India or China. The fact is, though, is that you're making a huge assumption that many corporations would leave the US when, in fact, they need the US just as much as we need them.

"@KD - while I agree middle class makes jobs, there would be no jobs because there would be no suppliers if there was no corporations. Demand doesn't produce. Supply does. Corporations are suplly. They produce goods and, with those goods, come the jobs. But, if the public doesn't buy those goods and supply exceeds demand, then the jobs go away. It's a symbiotic relationsship."

You're right in saying that supply produces. That much is obvious. But suppliers do not produce without demand. If there is no demand, then there is no supply, and a firm can't make a profit producing something for which there is no demand. Demand runs everything, so in reality, demand actually does produce. Corporations and suppliers only exist to respond to that demand.

Ah, American made.

Have you heard of the new sweatshop mecca, Mariana Islands? It's a US Territory, but is exempt from the federal minimum wage law. So unscrupulous individuals are, ahem, importing labor from China and such (there's some question as to whether these people are coming 100% willingly or are defrauded to some extent...but that's beside the point) and opening up sweatshops.

The best part is: they can then slap "Made in the USA" on it since the Mariana Islands are a US territory, therefore ergo hence USA.

The liberals in Congress have attempted to put forth bills to extend the federal minimum wage to the Mariana Islands in order to solve this problem, but the Republicans have consistently blocked them, saying that they prefer to leave that in the hands of the (virtually non-existant) government of the Mariana Islands, essentially allowing sweatshop labor to go on within the US with no import taxes and the added bonus of being able to call it a US product.