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

[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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You live in LA and think 250k a year (pretax by the way) is rich? I guess you dont get out much. Let me ask you a question since you are so much for equality. Why should people who earn good salaries or create jobs via investment in small business have their taxes increased when everyone elses arent? They already pay a higher percentage than you. They already make more of a contribution than you. Why the discrimination?

Like I said, I was forced to use a Vet (it's illegal not to.) He charged over $1000 for keeping the dog about 7-8 hours. Fk him. Son Bitch can pay his tax. Goes for all these people that fix the market to make it illegal not to use them. Fk them. You act like they care about the common person with a problem. Bullshyt. They care about that plastic in ya wallet. I can't think of more deserving people to have their taxes raised.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Give me a break. Your idea that all spending is good spending regardless of where the money comes from is silly.

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=Riot;730071]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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)

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

You overstate this depression angle. I said that the stimulus wouldnt work last spring. Not because I am some economic genius but because a huge portion of the package wasn't really stimulus or at least wasn't very effective stimulus. The $20 billion for food stamps for example.

Look at it this way. A baseball team pays a free agent pitcher way more than he is worth (say $20 million a year) and he performs to his usual level(3 million a year). Did the player offer some value to the teams success at the end of the year? Sure, he was slightly better than average, but he didn't give the team the 20 million they paid him worth. The money could have been better spent. That was the stimulus package. It helped a little but not nearly as much as it could have had the money been directed more towards actual stimulus and less towards social programs disguised as stimulus.

When ANY dollar spent can be described as "good for the economy" it isn't hard to make the arguments that the left and Riot make. The problem is that it does matter where that money comes from.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Like I said, I was forced to use a Vet (it's illegal not to.) He charged over $1000 for keeping the dog about 7-8 hours. Fk him. Son Bitch can pay his tax. Goes for all these people that fix the market to make it illegal not to use them. Fk them. You act like they care about the common person with a problem. Bullshyt. They care about that plastic in ya wallet. I can't think of more deserving people to have their taxes raised.

There is no response that i can think of that doesnt insult you or ask you to seek help...soon...

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no response that i can think of that doesnt insult you or ask you to seek help...soon...

Well, anybody that doesn't agree with you is gunna be put in (or around) that boat.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, anybody that doesn't agree with you is gunna be put in (or around) that boat.

Generally when vet expenses are the basis for your desire to raise taxes there is some sort of underlying issue. Maybe it is the Garvey thing?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Generally when vet expenses are the basis for your desire to raise taxes there is some sort of underlying issue. Maybe it is the Garvey thing?

Yea, I don't like people that try to get rich off sick animals. Especially when they make it illegal to use somebody else. I don't like that combo. They're greedy, and take advantage of nice people. I want their tax break to go away. Soon as possible.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Yea, I don't like people that try to get rich off sick animals. Especially when they make it illegal to use somebody else. I don't like that combo. They're greedy, and take advantage of nice people. I want their tax break to go away. Soon as possible.

Next time use www.calvetsupply.com or better yet order some antibiotics and needles now.

[Danzig]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation


tell me again how the stimulus 'worked'. we had four quarters of mild growth, but the money's spent, the latest jobs report sucked(as have the last few), and unemployment is projected to go right back to where it was. if not higher. now, in my mind, a stimulus working wouldn't have results we're seeing. a temporary jump in the right direction, followed by going right back to where we were, is not a fix at all. a bandaid to stop a hemorrhage perhaps. but the patient continues to bleed out anyway.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rss=rss_nation


tell me again how the stimulus 'worked'. we had four quarters of mild growth, but the money's spent, the latest jobs report sucked(as have the last few), and unemployment is projected to go right back to where it was. if not higher. now, in my mind, a stimulus working wouldn't have results we're seeing. a temporary jump in the right direction, followed by going right back to where we were, is not a fix at all. a bandaid to stop a hemorrhage perhaps. but the patient continues to bleed out anyway.

