Maine’s passage of ‘right to food’ amendment stirs celebration, worry

[danielpalos]

Simply print money? With that one statement you show your ignorance of economics. Any country that just prints more money experiences massive inflation.

Not true at all. Y'all are just stuck on historical ignorance of economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes it freakin does matter because, one, you're not going to get 2.0.

You need an economic argument or I am Right even though I am on the left and that means You have to be Wrong even though You are on the right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thanks. Now can you explain why it matters with a multiplier of 2.0?

So you are saying that by spending $2.5 billion dollars of tax payer money, there would enough economic activity to make $2.5 billion in taxes?

Are you sure you want to say that?

 

[hadit]

Yes, some persons would call that an investment.

We have little reason to expect such a program to pay for itself. Your fantasy multiplier of 2.0 is just that, a fantasy. As has been pointed out to you multiple times (and heck, you've even admitted that taxes would have to pay for it), this would be nothing more than a massive new welfare program with all the problems such programs have. You don't even want to do away with any existing programs, you just want to add another one.

 

[hadit]

You need an economic argument or I am Right even though I am on the left and that means You have to be Wrong even though You are on the right.

You need to explain how you're going to get 2.0, and you can't say that you're going to use the existing UC infrastructure because you have to change so much that it won't be UC any more. You just calling it that does nothing to make it so.

You can't say you're going to move the pitcher's mound back 5 feet and insist we will see the same number of strikeouts and low scoring games.

 

[danielpalos]

So you are saying that by spending $2.5 billion dollars of tax payer money, there would enough economic activity to make $2.5 billion in taxes?

Are you sure you want to say that?

Eventually. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, some persons would call that an investment.

An investment? Will that 2.0 multiplier put $2.5 billion in taxes back in the system? No.

And since the "new and improved" unemployment compensation will not differ from welfare, the economic multiplier will be more like 0.8.

 

[danielpalos]

We have little reason to expect such a program to pay for itself. Your fantasy multiplier of 2.0 is just that, a fantasy. As has been pointed out to you multiple times (and heck, you've even admitted that taxes would have to pay for it), this would be nothing more than a massive new welfare program with all the problems such programs have. You don't even want to do away with any existing programs, you just want to add another one.

By your reasoning, we should abolish Any program for the general warfare and common offense since the multiplier of those programs is much less.

 

[danielpalos]

You need to explain how you're going to get 2.0, and you can't say that you're going to use the existing UC infrastructure because you have to change so much that it won't be UC any more. You just calling it that does nothing to make it so.

You can't say you're going to move the pitcher's mound back 5 feet and insist we will see the same number of strikeouts and low scoring games.

I have already explained it.

 

[WinterBorn]

You need to explain how you're going to get 2.0, and you can't say that you're going to use the existing UC infrastructure because you have to change so much that it won't be UC any more. You just calling it that does nothing to make it so.

You can't say you're going to move the pitcher's mound back 5 feet and insist we will see the same number of strikeouts and low scoring games.

Exactly. With all the changes in the unemployment compensation system, he is essentially recreating welfare. Especially since it is funded by taxes from everyone instead of money from the employers.

So, at best, it will produce a multiplier of 0.8 as welfare does.

 

[hadit]

By your reasoning, we should abolish Any program for the general warfare and common offense since the multiplier of those programs is much less.

How does that address your economic illiteracy?

 

[danielpalos]

An investment? Will that 2.0 multiplier put $2.5 billion in taxes back in the system? No.

And since the "new and improved" unemployment compensation will not differ from welfare, the economic multiplier will be more like 0.8.

Most social welfare programs have a multiplier of 0.8. Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation generates around 2.0. It really is that simple, except for the right-wing.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. With all the changes in the unemployment compensation system, he is essentially recreating welfare. Especially since it is funded by taxes from everyone instead of money from the employers.

So, at best, it will produce a multiplier of 0.8 as welfare does.

When employers pay for it, there is a lot of incentive to enforce qualification. When it all just comes out of the general budget, there is none.

 

[WinterBorn]

Eventually. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Eventually? How many years do you plan to soak the tax payers for $2.5 billion per year?

And the $2.5 billion is based on $15 per hour. If you insist on paying them more, it will go up.

 

[hadit]

I have already explained it.

No, you have merely stated that you will get it. You have ignored all the changes that would be required to the program. Like I said, you can't move the pitcher's mound back 5 feet and expect the same number of strikeouts.

 

[WinterBorn]

By your reasoning, we should abolish Any program for the general warfare and common offense since the multiplier of those programs is much less.

The multiplier is less because the money is taken from the tax payer. That reduces the amount of money available to the consumer. UC is funded by the employer.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have already explained it.

Yes, unemployment compensation has a higher economic multiplier than welfare. That is due to the source of the funding and the fact that the people getting the benefit still participate instead of being broke.

By changing the funding from the previous employer to tax payers, you remove any advantage UC has over welfare.

Your new UC program will have to:
1) Be funded by the tax payer - Just like welfare.
2) Eliminate the current UC qualifications - just like welfare
3) Eliminate the 26 week limits - Just like welfare
4) Eliminate the seeking work requirement - Just like welfare


So explain why, after creating a new welfare program, you claim the UC will still have a 2.0 economic multiplier?

 

[danielpalos]

No, you have merely stated that you will get it. You have ignored all the changes that would be required to the program. Like I said, you can't move the pitcher's mound back 5 feet and expect the same number of strikeouts.

You merely prefer to appeal to ignorance.

Can you rephrase your question?

 

[danielpalos]

The multiplier is less because the money is taken from the tax payer. That reduces the amount of money available to the consumer. UC is funded by the employer.

The multiplier for uc is 2.0 versus 0.8 for means tested programs.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, unemployment compensation has a higher economic multiplier than welfare. That is due to the source of the funding and the fact that the people getting the benefit still participate instead of being broke.

By changing the funding from the previous employer to tax payers, you remove any advantage UC has over welfare.

Your new UC program will have to:
1) Be funded by the tax payer - Just like welfare.
2) Eliminate the current UC qualifications - just like welfare
3) Eliminate the 26 week limits - Just like welfare
4) Eliminate the seeking work requirement - Just like welfare


So explain why, after creating a new welfare program, you claim the UC will still have a 2.0 economic multiplier?

In other words, by improving the funding source it could be more cost effective.