Gwyneth Paltrow's Bad Math
I didn't look into the figure -- $29 a week -- that Gwyneth Paltrow claimed families on food stamps live on, but Ari Armstrong did:
Her figures are a complete fabrication (as I pointed out on Twitter). According to the USDA, which runs SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps), the "maximum monthly allotment" for a family of four is $649--more than five times what Paltrow claims. The maximum amount a single person can get in a month is $194.Paltrow makes two factual errors. Apparently she picked up the $29 figure from the Food Bank for New York City, which Paltrow mentions on Twitter. But that figure pertains to an individual, not a family.
Paltrow also confuses the average SNAP contribution with what a person or a family "has to live on." A key term in SNAP is "supplemental." The program is intended to supplement an individual's or family's food budget, not to provide every last morsel. If a recipient of SNAP handouts receives less than the maximum, that's because the program deems the recipient able to spend some of his own money on food. Thus, the average SNAP benefit is not relevant in calculating how much the recipient spends on food.
He also takes a Randian view on the government providing (and taking from taxpayers to provide) at all:
The deeper problem with Paltrow's cause is that it presumes that taking wealth from some people by force and handing it to others is moral. It is not. Individuals have a moral right to use their wealth as they see fit. If a person wishes to give money or food to other individuals or to a food bank, that is his right. If he wishes to spend his money on something else, or save it, that is also his right. In no case may government morally seize people's wealth by force and turn it over to others.
Your thoughts?
Gee, another Celebutard pushes another social crusade based on false information.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to hear it. . .
Keith Glass at April 19, 2015 7:03 AM
I can think of worse things to get upset about when it comes to government spending. Such as our defense budget, or, to mention one of Amy's least favorite expenditures, the salaries and pensions of the TSA.
But instead, I want to point out some wrong-headed thinking that people indulge in. And that's the idea that what the government spends money on, you're buying it.
No, you're not. Once you pay your taxes, the money is no longer yours. It belongs to the government and the government shall use its property as it sees fit. You aren't paying for anything the government buys. It's not your money.
If you bought something from a private business owner, and he used the money to support his dangerous addiction, would you say that you bought him drugs?
Of course not. Once the money left your hands, you're no longer responsible for what it's used for.
Why is the government regarded as anything different? Why do we become bitter and resentful over what the government does and act like we're the ones buying it?
That said, in light of all the ridiculous amounts of money the government pays for projects I don't support, I'm not going to get bent out of shape because the government wants to spend 194 dollars per month so an indigent person can eat.
Patrick at April 19, 2015 7:06 AM
If I find out a private business owner is using my money for something immoral or illegal, I have the choice to find someone else to give my money to. I do not have that choice with government. That is why government is regarded differently, because I can't stop bad behavior by not supporting it.
Ian at April 19, 2015 7:31 AM
Patrick, you'd be dangerous if you had any sense.
The completely bogus notion that the government's money is not "mine" - as if taxes paid at gunpoint to the ruler are the same as money paid voluntarily to a private party who provides me with desirable goods or services - is possibly the most ludicrous of the many ridiculous objections that are made to people objecting to the way their tax dollars are spent. The idea that any allegedly educated adult can repeat this twaddle with a straight face is risible; I can only assume you're joking.
In case you're not, let me put it to you in basic elementary terms,with apologies if those are still beyond the reasoning capabilities of most American liberals: If I pay you for something (i.e., trade my wealth for it), I get to decide whether what I GET is worth what I PAY. If it isn't, I don't buy, or I get you to change your offering. If I give you a gift, I don't get to complain how you spend it.
My taxes are not a gift, nor are they paid voluntarily. You connect the dots; if you can't quite manage it, find a liberty-minded third-grader to help.
Grey Ghost at April 19, 2015 7:59 AM
Cool, let's spend the govt money on gay rehabilitation programs for teens.
C'mon Patrick, of course we get a say and stake in how the money is spent.
