Madness Continues: Top Dem Says Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits Are Two ‘Most Stimulative’ Things For The Economy

Hoyer Just The Latest Lib To Brag About Record Number Of Americans On The Dole

Who’da thunk it? Who would have believed that after 3 1/2 years of Obamunism, Democrats would be reduced to not only defending high unemployment rates and record numbers of Americans on food stamps – they’d actually be bragging about how tens of millions of us on the dole is actually a good thing for the economy?

The latest Democrat to remind us of just how fortunate we are to be living under the Regime’s dismal economic record is none other than House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who said yesterday that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the two “most stimulative” means of healing an ailing economy. Seriously.

When asked by reporters if any Democrats are “reconsidering the wisdom” of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at year’s end for top income earners – given the still-struggling economy – Hoyer testily replied:

“I haven’t talked to any who are of that mind. 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?”

Think about it: this guy is House Minority Whip – and obviously, Nancy Pelosi’s vice-wizard on Planet Looney Tunes, as well. (Incidentally, world-renowned economic guru Pelosi first informed us that unemployment benefits were the single “biggest stimulus” for the economy two years ago this month.) Hoyer, having just shared that pearl of economic wisdom obviously looked around the room and saw the “You’re messin’ with us now, right?” looks on the faces of reporters, continued:

“Why is that? 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.”

Earth to Steny: So what you’re telling us is, the more people we have on food stamps and unemployment benefits, the better the economy, right? Let’s extrapolate the madness, Steny; if everyone in America were on food stamps and unemployment benefits, you’re saying we’d see an economic boon the likes of which have been unseen by mankind? No? Then what’s the cross-over point, Steny?

Of course Democrats are trying to tell us that unemployment benefits and food stamps combine to create the perfect panacea for an ailing economy for two reasons: Their president – with the aid of Pelosi, Reid & Co. – has failed to deliver on his promise to fix the “problem created by George Bush” that was “much worse than anticipated.” And, their president – along with most of them – is frantically scrambling to win reelection in the face of the continuing Obama economic disaster. As noted in prior posts, desperate times call for desperate actions.

At any rate, the Democrats’ reasoning goes something like this: The more money people have, the more they spend, which means more business for local stores, groceries, or wherever else people would use a little extra cash. That triggers the so-called multiplier effect; the store owner gets a little extra cash, which he spends, which in turn gives others a little extra cash, and so on.

However, most economists who are not seeking reelection as Democrats disagree, noting that the majority of economic studies – including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office – prove that increased unemployment benefits cause the unemployment rate to rise, not fall. Why? Think about it: unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to find work. With unemployment benefits available, people tend to hold out and wait for “the right job to come along,” ignoring “less-attractive” job offers. (I’ve seen previous brothers-in-law wait for “the right job” most of their lives.)

The same phenomenon occurs as it relates to disability benefits. Insurance companies limit the amount of disability income available under a private disability income insurance policy to 60% or so of  provable gross income. The reason? Malingering. Why return to work if you could receive the equivalent of 100% of your employment income for sitting on the couch and watching television?

Chris Edwards, a economist with the Cato Institute, agrees with the Rat:

“If the government subsidizes something, you get more of it. By having extended unemployment insurance, you’re delaying the tough decisions that people have to make.”

Here’s the bottom line: While Pelosi, Hoyer & Co. are somewhat right in the respect that unemployment benefits and food stamps do inject a relatively small amount of money into the economy, their wishful-thinking “logic” is flawed. Not only do they fail to contrast that relatively small amount with the much larger amount that would be injected were the beneficiaries of food stamps and unemployment benefits gainfully employed, they also fail to mention that food stamps and unemployment benefits are not earned income.

In other words, those dollars are merely transfer-dollars – redistributed from those who most likely would have spent them in the first place. Additionally, because those dollars were not earned income, the government didn’t collect taxes on them, which one might think would cause Democrats to break out into hives in and of itself.

C’mon, Democrats – let’s be honest; who injects more money into the economy – people with a viable income, or people living on food stamps and unemployment benefits?

^

Pigs wearing lipstick are still pigs.

About these ads


Categories: Delusion or Dishonesty?, Huh?, Liberal "Logic", Liberal Madness, Planet Obama, Seriously, The Utter Failure of Barack Obama

Tags: , , , ,

4 replies

  1. Please !!!…Pelosi also said unemployment benefits added to economy. Why do I respond? OK I’m stupid.

  2. Sadly, there be a whole bunch of folks who want the feds to provide for them. When Mitt spoke to the NAACP and mentioned how he would repeal Maid-Bammy Care, they booed him. Talk about the folks who should see right through this enslavement crap. We folks who want big government out of our lives are in for a sad, scary future.

  3. Reblogged this on theconservativehillbilly and commented on his blog:

    Add your thoughts here… (optional) Sadly, there be a whole bunch of folks who want the feds to provide for them. When Mitt spoke to the NAACP and mentioned how he would repeal Maid-Bammy Care, they booed him. Talk about the folks who should see right through this enslavement crap. We folks who want big government out of our lives are in for a sad, scary future

  4. I know what Marx said about ability and need. But here is what USSR I guess added to that statement Jan.1, 1964. Now where does that put U.S.A. ?

    Chapter 1, article 12…”He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

    http://www.politicsresources.net/docs/ussr64.htm

What's Your Take?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,312 other followers

%d bloggers like this: