Good thing I didn't say that. Keep up here.

Polite applause :tro:

You don't seem to understand that even using your figures unemployment is a huge positive. If $115 is needed to pay out $100 in unemployment, then that $100 goes into the economy and produces from $130 to $160 of enconomic growth (every single economist in the world says this is true, the only difference between them is the amount varies, but it has NEVER been below 1.30 per dollar spent) - it's obviously a gain. It grows the economy. It keeps jobs from going away.

Sooooo.... the more people on unemployment the better? Nice economics lesson! Are you sure you don't work as an adviser to the Administration? NEWSFLASH.. Unemployment (by definition) exists because the jobs have already gone away. People without jobs tend to spend less money than people with jobs. You stated elsewhere on this thread that saving is bad. If people save they have something to fall back on when times get tough. Why don't you hire some people and help jumpstart the economy? Oh, that's right unemployment grows the economy

it's funny, you do search asking if unemployment grows the economy, and the first result is nancy pelosi saying just that. so, riot is saying it's from economists, when in fact she's just repeating what pelosi said. all these links purporting to show the truth in fact are just to support the dems case, and riots/pelosis' agenda. an agenda which is probably beyond most of our ken, as riot so succinctly put it a few pages ago. in a way, she's right. i can't quite wrap my head around people being on the dole as being a good thing that grows the economy. it might keep the economy where it's at previous to unemployment being cut for people who've met their 99 weeks, but how will it grow it?? but if pelosi and riot say it's so, it must be. makes you wonder why, with so many on unemployment for 2+years, we aren't seeing the corresponding growth.



http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/0...-economy-evah/

Funny it's almost the same with Global Warming and Gore/Government funded scientists. Only they slipped up bad.

Huff Poo Poo is most likely on board with this insanity too. Actually cutting off unemployment bennies would make the unemployment figures go down because when you are off unemployment you are no longer counted. The real amount of unemployed is higher than the Govt. figures suggest. More of the same fuzzy math that Congress (both parties) use to promote whatever they are trying to promote ( which always boils back down to their true agenda, which is to stay in power and on the Govt. dole).

If you factor in underemployed you are talking Double what is reported or higher.

Wonder what it does to the figures if you are working 3 jobs to make ends meet? Would that make you "overemployed"?

Dems would probably count you as 3 Republicans as 0.

i just don't see how someone getting a whole 275 a week can help the economy, or help create jobs. it's not even enough to pay rent, let alone create a job. it's not like those on UE are out shopping all day, buying big ticket items. people on UE once had a job that paid more than what they're on now-but what they're on now, unlike their job, is good for the economy?? what logic is involved there??

Same goes for people with Govt. jobs. They are paying their taxes with tax dollars. People with private sector jobs are paying their taxes with non-tax dollars. Simple logic would tell you that private sector jobs would be better for the economy in general, and the Govt. in particular. Yes I realize that Unemployment bennies are taxed as income. In New York anyway.

the avg salary here in arkansas is several thou per year lower than the avg govt salary here. it's the same all over, with the govt paying far more for the same position than private business. why? govt pay should match the avg for that position.

I'm not sure where I insulted anyone. Pointing out things that you are unwilling to accept despite the obvious nature of them isnt an insult, is it?

I would think that on economic matters there would be few places that break thngs down more effectively than the WSJ.

I wonder why you think that the benefits arent going to eventually be extended as soon as concessions are made? Its called politics.

Oh boy. Then why dont we just give everybody money? Why restrict it to the unemployed? Send out US Treasury debit cards and solve everything?

i didn't see any from you either. i saw where the suggestion was made where something was 'beyond your ken', but you didn't post that. i'll have to go back and see who made that post....

[quote]Nope, obviously not the more is better. But when unemployment is excessive and outrageously high, we'd better keep paying them unemployment.

Yes, that's why paying unemployment works so well in the economy - all of it goes out immediately into basic needs like groceries, gasoline, rent, utilities.

I said saving is bad during a recession. When the recession started, our savings rate as a nation jumped, but that's bad for the recession as that takes more money out of the economy. The point is to "stimulate spending" during recession, to help the recession end and keep the economy moving.

[quote]What nonsense. Instead of quoting a political opinion blog, why don't you read something like Wikipedia explaining unemployment during the Great Depression and since?

Pelosi is repeating what the economists say, too. If you would like to dismiss economic realities as untrue, support your contention and post something from Bloomberg or WSJ or any other economic think tank that shows paying unemployment during high unemployment times doesn't help keep the economy going. We'll wait ....

The facts from the economists are that unemployment insurance helps keep the economy going in a recession. You have one that differs? The Dems embrace that. In fact, the GOP embraces that, too, and always have (heck Bush even sent out stimulus checks) - because it's just a simple economic fact. You've not seen the GOP deny it's true.

The GOP hasn't voted for unemployment benefit extension as they are holding out for their tax cuts for the rich.

Tell what happened with the government-funded scientists? The leaked climate change e-mails? All the science was found sound after investigation by 4 or 5 different multi-national panels, wasn't it?

:zz: No, they are not buying TV's. They are buying groceries, gas, heat, pay mortgage. That keeps all those providers employed.

Take away those unemployment checks, and you have lost all that spending. You have people living in the street, and nobody buying groceries, and thus those jobs providing groceries are threatened and lost.

Is this really that hard to understand? This isn't politics It's high school Economics 101.

Bush did that (sent out stimulus checks) I think Reagan did, too. I recall that Obama was considering it, but instead gave a bunch of targeted tax breaks to small businesses.

Grocery stores are not laying people off, the other 85% of Americans will continue to eat. The energy companies and public utilities are not hurting and/or already govt subsidized. Property owners are generally sending a large portion of rent collected to banks. None of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless.

As I said before, all spending isn't necessarily very economical stimulating. Endorsing an extention because it is the right thing to do in a moral sense is defendable. Saying that we should extend them because it is good for the economy is not.

I'm glad you have your finger on the pulse of hiring data in the grocery business (and utilities) - care to share that?

You don't think a 15% reduction in overall business would hurt the economy in a deep recession? You say "none of those entities produce goods or services that wouldn't continue to be produced regardless"? Seriously? If a town has 10% unemployment (California, Michigan) removing 10% of a grocery store's business isn't going to cause a layoff or few? Cause the grocery to order 10% less food from his suppliers? You honestly think that will not contract the economy in a recession (heck, it would in normal times!)

Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? I'll wait.

And how did that work out?

Obama's "targeted tax breaks" are a joke. Most are tax credits which tend to be useless if you dont have the money to spend to qualify. If he really wanted to help small business he would do just about the exact opposite of everything he has done since taking office. Increasing needless regulation, Obamacare, the IRS requiring businesses to pay them electronically and on a much shorter time table therefore interupting cashflow at a time when credit is impossible to come by, threatening to let the Bush tax cuts expire for $250k and up earners (where a huge portion of small business owners are). All of those things plus his concessions to big labor don't make for a very business friendly President.

15% reduction assumes that no one that loses benefits isn't going to accept a lesser job now that the reality of free money has ended.

Plus how how much economic stimulus comes from paying your utility bill or an oil company?

Not much.

Do you seriously think if business is off 10% that people immediately lose their jobs?

That's up to 1 mil now. Didn't change things, cuz what the GOP really cares about is looking out for millionaires.

The economists say pretty well, but we needed more.

Don't worry. You just said we can suffer a 10-15% loss in business income and it won't matter, because the 85% will still be there.

The credit crunch is indeed a bad business thing for cash flow. Yet the GOP won't allow the banks to be forced into any emergency regulation to lend more readily (can't blame them, mortages didn't work well) in a time of record profits (the banks holding on to their money, instead of lending it) So that's a huge problem getting the recession restarted.

The Dems went up to a million (where the vast majority of "small businesses" are) but the GOP voted that down. That's too bad.

We also have a little problem with excessive debt. Cutting spending alone won't get rid of that, we need more income. We can get rid of a huge percentage of that in one move. Best that income come from as few people as possible (highest earning 2% of Americans), who can most afford to have their tax rate on the adjusted gross income go from the special lowered 36% rate go back up to the 39.6% it was during the non-deficit years.

Considering there is 1 job for every 5-8 people, I think we can safely say that once most folks lose their unemployment, they will tend to be homeless, without health care, and on food stamps. That costs the government more money.

"Not much?" :zz: Wanna quote the figures on that? EVERYBODY buys food, heat, gasoline, telephone, electricity, etc. The basic necessities are just that.

If you think the economy thrives on 58" plasma TV purchases, you're wrong.

The economists say so. I already posted the below.

I'm still waiting for you to post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc. Please do.

If there was 1 job for every 5 people on unemployment then wouldnt cutting benefits immediately cut unemployment 20%? Well using numbers they way you do it would but in reality it doesnt work this way.

Again, how much economic stimulus is derived from paying your utility bill?

The GOP should have taken that, for both political reasons, but mostly that it would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out and it's a good thing to do. They could even take the credit for it next election. Mitch McConnell has become brain dead in his old age.

What silly nonsense you spout - nobody, including myself, thinks that tossing people off the unemployment rolls (hiding one's eyes and failing to count them) decreases unemployment.

You're the one making the argument, against the figures I posted, that the answer is little to none. Go ahead, support your argument, post us some proof.

Again: Can you post one respected economist that says that taking millions off unemployment will not negatively affect the economy? That if the dollars in those unemployment checks are removed during this deep recession the economy will not suffer? Can you post an economists differing opinion that unemployment dollars do not directly help the economy with a cash infusion during recession, and prevent layoffs, etc?

that's funny, i don't recall saying anything about taking unemployment away. i just find it laughable that anyone suggests the economy will turn around due to that measly amount being paid out. and in the short term, it helps to pay out benefits. but i sure wish they'd do more to tackle what is turning out to be a long term issue. the govt cannot create jobs, but it sure as hell would help if they would encourage job creation in the private sector..and yes, govt is supposed to spend during a recession. the part our govt continues to ignore is where they're supposed to save during the good times, so as to weather us through the bad times. but i'm sure the spendspendspend mentality is all due to the republicans.

It is a politically appointed group. Of course they are going to support their bosses position.

Didn't they also say unemployment would stay under 8% if the stimulus was passed?

I guess you think that the million dollar proposal floated by Schumer wasn't just a PR move right?

The idea that this would toss a huge chunk of our deficit out is laughable.

Well of course it does. Unless you are stating that you think every person receiving benefits is looking unsucessfully for a job. Are you saying that?

The argument that you make is always completely misguided. On one hand you say that we should raise taxes which would inhibit economic growth yet on the other hand you tout the economic stimulus of unemployment benefits. It is directly out of the lefty economic redistribution playbook. Yell and scream about how much the drop in the bucket unemployment benefits help but support a huge tax increase at the same time. Sure ANY spending helps but the amount is so small that it is hardly worth talking about when compared to the damage of raising taxes.