NicoleK at April 19, 2015 8:01 AM
Patrick -
With a business, one has a choice to patronize them - or not - for any reason(s) one chooses. It is a completely voluntary transaction.
However, if one refuses to pay the taxman (at any level), sooner or later, men with dogs and guns will appear at your door and use force to make you to pay.
I suspect that you will attempt to counter-argue some sort of "social compact", "greater good", "obligation", "society", etc.
So let me save you the trouble. I've never been given any "social contract" to sign. When someone takes your property involuntarily, it is theft. And it doesn't make any difference whether it's committed by some goon on the street with a knife, by the county putting a tax lien on your house or the IRS appropriating your assets.
In all cases, that equals the other party taking something which does not belong to them; there's nothing voluntary about it.
It. Is. Theft.
Fatwa Arbuckle at April 19, 2015 8:06 AM
For those of us that paid taxes, it's very much on our mind what the government spend with it. For those who doesn't make enough to make the cut, not so much.
BigFire at April 19, 2015 8:16 AM
Continue to focus on SNAP, and other safety-net programs as the problem. It's easier to blame and berate the poor, apparently. All they need to do is get a better job and pull themselves out of the shit, right?
Keep overlooking corporate welfare, and lower capital gains taxes and eliminate estate taxes, because those are benefits that people got through hard work and such, right?
Continue to foster the illusion that we can all be well off, and would be affected by the "penalties" for being rich. It's so much easier to look down on the less fortunate.
Again, the view from above is always better.
DrCos at April 19, 2015 9:12 AM
Deer Patrick,
Where do I go to opt-out of the government taxation regime? the store owner with an addiction (drugs, booze, hookers, etc) issue just can't walk up to me on the street and order me to do business with him.
Hint: Congress works on our behalf. Further hint: the President works on behalf of American, even those who voted against him and says things s/he finds hurtful.
According to your theory, if Congress where to permit the Secret Service to use our money to have lavish parties with hookers and blow, that would be perfectly ok. Tell me how that's actually ok?
I R A Darth Aggie at April 19, 2015 9:20 AM
I R A Darth Aggie: Where do I go to opt-out of the government taxation regime?
You move to the country or your choice. Expatriation is the right of every citizen.
And you, like everyone else who responded, missed the point completely.
If I did patronize the establishment of a drug addict, I didn't buy him the drugs he used. He did, with the money I paid him for the goods/services he provided.
By the same token, I am obliged to pay taxes. That my government spends its money on things I don't agree with is not my fault. But somehow, people who would never dream of paying of blaming themselves for the drug-addict shop owner, seem to think they have full responsibility and that it's somehow their money that the government is spending.
Why does the money belong to the drug addict once it leaves your hands to pay him, but it's still your money when you pay it to the government?
I R A Darth Aggie: According to your theory, if Congress where to permit the Secret Service to use our money to have lavish parties with hookers and blow, that would be perfectly ok. Tell me how that's actually ok?
Gee, that wouldn't be okay at all. I never said it would be. But then again, I'm not claiming responsibility for what the government does with the taxes it collects, either.
You do have a way to control what the government spends, even if it is a rather indirect means. It's called the voting booth.
By the way, DrCos. AMEN! That's exactly what they want you do. Whine and cry over the homeless man who gets 194 dollars a month to eat, all the while ignoring the billions made by General Electric and the fact that they didn't pay one penny of taxes.
I'm fine with the government paying for the indigent to have something to eat. I'm not okay with corporate welfare. But continue to beat up on the homeless people. And just ignore the corporations who get rebates despite not having paid taxes.
Patrick at April 19, 2015 9:50 AM
"Why is the government regarded as anything different? Why do we become bitter and resentful over what the government does and act like we're the ones buying it?"
Because in the US we own the government. That is what citizenship in a representative democracy is. We are all 1 share owners in the company USA Inc. Heck, we even call the leader the president just like many companies do.
