• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your view: Food Stamps and Unemployment

Do you believe Pelosi about Foodstamps and Unemployment?


  • Total voters
    23
hoplite said:
i dont really drink soda anymore. I have on two occasions that i can remember. One was for a recipe the other was when someone in our house was sick. Other than that, i dont drink soda.

You worthless lazy leech on society grrrrrrr you make me so maddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Yes those things do help the economy, unemployment, and food stamps are these people's only income and they will spend all of it, and put that money back into the economy. It increases demand, which is what will get us out of these hard times, because demand is extremely low.
 
Again, I dont think she's 100% right or wrong. I think these social programs ultimately benefit society in the end by keeping people working, I dont know if it's an exact return rate similar to what she mentioned though.
You don't want to answer. Fine.

You are trying to over-simplify. Human behavior is driven, in part, by who YOU are. You cannot completely separate a person's actions from themselves, you are trying to disavow people's responsibility in their actions by saying "Oh that isnt part of you, that isnt really you."
That's correct, what you do does not make up the person you are. Just because someone's a plumber doesn't define them. I'm not oversimplifying anything, I'm actually taking a much more complex view of human behavior. An oversimplification is your view, in which what a person does defines who they are and is inseparable. That's ludicrous.
 
irrespective, the proof is in the pudding; we have a record number of people on food stamps now; if this claim held truth, then we should be enjoying record prosperity.

Faulty logic due to oversimplification. You guys say lower taxes improve the economy. The last few years you have paid less taxes than you ever have before. Therefore, by conservative economic theory we should have the best economy ever! Also, 0% tax rates would make SUPER UTOPIAAAAA!

It's more complicated than that, and you damn well know it.
 
no, that's working backwards; because to send out unemployment benefits means that first you must remove money from the system.

irrespective, the proof is in the pudding; we have a record number of people on food stamps now; if this claim held truth, then we should be enjoying record prosperity.

You have to understand the difference between economic activity and wealth creation

Food stamps could very well create $2 of economic activity for every dollar spent, and yet generate no wealth. ( wealth can be generated for the food producers though)

Economic activity will not automatically generate wealth, but keeps the economy "working"
 
no, that's working backwards; because to send out unemployment benefits means that first you must remove money from the system.

irrespective, the proof is in the pudding; we have a record number of people on food stamps now; if this claim held truth, then we should be enjoying record prosperity.
Do the math, I don't see where you come to that conclusion.
 
No, that's not what she's arguing. How do you guys get so much wrong?

Yes it is, and you know it. Pelosi is as dumb as a sack of hammers. She could be more stupid unless she was Maxine Waters. You think she's smarter the John F Kennedy? Well do ya boy?
 
Do the math, I don't see where you come to that conclusion.

No one is surprised that you don't know that we have a record of people on food stamps.
 
Yes those things do help the economy, unemployment, and food stamps are these people's only income and they will spend all of it, and put that money back into the economy. It increases demand, which is what will get us out of these hard times, because demand is extremely low.

Then all 330 million of us should go on unemployment and foodstamps and within a few months, our economy would be booming again. :lamo

Listening to this stuff is like someone telling a child if they jump up and down outside they'll make diamonds by packing down the dirt outside. It's truly hilarious, the amount of delusion people have an then try to convince others.
 
You don't want to answer. Fine.
The answer is more complicated than a yes/no answer. I've answered this TWICE. Just because you dont LIKE the answer...

That's correct, what you do does not make up the person you are. Just because someone's a plumber doesn't define them. I'm not oversimplifying anything, I'm actually taking a much more complex view of human behavior. An oversimplification is your view, in which what a person does defines who they are and is inseparable. That's ludicrous.
What you do IS part of who you are, but it isnt entirely who you are. It's still a part of you though, so hating what someone does, in my opinion, is hating part of them.
 
Then all 330 million of us should go on unemployment and foodstamps and within a few months, our economy would be booming again. :lamo

Listening to this stuff is like someone telling a child if they jump up and down outside they'll make diamonds by packing down the dirt outside. It's truly hilarious, the amount of delusion people have an then try to convince others.

