• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

All these slanders. They're getting completely carried away with competing to make up the most egregious stuff they can think of. Eventually somebody's going to get sued and find they have absolutely not a leg to stand on.

The Salem witch trials probably felt a lot like this.
Everything couched as a question/hypothetical, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" insinuation and innuendo- CT101. The "serious" people we have so many of in our government are the equivalent of the people we've seen so many of over the years here at JFREF/ISF.
 
... TRUMP: If it were -- who are you with?

He checks he's not revealing any secrets to a reporter who might take what he says in a negative light. As if all the other reporters were not also there listening.

(No, I get that it's not really that. He's not going to indulge reporters with a follow-up question if they're with employers he intends to close down as soon as he can.)
 
I am wondering if the grocery store business is busily cutting purchase orders for next month in expectation of less SNAP benefits. If they are, then they will not have a bunch of leftover food to donate. There are areas in New Mexico that see VERY noticeable changes in volume when SNAP cards are reloaded.

You would think so, but it's still a write off. They might even buy more food just to write it all off. What do you think?
 
You would think so, but it's still a write off. They might even buy more food just to write it all off. What do you think?
Intentionally buy food to just donate it for a write off? First a C Corp is limited to 15% of their inventory per year* (I do not know the roles for S Corps and sole proprietorships, but the big chains are C Corps).

*Normally 10%, but 15% for apparently wholesome food.


But most importantly its just a tax write off. Best case scenario they get 21% back (federally) for what they paid for the product.
 
Last edited:
Intentionally buy food to just donate it for a write off? First a C Corp is limited to 15% of their inventory per year* (I do not know the roles for S Corps and sole proprietorships, but the big chains are C Corps). Then they don't come out ahead, its just we paid x for this, and we get x back.

*Normally 10%, but 15% for apparently wholesome food.


But most importantly its just a tax write off. Best case scenario they get 21% back (federally) for what they paid for the product.

15% is still a lot of money, and my stores are actually stocked to the rafters, but we'll see how things go. I'm not about to write them off just yet, but you can if you want to.
 
15% is still a lot of money, and my stores are actually stocked to the rafters, but we'll see how things go. I'm not about to write them off just yet, but you can if you want to.
I'm not sure you understand what a tax deduction is, which is understandable, most people don't. Lets say your local store overpuchases perishable food by $100,000 in November, because fewer people bought from from them due to no SNAP benefits going out. They do not come out ahead. They do not even come out made whole by the IRS. They get $21,000 off their federal taxes for the year, assuming they made a yearly profit of at least $100,000. They still have to pay the supplier for their purchase.

ETA: I think the thought some people are having is, x amount of food is made in the USA per month, so x amount will be available for consumption one way or the other. Stores will donate to food banks their excess. So its a net equal. It might just about work out that way for a month, since no one knows how long this will last. But if its lengthy, I see a couple of things happening. First the USA, while a net food exporter, does import food. That will be cut. More food may be exported to other markets if demand for food goes down in the USA. Perishable food may be transferred to non-perishable status (ie canned or frozen) and held in inventory. That's on top of the fact that its extra work and less efficient to move food to foodbanks than just let people buy it with a SNAP card.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you understand what a tax deduction is, which is understandable, most people don't. Lets say your local store overpuchases perishable food by $100,000 in November, because fewer people bought from from them due to no SNAP benefits going out. They do not come out ahead. They do not even come out made whole by the IRS. They get $21,000 off their federal taxes for the year, assuming they made a profit of at least $100,000. They still have to pay the supplier for their purchase.

Oh, I understand what a write off is, but I'm wondering how many SNAP users you think there are out there?
 
Oh, I understand what a write off is, but I'm wondering how many SNAP users you think there are out there?
41 million. Roughly 21% of the state I resided in until early this year (New Mexico). 70 to 80% in some areas. I used to work for a food producer, we KNEW to adjust our volume based on SNAP and WIC timing.

ETA: and there are no food banks in the more rural places of NM. So your asking impoverished people to travel ours to get food. Its a blue state, and I'm sure the governor is going to help out where she can. But what about places like Mississippi?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you understand what a tax deduction is, which is understandable, most people don't. Lets say your local store overpuchases perishable food by $100,000 in November, because fewer people bought from from them due to no SNAP benefits going out. They do not come out ahead. They do not even come out made whole by the IRS. They get $21,000 off their federal taxes for the year, assuming they made a yearly profit of at least $100,000. They still have to pay the supplier for their purchase.

