Foodstamps Are Good

[OldUSAFSniper]

The problem with it is the simple fact that we are already broke. We can't keep pumping cash into the system that we have to borrow and pay interest on.

So. Food stamps are short term solution but one you can't use for long to improve an economy because eventually the funds will evaporate.

HERE - HERE!!!!

Just like unemployment benefits, food stamps should be a short term "hand up" so to speak. The issue becomes compounded when those "hand up" programs become open ended. Unemployment benefits now run for 99 weeks. The instances of those living "on the dole" instead of seeking work continue to multiply. Unemployment benefits, food stamps, and general "welfare" programs should be provided for those who are able to work for only a short period of time. Once that time period is reached, then I think it goes back to the "you want to sit on your keister and do nothing, fine. But we do not have to subsidize it."

 

[Bfgrn]

The problem with it is the simple fact that we are already broke. We can't keep pumping cash into the system that we have to borrow and pay interest on.

So. Food stamps are short term solution but one you can't use for long to improve an economy because eventually the funds will evaporate.

HERE - HERE!!!!

Just like unemployment benefits, food stamps should be a short term "hand up" so to speak. The issue becomes compounded when those "hand up" programs become open ended. Unemployment benefits now run for 99 weeks. The instances of those living "on the dole" instead of seeking work continue to multiply. Unemployment benefits, food stamps, and general "welfare" programs should be provided for those who are able to work for only a short period of time. Once that time period is reached, then I think it goes back to the "you want to sit on your keister and do nothing, fine. But we do not have to subsidize it."

What right wing conservatives ALWAYS ignore is human cost and capital. Their morally bankrupt sick desire to only punish people always requires some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised objections to F.D.R.’s programs for the unemployed. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

First, some education on the LAW:

Unemployment Compensation

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.

Reason # 2 is the current situation. Under normal conditions, unemployment is limited to 'a short period of time'

There is only 1 job for every 5 people unemployed. So WHAT don't you understand. This is NOT about laziness, this is about the HUMAN and FAMILY reality of trying to survive the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

What did FDR and the New Deal do when faced with this crisis?

The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.

 

[mudwhistle]

FDR policies lengthened the depression.

 

[Bfgrn]

FDR policies lengthened the depression.

We can always count of the right wing parrots to mindlessly repeat the FALSE propaganda they are being spoon fed... you are more predictable that Pavlov's dogs.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well, stop trying to put words in people's mouths and you won't have that misunderstanding anymore.

I dont, you rant and rave about how much the poor are "getting over" on everyone. You would think they were living like kings on your money. What other conclusion should I gather from the stuff you post? You believe that "Dems only care about votes nothing else" because you believe that these programs hinder peoples ability to succeed. Thats simply not true and a stupid idea that is ofter repeated here. So spare me

I'm not ranting and raving. You are.

The people in Washington that call themselves Democrats are primarily concerned with votes.
They've got a good racket. Help the poor. Cool. Problem is the poor are still poor. I see nothing they're doing to end their poverty.

Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty and the poor are still here. Changing their habits instead of just giving them a handout is what they need. Help them become self-sufficient. But if they did that what would they need the Democrats for?

Why is it people that have property or own a business vote for Republicans? Because the Republicans aren't always into tossing money at problems. They get out of the way and let the private-sector solve problems through innovation. Reduced red-tape. Make the process easier and less painstaking. Give a business opportunity and they will provide jobs. Give money to someone who never learned how to invest it and all they do is spend it.

The problem is Democrats, or whatever they call themselves, are into bribes. Their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to pay people to vote for them. The GOP gives us the opportunity to succeed while Democrats just give us stuff. I'd rather succeed if given a choice. If I didn't have the will nor the energy to try I'll just sit back and collect a check like the Democrats want. Step up to the community trough and help yourself. Threaten to take away the free lunch and all hell breaks loose. If you run out of money who can you blame for it???? That's right....the GOP.

Helping the poor or programs to help the poor does not mean that it will eradicate poverty. I think you are either joking or stupid to believe one day there will be no poor people or that welfare programs create poor folks. I'm not sure. Throughout the history of man there has and always will be poor people. Nothing will change that.

