As counter intuitive as it may seem, extending unemployment benefits really do...

[Billy000]

...create jobs.

See when people are unemployed, they are not spending money. They are contributing very little to economic demand. The benefits people receive provides economic stimulus that would not be there otherwise. This isn't zero sum either. Economic demand creates a ripple effect. The extension as part of Obama's stimulus package cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economic demand. That in turn created jobs. This is capitalism 101. As long it is the wealthiest of Americans who are taxed the most, the economy will still thrive.

Here is a non partisan source written by economists that further explains what I am saying:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

What the right is not understanding is that these benefits to not provide a cushy lifestyle. Money is still very tight. People are still incentivized to look for jobs. Unforunately, people cannot look for jobs that do not exist. We lost several millions of jobs from the 0'8 crisis. Those jobs are GONE. They didn't go to someone else. That in large part is why so many people have quit looking for jobs.

 

[Redfish]

...create jobs.

See when people are unemployed, they are not spending money. They contributing very little to economic demand. The benefits people receive provides economic stimulus that would not be there otherwise. This isn't zero sum either. Economic demand creates a ripple effect. The extension as part of Obama's stimulus package cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economy demand. That in turn created jobs. This is capitalism 101. As long it is the wealthiest of Americans who are taxed the most, the economy will still thrive.

Here is a non partisan source written by economists that further explains what I am saying:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Just one question: where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits?

Yes, unemployed people spend their unemployment benefit money, But if they were working they would spend more.

Its foolish to claim that paying people to do nothing is better than paying them for working.

 

[MACAULAY]

I am so sick of this socialist horseshit. Paying people to sit on their ass for 2 years is not helpful to the country...it only buys votes for Democrats...and increases the massive debt our children will have to pay off.

They need to be kicked off Unemployment and put on Welfare if they qualify. Obviously, we need to continue to help those who CANNOT help themselves...and let the ones who CAN help themselves start doing it. And there are plenty of them.

Obama claims we are into a Recovery, but 5 years into his term, he still needs Emergency Help for his Federal Plantation Voters.

Bull Shit.

 

[Billy000]

...create jobs.

See when people are unemployed, they are not spending money. They contributing very little to economic demand. The benefits people receive provides economic stimulus that would not be there otherwise. This isn't zero sum either. Economic demand creates a ripple effect. The extension as part of Obama's stimulus package cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economy demand. That in turn created jobs. This is capitalism 101. As long it is the wealthiest of Americans who are taxed the most, the economy will still thrive.

Here is a non partisan source written by economists that further explains what I am saying:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Just one question: where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits?

Yes, unemployed people spend their unemployment benefit money, But if they were working they would spend more.

Its foolish to claim that paying people to do nothing is better than paying them for working.

The extension as part of Obama's stimulus was paid for with taxes. On top of that, the package was paid for in part by a huge tax cut for the middle class.

I think people staying on unemployment really depends on their financial situation. Let's not forget that even though there was an extension, it is still TEMPORARY.

 

[Billy000]

I am so sick of this socialist horseshit. Paying people to sit on their ass for 2 years is not helpful to the country...it only buys votes for Democrats...and increases the massive debt our children will have to pay off.

They need to be kicked off Unemployment and put on Welfare if they qualify. Obviously, we need to continue to help those who CANNOT help themselves...and let the ones who CAN help themselves start doing it. And there are plenty of them.

Obama claims we are into a Recovery, but 5 years into his term, he still needs Emergency Help for his Federal Plantation Voters.

Bull Shit.

We are in a recovery. It's just a slow one. Even Obama admits that.

 

[boedicca]

Yeah, right.

 

[Billy000]

Yeah, right.

I am not in denial about this problem. You must understand however that people can't look for jobs that don't exist. Several millions were lost from the 2008 crisis.

 

[Redfish]

...create jobs.

See when people are unemployed, they are not spending money. They contributing very little to economic demand. The benefits people receive provides economic stimulus that would not be there otherwise. This isn't zero sum either. Economic demand creates a ripple effect. The extension as part of Obama's stimulus package cost tax payers 10 billion a month but it generated 16.7 billion a month in economy demand. That in turn created jobs. This is capitalism 101. As long it is the wealthiest of Americans who are taxed the most, the economy will still thrive.

Here is a non partisan source written by economists that further explains what I am saying:

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Just one question: where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits?

Yes, unemployed people spend their unemployment benefit money, But if they were working they would spend more.

Its foolish to claim that paying people to do nothing is better than paying them for working.

The extension as part of Obama's stimulus was paid for with taxes. On top of that, the package was paid for in part by a huge tax cut for the middle class.

I think people staying on unemployment really depends on their financial situation. Let's not forget that even though there was an extension, it is still TEMPORARY.

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt, obama borrowed that money from our grandchildren with no plan to ever pay it back.

It sounds like you want means testing for unemployment benefits, do your liberal friends know that?

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, right.

I am not in denial about this problem. You must understand however that people can't look for jobs that don't exist. Several millions were lost from the 2008 crisis.

Why are jobs so hard to find right now? Why are businesses not hiring?

any idea?

here are a couple
1. obamacare
2. thousands of new regulations on business
3. anti-business policy of the current administration
4. fear of what is coming next.

 

[Billy000]

Just one question: where does the money come from to pay unemployment benefits?

Yes, unemployed people spend their unemployment benefit money, But if they were working they would spend more.

Its foolish to claim that paying people to do nothing is better than paying them for working.

The extension as part of Obama's stimulus was paid for with taxes. On top of that, the package was paid for in part by a huge tax cut for the middle class.

I think people staying on unemployment really depends on their financial situation. Let's not forget that even though there was an extension, it is still TEMPORARY.

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt, obama borrowed that money from our grandchildren with no plan to ever pay it back.

It sounds like you want means testing for unemployment benefits, do your liberal friends know that?

That middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan. Are you really not going to even acknowledge it?

 

[Rozman]

So it is proven....

Nancy Pelosi and now Obama have been quoted as saying it's better for the economy to
have as many people as possible for as long as possible out of work and collecting checks because they have proven it is much better for the economy then people actually working....

Thanks for the clarifcation.

 

[williepete]

The Dane's held a similar discussion back in 2010. Their study of the long term unemployed opened a few eyes.

We'd be remiss if we didn't take note of their findings. Why reinvent the wheel, eh?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/why-denmark-is-shrinking-its-social-safety-net/?_r=0

“The cold fact is that the longer you are out of a job, the more difficult it is to get a job,” Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the Danish finance minister, said during an interview. “Four years of unemployment is a luxury we can no longer allow ourselves.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Redfish]

The extension as part of Obama's stimulus was paid for with taxes. On top of that, the package was paid for in part by a huge tax cut for the middle class.

I think people staying on unemployment really depends on their financial situation. Let's not forget that even though there was an extension, it is still TEMPORARY.

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt, obama borrowed that money from our grandchildren with no plan to ever pay it back.

It sounds like you want means testing for unemployment benefits, do your liberal friends know that?

That middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan. Are you really not going to even acknowledge it?

If you are talking about the Bush/Obama tax cut, it cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes.

If you are talking about the 2% reduction in FICA withholding, that was a stupid trick that eventually has to be paid for.

or is there some other tax cut?

 

[Rozman]

No wonder why so many people are staying home and not bothering to go to work.
They are the driving force behind Obama's economic recovery policy.

 

[Billy000]

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt, obama borrowed that money from our grandchildren with no plan to ever pay it back.

It sounds like you want means testing for unemployment benefits, do your liberal friends know that?

That middle class tax cut was the biggest since Reagan. Are you really not going to even acknowledge it?

If you are talking about the Bush/Obama tax cut, it cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes.

If you are talking about the 2% reduction in FICA withholding, that was a stupid trick that eventually has to be paid for.

or is there some other tax cut?

I am referring to the tax cut that helped pay for the 787 billion stimulus package. Tax cutting is spending. Less revenue means more government borrowing.

 

[Londoner]

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt

Mr. Redfish.

Most investments have a debt-side and a payoff. It's hard to have these kinds of discussions without a statistical analysis of the costs/benefits. As a result both sides repeat talking points ad infinitum without contributing actual information.

One question for you is: have any government investments (requiring debt) paid off? The question for the Left is: have any government investments been wasteful? The answer in both cases, I humbly submit, is yes. The danger, IMHO, comes in not seeing this as a complicated matter. For instance, Rush Limbaugh has convinced a generation of Americans that no government investment has ever paid off. I submit that this is an absurd simplification... which is designed for low information voters who have never studied actual data.

During the Heart of the Great Depression, FDR employed 20,000 otherwise jobless Americans in the construction of the Hoover Dam. This not only saved many great American Families who would have otherwise been destroyed by an economy that didn't have enough jobs for the jobless, but it allowed our nation to fully settle the Southwest and create thriving cities (profit centers). In this case the payoff was, I humbly submit, worth the debt. You might also look at the debt associated with the Grand Coulee Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Triborough Bridge, the Fort Beck Dam, LaGuardia Airport and the massive Public Works projects that extended water and energy to the rural south. These kinds of investments have a real upside, and they've put millions of people to work who, in turn, have pumped millions of dollars into local economies so that our struggling small businesses could maintain profit margins and keep people employed.

