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

[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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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..

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?

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

What?

There is a looming depression because unemployed people arent getting $300 a week?

[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

They are factual. Apparently beyond your ken, however.



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.

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

Raising taxes is hardly the path to a stronger economy yet you continue to advocate that.

You seem to think that the govt should extend unemployment benefits endlessly, now not because of moral reasons but because of its economic benefits? This is similar to your argument that food stamps are a fine source of economic stimulus as well.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The strawman thing is getting tired. You are not able to grasp that these factors are all interrelated which explains your lack of understanding of basic economic fundementals.

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.

[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.