I am a broken record but every outsourced job and job filled by H1B holder is purchasing power lost which means less money pumped into our economy... This is a game of musical chairs. What is the solution ? I don't know something dramatic like a Put America back to work Tax on each and every job given to an H1B or done outside of the US applied directly to the deficit? How about an economic cap and trade where we are only allowed to purchase from Foriegn countries an amount that they purchase from us.. Protectionism??? We ****ing need it because Big Business certainly won't do what is in the best interest of the country..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I am a broken record but every outsourced job and job filled by H1B holder is purchasing power lost which means less money pumped into our economy... This is a game of musical chairs. What is the solution ? I don't know something dramatic like a Put America back to work Tax on each and every job given to an H1B or done outside of the US applied directly to the deficit? How about an economic cap and trade where we are only allowed to purchase from Foriegn countries an amount that they purchase from us.. Protectionism??? We ****ing need it because Big Business certainly won't do what is in the best interest of the country..

it's obvious how to fix everything. get rid of filibustering so that the majority party (currently the dems) can push thru all their grand ideas. of course, when the dems are the minority at some point in the future, they'll rue the day they banned filibustering. but if they'd just get the meanies in the republican party to quit stifling all of obama and co's brilliant plans, we'd all be just fine. i mean, it's obvious that the founding fathers wanted the majority to have all the say, and the minority groups to have none, which is why i can't believe that our govt was set up the way it was.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's obvious how to fix everything. get rid of filibustering so that the majority party (currently the dems) can push thru all their grand ideas. of course, when the dems are the minority at some point in the future, they'll rue the day they banned filibustering. but if they'd just get the meanies in the republican party to quit stifling all of obama and co's brilliant plans, we'd all be just fine. i mean, it's obvious that the founding fathers wanted the majority to have all the say, and the minority groups to have none, which is why i can't believe that our govt was set up the way it was.

How to fix everything.... How about allowing NO PRIVATE funding of political campaigns. Anyone found to be in violation does mandatory jail time. Special interests run this country....

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2276611/


A Joyless Jobless Report
Those dreadful new unemployment numbers are even worse than they look.
By Annie Lowrey
Posted Friday, Dec. 3, 2010, at 7:05 PM ET


one excerpt:

But the official government jobs report contradicts those numbers and came in far worse than even the most pessimistic economists' projections. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, for instance, forecast that payrolls would climb by 150,000, with guesses ranging from 75,000 new jobs to 200,000. Instead, the economy added about half of the lowest estimate.



The pace of the recovery is obviously not yet speeding up—in fact, the recovery has stalled out for the past nine months, with employers hesitant to hire, consumers hesitant to spend, and the government running out of bullets. Each month of bad data digs the hole left by the recession a bit deeper and increases the time it will take for the economy to return to normal. The difference between how many workers the economy should employ (given a lower, more normal unemployment rate) and how many it does employ stands at about 11.8 million workers.

[Riot]

Thank you GOP. You have proven beyond a doubt it's more important to you give unfunded tax cuts to those earning over $1 million dollars a year, than help the unemployed and the middle class.

Senate Republicans Defeat Reauthorization Of Jobless Aid, Tax Cuts

Senate Republicans and a handful of Democrats Saturday defeated a bill to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and a plethora of tax provisions for the middle class not because of the bill's trillion-dollar deficit impact, but because it did not include tax cuts for the rich.

"In economic times like these, 9.8 percent unemployment, you should not raise taxes on anyone," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told HuffPost"

Two bills were defeated.

By a vote of 53-36, the Senate rejected a measure by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that would have preserved Bush era tax cuts for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, but would have allowed cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year to expire.

Four Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined Republicans in voting nay.

The Senate also rejected a bill by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would have extended all the cuts, but not for anybody making more than $1 million.

Republicans and conservative Democrats have opposed reauthorizing the benefits without offsetting their deficit impact by cutting spending from elsewhere in the budget. But those same lawmakers have not insisted that tax cuts for the rich, estimated to cost nearly $700 billion over 10 years, be offset in any way. A yearlong reauthorization of unemployment benefits would cost roughly $60 billion.

During debate on the Senate floor before the vote, Schumer asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about Republicans' different positions on deficit reduction.

"Could he please explain to me why it is OK to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it," Schumer said, "and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance extensions?"

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

The rural southern poor is overwhelmingly Republican. I wonder how they like the party they elected not extending their unemployment benefits?