You're completely missing the economic reasoning behind this. It's giving these people an income, in which they otherwise wouldn't have an income. They generally spend all of this income they receive, and it increases demand in the economy. If you already have an income, and you're spending money, you're contributing to demand in the economy, these unemployment, and food stamps are just giving more people means to contribute to the demand. If they didn't receive these, then demand would be lower. It's not that hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
Do the math, I don't see where you come to that conclusion.

if food stamps boosted the economy.... and we have a record number of food stamps.... we should be seeing, i don't know, some "boosting" occuring.

instead we are seeing some plateauing.




government expenditures don't have a higher multiplier than private investment. :sorry: it's just that simple. you can argue that it's a necessary part of a social safety net if you want to, or that it's something that we should do. but you can't argue realistically that it boosts the economy.
 
Then all 330 million of us should go on unemployment and foodstamps and within a few months, our economy would be booming again

lol hooray! we have the golden ticket to endless prosperity!

Listening to this stuff is like someone telling a child if they jump up and down outside they'll make diamonds by packing down the dirt outside. It's truly hilarious, the amount of delusion people have an then try to convince others.

no no no, this will work! animal spirits will never stop making profit and we can all get rich printing money that will never devalue!
 
You're completely missing the economic reasoning behind this. It's giving these people an income, in which they otherwise wouldn't have an income.

that is where we disagree. these people would not stop eating simply because they got fired.
 
that is where we disagree. these people would not stop eating simply because they got fired.

That's not really the argument. The argument is whether or not these help the economy, and they do. They increase demand.
 
You're completely missing the economic reasoning behind this. It's giving these people an income, in which they otherwise wouldn't have an income. They generally spend all of this income they receive, and it increases demand in the economy. If you already have an income, and you're spending money, you're contributing to demand in the economy, these unemployment, and food stamps are just giving more people means to contribute to the demand. If they didn't receive these, then demand would be lower. It's not that hard to understand.

People on welfare don't produce.
Introducing welfare necessarily increases the amount of people who don't produce.
Welfare leads to less production.

I can demand all I want, but production needs to be there. You need capital, not demand for that.
 
That's not really the argument. The argument is whether or not these help the economy, and they do. They increase demand.

Your economic model is too simple. Where does capital fit in?
 
People on welfare don't produce.
Introducing welfare necessarily increases the amount of people who don't produce.
Welfare leads to less production.

I can demand all I want, but production needs to be there. You need capital, not demand for that.

People who spend welfare money increases demand, and it has nothing to do with supply.
 
Faulty logic due to oversimplification. You guys say lower taxes improve the economy. The last few years you have paid less taxes than you ever have before. Therefore, by conservative economic theory we should have the best economy ever! Also, 0% tax rates would make SUPER UTOPIAAAAA!

It's more complicated than that, and you damn well know it.

lower taxes certainly improved MY economy.

HIgher taxes on me don't improve your economy
 
Do I support food stamps and welfare? Yes. Am I sure that it helps the economy? I'm unsure. Regardless, it should still be implemented. Even if it hurts the economy I still support it. Some things are more important than having the most efficient economy.
 
Last edited:
That's not really the argument. The argument is whether or not these help the economy, and they do. They increase demand.

1. you don't actually help the economy by artificially pumping up demand. that's like saying you're getting into better shape by taking speed. yes, in the next extremely short burst of time you might be stronger; (though due to crowding out effect i tend to doubt even that part of the model carries over) but you are only continuing to degrade the body.

2. that is still the argument. that 'demand' that they claim for food stamps is food. that they claim for unemployment is things like heating, housing, necessities.

3. it still represents less than optimal allocation of capital, it's like trying to solve an addiction through hair-of-the-dog.
 
I can see how it would help the economy though. Even though people on welfare and food stamps receive money from the government, that money still gets spent into the economy by using that money to purchase needs. The money comes from the government, goes to a recipient, and then goes to businesses because the recipient makes purchases they wouldn't be able to make otherwise.
 
People on welfare don't produce.
Introducing welfare necessarily increases the amount of people who don't produce.
Welfare leads to less production.

I can demand all I want, but production needs to be there. You need capital, not demand for that.

Capital comes from savings, you do not need the wealthy to access capital. A healthy middle class that does save a portion of their income can provide as much if not more capital then the wealthy, They can also have a far higher demand for the goods and services that thier capital could allow for the production off. The last 30 years of supply side economics has actually pushed demand to too high a level at all levels (private, corportate and government). Supply side economics has pushed demand foward ( hence low or negative savings rates) at the expense of savings for the middle class. As a result wealth has been transfered from the middle class to the upper class. Now as the middle class can not demand as much (no money) the need for production is lower, leading to economic slowdowns.

Every admin but the GHWBush has followed unbalanced economic policies, and lead to the state we are in now
 
Back
Top Bottom