So for your analogy we are both customer and owner.
Ben at April 19, 2015 9:56 AM
The deeper problem with Paltrow's cause is that it presumes that taking wealth from some people by force and handing it to others is moral. It is not. Individuals have a moral right to use their wealth as they see fit.
This relates back to the post on Social Security. I'd written that the original intent behind SS was apparently to provide financial support only to those retirees who needed it but that the supporters of the program decided to give money to everyone who "paid in" to the program in order to help protect it from critics. After all, when you give money to everyone, and characterize it as money they've "paid in" it makes it appear that you're not doing what you're actually doing, taking wealth from some people (taxpaying workers) and handing it to others (retirees.)
Had SS been set up to provide financial support only to those retirees in need, it may not have survived attacks from critics like Ari Armstrong ("It's immoral to take wealth from working people by force and hand it to poor old people.") and to those critics that would, of course, have been an excellent outcome.
JD at April 19, 2015 12:29 PM
DrCos: Continue to focus on SNAP, and other safety-net programs as the problem. It's easier to blame and berate the poor, apparently. All they need to do is get a better job and pull themselves out of the shit, right?
Keep overlooking corporate welfare, and lower capital gains taxes and eliminate estate taxes, because those are benefits that people got through hard work and such, right?
Under President Paul, SNAP will be zapped. Same for any other transfer of wealth since all such transfers are theft and immoral. Even Jesus condemned them. In Libertarians 4:12 he says "Truly I say unto you: it is better for a child to cry from hunger every night than to take money from a wealthy man and use it to buy food for that child."
Also, under President Paul, capital gains taxes won't merely be lowered. They'll be eliminated, along with the hated death tax. Furthermore, the income tax will be abolished, along with the IRS. The only government spending will be on essential functions, such as national defense, and this will be funded through a consumption tax and voluntary contributions.
JD at April 19, 2015 1:24 PM
I was actually getting pissed off at your post until I read "Libertarians 4:12."
Good one!
(And Paul doesn't have a chance anyway.)
Patrick at April 19, 2015 1:59 PM
There was a good series of articles in the Washington Post, two years ago, about the food stamp system. Looking back at them now, it says that the reporter was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
A food stamp recruiter working the retirement communities in Florida coping w/ the Great Recession:
Rhode Island town's monthly boom-bust cycle:
Jason S. at April 19, 2015 2:09 PM
Re: Libertarians 4:12
I don't recall Jesus saying anything about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He did tell people to give to the poor of their own volition. He did say pay your taxes (whole render unto Caesar bit). But he was fairly clear that the government was not your proxy in caring for your fellow man. And for a government like the US it is unlikely he would have encouraged voting to raise taxes and spend the money on welfare.
And as far as the president Paul who will not be, given his druthers the military would be funded by tariffs on international trade, not a consumption tax.
Ben at April 19, 2015 2:53 PM
If I bought something from a private business owner, I'd have the thing I bought. That's all. I gave him money and he gave me the product or service. If I don't like the good or service, I stop giving him money. If the business owner uses coercion to force me to continue to give him money, I have a legal remedy against him, even if he continues to provide the good or service in exchange for the coerced money.
If I give money to the government, the product or service I've purchased is what the government does with MY money. If I don't like what the government does with my money, I cannot stop giving it money. I have no legal remedy and must continue to fund the provision of a good or service with which I have an issue.
Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. When the government spends money, WE are spending it. And since "we" includes people who do not fund the purchase, the people funding the government's profligate spending habits have a right to be upset when their money is used frivolously.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2015 3:42 PM
"For those of us that paid taxes, it's very much on our mind what the government spend with it. For those who doesn't make enough to make the cut, not so much." - Posted by: BigFire at April 19, 2015 8:16 AM
I think you might have it, especially for our comment pal who called the Bill of Rights a list of liberties.
