Expiring unemployment: The next big hit to the economy?

[Flaylo]

The next big hit to the economy? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Government benefits that go to poorer Americans, like unemployment insurance, tend to boost consumer spending more than other kinds of stimulus, because people living paycheck to paycheck have little choice but to spend the money, rather than saving it. So the disappearance of jobless benefits will take money out of circulation when economic growth is seeking to gain some traction.Indeed, economists say that the withdrawal of jobless benefits will create a major ripple effect on growth as a whole. Consumer spending accounts for around 60-70 percent of U.S. economic activity, economists say. But with so many Americans having lost wealth in the housing bust, spending has been tepid for a while, preventing the recovery from gaining any momentum. Now, the end of the extended benefits will likely soon put a further crimp in spending.

And that, of course, leaves out the role the benefits play on an individual level, providing a crucial lifeline to millions of struggling Americans.

On the bright side, some studies have shown that when people face the loss of their benefits, they're more likely to look for a job, and to look more aggressively. So the loss of benefits could motivate some job-seekers. But most economists appear to agree that jobless benefits have a larger stimulative impact--meaning, in other words, that the benefits likely lead to more jobs, rather than fewer.

Repugs? I was right, the housing bubble, not government overspending has hurt the economy more than anything. For those rightwingers who say our social welfare system is too generous they need to come to Europe our systems look draconian compared to theirs. More importantly, taking away social welfare help will take money out of the economy and all those markets and businesses that depended on such money will go to crap and shat will just get worst. Repug solutions, lol, the recipe to disaster.

 

[shintao]

The next big hit to the economy? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Government benefits that go to poorer Americans, like unemployment insurance, tend to boost consumer spending more than other kinds of stimulus, because people living paycheck to paycheck have little choice but to spend the money, rather than saving it. So the disappearance of jobless benefits will take money out of circulation when economic growth is seeking to gain some traction.Indeed, economists say that the withdrawal of jobless benefits will create a major ripple effect on growth as a whole. Consumer spending accounts for around 60-70 percent of U.S. economic activity, economists say. But with so many Americans having lost wealth in the housing bust, spending has been tepid for a while, preventing the recovery from gaining any momentum. Now, the end of the extended benefits will likely soon put a further crimp in spending.

And that, of course, leaves out the role the benefits play on an individual level, providing a crucial lifeline to millions of struggling Americans.

On the bright side, some studies have shown that when people face the loss of their benefits, they're more likely to look for a job, and to look more aggressively. So the loss of benefits could motivate some job-seekers. But most economists appear to agree that jobless benefits have a larger stimulative impact--meaning, in other words, that the benefits likely lead to more jobs, rather than fewer.

Repugs? I was right, the housing bubble, not government overspending has hurt the economy more than anything. For those rightwingers who say our social welfare system is too generous they need to come to Europe our systems look draconian compared to theirs. More importantly, taking away social welfare help will take money out of the economy and all those markets and businesses that depended on such money will go to crap and shat will just get worst. Repug solutions, lol, the recipe to disaster.

And the rightwing loons keep saying that government can't create or maintain jobs. Fools!

 

[Flaylo]

The next big hit to the economy? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Government benefits that go to poorer Americans, like unemployment insurance, tend to boost consumer spending more than other kinds of stimulus, because people living paycheck to paycheck have little choice but to spend the money, rather than saving it. So the disappearance of jobless benefits will take money out of circulation when economic growth is seeking to gain some traction.Indeed, economists say that the withdrawal of jobless benefits will create a major ripple effect on growth as a whole. Consumer spending accounts for around 60-70 percent of U.S. economic activity, economists say. But with so many Americans having lost wealth in the housing bust, spending has been tepid for a while, preventing the recovery from gaining any momentum. Now, the end of the extended benefits will likely soon put a further crimp in spending.

And that, of course, leaves out the role the benefits play on an individual level, providing a crucial lifeline to millions of struggling Americans.

On the bright side, some studies have shown that when people face the loss of their benefits, they're more likely to look for a job, and to look more aggressively. So the loss of benefits could motivate some job-seekers. But most economists appear to agree that jobless benefits have a larger stimulative impact--meaning, in other words, that the benefits likely lead to more jobs, rather than fewer.

