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

[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/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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/

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

Tell what happened with the government-funded scientists? The leaked climate change e-mails? All the science was found sound after investigation by 4 or 5 different multi-national panels, wasn't it?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

DOH!!!!! Again DOH!!!!!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-accord

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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/

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).

[jms62]

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).

If you factor in underemployed you are talking Double what is reported or higher.

[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??

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

What nonsense. Instead of quoting a political opinion blog, why don't you read something like Wikipedia explaining unemployment during the Great Depression and since?

Pelosi is repeating what the economists say, too. If you would like to dismiss economic realities as untrue, support your contention and post something from Bloomberg or WSJ or any other economic think tank that shows paying unemployment during high unemployment times doesn't help keep the economy going. We'll wait ....

all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda.

The facts from the economists are that unemployment insurance helps keep the economy going in a recession. You have one that differs? The Dems embrace that. In fact, the GOP embraces that, too, and always have (heck Bush even sent out stimulus checks) - because it's just a simple economic fact. You've not seen the GOP deny it's true.

The GOP hasn't voted for unemployment benefit extension as they are holding out for their tax cuts for the rich.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

[Riot]

And how did that work out?

The economists say pretty well, but we needed more.

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke.

Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify.

Don't worry. You just said we can suffer a 10-15% loss in business income and it won't matter, because the 85% will still be there.

The credit crunch is indeed a bad business thing for cash flow. Yet the GOP won't allow the banks to be forced into any emergency regulation to lend more readily (can't blame them, mortages didn't work well) in a time of record profits (the banks holding on to their money, instead of lending it) So that's a huge problem getting the recession restarted.

threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are).

The Dems went up to a million (where the vast majority of "small businesses" are) but the GOP voted that down. That's too bad.

We also have a little problem with excessive debt. Cutting spending alone won't get rid of that, we need more income. We can get rid of a huge percentage of that in one move. Best that income come from as few people as possible (highest earning 2% of Americans), who can most afford to have their tax rate on the adjusted gross income go from the special lowered 36% rate go back up to the 39.6% it was during the non-deficit years.