Pelosi- "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment

[Trajan]

She is is flat out nuts. Someone needs to explain to her the concept of wealth creation, as opposed to wealth redistribution.The fact that she occupy the position she does just makes this statement all the more egregious, what a boob.

At a press conference in her home town of San Francisco, Pelosi explained that the program's multiplier effect –the amount of money generated in the local economy as the result of the subsidy– far exceeds the nearly $60 billion spent this year by the federal government and is a sure-fire way to stimulate the economy. For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84.

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.
Gingrich on Tuesday wrote a letter critical of the Democrats' stewardship of the economy and urged all Republican candidates to shape the political debate as one "between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks."

Pelosi fires back at Gingrich over food stamps – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, what a nut. She must actually read CBO reports:

And Economic Research Service papers. Egregious!

 

[Revere]

Creating a permanent underclass is "impact?"

 

[Big Black Dog]

Not only does Pelosi get uglier ever day, she gets more ignorant.

 

[midcan5]

When you consider that republicans in the house and senate do absolutely nothing is their pay and great benefits welfare? I think it is as I cannot think of a single thing they have accomplished in fifty years or more. Actually when you go back and consider the failures of Coolidge/Hoover and Reagan/Bush, it could be morally and legally claimed that when they do anything it is actually bad for the nation. That being the factual case, a pragmatist would argue that welfare for the needy contributes to society, while welfare for the republicans and the rich has a negative impact. So it turns out those who worship and defend the rich are the idiots today. But the rich like them that way.

The Conservative Nanny State


"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

 

[Annie]

Yeah, what a nut. She must actually read CBO reports:

And Economic Research Service papers. Egregious!

So why not everybody goes on unemployment and food stamps? We'll be a super duper rich country then.

 

[The T]

She is is flat out nuts. Someone needs to explain to her the concept of wealth creation, as opposed to wealth redistribution.The fact that she occupy the position she does just makes this statement all the more egregious, what a boob.

At a press conference in her home town of San Francisco, Pelosi explained that the program's multiplier effect –the amount of money generated in the local economy as the result of the subsidy– far exceeds the nearly $60 billion spent this year by the federal government and is a sure-fire way to stimulate the economy. For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84.

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.
Gingrich on Tuesday wrote a letter critical of the Democrats' stewardship of the economy and urged all Republican candidates to shape the political debate as one "between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks."

Pelosi fires back at Gingrich over food stamps – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Newt Gingrich has a point. What Pelosi is saying telegraphs their true intent for the people of this Republic.

I like what he had to say here...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYJW-cBMdi0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

Yeah, what a nut. She must actually read CBO reports:

And Economic Research Service papers. Egregious!

Of course she reads them. They are called preliminary reports. Then she tells them what to change so they look like this. Can you post a food stamp and unemployment application here. I'll get right on fixing the economic owes of America. The cat can have hers filled out by dinner. Tuna I believe.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm willing to bet that bringing us into the black and promoting a healthy economy has a much greater multiplier effect in the long run than endless unemployment insurance.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like the biggest bang for the buck was home purchases for those without means. That sucker blew up HUGE!

 

[Luissa]

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.

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

 

[Meister]

Yeah, what a nut. She must actually read CBO reports:

And Economic Research Service papers. Egregious!

I'm trying to figure out just how far of a leftist you are, greenbeard.

 

[Trajan]

Yeah, what a nut. She must actually read CBO reports:

And Economic Research Service papers. Egregious!

So why not everybody goes on unemployment and food stamps? We'll be a super duper rich country then.

why not indeed..notice how the term I used; 'wealth creation' didn't draw comment.

We get a chart instead that speaks to the fact that people spend money they are given ( which was remarked in the OP link as well btw but without examination because there really is no explanation vis a vis the merits of each; creation and redistribution) and for a comparatively very small benefit.

Screw it, lets all get fired and go on food stamps to boot.......unreal.

 

[Sallow]

It's wonderous that so many conservative economic "experts" fail to take into account that there will be a portion of the population that at one time or another, and through no fault of their own, will be unemployed, in a capitalistic system.

There is also a very small part of the population that is just unemployable.

In both cases..these people need care of some sort.

And Pelosi is absolutely correct. Food stamps and unemployment checks are far cheaper then say, erecting large institutions to feed and cloth people. It also allows for autonomy.

 

[Trajan]

It's wonderous that so many conservative economic "experts" fail to take into account that there will be a portion of the population that at one time or another, and through no fault of their own, will be unemployed, in a capitalistic system.

There is also a very small part of the population that is just unemployable.

In both cases..these people need care of some sort.

And Pelosi is absolutely correct. Food stamps and unemployment checks are far cheaper then say, erecting large institutions to feed and cloth people. It also allows for autonomy.

those are supposed to be short term fixes, a safety net not lifetime sustenance, until further employment is found, the pop. is not totally stagnant....

 

[Meister]

It's wonderous that so many conservative economic "experts" fail to take into account that there will be a portion of the population that at one time or another, and through no fault of their own, will be unemployed, in a capitalistic system.

There is also a very small part of the population that is just unemployable.

In both cases..these people need care of some sort.

And Pelosi is absolutely correct. Food stamps and unemployment checks are far cheaper then say, erecting large institutions to feed and cloth people. It also allows for autonomy.

So Pelosi is just talking about those few that need the unemployment and food stamps, huh? Even though that was never said, right?

 

[Revere]

It's wonderous that so many conservative economic "experts" fail to take into account that there will be a portion of the population that at one time or another, and through no fault of their own, will be unemployed, in a capitalistic system.

There is also a very small part of the population that is just unemployable.

In both cases..these people need care of some sort.

And Pelosi is absolutely correct. Food stamps and unemployment checks are far cheaper then say, erecting large institutions to feed and cloth people. It also allows for autonomy.

What is an acceptable "part of the population that is just unemployable?"

 

[Charles_Main]

Even if the CBO says she is right. She was a freaking MORON to say it. She had to know how that would sound to the Average person.

Not smart at all.

Now as far as the CBO, the are saying aid to the unemployed is the best way to help them through a bad economy, they are not saying it is the best way to Create Jobs.

 

[Greenbeard]

Now as far as the CBO, the are saying aid to the unemployed is the best way to help them through a bad economy, they are not saying it is the best way to Create Jobs.

Actually, that's exactly what they were saying in that report. That's why the chart is measuring years FTE generated per million dollars of budgetary cost (that's also why the chart's title is "Cumulative Effects of Policy Options on Employment in 2010 and 2011, Range of Low to High Estimates").

But I agree that Pelosi was probably expecting too much of many people.

 

[Revere]

Now as far as the CBO, the are saying aid to the unemployed is the best way to help them through a bad economy, they are not saying it is the best way to Create Jobs.

Actually, that's exactly what they were saying in that report. That's why the chart is measuring years FTE generated per million dollars of budgetary cost (that's also why the chart's title is "Cumulative Effects of Policy Options on Employment in 2010 and 2011, Range of Low to High Estimates").

But I agree that Pelosi was probably expecting too much of many people.

Expecting they'll tolerate escalating debt due to declining tax revenues, or diminishing numbers of working people carrying these FTEs on their backs?