That's what they say. And The Economist is not a publication anyone would call Liberal or Progressive. Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist "When Moodys Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days, however, is of cutbackseven for the hungry." Okay Moody's is not what anyone would call a "Left Wing" organization either. Both sources here are solidly Conservative (one of the reason I like The Economist - they lean slightly Right but they ARE objective). When I first saw the title, I thought "Uh oh, The Magazine's on crack!". But then I realized that the article was titled "Stimulus" and not "Spending" and therefore, HAS to be right. We give money to foriegn countries. What does that do for our citizens? Shit. We give it to companies that steal our jobs and ship them to poverty states like China (where over 200,000,000 people live on a dollar a day or less). What does that do for our citizens? Shit. We give it to banks? Didn't exactly come back into the US market did it? Some nice mergers & bonuses for the banks, not so much for our citizens. So on and so forth. But food stamps are not something that someone invests in foreign ventures. Unemployment benefits are not used to build 401K's or whatever. Both are by necessity, put immediately and 100% back into the US economy and ONLY the US economy. So that makes sense - in regards to stimulus. And besides, I just don't have it in me to say "So you worked for a utility all your life and they went under, taking your pension and everything with them? Who cares? You don't eat!" Which is pretty much exactly what happened to our neighbor in Sugar Land, TX when Enron went under.