Obama Secretary of Agriculture "Food Stamps Are Economic Stimulus"

screw-ball.jpg
 
If every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy, instead of the $860 billion stimulus, why didn’t the Obama administration just send every single American $2,800 worth of food stamps and thereby generate $1.58 trillion in economic activity? Other then his union buddies wouldn't have been able to scam most of the money.

45,753,078 people were on food stamps as of May of this year. Of those, 31,983,716 were inherited from previous administration, which means there are roughly 13,769,362 more people on food stamps than when Bush was president, which according to Secretary Vilsack means the economy is being helped that much more.

Before Obama, adding more people to food stamps during your administration was considered a being a FAILURE.

The New York Times reports that in order to increase jobs, your ever helpful Obama administration is considering creating a “Department of Jobs”

How would a Obama “Department of Jobs”create jobs? By hiring people to work in the “Department of Jobs!” (problem solved!!). But if the government hires people to work in the Department of Jobs, would that take somebody off unemployment compensation and food stamps, which would then be very bad for the economy??
 
Food stamps ARE an economic stimulus. If you disagree then perhaps you could take some time to think about why they are not and post that - but so far the responses are somewhat lackluster. Or, perhaps the point of this thread is to laugh at the Ag Secretary no matter what he is saying in the video.
 
for fake republicans a stimulus is only good when it goes to the rich. like oil companies.
if it goes to poor people that's just a waste because those people are lazy and evil.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Food stamps ARE an economic stimulus. If you disagree then perhaps you could take some time to think about why they are not and post that - but so far the responses are somewhat lackluster. Or, perhaps the point of this thread is to laugh at the Ag Secretary no matter what he is saying in the video.
Click to expand...

Please do not tell me you really think "every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy".
 
cecilia said:
for fake republicans a stimulus is only good when it goes to the rich. like oil companies.
if it goes to poor people that's just a waste because those people are lazy and evil.
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth. Obviously if I could go back in time I would rather the gov not bail out banks and would rather Obama not give kickbacks to all his rich elitist buddies. That money did not help the economy at all but rather further harmed it. That money would have been better used just simply giving to the people. I said that back then, I'll say it now. Just don't tell me food stamps is stimulus and funny math like "every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy". Better used does not equal stimulus.
 
Fluffy, you of all people should see where all of this is going. Monsanto, S510, "food stamps are stimulus". You are smarter than this.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Food stamps ARE an economic stimulus. If you disagree then perhaps you could take some time to think about why they are not and post that - but so far the responses are somewhat lackluster. Or, perhaps the point of this thread is to laugh at the Ag Secretary no matter what he is saying in the video.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it took money out of the economy (via taxation) to pay for the admin cost and then the actual food purchased. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that the dollar per dollar, admin costs is close to half what is given out. That means it made the economy worse and not better.
 
cybereye said:
Sorry FluffyMcDeath, You mess that one up. Redrumloa is correct. That like saying "Money grow on trees."
Click to expand...

It's not like that at all. It is the fact that when you spend money into the economy that money can do its economic work more than once. This is related to the velocity of money.

Food stamps are a form of money issued by the government. The overhead of expanding the food stamp program is actually quite small compared to the stamps issued because a large part of the organizational infrastructure must exist even if only one stamp were being issued.

The food stamps are given to poor people and cannot be saved. They are therefore spent - they probably would be anyway because the recipients are poor and need to acquire food. That spent dollar DOES mean that there are people needed to participate in that food production all down the supply chain so the food stamp dollar is spent multiple times down the line.

This is more productive than the vast amount of dollars that have been shoved into the financial system. In fact, those dollars generally produce half a dollar each in the economy because most of the new money didn't circulate but was held in reserve by nervous (or broke) institutions.

Giving money to the poor is actually more economically stimulating because the poor spend the money.
 
Dammy said:
No it's not, it took money out of the economy (via taxation) to pay for the admin cost a...
Click to expand...
All those administrators then went and took their pay (or the portion that wasn't taxed right back) and spent it into the economy.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
All those administrators then went and took their pay (or the portion that wasn't taxed right back) and spent it into the economy.
Click to expand...

Good Keynesian model. We also heard from the Obama Administration on how critical it is to our economy that unemployment payments are paid, just like the money spent on food stamps (now known as SNAP). So lets combine food stamps and unemployment payment economic effects by having all Americans go on welfare and food stamps to create a roaring economy, right?
 
Dammy said:
So lets combine food stamps and unemployment payment economic effects by having all Americans go on welfare and food stamps to create a roaring economy, right?
Click to expand...

When you says things like this it does not make me feel like you read my last response. Perhaps you could explain to me how you came to this conclusion (or how you think that I might have agreed with your assessment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top