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

[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.

[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.

[Riot]

[quote=Cannon Shell;729944]There is no use trying to talk sense to you and Riot because you just wont admit you dont know what you are talking about regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary of your point[/QUOTE

Your insults are no substitute for trying to debate with facts, although you apparently think so, but it does seem the only thing you can routinely come up with.

Try harder. Throw some of those "facts" out yourself (btw, "fact" isn't just something you think is true)

[Danzig]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010022404689

[Riot]

Unemployment checks help positively drive the economy. Applicable excerpts:

Even as Congress debates whether to extend emergency unemployment checks for more than 6 million Americans who are approaching the 99-week-limit, some four million others are facing the certain end of their benefits over the next year, unless an entirely new program is crafted.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_791682.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010022404689

The filibuster is only a parliamentary procedure of the Senate, and will definitely be changed due to current abuse in January. Not eliminated, but changed in application. Never has a party put an automatic filibuster on EVERYTHING before. It's appalling.

[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.

[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]

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)

[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)

[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!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Unemployment checks help positively drive the economy. Applicable excerpts:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_791682.html

good thing those checks help, considering todays jobs report......geez, just think if that expensive stimulus package wasnt helping.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

good thing those checks help, considering todays jobs report......geez, just think if that expensive stimulus package wasnt helping.

Most economists I've seen, and I'm being absolutely serious here, 'Zig, have said the stimulus absolutely helped, and we would have been in the second great depression without it. And that it should have been larger (why we are stuck now) In hindsight I've not seen any economist that said it didn't help.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No one should get a tax raise during a recession.

Uh, I kind of got a feeling that you are never gunna say it's time for a tax raise. These "job creators" aren't doing much good now. I don't think they're gunna do much worse if they pay the pre-Bush rate. I don't think that many jobs are coming back. We have a big deficit. We can't afford to give rich people breaks on their taxes anymore. Maybe you should of talked to Geedubbya before he started two wars that cost a whole bunch of money we didn't have. This is part of paying for the cowboy's funtime.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The GOP will be the party in power when the rural poor secede from the Union

If you and the Democrats have your way the rural poor will soon be the redistributed rich