"our budget didn't get into this mess because we spent too much money on poor pe

[Freeper]

bobbolink  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Thu Mar-03-11 09:55 PM
Original message
"our budget didn't get into this mess because we spent too much money on poor people! "   Updated at 9:47 PM
   
Jim Wallis continues: "And cutting programs that help the most vulnerable (which are among the most cost-effective and least costly public spending we have) isn't going to get us out of financial trouble, or reduce the deficit in ways that we now need. Excessive deficits are indeed a moral issue and they place crushing burdens on our children and grandchildren. But how we reduce the deficit is also a moral issue."

For every federal dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy.

Subsidized housing brings in MILLIONS to the local economy, AND creates jobs.

Yet, the proposed cuts to low-income housing, to food stamps, to school lunch programs and Head Start, to heating cost for poor people are being ignored. These cuts Will go through, because there is not an outcry from people like all of us... people who claim to care about others.

There are only two weeks to make your voice heard!

Get this out by Twitter and Facebook, speak to every one you know to put a stop to these cuts.

We poor people are NOT responsible for the budget mess.... don't make us take the brunt of the hits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x553367

Once again we have potatonomics.
How in the hell does taking money out of the economy from people who earn it, create jobs?

[Vagabond]

The democratic party had been passing out money for votes since FDR and the accelerated under LBJ.  Johnson made the whole mess unsustainable and no president since has been able to fix it.  So, yeah Bobo, the poor did cause it.  They did it by constantly having your hands out looking for your lords to give you some more crumbs of the pie they stole from anyone that ever tried to do anything.  You demean those better than yourself bobo.

[FreeBorn]

"For every federal dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy".

O.K., I'm not the fastest car in the race so could somebody please explain the math on this one to me ??? 

[compaqxp]

"For every federal dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy".

O.K., I'm not the fastest car in the race so could somebody please explain the math on this one to me ???  

One dollar given = +1
One dollar spent = 0
Money earned = 1.84

So...

1-1=1.84

Remember... "You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."

[TexasCop]

For every federal dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy.

[diesel driver]

"For every federal dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is returned to the local economy".

O.K., I'm not the fastest car in the race so could somebody please explain the math on this one to me ??? 

You don't have to be the fastest car in the race, just the brightest light in the drawer. (or is that the sharpest knife in the hall?  I keep forgetting.)

Anyway, for every dollar the FedGov takes from someone, it costs $1.84.  So the DUmmie gets $1.00, and the FedGov gets $1.84.  This means that the math is wrong!  It doesn't return $1.84 to the economy, it returns $2.84 to the economy.  1+1.84 = 2.84

See, DUmmie math is EASY!  [/DUmbass mode off]

[Carl]

The whole 1.00 = 1.84 thing is a deliberate liberal corruption of the difference between economic activity and economic growth.

In other words,throw a dollar into the mix and eventually it will change hands enough time before depleted by tax and other means to have the 1.84 figure.
Bobbo spends the whole dollar on food for example.
The grocer now has the dollar but they have to pay income tax so he can only spend a percentage and so on.
Nothing grew,it was depleted like water swirling down a drain and to keep the cycle intact another dollar has to magically appear.
Maybe I am wrong and will stand corrected if I am but the whole thing is a lie.

As far as subsidized housing providing money and jobs to a local economy,well on exact terms it would but the second part of the equation that is conveniently left out by bobbo is it also means money is removed from another part of a local economy,at best it is a transfer of wealth and jobs from one place to another,again nothing grew because government can`t give with out taking (or borrowing but eventually will have the same result,taxes to pay the debt with interest).

[NHSparky]

Now given the near bottomless pit that is government bureaucracy, I **CAN** believe that it takes $1.84 in taxes to produce $1 in "benefits"; i.e., welfare, food stamps, Medicare, etc.

So tell me how that's good for me when I get a near -50 percent ROI?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This should be made into a pro-Scott Walker poster.

[JohnnyReb]

Numbers don't lie....DUmmies that use them do.

[DumbAss Tanker]

"our budget didn't get into this mess because we spent too much money on poor people!"

Yes it did, actually.

[Rebel]

I always liked this one:

[zeitgeist]

Well that is just so........discriminatory.  The student deserves partial credit for any answer as it shows the student applied themselves to finding a solution, and, if the student has shown any work, drool marks, doodles, or the like on the page more credit should also be given.  The answer is not important.  It is the process.  Look to the rubric when in doubt and try and determine the students intend in answering the question.  Life isn't about black and white, right and wrong.  

One only needs to spend time correcting standardized testing to find that 1+1 can indeed equal 5 .  Suspended disbelief is all that is required, and, of course a rubric certified by DOE.    