ETA: I think the thought some people are having is, x amount of food is made in the USA per month, so x amount will be available for consumption one way or the other. Stores will donate to food banks their excess. So its a net equal. It might just about work out that way for a month, since no one knows how long this will last. But if its lengthy, I see a couple of things happening. First the USA, while a net food exporter, does import food. That will be cut. More food may be exported to other markets if demand for food goes down in the USA. Perishable food may be transferred to non-perishable status (ie canned or frozen) and held in inventory. That's on top of the fact that its extra work and less efficient to move food to foodbanks than just let people buy it with a SNAP card.

Actually. there are 42 million SNAP users, and that's just a little over 10% of the population, and don't forget, if they donate money, that's also a different type of write off.
 
Actually. there are 42 million SNAP users, and that's just a little over 10% of the population, and don't forget, if they donate money, that's also a different type of write off.
About 12.4%... but its not spread evenly is the point I'm trying to make. Where you live it might be 3%, and somewhere else its 50%.

No one comes out ahead by donating.... other than through fraud, overvaluing your donation.... are you expecting large for-profit corps to cover for the loss of SNAP benefits?
 
41 million. Roughly 21% of the state I resided in until early this year (New Mexico). 70 to 80% in some areas. I used to work for a food producer, we KNEW to adjust our volume based on SNAP and WIC timing.

ETA: and there are no food banks in the more rural places of NM. So your asking impoverished people to travel ours to get food. Its a blue state, and I'm sure the governor is going to help out where she can. But what about places like Mississippi?

New Mexico isn't the only state with SNAP, and with 2.1 million people, that means 70-80% is 1.4 million (give or take) people on it, and that just doesn't seem true.
 
About 12.4%... but its not spread evenly is the point I'm trying to make. Where you live it might be 3%, and somewhere else its 50%.

No one comes out ahead by donating.... other than through fraud, overvaluing your donation.... are you expecting large for-profit corps to cover for the loss of SNAP benefits?

Once SNAP is reinstated (hopefully users get back pay), that will mean a huge profit for them, so I don't see the problem.
 
New Mexico isn't the only state with SNAP, and with 2.1 million people, that means 70-80% is 1.4 million (give or take) people on it, and that just doesn't seem true.
No its about 21% state wide, as I stated before. There are areas where its much higher. A given store might have as much as three fourths of their grocery business transactions by SNAP. The Walmarts in Farmington NM for example.

I'm unclear what point you are trying to make really.
 
About 12.4%... but its not spread evenly is the point I'm trying to make. Where you live it might be 3%, and somewhere else its 50%.

No one comes out ahead by donating.... other than through fraud, overvaluing your donation.... are you expecting large for-profit corps to cover for the loss of SNAP benefits?

And by the way, only 420,000 people use SNAP in Mexico. That's a far cry from 70-80% of the population of 2.1 million.
 
And by the way, only 420,000 people use SNAP in Mexico. That's a far cry from 70-80% of the population of 2.1 million.
Please re-read my post up above more carefully. I stated 21%. Locally, it can be much higher.

41 million. Roughly 21% of the state I resided in until early this year (New Mexico). 70 to 80% in some areas.

But yeah, just 420,000 extra people to feed through food banks, no big deal for New Mexico :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
No its about 21% state wide , as I stated before. There are areas where its much higher. A given store might have as much as three fourths of their grocery business transactions by SNAP. The Walmarts in Farmington NM for example.

I'm unclear what point you are trying to make really.

I stand corrected, but my point is that food banks will help out more than the fat clown will, and some states are even:

As millions of Americans prepare to lose SNAP benefits, some states are moving to bridge the gap

WASHINGTON — With just days to go before millions of low-income Americans are expected to see a pause in federal food assistance, state governments are trying to find ways to fill the void.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — more commonly known as SNAP, or food stamps — is a key benefits program that serves more than 40 million people across the country. Now, the shutdown is threatening to temporarily suspend benefits, raising concerns over where millions of people who rely on the program will turn to for food.

I wouldn't be surprised if New Mexico joined them, if they haven't already, but they are also one of the states suing the Fat Clown for his stupidity, so instead of being so negative, I'm going to wait and see what happens.

Maybe you should too.


ETA: I've got an appointment next week to shop at my local food bank, so I'll keep everyone here updated.
 
Last edited:
Once SNAP is reinstated (hopefully users get back pay), that will mean a huge profit for them, so I don't see the problem.
I sincerely hope it is reinstated, although I'm afraid Trump and Co might well decide not to … What mechanism is there to ensure it is, and/or that that users get back pay ?
 

Back
Top Bottom