Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's a lie. Let's see a link to prove that. Perhaps you'll have one? If you've been reading the CBO report that says unemployment benefits extensions would create 300,000 jobs, perhaps you weren't reading the whole thing. That is for short term application only. The report is littered with terms such as "temporary" and "short term." Check this out. In the report it says extending benefits would have three distinct effects such as it would:
A) Afford greater protection against income lost during unemployment;
B) Provide incentives for UI recipients to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would have because UI benefits stop when recipients find a job or stop looking for work; and
C) Lead to more consumer spending and increased demand for goods and services, which CBO expects would boost overall output and employment in the short term.
CBO | Unemployment Insurance in the Wake of the Recent Recession
B: yeah, no shit. That's why everyone that receives unemployment makes an effort to find a job, otherwise they would get nothing. Isn't that the point? Christ almighty. You have to send documented proof each month that you are actively searching for a job. If you don't, they cut the benefits.
C: yeah no shit short term because we are talking about a set amount. If it had been bigger, it would gone longer.
You failed at this miserably.
You fail at reading comprehension Billy. The CBO report says it all. These "monthly reports" you speak of aren't readily enforceable. Why do you see people trying to max out their benefits, hmm? Do you not think there is a way to cheat the system?
And if it were a set amount, why has the government spent $520 billion on it over the past 5 years? Sorry, I didn't fail anything. You fail at rudimentary logical reasoning and elementary mathematics.
B: yeah, no shit. That's why everyone that receives unemployment makes an effort to find a job, otherwise they would get nothing. Isn't that the point? Christ almighty. You have to send documented proof each month that you are actively searching for a job. If you don't, they cut the benefits.
C: yeah no shit short term because we are talking about a set amount. If it had been bigger, it would gone longer.
You failed at this miserably.
You fail at reading comprehension Billy. The CBO report says it all. These "monthly reports" you speak of aren't readily enforceable. Why do you see people trying to max out their benefits, hmm? Do you not think there is a way to cheat the system?
And if it were a set amount, why has the government spent $520 billion on it over the past 5 years? Sorry, I didn't fail anything. You fail at rudimentary logical reasoning and elementary mathematics.
People who try to cheat the system exist, but they are rare. There is no evidence this policy created rampant abuse of the system..
No, the EXTENSION of unemployment was a fixed amount of funding. Had it been bigger, it would have created more jobs. Obviously the benefit program itself continues to this day. It is just smaller now.
You fail at reading comprehension Billy. The CBO report says it all. These "monthly reports" you speak of aren't readily enforceable. Why do you see people trying to max out their benefits, hmm? Do you not think there is a way to cheat the system?
And if it were a set amount, why has the government spent $520 billion on it over the past 5 years? Sorry, I didn't fail anything. You fail at rudimentary logical reasoning and elementary mathematics.
People who try to cheat the system exist, but they are rare. There is no evidence this policy created rampant abuse of the system..
No, the EXTENSION of unemployment was a fixed amount of funding. Had it been bigger, it would have created more jobs. Obviously the benefit program itself continues to this day. It is just smaller now.
Wrong. The program itself is growing as well, the CBO projected that adding another $30 billion in benefits extensions would help the economy (or so they claim) So, that's $550 billion over 5 years counting that report.
As for the abuse of the system, in 2011 alone the government doled out $3.3 billion in fraudulent unemployment benefits:
Fraudulent Unemployment Benefits Payments Totaled $3.3 Billion In 2011: Paper
Suspects accused of collecting unemployment while working - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
14 people arrested for collecting unemployment benefits while working ? D.C. Crime Stories
People who try to cheat the system exist, but they are rare. There is no evidence this policy created rampant abuse of the system..
No, the EXTENSION of unemployment was a fixed amount of funding. Had it been bigger, it would have created more jobs. Obviously the benefit program itself continues to this day. It is just smaller now.