Repugs? I was right, the housing bubble, not government overspending has hurt the economy more than anything. For those rightwingers who say our social welfare system is too generous they need to come to Europe our systems look draconian compared to theirs. More importantly, taking away social welfare help will take money out of the economy and all those markets and businesses that depended on such money will go to crap and shat will just get worst. Repug solutions, lol, the recipe to disaster.

And the rightwing loons keep saying that government can't create or maintain jobs. Fools!

They're dumb people, those small businesses and local business in areas where the poor are at will take a huge hit if social welfare is cut, yet the GOP claims that their plan aims to help small businesses, well poor people take that money they are given to buy food and ggods they need to survive and they spend it at those small local businesses, so actually social welfare puts more money back into the system than those rich morons who get tax cuts and hoard the money and or put it in overseas accounts and pay workers overseas.

 

[Flaylo]

The Repugs have no answers, they go silent when hit with facking facts.

 

[ShackledNation]

You are right, the housing bubble did cause this mess. And the housing bubble was caused by the government. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy pumped a ton of dollars into the economy. This stimulated investment and spending. All of this money went into housing, but it was unsustainable. When you increase the supply of money, you lower its price. The price of money is defined as purchasing power. So when you create more money, you cause prices to rise. Due to huge incentives to buying a home (such as $5000 tax credits, sub-prime mortgages, flexible interest rates, massive encouragement by government politicians, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) the money was funneled into the housing market. Prices rose in this market, possible because of the creation of money. But soon it was apparent that consumers did not have the actual wealth to purchase all these homes. The market was not providing what people actually wanted. It collapsed, bringing down the economy that had so heavily invested in the inflationary market.

The recession is necessary to reallocate the resources that were malinvested during the boom period. More government spending--that is draining resources from the productive sector and spending them on arbitrary projects--will not solve anything. We don't need a stimulus; we should not want to stimulate what should now be obvious to everyone as an unsustainable economy. We need restructuring, and that is what a recession brings.

And hate to break it to you, but spending does not drive economic growth. Saving does. I suspect the reason nobody is replying to this post is because it is full of so many errors it would take ages to correct them all. Here is the short list of things you need to know:

1. The creation of money is behind the boom-and-bust cycle, and caused the most reason housing bubble.
2. Government encouraged investment into housing, and subsidized losses.
3. Government spending drains resources from the productive sector and transfers them to arbitrary political projects.
4. Savings, not spending, creates wealth. You cannot spend money on goods unless the goods have already been created.
5. Recessions are necessary to correct the misallocation of resources and malinvestments that occurred during a bubble economy.
6. I don't know what studies you are talking about, but unemployment benefits function to keep people dependent on government rather than finding jobs. You quoted a yahoo news BLOG that did not cite its own sources.
7. Reducing jobless benefits does not take money out of circulation if the money is not taxed away in the first place.
8. The production structure of the economy is not 1 dimensional. It is made up of capital intensive goods (like research, technology development) and consumer-intensive goods (the final product). It is capital goods that create growth and grow the economy. These goods are financed by savings.

 

[Avorysuds]

Sooo, trillions spent, welfare taking over, foodstamps at record highs and Government all up in Healthcares shit and we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression... What else do you guys need before the country can at least stop getting worse? Oh and more war than we had under Bush...

You seem to push this idea that "Liberals" have not gotten their way, even if it was not 100% their way it was about 80%... 80% and things are getting worse, well, things are getting worse quicker now...

Oh and for the record, Progressive liberals are no different than the Neocons under Bush, litearlly no different.

 

[Zander]

Following Flaylo's twisted logic, unemployment is........ good!! Just think of the stimulative power of millions more unemployed people!! Woo Hoo!!!

 

[California Girl]

Fail&Won'tGo now claims he writes for yahoo? Interesting.

