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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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??

No, they are not buying TV's. They are buying groceries, gas, heat, pay mortgage. That keeps all those providers employed.

Take away those unemployment checks, and you have lost all that spending. You have people living in the street, and nobody buying groceries, and thus those jobs providing groceries are threatened and lost.

Is this really that hard to understand? This isn't politics It's high school Economics 101.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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?

Bush did that (sent out stimulus checks) I think Reagan did, too. I recall that Obama was considering it, but instead gave a bunch of targeted tax breaks to small businesses.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, they are not buying TV's. They are buying groceries, gas, heat, pay mortgage. That keeps all those providers employed.

Take away those unemployment checks, and you have lost all that spending. You have people living in the street, and nobody buying groceries, and thus those jobs providing groceries are threatened and lost.

Is this really that hard to understand? This isn't politics It's high school Economics 101.

Grocery stores are not laying people off, the other 85% of Americans will continue to eat. The energy companies and public utilities are not hurting and/or already govt subsidized. Property owners are generally sending a large portion of rent collected to banks. None of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless.

As I said before, all spending isn't necessarily very economical stimulating. Endorsing an extention because it is the right thing to do in a moral sense is defendable. Saying that we should extend them because it is good for the economy is not.

[Riot]

Grocery stores are not laying people off, the other 85% of Americans will continue to eat. The energy companies and public utilities are not hurting and/or already govt subsidized. Property owners are generally sending a large portion of rent collected to banks. None of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless.

I'm glad you have your finger on the pulse of hiring data in the grocery business (and utilities) - care to share that?

You don't think a 15% reduction in overall business would hurt the economy in a deep recession? You say "none of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless"? Seriously? If a town has 10% unemployment (California, Michigan) removing 10% of a grocery store's business isn't going to cause a layoff or few? Cause the grocery to order 10% less food from his suppliers? You honestly think that will not contract the economy in a recession (heck, it would in normal times!)

Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? I'll wait.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Bush did that (sent out stimulus checks) I think Reagan did, too. I recall that Obama was considering it, but instead gave a bunch of targeted tax breaks to small businesses.

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

So you don't think a 15% reduction in overall business would hurt the economy in a deep recession?

Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? I'll wait.

15% reduction assumes that no one that loses benefits isn't going to accept a lesser job now that the reality of free money has ended.

Plus how how much economic stimulus comes from paying your utility bill or an oil company?

Not much.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm glad you have your finger on the pulse of hiring data in the grocery business (and utilities) - care to share that?

You don't think a 15% reduction in overall business would hurt the economy in a deep recession? You say "none of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless"? Seriously? If a town has 10% unemployment (California, Michigan) removing 10% of a grocery store's business isn't going to cause a layoff or few? Cause the grocery to order 10% less food from his suppliers? You honestly think that will not contract the economy in a recession (heck, it would in normal times!)

Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? I'll wait.

Do you seriously think if business is off 10% that people immediately lose their jobs?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

[Riot]

And how did that work out?

The economists say pretty well, but we needed more.

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke.

Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify.

Don't worry. You just said we can suffer a 10-15% loss in business income and it won't matter, because the 85% will still be there.

The credit crunch is indeed a bad business thing for cash flow. Yet the GOP won't allow the banks to be forced into any emergency regulation to lend more readily (can't blame them, mortages didn't work well) in a time of record profits (the banks holding on to their money, instead of lending it) So that's a huge problem getting the recession restarted.

threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are).

The Dems went up to a million (where the vast majority of "small businesses" are) but the GOP voted that down. That's too bad.

We also have a little problem with excessive debt. Cutting spending alone won't get rid of that, we need more income. We can get rid of a huge percentage of that in one move. Best that income come from as few people as possible (highest earning 2% of Americans), who can most afford to have their tax rate on the adjusted gross income go from the special lowered 36% rate go back up to the 39.6% it was during the non-deficit years.

[Riot]

15% reduction assumes that no one that loses benefits isn't going to accept a lesser job now that the reality of free money has ended.

Considering there is 1 job for every 5-8 people, I think we can safely say that once most folks lose their unemployment, they will tend to be homeless, without health care, and on food stamps. That costs the government more money.

Plus how how much economic stimulus comes from paying your utility bill or an oil company? Not much.

"Not much?" Wanna quote the figures on that? EVERYBODY buys food, heat, gasoline, telephone, electricity, etc. The basic necessities are just that.

If you think the economy thrives on 58" plasma TV purchases, you're wrong.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you seriously think if business is off 10% that people immediately lose their jobs?

The economists say so. I already posted the below.

