Drudge made a stink about it this morning, and the USDA responded:
‘Through the Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made $100 million available to the states for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which acquires food that is distributed to local organizations that assist the needy – including food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens.
The Recovery Act funds referenced in press reports allowed states to purchase ham, cheese and dairy products for these food banks, soup kitchens and food pantries that provide assistance to people who otherwise do not have access to food. This program will help reduce hunger of those hardest hit by the current economic recession.
Republicans regularly complain that they are caricatured as being insensitive to the poor and elderly, and then they proceed to ridicule government initiatives that assist… the poor and elderly.
You know what would cure this little problem? A massive, extremely regressive tax cut. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
It’s just like the republican party to do that, blame a democratic administration for the problems they created. Obama has already taken some major steps in bringing our economy back from the grave. And now the republicans are crying foul over helping the very people they were elected to serve.
Oliver sees no problem with the Federal government LITERALLY spending in overpriced pork. As Drudge showed by the Food Lion link, it’s the waste.
Oh for fucks sake, make up your mind.
There’s also the matter of this spending being neither stimulative nor job-creating.
From the FDA report, The references to “2 pound frozen ham sliced” are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy “2 pounds of ham” are wrong. In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound.
Now, I haven’t bought meat in a while, but $1.50/lb doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
There’s also the matter of this spending being neither stimulative nor job-creating.
Yes, because no one works in the meat packing industry in this country. And people really don’t mind going hungry while they are looking for work.
Actually, direct aid to poor families with food stamp and/or extended unemployment benefits has shown to be the government action that can be one of the most stimulative action it can take.
Right wing innumerate “SaveFarris”: “There’s also the matter of this spending being neither stimulative nor job-creating.”
It’s this level of right wing stupidity that leaves me despairing for or country.
Spending is inherently “stimulative” and job-creating.
If you spend money it stimulates the economy. Period. It doesn’t even matter what you spend the money on, spending is economically “stimulative”.
In this instance, buying food means that a farmer sold something they produced; a picker and/or canner, cutter, or bagger kept their job; a driver transported it; and in some cases, a store sold it.
Those are several ‘jobs’ that were ’stimulated’.
And as a bonus, someone didn’t go hungry.
USDA.gov: “While the principal purpose of these expenditures is to provide food to those hardest hit by these tough times, the purchases also provide a modest economic benefit of benefiting Americans working at food retailers, manufacturers and transportation companies as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce our food supply.” “
“If you spend money it stimulates the economy. Period.”
if I spend it, yes. If you spend it, yes. But the only way the goverment can spend it is if they take it from someone else. And that’s NOT stimulative.
Period.
And that’s NOT stimulative.
It is too stimulative if the person you receive it from needs less stimulating than the person you give it to. In normal circumstances we call that progressive taxation.
Period.
End of Sentence.
Basta cosi.
Oh, except that the government can also borrow against expectation of future revenue more easily than people who need stimulus, and when they buy stuff with that money it’s stimulating.
In normal circumstances we call that progressive taxation…
…and/or civilization.
‘Oliver sees no problem with the Federal government LITERALLY spending in overpriced pork. As Drudge showed by the Food Lion link, it’s the waste.’
Maybe Obama could start and fail at least 2 more wars, as that’s done your economy so much good up until January 20/2009, when the world literally went to Hell.
Why oh why didn’t 70% of the voting public listen to John McCain?
What?…..they DID?….oh right….he lost.
Amazing how there was always money to be found for wars and mercenaries and secret prisons and assassin squads, but there never seems to be enough to actually mend a fucked up economy or health care or useless shit like that.
‘if I spend it, yes. If you spend it, yes. But the only way the goverment can spend it is if they take it from someone else. And that’s NOT stimulative.’
Don’t you have all that Iraqi freedom cash to spread around?
But the only way the goverment can spend it is if they take it from someone else. And that’s NOT stimulative.
But you took money from your employer. That’s money s/he could’ve spent that s/he cannot. How is that any different?
Now, I haven’t bought meat in a while, but $1.50/lb doesn’t seem that unreasonable.
Just came across an ad for my local Food Lion: sliced ham on sale for 3.99 a pound. Damn that Obama! There would have been more stimulus if he’d paid retail!
But the only way the goverment can spend it is if they take it from someone else.
Oh, just stop it. You keep trying to make it look like the government has it’s hands in YOUR pocket and only yours and it just ain’t true.