BTW all politicans are into bribes. Stop being so dam silly. Dem and Repubs both take bribes, play to their base, are involved in cronyism etc. Business owners vote for the GOP because the GOP protects the business owners and do favors. Dont get it twisted. You believe the poor only vote for Dems because they get things in return but oh no not the business community. They dont want favors they really really care about America.

Stop being so childish

 

[mudwhistle]

FDR policies lengthened the depression.

We can always count of the right wing parrots to mindlessly repeat the FALSE propaganda they are being spoon fed... you are more predictable that Pavlov's dogs.

Jesus, you're a dumb-ass.

The Depression started in 1929. Some countries started to recover in the mid 30s.

Not the United States. It took World War II to get us out of the depression.

The productivity you showed has no dates but I would be willing to bet it was war production in the 40s.

Let me find the real numbers.

Oh, holy shit look at that!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

I dont, you rant and rave about how much the poor are "getting over" on everyone. You would think they were living like kings on your money. What other conclusion should I gather from the stuff you post? You believe that "Dems only care about votes nothing else" because you believe that these programs hinder peoples ability to succeed. Thats simply not true and a stupid idea that is ofter repeated here. So spare me

I'm not ranting and raving. You are.

The people in Washington that call themselves Democrats are primarily concerned with votes.
They've got a good racket. Help the poor. Cool. Problem is the poor are still poor. I see nothing they're doing to end their poverty.

Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty and the poor are still here. Changing their habits instead of just giving them a handout is what they need. Help them become self-sufficient. But if they did that what would they need the Democrats for?

Why is it people that have property or own a business vote for Republicans? Because the Republicans aren't always into tossing money at problems. They get out of the way and let the private-sector solve problems through innovation. Reduced red-tape. Make the process easier and less painstaking. Give a business opportunity and they will provide jobs. Give money to someone who never learned how to invest it and all they do is spend it.

The problem is Democrats, or whatever they call themselves, are into bribes. Their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to pay people to vote for them. The GOP gives us the opportunity to succeed while Democrats just give us stuff. I'd rather succeed if given a choice. If I didn't have the will nor the energy to try I'll just sit back and collect a check like the Democrats want. Step up to the community trough and help yourself. Threaten to take away the free lunch and all hell breaks loose. If you run out of money who can you blame for it???? That's right....the GOP.

Helping the poor or programs to help the poor does not mean that it will eradicate poverty. I think you are either joking or stupid to believe one day there will be no poor people or that welfare programs create poor folks. I'm not sure. Throughout the history of man there has and always will be poor people. Nothing will change that.

BTW all politicans are into bribes. Stop being so dam silly. Dem and Repubs both take bribes, play to their base, are involved in cronyism etc. Business owners vote for the GOP because the GOP protects the business owners and do favors. Dont get it twisted. You believe the poor only vote for Dems because they get things in return but oh no not the business community. They dont want favors they really really care about America.

Stop being so childish

Fuck you.

The goal of any program should be to eliminate the problem not perpetuate it, not to make it worse.

Explain to me how all of the spending in the Stimulus is justified....$250,000 per job Obama says he created, how do you justify that?

No, the goal is to build dependency, not end poverty. Turn em into loyal Democrat voters. Pass out billions to bail out unions. Send billions overseas bailing out foreign banks. Run up the debt.

The goal all along was to raise taxes to the point that people are desperate.....simply to build dependency.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Obama didn't bail out the banks and line I said a policy to help the poor cannot have the goal of stopping poverty no more than the war on drugs can stop drugs. Both always have and always will be here forever. So if your whole gripe is that programs for the poor have not ended poverty then I can see why you're mad at it. That is not the goal of it at all. Using that logic Mud you can hate everything because no project or program has ever eradicate all instances of it. You're setting the bar so high it can never be achieved but then, you know that already. That's your schtik.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama didn't bail out the banks and line I said a policy to help the poor cannot have the goal of stopping poverty no more than the war on drugs can stop drugs. Both always have and always will be here forever. So if your whole gripe is that programs for the poor have not ended poverty then I can see why you're mad at it. That is not the goal of it at all. Using that logic Mud you can hate everything because no project or program has ever eradicate all instances of it. You're setting the bar so high it can never be achieved but then, you know that already. That's your schtik.

I guess you don't believe in a Utopia. Isn't that what Socialism is all about???

I think you're missing the point.



Some folks believe we can do better. Some can do better. It's not good enough just to be comfortable with accepting a lousy life and for that matter a lousy society. If the job is too tough for these people then stop making excuses for them.

Yes, I accept that there will always be poor. Jesus said as much. But just throwing up your hands and throwing money that we don't have at the problem is no solution. All it does is give you a warm feeling about being a failure.

Obama wanted to be the first leader for the world. I think he should have concentrated on this country first, but he's not even doing that right.

A second-string Quarterback doesn't sit on the bench and aspire to remain there for the rest of his career. He wants to start. Being satisfied with maintaining the status-quo isn't good enough. Being satisfied with living off of your good intentions is the role of a failed politician.

 

[snjmom]

Some countries started to recover in the mid 30s.

Would those be the ones that went off the gold standard?

 

[SuMar]

If food stamps are good for the economy, they why isn't everyone on food stamps?

 

[Annie]

Seems to me that the spin is more of the same as 'cuts' in taxes, meaning they'll rise slower, until accelerated.

Let's say someone was making $24k per year. Lost their job. Unemployment is 1/3 of salary, so $8k per year. That's food stamp territory, justifiably so.

With that said, this worker was spending $75 per week on groceries. With food stamps they get $200. If they cut back to keep food on the stamps, there is $100 less per month into the economy.

So, the former worker is still eating, but not quite as much or at least not as costly. So there are going to be cut backs at grocer's, but not as bad as if there was no money spent. I guess that is where the 'jobs saved' comes in? LOL!

 

[Bfgrn]

FDR policies lengthened the depression.

We can always count of the right wing parrots to mindlessly repeat the FALSE propaganda they are being spoon fed... you are more predictable that Pavlov's dogs.

Jesus, you're a dumb-ass.

The Depression started in 1929. Some countries started to recover in the mid 30s.

Not the United States. It took World War II to get us out of the depression.

The productivity you showed has no dates but I would be willing to bet it was war production in the 40s.

Let me find the real numbers.

Oh, holy shit look at that!!!

WHAT countries outperformed the USA? I want names, numbers and form of government; democracy, dictatorship??? America didn't start to recover in the early 1930's, FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

Hey Einstein, can't you read a chart? The Key is in the ledger. Each of those bars signify one term in office. You don't need dates because we know when each President served. The first bar represents FDR's First term, 1933–1937

The Hoover/Mellon austerity turned a recession into a depression. Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon's formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate."

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars

1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9 <-----FDR takes office. BUT, it is still Hoover's budget
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

Gee, where did I hear austerity recently?

Tea party austerity plan: Would slashing US spending work?

Cutting $2.5 trillion in government spending over 10 years is the tea party's first step toward its 'small government' vision. Whether such measures will boost the economy or add jobs is a leap of faith, economists say.

Can America cut its way to prosperity by reducing government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars – starting now and for each year to come for 10 years?

That's the assertion of tea party conservatives and fiscal hawks in Congress, whose economic plan would reduce government spending by a collective $2.5 trillion within a decade. Most nondefense government spending would get cut by 40 percent, and the share of the gross domestic product attributed to government would drop from 25 percent to 18 percent. The eventual benefit, supporters of the plan say, would be a reinvigorated private sector.

Contrast that with President Obama's competing vision for a renewed economy. His economic fix, as outlined Tuesday in the State of the Union address, is to invest in the education and energy sectors, hold the line for five years on so-called discretionary spending – which has jumped 84 percent in the past two years – and slash corporate tax rates, a strategy that helped kick-start the economy in the 1960s and mid-1980s. He offered a relatively modest $400 billion in spending cuts over five years (not including cuts in defense).

The Christian Science Monitor

Will blood letting make the patient better???

Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.

 

[editec]

I estimate that the SNAP program, which is, we are informed, feeding about 40 million people, right now, is costing this nation about $45 Billion a year.

All in all I'd say that's money well spent.

