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?