OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[Richard-H]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

So will a decrease in unemployment cause an increase in unemployment?

Stopping unemployment insurance will cause an increase in unemployment.

It's really hard to believe that you could be that stupid...you just get a kick out of jerking people around don't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

On a basic level it's true that giving people money will stimulate the economy as people will go out and spend that money. The problem is that by paying people not to work, you're not creating any wealth. You're just redistributing it by taking away from the people who work and giving that money to the people who don't.

Where is the gov't getting the money to give to people to go out and spend?
We have 3 examples of this kind of thinking. Every one of them was a failure. Why do Dems insist on repeating failed policies somehow hoping this time it will be different?

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

 

[The Rabbi]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

So will a decrease in unemployment cause an increase in unemployment?

Stopping unemployment insurance will cause an increase in unemployment.

It's really hard to believe that you could be that stupid...you just get a kick out of jerking people around don't you?

BEcause people will choose to sit around and starve rather than take any paying job they can get?
Are you this illiterate in real life or just a troll?

 

[ladyliberal]

When in your adult life have you ever heard the stupid, asinine statement that "Unemployment stimulates the economy"?

Multiple times in this thread (allowing for paraphrasing), zero times from the administration.

Zero?

You're a moron and a liar but keep Fluffing Obama

Vulgarity is not a substitute for either logic or facts. When did the administration say "Unemployment stimulates the economy"?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

 

[Full-Auto]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

December 8, 2010 and it only took dropping a few million from the roles.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Where is the gov't getting the money to give to people to go out and spend?
We have 3 examples of this kind of thinking. Every one of them was a failure. Why do Dems insist on repeating failed policies somehow hoping this time it will be different?

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

If companies had enough money (before paying for unemployment) and plans to invest in "new products" and "hire more workers", why would they have laid workers off to begin with?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So FDR's average 20% unemployment for 7 years stimulated the Great Depression economy?

Really?

 

[ladyliberal]

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

You replied so quickly to the post that you didn't manage to present any analysis to rebut Moody's. Here's their brief explanation for your convenience:

The broader macroeconomic benefit of emergency UI is straightforward, as unemployed workers are likely to spend any benefits they receive quickly. This creates critical demand for goods and services, particularly during the holiday shopping season. There are downsides to emergency UI: Some beneficiaries are surely taking advantage of the system, but with five unemployed workers for every current job opening (compared with fewer than two in normal times), most jobless workers and their families need the benefits.

Among the least economically effective fiscal policies being considered are the lower marginal personal tax rates for higher-income households. In normal times, allowing those tax rates to rise back to their 1990s levels would have little macroeconomic impact. The rates would rise by only a small increment and would still be relatively low by historical standards. Any negative supply-side effects would likely be modest.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How does "unemployment insurance" stimulate the economy?
This ought to be good.

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's pretty interesting that everyone seems to just leave out the word "insurance" from this discussion.

Unemployment doesn't stimulate the economy.

Unemployment Insurance does.

Simple fact.

So will a decrease in unemployment cause an increase in unemployment?

Stopping unemployment insurance will cause an increase in unemployment.

It's really hard to believe that you could be that stupid...you just get a kick out of jerking people around don't you?

Wait a fucking second

You assholes are saying that unemployment (insurance) stimulates the economy

I'm saying that a decrease in people on unemployment should therefore hurt the economy and cause an increase in unemployment

And you're arguing with me?

Do you even know what you're saying?

 

[paulitician]

Democrat Dummies. They craaazy. How convenient, High Unemployment is suddenly a 'good' thing now. I gotta remember this hilarious stuff.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

If companies had enough money (before paying for unemployment) and plans to invest in "new products" and "hire more workers", why would they have laid workers off to begin with?

That's a dodge. Companies only have so much money at any given time. They must allocate resources. Allocating resources to unproductive uses is, well, unproductive.

 

[The Rabbi]

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

You replied so quickly to the post that you didn't manage to present any analysis to rebut Moody's. Here's their brief explanation for your convenience:

The broader macroeconomic benefit of emergency UI is straightforward, as unemployed workers are likely to spend any benefits they receive quickly. This creates critical demand for goods and services, particularly during the holiday shopping season. There are downsides to emergency UI: Some beneficiaries are surely taking advantage of the system, but with five unemployed workers for every current job opening (compared with fewer than two in normal times), most jobless workers and their families need the benefits.

Among the least economically effective fiscal policies being considered are the lower marginal personal tax rates for higher-income households. In normal times, allowing those tax rates to rise back to their 1990s levels would have little macroeconomic impact. The rates would rise by only a small increment and would still be relatively low by historical standards. Any negative supply-side effects would likely be modest.

You understand you are not quoting "Moody's", right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Links have been provided.

Here's one from that far-left organization Moody's.
U.S. Macro Outlook: Compromise Boosts Stimulus

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

Please name three economists who support this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are really scaring me that they are proudly insisting they are this totally fucking brain dead

You people are fucking tools, you see that right? You're being played for suckers and pasties

 

[Richard-H]

Where is the gov't getting the money to give to people to go out and spend?
We have 3 examples of this kind of thinking. Every one of them was a failure. Why do Dems insist on repeating failed policies somehow hoping this time it will be different?

Unemployment Insurance comes from the companies that lay the workers off, and the taxes those workers paid while they were employed.

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

Yes, it would be better if companies would invest in new products, processes and hiring more people - but they don't. That's the problem.

There has never been a shortage of investment capital. Neither taxes nor the governement deficit have caused such a shortage.

The real problem is that investors expectations for security and profit have become so high that they've clamped down on investment - they will take no risk.

Our problem is with the millionaires and as long as they refuse to be economic leaders, which means accepting risk and losses, we we need a government that provides for the needy. The millionaires can eliminate the need for government social safety system any time they want.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So money that a company has must go to unemployed idle workers who are not productive, and money the gov't must tax or borrow (because they dont keep a stash of money marked "insurance") also goes to unemployed idle workers. And this is supposed to stimulate the economy how?
Wouldn't it be better if companies could keep that money and invest it in new products or processes, hiring more workers?

Geezus Aitch, people here have the economic literacy of a melon.

If companies had enough money (before paying for unemployment) and plans to invest in "new products" and "hire more workers", why would they have laid workers off to begin with?

That's a dodge. Companies only have so much money at any given time. They must allocate resources. Allocating resources to unproductive uses is, well, unproductive.

That's my point.

Which costs a company more? To pay the UI for employees they've fired, or to R&D new products, and "hire people"?

 

[Full-Auto]

Probably you think you have provided proof. Right?

I didn't provide "proof". There's no such thing as "proof" when it comes to this.

I provided the opinion of noted economists who agree with it.

Feel free to provide some other economist's refutations.

Please name three economists who support this.

No need, I trashed that stuff in my post.