No, I think you can assume in most cases, if you are talking about that very small part of the economy that has to do with unemployment benefits, that those checks probably are spent. My concern, I suppose, is that if you expand that concept, then why not send everybody a check. A lot of people laughed at Senator McGovern several years ago--what was the size of the check he wanted to send everybody, $1000? Why not extrapolate that concept, if the concept is the solution? I think there is some factual validity to what you are saying. But I am saying if you expand that concept in terms of the overall economy, the evidence is not there to support it. If it is that simple, if that is the solution, why do we ever put up with a recession? When we first see one, why don't we decide to whom we want to send the checks and get it over with and the economy will bounce back?
Mike Thompson: “No, I think you can assume in most cases, if you are talking about that very small part of the economy that has to do…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of unemployment benefits and economic recovery during a floor speech.
Share
More from Mike Thompson
Additionally, I would further state the following understanding with respect to the ability to offer listed derivatives products on payment stablecoins. By excluding 'payment stablecoins' from the definition of 'commodity' in Sec. 1a(9) of…
Californians are all too familiar with the devastation caused by wildfires. In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives.
In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives.





