Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Obama persists in his propaganda. Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs"   (townhall.com) divider line 383
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-10 11:06:20 AM  
The farking nerve of that guy.
 
2014-01-10 11:11:54 AM  
Cites Cato and Heritage. Well not so much cites as mentions. The rest is the usual Obama is a big meanie crap.
 
2014-01-10 11:20:37 AM  
Rush Limbaugh's brother?  Really, subby?
 
2014-01-10 11:24:35 AM  
Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?
 
2014-01-10 11:26:33 AM  
Stupid Obama, trusting virtually every reputable economist and the CBO.
 
2014-01-10 11:28:15 AM  
Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.
 
2014-01-10 11:32:19 AM  
Oh ho ho its magic. You know. Never believe its not so.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-10 11:38:42 AM  
Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".
 
2014-01-10 11:41:08 AM  
FIRST, you give the money to the rich people. THEN, the rich people will take that money and hire poor people to do jobs. THEN, the poor people will have the money.

This is Conservative Economics 101 here, people.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:49 AM  

vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".


You know that, and I know that, but the GOP doesn't know that.
 
2014-01-10 12:05:45 PM  

vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".


The Limbaugh brothers are known for having their pump primed.   David.   Rush.  Coincidence?   Probably, but it makes you think...
 
2014-01-10 12:22:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

You know that, and I know that, but the GOP doesn't know that.


They know that, but like anything that doesn't fit their narrative, they ignore it or deny it.
 
2014-01-10 12:44:10 PM  
Does he seriously expect us to believe that in a consumption based economy, more people having money to consume helps boost the economy and create jobs.

Jobs only rain down upon us by giving tax breaks to rich people.
 
2014-01-10 12:45:10 PM  
What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.

But, hey, by all means: let the utilities take losses. Let small businesses go down. Let local banks lose mortgage payments and have to repossess cars, because that doesn't cost anyone anything, right?

For the folks at the top, those payments are a drop in the bucket, but in the local sense, when folks stop paying on all those things, it sends ripples out. Which, oddly enough, causes a lot more folks to be affected, distro nets to be disrupted, banks to see dips, and on top of it, you get spikes in crime, you get spikes in disturbances, and you get folks antsy. The private sector ISN'T creating the jobs, and companies are sitting on record breaking cash reserves, so that's not the problem.

You want to see us kick start things: give assistance and relief to the small businesses to expand, to new players to enter, to start off at the local level, and that has to be done with the full realization that wealth ALWAYS flows upstream. And in order for an economy to work well, there has to be some turn around time at the local level BEFORE that cash heads out of the local economy, and to the largest players and banks. The problem we have right now, is that we are sending cash out of the local economy, and not letting it circulate a bit before heading out. And it's crushing the middle class, and that in turn is hurting a lot of manufacturing and businesses that rely on that middle class.

America cannot survive on Walmart and McDonald's alone...
 
2014-01-10 12:46:39 PM  
Yeah, let's collapse the banks because socialism comma furthermore
 
2014-01-10 12:55:44 PM  
Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.
 
2014-01-10 12:58:53 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes. FACT.


RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs
 
2014-01-10 01:00:07 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.


Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.
 
2014-01-10 01:03:24 PM  
$1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.
 
2014-01-10 01:03:40 PM  
Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs."

Oy, my head.  There are debates to its limits and impacts, but its generally accepted that you need to keep some type of floor on consumer spending.
 
2014-01-10 01:04:34 PM  

ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.


Or repealing Obamacare.
 
2014-01-10 01:05:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.


Yeah, as soon as they get it unemployed people will just irresponsibly spend it all on things that other people produce. We should instead give money to responsible people who will put that money in a bank account.
 
2014-01-10 01:06:03 PM  

ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.


And hating gays.
 
2014-01-10 01:06:11 PM  

BunkoSquad: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes. FACT.

RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs


Well abortion clinic staff, maternity nurses, OBGYNs, and pediatricians all need work too.
 
2014-01-10 01:06:16 PM  
Bettet cut taxes
 
2014-01-10 01:06:36 PM  
Where does the unemployment money come from?

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.
 
2014-01-10 01:06:40 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs."

Oy, my head.  There are debates to its limits and impacts, but its generally accepted that you need to keep some type of floor on consumer spending.


See, the conservatives really believe it's impossible that their system predicated firmly on assuming a lot of bullshiat about economies cannot be wrong.  And thus any position backed by anything approaching reasonable modern economics is "bizarre".  Like, we're dealing with people who think that we've backslid since 1870 in terms of understanding.
 
2014-01-10 01:07:10 PM  
What kind of crazy talk is that, trusting the established cause-effect relationship?
 
2014-01-10 01:07:15 PM  
The economy collapses, businesses respond by shedding staff, and people become unemployed.  Economy recovers, businesses do not rehire, and people remain unemployed.

I think it's obvious that we should blame the unemployed.
 
2014-01-10 01:07:51 PM  

ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.

And hating gays.


I haven't actually heard that one earnestly expressed before.
 
2014-01-10 01:08:19 PM  
fta estimates from Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics that "every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits produces $1.61 in economic activity."

I thought it was more than that. Regardless, quibbling over how much unemployment benefits help the economy misses the point. The benefits help provide food, clothing, and shelter for the workers who earned them.
 
2014-01-10 01:08:55 PM  

BunkoSquad: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes. FACT.

RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs


Excuse me? What about all those jobs for the creators of 10 Commandments monuments for our courts?
 
2014-01-10 01:09:39 PM  
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl that is totally spunging off unemployment.  Therefore big government hand outs are bad.*

* Four billion a year to big oil companies is just smart government
 
2014-01-10 01:10:00 PM  

ikanreed: Rapmaster2000: Just this week, he made the bizarre assertion that extending unemployment benefits "actually helps the economy, actually creates new jobs."

Oy, my head.  There are debates to its limits and impacts, but its generally accepted that you need to keep some type of floor on consumer spending.

See, the conservatives really believe it's impossible that their system predicated firmly on assuming a lot of bullshiat about economies cannot be wrong.  And thus any position backed by anything approaching reasonable modern economics is "bizarre".  Like, we're dealing with people who think that we've backslid since 1870 in terms of understanding.


What I'm seeing in that article is a moral argument against unemployment because it creates shiftless people taking their government money checks to buy steak and lobsters and Obamaphones.

Obama's statement is strictly an academic one.  Maybe unemployment makes the blacks listen to the rap music that makes the babies out of wedlock, but that's not what's being discussed here.

Dude needs to turn off the moral aggrandizing for a few minutes.
 
2014-01-10 01:10:07 PM  

hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.


Lies!  I have been assured by good folks such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump that the poor and unemployed spend all their "benefits" on cocaine and boxed wine!
 
2014-01-10 01:10:46 PM  
freakoutnation.com
 
2014-01-10 01:11:03 PM  
Does anyone remember that tax break for employers who actually, you know, HIRED people? I do. SOUNDED like a great idea, and I was excited by it, but the rules were so limiting and nonsensical that it was virtually impossible to actually qualify. I ended up hiring three employees during the time frame, but not a one qualified me for the tax break. I assume some people did, though.

Can't find any CBO stats on how that worked out, and it's like it never happened. Any informed Farkers able to shed any light? Or remember enough to assist in the Googling?
 
2014-01-10 01:11:29 PM  

wxboy: hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.

Lies!  I have been assured by good folks such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump that the poor and unemployed spend all their "benefits" on cocaine and boxed wine!


That's hard working boxed wine creators to you, pal.
 
m00
2014-01-10 01:12:04 PM  
Of course it increases jobs. People on unemployment insurance spend money.
 
2014-01-10 01:13:16 PM  
But if they aren't destitute, how do I get the poor to degrade themselves for pocket change?
 
2014-01-10 01:13:54 PM  

hubiestubert: They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy


Exactly. But that is not the same thing as casting it as a tool for economic recovery as many people here seem to think it is. It is effective and VITAL in softening the downward trend of a recession - of minimizing how far down we go. But it's a lousy tool for helping on the UPswing.
 
2014-01-10 01:15:10 PM  

Rapmaster2000: wxboy: hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.

