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

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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

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?

[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.