I keep telling you: mandatory calisthenics are not too far behind…
You. Are. No. Longer. Free.
Time to put up or shut up.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Before this could cause much mischief, they’d first have to wreck the economy to the point that more of us would have to go on food stamps, thereby falling into their nutrition-enforcing clutches.
…oh, wait…
I’m surprised it was still allowed. I may be wrong, but I pretty sure it is not allowed in California.
Does anyone know? I’ve never used food stamps (or the new EBT card), and neither has anyone else in my family.
You’re not kidding JeffG,
“Even though ObamaCare is a novel application of the Commerce Clause because it regulates the act of not engaging in economic activity, the judge concluded that in reality the Commerce Clause power extends to all economic decisions that affect commerce. He also argued that a person can not garuntee that he or she will opt out of the health care market.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/07/clinton-appointee-rules-obamac
According the the plaintiffs lawyer, Rob Muise:
“‘The trouble, if you think about it, is if Congress has authority to regulate nonactivity then it has the ability to regulate anything,’ Muise said. Congress can ‘tell you to exercise three times a week, to take certain vitamins, to refrain from eating certain foods because, at some point, costs are going to be incurred to the health care market. I find that very troubling when we have a federal government that’s supposed to be of limited, enumerated powers,’ he said.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=88A07417-ECEC-0034-A46FF94BAAE1D0BD
And as you’ve noted here, it’s already begun.
Coming soon: panels that decide whether you should recieve the care you need based on cost-benefit-analysis and a bureacrat’s assessment of whether you’ve lived “a complete life”.
Oh, and whether you voted for Obama or not…
I can’t say I much care if government impinges on the freedoms of people on the mooch.
ok Mr. bh so here is some for reals eugenics
fabian was 60’s no
We’ll all be moochers soon, Abe. When the government gives us all free healthcare, it can treat us all as mooches.
First they came for the food stamp users…
baracky in “freddies fashion mart” scum x 2 with al & just us
Oh, I know, Jeff. I just find it interesting that within conservatism it was long a belief that welfare recipients should abdicate some measure of their freedom in exchange for government-provided security. The left, naturally, would characterize any sort of expectations ranging from birth control to work requirements to dietary restrictions as regards food stamp usage as racist. But here we are …
shoot wolves save the sheep
See, Abe? That’s why I’m a classical liberal — though the left prefers that I just accept the label they saddle me with.
newrouter’s been doing 12oz forearm curls tonight. Time for me to wish all a good evening…
Despite hating the people behind this idea, I actually agree with it, because it’s food stamps. Sometimes I can’t help but get my Franklin on.
link
It’s been mentioned now but the relevant connection is Obamacare. Unhealthy is costly and costly needs to be looked at by the appropriate authorities.
CALISTHENICS PANEL!
That is a very deep critique. Cutting. Insightful.
fat fat fat fat barbara ann
link
oh heck
ripple
link
The government is nationalizing student loans, as well. I leave it to you all to make the slippery slope argument internally.
Making food stamps contingent on actively looking for work is different than telling recipients what kinds of perfectly legal foods they can and can’t eat while they are on assistance. Give them a flat rate and let them buy what they want with it — be it Diet Pepsi or arugula.
I’m not against a sensible social safety net for people down on their luck.
I suppose Jeff should know about food stamps, seeing as how his wife left him and he currently has no legitimate source of income.
I’m surprised he hasn’t been tapped by the Colorado GOP…
Is this what you dreamed of becoming as a child? An obsessed internet stalker?
Turn your life around. It doesn’t have to be like this.
Ban paella.
Sister Tramp – I gained weight on purpose to lower my winter heating bills and fight GLOBAL WARMING. Some of us just care too much.
Someone told me that 10% of Americans are getting foodstamps. WTF ever happened to ‘shame’?
Wait…Spinster Tramp, not lean, is against food stamps?
WTF ever happened to ‘shame’?
“Me and Reverend Wright have been traveling these great 57 states of America, talking to people, like Joe……uh….what’s his name…..a proud corpse-man, who told us that he needs a loan from the bank. So we’re gonna take that corpse-man’s tax money and loan it back to him. That will then……..uh….up his profits. Thank you! FIRED UP! READY TO GO! FIRED UP!………..”
“…READY TO GO!….He’s got my vote.”
Why make an argument on the issues, Sinister Trampezoid, when you have the opportunity to take an ugly personal shot at the one expressing an opinion? Here’s a clue, numskull: Such attacks indicate a lack of strength of position and, more importantly, a miserable, personal hatred of those with which you disagree which overwhelms any sense of dialogue and any indication of character and knowledge.
So, that being said, the only response that would seem to be in concert with your goo slinging would be … nah, nah, nah, eat shit and die.
That is all.
I look to David Plouffe for the salient argument:
“As bad as Obama sucks, and how much he is a complete idiot, if the Republicans don’t have a clean sweep, it will be a colossal failure. Check and mate my friend.”
(slightly paraphrased)
You people. We have handy staffers in congresses that make sure stuff is constitutional!
You people.
Oh, see, now you’re just being unfair. More non sequitors than words was what the fat Christian Founding Fathers we on about.
were
I realize that people like Sinister Tramp aren’t worth the powder to blow them to Hell, but I suppose that one could look upon it as a sacrifice made for the betterment of the Republic. Just Damn.
Our speaker of the house has told us that one dollar in food stamps means a dollar seventy nine for the economy.
This a point where maya could come in handy and tell us how that works.
$1.00 = $1.79
I, for one, would like to see the math.
I have a question, since I neither live in NYC nor have ever dealt with the welfare/EBT bureaucracy: Does NYC itself provide food assistance? If not, how exactly are they going to dictate terms?
I know a legit answer is,”None of this technical shit really matters anymore,” but, while we still pretend it does.
In other news: D-MA 6th rep John Tierney’s wife pleads guilty to laundering her brother’s mob-fronted ‘illegal’ offshore gambling operation and tax evasion, to the tune of about $8 million dollars; sentenced to …… $2500 fine + house arrest.
The shorter Jeff from the other day’s post of how this revolution won’t matter if we don’t torch the courts is truer squared.
We are so bumfucked.
Think Progress explains it all for us. By quoting the WSJ.
WSJ says what? [skims article] No the WSJ DOESN’T explain how this magic math works- it’s a fluff piece on the food aid program. They merely quote the Dept of Ag figure.
So, we’re still waiting for an explanation of how $5 = $9.20 in total economic activity. And how the magic bridge card turns a dollar into a dollar seventy-nine, while my dollar for a carton of eggs doesn’t.
The states do oversee their own programs.
I know they do at the state level, but if NYC says, “No,” and NY state says, “Huh?” how does NYC overstep its authority in the way, say, bloomberg’s snooty allies claim Arizona is transgressing Federal immigration authority, or SC opting-out of obamacare?
Because of the population distribution in the state, NYC enjoys much more political power in the state assembly than virtually all of the other areas. The census won’t have the most recent data ready for some time, but a little over 9 million people live in NY city and the adjacent suburban area on Long Island, and there are approximately 18 million people in the state.
Some of us think that the best way to prevent people from misusing or buying the wrong thing with food stamps is to do away with food stamps. I do not have a problem with the “if you do not work, you do not eat” philosophy.
Oh, I see Lady GaGa is on the Forbes most powerful list. #7. Beyonce is number 9.
What has fucking happened?
It’s forbes WOMEN’s lsit.
Madonna. 29.
Heidi Klum – 39
Rachel Madcow falls right behind Stephanie Meyer at #50.
DAnica Patrick? 93.
They’ve lost their minds.
I’ve got no problem with certain items being banned from food-stamp expenditures. I’d be pissed, for instance, to find that food stamps are keeping a whole lot of people waist-deep in Tic-Tacs.
After all, this is government assistance, and the objective of that is to make sure that some people get adequate nutrition that otherwise wouldn’t. Food stamps aren’t such a hot idea, though, because they’re somewhat fungible. Better to simply feed people who can’t otherwise survive.
But soda drinkers will find another way, just as alcoholics have. If food stamps have value, they can be swapped (at a discount, sure) for cash.
#21 – What an odd and angry person you appear to be. Jeff sure is gathering quite the collection of stalky-trolls.
I know in michigan that certain products qualify for WIC … they put the little stickers right beneath the product. I have no problem with Foodstamps operating under the same manner. A person is only truly free when they control their own destiny. Being dependent upon the state for your well being … well, your restrictions on the freedom to buy sugary drinks is really the least of your problems.
The reality is that these folks aren’t going to cut down their soda consumption. They’ll simply have to decide if buying a coke is worth cutting back on their beer money.
The “state” sucks at modify behavior. This is basically a useless gesture.
But soda drinkers will find another way, just as alcoholics have. If food stamps have value, they can be swapped (at a discount, sure) for cash.
Not to mention there are folks willing to take a fraction of their value. We remember this story from Aug:
The “state” sucks at modify behavior.
I don’t know, Carin. It seems to have got these mooches along on the investment portfolio path.
ST is an old troll who hasn’t appeared in a while. Things must really be going badly for the left.
As far as the soda thing goes, I’m torn. On one hand, if you’re getting assistance, having your choices limited might be expected. On the other hand, when you have a State that wants everyone on assistance, it’s scary. I also agree that one really cannot force changes to someone else’s behavior, nor should they presume to try, since it’s a wasted effort.
I guess that means I’m a squish with no concrete opinion.
we can food stamp our way to unparalleled prosperities!!
go Obama go!
As others have noted, food stamp programs already have multiple purchase restrictions, so the modification of such listings does not concern me per se. What concerns me is that this is a city mayor who has taken it upon himself to dictate these things.
I’m no great fan of public assistance, but do think we will always need a something. Likewise I’m no fan of bureaucracy, but some bureaucracy will always be a necessary evil if we are to even have things such as public assistance programs.
The key is that if such organizations are to be held accountable then they must have control over the things they are to be held responsible for. Petty Caesars, trying to run everything out of their own office grossly undermine that system. It is another example of the subversion of the rule of law in favor of the rule of men.
This, among a litany of other examples, is why I know that you are an unmitigated disaster as a human being and have absolutely no chance in hell of overcoming your stupidity. Yes, you will find that PW is just chock full of commenters loving GW Bush’s economic leadership. Truly. But, by all means, keep screaming, Buuuuuuuuusshhhhhhh!!!1!11122@@2
It’s just a simple multiplier effect. People buy food, food sellers pay their employees & suppliers, in turn those employees and suppliers also consume, etc… Find a book by Dubya’s economic adviser, Mankiw, and it should be able to explain it for you.
That might be true of a regular transaction between willing buyers and sellers, but in this case we’re talking about a dollar that was stolen from a productive member of society before it was given to voter cattle. Surely that theft should be part of the equation.
Hopefully the moneymen can live up to their name and show us a bit of math. Let’s all hold our breath…
According to Valerie Ramey, UCSD, the multiplier for government spending is around 1.4; implying that each dollar spent by gubmint creates $1.40 of economic activity.
Interstibly, according to outgoing chairwoman of Obama’s economic advisers, Christina Romer, in a study done with David Romer while at Berkeley, concluded that each dollar of tax-cut created $3 of economic activity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/economy/11view.html
So why wasn’t the spendulus one great big tax cut? And, if they’re gonna get soooooooo much money by allowing the Boooooooooosh! tax cuts to expire for “the rich”, why not just let them keep the tax cut instead of taking 3 times that amount of money out of GDP.
Me? The only way I can rationalize the whole “multiplier” for each government dollar spent charade is if they’re including the salary of the bureaucrats that administrate the spending.
A dollar, is a dollar, is a dollar. It sounds like more soft science voodoo and contrived statistical correlation using specious constituent relationship.
Obama grew up on food stamps so now he wants all Americans to share in the food stamp joy I think.
As for the post, I’d have to echo Slart’s, Carin’s and cranky’s comments. If you’re sucking on the govt teat, I see no problems with having restrictions. However, if you think the state wants to stop at just the people sucking off of it’s growing bosom, you’re a little naive, imo. It’s appetite is insatiable.
Obama has done his best to get us all on food stamps, so I tend to agree with you, hf. I’m not sure who’s going to pay for it when we’re all on the dole, but I’m sure Teh Won has a plan.
For meya/moneyman/RD/whatevz
http://tinyurl.com/mg2t72
Take it to heart…
Great multipliers in history.
And I guess giving it dead people, gives you even more stimulus, Beck raised a point, this restriction is going to go over great in Atlanta, home of Coca Cola
you wanna have a welfare pepsi have a welfare pepsi you wanna have welfare cottage cheese have welfare cottage cheese just please don’t take the last whole wheat pitas you stupid welfare person cause you have all day to work out or whatever my job is very sedentary
moneymen, I work with RIMS-II and IMPLAN multipliers every damn week, so I really don’t need your condescension. Grocery is not a high-margin sector to begin with, so tell me: how does it help the grocer that a significant chunk of the revenues he gets comes from food stamps that are effectively his own goddamn money to begin with?
Don’t steal ten bucks from my store, come in and spend a hundred bucks the next day, and expect me to thank you for it.
Just take the $1.79 in food stamps that Gubmint makes out of $1, give it back to Gubmint, turn the Pelosi Automagic Money handle, and get $3.20! Repeat the process, and you get $5.74!
Why, after only 50 turns of the handle, we’ll have almost $428 billion dollars! It’s a freakin’ miracle!!!!
Just take the $1.79 in food stamps that Gubmint makes out of $1, give it back to Gubmint, turn the Pelosi Automagic Money handle, and get $3.20! Repeat the process, and you get $5.74!
Why, after only 50 turns of the handle, we’ll have almost $428 billion dollars! It’s a freakin’ miracle!!!!
Chain letter economics!
It’s just a simple multiplier effect. People buy food, food sellers pay their employees & suppliers, in turn those employees and suppliers also consume, etc… Find a book by Dubya’s economic adviser, Mankiw, and it should be able to explain it for you.
So … should MY dollar spent have that same multiplier effect? W/o, of course, the overhead costs of delivering that “Dollar” to the welfare recipient?
How much money was lost to give that person her buck?
So, you take a dollar from me (which would have caused 1.79 in economic activity directly) – and it shuffles through various bureaucracies … to deliver how much in ACTUAL food stamp money?
Estimates say the administrative cost is almost 16 cents fro every dollar. So, right off the bat, MY dollar not taken from me goes further than the food stamp dollar.
And yes. The tax is part of the equation.
Great. Quantify it. What would the multiplier be if the government weren’t taking away $1.30 for every $1.00 of benefit distributed?
someone edit that comment for me.
notshould=shouldn’t.
“Grocery is not a high-margin sector to begin with, so tell me: how does it help the grocer that a significant chunk of the revenues he gets comes from food stamps that are effectively his own goddamn money to begin with?”
It’s not about margins. In fact it being lower margin means more of the input to the grocer is passed on to others — the employees and suppliers. It is not just about the grocer. It’s also about the activity beyond the grocer. It’s also not effectively his money — the general tax base is taxed and that is used to provide funding to people purchasing from the grocery.
Even worst – when you combine the administrative costs with the overpayment- that adds up to to over 20 cents per dollar.
So quick review+
My dollar equals a dollar in spending money
My taxed dollar equals around 80 cents in spending money. (link in previous comment)
The whole idea of government fiscal multipliers is really a Keynsian construct, that never considered; a)that government sending could adversely effect the private market (CRA, subprime, Fannie.Freddie), and b) debt financing could reach a point where it would consume a substantial portion of capital in the system.
I’m with DarthRove. If multipliers are such a great and certain thing let’s fire up the Democrat/Pelosi/Obama auto-magic money machine; we’ll pay off the national debt in no time!
Yes, yes, employees and suppliers and second-order effects. That’s very nice.
Explain to me again how it’s so much worse for the economy if the people who shop at the supermarket spend money that was earned through productive labor? Because you seem to be saying that $130 dollars stolen from the productive to provide $100 in benefits to vote cattle will somehow create $179 in value. If the productive just spent the $130 in the first place, what would be the economic effect, mr. moneymen?
The argument over the precise economic multiplier ignores the fact that forcibly taking from A to provide for B is immoral.
(We used to call profiting from the forced confiscation of labor “slavery”, until someone realized it sells better if you call it “spreading the wealth”.)
what’s bad news is how Obama’s economy keeps shedding jobs
it’s unfuckingbelievable that with the amazing welfare multipliers we’re still losing jobs
we’re gonna need a lot more food stamps at this rate
A dollar in other income (and by a person not on food stamps) may not be a full dollar spent.
If it isn’t spent, it’s invested. I’m not keeping my dollars in my fucking mattress.
Last point on multipliers. If it’s such a certainty, then how come the Soviet command and control economy wasn’t the largest on earth?
And why didn’t China’s economy start to appreciably improve until after they convinced western businesses to build factories there?
It’s bupkis
Think of it more as what happens to a dollar of income, rather than a dollar spent.
Think of it more as what happens to that dollar once it is taken from me as a tax. All the grubby government hands that take a bite. Now add in the fraud. A dollar in income maybe saved, but for many (especially now-a-days) it is spent. Or taxed.
So. no. I’m not buying Nancy’s argument. Especially considering that they’re spendind MY money.
For a guy who’s prone to lecturing others on Econ 101 in the worst tones of the condescending faux-intellectual, moneymen sure seems to have a blind spot when it comes to economic activity.
It’s enough to make one suspect that perhaps moneymen isn’t what he pretends to be.
moneymen, like the true keynesian dumbass it wishes it could grow up to be, is simply spewing keynesian pap. Keynes, an eminently much smarter human being than meya, or moneymen, was wrong.
Those administrative costs are being low-balled, Carin. They may account for the direct administrative costs of a particular program, but they ignore a lot of services provided by other sections of government.
In the case at hand, the Food Stamps program may account for the personnel who determine eligibility, but I’d be deeply surprised if they show any costs related to pulling income and residency data. Those will come from other departments, with overhead costs of their own.
Like moneymen says (and he’s NEVER wrong): you have to consider the suppliers. Econ 101 and all that.
Squid — there are also overhead costs to the retailer.
I think you still haven’t looked into how this works.
Judging by the state of finances today, not bloody well.
The premise of the argument is ridiculous.
Someone in foostamps spends $200 on food a month. I spend at least that much. It DOESN’T MATTER that I have more money to spend.
That is irrelevant. The government isn’t giving me that extra money that I’m not spending. It’s being EARNED. You have this backward idea that money not spent is somehow being cheated.
Not to mention, that people with more money tend to spend MORE on food anyway. You know, they buy those expensive (overpriced ) cuts of meat and all that organic food. They eat out and give tips.
If they spent it all and on the same things? The effect would be the same. But that’s not what happens.
That’s not what happens? No shit, sherlock! If that $30 wasn’t being consumed by bureaucrats (producing nothing of value, mind you; they can barely pretend that they’re minimizing waste and fraud), it would spent on something valuable, or invested in a venture that promised to create value.
You tell me, mr. ‘multiplier’ moneybags: which has a higher multiplier? Investments in productive ventures, spending on valuable services and goods, or bureaucratic frictional losses?
Carin, Squid, the problem with us spending our own earnings is that no poorly-educated, government union worker gets to take a cut.
The soup kitchen at the church down the road serves kool-aid.
There outta be a law…
Make them drink water!
The multiplier analysis is talking about a given unit of income at the margin. Not totals. In general, the poorer you are, the greater your marginal propensity to consume. Which makes sense, since we all have needs to meet.
So, basically it is an argument for redistribution. I mean, if that’s the important point regarding income and spending. Nancy’s most bang for the buck.
Regardless, the multiplier analysis completely ignores the “cost” of that dollar of aid. My dollar spent, employing people, didn’t have the government waste taken out of it.
And, money saved is merely money that will be spent on a later date.
We’re not all George Soros, you know.
And, money saved is merely money that will be spent on a later date.
It’s money that’s invested in productive activity in the meantime. What experts like moneymen often fail to acknowledge is that money not spent immediately is generally deposited in a bank, which in turn lends that money out for productive uses.
Experts like moneymen would have you believe that a dollar saved is a dollar removed from the economy, which is completely erroneous. So erroneous, and on so basic a level, that one can’t help but suspect it’s not error at all, but rather deception.
I was actually laughing, maya.
That you really believe an economy like that is sustainable.
Oh. my.
All we need to do the eliminate the deficit is to print more food stamps.
Priceless.
I’m not too strong with numbers, but I do know that this “multiplier” effect is rendered moot if the “multiplier” is a decimal (which is pointed out in a couple of the comments). It actually becomes a divisor–which as they say in the business Not Good.
Mueller, please. My gorgeous wonderful daughter is Maya. This idiot is meya. Thanks.
The notion that the government is going to affect GDP in any important way as a result of stimulus from the paltry foodstamp program is not one worthy of consideration, sorry to say.
The problem with looking at it in terms of GDP augmentation is that no increase in any kind of valuable output is accomplished. You’ve grown some food, which eventually wound up in a sewage treatment plant somewhere, having accomplished nothing on the trip. Nothing new was made, and no extra services (or work of any kind) were performed.
This notion that government spending is a good thing can be taken one step further: we could say: hey, let’s eliminate the middleman and have people spend their own money. If a government dollar generates 1.4 dollars in GDP growth, so does a private-sector dollar. And without that pesky need to recover the dollar spent, too!
So what meya is cheerleading, here, is G. W. Bush’s urging of people to just go out and spend after 9/11.
If a government dollar generates 1.4 dollars in GDP growth, so does a private-sector dollar
I would argue that by sector, the private sector dollar has a potential for a much larger multiplier. It is unconstrained because it can create new wealth – which is to Slarti’s point above.
Apple Ipods weren’t invented at the USDA … ya know
“It seems to me like you’re not quite getting where the multiplier effect comes from. Again, a 101 type text might be able to explain this to you.”
You keep flogging the “101 type text” – I guess you just are not bright enough to explain it – unlike several folks here already have, eh? Or it could be you are gravely mistaken, and have to keep waving people off like you are batting away a fart, because you cannot explain your “point”.
moneymen, this discussion is over until you establish that the government has a moral right to steal my life so that others don’t have to work. This is slavery. I will not submit to it. I will find a way to provide as little as possible while encouraging the slave economy to fail.
What part of in any important way made you think that you’re disagreeing with me?
Again: not disputed.
I don’t think you quite get the fact that the government’s money comes from the taxpayers. In order for the GDP to realize a net gain, that $1 of each $1.4 in FDP gain has to be recovered via taxation. Any high school economics teacher could tell you that.
…and if you had read Mankiw’s column, he concludes that this kind of multiplier is not anywhere near the best way to achieve economic stimulus, and also claims that the Obama administration has also come to this conclusion.
“Again: not disputed.”
Oh I’m sorry I must have misread “having accomplished nothing.”
“In order for the GDP to realize a net gain, that $1 of each $1.4 in FDP gain has to be recovered via taxation.”
You’ll find that this is part of the model when multipliers are explained.
multipliers are like when the toof fairy gives you kworters for your toofs and then depending on how many kworters you got you can go buy stuff
Sorry for not being 100% literal. s/”having accomplished nothing”/”having accomplished nothing of significance”
Fill in this part a nonresponsive reply. I can’t be bothered to make one up just now.
Just to one-up you in nonresponsiveness.
Oh, and: I had a dog, once. He was a good dog.
Good news, everyone!
You can still get soda with your EBT cards in Massachusetts! As well as booze, lottery, slots, and TVs!
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1287451
And here I thought we were talking stimulative effect, and effect on GDP. Silly me.
It’s really tedious, having to continually recontextualize the conversation. It’s like having a conversation with someone whose short-term memory only lasts a few seconds.
“You can still get soda with your EBT cards in Massachusetts! As well as booze, lottery, slots, and TVs!”
Man, Massachusetts is tough! Here in California they get all that stuff…in Hawaii.
