O'Reilly claimed that "enhanced food stamps ... will not help the economy one bit" -- but economists disagree
SUMMARY: On his radio and television shows, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the food-stamp provision in the economic recovery bill will not stimulate the economy. But economists, including the director of the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office and a reported adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, disagree.
On the January 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "increased food stamps" included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have "nothing to do with stimulating the economy." Earlier in the day on his radio show, O'Reilly similarly claimed that "enhanced food stamps" in the bill are "not gonna help the economy at all. That will not help the economy one bit." He added: "In fact, in the entitlement realm, just giving people money who are poor is about $250 billion. Some of that money will be spent. Some of it, like food stamps, you know, it's not gonna help the economy." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, economists -- including Congressional Budget Office director Douglas W. Elmendorf and Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- have said that extending food stamps does, in fact, provide economic stimulus.
In January 27 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf stated: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP." He added, "Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut."
Additionally, in 2008 congressional testimony, Zandi stated that "extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump" and cited extending food stamps and unemployment insurance payments as having a greater "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" than any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, including temporary and permanent tax cuts. Zandi further explained: "People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients."
During his "Talking Points Memo" segment on The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated: "[T]here are billions for increased food stamps, child care, and other entitlements have nothing to do with stimulating the economy." He continued: "Nancy Pelosi and her band of the merry liberals want the federal stimulus bill to stimulate the nanny state. Social engineering should be a separate matter. Mrs. Speaker, don't disguise it as economic stimulus."
From the January 28 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Last week, another 70,000 jobs were lost. There's no question the USA is in major economic trouble. Any debate about the worthiness of the stimulus is useless now because it's gonna happen. President Obama is staking his entire future on it.
But what is vitally important is that the money is spent well and honestly. President Obama promises to do that and says you can follow all the spending on recovery.gov.
Now, "Talking Points" is skeptical that the feds will spend our tax dollars wisely, because in the past, they have not. So, Paul Revere -- that's me -- has an obligation to suggest some constructive ideas to help the process, and here they are.
[...]
O'REILLY: And then there are billions for increased food stamps, child care, and other entitlements have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Nancy Pelosi and her band of the merry liberals want the federal stimulus bill to stimulate the nanny state.
Social engineering should be a separate matter. Mrs. Speaker, don't disguise it as economic stimulus.
President Obama promises transparency and honest government. OK. Let's start with the stimulus bill.
From the January 28 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, to the president's credit, he gets right to work. And he is gonna kick in, I would say 500 billion, with a "B" -- about 350 billion already kicked in -- about a new 500 billion to try to jump start the economy and prevent a severe recession. We're in a recession now, but it's not severe in the sense that we're not over 10 percent unemployment. We're not there yet. We could be, and this is why Obama's trying to do it.
All right. Here's what Obama said today. Roll the tape.
OBAMA [audio clip]: I know that there are some who are skeptical of the size and scale of this recovery plan. And I understand that skepticism given some of the things that have happened in this town in the past. That's why this recovery plan will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my administration accountable. Instead of just throwing money at our problems, we'll try something new in Washington. We will invest in what works. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made public, on the Internet, and will be informed by independent experts whenever possible.
O'REILLY: OK, fair enough. Let's go down the list of what is in play right now, and I hope President Obama is listening, because I'm gonna tell you what's good and what's bad.
All right, the first thing is that every worker in America under a certain income level is gonna get between $500 and $1,000 sent right to them. Now, Bush tried that, as you know, last spring, and it did not work. It did not work.
So, that's the first thing. Now, that's not a tax cut; that's a giveaway. You'll get a check. Would I veto that? Probably not. I'd probably try it again, but I don't have any confidence that that is gonna do very much.
Secondly, the parents of 16 million children, in addition to what's on the rolls now, will get a further child tax credit. And 30 million people will get enhanced food stamps. That's not gonna help the economy at all. That will not help the economy one bit.
In fact, in the entitlement realm, just giving people money who are poor is about $250 billion. Some of that money will be spent. Some of it, like food stamps, you know, it's not gonna help the economy.
Three -- Social Security is gonna be propped up. Four hundred and fifty dollars is gonna be sent to older people. Again, that will probably be spent. So, that's OK.
O'Reilly is an idiot.
Who benefits if poor people buy more food? Grocery stores.... farmers.... truckers... but I concede that Millionaire Pinhead Pundits won't get much of a boost.
A few minutes ago while I was in my car I heard callers complaining on a local talk radio show that Obama's stimulus plan is designed primarily to give away money to people who refuse to work. This is the right wing mindset...and they're spreading the word as talking points. Idiots...
How about examples like our US soldiers, some of whom, have to use foodstamps to feed their families? They're working pretty hard as far as I can tell.
If you give them food stamps to buy food, they can use the money they're currently using to buy food to buy other things. They're too poor to save much, if any, of their paycheck.
Giving money to these kinds of people is the best way to get money back into the economy.
I second that.... O'Reilly IS an idiot!
I do however get the feeling that a good chunk of BillO the Clowns listeners are in fact on food stamps?
I admit... at this time, I am as well... and will be off as soon as I don't need to be... but it is a life saver in the mean time...
Bill Orally.... this threads.....Worst Person..... in the Worrrrld.....!!
IMHO, you're insulting idiots by calling O'Reilly an idiot.
BO says:
giving people money who are poor is about $250 billion. Some of that money will be spent.
I suppose then the rest of it will end up in shoe boxes? What a loon! ALL OF IT WILL BE SPENT. The poor cannot afford to save.
Exactly. The truth is that the O'Reilly's of the world hate the thought of the government helping poor people who, in their minds, deserve to be poor. They just disguise it as "fiscal conservatism".
The funny thing is that they are always arguing that government should only help the poorest, as a last resort safety net. And then they ALSO always argue that the poorest, since they often don't pay taxes because they have little or no work, don't deserve help because they don't contribute.
Yeah, it makes no sense, but then what does in wingnut land.
Hey Bill, won't the poor women on welfare go and buy Cadillacs with their food stamps? Won't that help the economy?
Somebody tell Bill all they want is to be able to order more M-F'ing ice tea. ;>)
Here's the calculation for GDP (note that MMfA didn't provide quotes saying that food stamps would help the economy, only that they would increase consumer spending and GDP):
Y = C + I + E + G
where
Y = GDP
C = Consumer Spending
I = Investment made by industry
E = Excess of Exports over Imports
G = Government Spending
So, if the government gives money away in food stamp form that is then immediately spent, G will rise and C will rise, so GDP will go up unless E drops and I falls at a greater amount.
For all of us who preach "sustainability" and decry "bubbles" created by insolvent lending and borrowing, let's look at this logically:
If the government is taking/borrowing money and redistributing it to others, causing G and S to rise, are they really creating a SUSTAINABLE FOUNDATION for continued economic health? Or is it just a ploy for the GDP to rise on this government's watch?
If what you say is true; wouldn't this be the case all of the time and not just with the influx of additional money into the food stamp program?
For instance: What kind of investment made by industry was done when the banking companies received their 700 billion?
I'm seriously asking.
Same here... When you engage in corporate welfare and industry bailouts there is no guarantee that the money is reinvested into the business...or even in the USA. And when you add preconditions, such as that the auto industry re-tool for green-friendly autos then the business types object to government intervention. I'm not buying into the argument that giving more tax breaks to business and rich folks is the way to get things going. It also loses sight of the fact that we are talking about real people...not just some concept of the economy. Regular people need immediate help right now. And if we can jump start the economy while providing relief to people then let's give it a shot.
Magnolia,
I wasn't under the impression that the bank bailout was a stimulus so much as it was a safety net for the banks and their customers...but the true "benefit" to customers I don't think has been realized yet. If anyone phrased the bailouts as "good for the economy", it's a misleading statement, as it was hopefully meant as a stop-gap.
I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the bailouts were to help prop the economy back up, and not just a stop gap.
thanks for the schooling. i did not know that.
I thought his radio show got cancelled...
You thought almost correctly...
Some have been accurate and recognized for it. I'll continue to listen to Paul Krugman. The tax cut enthusiats don't have any credibility for me. The Clinton administration showed how tax increases can do very good things for our economy. The last eight years have been ones of wage stagnation and any benifit reserved for somewhere under 1% of the population. This is good for you?
You raise an interesting point. The Trickle-Downers predicted that Clinton's tax increase would wreck the economy. It didn't, of course, but they don't like to talk about it. They simply ignore that little tidbit of history.
Remember though, these are the same people who claim that Clinton inherited that good economy from GHW Bush... I'm just sayin'.
Fair enough...and that's why we have to rely on those elected officials, most prominently our President, with whom we've entrusted the job. It's definitely a crap shoot. Bush proved unworthy of trust. But when the American people elected Barack Obama they, in effect, authorized his approach to the problem. I am not at all suggesting that we abandon scrutiny but only that there is a great element of trust involved. I, too, am tired of hearing the media trot out assorted characters to voice expert opinions. Let's let the President get his economic stimulus package rolling and see what happens.
Not being an economist, I believe that all of the food stamps will be used. Why not run a survey on that. I believe that everyone knows that experts can have opposite conclusions without a survey. By the way, which colleges/universities give out degrees in expertism?). Where does Billo get rated on being right about anything? Remember, he is spewing this misinformation. And thanx to MMFA it is being discussed here. The following is for DEX...
A=people without food R=people eat food S=food stamps get people food E=food stamps are like money X=the Dems are running the country, ploy or no ploy.
