Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
Hey, that's fun!:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
How about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I (many of us conservatives) care a great deal about all people, as, no doubt, do liberals.
However, I also recognize the truism that is: "You get what you pay for."
If you pay for unemployment, you will get unemployment.
If you pay for unwed mothers having children, you will get more of that (look at the growth of illegitimate births post-"great society".)
In exact same vein - if you make weapons development and sales extremely profitable, you will get unending wars, or at least war-footing.
Whatever our government pays for, we all get, in droves.
It is ultimately why the cliche that is "limited" government is absolutely essential. Anything else is too much of an influence on the economy/priorities of society, and, ultimately, will be a net-detriment, and not benefit.
Individuals making self-interested, self-beneficial choices, strictly controlled by a government with a broad view of what each person's rights to be protected from others (and the government itself) is the only solution to sustainable economic growth. Maximizing growth would then minimize the amount of "safety netting" that would have to be utilized, preferably through private charity.
Oh well, it's far too late for that. Might as well extend them forever, what's another trillion or two; our fate is sealed.
"typical Republican's mindset"
the elected officials, esp the old southern/western white Senators with their state unemployment above 10% who still vote down unemployment extensions, are much further to the right than the "typical" Repug, it seems.
The legislators and Repug candidates seem to be extreme right for a reason, because the tea baggers, racists, NRA gunnuts, "Christian" theocrats, Fox Repug Propaganda channel, hate media etc, force them to the extreme right.
I keep seeing articles that Eisenhower and Reagan would not be voted for by the majority of today's radicalized, pissed off, anti-American Repugs.
Repugs are have been for a long time the party of the "haves", "conserving" and increasing their wealth and privileges while beating down the have-nots, which today are the unemployed, blacks, Hispanics, all trying to "progress" their own conditions.
I agree these things are said, but it doesn't represent a majority thought. Statements like that come from understandable anger. Why should the government have the right to steal from those who produce and give to those who don't try?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
There is an understandable need for some handouts. The problem is, the government doesn't determine who really needs and who doesn't. It's been too expensive for too long. We need more tax payers, not less. We take away too much from producers, and make life too easy for those who are lazy.
I'm a pretty bright, well educated guy and your response makes absolutely no sense. Pelosi's statement was that those dollars injected into the economy stimulated the economy and created jobs because the recipients of the money spent the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Is this NOT what she said?
A dollar injected into the economy is a dollar injected into the economy. It doesn't know if it is a conservative dollar or a liberal dollar. It doesn't know if it's part of an unemployment check or a tax refund. It's just a dollar.
The philosophical difference is who does that government allocated dollar reward? Does it reward productive members of society that drive our economy and create jobs (tax cuts on producers) or does it reward unproductive members that create nothing (the perpetual unemployed).
It is a bit more complicated than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Basically it boils down to who you give that dollar TO.
Trickle-down (generally a deragatory term for supply-side economics) says that it is best to give the dollar to those who have a lot of money to begin with. They then turn around and invest it in something, and the benefits of that investment "trickle-down" to all levels of income/wealth. The investment of the wealthy increase overall supply of goods/services. Think of a new factory or bakery.
Unemployment payments are an attempt to stimulate demand. The average joe who is unemployed will turn around immediately and spend it on food/rent/mortgage/car payment/etc. This drives demand for goods/services.
In this there is quite the difference as to what those dollars do for the economy.
The government does determine who needs and who doesn't. Most benefits have means tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Unemployment actually requires that you have actually worked, and is based on your pre-unemployment salary. It really does function like insurance in many regards.
Personally, I think the time for extended benefits is passing, but still probably somewhat necessary. CC is right in that the payments do tend to contribute to some unemployment, as people might pass up lower-paying jobs, or give up entirely and try to "wait it out".
Oh really? So he gives those dollars to people that provided him food/rent/mortgage/car payment/etc. (productive members of society) who then turn around and spend or reinvest those dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
That dollar has the same economic impact.
What you have done, however, is charge the productive members of society (in higher tax rates) so that the government can pay the unproductive member of society, so he can then turn around and pay the productive members of society, so they can pay higher taxes to support the unproductive members of society.