Radwaste at April 19, 2015 5:14 PM
But somehow, people who would never dream of paying of blaming themselves for the drug-addict shop owner, seem to think they have full responsibility
***
We do have full responsibilty. It is our duty and responsibility to send politicians who spend unwisely out of office.
NicoleK at April 20, 2015 1:02 AM
Well, no, Rad, I didn't call the Bill of Rights a list of liberties. Evidently, when you lose an argument, lying about those who best you is in your arsenal of weapons.
I pointed out that the Supreme Court makes a distinction between liberties and rights. Which they do, if you happen to review case law. But something tells me that actually reading court rulings before you decide to comment on them isn't exactly something you'd consider important.
In addition to being a fucking idiot, you're a fucking liar.
Patrick at April 20, 2015 5:33 AM
Well then. I'm just going to have to quote you. Stand by – I have other things more important to do at the moment.
Radwaste at April 20, 2015 5:55 AM
Looking forward to it, Rad. Anxious to see where I said, "list of liberties," when talking about the Bill of Rights. Or anything else, for that matter.
Patrick at April 20, 2015 7:38 AM
So of course the issue is that it isn't $194 a month; it's 6 or 7 orders of magnitude more than that. First, in addition to what the receipient actually sees, there's government overhead. So that $194 a month becomes more like $2000 a month. Than, you multiply that times the tens of millions of receipients. And this is just one program; there's at least 30 others. The defense-budget analog would be to say "a rifle is only $300; do you want to deprive a soldier of a rifle?" Of course, the cost is a lot more than that once you add on government overhead, and then there are a few million soldiers who all need rifles. So don't fall for that old charity advertising tag line "It's only pennies a month!" It's a heck of a lot more than that.
We've all see the numbers. If one receives benefits from all of the selection of welfare programs that one might be entitled to, the yearly income is quite a bit more than most low-wage jobs pay. When averaged across a large group, people respond to incentives. For every person who turns down an offered welfare benefit because of their own personal sense of morality, a hundred will take it just because it's free money. Need has nothing to do with it. (And it's kind of hard to blame them, actually: If someone offers you money with absolutely no strings attached, what would you do? If everyone else is taking it and you don't, you probably don't feel moral or special; you just feel like a chump.)
Here's where I get controversial. I've been around more than my share of people in poverty. And I'm here to tell you: most of them are there because of their own choices. That's why poverty has always been part of the human condition, and over the centuries nothing has ever made much of an impact on it. It's simply a manifestation of one end of the bell curve. True, some of the poor are there because of circumstances. If I were donating my own money, I would be more likely to donate to the latter, and the lack of donations going to the former might motivate some of them to do something about it. But government programs make no such distinction. The drug-addicted welfare mother, and the young woman trying to work her way out of the ghetto and get into college -- they get the same benefit. The government doesn't care. It doesn't have the ability to care. And that's why, for as long as human societies have existed, it's been known that indisicriminate welfare programs are harmful. They divide a community into givers and takers; as the group of takers grows larger, eventually the group of givers gets fed up. They either leave, or they stop working so that there's no longer anything to take. Then you wind up with a Detroit. And everyone's puzzled about what happened.
Cousin Dave at April 20, 2015 12:22 PM
Patrick: Thank you for illustrating the old, "the hit dog will holler", when I called out a "comment pal"...
From here, at April 8, 2015 9:46 AM: "Free speech is a liberty, not a right. It's constitutionally protected."
My apologies for thinking you said, "list". After you said that, and:
"Lisa, you're confusing a "right" with a "liberty." Most people, myself included, use the terms interchangeably, but they're not the same."
...these comments now appeared to me to apply to the entire Bill of Rights, since you described the 1st Amendment, and to be confused at best. Since you've used a comic before to express your disdain for me, I venture this one: Patrick speaks to Dilbert. Note that this is not ad hominem, as you have attempted before - it is an illustration of what I see as the reason you are... frantic.