Thanks Prince. You've re-iterated your ignorance on the matter and would do well to start posting that you believe the stimulus plan (which it won't be) should be renamed by the admin and the media as "prince of wheel's feed people plan."
Dex, thanx for thinking of naming the whatever plan after me. In my solidary ignorance, I wonder how putting a purchasing item(food stamps) does not stimulate some part of the economy. Could you grace me with your overwhelming knowledge of economics? Remember, we be simple people. Or were you trying to suggest that people should eat alphabet soup. <sarcasm>
By the way, why is the word stimulous such a contravesy? This whole debate is like telling a drowning person that the life-preserver is undergoing an upgrade and that they cannot throw him the older model. But they'll be back later with the new one, What needs done, needs done. If the Dems vote for it, so be it. If the Repubs don't like it, too bad. I'm still upset about the war in Iraq but I live with it. Bailout, stimulous, get over it.
I explained above why the government spending money on stamps and people spending the stamps WILL increase GDP (assuming the other factors stay constant) but WON'T provide a stable basis for long-term economic health (we're just juicing the books, not creating wealth).
The word "Stimulous" is controversial because it's spelled wrong. The word "Stimulus" is controversial when labeling this bill because it's very gray on how much of the expenditure will solidify and grow our economy vs. other things.
Don't you think that by helping people stay on their feet, by eating, that they could possibly continue to look for work, jobs, ideas. Craig point out the 1.73 for every dollar of food stamps but no response from you.
And thinking that we need innovation and that other big word is fine but if a man doesn't have a foundation to build from, he cannot have a sturdy building...like eating. Thanx for the spelling lesson and by the way, you have spelled dexteritas0071418..it should be dexteritas0071419..so there.
"we're just juicing the books, not creating wealth"
I think that may be all we can do in the short term. Wealth creation is going to take a little longer, and will require a rebound in the Stock Market, which probably will not occur until consumer confidence returns.
or each city ( or center of population ) set aside land for growing foodstuffs and teach those less fortunate to grow stuff. In my community, that is being done and resulting products are being given to the cooks at the Compass center ( in Seattle ) and local churches for distribution on Wednesdays. Bill O'Reilly should volunteer his largesse in a place like that, once a week and become a part of the solution instead of sending FOX security after those who disagree with him.
I've similar projects around where I live. We do have several restaurants near where I live that grow all of their own produce for use, and also teach others to grow their own food for a fraction of the cost. The wife and I are going to grow a garden in the Spring, so we can eat healthier, and spend less money.
To all you conservatives out there I just want to say thanks for paying for my unemployment, and thanks for the food stamps. It really warms my heart knowing you are contributing to such a noble cause!
I'm not a conservative but I really, really hope you're kidding.
Or at least at the library taking a break from the job boards.
Why such a douchebag?
Anyone who reads this site knows what Snoopy and lots of other people in this country are going through. You imply with your comment that he's not looking for a job when the truth is he started months before he lost his job and continutes the search.
You should grown the f__k up whether you're a conservative , liberal or whatever.
Here's a thought, try a little compassion.
Worrier, I'm not on here 24/7 and Snoop's comment was certainly phrased in a tongue-in-cheek way, so I really had no way of knowing he was serious. I should've realized he has been looking for a job since he doesn't 1000 posts on each thread today already.
Sorry to lose my temper. I hope he and everyone else who needs a job can find one soon. Things look pretty bleak and we need to be more respectful of each other. I'm going to have to take my own advice too.
Very good sir, I shall make even more effort to be polite as well.
Just to ease your mind, I am being tongue in cheak about my own situation. May as well make the best of things. But I have been looking for a job since last may when Dell told us they were outsourcing all of manufacturing. Out of hundreds of resume's I had one interview and two phone screenings. One turned me down because I didn't have a 3.8 GPA - 23 years ago. That should give you an idea how really picky some businesses are as they take advantage of these uncertain times.
Snoop, I hope things turn better for you shortly. How mobile are you?
I was hoping to keep that option off the table until after may when my daughter graduates. But I have explored options in Houston and San Antonio since I have relatives there, I'd stay there during the week and return home each weekend. And now Dell is gonna dump another few thousand engineers this friday, it's gonna get lots harder next week.
Well, if you can make it till May, Virginia really is for lovers, as is most of NC. I call on a variety of businesses that need engineers, we have large companies like Capital One that need their own programers, etc.
I appreciate that! If May hits and I'm still looking I would be very happy to forward you a copy of my resume to distribute.
http://www.psns.navy.mil/EmploymentOpportunities.htm Its some long traveling Snoopy, but there are accessible listings in there for world wide federal jobs. PSNS has a good sized turnover what with some large segments beginning to retire, and some moving on after getting some time in.
