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

[docstew]

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

because if it takes 10 minutes to cut a board once, it will take 20 to cut it twice

[Freeper]

It's a trick question.

They left out that after she cut the first one, she went into a 30 minute lecture on how she deserves to get half the profits from the sawmill for cutting that one board.

[zeitgeist]

It's a trick question.

They left out that after she cut the first one, she went into a 30 minute lecture on how she deserves to get half the profits from the sawmill for cutting that one board.

Actually it was a union job where "We do it nice cause we do it twice."

[VivisMom]

Actually it was a union job where "We do it nice cause we do it twice."

It actually takes her an hour, after her two union-mandated fifteen minute breaks after each cut.

[Revolution]

bobbolink  (1000+ posts)        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! " 
 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

Anyone else tired of this shit? I hope you're happy, bobolink. Because of you, I may just kick the next homeless guy I see on the street in the face.

Bitch.

[DumbAss Tanker]

bobbolink  (1000+ posts)        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! " 
 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.  Yadda, yadda, yadda...

The problem with this stupid Pelosi-think is that it completely ignores the opportunity cost of taking that dollar away from the person who earned it, thereby PREVENTING $1.84 in economic activity (Even using their stupid assumptions about the right multiplier).

It's actually worse than a zero-sum game:

1.  They have to take quite a bit more than a dollar from the taxpayer to pay out $1.00 in benefits, because of the frictional loss caused by both the tax collection structure and the benefit distribution structure, both of which provide government jobs but have a negative value for the economy as a whole.

2.  Discounting the fact that the recipients use a variety of barters and other evasions to buy drugs and booze, ultimately the money they receive gets spent on basic commodities, even if not necessarily by the intended recipients.  However, in the hands of the original taxpayers, they would have been dollars at the top end of the taxpayer's income, and therefore probably spent on non-commodity consumer goods like cars, computers, furniture, or media systems that would have been of vastly more regenerative value to the economy.

[Freeper]

1.  They have to take quite a bit more than a dollar from the taxpayer to pay out $1.00 in benefits, because of the frictional loss caused by both the tax collection structure and the benefit distribution structure, both of which provide government jobs but have a negative value for the economy as a whole.

That's an excellent point. I hadn't thought of for every dollar they dole out it takes more money in order to collect that dollar, and send that dollar to someone else. They have to pay the person that decides they get that dollar and the person that cuts the check or hits the button to deposit it into the EBT card. Not to mention the EBT card itself costs money and in order to process the transaction of spending that dollar probably costs as well.

[zeitgeist]

That's an excellent point. I hadn't thought of for every dollar they dole out it takes more money in order to collect that dollar, and send that dollar to someone else. They have to pay the person that decides they get that dollar and the person that cuts the check or hits the button to deposit it into the EBT card. Not to mention the EBT card itself costs money and in order to process the transaction of spending that dollar probably costs as well.

And, just between you,me, and the lamp post, I don't recommend taking financial advise from homeless people.  Somehow it just seems, well, wrong to get my advise from someone who can't even keep a roof over their own damn head. Lessons in panhandling maybe but that's where I draw the line. 

[Carl]

bobbolink  (1000+ posts)        Thu Mar-03-11 09:55 PM
The problem with this stupid Pelosi-think is that it completely ignores the opportunity cost of taking that dollar away from the person who earned it, thereby PREVENTING $1.84 in economic activity (Even using their stupid assumptions about the right multiplier).

It's actually worse than a zero-sum game:

1.  They have to take quite a bit more than a dollar from the taxpayer to pay out $1.00 in benefits, because of the frictional loss caused by both the tax collection structure and the benefit distribution structure, both of which provide government jobs but have a negative value for the economy as a whole.

2.  Discounting the fact that the recipients use a variety of barters and other evasions to buy drugs and booze, ultimately the money they receive gets spent on basic commodities, even if not necessarily by the intended recipients.  However, in the hands of the original taxpayers, they would have been dollars at the top end of the taxpayer's income, and therefore probably spent on non-commodity consumer goods like cars, computers, furniture, or media systems that would have been of vastly more regenerative value to the economy.

It is basically the broken window theory and I have often asked libs how pouring water into a dry hole creates a well but have never once gotten an answer.

[diesel driver]

Anyone else tired of this shit? I hope you're happy, bobolink. Because of you, I may just kick the next homeless guy I see on the street in the face.

Bitch.

If I see a Buick in Colorado with a homeless DUmbass in it, I'm gonna flatten all 4 tires.   

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeah - it's exactly the same kind of thinking that gave us a "Jobs program" where every $50,000 a year job cost us $500,000.