They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.

:zz: Another of Chucks' whacky sidetrack straw men. You change the subject then insult other posters. I wasn't talking about how to generate government dollars. Duh. You fail to grasp the subject you jumped into.

The discussion was about the immediate benefit of unemployment dollars on the economy - and thus why it's so necessary to extend benefits for the unemployed when joblessness is so high and the recession is so slow.

Of course I think a stronger economy is better generator of government revenues that raising tax rates. Duh. We have to get to the stronger economy. Cutting off unemployment checks to millions is the opposite of that.

It's no theory. You might read your WSJ a little more thoroughly for the explaination if you can't understand how dollars infused immediately into the economy help keep the economy stable.

My "theory" (which is not my theory, but the common knowledge of economists) is not saying anything at all about jobs saved, government subsidized, etc. If you can't understand what the conversation is about, probably best not for you to jump in and start talking about something else entirely, as you usually do.

[quote=Cannon Shell;729944]There is no use trying to talk sense to you and Riot because you just wont admit you dont know what you are talking about regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary of your point[/QUOTE

Your insults are no substitute for trying to debate with facts, although you apparently think so, but it does seem the only thing you can routinely come up with.

Try harder. Throw some of those "facts" out yourself (btw, "fact" isn't just something you think is true)

Unemployment checks help positively drive the economy. Applicable excerpts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_791682.html

The filibuster is only a parliamentary procedure of the Senate, and will definitely be changed due to current abuse in January. Not eliminated, but changed in application. Never has a party put an automatic filibuster on EVERYTHING before. It's appalling.

Let's pretend the Govt has it's own money too, while we're at it. You seem to be saying that if the Govt. takes $100 of my hard earned money away from me, that I was going to spend to spur the economy, and gives it to someone else to spur the economy, that some how there was a net gain? Let's also pretend that there is still $100 of the money ( that I worked hard for ), that the Govt. took, left, when the Govt. gives it to someone whom they deem better able to spend it. That's a whole lot of pretending. You must have seen what happened when Bush sent checks out to most everyone to spur the economy. Did it work then? Nope. Redistribution of wealth is what this Administration is all about. If you think that you don't pay enough taxes, I've got a good idea for you and other rich liberals. Instead of waiting for the Govt.(which was never intended to be a CHARITY) to take more of the citizens money. Just send it here.

http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

There won't be any reason to raise anyone's taxes. The rich liberals will take care of everyone! LET'S PRETEND!

No, not at all what I am saying. That's just some weird thing you made up.

People who get unemployment spend the money immediately, infusing it all right back into the economy. These are people that have no discretionary spending options. Do you realize that "the government" doesn't pay the overwhelming majority of unemployment funds, right?

No. That is what actually happened under George Bush II. Today an increasingly tiny portion of the American population now owns the vast majority of the money in the United States. That (concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands) worsened, accelerated markedly under Bush II. It has not under the current administration.

Why does the govt. put a price tag on what it's going to cost to extend unemployment, if they (we?) aren't paying out the overwhelming cost. Does the overwhelming cost mean anything to you? Are you gainfully employed? Have you ever drawn Unemployment Benefits? Sorry Riot , I don't trust these guys running the show.

The more people dependent on the Govt. for their "good fortune" in life, or their mere survival, the better it is for the Govt. who needs their votes for their own continued "good fortune" and survival.

So tell me I'm making this up too!
The Govt. takes $100 of my money( and 5 other people who worked hard to earn it). Magically turns it into $600. They turn it into 2 piles of $300. They now keep 1 pile, because they worked hard for it, and give the other pile to someone else. Might be a Union. Might be someone unemployed. Might be someone faking it for SSI. Whatever. The original $600 would do more for the economy than whatever is left when your Govt. is done re-releasing it.

Nobody is asked their political party when they get unemployment insurance from their state.

[quote]Because our whole economy is affected, and they are talking about the federal extensions.

There are two types of unemployment. The first is paid by employers paying into a pool within your state. That is the vast majority. The federal government only steps in to support the states for extended benefits after the state's two types of benefits are exhausted. States have the option to have the feds pay shared or all of the most extended benefits. For the states that are letting the fed pay it all, those folks are getting cut off earlier than other people in other states whose states share the burden.

The recession is so severe, the feds have millions of people on extended benefits. These people have exhausted their savings, their houses don't sell readily now - the only thing keeping many of them from literally homelessness and starvation is $300 a week.

Yes, of course the cost matters. But not when unemployed people are starving in a recession. We're Americans, and we help our fellow Americans. I'm not going to let another hard-working American and his kids starve because "it costs money to give them help".

We're broke. We don't buy new weapons systems now. We do help keep our fellow Americans from starving.

If we follow the "can't spend money when we're broke" logic, the next natural disaster (another Katrina, an earthquake in LA, massive flooding), the feds should NOT help, simply because it costs money.

Yes, I am employed, no I have never drawn unemployment. I've paid unemployment insurance for multiple employees for many years as a business owner.

I know a couple people who have been on unemployment in the past three years. And they are NOT lazy drug addicts living off the government. They were highly qualified, hard-working people who were laid off their jobs.

Who, the federal government? Or the states? (who approve who gets unemployment funds from the fed government) Or the employers? (who always have a say in an employee getting unemployment or not in the first place)

That's not what I said at all. Do you not understand the travel of a dollar through the economy? That economic benefit has been known for hundreds of years. It's the dollar traveling through the economy before it is taken out. The expanding value of that dollar during that travel has nothing at all to do with where that dollar comes from (the government, or your job)

I was going to spend it immediately too, Riot. Why the class warfare?

LOL - Really? The best you can do? You compare paying taxes to receiving unemployment insurance, two things not even remotely related? Throw out a far right wing talking point that isn't even applicable?

Go ahead and explain how a discussion of dollars and the effect of spending on the economy during a recession is "class warfare" Heck, add in how unemployment insurance is "class warfare" (it obviously is not, because it's not income-limited)

Explain it to us. Let me get some popcorn :)

Wait, I have a better idea: why are YOU engaging in class warfare here? Justify yourself, sir!

good thing those checks help, considering todays jobs report......geez, just think if that expensive stimulus package wasnt helping.

Most economists I've seen, and I'm being absolutely serious here, 'Zig, have said the stimulus absolutely helped, and we would have been in the second great depression without it. And that it should have been larger (why we are stuck now) In hindsight I've not seen any economist that said it didn't help.

Uh, I kind of got a feeling that you are never gunna say it's time for a tax raise. These "job creators" aren't doing much good now. I don't think they're gunna do much worse if they pay the pre-Bush rate. I don't think that many jobs are coming back. We have a big deficit. We can't afford to give rich people breaks on their taxes anymore. Maybe you should of talked to Geedubbya before he started two wars that cost a whole bunch of money we didn't have. This is part of paying for the cowboy's funtime.

If you and the Democrats have your way the rural poor will soon be the redistributed rich