'Debunking Biden’s Misguided Economic Claims: Why Welfare Recipients Do
Not Grow the Economy'

<https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/no-welfare-recipients-do-not-grow-economy/>

'The Biden White House claims that illegal immigrants, asylum seekers,
and welfare recipients all grow the economy, and that giving away
government money ends poverty. While illegal immigrants do contribute to
economic growth, they do not do so more than legal immigrants or
citizens.

And the only way to truly end poverty is for impoverished people to earn
more money through work. Providing welfare, while sometimes morally
justified, neither grows the economy nor ends poverty.

These assertions about government transfers stimulating economic growth
are unfounded, based on the false notion that increasing government debt
and printing money leads to real growth. In the short run, this approach
reduces the earnings of working people and creates a ballooning
government debt that must be paid in the future.

Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and welfare recipients receive
government transfer payments funded primarily by income tax paid by
working people. Supporters of these payments argue that recipients
stimulate the economy by spending them. While this is true, it is no
more beneficial than having the original earners spend their money.'

'Taxpayer A pays taxes, and $10 of that money is transferred to welfare
recipient B. Whether B spends the $10 or A spends it, the immediate
impact on the economy is the same.

As More Americans Consider Gold For Their Retirement Accounts, One
12-Page Pamphlet Tells the Story of God, Gold and Glory

However, if B also worked and spent his own $10, the combined impact
would be $20. Additionally, taxing A to transfer money to B may reduce
A’s spending. Therefore, there is no net benefit to the economy from
transferring A’s money to B.

The deeper economic argument, often made by those with knowledge of
economics but a bias toward socialism, is that poor people are more
likely to spend the money they receive, while higher-income individuals
tend to save their money, which supposedly does not benefit the
economy.'

'This concept is known as the marginal propensity to consume (MPC),
which is higher among the poor, and the marginal propensity to save
(MPS), which is higher among those with higher incomes. In essence,
people only save money in the bank once their basic needs are met. So,
the logic goes that giving money to people whose basic needs have not
been met yet increases immediate spending and consumption.

Another spurious argument is that welfare payments can stimulate
economic activity through what economists call the “multiplier effect.”
Recipients of welfare are likely to spend a significant portion of their
payments on goods and services, injecting money into the economy and
potentially leading to greater economic activity than if the money
remained with higher-income individuals who might save a larger portion
of their income.

According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, every dollar of
SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity. However, this
multiplier effect exists for any money spent in the economy. There is
nothing unique about transfer payments that increases the multiplier. If
A uses money earned from work to buy groceries, the grocer earns money,
which he uses to buy stock, the supplier earns money, and so on. The
money travels all the way down the supply chain, benefiting everyone.

The marginal propensity to save (MPS) indicates that a worker who has
already met his needs is more likely to save additional income, whereas
a welfare recipient will spend it.

Socialists and some U.S. policymakers use this fact to justify welfare,
claiming that savers are taking money out of the economy. This argument
is flawed because money saved in the bank increases the supply of
loanable funds, decreases interest rates, and makes credit more readily
available.

This encourages entrepreneurs to borrow, establish new businesses, or
expand existing ones, which creates jobs and grows the economy. While
consumption gives a short-term boost, investment fosters long-term
growth, and investment is a function of savings.'

'The bottom line is that government transfers do not grow the economy.
At best, they create a short-term illusion of growth while increasing
government debt, which must be repaid with interest.

These transfers take money from earners and give it to nonearners,
creating only a temporary economic boost. While workers are more likely
to save additional income, these savings support real investment that
grows the economy and increases wealth in the long term. Moreover,
government transfers do not end poverty. The only way to end poverty is
through increased earnings from better jobs. And jobs are more plentiful
when businesses can borrow money, invest, and expand.'

John Smyth wrote:

> 'Debunking Biden’s Misguided Economic Claims: Why Welfare Recipients
> Do Not Grow the Economy'
>
> <https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/no-welfare-recipients-do-not
> -grow-economy/>
>
> 'The Biden White House claims that illegal immigrants, asylum seekers,
> and welfare recipients all grow the economy, and that giving away
> government money ends poverty. While illegal immigrants do contribute
> to economic growth, they do not do so more than legal immigrants or
> citizens.
>
> And the only way to truly end poverty is for impoverished people to
> earn more money through work.

So the goal should be to grow
more jobs domestically and stop
exporting them - exactly what Biden
is doing.

https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/article/21154656/biden-vs
-trump-on-reshoring-a-review-and-a-critique

> Providing welfare, while sometimes
> morally justified, neither grows the economy nor ends poverty.

What do you propose doing instead?

>
> These assertions about government transfers stimulating economic
> growth are unfounded, based on the false notion that increasing
> government debt and printing money leads to real growth. In the short
> run, this approach reduces the earnings of working people and creates
> a ballooning government debt that must be paid in the future.
>
> Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and welfare recipients receive
> government transfer payments funded primarily by income tax paid by
> working people. Supporters of these payments argue that recipients
> stimulate the economy by spending them. While this is true, it is no
> more beneficial than having the original earners spend their money.'
>
>
> 'Taxpayer A pays taxes, and $10 of that money is transferred to
> welfare recipient B. Whether B spends the $10 or A spends it, the
> immediate impact on the economy is the same.
>
> As More Americans Consider Gold For Their Retirement Accounts, One
> 12-Page Pamphlet Tells the Story of God, Gold and Glory

"God, Gold and Glory"

Huh?

>
> The deeper economic argument, often made by those with knowledge of
> economics but a bias toward socialism, is that poor people are more
> likely to spend the money they receive, while higher-income
> individuals tend to save their money, which supposedly does not
> benefit the economy.'
>

"A dollar given to a poor man in the
morning will be in a rich man's pocket
by sunset" - Woody Guthrie

>
> These transfers take money from earners and give it to nonearners,

Wasn't this the whole Mitt Romney
argument, that retirees and VA benefit
people are "takers"?

> creating only a temporary economic boost. While workers are more
> likely to save additional income, these savings support real
> investment that grows the economy and increases wealth in the long
> term. Moreover, government transfers do not end poverty. The only way
> to end poverty is through increased earnings from better jobs. And
> jobs are more plentiful when businesses can borrow money, invest, and
> expand.'

--

Do passive users of Free software who do not contribute back to its
development count as “welfare recipients”?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>Do passive users of Free software who do not contribute back to its
>development count as “welfare recipients”?

That's a stretch. It's software, it's infinitely reproducible, that's
why one can even pirate commercial software, not that I recommend that
of course, but it's not as though one has to donate money or do
coding, to be a valid user of free software.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.