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

[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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said. all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda. an agenda which is probably beyond most of our ken, as riot so succinctly put it a few pages ago. in a way, she's right. i can't quite wrap my head around people being on the dole as being a good thing that grows the economy. it might keep the economy where it's at previous to unemployment being cut for people who've met their 99 weeks, but how will it grow it?? but if pelosi and riot say it's so, it must be. makes you wonder why, with so many on unemployment for 2+years, we aren't seeing the corresponding growth.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/0...-economy-evah/

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Sooooo.... the more people on unemployment the better? Nice economics lesson! Are you sure you don't work as an adviser to the Administration?

Nope, obviously not the more is better. But when unemployment is excessive and outrageously high, we'd better keep paying them unemployment.

NEWSFLASH.. Unemployment (by definition) exists because the jobs have already gone away. People without jobs tend to spend less money than people with jobs.

Yes, that's why paying unemployment works so well in the economy - all of it goes out immediately into basic needs like groceries, gasoline, rent, utilities.

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

I said saving is bad during a recession. When the recession started, our savings rate as a nation jumped, but that's bad for the recession as that takes more money out of the economy. The point is to "stimulate spending" during recession, to help the recession end and keep the economy moving.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

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

LOL - Really? The best you can do? You compare paying taxes to receiving unemployment insurance, two things not even remotely related? Throw out a far right wing talking point that isn't even applicable?

Go ahead and explain how a discussion of dollars and the effect of spending on the economy during a recession is "class warfare" Heck, add in how unemployment insurance is "class warfare" (it obviously is not, because it's not income-limited)

Explain it to us. Let me get some popcorn

Wait, I have a better idea: why are YOU engaging in class warfare here? Justify yourself, sir!