Wrong. The program itself is growing as well, the CBO projected that adding another $30 billion in benefits extensions would help the economy (or so they claim) So, that's $550 billion over 5 years counting that report.
As for the abuse of the system, in 2011 alone the government doled out $3.3 billion in fraudulent unemployment benefits:
Fraudulent Unemployment Benefits Payments Totaled $3.3 Billion In 2011: Paper
Suspects accused of collecting unemployment while working - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
14 people arrested for collecting unemployment benefits while working ? D.C. Crime Stories
I love how when you know you are losing an argument, you turn to random Google searches. One of them is the Huffington Post. I love it! You crack me up dude.
Let's break down that article. Only 2.2 billion of that 3.3 billion was going to people still working. Only half a billion went to people making at least 900 a week. 10% of the 2.2 went to people making less than $300 per week.
Not only that, but that is 3.3 billion out of 108 billion spent in total for the year!
So yeah, dude fraud happens, but once again it is RARE.
Not only that, but unclaimed benefits amount to an average higher than the average of fraudulence!
The rest of your links is mere anecdotal evidence, therefore pointless to even post.
Though only a small fraction of the $108 billion the federal government paid out in unemployment benefits in 2011 went to people who weren’t eligible, the study’s findings raise concerns that some of the money intended for struggling jobless Americans is going to people who don’t qualify to receive it.
A person must be unemployed through no fault of their own in order to be eligible to collect unemployment benefits. Of those who fit that criteria, not everyone collects the money they’re entitled to. In fact, unclaimed benefits amount to more money on average than fraudulent benefits payments, according to a St. Louis Fed paper from last year.
Still, unemployment benefit fraud has drawn attention in recent years. Nearly 3,200 households making more than $1 million per year received unemployment benefits during the economic downturn, according to Bloomberg, amounting to $80 million paid out by the government.
Breaking down the $2.2 billion shows that nearly half a billion in dollars when to the category of workers earning at least $900 a week. Those earning less than $300 a week got $210 million of the fraudulent payments.
"This shows we need a better way to monitor this type of payout," said Amy Gordon, an employment benefits lawyer at McDermott Will & Emery. "We're not doing a very good job of it."
Wrong. The program itself is growing as well, the CBO projected that adding another $30 billion in benefits extensions would help the economy (or so they claim) So, that's $550 billion over 5 years counting that report.
As for the abuse of the system, in 2011 alone the government doled out $3.3 billion in fraudulent unemployment benefits:
Fraudulent Unemployment Benefits Payments Totaled $3.3 Billion In 2011: Paper
Suspects accused of collecting unemployment while working - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston
14 people arrested for collecting unemployment benefits while working ? D.C. Crime Stories
I love how when you know you are losing an argument, you turn to random Google searches. One of them is the Huffington Post. I love it! You crack me up dude.
Let's break down that article. Only 2.2 billion of that 3.3 billion was going to people still working. Only half a billion went to people making at least 900 a week. 10% of the 2.2 went to people making less than $300 per week.
Not only that, but that is 3.3 billion out of 108 billion spent in total for the year!
So yeah, dude fraud happens, but once again it is RARE.
Not only that, but unclaimed benefits amount to an average higher than the average of fraudulence!
The rest of your links is mere anecdotal evidence, therefore pointless to even post.
ROFL! Are you kidding me?! Fraud is fraud! And it DOES occur at a far higher rate than you realize. You dumbass. You won't post because you can't argue me. You have repeatedly evaded me in this thread, this is another dodge on your part. Put up or shut up. Also, I love how the one actually losing this debate is the one proclaiming that somehow he's won. That's you. As you couldn't even be bothered to google any of your own assertions, how can you be winning this debate?
I love how when you know you are losing an argument, you turn to random Google searches. One of them is the Huffington Post. I love it! You crack me up dude.