Lies!  I have been assured by good folks such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump that the poor and unemployed spend all their "benefits" on cocaine and boxed wine!

That's hard working boxed wine creators to you, pal.


wxboy: hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.

Lies!  I have been assured by good folks such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump that the poor and unemployed spend all their "benefits" on cocaine and boxed wine!


Wouldn't the cocaine trade be a good example of an unregulated and untaxed market?  Perhaps we should base our economy on that.
 
2014-01-10 01:16:10 PM  
There's a Limbaugh the Lesser?
 
2014-01-10 01:16:40 PM  
Because there are millions of job vacancies waiting to be filled and the only reason it's not happening is because we're paying people to sit at home and eat refrigerated lobster.
 
2014-01-10 01:17:26 PM  
Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.
 
2014-01-10 01:19:15 PM  
"Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong? "

I mean, sure the data suggests one thing, but it's obviously another because...I said so...or possibly Jebus

I think he just managed to sum up the religious right, tea party, and stupid people in one simple sentence.
 
2014-01-10 01:19:44 PM  

Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.


And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.
 
2014-01-10 01:21:46 PM  

Rosecitybeaver: "Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong? "

I mean, sure the data suggests one thing, but it's obviously another because...I said so...or possibly Jebus

I think he just managed to sum up the religious right, tea party, and stupid people in one simple sentence.


Common sense tells me a lead ball falls faster than a wood ball. But liberals espouse their sophisticated sounding theory of gravity. I WON'T HAVE IT!
 
2014-01-10 01:22:12 PM  

iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?
 
2014-01-10 01:22:14 PM  

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


They consume drugs. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of drugs. Every two weeks. Rent doesn't get paid to their apartment management company. Food isn't purchased from grocery stores or corporations like Walmart. No one uses it to pay for a childs field trip or for new slacks for their interviews. Its not used to pay cell phone bills and for internet providers so that they can use the web to send applications (and surf porn). Its only used for drugs. Then, those drug dealers ship the money to Columbia to the drug kingpins who stash it all in safehouses outside of the United States. The money is totally taken out of circulation. Unemployment benefits are bad for the economy.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:40 PM  

Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.


Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.
 
2014-01-10 01:22:50 PM  

iawai: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.

And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


Show your work or STFU.
 
2014-01-10 01:24:04 PM  

Rosecitybeaver: "Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong? "

I mean, sure the data suggests one thing, but it's obviously another because...I said so...or possibly Jebus

I think he just managed to sum up the religious right, tea party, and stupid people in one simple sentence.


Yeah, that's the republican party in a single sentence there.  Every single position they have is a reflection of that.
 
2014-01-10 01:24:11 PM  

iawai: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.

And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


That's certainly one way to look at it.  I'm thinking that judging by the round numbers it's pulled out of your ass. Also, it's an intellectually dishonest way of looking at what's already an existing bureaucracy to make it seem wasteful.  Plus it doesn't factor in continued benefit to the economy where wealth moves at a high velocity, but it's a way to look at it.
 
2014-01-10 01:24:15 PM  

ikanreed: ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.

And hating gays.

I haven't actually heard that one earnestly expressed before.


Oh yes, dude on dude marriage apparently is all a plot to undermine the traditional nuclear family unit which is the very foundation of our capitalist economy. So yeah its kind of a twofer its destroying traditional families and our economy.
 
2014-01-10 01:24:19 PM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


Are there no rich Democrats?

And charity is fine.  But that doesn't create jobs either.
 
2014-01-10 01:25:39 PM  
Everyone knows that the laser like focus on Jobs by the GOP since 2010 has resulted in over 500 Jobs bills across the country and would have had over 11eleventy million more Jobs by now if the Demorats hadn't stopped them!
 
2014-01-10 01:25:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: hubiestubert: They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy

Exactly. But that is not the same thing as casting it as a tool for economic recovery as many people here seem to think it is. It is effective and VITAL in softening the downward trend of a recession - of minimizing how far down we go. But it's a lousy tool for helping on the UPswing.


Like a trampoline - not only cushions your fall, but provides some lift for the ride back up.

// stopped collecting UI 6 weeks ago (after borrowing $1,500 from family on top of the $300/wk. Apparently, bills don't stop when you get fired)
 
2014-01-10 01:25:46 PM  

iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.What a great idea.


I think your point would play better if it was supported by more details and cites.
 
2014-01-10 01:25:59 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: There's a Limbaugh the Lesser?


He's the Limbaugh that goes to the Dominican Republic half as much as Limbaugh the Greater.
 
2014-01-10 01:26:10 PM  

ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.


West Virginia must be SWIMMING in jobs right now.
 
2014-01-10 01:27:43 PM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


What liberal plan is there to tax nobody but the top 1%?

Answer: There isn't one, because that's a strawman argument.
 
m00
2014-01-10 01:28:45 PM  

iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?


Well, we use a fiat currency system so it's created out of thin air. Technically the money comes out of our credit, less technically it comes from future generations. But taxes don't actually pay for anything. How could they? We collect taxes for a fiscal year after the money is paid out.

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Either it wouldn't exist, or it would go to into the off-shore accounts of hedge fund managers.

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.

It's not necessarily a net benefit. But I think in most cases preventing a bunch of homeless, starving families certainly does.
 
2014-01-10 01:29:25 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?

They consume drugs. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of drugs. Every two weeks. Rent doesn't get paid to their apartment management company. Food isn't purchased from grocery stores or corporations like Walmart. No one uses it to pay for a childs field trip or for new slacks for their interviews. Its not used to pay cell phone bills and for internet providers so that they can use the web to send applications (and surf porn). Its only used for drugs. Then, those drug dealers ship the money to Columbia to the drug kingpins who stash it all in safehouses outside of the United States. The money is totally taken out of circulation. Unemployment benefits are bad for the economy.


To be fair, he is speaking from experience. That is exactly what he and his brother would do in that situation.
 
2014-01-10 01:31:59 PM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.



I say this in complete and total sincerity:  that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.
 
2014-01-10 01:32:52 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Like a trampoline - not only cushions your fall, but provides some lift for the ride back up.


I am not so convinced on the "lift for the ride back up". If for no other reason than unemployment is always significantly less than the actual income it replaces. But even if it has ZERO 'lift' effect, it is still something that we need. We can obviously debate how long it should run for and all that, but there seems to be no question that as a society we should be able to provide some protection for people who hit hard times - becsue it is right to do AND because it helps protect everyone's economy. (Also people tend to forget that unemployment is largely PAID for in advance and is both state and federal money. People tend to think it is entirely federal cash pulled as needed).

Congratulations on finding work.
 
2014-01-10 01:33:32 PM  

urbangirl: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


I say this in complete and total sincerity:  that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.


I thought the same thing. I hope he was home schooled.
 
2014-01-10 01:33:58 PM  

urbangirl: I say this in complete and total sincerity: that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.


Is this your second day on Fark?
 
2014-01-10 01:35:11 PM  

StopLurkListen: Marcus Aurelius: Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.

Yeah, as soon as they get it unemployed people will just irresponsibly spend it all on things that other people produce. We should instead give money to responsible people who will put that money in a bank account.


In the Caymans.
 
2014-01-10 01:35:28 PM  

iawai: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.

And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


There is another word for "bureaucracy". JOBS. People getting PAID to process/coordinate/support benefits.
 
2014-01-10 01:36:22 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: urbangirl: I say this in complete and total sincerity: that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.

Is this your second day on Fark?


Dude, you know me.  You know I am ALL OVER fark.  ALL OVER IT. Like a chichuahua on a hot dog.
 
2014-01-10 01:36:33 PM  

iawai: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.

And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


[Citation needed]
 
m00
2014-01-10 01:36:49 PM  

urbangirl: I say this in complete and total sincerity: that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.


stupid... or brilliant... :o)
 
2014-01-10 01:37:34 PM  
Hey, those unemployment checks don't write themselves. Somebody has got to process those checks.
 
2014-01-10 01:37:52 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: urbangirl: I say this in complete and total sincerity: that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.

Is this your second day on Fark?


