Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Food on the Table, Money in the Register

Pelosi was right (yes, it does happen from time to time) and Gingrich was wrong. Food-stamps DO stimulate the economy. They stimulate it in that they a) go to poor and working class families who are far more likely to spend them and b) literally HAVE TO BE SPENT (as opposed to cash which can also be saved), and, yes, spent on legitimate items (food, as opposed to drugs and gambling). Now, are they totally sufficient, in and of themselves (i.e., to get an economy out of a recession)? Probably not. We would probably also need some longer term investments, too (non-pork infrastructure projects, job-training, small business tax-cuts, etc.). But for guys like Gingrich and O'Reilly to say that these food stamps are of limited utility and/or useless is flat-out wrong..........................................................................................................P.S. Gingrich may have also been insinuating something else with his comments (i.e., that there may in fact be a stigma involved in collecting food-stamps, an us vs. them mentality, if you will). And, yes, for that, too, he should probably reassess.

7 comments:

Voltron said...

I dunno Will,

When I take money out of my right pocket and put it back in my left pocket it doesn't elevate MY economic status at all...

AND if I had to print special coupons and hire functionaries to man and staff a bureaucracy to oversee and carry out the process I might even lose money on the deal.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Will,you should clarify what Pelosi actually said.She said every dollar of food stamps generates $1.75 into the economy.Explain that one.

Right now 47% of americans receive their money from the federal government one way or another....so 53% of the population is supporting the other half.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Gentlemen, according to Moody's, of all the ways to stimulate the economy, you get the biggest bang for the buck from food-stamps. It is from this source (I believe) that Ms. Pelosi got the dollar seventy something......Now, are there any drawbacks to this approach? Yes. 1)You're adding to the deficit and 2)you're also possibly fostering dependency. But, during periods of 10% unemployment and an increase in poverty, I think that it's probably a decent/reasonable way to go.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Russ, I think that the 47% probably includes Social Security (which people have paid in to) and Veteran's benefits. To say that these folks are sponging off the other 53% is probably not the most accurate way to put it.......P.S. I am definitely in favor of raising the retirement age for social security. I just wish that the politicians from both parties had the stones to echo this.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Dont get me wrong here....food stamps and unemployment payments are certainly necessary in these times.My point is when 47% of americans depend on government for their money and the speaker is out there saying what a "good" thing assistance programs are for the people you have to wonder what direction the party in power wants to take the country.Oh well,three weeks to go.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Yes...the 47% includes SS,but what direction are we heading?

There were riots in France today because the government is proposing raising the retirement age from 60 to 62.Thats what happens when you evolve into a dependent society.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I fully agree with you that Ms. Pelosi is a tool. And if in fact she was saying that it's a "good thing" that all of these people are on food-stamps, then, no, I DO NOT agree with that.....I was looking at it strictly as a way to stimulate the economy during times like this......The sad thing, Russ, is that neither party really seems to want to address (in a meaningful way) these difficult issues; deficits, entitlements, etc.. Sadder yet, the public doesn't seem to want to care, either.