Now you sound like Pelosi.

Explain this.

Person goes to local grocery.

Grocery employs people to stock, to cashier, etc. Grocery also buys stuff from distributors.

Distributors employ people, buy food, etc. etc.

It's not a hard stretch, Brainy. Especially when the alternative is foreign aid (What we're arguing here), and we don't see a damned dime from it.

So what you really mean is that it doesn't subtract as much value from our economy as foreign aid does. But your story does not demonstrate that food stamps contribute to local economy at all.

Mg, I'm going to intentionally derail this line of argument to make a point, as your argument is stemming from an irrational belief rather than hard data (Argument: Money put back into our economy grows it, money taken out of our economy hurts it. Counterargument: Money put back into our economy hurts our economy.)

Our highways. They would have never been built without public funds (And no, don't try to shovel the BS that "But private companies would have stepped in to build them if the government didn't!" The government ultimately had to step in to build our highway system because private companies didn't step up.)

Consider how much our highway system has added to our economy. Are you trying to seriously argue that the tax dollars spent on building our highway system subtracted from the US economy?

'Cause I have a lot of economists that will laugh at you if you try to argue that. The argument that "Tax dollars subtract from the US economy" is bullshit, and you should know better Mg. For shame.

On the other hand, if you are trying to say certain types of tax expenditures are a net negative, others are neutral, and some are a net positive I'd agree. But that's most definitely not what you said.

Sooooo.....tired.. ...of.....your....superior....tone... ...<gasp>.....dying.....of.....<gasp>.....irony... ...<cough>.................must...struggle...on... for...the...greater...good......


Oof, sorry, I'm better now. Where were we?

Oh, that's right, you were arguing that food stamps are magically exempt from the law of opportunity cost.

Please continue.

and only contribute to the stores artificially propped up by the program.


for blaen, saw this just now:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1329932044

lol at ask about food stamp economy, get answer about highways. didn't we talk about strawmen before?

Bullshit Mg, you know better than this again. I've noticed that you have a pattern of doing this crap when someone stomps you in an argument.

Actually, food stamps have been widely acknowledged as generating between $1.73 to $2 in private investment for every federal dollar spent.

So, you were talking about magical exemption from opportunity cost again? This blows the ---- out of most of the stimulus under Obama, and really, most programs implemented by Obama or Bush for economic growth.

I'll grant you that there are more effective programs to spend tax dollars on. I have no argument there. But my argument was never that Mg, and it was explicitly stated to never be that from the beginning. I was very careful to use explicit statements and very specific limitations for my argument.

Then again, you never cared that my argument was never that, did you Mg? If you'd have even given a half-assed attempt at not putting words in my mouth and trying to read what I was arguing, you'd have realized I even explicitly stated I was not for food stamps - I just had bigger things on my plate that I was against far more than food stamps.

by hack economists like your bro Krugman.

This is impossible, as the money first had to be taken before given to someone else and spent on something else than was originally intended.

food stamps as a stimulus...ha. If this were the case things would be really good today as 16% of our population is on them.

Oh noes! My "pattern" of getting bored with blean99 has been revealed!

Amazing! Let's put all our money through the food stamp program and have infinite wealth!

Actually, I have yet to see an economist that does not affiliate themselves with the far right that argues that there is a net gain from food stamps, Brainy.

Even demonstrably centrist economists state this - the $1.73 was actually taken from a centrist economist, not a left. And even then, this has very little to do with my central argument, which boils down to "It is better to spend money on food stamps than corporate welfare or foreign aid."

Annnd bullshit again, Mg. Seriously, with as much as Brainy bitches about strawmen and me, I'm utterly shocked he doesn't call you out on it.

me?

Come on, it's common knowledge that unicorns are greater than horses.

I bet you are.

Still waiting on someone to explain how a transfer of funds from one party to another, with administrative costs tacked on, contributes to the overall wealth of an economy.

Because a centrist economist once said so. and also, think of all the people who need it, you ------' fascist.

Since I'd have to ninja edit,

http://mediamatters.org/research/201108170014

Enjoy Mg. And remember, my argument has nothing to do with food stamps being good for the economy. In fact, everything you've tried to twist my argument into is (ironically?) backed by that.

P.S. I'll state it again. I'm not for food stamps. I'm just more rabidly against other forms of welfare, and will state again that food stamps are better for our economy than, say, foreign aid. Making a "X is less evil than Y" argument does not mean that I support X.

(Ninja edit) It's like how I say Obama is better than Santorum. I don't support Obama. But he's a lot better than ------- Santorum.

I have no arguments to this statement.

If you honestly think that stealing a dollar from a working person and giving it to a non-working person to spend (on food stamps or anything else) generates ANY weath, you are either deluded or just plain stupid.

Taxes do NOT geterate any wealth, they simply redistibute it.

Uh huh.

Tell me again how I twisted your argument?

Thanks Mg, thanks a lot.

You've managed to twist my argument so much that even rleete jumps on me thinking I'm arguing what you are trying to make it seem like I'm arguing.

In comparison to foreign aid.

Tell me again how you didn't? Or do I need to explain to you how if I compare X to Y, X contributing substantially more than Y to Z is true?