You ever find work in and or around Asheville, NC, you've got a free place to stay Snoop. The wife and I have a guest room, 2 loving dogs, 1 loving cat, and 1 cat who likes to bite people (stay away from him). Just give a shout.
good point. the bottom line is that we are way too in debt. and now wer are trying to borrow our way out of it. Can you imagine families doing that? It's a disasater in the making. We need to reduce our consumption, and a recession accomplishes that. It's not politically correct or what most politicians have the balls to tell us, so we spend and borrow and spend. just what Bush did and the reason we are where we are now.
I very much agree with what you've posted. Even if the government had done the right thing and bailed out all but the most insolvent homeowners (and yes I think the banks needed to be bailed too), there would still be lots of job losses due to a lower rate of spending, since our economy has so much service and non-necessary-goods jobs. Gov could invest in companies pursuing alternative energy, but that will need to lead to more net jobs (new jobs + covering for the jobs lost in coal, oil, etc) in order to have a positive effect.
We can have less babies too, although historically that takes care of itself when times get tough.
I agree with the alternative energy approach. I think that may be the way out. We have pi$$ed away our manufacturing base to the point that most of us work in what you call "non-necessary-goods jobs".
Look at what's happening to Starbucks. I love Starbucks, but I had to cut back and start buying the cheaper coffee at the supermarket. Apparently I'm not alone, since they just closed another 300 stores.
If we could put people to work building windmills, solar fields, power grids, hydrogen engines, etc., we might be able to rebuild the middle class.
But, like everybody else, I'm just taking a shot in the dark.
I think we need some more entrepreneurship and innovation too...something that will sell beyond our borders.
I think we also need to tariff goods from other countries so that manufacturing in the US can become more viable again. For example, sell a US car in Japan, it gets tariffed to death when it hits the shores. In the US? Not so much...
Good point. Our auto companies also have the added disadvantage of having to provide healthcare for their workers. That little fact didn't get much play during the debate over bailing out Detroit.
Yes, O'Reilly is an IDIOT!
First--how can he even make a statement like that without any facts...!!?? Tell us Bill, why you believe as you do.
The TRUTH is that the Food Stamp Program (or SNAP--which it is now called) generates $9.84 for every $5.00 spent in food stamp benefits. This money is spent at grocery stores and in some places, farmers' markets.
The money is spent most often each month. How does that not stimulate the economy?
Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.
Source? It's interesting that food stamps can create money.
It creates jobs, someone has to print and distribute them, collect them, etc. And all those people would likely pay taxes, so I think it's correct to say the food stamp program generates money.
Moody's puts the number at $1.73 generated for every dollar spent on food stamps.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm
Food stamps ARE money. The government reimburses the store that takes the food stamps. Did you think that the store took the hit?
Exactly. A few years ago it was reported people getting food stamps were selling said commodity at a profit. i am sure if o'Reilly heard about this he would be outraged.
And as I said above, when families are allowed to purchase food with food stamps, that frees up the money they were spending on food, and allows them to spend it on other things. The families that are getting food stamps spend all of their paychecks every pay day.
It's the multiplier effect: the more money changes hands, the better the economy.
A good analogy is in electricity: Increasing the flow of charge is incrreasing the amperage, but increasing the velocity of the flow of charge is increasing the voltage.
For all sorts of uses, like motors and lights, it's the voltage that matters. It's voltage, not amperage that blows you across the room.
Similarly, an economy where money is rapidly changing hands is a vigorous economy. An economy where wealth is sunk into, say, land, may be theoretically wealthy, but the economy is not vigorous.
Wealth without motion creates nothing. A family that owns 100,00 acres of good farm land is wealthy, but does not do anything for the economy until they start selling their produce. If they do nothing with it it might as well not exist.
That's why making the money move is the important thing for the economy.
Well said.
It seems rather simple to me... people are being laid off because consumers are not consuming as much as they used to. Buying food with food stamps is a form of consumption. Stores will sell more food, then they'll order more food from the manufacturers who will then ... maybe... not lay off as many workers.
How difficult is that to understand? Now, you can kvetch about the government's involvement if you want to, but there is no denying that it will generate consumer activity.
"First--how can he even make a statement like that without any facts...!!??"
Easy...... because he is BillO the Clown....
He can say what ever he want to say....
Because......
He's BillO the Clown....and he works for FoxNoise and Rupert Murdoch.... propagandist to the end!
Just keep repeating that.... and you'll be just fine.
It seems to me that any large government spending plan must max out on Education , so people can learn to see the fallacies on Bill o"reilly and other media blowhards.
I have heard almost nothing about stopping the loss of manufacturing jobs or actually recouping some of this capability. I just do not see how we can be strong in our economy without a strong manufacturing base. Possibly, one source of jobs could be in a program for cellulosic ethanol.