 

[California Girl]

You are right, the housing bubble did cause this mess. And the housing bubble was caused by the government. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy pumped a ton of dollars into the economy. This stimulated investment and spending. All of this money went into housing, but it was unsustainable. When you increase the supply of money, you lower its price. The price of money is defined as purchasing power. So when you create more money, you cause prices to rise. Due to huge incentives to buying a home (such as $5000 tax credits, sub-prime mortgages, flexible interest rates, massive encouragement by government politicians, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) the money was funneled into the housing market. Prices rose in this market, possible because of the creation of money. But soon it was apparent that consumers did not have the actual wealth to purchase all these homes. The market was not providing what people actually wanted. It collapsed, bringing down the economy that had so heavily invested in the inflationary market.

The recession is necessary to reallocate the resources that were malinvested during the boom period. More government spending--that is draining resources from the productive sector and spending them on arbitrary projects--will not solve anything. We don't need a stimulus; we should not want to stimulate what should now be obvious to everyone as an unsustainable economy. We need restructuring, and that is what a recession brings.

And hate to break it to you, but spending does not drive economic growth. Saving does. I suspect the reason nobody is replying to this post is because it is full of so many errors it would take ages to correct them all. Here is the short list of things you need to know:

1. The creation of money is behind the boom-and-bust cycle, and caused the most reason housing bubble.
2. Government encouraged investment into housing, and subsidized losses.
3. Government spending drains resources from the productive sector and transfers them to arbitrary political projects.
4. Savings, not spending, creates wealth. You cannot spend money on goods unless the goods have already been created.
5. Recessions are necessary to correct the misallocation of resources and malinvestments that occurred during a bubble economy.
6. I don't know what studies you are talking about, but unemployment benefits function to keep people dependent on government rather than finding jobs. You quoted a yahoo news BLOG that did not cite its own sources.
7. Reducing jobless benefits does not take money out of circulation if the money is not taxed away in the first place.
8. The production structure of the economy is not 1 dimensional. It is made up of capital intensive goods (like research, technology development) and consumer-intensive goods (the final product). It is capital goods that create growth and grow the economy. These goods are financed by savings.

He's not right. In fact, he's wrong. Again.

There was not one bubble that burst and collapsed our economy. There were a whole bunch.... bubble that non-partisan economists had been warning about for years.... and it was that evil Republican, George W Bush, that tried to lessen the impact of a housing collapse.... and it was the nice Democrats who call him a fear monger, liar, and mocked his attempts to drag the likes of Freddie and Fanny into line.

They laughed. And Americans cried.

 

[Flaylo]

When rightwingers can't answer with facts they respond with ad-hominems and twist your arguments.


§ Taking away social welfare takes money out of the economy and hurts small businesses because consumer spending contributes to the economy, when you lower that down its counterproductive because businesses, especially small businesses will fail and struggle and will cause loss of jobs. Unemployed people do spend their money on goods like food and clothing and they have to buy it from some where, that money they receive helps businesses. I don't advocate for unemployment to help small businesses, that's distorting my position, obviously people who have jobs will spend more and that should be the ideal, my position is that taking away social welfare assistance isn't going to help businesses. Unemployment will at least go back into the economy more likely.


- The housing bubble has facked up the economy, not massive government overspending, stop the facking lies.

 

[Flaylo]

You are right, the housing bubble did cause this mess. And the housing bubble was caused by the government. The Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy pumped a ton of dollars into the economy. This stimulated investment and spending. All of this money went into housing, but it was unsustainable. When you increase the supply of money, you lower its price. The price of money is defined as purchasing power. So when you create more money, you cause prices to rise. Due to huge incentives to buying a home (such as $5000 tax credits, sub-prime mortgages, flexible interest rates, massive encouragement by government politicians, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) the money was funneled into the housing market. Prices rose in this market, possible because of the creation of money. But soon it was apparent that consumers did not have the actual wealth to purchase all these homes. The market was not providing what people actually wanted. It collapsed, bringing down the economy that had so heavily invested in the inflationary market.

The recession is necessary to reallocate the resources that were malinvested during the boom period. More government spending--that is draining resources from the productive sector and spending them on arbitrary projects--will not solve anything. We don't need a stimulus; we should not want to stimulate what should now be obvious to everyone as an unsustainable economy. We need restructuring, and that is what a recession brings.