Remember that most of that money ends up as PROFITS going to local markets, US agricultural and food corporations and the middlemen who service the US food industry.

As long as the government doesn't have the balls to insure that working people make enough money to feed themselves, this is the alternative solution to that problem.

Its hardly a perfect system, but it's better than nothing at all.

 

[JoeB131]

the problem with food stamps and welfare in general is that it becomes a way of life, not a helping hand in the short run.

When I was in the service, we had this one Sergeant who had a huge wad of food stamps he used as currency. Now, since he had a job, this struck me as odd. He explained that he took money, and paid half face value for the stamps, while the people who had them would go off and buy drugs with the money. (This Sergeant later developed a substance abuse problem and was discharged.)

The problem with entitlement programs is that we don't treat them as what they are- charity. We are helping you out now, but you are expected to try to improve your lot. We don't do that. We have a mentality that you are OWED food stamps. You are OWED welfare. You are OWED social security, even if you didn't pay all that much into it.

"He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form- the belief the world owes you a living" - Robert A. Heinlein.


Caring about people is challenging them to be better than they are. You call this the law of the jungle, I call it making people better. It seems, though, that your party is intent on making as many people dependent on government as possible.

Now THAT is a playbook response. It is bullshit and filled with ignorance.

You ARE owed Social Security, you pay into it all your working life. It is not charity, it is EARNED.

No, it's not, in many cases.

For instance, your payment is based on what you earned in your last three years of employment. It's a common thing for immigrants to come over here when they are close to retirement, work a few years, get social security and go back to their home countries. (THis is a very common thing in the Polish community here in Chicago.)

People on disability, never paid a dime into it. (HT to Mudwhistle for pointing this out.)

More to the point, even if you did work your entire life (I've been working since I was 16, and I'm 49 now) if you retire at 65, you will get back everything you paid into it by 72. This is why the system is in so much trouble now. Back when it started, the average lifespan for an American was 62 years. So lots were paying in, not a lot collecting. Today it's 78. Which means that you have all these people living six years on average beyond what they might have paid into it.

If you have a system, you will have a tendency to abuse it. ONe of the first entitlements ever voted in was a pension for Civil War Veterans (Just the union side, of course) in the 1890's. This was expanded to include not just the veterans, but their spouses as well. The end result was that you had a lot of 18 year old women marrying 50 year old men, knowing they'd be set up for life with a pension. (And you had a lot of old Civil War vets dyign with big silly smiles on their faces, but I digress.)

 

[Bfgrn]

the problem with food stamps and welfare in general is that it becomes a way of life, not a helping hand in the short run.

When I was in the service, we had this one Sergeant who had a huge wad of food stamps he used as currency. Now, since he had a job, this struck me as odd. He explained that he took money, and paid half face value for the stamps, while the people who had them would go off and buy drugs with the money. (This Sergeant later developed a substance abuse problem and was discharged.)

The problem with entitlement programs is that we don't treat them as what they are- charity. We are helping you out now, but you are expected to try to improve your lot. We don't do that. We have a mentality that you are OWED food stamps. You are OWED welfare. You are OWED social security, even if you didn't pay all that much into it.

"He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form- the belief the world owes you a living" - Robert A. Heinlein.


Caring about people is challenging them to be better than they are. You call this the law of the jungle, I call it making people better. It seems, though, that your party is intent on making as many people dependent on government as possible.

Now THAT is a playbook response. It is bullshit and filled with ignorance.

You ARE owed Social Security, you pay into it all your working life. It is not charity, it is EARNED.

No, it's not, in many cases.

For instance, your payment is based on what you earned in your last three years of employment. It's a common thing for immigrants to come over here when they are close to retirement, work a few years, get social security and go back to their home countries. (THis is a very common thing in the Polish community here in Chicago.)

People on disability, never paid a dime into it. (HT to Mudwhistle for pointing this out.)

More to the point, even if you did work your entire life (I've been working since I was 16, and I'm 49 now) if you retire at 65, you will get back everything you paid into it by 72. This is why the system is in so much trouble now. Back when it started, the average lifespan for an American was 62 years. So lots were paying in, not a lot collecting. Today it's 78. Which means that you have all these people living six years on average beyond what they might have paid into it.

