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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

This isn't new or imaginary. There's plenty of economic history to show it's absolutely true.

If we were to kick out everyone off unemployment - millions of people - yes, the jobless rate will raise, and the economy will crash.

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. That money tends to get saved. During the 10 years since that policy was first was initiated, we lost 800,000 jobs. Trickle down doesn't work. See Reagan, too.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. .

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

I'm not listening to Pelosi in the least. I'm listening to every economist in the world. You might try not politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics, and learn something.

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

Are you actually saying that they didn't decide to add many more workers with the money they saved? Oh, they got to have something that says different. Just you wait.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Are you actually saying that they didn't decide to add many more workers with the money they saved? Oh, they got to have something that says different. Just you wait.

Yes they just hoard it, no business are created by people who make more than $250k a year. Only govt spending creates jobs.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks ?

so commercial real estate (REITS) treasury bills (America) and bonds (everything from road projects to bridges) yes muni bonds are where the tax beni's lie are taking money out of the economy?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

so commercial real estate (REITS) treasury bills (America) and bonds (everything from road projects to bridges) yes muni bonds are where the tax beni's lie are taking money out of the economy?

Yes, Dell. When you save money, it is not circulating in the economy. It is not liquid and circulating.

An unemployed person gets 300 a week (average). That - every penny - goes right back into the economy immediately, directly to food, gasoline, rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, etc. Multiply that by millions as we have now.

Louisville and Lexington have about 700,000 people in the metro areas roughly. We have 100,000 on unemployment in KY (that will be off by end of Dec if not extended). Figuring only 25,000 of those live in the metro areas, that is $7,500,000 a week out of the Lexington and Louisville economies if unemployment doesn't get extended by end of December. Already this week thousands are off it in this state. People can't buy groceries, gasoline and electricity, those companies lay off employees, quickly. We go into a depression really quickly.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm not listening to Pelosi in the least. I'm listening to every economist in the world. You might try not politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics, and learn something.

Guess what, Dell? Putting money into stocks, REIT's, T-bills and bonds - to save in tax liabilities - is exactly why giving money to rich people does NOT go back into the economy, and decreases government income. All those things you listed above takes money OUT of the economy. You just proved my point. Thanks

Consider this: Bush initiated massive tax benefits to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003. Since that time we've lost 800,000 jobs. Gee - doesn't seem to work the way the GOP says it does, does it?

You say these things as they were factual.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy increases gov't income.

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

[Riot]

Cannon Shell You say these things as they were factual.

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.

You seem to fail to grasp the fact the a stronger economy is a far greater generator of govt revenues than raising tax rates. That is a fact.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

No they dont. The jobs that service basic needs are not ones that are in jeopardy.

Unemployment benefits as economic stimulus and unemployment reducer.

You can't make this stuff up....

[Riot]

No they dont.

Yes, unemployment dollars DO immediately help the economy, help keep joblessness down, and you might refer to any Economics 101 class to point that out to you.

If you want to take the strange position that immediate infusion of cash into an economy does not help it in a recession, please quote us an explaination from an economist alot smarter than yourself.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, unemployment dollars DO immediately help the economy, help keep joblessness down, and you might refer to any Economics 101 class to point that out to you.

If you want to take the strange position that immediate infusion of cash into an economy does not help it in a recession, please quote us an explaination from an economist alot smarter than yourself.

Where does that cash come from? Does it just magically appear? People like you want to raise taxes to give more money to the unemployed, yet how many dollars have to be collected to pay out a single dollar in benefits? The strange position is to continue to support extended benefits while also supporting higher taxes on the job creators.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus. If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

Why not fire EVERY government employee and give them a million per month in unemployment. Even if we get $1.50 back per $1 spent 500K times 1.5 million we get 750 billion back in return. Do that a year and we're at 9 Trillion plus what we've saved in payroll. Somehow there's a trick or CON to this. LOL

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus. If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

Magic?