I'm still waiting for you to post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc. Please do.

This is the sobering conclusion of a report released by the President's Council of Economic Advisers on Thursday. The study forecast that the exhaustion of unemployment benefits for so many will curb spending power enough to significantly impede an already weak economic recovery.

Without an agreement to extend the program, the economy will lose about 600,000 jobs, as the spending enabled by continued unemployment checks ceases.

National economic output--which expanded at an annual pace of 2.5 percent during the summer months--would fall off by 0.6 percent.

That disturbing prospect does not even account for the roughly four million people who would exceed even the extended limits in the emergency program. Were that many jobless people left to fend themselves without unemployment checks, that would pose significant risks for the broader economy, say economists. They cite the fact that consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of all economic activity.

"If you're looking for economic recovery supported by consumers, it's discouraging," said Henry J. Aaron, an economist at the Brookings Institution, a research institution in Washington. "It's drag on the economy."

Many economists argue that paying unemployment benefits is among the most effective ways the government can spur the economy: Jobless people tend to spend nearly all of their unemployment checks, distributing those dollars throughout the economy.

"There's very few things we can spend money on that probably have such an immediate impact on household consumption as unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed," said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and now a fellow at Broookings.

More than 6.3 million workers were out of a job for at least 27 weeks in November, comprising nearly 42 percent of all unemployed Americans, according to Labor Department data released Friday.

The Federal Reserve forecasts that the unemployment rate will still be as high as 9 percent this time next year, and about 8 percent at the end of 2012, according to minutes from the central bank's Federal Open Market Committee meeting last month.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Considering there is 1 job for every 5-8 people, I think we can safely say that once most folks lose their unemployment, they will tend to be homeless, without health care, and on food stamps. That costs the government more money.



"Not much?" Wanna quote the figures on that? EVERYBODY buys food, heat, gasoline, telephone, electricity, etc. The basic necessities are just that.

If you think the economy thrives on 58" plasma TV purchases, you're wrong.

If there was 1 job for every 5 people on unemployment then wouldnt cutting benefits immediately cut unemployment 20%? Well using numbers they way you do it would but in reality it doesnt work this way.

Again, how much economic stimulus is derived from paying your utility bill?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

The GOP should have taken that, for both political reasons, but mostly that it would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out and it's a good thing to do. They could even take the credit for it next election. Mitch McConnell has become brain dead in his old age.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If there was 1 job for every 5 people on unemployment then wouldnt cutting benefits immediately cut unemployment 20%? Well using numbers they way you do it would but in reality it doesnt work this way.

What silly nonsense you spout - nobody, including myself, thinks that tossing people off the unemployment rolls (hiding one's eyes and failing to count them) decreases unemployment.

[Riot]

Again, how much economic stimulus is derived from paying your utility bill?

You're the one making the argument, against the figures I posted, that the answer is little to none. Go ahead, support your argument, post us some proof.

Again: Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? Can you post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, they are not buying TV's. They are buying groceries, gas, heat, pay mortgage. That keeps all those providers employed.

Take away those unemployment checks, and you have lost all that spending. You have people living in the street, and nobody buying groceries, and thus those jobs providing groceries are threatened and lost.

Is this really that hard to understand? This isn't politics It's high school Economics 101.

that's funny, i don't recall saying anything about taking unemployment away. i just find it laughable that anyone suggests the economy will turn around due to that measly amount being paid out. and in the short term, it helps to pay out benefits. but i sure wish they'd do more to tackle what is turning out to be a long term issue. the govt cannot create jobs, but it sure as hell would help if they would encourage job creation in the private sector..and yes, govt is supposed to spend during a recession. the part our govt continues to ignore is where they're supposed to save during the good times, so as to weather us through the bad times. but i'm sure the spendspendspend mentality is all due to the republicans.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The economists say so. I already posted the below.

I'm still waiting for you to post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc. Please do.

It is a politically appointed group. Of course they are going to support their bosses position.

Didn't they also say unemployment would stay under 8% if the stimulus was passed?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The GOP should have taken that, for both political reasons, but mostly that it would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out and it's a good thing to do. They could even take the credit for it next election. Mitch McConnell has become brain dead in his old age.

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

What silly nonsense you spout - nobody, including myself, thinks that tossing people off the unemployment rolls (hiding one's eyes and failing to count them) decreases unemployment.

Well of course it does. Unless you are stating that you think every person receiving benefits is looking unsucessfully for a job. Are you saying that?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You're the one making the argument, against the figures I posted, that the answer is little to none. Go ahead, support your argument, post us some proof.

Again: Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? Can you post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc?

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.