Let's break down that article. Only 2.2 billion of that 3.3 billion was going to people still working. Only half a billion went to people making at least 900 a week. 10% of the 2.2 went to people making less than $300 per week.
Not only that, but that is 3.3 billion out of 108 billion spent in total for the year!
So yeah, dude fraud happens, but once again it is RARE.
Not only that, but unclaimed benefits amount to an average higher than the average of fraudulence!
The rest of your links is mere anecdotal evidence, therefore pointless to even post.
ROFL! Are you kidding me?! Fraud is fraud! And it DOES occur at a far higher rate than you realize. You dumbass. You won't post because you can't argue me. You have repeatedly evaded me in this thread, this is another dodge on your part. Put up or shut up. Also, I love how the one actually losing this debate is the one proclaiming that somehow he's won. That's you. As you couldn't even be bothered to google any of your own assertions, how can you be winning this debate?
Um, is the fraud not 3.3 billion for the 2011 year? How is it higher than I think?
All of my assertions have been backed up in the new thread i made.
Are we done yet?
ROFL! Are you kidding me?! Fraud is fraud! And it DOES occur at a far higher rate than you realize. You dumbass. You won't post because you can't argue me. You have repeatedly evaded me in this thread, this is another dodge on your part. Put up or shut up. Also, I love how the one actually losing this debate is the one proclaiming that somehow he's won. That's you. As you couldn't even be bothered to google any of your own assertions, how can you be winning this debate?
Um, is the fraud not 3.3 billion for the 2011 year? How is it higher than I think?
All of my assertions have been backed up in the new thread i made.
Are we done yet?
No we are not done yet. I've been known to debate people for hours on end here. For some strange reason you think it (the fraud) has miraculously stopped. It has not. The study was based on 2011 statistics, but was released in July of last year. However the article is being reported on THIS YEAR. The author of the study in question has continued making revisions to it as late as October of 2013 (see the study here) hence why they call it a "working study." As for your thread backing up your assertions, it hasn't. I've gone about debunking each of your talking points only to be called all sorts of names, assailed with irrelevant talking points (I debunked those too) and self conjured proclamations of victory. You're desperate. I've proven it each and every time.
Now we're done. Have a seat.
Um, is the fraud not 3.3 billion for the 2011 year? How is it higher than I think?
All of my assertions have been backed up in the new thread i made.
Are we done yet?
No we are not done yet. I've been known to debate people for hours on end here. For some strange reason you think it (the fraud) has miraculously stopped. It has not. The study was based on 2011 statistics, but was released in July of last year. However the article is being reported on THIS YEAR. The author of the study in question has continued making revisions to it as late as October of 2013 (see the study here) hence why they call it a "working study." As for your thread backing up your assertions, it hasn't. I've gone about debunking each of your talking points only to be called all sorts of names, assailed with irrelevant talking points (I debunked those too) and self conjured proclamations of victory. You're desperate. I've proven it each and every time.
Now we're done. Have a seat.
Oh, you are just adorable.
No we are not done yet. I've been known to debate people for hours on end here. For some strange reason you think it (the fraud) has miraculously stopped. It has not. The study was based on 2011 statistics, but was released in July of last year. However the article is being reported on THIS YEAR. The author of the study in question has continued making revisions to it as late as October of 2013 (see the study here) hence why they call it a "working study." As for your thread backing up your assertions, it hasn't. I've gone about debunking each of your talking points only to be called all sorts of names, assailed with irrelevant talking points (I debunked those too) and self conjured proclamations of victory. You're desperate. I've proven it each and every time.
Now we're done. Have a seat.
Oh, you are just adorable.
Yes, yes. But flattery will get you nowhere with me. Revel in this beat down Billy, because it was pretty bad. You should be embarrassed. Seriously.
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving Billy, but I won't be spending until next Thanksgiving debating you any further. Later.
Oh, you are just adorable.
Yes, yes. But flattery will get you nowhere with me. Revel in this beat down Billy, because it was pretty bad. You should be embarrassed. Seriously.