Government spending on war manufacturing was 110% of GDP during WWII. On Republican logic, this should have crippled us. But this deficit spending - by employing millions of Americans inside the war manufacturing machine and giving them the power to consume on main street - initiated a decades long consumer boom that is almost w/o precedent. This incredible consumer-demand gave capitalists an incentive to innovate/invest (because they knew that there were millions of people who could and would buy what they produced). Study the job growth that occurred after we created the war debt, the 50s and 60s, when we were reaping the benefits of the war spending (which left us with a massive manufacturing infrastructure).

Redfish, You get this right? The deficit spending during the war created a manufacturing infrastructure that was effectively converted to peacetime domestic manufacturing - and the jobs produced by this manufacturing machine meant consumers were financially solvent enough to pour money into main street businesses, thus resulting in higher tax revenues to pay down the war debt (which is exactly what happened). We could have built the bombs and dropped them in the ocean, and the result would have been the same: a massive manufacturing infrastructure that employed a massive number of people who, as a direct result, had money to spend on main street, which meant main street could employ even more people, which lead to even more consumer demand, which allowed businesses to hire even more people. This is why the 50s - when the New Deal and Liberal economic reforms were fully in control - was the golden age of capitalism. Consumers had actual money to buy things from our capitalists, unlike the age of Reagan, when we fabricated consumer demand using credit cards and other fancy debt vehicles.

Another thing happened in the 50s: one of our greatest Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, put a truly massive army of hard working Americans to work building our national interstate system. This had an almost a immeasurable upside for our capitalist class, who could now efficiently expand their markets to new destinations. The new highway system created many thriving cities who now had the benefit of much cheaper goods (see shipping efficiency). I'm asking you to evaluate the multiplier effect of this kind of spending before you post such simple minded stuff, however well meaning.

Redfish, I agree with you on many points. As a nation we definitely overestimated the power of government to do big things, and, as a result, we have saddled future generations with major problems. Government, having been captured by big oil in 1980, over invested in the infrastructure of petroleum. And now we do not have the means to efficiently move to a petroleum-scarce energy infrastructure. It gets worse. We also thought that our bumbling incompetent government could [wait for it] rebuild whole Arab nations into shining American democracies. The costs of this trust-in-government will undoubtedly bankrupt future generations of Americans, not least because of the problems which lie in wait from our deepening entanglements in this terrible region.

Listen, you've fully ingested the talking points of your party, yet, characteristic of your talk radio brethren, you have zero data or understanding of which government investments reap benefits and which have been pure waste. You believe that everything government does is wasteful spending, and everything the private sector does is investment. You might study the lobbying system where corporations beg government for billions of dollars a year in subsidies.

Have you ever researched the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon & Space Programs? (i.e., government spending)

Do you know how many domestic industries depend on that satellite technology? - brought to you by taxation and government spending. Specifically, do you know how much private sector profits have been reaped from this kind of government spending in technology? Do you know how much government spending has poured into, say, Boeing? - and its multiplier effect in commercial aviation? You don't know any of this stuff because you get your information from a political propaganda machine. This stuff is on the public record. Please study it before you recycle talking points that don't move the debate forward 1 cm.

After you realize the amount of government money that flows into private sector investments (and the profit it enables), perhaps you'll come back to this forum with something more enlightening and complicated than your tired talking points.

 

[jasonnfree]

The so-called stimulus increased the national debt

Mr. Redfish.

Most investments have a debt-side and a payoff. It's hard to have these kinds of discussions without a statistical analysis of the costs/benefits. As a result both sides repeat talking points ad infinitum without contributing actual information.

One question for you is: have any government investments (requiring debt) paid off? The question for the Left is: have any government investments been wasteful? The answer in both cases, I humbly submit, is yes. The danger, IMHO, comes in not seeing this as a complicated matter. For instance, Rush Limbaugh has convinced a generation of Americans that no government investment has ever paid off. I submit that this is an absurd simplification... which is designed for low information voters who have never studied actual data.

During the Heart of the Great Depression, FDR employed 20,000 otherwise jobless Americans in the construction of the Hoover Dam. This not only saved many great American Families who would have otherwise been destroyed by an economy that didn't have enough jobs for the jobless, but it allowed our nation to fully settle the Southwest and create thriving cities (profit centers). In this case the payoff was, I humbly submit, arguably worth the debt. You might also look at the debt associated with the Grand Coulee Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Triborough Bridge, the Fort Beck Dam, LaGuardia Airport and the massive Public Works projects that extended water and energy to the rural south. These kinds of investments have a real upside, and they've put millions of people to work who, in turn, have pumped millions of dollars into local economies so that our struggling small businesses could maintain profit margins and keep people employed.

Government spending on war manufacturing was 110% of GDP during WWII. On Republican logic, this should have crippled us. But this deficit spending - by employing millions of Americans inside the war manufacturing machine and giving them the power to consume on main street - initiated a decades long consumer boom that has never been seen since. This incredible consumer-demand gave capitalists the incentive to invest, innovate and add jobs (because they knew that there were millions of people who could and would buy what they produced). Study the economic and job growth that occurred after we created the war debt, the 50s and 60s, when we were repeaing the benefits of the war spending[/B] (which left us with a massive manufacturing infrastructure).

Redfish, You get this right? The deficit spending during the war created a manufacturing infrastructure that was effectively converted to peacetime domestic manufacturing - and the jobs produced by this manufacturing machine meant consumers were financially solvent enough to pour money into main street businesses, thus resulting in higher tax revenues to pay down the war debt (which is exactly what happened). We could have built the bombs and dropped them in the ocean, and the result would have been the same: a massive manufacturing infrastructure that employed a massive number of people who, as a direct result, had money to spend on main street, which meant main street could employ even more people, which lead to even more consumer demand, which allowed businesses to hire even more people. This is why the 50s - when the New Deal and Liberal economic reforms were fully in control - was the golden age of capitalism. Consumers had actual money to buy things from our capitalists, unlike the age of Reagan, when we fabricated consumer demand using credit cards and other fancy debt vehicles.

Another thing happened in the 50s: one of our greatest Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, put a truly massive army of hard working Americans to work building our national interstate system. This had an almost a immeasurable upside for our capitalist class, who could now efficiently expand their markets to new/further destination. The new highway system created many thriving cities who now had the benefit of much cheaper goods (see shipping efficiency). I'm asking you to evaluate the multiplier effect of this kind of spending before you post such simple minded stuff, however well meaning.

Redfish, I agree with you on many points. As a nation we definitely overestimated the power of government to do big things, and, as a result, we have saddled future generations with major problems. Government, having been captured by big oil in 1980, over invested in the infrastructure of petroleum. And now we do not have the means to efficiently move to a petroleum-scarce energy infrastructure. It gets worse. We also thought that our bumbling incompetent government could [wait for it] rebuild whole Arab nations into shining American democracies. The costs of this trust-in-government will undoubtedly bankrupt future generations of Americans, not least because of the problems which lie in wait from our deepening entanglements in this terrible region.

Listen, you've fully ingested the talking points of your party, yet, characteristic of your talk radio brethren, you have zero data or understanding of which government investments reap benefits and which have been pure waste. You believe that everything government does is wasteful spending, and everything the private sector does is investment. You might study the lobbying system where corporations beg government for billions of dollars a year in subsidies.

Have you ever researched the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon & Space Programs - i.e., government spending? Specifically, do you know how much private sector profits have been reaped from massive government spending in technology? Do you know how much government spending poured into Boeing? - and it's multiplier effect in commercial aviation?

After you realize the amount of government money that flows into private sector investments (and the profit it enables), perhaps you'll come back to this forum with something more enlightening and complicated than your tired talking points.

Being born before WW2 ended means I've talked to a lot of working class old timers that suffered through the big depression. They all liked FDR policies such as putting people to work through programs like WPA. It gave the people something positive to do, gave them spending money which helped the economy, and it gave people some self respect at having a job and also gave them hope.

 

[Londoner]

Being born before WW2 ended means I've talked to a lot of working class old timers that suffered through the big depression. They all liked FDR policies such as putting people to work through programs like WPA. It gave the people something positive to do, gave them spending money which helped the economy, and it gave people some self respect at having a job and also gave them hope.

Reagan's father and brother received government jobs during the Great Depression. In his little known autobiography "Where's The Rest of Me?", Ronald Reagan credits FDR's work-programs with saving his family. This is partly why he campaigned for Truman.

 

[Norman]

Paying people not to work creates jobs?


Well, the added demand is there, but so is the added incentive to not to look for jobs. Fact is, the government can create endless demand at their whim so if you pay the unemployed, you could just as easily have paid to someone else. In other words there is no gain, only pain, once you consider the opportunity cost. Paying Nasa engineers at least gets you something.

Besides that the unemployed are more likely to SPEND not invest their money which is not good for the long term.

 

[Billy000]

Paying people not to work creates jobs?


Well, the added demand is there, but so is the added incentive to not to look for jobs. Fact is, the government can create endless demand at their whim so if you pay the unemployed, you could just as easily have paid to someone else. In other words there is no gain, only pain, once you consider the opportunity cost. Paying Nasa engineers at least gets you something.

Besides that the unemployed are more likely to SPEND not invest their money which is not good for the long term.

Unemployed benefits is barely enough to support someone who is unemployed. Studies show that people on this insurance are not discouraged from looking for jobs. These benefits are also still temporary.