If you have a system, you will have a tendency to abuse it. ONe of the first entitlements ever voted in was a pension for Civil War Veterans (Just the union side, of course) in the 1890's. This was expanded to include not just the veterans, but their spouses as well. The end result was that you had a lot of 18 year old women marrying 50 year old men, knowing they'd be set up for life with a pension. (And you had a lot of old Civil War vets dyign with big silly smiles on their faces, but I digress.)

The solution is NOT to eliminate these programs. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly out of poverty.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Social Security Act, part of which included Medicare, a measure to provide low-cost health insurance for elderly Americans. At the time, Johnson called the bill "the most revolutionary and most beneficial measure for older Americans since we passed Social Security itself back in 1935." "They will no longer have to suffer from misery and neglect and depend upon their relatives because they themselves cannot afford the cost of modern treatment," Johnson said. He inaugurated the "Great Society" program at the White House signing ceremony by enrolling former President Harry Truman as the first beneficiary and presenting him with the first Medicare card. "I predict that 30 years from today, this bill will be a welcome and permanent part of our nation's heritage that no representative would ever dare repeal," Johnson said. "Why? Because it represents the moral principle that we just must not neglect in their age those who have given a lifetime of service to their country." Johnson was right. Forty-four years later, Medicare has dramatically improved access to quality health care for the nation's seniors, allowed them to live longer and healthier lives, and has become one of the country's most popular government programs.

MEDICARE'S SUCCESS: Since the advent of Medicare, "the health of the elderly population has improved, as measured by both longevity and functional status," said one study published in the journal Health Affairs. In fact, according to the study, "life expectancy at age 65 increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 17.8 years in 1998 and the chronically disabled elderly population declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 percent in 1994." Leaders of the Commonwealth Fund wrote in May that, "compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care [and] fewer problems with medical bills." The report added that this finding is significant when considering that those Americans on Medicare represent a demographic that is more likely to be in poor health and to have lower incomes. Prior to Medicare, "about one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance," more than 25 percent "were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns," and one in three were living in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

 

[JoeB131]

The thing is, you are talking like that's a good thing.

What happens when the lifespan increases to 100? Are you really going to advocate a situation where a person gets lifetime payments and free medical care for 35 years after they retire? Where does the line get drawn.

The problem is, these programs as they are configured now are unsustainable.

Seriously, how much are you willing to steal from the young to pay for the old?

The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.

 

[Bfgrn]

The thing is, you are talking like that's a good thing.

What happens when the lifespan increases to 100? Are you really going to advocate a situation where a person gets lifetime payments and free medical care for 35 years after they retire? Where does the line get drawn.

The problem is, these programs as they are configured now are unsustainable.

Seriously, how much are you willing to steal from the young to pay for the old?

The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Let me ask you a question that will require you to actually THINK: What can an 80 year old person on a fixed income do? Go back to college? Start a new career? Get a job?

What YOU are advocating is LET THEM DIE!

Medicare and Social Security are not 'good' things, they are GREAT things. They represent the BEST of America.

You right wingers LOVE government, just as long as our tax dollars are spent bombing, killing, maiming, torturing, arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings.

But when government actually HELPS people, it is EVIL.


You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

 

[Mr.Nick]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

So, you are promoting the law of the jungle. THAT is not a civil society. Take a course in civics.

Food stamps and unemployment will do little to create 'new' jobs, but the money that goes to families will go directly back into the economy, keep many homes from going into foreclosure and keep people from living in 2010 Hoovervilles.

What right wing conservatives ALWAYS ignore is the human cost and capital. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

It doesn't go directly into the economy because you have to PAY someone to put the fucking money into the economy and when that occurs a dollar is no longer a dollar its 75 cents.

Thanks public sector unions and other bureaucrats...........

I suppose that's what happens when the sheep make inflated wages and get government goodies.

The notion that money recycles is bullshit. You may as well pay me a million bucks for writing this post because that money will go right back into the economy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hell why don't we just drop money out of a plane because it will go right back into the economy...

You know because thats how it works.