It’d probably be very painful to take the Memento approach to addressing the memory issue. Maybe a pen and paper might work.
You want explanations, here’s an explanation: A dollar spent on something valuable is bad, because that money goes to whomever created the value, and chances are that that guy has more than enough money already.
A dollar spent on an uneducated drunk is good, because a good portion of that dollar goes to government bureaucrats (who vote Democrat), and the rest goes toward assuring that the ignorant drunk votes Democrat. And there is nothing in our economy that is half as important or valuable as a vote for a Democrat.
Q.E.D.
No, I can make your argument for you just fine. Don’t bother yourself.
“You. Are. No. Longer. Free.”
Yes you are. You are free to make your own way without taking money from the government (i.e., me) to do so. But if you DO take money from me, I get a say in how you spend it.
“if you DO take money from me, I get a say in how you spend it.”
Yeah, we should tell Mrs. Obama NO MAC AND CHEESE FOR YOU!
Glad you finally decided to come clean at 117 moneymeya.
Those welfare people shouldn’t get cotton clothes either. Here’s your assistance, and here’s your polyester jump suit. now SWEAT, FAT ASS!
#97
The multiplyer effect is negated entirely if you take $1.00 by force and then give to some one else. No New Money(read wealth) Is Being Made. Period.
You can argue multiplyer effect and accrued interest on the debt, but until some private individual makes something, or does something people want, there is no wealth to tax and loan money on.
Only a liberal would tell somebody what to with their money.
jessh!
Oh the food that gets bought with food stamps is made. And so is whatever it is that is bought down the line as the grocer pays their suppliers, employees, etc..
….who then pay taxes on every dime, so that Idiot Obama can get more people on food stamps so that every tattoo or pack of Camels that are bought creates demand down the line, which in turn causes them all to be taxed more so that Idiot Obama can get even more people on food stamps so that……..
You and Obama are a perfect pair.
Here’s another great Obama idea: “I need your tax money so that I can loan banks your money so that the banks can loan you your money so instead of you keeping your money, I loan it to you and you pay interest on the money you had in the first place, but I’ll use some of your money to get more people on food stamps so that you’ll get some biz down that Mt. Dew line. Now, let’s get started on that paperwork.”
Again, you and Obama have proven that you’re idiots. You’ve broken that tape you special Olympian. You can stop running now.
among others.
Oh wait, you think Obama wasn’t for TARP?
(Co-)Own it.
Fiscal multipliers are a Keynesian mechanism; and if they worked, why wouldn’t we have stimulated the debt awat already. Why don’t we dispense with the Keynes’ model for a change and try a little Austrian economics.
And maybe get back on the gold standard…
GOLDBUG! You and JHO should start a blog, Bob! I would read it religiously. Like PW.
Thanks OI,
I’m a bit of an economic HERETIC! according to the conventional wisdom. But, considering that kind of thinking got us where we are…
#124
Oh. jaysus. You’re thick.
Where does the government get the money, maya?
Think real hard.
I know just what the Obama Administration should do! It should mandate that all food purchases be made with Food Stamps, increase our taxes by the amount that the government thinks we should spend on food, and then the government issues us all the appropriate amount in Food Stamps. Then, when the
nannygovernment decides just what foods we should consume, it restricts our food purchases to those things which are Good For Us.An added benefit would be that, since everybody would have to use Food Stamps, the poor wouldn’t feel stigmatized for having to use them.
I’m glad I could help.
Maya is OI’s daughter Mueller, you’re talking about meya…
See #98
That’s a scary thought Dana…
And one I’m sure has been kicked around by the command-n-control bunch in the White House.
One in seven, they say, so 45 million give or take. Tell you what–end the program and offer free rice, beans, and vegetables, you will have maybe ten million takers. Five.
Part of the “welcome to your college education er doctrination” packet for new college students living off campus is food stamps application forms. Seriously.
Yep, jobs are always in demand down at the CHON food factory.
Just when you think Bloomberg’s idiocy is in doubt, he ‘removes all doubt’ at this time, we can’t really be picky and suppress any economic activity