Did we pay $1,191,200 for 2 pounds of frozen ham?

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. In other words, it's stimulating nothing.

 

[DiveCon]

How much of that koolaid did you drink?

ed is a fucking moron, dont expect much from him

and all those jobs are already in place
zero sum gain

Unless they aren't. And if it's able to save some of those jobs, then in the long run that's a gain over a loss.

The biggest amount of job gains will most likely come from the Stimulus money going to improvement of roads, bridges, etc.

Im pretty sure the stuff is going to food banks not stores,It is feeding unemployed not saving jobs

that was my understanding as well
and the people that work at food banks are volenteer
thus is saves nor creates any jobs

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly.

 

[concept]

btw, allie, this ISNT spam they are buying

nah they are selling that stuff.

 

[DiveCon]

btw, allie, this ISNT spam they are buying

nah they are selling that stuff.

naw, what they are selling doesnt smell anything like spam

 

[auditor0007]

Contracts - Recipient Summary | Recovery.gov

That's Kosher ham. Very expensive.

That's it, there you go again blaming the Jews, lol.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look, Ed, do you honestly believe anyone actually believed that's what was paid for a mere two pounds of ham? Seriously? I know that, for me, it was simply an opportunity to have a little fun. I can remember the days when the government would pay $600.00 for a hammer or a toilet seat.

Drudge didn't pick up on this until this morning sometime, hours after this thread was started. Though I haven't been to the Drudge site for weeks, I went to the trouble of searching the archives over there for the sake of accuracy. While I was over there, I also noticed that he had a link to Vilsac's explanation of the charges for the ham in question which I posted earlier. Is that enough follow up for you?

As for hating America... I don't think anyone here hates America, not even you. Just because someone does not share your views or my views doesn't mean they hate America, it just means that they don't agree with our views.

Since the reply from Vilsac was a REPLY to Drudge's report, your "archive" with Vilsac's link could not be Drudge's first posting of the story. So no, that is not enough of a follow up for me.

USDA Releases A Rare Response To Drudge On Ham | HULIQ

USDA Releases A Rare Response To Drudge On Ham

It's not everyday that you see a government agency like USA responding to Drudge Report. Now USA has responded to Drudge's report on Glougherty Packing, LLC 2 pound frozen ham slicing funding and says it's not what you think it is.

Here is what USDA said in its own release: Response to Drudge Item on Recovery Act Funding. Statement from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

"Through the Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made $100 million available to the states for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which acquires food that is distributed to local organizations that assist the needy – including food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens.

The Recovery Act funds referenced in press reports allowed states to purchase ham, cheese and dairy products for these food banks, soup kitchens and food pantries that provide assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food. This program will help reduce hunger of those hardest hit by the current economic recession.

The references to "2 pound frozen ham sliced" are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy "2 pounds of ham" are wrong. In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound.

Silly me, I thought the point of the stimulus package was to put people to work, not put packages of ham and cheese in their refrigerator. If they were working, they could buy their own ham and cheese.

Google food shelves serving more working families and take your pick from thousands of reports from every state in the union. Your argument is moot. Silly you.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not when you're buying more than a million dollars of it in bulk.

Yes, we know, let them eat ketchup. That'll build up that energy needed when they finally get those minimum wage jobs and stop sucking the blood out of the unemployment compensation fund.

 

[MaggieMae]

Good lord, that's my point.

You can find the same shit for .75 a lb on sale in the store.

Wow. I wonder if you can buy it online. Got the name of that store? I'll check. There is nothing in the meat section of any grocery store in my area for $.75 per pound. Not even dog bones.

 

[chanel]

Food Lion was advertising .79. Not sure if I'd eat it though. Does anyone know if people have to qualify to use food pantries? I have a feeling they are being raided by people who may not need them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The irony is that Obama could have "Created or saved" 3 Million jobs by spending only $300 Billion to buy Walmart, and he'd have cheap fucking ham too!

 

[Paulie]

Was it at least Prosciutto?

 

[asaratis]

So wait, it was demonstrated that the money went to not 2lb of ham, but 760,000, meaning no government waste and people are still angry about it and condemning it?

And it turns out the company's award was totally legitimate, and that in fact their campaign contributions are of normal amounts and usually go to Republicans... but you're still claiming all this corruption?

Man, you guys will cling to anything in the face of overwhelming facts proving you wrong. It's sad.

It has not been proved wrong (that this is a pork spending issue). It makes no difference whether it is a Republican or a Democrat that represents the recipient of the money. Rather than spend a million or two on ham at one single company, why not give a million or two to the voters and let them spend it as they please?