For example a student can get the wrong answer to a math question and get three points on a four point question by showing the process followed to that wrong answer while a student who gets the correct answer but fails to show the process followed only gets two points for the correct answer.  This is the state of modern education.  When you see those standardized test scores reported you don't really know how they are arrived at unless you see the rubric.  Scary isn't it?  

[NHSparky]

Uh, zeit?  You DO realize the student gave the correct answer, do you not?

And yes, we DID get into this mess by spending too much money on the poor.  2/3 of the federal budget is on "human resources" spending, such as Medicare, SS, etc.  Things which were never called for or authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Go figure.

[JohnnyReb]

Uh, zeit?  You DO realize the student gave the correct answer, do you not?

And yes, we DID get into this mess by spending too much money on the poor.  2/3 of the federal budget is on "human resources" spending, such as Medicare, SS, etc.  Things which were never called for or authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Go figure.

That teacher used to teach ENGLISH....until she told Dan Quayle that potato had an "E" on the end of it.

[Rebel]

Uh, zeit?  You DO realize the student gave the correct answer, do you not?

How? The student answered 20 minutes and was corrected by the teacher. BTW, that's some slow sawing.

[zeitgeist]

Uh, zeit?  You DO realize the student gave the correct answer, do you not?

And yes, we DID get into this mess by spending too much money on the poor.  2/3 of the federal budget is on "human resources" spending, such as Medicare, SS, etc.  Things which were never called for or authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Go figure.

Sparky you have to understand the test correcting mentality.  It is really simple.  The answer is what the rubric says it is.  Nothing else.  

I can tell ya that it is flat out scary when you see what passed for the correct answer in math these days.  I was prepared for 'flexibility' grading writing but thought, like many here probably do, that there was only one correct answer to a math problem.  Wrong-O bub, a total mind blowing experience.  If you ever have some free time I suggest you try correcting standardized tests at a test center( you might even be able to find a work from home job).

Did you catch the graph yesterday?  ( and don't get me started on correcting the graph questions, good grief that is even more convoluted).




Pretty damning stuff for the MIC argument crowd.

[seahorse513]

How? The student answered 20 minutes and was corrected by the teacher. BTW, that's some slow sawing.

It was a little kid sawing, what do you expect her to use, a chainsaw???

the other one said find x, not solve for x.....

[Karin]

Oh, the teacher's "answer" was in red, I didn't see that at first.  I thought it was the student "showing their work."  Lordy, must by Pam's class.   One cut = 10 minutes, 2 cuts = 20 minutes. 

That is a discriminatory test!!!!!   Her name is Marie, obviously Hispanic.  She's a girl.  They are suggesting that Hispanic women are super slow in their work.  It's an outrage. 

[BlueStateSaint]

That is a discriminatory test!!!!!   Her name is Marie, obviously Hispanic.  She's a girl.  They are suggesting that Hispanic women are super slow in their work.  It's an outrage. 

Geez . . . so you're saying that Marie Antoinette was Spanish?

[Rebel]

Geez . . . so you're saying that Marie Antoinette was Spanish?

Austrian. Hell, come to think of it, many monarchs in Europe have/had German/Prussian/Austrian ancestry.

[NHSparky]

How? The student answered 20 minutes and was corrected by the teacher. BTW, that's some slow sawing.

Yes, it's slow sawing.  But RTFQ.  How many cuts are required to turn one piece of wood into two?  How many cuts are required to turn one piece of wood into three?

That's the kind of question you see on a Wonderlic test.

[GOBUCKS]

It's simple. For every dollar we dole out to winos, the economy grows by $1.84. That means if the tax rate were 100%, with no exemptions or deductions, and no one received a dime unless it came directly from the government, the economy would nearly double from where it is today. Now, it isn't real clear how it would continue to grow after that initial explosion of growth, but it would take some time to absorb that enormous burst of prosperity, so in the meantime blue ribbon commissions could be set up to decide future planning.

[NHSparky]

It's simple. For every dollar we dole out to winos, the economy grows by $1.84. That means if the tax rate were 100%, with no exemptions or deductions, and no one received a dime unless it came directly from the government, the economy would nearly double from where it is today. Now, it isn't real clear how it would continue to grow after that initial explosion of growth, but it would take some time to absorb that enormous burst of prosperity, so in the meantime blue ribbon commissions could be set up to decide future planning.

INFINITE MONIES!!!!!



You jelly?

[RWKindaGuy]

Yes it did, actually.

That's right.  These are not "federal" dollars, they are tax dollars, and the tax dollar fairy doesn't send them to us via pixie dust.