Hoyer: Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance 2 'Most Stimulative' Things for Economy

[ScienceRocks]

Hoyer: Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance 2 'Most Stimulative' Things for Economy
CNSNews ^
Hoyer: Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance 2 'Most Stimulative' Things for Economy | CNSNews.com


Hoyer: Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance 2 'Most Stimulative' Things for Economy By Elizabeth Harrington July 17, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the two "most stimulative" t things you can do for the economy.

During a pen and pad briefing with reporters on Capitol Hill, Hoyer was asked if any Democrats are “reconsidering the wisdom” of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at year’s end for the top income earners given the still struggling U.S. economy.

"I haven’t talked to any who are of that mind," said Hoyer. "If you talk to economists, they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do -- one’s unemployment insurance, the other’s food stamps, okay?”

“Why is that?” he said. “Because those folks who receive those resources must spend them. And they’ll spend them almost upon receipt. Most economists with whom I talk believe that those with significant discretionary income, that that’s not the case.”

Unless action is taken by Congress, the Bush tax cuts will expire on Jan. 1, 2013. Originally enacted in 2001 and 2003, President Barack Obama and Congress renewed the cuts for all income-brackets for two years in 2010.

Obama and the Democrats are now proposing that the rates be extended for one more year, until the end of 2013, for people earning less than $250,000 a year, while Republicans want the rates extended for people in all income brackets.

----

I honestly do NOT understand how giving free stuff to people=stimulative for economic growth. Money doesn't grow on tree's...It is made through growing the economic pie. Growing the size of the economy through building businesses and growing wealth of all the classes does.

I wish to learn your reasoning to why you believe this my friends on the left. Is this really sound economics?

 

[Inthemiddle]

You don't understand how allowing lower and middle class people to retain more of their money and be taxed less will stimulate the economy? Alright, let me explain it to you from the beginning. This is a penny. If you have 100 pennies, you will have a dollar....

 

[Lakhota]

I agree, because most recipients need to spend it quickly to survive.

 

[Joshuatree]

Don't you guys think there's too many people on welfare yet?

 

[Rozman]

Oh are we back to the argument here again that Princess Nancy brought up a while back.
Where it's better to have people collect unemployment checks then work because we get more
"bang for the buck" with more people collecting unemployment...

I thought it would be be better for us all if people had jobs.
But hey that's just me....

 

[occupied]

No matter what your feelings on foodstamps and unemployment it is correct that they have the most immediate stimulative effect on the economy, not to mention that the country's food industry would crash without them.

 

[Oddball]

You don't understand how allowing lower and middle class people to retain more of their money and be taxed less will stimulate the economy? Alright, let me explain it to you from the beginning. This is a penny. If you have 100 pennies, you will have a dollar....

Where do you think the money comes from, Lucky the Leprechaun?

 

[alan1]

I wonder how much of that EBT and unemployment insurance money ends up in the hands of Fortune 500 companies (big oil, Walmart, Kroger, Target, Family Dollar, Dollar General, etc)?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You don't understand how allowing lower and middle class people to retain more of their money and be taxed less will stimulate the economy? Alright, let me explain it to you from the beginning. This is a penny. If you have 100 pennies, you will have a dollar....

Welfare money comes from somewhere...Government either taxes another class or creates it out of thin air to give to the lower class. I'm not saying I'm opposed to helping people, but it may not be fair or sound long term.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You don't understand how allowing lower and middle class people to retain more of their money and be taxed less will stimulate the economy? Alright, let me explain it to you from the beginning. This is a penny. If you have 100 pennies, you will have a dollar....

Where do you think the money comes from, Lucky the Leprechaun?

From the paychecks that people would be keeping larger portions of. C'mon, you're not this stupid.

 

[Freewill]

So the government taking out of the economy, taking a cut, then returning some of that money back to the economy is stimulus? Really? These people are idiots. The only way to get wealth is to work for it. The only way the economy will recover is when people are working, it is simple, but too simple for simpletons like Hoyer. Sad thing is they really believe their crap.

 

[occupied]

So the government taking out of the economy, taking a cut, then returning some of that money back to the economy is stimulus? Really? These people are idiots. The only way to get wealth is to work for it. The only way the economy will recover is when people are working, it is simple, but too simple for simpletons like Hoyer. Sad thing is they really believe their crap.

Money flowing through the economy creates more money, pretty elementary stuff.

