Fox News doesn't understand the effectiveness of Food Stamps. Rightardia has published the table that Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics produced that made it clear that food stamps were far more stimulative and had more bang for the buck than tax cuts.
Eric Bolling's view is common for conservatives who just "can't be fooled by the facts." Bolling is wrong about Food stamps and Vilsack is right on.
Recently the mayor of Las Vegas went on the Food Stamp or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) diet. You can lose a lot of weight if you only eat $4.06 worth of food every day.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.
2 comments:
Of course, the purported stimulative effect of food stamps aside, what proponents of such programs always simply ignore, is that before you can give someone a dollar's worth of food stamps, you first have to take it AWAY from a taxpayer, plus the 30% to 50% in gub'mint overhead.
So, if food stamps magically materialized out of thin air, I suppose a case could be made for a miniscule impact on the overall economy. But I seriously doubt it.
Your argument is vacuous. Government have been collecting taxes since before the time of Jesus and will continue to do so.
Once you pay your taxes, it is no longer your money. Your money goes into a big federal pot.
The issue then becomes how does government spend the tax money the most effectively because the government is obligated to spend tax revenues before the end of the fiscal year.
In addition, the US tax burden is in the lower third of the industrial world.
There is really no reason for Americans to be tax whiners!
Post a Comment