I was amazed to see you use the conditions for privilege, awarded by government, for "liberty". In other situations, I have seen the terms expressed in this way:
Rights are things which government may not properly oppose;
Liberties are those things which government does not address, which you may properly expect to do without interference.
Rights are constantly challenged by governmental actions to consolidate and express power, which explains a great deal of confusion about who is competent to exercise rights, such as children and the infirm, who have guardians to act on their behalf w/r/t society. There is no argument that an incompetent person has a right, for instance, to bear arms -- and there are dozens of other situations where the incompetent may not exercise other rights.
If you don't have all of them, do you really have any?
Lately, things like "a job", "a house", "not to be attacked", etc., have been advanced as rights, with differing degrees of success. Persons standing to profit from these ideas try to expand these things as "rights" constantly, completely failing to note that government cannot provide a "right".
Did you notice that?
Radwaste at April 20, 2015 1:01 PM
Rad, I'm feeling generous and I'll just assume you misunderstood me. Whether you agree with it or not, the Supreme Court, when establishing holdings, uses the terms "rights" and "liberties" as distinct terms. This was explained to me by a friend of mine, a recent law school graduate who is awaiting the results of his bar exam.
I pretty much use the terms interchangeably. So does everyone else. But if I am to understand his message to me correctly, they are not the same thing. I asked him about a very good argument made recently on Amy's blog about how flying actually is a right.
Just to show you that I don't make this stuff up and do try to listen to people who know more than I do on certain subjects, I'll share my exchange with him. This is our conversation, via Facebook messages. (He uses his iPhone, which is why the punctuation and capitalization is somewhat crappy.) I'll call him "Rob," for the very good reason that that's his name. Nothing follows.
Patrick: Hey, Rob. I got a discussion with someone who maintains that flying is a protected right.
Here's their post, nothing follows:
Rob: he's mistaking a right and a Liberty [emphasis added]
free speech is a Liberty, not a right, it's constitutionally protected
driving is a right, not a liberty, it's granted by statute and can be revoked or altered
the problem is everybody,myself included, uses rights to mean Liberty except when very specific, so to the layperson they are the same, even though we would clearly distinguish in cases
Patrick: Thanks very much, Rob.
Rob: keep in mind, even the court mixes up the terms in dicta, it's only in the holdings you'll see hem say "liberty interest" but in the dicta you'll see right to XYZ
so it's confusing as fuck even for law students, until they learn in depth con law, which most don't - hence the costint arguing over voting on my wall
Patrick at April 20, 2015 1:42 PM
"Gee, another Celebutard pushes another social crusade based on false information."
Empty chairs and cold, dead hands, anyone?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 20, 2015 3:32 PM
Gwyneth Paltrow's poverty challenge failed.
Patrick at April 20, 2015 7:57 PM
Patrick asks, Why does the money belong to the drug addict once it leaves your hands to pay him, but it's still your money when you pay it to the government?
Because I paid the shop-owner voluntarily, and I got what I paid for - the quart of milk or whatever it is I went in for. Once he's given me my value, he's free to do what he wants with his profit. That really is his money.
Not so with the government. They take money, provide little or no value (or the value they provide is not necessarily the value I want), and in addition, in the US, are allegedly (but not actually) representatives of the people. The SHOULD be responsive.
This is not hard to understand unless you have adopted the bogus notion of the "collective" to justify fleecing people to pay for things you could never convince them to fund solely on the merits.
Grey Ghost at April 21, 2015 3:30 PM
Patrick: Very well done.
Yet it does not illustrate the problem very well, which stems from the idea that rights come from government - thus the distinction (uncredited) between liberties, rights and privileges made in my earlier comment.
I find the idea logical, and one leading to better order, that such distinction should be made. As it is - and you have presented numerous examples of this yourself - special interests have distorted each, even in court, to get their way, even when bad for the nation (and here I do not mean, "in my opinion").
Radwaste at April 22, 2015 6:19 AM
Leave a comment