That is the problem with politics. You obviously agree that stimulus was necessary. The problem with this package is that it was rushed. And the fact that it was rushed gave everyone an excuse to throw his/her pet project in.

But then again, there really wasnt an alternative. You can't blame Obama for all the pork thats in that package and you certainly can't blame it purely on democrats.

In my opinion, there simply was no choice.

which is why i think there should be a line item veto. too much pork gets attached to necessary spending bills. and too true, it was rushed.

didn't they curse that suggestion when reagan talked about trickle down economics?? :D

that guy brady sounds like quite a guy. :rolleyes:

While I understand political realities play a role this is like trading Allen Iverson for the other teams number #1 picks for the next 30 years. Maybe you needed a little scoring now but this isnt going to end pretty.

This is a new defense...

It is actually called throw enough **** against the wall and hope some sticks...

How about you do your own homework?

You posted an opinion. I asked for you to say why. You can't deliver. You said:

Sorry. That's not readily apparent from the list you posted. Pick out which line items you are talking about.

Stop avoiding the issue

Do my homework? Just click on the link. Is that too much to ask?

No, the point is that when you state something as fact, but are then asked to provide proof, simply restating your opinion as a fact, then saying the person asking you to put up just can't see it, isn't any support or proof at all.

You know, in the "adult" world ;)

20 billion in sales in the food/grocery industry doesn't count as "economic growth"?

Think of those "jobs saved" that don't exist ... checkout people, aisle stockers, delivery truck drivers, warehouse workers, more truck drivers, produce farm workers.

I just dont know how to respond.

Sigh ... I miss Illinois. You always knew where your Governor would be after his term was over :rolleyes:

What is proof to you?

Because all you see is someone getting food stamps.

I quite understand the process. But you arent creating anything sustaining. It is a temporary fix. When the 19 billion runs out you are back in the same place you were before and will need more "stimulus". You aren't stimulating anything, you are subsidizing it.

Pick out more of what you think are, "huge portions of money that went to non stimulus areas, huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

You see food stamps and see "entitlement". I see a whole chain of people that didn't lose jobs. Economic growth in the sense of expansion? Nope. But certainly, in a terrible economy, a contracting economy, there are economic benefits to keeping people working, and spending (paying rent, mortgage, buying food, etc); and also to not having those among us, in the highest unemployment, starve.

Yes, it's a subsidy, but one that keeps the economic engines humming. It means independent producers don't go out of business (forever) - in KY my local Kroger does buy local produce, too - and all the associated people keep spending their paychecks, buying gas and food, etc.

It buys time, yes - for the economy to get back to some stability (even mentally for people so they will spend) and thus, when the $19 million runs out - the grounds for growth and future expansion remain rather than disappear.

You know there have been multiple extensions of unemployment benefits over the past year - people are getting unemployment - and food stamp benefits - far longer than ever before in our history. In previous times they would have been out of luck on the entitlements, and still unemployed. Would you have them not receive this assistance? And there are more people receiving it nowadays, too.

Food stamps arent part of a social program and arent a temporary fix?

Fine - you see food stamps as, "huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

I see them as, indeed, economic stimulus. Food stamps for the number of people on them now will not have to be sustained and are not intended as a permanent expansion of the program (given as the economy recovers); and I gave my argument for the many long-term benefits of what you dismiss as a "temporary fix".

What?

This has nothing to do with the discussion

19 billion worth of food stamps is exactly what i said it is. An expansion of a social program and a temporary fix. Your little synopsis of the food chain is cute but food stamps are not going to grow anything. Your assumption that the expansion of the food stamp program will ever recede is simply political niavety.