The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Give me a break. Your idea that all spending is good spending regardless of where the money comes from is silly.

Good thing I didn't say that. Keep up here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I am a broken record but every outsourced job and job filled by H1B holder is purchasing power lost which means less money pumped into our economy... This is a game of musical chairs. What is the solution ? I don't know something dramatic like a Put America back to work Tax on each and every job given to an H1B or done outside of the US applied directly to the deficit? How about an economic cap and trade where we are only allowed to purchase from Foriegn countries an amount that they purchase from us.. Protectionism??? We ****ing need it because Big Business certainly won't do what is in the best interest of the country..

Polite applause

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What she doesnt seem to understand is that the $100 collected from you doesn't equal $100 in benefits. It is estimated that it needs to collect $115 in order to payout that same $100. That is a net loss to the economy. I understand the moral argument for extending benefits. The economic angle is just a smokescreen.

You don't seem to understand that even using your figures unemployment is a huge positive. If $115 is needed to pay out $100 in unemployment, then that $100 goes into the economy and produces from $130 to $160 of enconomic growth (every single economist in the world says this is true, the only difference between them is the amount varies, but it has NEVER been below 1.30 per dollar spent) - it's obviously a gain. It grows the economy. It keeps jobs from going away.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't seem to understand that even using your figures unemployment is a huge positive. If $115 is needed to pay out $100 in unemployment, then that $100 goes into the economy and produces from $130 to $160 of enconomic growth (every single economist in the world says this is true, the only difference between them is the amount varies, but it has NEVER been below 1.30 per dollar spent) - it's obviously a gain. It grows the economy. It keeps jobs from going away.

Sooooo.... the more people on unemployment the better? Nice economics lesson! Are you sure you don't work as an adviser to the Administration? NEWSFLASH.. Unemployment (by definition) exists because the jobs have already gone away. People without jobs tend to spend less money than people with jobs. You stated elsewhere on this thread that saving is bad. If people save they have something to fall back on when times get tough. Why don't you hire some people and help jumpstart the economy? Oh, that's right unemployment grows the economy

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Sooooo.... the more people on unemployment the better? Nice economics lesson! Are you sure you don't work as an adviser to the Administration? NEWSFLASH.. Unemployment (by definition) exists because the jobs have already gone away. People without jobs tend to spend less money than people with jobs. You stated elsewhere on this thread that saving is bad. If people save they have something to fall back on when times get tough. Why don't you hire some people and help jumpstart the economy? Oh, that's right unemployment grows the economy

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said. all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda. an agenda which is probably beyond most of our ken, as riot so succinctly put it a few pages ago. in a way, she's right. i can't quite wrap my head around people being on the dole as being a good thing that grows the economy. it might keep the economy where it's at previous to unemployment being cut for people who've met their 99 weeks, but how will it grow it?? but if pelosi and riot say it's so, it must be. makes you wonder why, with so many on unemployment for 2+years, we aren't seeing the corresponding growth.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/0...-economy-evah/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said. all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda. an agenda which is probably beyond most of our ken, as riot so succinctly put it a few pages ago. in a way, she's right. i can't quite wrap my head around people being on the dole as being a good thing that grows the economy. it might keep the economy where it's at previous to unemployment being cut for people who've met their 99 weeks, but how will it grow it?? but if pelosi and riot say it's so, it must be. makes you wonder why, with so many on unemployment for 2+years, we aren't seeing the corresponding growth.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/0...-economy-evah/

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said. all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda. an agenda which is probably beyond most of our ken, as riot so succinctly put it a few pages ago. in a way, she's right. i can't quite wrap my head around people being on the dole as being a good thing that grows the economy. it might keep the economy where it's at previous to unemployment being cut for people who've met their 99 weeks, but how will it grow it?? but if pelosi and riot say it's so, it must be. makes you wonder why, with so many on unemployment for 2+years, we aren't seeing the corresponding growth.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/0...-economy-evah/

Huff Poo Poo is most likely on board with this insanity too. Actually cutting off unemployment bennies would make the unemployment figures go down because when you are off unemployment you are no longer counted. The real amount of unemployed is higher than the Govt. figures suggest. More of the same fuzzy math that Congress (both parties) use to promote whatever they are trying to promote ( which always boils back down to their true agenda, which is to stay in power and on the Govt. dole).

[jms62]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Huff Poo Poo is most likely on board with this insanity too. Actually cutting off unemployment bennies would make the unemployment figures go down because when you are off unemployment you are no longer counted. The real amount of unemployed is higher than the Govt. figures suggest. More of the same fuzzy math that Congress (both parties) use to promote whatever they are trying to promote ( which always boils back down to their true agenda, which is to stay in power and on the Govt. dole).