Look, Ed, do you honestly believe anyone actually believed that's what was paid for a mere two pounds of ham? Seriously? I know that, for me, it was simply an opportunity to have a little fun. I can remember the days when the government would pay $600.00 for a hammer or a toilet seat.

Drudge didn't pick up on this until this morning sometime, hours after this thread was started. Though I haven't been to the Drudge site for weeks, I went to the trouble of searching the archives over there for the sake of accuracy. While I was over there, I also noticed that he had a link to Vilsac's explanation of the charges for the ham in question which I posted earlier. Is that enough follow up for you?

As for hating America... I don't think anyone here hates America, not even you. Just because someone does not share your views or my views doesn't mean they hate America, it just means that they don't agree with our views.

Since the reply from Vilsac was a REPLY to Drudge's report, your "archive" with Vilsac's link could not be Drudge's first posting of the story. So no, that is not enough of a follow up for me.

USDA Releases A Rare Response To Drudge On Ham | HULIQ

USDA Releases A Rare Response To Drudge On Ham

It's not everyday that you see a government agency like USA responding to Drudge Report. Now USA has responded to Drudge's report on Glougherty Packing, LLC 2 pound frozen ham slicing funding and says it's not what you think it is.

Here is what USDA said in its own release: Response to Drudge Item on Recovery Act Funding. Statement from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

"Through the Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made $100 million available to the states for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which acquires food that is distributed to local organizations that assist the needy – including food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens.

The Recovery Act funds referenced in press reports allowed states to purchase ham, cheese and dairy products for these food banks, soup kitchens and food pantries that provide assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food. This program will help reduce hunger of those hardest hit by the current economic recession.

The references to "2 pound frozen ham sliced" are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy "2 pounds of ham" are wrong. In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound.

Silly me, I thought the point of the stimulus package was to put people to work, not put packages of ham and cheese in their refrigerator. If they were working, they could buy their own ham and cheese.

...but then the government would not be controlling the money. That is the main issue...who controls the purse strings!

 

[Maple]

I don't think so.

 

[chanel]

If you check the recovery.gov website only a very small percentage of the money is going toward "shovel ready" projects. The rest is entitlement and pork. The oversight auditor said "Its a sausage factory"

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you check the recovery.gov website only a very small percentage of the money is going toward "shovel ready" projects. The rest is entitlement and pork. The oversight auditor said "Its a sausage factory"

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.

The standard was supposed to be "Sausage ready" projects, not "Shovel ready"

It would have saved a lot of trouble and confusion

 

[MaggieMae]

Food Lion was advertising .79. Not sure if I'd eat it though. Does anyone know if people have to qualify to use food pantries? I have a feeling they are being raided by people who may not need them.

I don't think you can just walk in off the street without some sort of ID as well as proof that you're income eligible (as with food stamps). Probably the same limitations.

 

[MaggieMae]

It has not been proved wrong (that this is a pork spending issue). It makes no difference whether it is a Republican or a Democrat that represents the recipient of the money. Rather than spend a million or two on ham at one single company, why not give a million or two to the voters and let them spend it as they please?

Oh sure, and what happens when the cash windfall runs out? Back to the old credit card blowout, and nothing changes except a GUARANTEED waste of government money. Good plan.

 

[DiveCon]

It has not been proved wrong (that this is a pork spending issue). It makes no difference whether it is a Republican or a Democrat that represents the recipient of the money. Rather than spend a million or two on ham at one single company, why not give a million or two to the voters and let them spend it as they please?

Oh sure, and what happens when the cash windfall runs out? Back to the old credit card blowout, and nothing changes except a GUARANTEED waste of government money. Good plan.

LOL
what do you think you have NOW?

i'd fix your post but thats now allowed anymore

it should say "a GUARANTEED waste of tax payer money"

 

[asaratis]

It has not been proved wrong (that this is a pork spending issue). It makes no difference whether it is a Republican or a Democrat that represents the recipient of the money. Rather than spend a million or two on ham at one single company, why not give a million or two to the voters and let them spend it as they please?

Oh sure, and what happens when the cash windfall runs out? Back to the old credit card blowout, and nothing changes except a GUARANTEED waste of government money. Good plan.

You missed the point. Rather than have the government spend money where the government sees fit (pork projects for selected recipients) let the people spend money for their own needs.

It's not a matter of what happens when the spigot is turned off, it's a matter of where the money flowed when the spigot was open. Same amount of money, different spending methods. Either way the government releases the money and it gets into the economy as cash flow.