Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Wry Catcher]

It's obvious, the callous conservatives won't awaken until ...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

...they find themselves the victims, when it is too late.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."

No one is putting union members in prison, numskull.

LOL, you really are dense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!"

The myth of the 'compassionate conservative,' an oxymoron if there ever was one.

 

[Dad2three]

Walker, Republican Governors & legislators, using the euphemism "right to work".

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

 

[Dad2three]

I’m glad to see you going to support the common man, the creative and productive, against those who produce nothing but urine, feces.

The common man, the wage slave, is the one who does the creativity and productivity in this country.


The wealthy are the ones who produce nothing, they only order other people to produce it.


And then pay them next to nothing but taking credit for everything.

========

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Sure Bubba, sure, I "believe you"...

 

[Dad2three]

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

"No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's."

UPDATE YOUR FUKKN TALKING POINTS DUMBASS


Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right to work is usually voted in by the people either by vote or voting in a representative that promises to make their state a right-to-work state. States are going broke with these unions. Much like the private sector, they are unaffordable.

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

 

[Dad2three]

Bullshit. The wages and benefits paid to union members strengthen the economy; dollars earned circulate through the economy. We are a consumer driven economy, notwithstanding what Limbaugh or Hannity told you..

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

Got it, YOU choose to "believe" the effects of SNAP and extending unemployment during Dubya's great recession WEREN'T multiplied BECAUSE CATO/Heritage used studies NOT using recession numbers, but during a static period, AND refuse to recognize Dubya's own CBO projection from 2008, McSames/Mitten's economic adviser AND IMF's look at the stimulative effects of "multipliers" (looking back from 2010)


That sum it up Bubs, you "believe"?


Hint IF the poor/unemployed didn't have money, SNAP AND U/E benefits WOULD AND DID HELP THE ECONOMY. Unlike Dubya's $4 trillion tax cuts which the US lost over 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years!


Soup kitchens spend as much as SNAP? LOL

REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION WHERE OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE LINED UP FOR THE 50,000 MC'D'S JOBS BUBBA?? Damn "lazy" basterds right? lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

"No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's."

UPDATE YOUR FUKKN TALKING POINTS DUMBASS


Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force

From one of your very own, the Central Communist News network:

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

In most of Europe, women's participation in the labor market is on the rise. Not only do mothers have paid leave in Europe, but many fathers do too, Swaim said. Also, childcare is more affordable there.

"Mothers in the U.S. have a harder time combining career and family, especially when the children are young," Swain said.

Also, the U.S. has a sizable number of working-age citizens out on disability with chronic health conditions. Few of them return to the workforce. Europe, on the other hand, is doing more to get the disabled employed again.

The OECD isn't the only organization to find the U.S. falling behind its peers.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis last month found the U.S. to be the only country among eight developed nations to be slipping backward. It noted that America once had one of the highest participation rates among women age 25 to 54, but now has one of the lowest.

Also, American men in that age group have the lowest rate of participation, hovering just above 88%. The other nations are in the 90% range. Men in the U.S. have also experienced a steep decline in participation since the Great Recession began in 2007.

Looking at younger workers, the U.S. had the greatest decline -- 11.2 percentage points -- between 1995 and 2013. But this is in large part because these youth are in school.

While more Americans nearing retirement are staying in the workforce, the U.S. had the second smallest increase in participation in this age groupahead of Japan.

Why America's workforce is shrinking and Europe's isn't

So you can quit trying to place the entire blame on people retiring (even though people have always worked past their retirement age).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those Democrats really trained you like a monkey, didn't they?

That rhetoric is cut from the same Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy. Why is it any money associated with Democrats benefit us all and Republican money is evil?

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

Got it, YOU choose to "believe" the effects of SNAP and extending unemployment during Dubya's great recession WEREN'T multiplied BECAUSE CATO/Heritage used studies NOT using recession numbers, but during a static period, AND refuse to recognize Dubya's own CBO projection from 2008, McSames/Mitten's economic adviser AND IMF's look at the stimulative effects of "multipliers" (looking back from 2010)


That sum it up Bubs, you "believe"?


Hint IF the poor/unemployed didn't have money, SNAP AND U/E benefits WOULD AND DID HELP THE ECONOMY. Unlike Dubya's $4 trillion tax cuts which the US lost over 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years!


Soup kitchens spend as much as SNAP? LOL

REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION WHERE OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE LINED UP FOR THE 50,000 MC'D'S JOBS BUBBA?? Damn "lazy" basterds right? lol

Can you explain the difference between a private person spending $100.00 on food or spending $100.00 on food from the SNAP's program? It doesn't make a difference. The only difference is where the money is coming from. Just because it's coming from the government doesn't mean it's value is any higher.

SNAP's, welfare, unemployment does not stimulate the economy because most people are still going to spend that money anyway. They still have to buy gasoline, they still have to buy food, the still have to pay to keep their utilities on, they still have to go shopping for items outside of groceries.

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

"No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's."

UPDATE YOUR FUKKN TALKING POINTS DUMBASS


Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force

From one of your very own, the Central Communist News network:

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

In most of Europe, women's participation in the labor market is on the rise. Not only do mothers have paid leave in Europe, but many fathers do too, Swaim said. Also, childcare is more affordable there.

"Mothers in the U.S. have a harder time combining career and family, especially when the children are young," Swain said.

Also, the U.S. has a sizable number of working-age citizens out on disability with chronic health conditions. Few of them return to the workforce. Europe, on the other hand, is doing more to get the disabled employed again.

The OECD isn't the only organization to find the U.S. falling behind its peers.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis last month found the U.S. to be the only country among eight developed nations to be slipping backward. It noted that America once had one of the highest participation rates among women age 25 to 54, but now has one of the lowest.

Also, American men in that age group have the lowest rate of participation, hovering just above 88%. The other nations are in the 90% range. Men in the U.S. have also experienced a steep decline in participation since the Great Recession began in 2007.

Looking at younger workers, the U.S. had the greatest decline -- 11.2 percentage points -- between 1995 and 2013. But this is in large part because these youth are in school.

While more Americans nearing retirement are staying in the workforce, the U.S. had the second smallest increase in participation in this age groupahead of Japan.

Why America's workforce is shrinking and Europe's isn't

So you can quit trying to place the entire blame on people retiring (even though people have always worked past their retirement age).

WAIT, YOU WANT THE US TO HAVE THE SAFETY NETS LIKE EUROPE? THAT'S YOUR CLAIM NOW? SINCE WITHOUT IT, YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE 2 RIGHT?? LOL


Gawd YOU are stupid.


You PREFER the US have our seniors stay in the workforce? lol

Fukkn moron


TRY TO ACTUA;LY REFUTE WHAT I OR MY POSTS POSIT DUMBASS!

 

[Dad2three]

"Nazi Piglosi cloth when she stated that welfare and unemployment checks benefit our economy."

Actually, THAT was ECONOMISTS opinion, INCLUDING McSames/Mittens ECONOMIC ADVISER Mark Zandi!


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study
Moody's study suggests extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps fastest ways to stimulate economy.

Moody's Economy.com tracked the potential impact of each stimulus dollar, looking at tax rebates, tax incentives for business, food stamps and expanding unemployment benefits.

The report found that "some provide a lot of bang for the buck to the economy. Others ... don't," said economist Mark Zandi.

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

"If someone who is literally living paycheck to paycheck gets an extra dollar, it's very likely that they will spend that dollar immediately on whatever they need - groceries, to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electric bill," he said.


Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


I GET HONESTY, READING, MATH AND HISTORY ON NOT ON THE RIGHTS SIDE, BUT GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

Got it, YOU choose to "believe" the effects of SNAP and extending unemployment during Dubya's great recession WEREN'T multiplied BECAUSE CATO/Heritage used studies NOT using recession numbers, but during a static period, AND refuse to recognize Dubya's own CBO projection from 2008, McSames/Mitten's economic adviser AND IMF's look at the stimulative effects of "multipliers" (looking back from 2010)


That sum it up Bubs, you "believe"?


Hint IF the poor/unemployed didn't have money, SNAP AND U/E benefits WOULD AND DID HELP THE ECONOMY. Unlike Dubya's $4 trillion tax cuts which the US lost over 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years!


Soup kitchens spend as much as SNAP? LOL

REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION WHERE OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE LINED UP FOR THE 50,000 MC'D'S JOBS BUBBA?? Damn "lazy" basterds right? lol

Can you explain the difference between a private person spending $100.00 on food or spending $100.00 on food from the SNAP's program? It doesn't make a difference. The only difference is where the money is coming from. Just because it's coming from the government doesn't mean it's value is any higher.

SNAP's, welfare, unemployment does not stimulate the economy because most people are still going to spend that money anyway. They still have to buy gasoline, they still have to buy food, the still have to pay to keep their utilities on, they still have to go shopping for items outside of groceries.

GAWD YOU ARE A STUPID FUKK AREN'T YOU?


They have to spend money THEY DIDN'T HAVE THANKS TO 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES ? Seriously?

If you give the money via Gov't, didn't THAT free up money for their phone payments, utilities bills, etc????

HINT YOUR FUKKN BRAIN DEAD BS DOESN'T REFUTE THAT THE FASTEST WAY FOR GOV'T (SINCE THOSE "JOB CREATORS" STOPPED DOING IT) TO HAVE STIMULATED THE ECONOMY, WAS SNAP AND EXTENDING U/I DUMBSHIT!



Just BECAUSE you don't like it, I DON'T GIVE A FUKK!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!"

The myth of the 'compassionate conservative,' an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Don't drool on yourself.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If we took all the poor in our country, put them on an island somewhere out in the ocean, the country could only improve. Do the same thing with the wealthy in our country, the country collapses. Remember that.

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

Ah, yes......

Totally screw up your point by bringing up Hannity.

Most would like to have a reasonable discussion around what is perceived as a real issue.

That discussion would include how the wealthy use government (the very group you look to solve the issue) to protect their wealth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From evil rightwing Politifact.

For one, there is considerable question among academics about the accuracy of the unemployment benefits' "multiplier effects." Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, pointed out that before spending on unemployment benefits goes up, the GDP goes down, which makes it difficult to come up with a "serious estimate" of the impact of unemployment benefits. Lawrence Katz, also from Harvard, said that he has "many qualms with these standard macro forecasting models." Still, Katz also pointed out that the current models are "the best we have right now to make such forecasts." Alan Reynolds, an economist from the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, wrote in a January 29, 2010 blog post that Zandi's econometric model relies on assumptions that are contradicted by contemporary academic research.

There are also some researchers who maintain that not only does increased spending on unemployment provides minimal economic boost, but also that it may decrease output in the long run, in part because the government will have to recoup money paid out in benefits through increased taxes. In a November 2008 report, scholars Karen Campbell and James Sherk from the conservative Heritage Foundation argue that existing studies on the subject are flawed, because they do not take into account that unemployment insurance reduces workers' incentives to work. The pro-benefits studies also assume that every dollar of spending funds new consumption, they said. Many studies since the 1970s "have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy," the report argued. Campbell added, however, that though she does not believe that economic stimulus is a good argument for extending benefits, welfare arguments could be made for doing so.

To recap: Sen. Shaheen said that "for every dollar we put in unemployment it, pays back about $1.60." The CBO said that the increase is actually anywhere from $.70 to $1.90, so she picked a number that's on the high end of that estimate. She's right on target if we go by Mark Zandi's economic study, but many of the scholars we spoke with are critical of attempts to accurately estimate the effect that spending on unemployment insurance has on the GDP. We rate this Half True.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

Got it, YOU choose to "believe" the effects of SNAP and extending unemployment during Dubya's great recession WEREN'T multiplied BECAUSE CATO/Heritage used studies NOT using recession numbers, but during a static period, AND refuse to recognize Dubya's own CBO projection from 2008, McSames/Mitten's economic adviser AND IMF's look at the stimulative effects of "multipliers" (looking back from 2010)


That sum it up Bubs, you "believe"?


Hint IF the poor/unemployed didn't have money, SNAP AND U/E benefits WOULD AND DID HELP THE ECONOMY. Unlike Dubya's $4 trillion tax cuts which the US lost over 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years!


Soup kitchens spend as much as SNAP? LOL

REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION WHERE OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE LINED UP FOR THE 50,000 MC'D'S JOBS BUBBA?? Damn "lazy" basterds right? lol

Can you explain the difference between a private person spending $100.00 on food or spending $100.00 on food from the SNAP's program? It doesn't make a difference. The only difference is where the money is coming from. Just because it's coming from the government doesn't mean it's value is any higher.

SNAP's, welfare, unemployment does not stimulate the economy because most people are still going to spend that money anyway. They still have to buy gasoline, they still have to buy food, the still have to pay to keep their utilities on, they still have to go shopping for items outside of groceries.

GAWD YOU ARE A STUPID FUKK AREN'T YOU?


They have to spend money THEY DIDN'T HAVE THANKS TO 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES ? Seriously?

If you give the money via Gov't, didn't THAT free up money for their phone payments, utilities bills, etc????

HINT YOUR FUKKN BRAIN DEAD BS DOESN'T REFUTE THAT THE FASTEST WAY FOR GOV'T (SINCE THOSE "JOB CREATORS" STOPPED DOING IT) TO HAVE STIMULATED THE ECONOMY, WAS SNAP AND EXTENDING U/I DUMBSHIT!



Just BECAUSE you don't like it, I DON'T GIVE A FUKK!

Sounds to me like you're the stupid fuk. You're assuming that since people were on government assistance of some kind, they had no way to get money other ways. Sorry, but everybody I knew that was on unemployment used it as a paid vacation. Some still worked on the side. They still lived the exact same lifestyle as when they were working full time. In fact most had job opportunities they could have tried to get, but for what? Unemployment paid quite comfortably. Why work when you don't have to?

Many years ago I was unemployed, but I was not eligible for unemployment. I didn't have any income. But I didn't starve. I didn't lose my apartment. I didn't have the utilities turned off. I went to work instead.

It was tough but I made it. I took any job that paid anything. At one point, I was working three jobs: one full-time and two part-time. Sure, I had to cut back a bit, but at no point was I about to do without the necessities.

Find me a person that would do that today. Hell no. Replace a paycheck with a government paycheck instead.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

"No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's."

UPDATE YOUR FUKKN TALKING POINTS DUMBASS


Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force

From one of your very own, the Central Communist News network:

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

In most of Europe, women's participation in the labor market is on the rise. Not only do mothers have paid leave in Europe, but many fathers do too, Swaim said. Also, childcare is more affordable there.

"Mothers in the U.S. have a harder time combining career and family, especially when the children are young," Swain said.

Also, the U.S. has a sizable number of working-age citizens out on disability with chronic health conditions. Few of them return to the workforce. Europe, on the other hand, is doing more to get the disabled employed again.

The OECD isn't the only organization to find the U.S. falling behind its peers.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis last month found the U.S. to be the only country among eight developed nations to be slipping backward. It noted that America once had one of the highest participation rates among women age 25 to 54, but now has one of the lowest.

Also, American men in that age group have the lowest rate of participation, hovering just above 88%. The other nations are in the 90% range. Men in the U.S. have also experienced a steep decline in participation since the Great Recession began in 2007.

Looking at younger workers, the U.S. had the greatest decline -- 11.2 percentage points -- between 1995 and 2013. But this is in large part because these youth are in school.

While more Americans nearing retirement are staying in the workforce, the U.S. had the second smallest increase in participation in this age groupahead of Japan.

Why America's workforce is shrinking and Europe's isn't

So you can quit trying to place the entire blame on people retiring (even though people have always worked past their retirement age).

WAIT, YOU WANT THE US TO HAVE THE SAFETY NETS LIKE EUROPE? THAT'S YOUR CLAIM NOW? SINCE WITHOUT IT, YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE 2 RIGHT?? LOL


Gawd YOU are stupid.


You PREFER the US have our seniors stay in the workforce? lol

Fukkn moron


TRY TO ACTUA;LY REFUTE WHAT I OR MY POSTS POSIT DUMBASS!

I already did, but you must be drinking too much tonight.

As my post pointed out, our workforce participation rate has several layers that explain why. You want to use just one to make a conclusion.

Women have a new sugar daddy, it's called government. They prefer to stay home and raise the children instead of working. Also from my post, more men not working than in the past. More younger people not working either. It's not just those who opted to retire.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can we try it with the rich though? Always wanted them to pull a Galt!

Sure, you can try it with the rich; the rich who pay all of our federal income tax that provides all those government goodies. No more welfare, HUD, food stamps, military, Obama Care, PBS, school lunches, Obama phones........

Then we will have to give up all those wonderful things the rich bring to us like this internet, cell phones, pay-per-view, computers, gasoline, tires, automobiles, big screens, cable and satellite television, electricity, natural gas, appliances.......

Not to worry though, we can get by. The Amish have been doing it for centuries.

Sorry Bubba, you are DEFINITELY a confused Mothafukker. You think the top 1/10th of 1% pays the majority of taxation? Much less that only 46% of federal revenues, income taxes? you know that 26% of ALL Gov't revenues?

PLEASE CAN THEY PULL A GALT? Pretty please? But remember on their way out, they will owe US are due (hint taxes to leave, lol)

Yeah, all that was because of the "job creators" you Klowns get on your knees for alright *shaking head*

No, I said the wealthy. I didn't give specific percentages. We know who the wealthy are in this country, and without a doubt, the libertards think they only know who the wealthy are. The wealthy pay most all of the income taxes collected by our government.

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

How many of these Americans, started with inherited wealth?

How many Work hardy than: Coal miners,, Taxi Drivers, day laborers, plumbers, food servers, school teachers, cops and fireman, those who load trucks, fisherman, street walkers and those laid off and seeking a job to take care of their family?

93 Million of our population is of working age and unemployed???

Are 90 million Americans not working or not looking for work?

Would you care to respond?

 

[Dad2three]

You DO understand THE CONTEXT of McSames/Mitten's economic adviser right? Hint DURING a downturn, the multiplier effect was HIGHEST on SNAP and unemployment right?

THAT the CBO was OVER 5 YEARS?? (2010-2015). Weird right Bubs?

IMF


In October 2012 the International Monetary Fund released their Global Prospects and Policies document in which an admission was made that their assumptions about fiscal multipliers had been inaccurate.

"IMF staff reports, suggest that fiscal multipliers used in the forecasting process are about 0.5. (LIKE HERITAGE, CATO, ETC) our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1.
This admission has serious implications for economies such as the UK where the OBR used the IMF's assumptions in their economic forecasts about the consequences of the government's austerity policies (THAT CONS/GOP SUPPORTED REMEMBER?)


Fiscal multiplier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DUBYA'S TAX CUTS WERE RATED 29 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR BY ZANDI


MCSAMES/ITTEN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER:

GO TO THE CBO'S JAN 2008 (DUBYA ) PROJECTIONS ON SNAP, UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS (PAGE 22), THE ONLY ones with large payoffs, short term turnaround and SMALL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS!


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/01-15-econ_stimulus.pdf

Charts: Unemployment benefits' big bang for the buck




Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession

Economists discuss the impact of the stimulus on our recession


GLAD YOU AGREE HOWEVER, THAT IT WASN'T SPEAKER PELOSI SAYING IT, BUT MCSAMES/MITTENS ECONOMIC ADVISER, LOL

She repeated it as empirical evidence which as we've read, it's not. It is a matter of opinion since there is no consensus among economists worth their weight.

Furthermore is the fact that the multipliers that favor your position are assuming that without food stamps, people will not eat nor buy food. Without unemployment or welfare, people will quit buying.

The truth is if you took away SNAP's cards, people will still buy food and eat, just using their own money. Same holds true for unemployment insurance or even welfare. Nobody is going to quit spending money--especially on food in this country. Hell, even if they had to go to a soup kitchen, the charity has to spend the money to buy food.

Got it, YOU choose to "believe" the effects of SNAP and extending unemployment during Dubya's great recession WEREN'T multiplied BECAUSE CATO/Heritage used studies NOT using recession numbers, but during a static period, AND refuse to recognize Dubya's own CBO projection from 2008, McSames/Mitten's economic adviser AND IMF's look at the stimulative effects of "multipliers" (looking back from 2010)


That sum it up Bubs, you "believe"?


Hint IF the poor/unemployed didn't have money, SNAP AND U/E benefits WOULD AND DID HELP THE ECONOMY. Unlike Dubya's $4 trillion tax cuts which the US lost over 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years!


Soup kitchens spend as much as SNAP? LOL

REMEMBER, THIS WAS DURING DUBYA'S GREAT RECESSION WHERE OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE LINED UP FOR THE 50,000 MC'D'S JOBS BUBBA?? Damn "lazy" basterds right? lol

Can you explain the difference between a private person spending $100.00 on food or spending $100.00 on food from the SNAP's program? It doesn't make a difference. The only difference is where the money is coming from. Just because it's coming from the government doesn't mean it's value is any higher.

SNAP's, welfare, unemployment does not stimulate the economy because most people are still going to spend that money anyway. They still have to buy gasoline, they still have to buy food, the still have to pay to keep their utilities on, they still have to go shopping for items outside of groceries.

GAWD YOU ARE A STUPID FUKK AREN'T YOU?


They have to spend money THEY DIDN'T HAVE THANKS TO 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES ? Seriously?

If you give the money via Gov't, didn't THAT free up money for their phone payments, utilities bills, etc????

HINT YOUR FUKKN BRAIN DEAD BS DOESN'T REFUTE THAT THE FASTEST WAY FOR GOV'T (SINCE THOSE "JOB CREATORS" STOPPED DOING IT) TO HAVE STIMULATED THE ECONOMY, WAS SNAP AND EXTENDING U/I DUMBSHIT!



Just BECAUSE you don't like it, I DON'T GIVE A FUKK!

Sounds to me like you're the stupid fuk. You're assuming that since people were on government assistance of some kind, they had no way to get money other ways. Sorry, but everybody I knew that was on unemployment used it as a paid vacation. Some still worked on the side. They still lived the exact same lifestyle as when they were working full time. In fact most had job opportunities they could have tried to get, but for what? Unemployment paid quite comfortably. Why work when you don't have to?

Many years ago I was unemployed, but I was not eligible for unemployment. I didn't have any income. But I didn't starve. I didn't lose my apartment. I didn't have the utilities turned off. I went to work instead.

It was tough but I made it. I took any job that paid anything. At one point, I was working three jobs: one full-time and two part-time. Sure, I had to cut back a bit, but at no point was I about to do without the necessities.

Find me a person that would do that today. Hell no. Replace a paycheck with a government paycheck instead.

Oh sorry, I forget in right wing world, anecdotes replace FACTS.

Economy lost 9%+ in 3 months, 8+ million jobs in 12 months, you dumbfukk!



I get it, to many people were on hammocks *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, they do, and how much of the wealth of the nation do they possess? A much more accurate and telling point than your parroting of Limbaugh or Hannity.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

What difference does it make how much wealth they possess? Why is it any of your business or mine? Why should anybody pay more in percentage of taxes just because they worked harder, took high risks, and eventually became successful?

Is it any wonder why this country is on the track it's on when our liberal policies dictate punishing those who are successful while rewarding those who are failures or didn't feel like trying? No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's.

"No wonder we have 94 million Americans of working age not working. This is the lowest participation rate since the early 70's."

UPDATE YOUR FUKKN TALKING POINTS DUMBASS


Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse"


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002

The incredible shrinking labor force

From one of your very own, the Central Communist News network:

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

So why is the U.S. moving in the wrong direction? Part of it is that America's workforce is aging and the Baby Boomers are retiring,said Paul Swaim, principal economist at the OECD.

But the U.S. rate is also declining because women are leaving the workforce to care for their children.

In most of Europe, women's participation in the labor market is on the rise. Not only do mothers have paid leave in Europe, but many fathers do too, Swaim said. Also, childcare is more affordable there.

"Mothers in the U.S. have a harder time combining career and family, especially when the children are young," Swain said.

Also, the U.S. has a sizable number of working-age citizens out on disability with chronic health conditions. Few of them return to the workforce. Europe, on the other hand, is doing more to get the disabled employed again.

The OECD isn't the only organization to find the U.S. falling behind its peers.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis last month found the U.S. to be the only country among eight developed nations to be slipping backward. It noted that America once had one of the highest participation rates among women age 25 to 54, but now has one of the lowest.

Also, American men in that age group have the lowest rate of participation, hovering just above 88%. The other nations are in the 90% range. Men in the U.S. have also experienced a steep decline in participation since the Great Recession began in 2007.

Looking at younger workers, the U.S. had the greatest decline -- 11.2 percentage points -- between 1995 and 2013. But this is in large part because these youth are in school.

While more Americans nearing retirement are staying in the workforce, the U.S. had the second smallest increase in participation in this age groupahead of Japan.

Why America's workforce is shrinking and Europe's isn't

So you can quit trying to place the entire blame on people retiring (even though people have always worked past their retirement age).

WAIT, YOU WANT THE US TO HAVE THE SAFETY NETS LIKE EUROPE? THAT'S YOUR CLAIM NOW? SINCE WITHOUT IT, YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE 2 RIGHT?? LOL


Gawd YOU are stupid.


You PREFER the US have our seniors stay in the workforce? lol

Fukkn moron


TRY TO ACTUA;LY REFUTE WHAT I OR MY POSTS POSIT DUMBASS!

I already did, but you must be drinking too much tonight.

As my post pointed out, our workforce participation rate has several layers that explain why. You want to use just one to make a conclusion.

Women have a new sugar daddy, it's called government. They prefer to stay home and raise the children instead of working. Also from my post, more men not working than in the past. More younger people not working either. It's not just those who opted to retire.

Yet you want to compare the US to Europe with their safety nets? FAIL Bubs


No Bubba, the MAJORITY of those not in the labor force IS because they ARE retiring. THAT'S A FACT!

And no matter how well the economy is, less will be in the labor force in 2020.. ANOTHER FACT!