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving Billy, but I won't be spending until next Thanksgiving debating you any further. Later.
Your denial is pretty glaring, I must say.
Research capability required. Stop being lazy.
The PJ Tatler » Heritage Foundation Publishes Complete List of Obama?s ?Green? Flops
Up to 50 Obama-backed energy companies financially troubled | The Daily Caller
List: The 36 Obama-Funded Green Energy Failures? | Weasel Zippers
LIST: Obama?s Failed Green-Energy Companies « FactReal
List: 36 Of Obama?s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures - Fox Nation
The Green Corruption Files : Green Alert: Tracking President Obama's Green Energy Failures
That is not how it works asshole. If YOU post it, YOU are responsible to provide the link. Ask a mod you turd brain.
Hey, why must it be a one way street? If you're so curious, look it up yourself, nitwit. If I could find corroborating links for this argument, I bet you could have as well. I don't need to ask a mod anything, since that rule only applies to plagiarized material and copy paste OPs.
Let me 'splain something to you boy, learning takes effort. If you aren't willing to apply the effort, don't ask for the links.
That is not how it works asshole. If YOU post it, YOU are responsible to provide the link. Ask a mod you turd brain.
Hey, why must it be a one way street? If you're so curious, look it up yourself, nitwit. If I could find corroborating links for this argument, I bet you could have as well. I don't need to ask a mod anything, since that rule only applies to plagiarized material and copy paste OPs.
Let me 'splain something to you boy, learning takes effort. If you aren't willing to apply the effort, don't ask for the links.
USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations
Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
It DOESN'T say: Copyright. "Copy & Paste" and tell the reader to go find the source.
Hey, why must it be a one way street? If you're so curious, look it up yourself, nitwit. If I could find corroborating links for this argument, I bet you could have as well. I don't need to ask a mod anything, since that rule only applies to plagiarized material and copy paste OPs.
Let me 'splain something to you boy, learning takes effort. If you aren't willing to apply the effort, don't ask for the links.
USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations
Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
It DOESN'T say: Copyright. "Copy & Paste" and tell the reader to go find the source.
Given that the list has been reproduced so many times over so many websites, the odds of finding the progenitor of the list are impossible. And unless a mod called whoever it was that posted the list down for breaking any rules, I'd wager no rules were broken.
I think you're using this as a distraction for shift focus away from the topic at hand. Care to address it? It's called doing research. I suggest you try it.
USMB Site Guidelines and Regulations
Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
It DOESN'T say: Copyright. "Copy & Paste" and tell the reader to go find the source.
Given that the list has been reproduced so many times over so many websites, the odds of finding the progenitor of the list are impossible. And unless a mod called whoever it was that posted the list down for breaking any rules, I'd wager no rules were broken.
I think you're using this as a distraction for shift focus away from the topic at hand. Care to address it? It's called doing research. I suggest you try it.
The burden of proof is on the poster, not on the reader. You right wing turds get away with breaking the rules all the time. THEN you whine like little children and come up with excuses when liberals when call you out.
The turd copied & pasted it, the next step is to copy and paste the website address, click on the 'link' button and add that to the post...
Obama's biggest contribution to the debt (in terms of policy) was his stimulus package of 787 billion which was achieved by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and job creating public works projects. For the next two years, 858 billion was added because of he extended Bush's tax cuts. He increased defense spending by 800 billion a year. What also contributed to the debt under Obama was the low federal income because of low income tax receipts from 2008 financial crisis(1).
Both Obama and Bush had to contend with higher mandatory spending for social security and Medicare. The Patient Control and ACA was designed to reduce the debt by 143 billion over 10 years but these savings didn't show up til late.(2)
US Debt by President
Here is what Obama did wrong: Extending the Bush tax cuts. The CBO estimates that the Bush tax cuts created 4.6 jobs for every million dollar cut. That is pathetic job growth(3) . Bush was stupid to introduce them and Obama was stupid to extend them. Reductions in the tax rate actually hurt the economy. Every dollar lost in tax revenue only creates 59 cents in growth.
Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?
What Obama did right: extending unemployment benefits. Not only did this provide relief to the Americans out of work, but it also helped the economy. 19 jobs were created per 1 million in benefits. Every 1 billion, creates 19,000 jobs. Not only that, but every dollar spent on these benefits created $ 1.73 in economic demand. This is because the unemployed spend every dollar they receive on basic essentials, such as food, clothing, and housing. It is estimated that every month these benefits were extended cost tax payers $10 billion. However, it also generated 17.3 billion in economic growth.. Without benefits during this time, demand drops./COLOR]
Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy
Obama so-so spending was his increase in defense spending which did both good and bad, depending on how you look at it.
Lets not forget that there was no spending growth under Obama from Bush's years. (4)
I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch
Also, 2.5x more jobs were created under Obama's 5 years than all of Bush's 8.
Obama?s Numbers, October Update
What's the bottom line? Republican economic policies only help the wealthy and government can and does create jobs :cool(5):
Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.
Facts are fun.
Facts are fun - which is why you should actually try them sometime!
Government spending is what collapsed the economy in the first place genius. The federal government (along with state and local) takes more than 60% of the middle classes income. How the fuck are people supposed to "spend in the market" when the government takes so much?
Come on chief - give us one of those really clever bat-shit crazy liberal answers. I eagerly await.
So again, are you okay with the fact that we are in 17 trillion in debt? Much of that is because of the Bush tax cuts. Less revenue means more BORROWING which means MORE debt. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Yes, I know facts are scary, but they do teach you things.
Looks like I'm the one schooling you, Billy. You said public debt under Reagan went up more than a trillion dollars, but if you adjust Obama's $6.6 trillion to 1980 dollars (a 3.43% average inflation rate), he spent $2.243 trillion, which roughly doubles that of Reagan's. I know math is scary, but it does teach you things.
Yes that's right. Spending has been high under Obama. That is due to both increased rates of spending in defense as well as record low revenue. However there is proof that the extension of unemployment benefits grew the economy by injecting so much money into it.
Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.
Revenue levels are at their lowest in history. We need to increase revenue levels to fund government expenses. We can do this without harm as long as the right people are taxed.
We've already proven that you're a liar Billy (and despite your devotion to Nazi propaganda - no, repeating this lie will not get people to believe it).
However, for the sake of argument (and for the sake of proving you're an idiot), lets pretend that revenues to the government are "at an all time low".
So then why isn't spending by the government "at an all time low"? See, that's how balancing a budget works dumb ass. If you bring in $100,000,000,000,000 then you don't spend even one penny more than $100,000,000,000,000. If you bring in $100 then you don't spend even one penny more than $100. You simply adjust your spending to your income. If you bring in less, then you spend less (even a 5 year old understands this Billy).
So thank you Billy for proving that Obama is a fuck'n moron and the Dumbocrats are fuck'n moron.
Given that the list has been reproduced so many times over so many websites, the odds of finding the progenitor of the list are impossible. And unless a mod called whoever it was that posted the list down for breaking any rules, I'd wager no rules were broken.
I think you're using this as a distraction for shift focus away from the topic at hand. Care to address it? It's called doing research. I suggest you try it.
The burden of proof is on the poster, not on the reader. You right wing turds get away with breaking the rules all the time. THEN you whine like little children and come up with excuses when liberals when call you out.
The turd copied & pasted it, the next step is to copy and paste the website address, click on the 'link' button and add that to the post...
I will do that on occasion, but the only reason you and other liberal dickheads want a link is so you can mock the website. Then I have to find a website that suits your agenda with the same info. Not gonna do it when you can usually copy the first sentence and google it if you are really interested in finding the link.
