Speaker Pelosi "If you want to create jobs, the quickest way to do it is to provide more funding for food stamps and hav

[$tevie]

Shouldn't a) be: give money to the unemployed?

When did this become all about "poor people"? Lumping the unemployed in with the never-employed is a cruel means of dismissing them as just so much flotsam on the sea of government statistics. There is no greater prejudice in this country as there is against "the poor", and why Republicans are so bound and determined to get their base to dislike and thus turn their backs on the currently unemployed is a true mystery to me.

The irony is, if the government does create some sort of program or package to create jobs for the unemployed, it will be vilified as "porkulus" and excess government spending by the same people who are complaining about unemployment benefits. Evidently their best hope is that all the unemployed will simply drop dead in the next few months.

[Grace62]

michaelb wrote:
So possible options so far for creating jobs quickly:

a) give money to poor people;
b) gov't hiring folks directly;
c) passing a law that "creates jobs"
d) tax cuts for the rich

I get a, b, and d, particularly why d is the wrong answer. What I can't get my head around is c. But this gets talked about all the time, why isn't the Obama administration doing anything to "create jobs", so I must be missing some magical solution that is obvious to everyone else. Trouble, help me out?

By "passing a law that creates jobs" are you referring to the stimulus bill of '09? It did create jobs, and will continue to create jobs for the next several years.

[Acer]

"It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history. (It turns out that Barack Obama's idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)," wrote Gingrich.

From the same link I gave above in this "conversation" between Pelosi and Gringrich.

This kind of crap really burns my britches.

Of COURSE more food stamps were distributed...because the unemployment rate is a freaking 9%.

He implies that the administration has some active policy to increase food stamps.

To my knowledge, no such increase was authorized. All that was authorized is an extension of unemployment. Does unemployment automatically come with food stamps? No. But if your unemployment is inadequate, guess what, you qualify for food stamps. More unemployed, with or without UE benefits equals more qualified for food stamps.

In fact, without UE, even MORE people would be on food stamps. He'd be all over that, too.

All this is buzzword bingo for the faithful. Once you look past those buzzwords, you realize the emptiness of their "concerns."

I'm learning to hate that guy..not for his politics, but for his demagoguery.

[Grace62]

Oh, if only Newt and wife number three were in charge. Everything would be OK then.

[Mac1337]

Grace62 wrote:
Bring some facts to support your view that putting money to buy necessities into the hands of the poorest people doesn't go directly into the local community and support jobs.

Thanks for encapsulating the entire Democrat economic plan. How many economists did it take to come up with this gem of idea? THey can't admit to it any more but for the longest time the metric for their success was how many more people are being supported by food stamps. The implication being that if there were no food stamps people would starve. They still believe that but don't have the guts to say it.

[RgrF]

Aren't you the same guy who decried TARP and wanted the money sent straight to the public, consistency of thought isn't a strong point with you is it?

[Kiva]

Hey trouble...you're looking pretty lame here, so I'll help you out as well:

"Polosi made a factual statement that pumping money into food stamps stimulates the economy / creates jobs quickly. It appears to be factual, given the sources cited. However, I have a personal problem with giving people food stamps, no matter what the circumstance and I don't want to further that policy."

That would lead to a discussion about food stamps / how we deal with our poor, which is the real issue here.

kiva

[$tevie]

That may be the real issue, Kiva, but folks like Trouble don't want to discuss issues, they want to discuss Pelosi.

[Grace62]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
Bring some facts to support your view that putting money to buy necessities into the hands of the poorest people doesn't go directly into the local community and support jobs.

Thanks for encapsulating the entire Democrat economic plan.

Why do you write things that you know aren't true? It's boring.

[Kiva]

$tevie wrote:
That may be the real issue, Kiva, but folks like Trouble don't want to discuss issues, they want to discuss Pelosi.

well said