Food stamps Are Stimulas?

[bigrebnc1775]

Only in Obama's ass backwards liberal world.


Obama Ag Secretary Vilsack Food Stamps Are A Stimulus - YouTube

three years ago 5.6 percent unemployment was to high but now 9.6 is the norm and is alright.

 

[Auxous]

Ask Nancy, and many other Libs. Food Stamps and Unemployment Checks are the single best way to create Jobs and stimulate the Economy.

With regard to aid to the unemployed, they were citing a document prepared for Congress by the CBO at the beginning of 2010 called "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011."

Moody's also came up with similar findings during that time for a one year Fiscal Bang for the Buck: One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending

Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small Business_7_24_08.pdf

 

[uscitizen]

Who said it was the "best" way?

Nancy Pelosi.

On Many occasions

“It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck,” she said.

She makes the baseless and Insane claim that every dollar spent on them Comes back as 1.79 Dollars in GDP Growth.

Of course anyone with a brain knows that is horse shit, and if she were right we could spend 10 Trillion dollars and get 17.9 Trillion in GDP growth. Why would we ever stop spending lol. Pay everyone not to work, and give them all food stamps and the economy will boom.

The stat that truly makes return on dollars spent bogus is the horrendous amount of fraud that occurs in SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program). Every state has staggering amounts of fraud (that's just what they actually catch)- Also SNAP funding to Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas amounts to 0 dollars spent here.

It would be better to have welfare workers distributing food to the needy instead of food stamp cards. If you have a need get in a food distribution line. Currently almost every community have food banks. Lets use the money for SNAP to stock them with food- at least we could be better assured of actual food going to the truly needy.

HMM a question.
Do our colony's err protectorates profits add into our GDP or anything?

 

[Lovebears65]

according to nancy.... food stamps and welfare is the best stimulus there is.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t-eycEKXNs]Pelosi: Food Stamps & Unemployment Give Us The "Biggest Bang For The Buck" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Greenbeard]

Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73

That's pretty close to what that 2002 ERS paper found for the economic effect of food stamps in a recession (if they're financed through emergency spending): they found $1.84 of economic activity generated from each additional dollar dollar spent on food stamps.

 

[Auxous]

What part was wrong?

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

However, she was correct in what she parroted from the economists, but I am not sure they took into consideration market uncertainty and the hiring process when calculating their multipliers.

 

[clevergirl]

Nancy Pelosi.

On Many occasions



She makes the baseless and Insane claim that every dollar spent on them Comes back as 1.79 Dollars in GDP Growth.

Of course anyone with a brain knows that is horse shit, and if she were right we could spend 10 Trillion dollars and get 17.9 Trillion in GDP growth. Why would we ever stop spending lol. Pay everyone not to work, and give them all food stamps and the economy will boom.

The stat that truly makes return on dollars spent bogus is the horrendous amount of fraud that occurs in SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program). Every state has staggering amounts of fraud (that's just what they actually catch)- Also SNAP funding to Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas amounts to 0 dollars spent here.

It would be better to have welfare workers distributing food to the needy instead of food stamp cards. If you have a need get in a food distribution line. Currently almost every community have food banks. Lets use the money for SNAP to stock them with food- at least we could be better assured of actual food going to the truly needy.

HMM a question.
Do our colony's err protectorates profits add into our GDP or anything?

They are actually a drain~ Of course if you really really wanted to know you would do your own research...just sayin"

 

[uscitizen]

What part was wrong?

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

 

[Sallow]

What part was wrong?

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

No it's not.

Employers have to keep up with demand. Demand comes from purchases. And in times of economic distress..giving the unemployed liquidity keeps demand up.

Gosh.

 

[Political Junky]

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008

 

[clevergirl]

What part was wrong?

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

It''s a false stimulation that cannot be sustained without increasing taxes. True stimulation for jobs comes from the private sector, not public subsidies!

 

[uscitizen]

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

It''s a false stimulation that cannot be sustained without increasing taxes. True stimulation for jobs comes from the private sector, not public subsidies!

Yes the point I made earlier that we have been adding stimulus to our economy for decades with govt spending.

 

[Sallow]

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

It''s a false stimulation that cannot be sustained without increasing taxes. True stimulation for jobs comes from the private sector, not public subsidies!

Generally?

No it doesn't.

Well not in the way you may think.

Stimulation for "jobs" comes from the private sector when government makes huge purchases from private corporations.

Wrap your mind around that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Only in Obama's ass backwards liberal world.


Obama Ag Secretary Vilsack Food Stamps Are A Stimulus - YouTube

Ask Nancy, and many other Libs. Food Stamps and Unemployment Checks are the single best way to create Jobs and stimulate the Economy.

An 87% return on investment? There is not a single person in the nation that SHOULDN'T be on food stamps then... or Unemployment!

We should be able to turn around this economy if over 200 million people are profiting better than most hedge funds, bonds and commodity investments by use of food stamps and unemployment. Hell! We should be debt free as a nation inside of Obama's NEXT term then and NOBODY will have to work or be hungry again!

Oh wait.... unless of course, this could possibly be wrong! Ahh...ummm is that possible? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... :think:

 

[clevergirl]

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

It''s a false stimulation that cannot be sustained without increasing taxes. True stimulation for jobs comes from the private sector, not public subsidies!

Yes the point I made earlier that we have been adding stimulus to our economy for decades with govt spending.

Yes, and it has increased exponentially under this president to no avail. The economy in fact is lagging. Talk about your government stimulus- look at military service. The increase in military service has not spurred the economy. And many of these guys are eating cheap crap food over there while they send their pay checks home for their families to spend here...so by your world view we should be stimulated to glory and be rolling in prosperity- especially when you add in the increase in government spending in unemployment and food stamps...just hmmmmmmmmmm really what a puzzler /sarcasm~

 

[Auxous]

What part was wrong?

The part that it creates jobs. Sure, on the blackboard it looks good and the simple theory holds up. However, it doesn't take into consideration the amount of uncertainty in the market.

While unemployment benefits and food stamps are a short term AD booster, hiring decisions are usually made with a longer time frame. Given the degree of uncertainty in the market, managers may be risk adverse to commit to hiring, even with the slight AD boost.

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

I know that you are wrong with food production. Only .07% of our labor force is tied up in agriculture, so the number of employees will not change dramatically. As for the processing, distribution, and retail I am unsure of. However, I don't believe that extending unemployment benefits will not have a significant impact on the demand for labor in these industries.

At best, it will hold demand up and protect jobs, not create them. I don't see food stamps and unemployment benefits creating a plethora of jobs. There are so many consumers that a relatively few of them will have little effect on overall demand. They really won't effect the production of bread, fruit, cereal, milk etc.

It sounds good on the blackboard when you can just shift AD and show that it will increase employment, but I doubt that it works that smoothly in real life. Then factor in the added element of uncertainty which makes employers less willing to hire. When these economists calculate multipliers, I don't think they consider uncertainty in the market. If employers only see a short term boost or are uncertain about market conditions, then they are less likely to higher and the multipliers will be much less effective.

 

[clevergirl]

Not in the retail grocery market. Number of employees depends heavially on volume of sales. Same with food production, processing and distribution.

In industrial non food production you are correct.

All business models are not the same.

It''s a false stimulation that cannot be sustained without increasing taxes. True stimulation for jobs comes from the private sector, not public subsidies!

Generally?


Well not in the way you may think.

Stimulation for "jobs" comes from the private sector when government makes huge purchases from private corporations.

Wrap your mind around that.

No it doesn't.

No, small business is actually the bread and butter of our economy- government contracts to corporations are certainly like gold to those companies- but they are not what stimulates the economy- innovation and growth in the private sector does that. The point however was that government "subsidies" are a false stimulation as they cannot be sustained. Nor are they meant to be.

I likely understand the business cycle better then you might think- gee why might that be...hmmmmmm?

 

[Jroc]

Food stamps Are Stimulas? [sic]

During a recession? Yes, if the additional expenditures are achieved through emergency financing.

Bull...setting aside the fact that Obama's and the Democrats liberal policies have caused the cost of food to skyrocket which hurts lower income people who actually pay for their food, None of Obama's almost trillion dollars in stimuli have done anything to stimulate the economy.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't care who she sited, Claiming it is the best way to stimulate the economy and create Jobs is pure Horse shit.

Thoughtful analysis. If you've got a crayon handy, you should scrawl down your thoughts and send them over to the economists at the CBO. They could use that kind of fresh perspective.

You mean the CBO that is almost universally in accurate in every Cost Projection it has ever made? That one?

lol

Besides if you read your own link you would see that the CBO simply says it will stimulate the Economy, it does not say anywhere that it is the biggest bang for the buck as Dear Nancy Claimed.

 

[Charles_Main]

These right wingers. And they call me idiot? They don't even know which end to wipe and which end to blot.

Typical Nothing response when you can't argue anything on the facts.

You go Deano