If you factor in underemployed you are talking Double what is reported or higher.

[SOREHOOF]

Wonder what it does to the figures if you are working 3 jobs to make ends meet? Would that make you "overemployed"?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Wonder what it does to the figures if you are working 3 jobs to make ends meet? Would that make you "overemployed"?

Dems would probably count you as 3 Republicans as 0.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Huff Poo Poo is most likely on board with this insanity too. Actually cutting off unemployment bennies would make the unemployment figures go down because when you are off unemployment you are no longer counted. The real amount of unemployed is higher than the Govt. figures suggest. More of the same fuzzy math that Congress (both parties) use to promote whatever they are trying to promote ( which always boils back down to their true agenda, which is to stay in power and on the Govt. dole).

i just don't see how someone getting a whole 275 a week can help the economy, or help create jobs. it's not even enough to pay rent, let alone create a job. it's not like those on UE are out shopping all day, buying big ticket items. people on UE once had a job that paid more than what they're on now-but what they're on now, unlike their job, is good for the economy?? what logic is involved there??

[SOREHOOF]

Same goes for people with Govt. jobs. They are paying their taxes with tax dollars. People with private sector jobs are paying their taxes with non-tax dollars. Simple logic would tell you that private sector jobs would be better for the economy in general, and the Govt. in particular. Yes I realize that Unemployment bennies are taxed as income. In New York anyway.

[Danzig]

the avg salary here in arkansas is several thou per year lower than the avg govt salary here. it's the same all over, with the govt paying far more for the same position than private business. why? govt pay should match the avg for that position.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

And your debate style of insulting other posters while not providing any evidence whatsoever to back your own positions is laughable.

A guy who doesn't think unemployment dollars immediately helps the economy probably not ought to be lecturing others on "understanding basic economic fundamentals"

Why don't you find one that supports that rare position? Look in the WSJ.

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The rural southern poor is overwhelmingly Republican. I wonder how they like the party they elected not extending their unemployment benefits?

I wonder why you think that the benefits arent going to eventually be extended as soon as concessions are made? Its called politics.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't seem to understand that even using your figures unemployment is a huge positive. If $115 is needed to pay out $100 in unemployment, then that $100 goes into the economy and produces from $130 to $160 of enconomic growth (every single economist in the world says this is true, the only difference between them is the amount varies, but it has NEVER been below 1.30 per dollar spent) - it's obviously a gain. It grows the economy. It keeps jobs from going away.

Oh boy. Then why dont we just give everybody money? Why restrict it to the unemployed? Send out US Treasury debit cards and solve everything?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

i didn't see any from you either. i saw where the suggestion was made where something was 'beyond your ken', but you didn't post that. i'll have to go back and see who made that post....

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Sooooo.... the more people on unemployment the better? Nice economics lesson! Are you sure you don't work as an adviser to the Administration?

Nope, obviously not the more is better. But when unemployment is excessive and outrageously high, we'd better keep paying them unemployment.

NEWSFLASH.. Unemployment (by definition) exists because the jobs have already gone away. People without jobs tend to spend less money than people with jobs.

Yes, that's why paying unemployment works so well in the economy - all of it goes out immediately into basic needs like groceries, gasoline, rent, utilities.

You stated elsewhere on this thread that saving is bad. If people save they have something to fall back on when times get tough. Why don't you hire some people and help jumpstart the economy? Oh, that's right unemployment grows the economy

I said saving is bad during a recession. When the recession started, our savings rate as a nation jumped, but that's bad for the recession as that takes more money out of the economy. The point is to "stimulate spending" during recession, to help the recession end and keep the economy moving.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said.

What nonsense. Instead of quoting a political opinion blog, why don't you read something like Wikipedia explaining unemployment during the Great Depression and since?

Pelosi is repeating what the economists say, too. If you would like to dismiss economic realities as untrue, support your contention and post something from Bloomberg or WSJ or any other economic think tank that shows paying unemployment during high unemployment times doesn't help keep the economy going. We'll wait ....

all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda.

The facts from the economists are that unemployment insurance helps keep the economy going in a recession. You have one that differs? The Dems embrace that. In fact, the GOP embraces that, too, and always have (heck Bush even sent out stimulus checks) - because it's just a simple economic fact. You've not seen the GOP deny it's true.

The GOP hasn't voted for unemployment benefit extension as they are holding out for their tax cuts for the rich.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

Tell what happened with the government-funded scientists? The leaked climate change e-mails? All the science was found sound after investigation by 4 or 5 different multi-national panels, wasn't it?