I've noticed that nobody can actually provide any FACTS to counter the conclusions drawn by Moody's and the CBO. How odd...
No proof? Okay, how about we play a little game of logic.
-You wish to increase food stamps which you claim increases economic activity and creates a near doubling of the economy per dollar spent.
-Therefore you increase the budget to the program.
- Which requires you to increase taxes or cut from other programs.
- Since cuts to other programs won't be made, taxes increase.
- Now the people who's taxes went up, means they now keep less of their own money to spend.
- Therefore consumption from taxpayers drops due to less money.
- The money put into food stamps is less than money collected in taxes because of government skimming the amount for the administration cost.
- The remaining money is put into hands that spend it in consumption, but the amount is less than what was taxed.
- Since consumption dropped, business slowed, the economy slowed, causing more people to be laid off or businesses to close.
- These people now require assistance, including food stamps.
- This decreases the overall revenue available for tax, thereby decreasing the revenue brought in.
- The government must now choose to borrow more money, raise more taxes or decrease the size of the program.
- If money is borrowed, we now have high interest loans out that take care of immediate need, but not long term.
- These new costs require more tax money, which then decreases consumption and investment.
- Causing more business failures and layoffs.
- Prompting MORE borrowing or tax increases.
- Which causes more layoffs and business closures and people needing assistance requiring more revenue from elsewhere.
<><><>
At some point the whole system collapses as the weight of the people needing assistance crushes the ability to pay for it. I do believe we passed the buoyancy mark back in the 70's, and now the ability to pay is crushed under it's growing weight. It only took this long because of this nation having been so blessed since Reagan and through Clinton, we outgrew the inevitable flooding in the hull. Now the pumps have quit, and the crew is exhausted, but we COULD patch the hole, but it's dangerous and will mean some sacrifice on the part of those who have been surviving on the government's teat for sometimes decades.
This is the price that MUST be paid to save this ship of state.
But if you want to play logic games and lie about earnings and profitability caused by hand outs... do so on your own dime. Your theory is kaput and most rational people who are aware are wise to the deception.
So, is the solution you're touting to put everyone on the very successful and profitable unemployment benefits and food stamps? Or do you prefer to stick with something a lot less successful? After all, who would pay for unemployment if we all were on it? See the problem now?
The theory of perpetual motion machines, even economic ones was disproven in the 19th century you know.