 

[Rozman]

So the government taking out of the economy, taking a cut, then returning some of that money back to the economy is stimulus? Really? These people are idiots. The only way to get wealth is to work for it. The only way the economy will recover is when people are working, it is simple, but too simple for simpletons like Hoyer. Sad thing is they really believe their crap.

And the Hoyer's and Pelosi's get elected over and over again...

 

[Oddball]

You don't understand how allowing lower and middle class people to retain more of their money and be taxed less will stimulate the economy? Alright, let me explain it to you from the beginning. This is a penny. If you have 100 pennies, you will have a dollar....

Where do you think the money comes from, Lucky the Leprechaun?

From the paychecks that people would be keeping larger portions of. C'mon, you're not this stupid.

And the things that the people who earn that money would spend it on are less stimulative to the economy in what way?

 

[Oddball]

So the government taking out of the economy, taking a cut, then returning some of that money back to the economy is stimulus? Really? These people are idiots. The only way to get wealth is to work for it. The only way the economy will recover is when people are working, it is simple, but too simple for simpletons like Hoyer. Sad thing is they really believe their crap.

Money flowing through the economy creates more money, pretty elementary stuff.

I'll remind myself of that, as I steal your computer and teevee, how stimulative to the economy it is.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Damn, these people are beyond stupid. There is no net gain.

 

[ladyliberal]

I honestly do NOT understand how giving free stuff to people=stimulative for economic growth. Money doesn't grow on tree's...It is made through growing the economic pie. Growing the size of the economy through building businesses and growing wealth of all the classes does.

I wish to learn your reasoning to why you believe this my friends on the left. Is this really sound economics?

The short answer is that giving money to poor people is more stimulative than giving money to rich people because poor people are more likely to spend the money immediately. This of course immediately increases the economy as compared to the size of the economy if the recipient of the money had saved it. And if the person who receives the money the poor person spends it again the economy spends even more. Of course the most stimulative policy isn't necessarily the best policy-- we may wish to increase the savings rate or we may wish to direct the money to or away from particular sectors of the economy.

For a list of multiplication factors (about which there is, of course, considerable disagreement among macroeconomists) see, eg, http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/d...e-Committee-Unemployment Insurance-041410.pdf

 

[alan1]

I honestly do NOT understand how giving free stuff to people=stimulative for economic growth. Money doesn't grow on tree's...It is made through growing the economic pie. Growing the size of the economy through building businesses and growing wealth of all the classes does.

I wish to learn your reasoning to why you believe this my friends on the left. Is this really sound economics?

The short answer is that giving money to poor people is more stimulative than giving money to rich people because poor people are more likely to spend the money immediately. This of course immediately increases the economy as compared to the size of the economy if the recipient of the money had saved it. And if the person who receives the money the poor person spends it again the economy spends even more. Of course the most stimulative policy isn't necessarily the best policy-- we may wish to increase the savings rate or we may wish to direct the money to or away from particular sectors of the economy.

For a list of multiplication factors (about which there is, of course, considerable disagreement among macroeconomists) see, eg, http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/d...e-Committee-Unemployment Insurance-041410.pdf

Who said anything about giving money to rich people?
It's not a give to the poor or give to the rich situation.
Your frame of reference is incorrect.

 

[GuyPinestra]

No matter what your feelings on foodstamps and unemployment it is correct that they have the most immediate stimulative effect on the economy, not to mention that the country's food industry would crash without them.

Yeah, it would crash, suuuuure it would...

 

[Freewill]

No matter what your feelings on foodstamps and unemployment it is correct that they have the most immediate stimulative effect on the economy, not to mention that the country's food industry would crash without them.

OMG you people really do believe that crap. Three years we have had this thought rising up from Congress and Obama, THREE YEARS. The economy has not be stimulated as evidenced by the 8 percent unemployment, high gasoline prices, inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. Not the mention the 4 trillion dollars in debt that the Democrats and Obama have added to our grandchildren. 3 years of this policy and it is obviously a failure yet you want to continue doing so. Incredible.

I was listening to CBS news, for a short period, and one of the commentators was crowing about the economy and said we had low gasoline prices. Low by where Obama wants them maybe but they have doubled in his 3 years. That is exactly what I have been saying for 3 years. The report on the economy will grow better and better as we near the election. Now when I turn on CBS I C....BS.