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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

what if by chance a rich person owns the apartment building, bank note and is invested in utilities? And a terrorist Muslim owns the grocery store.

Explain how that $300 comes back as more than it went out w/o a color quality copy machine?

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

[Riot]

Today the House passed a bill giving tax cut continuation only to 98% of Americans (not to the wealthy for their income above $250K)

The rumor [edit: not a rumor, it's true] is that the Senate has now abandoned the idea of having 4 straw poll type of votes tomorrow.

Harry Reid is apparently listening to the massive pressure from the left on this tax cut issue (ad from MoveOn.org, innundation of White House and Senate with e-mails, telephone calls from constituents, etc) and [correction Saturday] the Senate will hold TWO REAL VOTES, one on tax cuts to the middle class, then another on tax cuts to the wealthy.

Edit: The first vote will be to extend tax cuts for the middle class (up to $250K) The second vote will be to raise that ceiling from $250K to 1 million dollars. The second is an overt compromise to the GOP. The Dems will vote against the second.

Reid will dare the GOP to not vote for the middle class tax cut. If the GOP does not vote yes, nothing will get passed - and all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. And the GOP can take it up again in the new Congress on their own.

So Harry Reid has taken a stand, and it's up to the GOP now.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Today the House passed a bill giving tax cut continuation only to 98% of Americans (not to the wealthy for their income above $250K)

The rumor [edit: not a rumor, it's true] is that the Senate has now abandoned the idea of having 4 straw poll type of votes tomorrow.

Harry Reid is apparently listening to the massive pressure from the left on this tax cut issue (ad from MoveOn.org, innundation of White House and Senate with e-mails, telephone calls from constituents, etc) and [correction Saturday] the Senate will hold TWO REAL VOTES, one on tax cuts to the middle class, then another on tax cuts to the wealthy.

Edit: The first vote will be to extend tax cuts for the middle class (up to $250K) The second vote will be to raise that ceiling from $250K to 1 million dollars. The second is an overt compromise to the GOP. The Dems will vote against the second.

Reid will dare the GOP to not vote for the middle class tax cut. If the GOP does not vote yes, nothing will get passed - and all the tax cuts expire at the end of the year. And the GOP can take it up again in the new Congress on their own.

So Harry Reid has taken a stand, and it's up to the GOP now.

Yes the Democrats as usual have put their agenda ahead of the American people. Too bad they didnt see fit to temporarily extend all of the cuts so we could avoid all the issues that will be created and let the newly elected Congress tackle the issue.

Of course the GOP will reject this foolish plan and then simply bring back the legislation right after the 1st of the year and force the Democrats to kill it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with your theory is that all the jobs you believe are saved are all govt subsidized or in no danger anyway. The food production business is already massively subsidized by the govt, public utilities as well. The oil industry is hardly hurting (gas stations).

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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

[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.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

That $300 goes immediately out into the economy as cash. It isn't saved.

Pretend $50 goes to the grocery store. The grocery then gives $20 out in salaries (which goes out again to groceries, rent, etc a second time), puts $5 into inventory (grows business) and he puts $10 out in car purchase (expands who gets part of that $300) and $5 out into his groceries, rent, etc.

Pretend $250 goes to rent. Repeat the above with the owner paying off the mortage, then buying groceries, etc.

That $300 goes out and circulates throughout the economy multiple times before it ends up "taken out" (into long-term capital investments, savings, etc) Each time it circulates, it requires a business to be open and have inventory, it supports salaries: grocery, truck line, grower of food, gas station owner, clerk, gasoline tanker driver, etc.

Bonds, etc. only make money that goes into the economy the first time they are sold. Trading stocks, etc. in the markets does NOT circulate money into the economy that causes growth.

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!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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, !

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?

Redistribution of wealth is what this Administration is all about.

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.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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.

[SOREHOOF]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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.

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

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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.

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.

Does the overwhelming cost mean anything to you? Are you gainfully employed? Have you ever drawn Unemployment Benefits? Sorry Riot .

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.

I don't trust these guys running the show

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)

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

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.

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)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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.

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.

[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

[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?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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