The unproductive member of society is REWARDED for their lack of achievement and the producers are PUNISHED with higher taxes.
Remember, the unemployment benefits we are talking about not extending are for people that have already been collecting unemployment benefits for TWO YEARS.
I suppose next, liberals will be telling us dollars given by the government are more valuable than dollars earned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/bu..._r=1&src=buslnQuote:
The United States added just 83,000 private-sector jobs in June, a dishearteningly low number that could add to the growing number of economists who warn that the economic recovery has slowed to the point that it cannot generate enough job growth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/...-drops-to-165/Quote:
The U.S. jobless rate dropped 0.2 percentage point to 9.5% in June, the lowest level since July, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment only ticked down 0.1 point to 16.5%.
The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ ... accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. This month the gap expanded between the official rate and U-6. Mostly that was due to an increase in the number of discouraged workers, considered marginally attached to the labor force. That figure puts a dark cloud on the drop in the national rate. It indicates that many of the people who dropped out of the labor force in June did so because they gave up looking for jobs.
The 9.5% unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force.
The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find.
Both the headline and U-6 rates are based on the number of people in the labor force. When the unemployed drop out of the labor force completely the jobless rate declines. That problem has been exacerbated in the current recession by the large number of people unemployed for a long period of time. About 6.8 million people have been out of a job for more than 27 weeks. This month, despite a 190,000 increase in the population, the number of people in the labor force dropped by 652,000.
I heard a guy on NPR last night say that every economic recovery since the mid-70s has had a pause like the one we're seeing now.
We'll see if this is a short pause, or (long) plateau (disaster), or another dip (bigger disaster).
In any case, the economy needs to add 100K jobs/month just to keep up with population growth, never mind the job growth needed to re-employ 7+ million jobs lost in the Banksters' Great Depression.
There is a difference in giving a dollar to a wealthy person who doesn't need it or spend it but goes gambling with it in the Wall St casino, and a dollar to an unemployed person who will almost certainly spend it on food, utlility bills, transport.
That's all fine if you do this with your own money. Just don't do it with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
...or who otherwise saves it "unproductively" for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by b_d
CC's "dollar doesn't know what it's doing" analysis cracked me up. The volume of dollars thrown at the problem isn't really so important as the velocity of the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by b_d
Rich individuals. Not the unemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
And GHW Bush.Quote:
This theory is routinely lampooned by liberals.
Again, how do you give an income tax break to someone with no income?Quote:
I'm saying that substitute "tax cuts" with "unemployment benefits" and thats exactly what Pelosi said yesterday.
No. Unemployment payments are basically stimulative since they are spent almost immediately, but they would do more to maintain employment in certain sectors of the economy than result in new hires.Quote:
Are you saying that you agree with her 100% and fully support her statement?
HAHAHAAAAHAHAHA!!!!! Yeah man, you've really "kicked my ass". How very boutons like of you.....HAHAHAHA
:lol what sectors?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
producers are making money hands over fists, an average 300-400 times what the average consumer makes...meanwhile consumers salaries are struggling to keep up with the rate of inflation...none of what wing-nuts are arguing for are supported by the facts, but that wont stop them from making these statements because ingrained into their ideology is a very transparent hate for people of less privilege than themselves....they have no empathy for the little guy, only for their own pocketbooks...
"they have no empathy for the little guy, only for their own pocketbooks"
that's the beauty of capitalism and corporatism, people and country are always front-and-center
You don't know the basics upon which people spend money?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Good for you.
Study after study has shown that unemployment benefits are one of the most effective and efficient ways for government to stimulate an economy...but we also have to stimulate job growth or we will drown from debt just the same...
..the Nazi used nationalism to confer blind allegiance to their party ideology...nazi-ism started as a fringe, secret society in Germany, raging right-wing nationalist who advocated the advancement of the Aryan race above all others..Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Sharron Angle, the new wing-nut spokesperson..
Those fuckers should go to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Stop being a faked out douche. You remember this thread don't you: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157217 I'm not a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra