Just one more reason why liberals should never have any power.
Food Stamps are now "Stimulus"
Job Creator
I'm not surprised that liberals cannot admit their failed policies don't work and make the problem even worse (hell self denial is a required tool to be a liberal)what always amazes me is they try to make their failures seem noble and wonderful.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- And again......
And again......Follow
Good news is there will soon be an island you can move to.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
We really need a [:stoptryingtohelpyouareonlymakingitworse:] smily.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
ThiefX wrote:
Just one more reason why liberals should never have any power.
Food Stamps are now "Stimulus"
Job Creator
Food Stamps are now "Stimulus"
Job Creator
To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.
It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
After your retarded phone story (which I noticed you ran away from without a response), I'm going to pass on wasting my time clicking this link. Have fun crying though!
On a completely separate note, I referenced neckbeards this weekend several times to a girl and STILL got laid.
#8ThiefX,
Posted: Aug 16 2011 at 7:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't blame you for not clicking on the link Joph it must be getting harder and harder for you to make excuses for this stuff.
LockeColeMA wrote:
On a completely separate note, I referenced neckbeards this weekend several times to a girl and STILL got laid.
Did you ask what conditioner she used to keep it so silky and smooth?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Mine was more believable.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
ThiefX wrote:
I don't blame you for not clicking on the link Joph
Well, yeah. That was my point.
Quote:
tax payers being forced
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.
It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
Didn't Bush send everyone $200 checks as a stimulus saying that now people would spend $200 and that would generate a greater amount of economic activity?
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
You do realize that the vast majority of people have to work or prove that they are actively looking for work to be eligible for food stamps, right?
While it may seem silly to call an existing program "stimulus," if they expand the program to promote economic growth, then that's exactly what it is. But tards like you who can't see how safety nets do more than invite people to fall into them probably won't understand that anytime soon.
While it may seem silly to call an existing program "stimulus," if they expand the program to promote economic growth, then that's exactly what it is. But tards like you who can't see how safety nets do more than invite people to fall into them probably won't understand that anytime soon.
Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.
And let's not forget that it also avoids giving that money to people who don't need it at all, which itself adds to another criticism of the Bush stimulus-- that people would waste the money on imported crap, putting the money right back into the pockets of our lenders. If you're on food stamps, you're not spending a lot on imported food products.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be fair, this is not new. Pelosi made the exact same claim a year or so back.
It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
It was just as ridiculous then, of course.
Didn't Bush send everyone $200 checks as a stimulus saying that now people would spend $200 and that would generate a greater amount of economic activity?
Sure, twice I think! With a nod and a wink. Conservatives know that direct payments like that don't actually stimulate the economy much (at all?). Only about 20% of the money ends out being spent buying things, with the other 80% spent paying down debt (we had this discussion before I'm sure!). We know this and we're ok with doing it because we know that paying down of debt is actually a better use of the money when compared to direct consumption spending.
Liberals think the opposite, so we let them think we're going along with their stupid economic ideas just to placate them. Works most of the time too!
Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.
Yeah. That wasn't so much of a criticism as a statement of fact. You liberals are such tools sometimes!
Edited, Aug 16th 2011 7:17pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
If this is the case, how is it different to give someone $25 worth of "money" to be spent on food? Same principle, different scale. In fact, it avoids the primary criticism of the Bush plan which was that people are likely to squirrel away the $200 in tough times rather than spend it but food vouchers aren't useful in a bank account or coffee can.
And let's not forget that it also avoids giving that money to people who don't need it at all, which itself adds to another criticism of the Bush stimulus-- that people would waste the money on imported crap, putting the money right back into the pockets of our lenders. If you're on food stamps, you're not spending a lot on imported food products.
Lol! Um... Guys? It doesn't work at all. It's a placebo at best. The confusing Conservative behavior makes perfect sense once you realize that we know this, but know that you don't.
Shhhhhhh.... Don't tell anyone!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Straight from your link...
Seems like pretty simple logic to me.
Quote:
If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs.
Seems like pretty simple logic to me.
ThiefX wrote:
My favorite was ElneClare complaining that the cell phone someone else bought her wasn't very good.
That was actually me, dumbass.
gbaji wrote:
Sure, twice I think! With a nod and a wink. Conservatives know that direct payments like that don't actually stimulate the economy much (at all?).
Which is hilarious given that you've previously cited this as one of Bush's mastermind moves to end the recession in the early 2000's
Quote:
You liberals are such tools sometimes
Irony.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I was going to say something about this but I just found a cache of tiny screws that are for something that may very well be important, but I can't for the life of me figure out what. Now this is gonna bug me for the next six days until I remember what out of the blue, then forget where the screws are.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#21ThiefX,
Posted: Aug 16 2011 at 9:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You do realize you're wrong right? Not only is a job not required to get food stamps in California you don't even have to prove you're a legal citizen of this country.
ThiefX wrote:
Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
ThiefX wrote:
Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?
Enlighten me!
ThiefX wrote:
This is were Joph...
It's adorable how defensive I make you
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Peimei wrote:
ThiefX wrote:
Simple logic for a simple mind. Do you seriously not see the flaw in your argument?
Enlighten me!
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money. Therefore, it can't afford to hire more people to put food on the shelves. You can use this to increase the volume of food flowing into the store and off the shelves, but you won't actually create any jobs this way. What will happen is that more work stocking shelves has to be done for the same cost (meaning that those who do have jobs have to work harder for the same relative pay). This makes jobs stocking shelves less attractive, and not having a job and getting free food via the stamps more attractive.
Surely, you can see that this will tend to have a negative effect on jobs, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
It has something to do with the cost of the food stamps being paid via taxation by the store the food stamps are being used in. The store doesn't actually make any more money.
Cite? Not some manky "But are you saying stores don't pay taxes!?!" semantic bullshit, but an actual cite that it results in zero net for the store when someone uses food stamps there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 365
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (365)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- And again......
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC