Is Unemployment Planned???

[Rshermr]

Prove it or retract.

Val Jarett, Obama's Brain

White House: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy - Katie Pavlich

Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits Biggest Stimulus for Economy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

George Soros's mouthpiece

UPDATED: Pelosi was right: Economists say unemployment insurance stimulates the economy | Research | Media Matters for America
...

Yeah, saw this bs the other day. Are you disingenous or simply an idiot?

Saying that, among the different methods for achieving economic improvement, unemployment benifits are the best, isn't the same as saying that unemployment is the best.

What it is saying is that unemployment benifits are better than tax cuts.

You may not agree with that, but how about we don't flat out lie, okay cupcake?

You're the one responsible for the general impression that conservatives do lie.

Perfect response. Concise. Truthful. Con's see nothing wrong with lying. It is the first piece of evidence, always, that you are dealing with a con.

 

[Rshermr]

Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 27, 1978

All this discussion of government and employment, I expected some reference to "Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act". *By law, the federal government has certain mandated goals regarding employmemt and economic growth. *

Whether it is achieving those goals and what the "punishment" for failure to pursue said goals is another issue. *Never the less, the act does allow laws to be enacted towards the stated goals and outines the scope.

Humphry Hawkins Full Employment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An Act to translate into practical reality the right of all Americans who are able, willing, and seeking to work to full opportunity for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation; to assert the responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable programs and policies to promote full employment, production, and real income, balanced growth, adequate productivity growth, proper attention to national priorities, and reasonable price stability; to require the President each year to set forther explicit short-term and medium-term economic goals; to achieve a better integration of general and structural economic policies; and to improve the coordination of economic policymaking within the Federal Government."

"In brief, the Act:

Explicitly states that the federal government will rely primarily on private enterprise to achieve the four goals.

Instructs the government to take reasonable means to balance the budget.

Instructs the government to establish a balance of trade, i.e., to avoid trade surpluses or deficits.

Mandates the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to establish a monetary policy that maintains long-run growth, minimizes inflation, and promotes price stability.

Instructs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to transmit an Monetary Policy Report to the Congress twice a year outlining its monetary policy.

Requires the President to set numerical goals for the economy of the next fiscal year in the Economic Report of the President and to suggest policies that will achieve these goals.

Requires the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to connect the monetary policy with the Presidential economic policy.

If private enterprise appears not to be meeting these goals, the Act expressly allows the government to create a "reservoir of public employment." These jobs are required to be in the lower ranges of skill and pay to minimize competition with the private sector."

It seemed relevant.

Y'know....there's music that goes along with this post:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqowmHgxVJQ]The Big Rock Candy Mountain - YouTube[/ame]

Which is PC's method of saying "I can not argue with you about this. I have no supplied talking points. I think it would be better to just try to make fun of your post. Because, yeah, I am an idiot"
funny, pc. And pathetic.

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon, you seem to have missed that YOU made the comment about unemployment insurance payments, and I responded to what YOU said. So, are you saying that unemployment does not have to do with the economy? Or that unemployment payments do not have to do with the economy? If so, you are wrong. And, if it were so, then it would have been you who made the turn away from the topic of the thread.

I don't understand what you are trying to say there, but I haven't said nor suggested either of those. Again, if you deem it necessary read the context of the discussion in full. This generally helps if you plan on engaging others, as you so often do...



In terms of business activity, the recession is long. Nothing false about it.

Corporate america is doing quite well. But, why you think that the statements that you originally addressed were incorrect would then be odd. Since they were made when the recession was not that old. Beyond that, you seem to be making up your own rules. Any one out there, perhaps in the way of a non partial economist, or the cbo, who agrees that ue payments are not stimulative??? You seem to be out there on your own, and really showing your ignorance.

It is, as I thought, that you can not find an impartial source. Because you made it up from whole cloth, or simply posted from some conservative partial site. America would be the answer from someone who can not find any support from her ignorant and partial statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Another individual or entity's opinion in this case is irrelevant and has no barring on the facts. The only thing relevant in this current economic predicament is the evidence at hand. All anyone needs to do when determining the evidence is look outside the window, or open a newspaper every once in a while.

Right. And forget that the economic predicament is undefined by you. What predicament are you talking about??? Recession?? Long since over, according to the cbo.

The CBO is often wrong, and more than even they would like to admit. The recession is still occurring. A slowdown or decline in economic activity defines a recession and describes the current economic situation regarding the economy.

And the stock market. And corporate profits. Unemployment??? Not over. Down, but not over. And stimulus helped, per the cbo, in a big way.

You mean this stimulus projection provided by the CBO? Hm...

Of course, we all know the actual results of that stimulus.

Unemployment is still 7.6%, which is still far greater than the CBO projections of just around 5% in Q1 of 2013 with the help of the American Recovery Act, and 5.3% - 5.5% without the help of the Recovery Act. This was the biggest miss of epic proportions, and the CBO managed to botch this twice. To say that it actually 'helped' in a big way is a terribly erroneous statement.

Non stimulus efforts, like eliminating unemployment payments, HURT, according to the cbo.

Unemployment benefits has not been eliminated a single time as far as I can remember. The first extension was passed in 2008 and each time the extension was close to expiring, it was extended for 5 straight years.

How can eliminating unemployment benefits 'hurt' the economy the economy if it never actually happened.

So, you do not like authoritative studies based on data analyzed by economists?? In that case, just go live in your own world. It is not the real world. But it does have the advantage of letting you believe what you want to believe.
Me??? If it is you or the cbo, my money is on the cbo every single time. And you, of course, will be of the same opinion as the bat shit crazy conservative web sites, every single time.

People do tend to place their confidence in people or entities with terrible track records. I can't tell whether it has more to do with blind faith or just sheer ignorance. I also can't tell whether or not you fall into these categories or you align with the latter. And no, as you already know, I do not cling to the findings of any particular website. I refer to the primary source of where data originates, unless you have forgotten. But maybe it's time for a reminder.

The facts regarding the economy, in.... I guess five charts will do for now. At some point, I may have to redo these charts, since I did mispell 'Extension...'

Yep. Can really see all the difference that 'stimulus made.'

Which makes trying to discuss anything with you impossible. You are incapable.

And yet, here you are, engaging me in another discussion apparently way above your level of understanding. If this was really difficult for you, you'd ignore all my post altogether. Then again, that is never stopped you from engaging me before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[And stimulus helped, per the cbo, in a big way.

Gee, if it helped why are we in worst recession since Depression with U6 almost double what it was in the pre-Obama years. And, that's not including all those Obama put on welfare and disability.


Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - Washington Post

CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.[/quote]

Economists are less unified, however, on the question of whether the short-term benefits of the stimulus were worth the long-term cost. In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that “the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.”

Twenty-seven percent of the respondents said they were not certain, while 12 percent said the costs far outweighed the benefits.