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

[Riot]

15% reduction assumes that no one that loses benefits isn't going to accept a lesser job now that the reality of free money has ended.

Considering there is 1 job for every 5-8 people, I think we can safely say that once most folks lose their unemployment, they will tend to be homeless, without health care, and on food stamps. That costs the government more money.

Plus how how much economic stimulus comes from paying your utility bill or an oil company? Not much.

"Not much?" Wanna quote the figures on that? EVERYBODY buys food, heat, gasoline, telephone, electricity, etc. The basic necessities are just that.

If you think the economy thrives on 58" plasma TV purchases, you're wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Considering there is 1 job for every 5-8 people, I think we can safely say that once most folks lose their unemployment, they will tend to be homeless, without health care, and on food stamps. That costs the government more money.



"Not much?" Wanna quote the figures on that? EVERYBODY buys food, heat, gasoline, telephone, electricity, etc. The basic necessities are just that.

If you think the economy thrives on 58" plasma TV purchases, you're wrong.

If there was 1 job for every 5 people on unemployment then wouldnt cutting benefits immediately cut unemployment 20%? Well using numbers they way you do it would but in reality it doesnt work this way.

Again, how much economic stimulus is derived from paying your utility bill?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If there was 1 job for every 5 people on unemployment then wouldnt cutting benefits immediately cut unemployment 20%? Well using numbers they way you do it would but in reality it doesnt work this way.

What silly nonsense you spout - nobody, including myself, thinks that tossing people off the unemployment rolls (hiding one's eyes and failing to count them) decreases unemployment.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

What silly nonsense you spout - nobody, including myself, thinks that tossing people off the unemployment rolls (hiding one's eyes and failing to count them) decreases unemployment.

Well of course it does. Unless you are stating that you think every person receiving benefits is looking unsucessfully for a job. Are you saying that?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Well of course it does.
?

No, Chuck, tossing people off unemployment and not counting them doesn't change how many people are unemployed, it only changes how many you can see to count.

That's why the "real" numbers of unemployment are higher than reported, always, as Scuds already said.

[Riot]

Again, how much economic stimulus is derived from paying your utility bill?

You're the one making the argument, against the figures I posted, that the answer is little to none. Go ahead, support your argument, post us some proof.

Again: Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? Can you post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You're the one making the argument, against the figures I posted, that the answer is little to none. Go ahead, support your argument, post us some proof.

Again: Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? Can you post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc?

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.

Yak, yak, yak ... You only have one answer, that anyone that doesn't think like you do is misguided. Stop telling me how bad my argument is when you've been asked for support of yours. I've provided some figures to support mine (you've dismissed them out of hand, of course) we are still waiting for yours.

Where is the support for your argument? Change my mind. Go ahead. Show me something from an economist that says that tossing people off unemployment and taking away that cash infusion doesn't harm and slow the economy, and doesn't cause increased joblessness in other industries as that unemployment money is taken out of circulation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yak, yak, yak ... You only have one answer, that anyone that doesn't think like you do is misguided. Stop telling me how bad my argument is when you've been asked for support of yours. I've provided some figures to support mine (you've dismissed them out of hand, of course) we are still waiting for yours.

Where is the support for your argument? Change my mind. Go ahead. Show me something from an economist that says that tossing people off unemployment and taking away that cash infusion doesn't harm and slow the economy, and doesn't cause increased joblessness in other industries as that unemployment money is taken out of circulation.

Adam Smith could rise from the dead and not be able to change your mind.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Adam Smith could rise from the dead and not be able to change your mind.

You got nothing. Got it.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.

Well said..

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Anyone notice that they are gunna agree to spend the most possible, and pay for it the least possible? Money spent on unemployment checks, but won't even increase taxes on millionaires. That was the least responsible thing they could do. You telling me this OBA guy ever had any kind of financial discipline? The wife has got to be in charge of that family's shyt.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Anyone notice that they are gunna agree to spend the most possible, and pay for it the least possible? Money spent on unemployment checks, but won't even increase taxes on millionaires. That was the least responsible thing they could do. You telling me this OBA guy ever had any kind of financial discipline? The wife has got to be in charge of that family's shyt.

Far be it from me to praise Obama but hasn't there a lot of complaining by the left that the GOP wasn't willing to work with the President? And now that he is compromising, the left howls at Obama in discontent?

Oh that's right, it is a one way street that they want us to travel down.

I find it amusing reading about the unnamed liberals in the House threatening to not honor the Senate and Presidents deal. Their love of the progressive agenda and hatred of "the rich" are so great they they are willing to be obstructionist toward their own President and with seemingly little regard for the middle class and unemployed they supposedly give a damn about.

Before you say that the GOP wouldnt make the deal without concessions "for millionaires" lets not forget that the head Democrat in the Senate and the Democratic President signed off on the deal that the liberals are now whining about. Remember that the voices on the left spouting off are the ones that arent up for election in 2012 or are in districts/states where they are practically unbeatable. This should bring to light that the far left cares about nothing but their desire to promote thier agenda regardless of the consequences.

The entire episode proves one thing for sure. Obama sees that pandering to the left hasn't gotten him very far (he got elected for the same reason that Reid got reelected, terrible opponents) and is going to kill his chances for reelection unless he moves closer to that center where Riot and friends always claimed that he was.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

Well said..

It's right out of the Reaganomics playbook, and "trickle-down economics" didn't work then, didn't work during Bush II, and won't magically and suddenly work now.

In fact, David Stockmann - Reagans economic adviser, one of the creators of Reaganomics - has been making the rounds, he is completely against extending the tax cut for the rich. And in favor of a long-term extension of unemployment benefits.

[Riot]

Not a done deal yet, but what is being reported this afternoon (and it's nice to see the GOP start to "compromise" for the first time in 2 years, although their compromise essentially lays in seemingly agreeing not to keep beating the shiat out of Obama and keep taking his lunch money). And it is notable that the most important thing to the GOP, the hill they die on, is pleasing the wealthy.

Update: must be done deal, WH announcement at 6:10pm tonight.

That said, the contours of an final package emerged with more detail than ever before. While it's clear that the White House gave in on its main front -- the desire to let the tax levels for the upper-income levels revert to pre-Bush rates -- administration officials claimed that they were able to secure major victories in return.

In exchange for allowing those rates to continue for two years, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 months, to offer a two-percent employee side payroll tax credit (at a cost of about $120 billion), and $40 billion in tax breaks for families and students (including a $1,000 child tax credit extended for two years and an expansion of the earned income tax credit)

Finally, the final deal would include a 100% expensing for businesses to write off purchases of outdated equipment -- another key element of Obama's fiscal plans. There also would be a compromise on the estate tax, which will be set for two years at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption amount, according to the Daily Caller, which first reported the arrangement.

Briefing The Huffington Post about the deal, which could be announced as early as Monday night, the two senior administration officials claimed that they were able to get more bang for their buck than previously imagined. The costs for the payroll tax holidays, UI and other refundable credits come in at roughly $215 billion over two years. The extensions of the income tax rates strictly for the wealthy is estimated to cost about $95 billion. All of it is unpaid for. But the former provisions are more stimulative than the latter.