And hate to break it to you, but spending does not drive economic growth. Saving does. I suspect the reason nobody is replying to this post is because it is full of so many errors it would take ages to correct them all. Here is the short list of things you need to know:

1. The creation of money is behind the boom-and-bust cycle, and caused the most reason housing bubble.
2. Government encouraged investment into housing, and subsidized losses.
3. Government spending drains resources from the productive sector and transfers them to arbitrary political projects.
4. Savings, not spending, creates wealth. You cannot spend money on goods unless the goods have already been created.
5. Recessions are necessary to correct the misallocation of resources and malinvestments that occurred during a bubble economy.
6. I don't know what studies you are talking about, but unemployment benefits function to keep people dependent on government rather than finding jobs. You quoted a yahoo news BLOG that did not cite its own sources.
7. Reducing jobless benefits does not take money out of circulation if the money is not taxed away in the first place.
8. The production structure of the economy is not 1 dimensional. It is made up of capital intensive goods (like research, technology development) and consumer-intensive goods (the final product). It is capital goods that create growth and grow the economy. These goods are financed by savings.

He's not right. In fact, he's wrong. Again.

There was not one bubble that burst and collapsed our economy. There were a whole bunch.... bubble that non-partisan economists had been warning about for years.... and it was that evil Republican, George W Bush, that tried to lessen the impact of a housing collapse.... and it was the nice Democrats who call him a fear monger, liar, and mocked his attempts to drag the likes of Freddie and Fanny into line.

They laughed. And Americans cried.

Bush tried lessening the housing collapse? More unsubstantiated bullshat from Ogre Girl, the housing bubble collapse was the biggest because most people's net worth are tied up in their homes, when that bubble burst people, mostly the middleclass lost shat loads of money off the bat. Most small business owners use their homes as collateral for taking out loans to invest and expand their businesses with that drop in value they're reluctant and in most cases cannot take out loans. That housing bubble collapse brought near destruction to banks which in turn facked up the economy. taxpayer dollars bailed out the idiot banks for their own failure and those dipshats took part of that money and used it as bonus money and your facking party wants to give the same people tax cuts.

 

[Rozman]

I think I remember this now...another Nancy Pelosi gem.
She said something like the more people unemployed the better it was for the country.
The more people collecting unemployment benefits the better it was for the economy....
Just like the classic Pelosi jewel.
We need to pass the health care bill in order to see what's in it.....

Sweet.

 

[ShackledNation]

When rightwingers can't answer with facts they respond with ad-hominems and twist your arguments.


§ Taking away social welfare takes money out of the economy and hurts small businesses because consumer spending contributes to the economy, when you lower that down its counterproductive because businesses, especially small businesses will fail and struggle and will cause loss of jobs. Unemployed people do spend their money on goods like food and clothing and they have to buy it from some where, that money they receive helps businesses. I don't advocate for unemployment to help small businesses, that's distorting my position, obviously people who have jobs will spend more and that should be the ideal, my position is that taking away social welfare assistance isn't going to help businesses. Unemployment will at least go back into the economy more likely.


- The housing bubble has facked up the economy, not massive government overspending, stop the facking lies.

Please provide evidence that eliminating welfare would reduce consumer spending. People on welfare on not spending in addition to others, they are spending at the expense of others, aka taxpayers. There is no increase in consumer spending at all.

Welfarism makes people dependent on government. People are given money to not have a job. Before government created welfare programs, civil society provided massive welfare benefits through private charity. Now, though some of that remains, the attitude has shifted to "forget the poor, let the government do it." We have degenerated morally, the poor are made dependent on government, and guess what: There is still unemployment. If welfare really helped people, explain to me why poverty seems so persistent in the places with the most welfare? San Francisco has some of the highest, if not the highest, welfare spending per capita, yet it has huge homeless problems.

 

[California Girl]

I think I remember this now...another Nancy Pelosi gem.
She said something like the more people unemployed the better it was for the country.
The more people collecting unemployment benefits the better it was for the economy....
Just like the classic Pelosi jewel.
We need to pass the health care bill in order to see what's in it.....

Sweet.

Pelosi is a supporter of the Cloward/Piven strategy. Therefore, to her, the more unemployed people there are, the better - for Democrats. Power is all they are interested in. They do not have the best interests of Americans at heart.