It's concise and stupid. Most FARKers would take 5 paragraphs to be that stupid.
 
2014-01-10 01:37:55 PM  
This is stupid. We need to stop giving money to the poor. I want to pay a black guy to dance to Mr. Bojangles while he pours gravy on himself, but I can't find a single person willing. If we repeal welfare, it will be easier for me to give that guy a job. And that's what it's about folks, creating jobs.

 
2014-01-10 01:39:27 PM  

morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?


"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.
 
2014-01-10 01:39:34 PM  
Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politiciansshrill Right Wing bloggers espouse sophisticated-sounding extremely weak theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong?

FTFY, no need to send me a check, this one's on the house.
 
2014-01-10 01:40:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: StopLurkListen: Marcus Aurelius: Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.

Yeah, as soon as they get it unemployed people will just irresponsibly spend it all on things that other people produce. We should instead give money to responsible people who will put that money in a bank account.

In the Caymans.


Damn... I thought my accountant said to keep my money in a caiman.
 
2014-01-10 01:41:11 PM  

urbangirl: Dude, you know me. You know I am ALL OVER fark. ALL OVER IT. Like a chichuahua on a hot dog.


I'm just a bit surprised you haven't seen stupider. This FARK for fark's sake. We've got people who think the moon landing was faked and that not teaching cursive is a way to establish a slave class of workers. Hell, we've even got people who think the ACA is a GOOD thing :)
 
2014-01-10 01:42:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: Like a trampoline - not only cushions your fall, but provides some lift for the ride back up.

I am not so convinced on the "lift for the ride back up". If for no other reason than unemployment is always significantly less than the actual income it replaces.


True, and you get even less than that since UI counts as "taxable income" (I paid the taxes up front, so what "should have" been $350/wk was $300). But when the alternative is "or nothing", it's a bit of ballast. So I suspect it depends on whether you compare UI to status quo ante (when you still had a job) or to making zero.

But even if it has ZERO 'lift' effect, it is still something that we need. We can obviously debate how long it should run for and all that, but there seems to be no question that as a society we should be able to provide some protection for people who hit hard times - becsue it is right to do AND because it helps protect everyone's economy. (Also people tend to forget that unemployment is largely PAID for in advance and is both state and federal money. People tend to think it is entirely federal cash pulled as needed).

Sure. So I guess whether it's a safety net or a tramampoline (trombompaline?) is immaterial so long as we all agree it helps.

Congratulations on finding work.

Dude, you have no idea. I was going insane - having a job gives me something to DO (you know, like play on Fark). And also pays me for it.

// and I set my salary high score! internet high-fives!
// wait - do I have to biatch about paying taxes now? (though I'm still "only" in the 25% bracket, so maybe not?)
 
2014-01-10 01:42:48 PM  

INeedAName: I want to pay a black guy to dance to Mr. Bojangles while he pours gravy on himself, but I can't find a single person willing.


Let me go on the record that I DO NOT WANT a gravy covered black guy dancing to me or anywhere near me!

Keep your kink to yourself!
 
2014-01-10 01:46:18 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.


Honest question, is the money spent on administrative and other operating costs not factored into the $1 that is returned as $1.60 in tax revenue?
 
2014-01-10 01:47:06 PM  

GardenWeasel: There is another word for "bureaucracy". JOBS. People getting PAID to process/coordinate/support benefits.


Not to mention that this bureaucracy is already in place.  It's not like there's going to be a new department created to deal with the never-before-offered unemployment benefits.
 
2014-01-10 01:47:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // and I set my salary high score! internet high-fives!// wait - do I have to biatch about paying taxes now? (though I'm still "only" in the 25% bracket, so maybe not?)


That's what we call "falling upwards". Awesome.

And yes, yes you will need to biatch about paying taxes now. At a certain point, if it get high enough, (somewhere around the 35% bracket) you will also begin to feel the urge to vote Republican. This urge can vary. Unless you currently live in a home that can be made mobile, go mudding in a pick up truck, or have an American, Confederate, or Revolutionary flag, an eagle, or the Alamo tattooed anywhere on your body in which case income is irrelevant and you likely already do.
 
2014-01-10 01:48:57 PM  
If people can't afford food and shelter they will do whatever they can to survive, including breaking into your house and stealing all your shiat. Hell they might even vote for a Democrat.
 
2014-01-10 01:49:07 PM  

glmorrs1: Honest question, is the money spent on administrative and other operating costs not factored into the $1 that is returned as $1.60 in tax revenue


Not usually, because it is assumed to already be existent. Meaning some or all of the Federal government is assumed to be needed and/or already present regardless of the disbursement of tax dollars to unemployment benefits. I'm sure someone with expertise can articulate this better.
 
2014-01-10 01:49:51 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: There's a Limbaugh the Lesser?


One could argue that that's all there is.
 
2014-01-10 01:50:37 PM  

m00: It's not necessarily a net benefit. But I think in most cases preventing a bunch of homeless, starving families certainly does.


It really would be cheaper to let them freeze and/or starve to death, though. Just like it would be cheaper to let poor people without health insurance go untreated until it's too late. Sure they go to the ER where it's pricier.... but a lot of them never leave, so they never cost another dime after that.

Which is basically what the republicans want since they believe that only the righteous and hard-working have money and that a lack of money proves you're neither of those things.

That's really the most galling part of the republicans' "plans". Their refusal to just be honest about what they really want: poor people to die and decrease the surplus population.
 
2014-01-10 01:50:55 PM  

Johnny_Whistle: Dwight_Yeast: There's a Limbaugh the Lesser?

One could argue that that's all there is.


Snap!
 
2014-01-10 01:52:07 PM  

skozlaw: That's really the most galling part of the republicans' "plans". Their refusal to just be honest about what they really want: poor people to die and decrease the surplus population.


It's so difficult to tell sometimes whether someone is trolling, genuinely deluded, or stupid.
 
2014-01-10 01:52:35 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.


So for every $4 the government spends on welfare a dollar goes to the needy and $3 goes to government employees. And as everyone knows all government employees are independently wealthy and don't respend that money.
 
2014-01-10 01:54:54 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-10 01:56:16 PM  
Remember back in 2008 when GWB cut a $300 check for every American and the Republicans went apeshiat about handouts and excessive spending that will hurt the economy?

Yeah, I don't remember that either.
 
2014-01-10 01:56:48 PM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


Indeed, many do donate. Just like Romney who gives to his own charity as a tax write off then funnels the money back to be used as he see's fit.
 
2014-01-10 01:56:50 PM  

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


Well apparently they take the EBT card to the store once a month and buy cases of Pepsi. That is then traded on a hillbilly black market for 50 cents on the dollar. Then all that sweet Pepsi cash is used to buy oxy's and liquor.
 
2014-01-10 01:57:50 PM  

morlinge: So while it seems that I am wrong in doubting the information.


Source is Mises Institute, which means there is a 100% chance they are lying to you somehow.
 
2014-01-10 01:59:42 PM  
clearly what we need are millions more people to lose their jobs and go on unemployment.  then it will begin raining jobs.
 
2014-01-10 02:00:18 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.


Those numbers are literally impossible. You have to severely distort the data to get Medicare administrative costs over 6%. You lose TANF money if total administrative costs exceed 15%. Total Medicaid administrative costs add up to about 7%. Even Section 8 caps administrative costs at 10%. You literally cannot drive administrative costs even up over 33% with all remaining federal and state non-defense, non-judicial expenditures.

I note that the authors cited wrote literally decades ago, and neither one is an academic. In fact, both the Tanner and Woodward books appear to be opinion pieces. The Mises Institute is known for this kind of dishonesty (okay, okay, outright lying), and it's why nobody takes them seriously.
 
2014-01-10 02:01:19 PM  

sammyk: El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?

Well apparently they take the EBT card to the store once a month and buy cases of Pepsi. That is then traded on a hillbilly black market for 50 cents on the dollar. Then all that sweet Pepsi cash is used to buy oxy's and liquor.


which is still better for the economy than any republican proposal.
 
2014-01-10 02:01:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And yes, yes you will need to biatch about paying taxes now. At a certain point, if it get high enough, (somewhere around the 35% bracket) you will also begin to feel the urge to vote Republican. This urge can vary. Unless you currently live in a home that can be made mobile, go mudding in a pick up truck, or have an American, Confederate, or Revolutionary flag, an eagle, or the Alamo tattooed anywhere on your body in which case income is irrelevant and you likely already do.


Nice.

I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)

Also, difficulty: DC. I'll be a liberal long after the last union member is strangled by the entrails of the last homosexual. :)
 
2014-01-10 02:03:09 PM  

Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.


There are 2 distinctly different kinds of Republicans. The first are the wealthy people you mentioned, who want to cross the bridge into wealth and then burn it behind them.

Then there are dirt poor, undereducated, dumb as fark backward hicks who honestly believe "If I just vote against my best interest ONE MORE TIME, the prosperity will come rolling in. Sure, I've been on disability for 10 years, but I'm not really the problem. IT'S THOSE PEOPLE."
 
2014-01-10 02:04:26 PM  

magusdevil: iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.

So for every $4 the government spends on welfare a dollar goes to the needy and $3 goes to government employees. And as everyone knows all government employees are independently wealthy and don't respend that money.



Well, we could cut government more and send them to the unemployment line too. Then EVERY dollar would go to the needy.
 
2014-01-10 02:04:32 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: skozlaw: That's really the most galling part of the republicans' "plans". Their refusal to just be honest about what they really want: poor people to die and decrease the surplus population.

It's so difficult to tell sometimes whether someone is trolling, genuinely deluded, or stupid.



Just do what I do with you, reduce all these more special cases down to a simple base case: you're just wrong.
 
2014-01-10 02:05:15 PM  
Just visited the Mises Institute website.  Next upcoming event:

Mises Circle Southwest Regional in Houston 2014: The US Police State
January 18 | HOUSTON, TEXAS

Join Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Yuri Maltsev, and Jeff Deist as they examine police states of the past and present and present new information and analysis to help in understanding the political and economic aspects of police states, and ask if we are already living in a police state in the United States today.


So there's that.
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:05:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It's so difficult to tell sometimes whether someone is trolling, genuinely deluded, or stupid.


Yeah, I didnt know how to respond to that.
 
2014-01-10 02:06:14 PM  

magusdevil: iawai: morlinge: iawai:
So for every $4 the government spends on welfare a dollar goes to the needy and $3 goes to government employees. And as everyone knows all government employees are independently wealthy and don't respend that money.


Way to move the goalposts. The question was about ROI of govt programs. We can argue about the economic benefit of "jobs programs" separately, if you'd like.
 
2014-01-10 02:07:23 PM  

colon_pow: clearly what we need are millions more people to lose their jobs and go on unemployment.  then it will begin raining jobs.


I don't know what you're even trying to say with that.  But if it's that unemployment benefits are an incentive to be unemployed you're a full of crap.

Plus, unemployment continues to go down despite the extensions under this administration.
 
2014-01-10 02:07:32 PM  

cousin-merle: morlinge: So while it seems that I am wrong in doubting the information.

Source is Mises Institute, which means there is a 100% chance they are lying to you somehow.


It looks like they're counting the cost of the already existing government infrastructure as part of the cost.  It seems disingenuous to be because a) the departments in government that distribute and oversee unemployment payments already exist and b) if you increase, for example, the duration of unemployment benefits, you don't increase the operational budget of those departments.

Plus, and here's something that might cause a few conservative heads to explode...  if you want to increase the efficiency of "overhead" you could always just get rid of or reduce the amount spent on the part of the system that makes sure those who claim unemployment are actually unemployed.
 
2014-01-10 02:09:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: glmorrs1: Honest question, is the money spent on administrative and other operating costs not factored into the $1 that is returned as $1.60 in tax revenue

Not usually, because it is assumed to already be existent. Meaning some or all of the Federal government is assumed to be needed and/or already present regardless of the disbursement of tax dollars to unemployment benefits. I'm sure someone with expertise can articulate this better.


Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are managed at the state level, not Federal.

Each state is responsible for the expenses required for *managing* the program, and the benefits themselves are split by the State & the Feds (by what percentage, I'm not sure).

That money still has to come from somewhere, though. In 2011, the amount of Unemployment Insurance collected from employers averaged around $275 per employee for the state, and $56 for the Federal Government.

However, due to the Federal extensions (which the *state* is still responsible for paying), states have had to borrow (so far) in excess of $40 billion dollars to continue paying extended UI claims.  California alone has borrowed over $8.8 Billion, and many states have already increased the UI tax amount (in some states by almost double) required by employers to start to cover the cost of the extended benefits (which some estimate will take 10+ years to repay).

So while that $1.00 may generate $1.61 in economic activity, it's being done with "borrowed" funds that will eventually have to be repaid. That doesn't mean it's still not the right thing to do, but it's going to fall to businesses (both large AND small) to foot the bill.
 
2014-01-10 02:09:26 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.


Compared to the 90+% that is absorbed by charities?  And citing the cato institute isn't going to win you any points around here.  Their methods are so sloppy and shoddy that it's not even worthy of mention.
 
2014-01-10 02:10:17 PM  

colon_pow: clearly what we need are millions more people to lose their jobs and go on unemployment.  then it will begin raining jobs.


I would be satisfied with educating people about the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.   At least then we could have a debate where both sides are at least capable of recognizing utter nonsense when they see it.
 
2014-01-10 02:12:09 PM  

morlinge: A person made a claim without any backing up. A link was provided by someone who wasn't the original posted citing a document citing reports from 1989 and 1996. Not exactly up to date. So while it seems that I am wrong in doubting the information. I don't think it was out of line to ask for a source, or to be skeptical of a source that is between 25 and 18 years old. So what I'm trying to say is, don't be a dick.



It might be worth noting that these aren't the same thing. You have a little apples and oranges in the cites and what is being discussed. Unemployment benefits and welfare payments are administered and handled very differently and obviously have differing impacts on the economy.

Let's look at it like this: Someone with no income, living in federal housing, on Medicaid, etc. is (from a PURELY economic standpoint), a net loss to the economy. 70% of every tax dollar may be lost administratively, and of that .30 cents remaining, not all of it makes it back into the economy anyway. When you factor in other net costs like the housing or rent subsidies, child care and head start, etc. We still need to do it of course, but it a cost, not an economic investment. And we aren't comparing it to a negative change in the economy, because they weren't previously adding large money into the system.

Conversely, when we look at unemployment, we are looking at a LOSS of money into the economy as a starting position. So someone who was bringing in, say, $1,200 a month, would have been putting, say, $1,000 a month right back into the economy in bills, groceries, rent, car note, gas, etc. With that income gone, there would be an instant net loss to the economy of $1,000 a month. Multiply that by a few million and you have a significant economic impact. By providing unemployment benefits, you not only do the good of helping the individual, but you potentially halve the economic impact. Instead of losing that $1000 a month, he gets back $720.month from unemployment insurance (and remember this is largely PRE-Paid) and that $720 goes right back out to the economy for bills, rent, car note, gas, food, etc. So now we are down maybe $250/month instead of $1,000/month.

Or even worse, that person goes onto welfare and we lose a lot more in the net than just the $1,000 a month.

Anyway, arguing the economic impact of unemployment benefits by citing welfare system waste is... sorta misdirected.
 
2014-01-10 02:13:00 PM  
The bizarre, totally correct and factual assertion.
 
2014-01-10 02:15:48 PM  

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


I personally put mine into a money market account, T-bills, a few CDs.  With interest rates like these, how can you not!
 
2014-01-10 02:16:45 PM  

captainktainer: iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.

Those numbers are literally impossible. You have to severely distort the data to get Medicare administrative costs over 6%. You lose TANF money if total administrative costs exceed 15%. Total Medicaid administrative costs add up to about 7%. Even Section 8 caps administrative costs at 10%. You literally cannot drive administrative costs even up over 33% with all remaining federal and state non-defense, non-judicial expenditures.

I note that the authors cited wrote literally decades ago, and neither one is an academic. In fact, both the Tanner and Woodward books appear to be opinion pieces. The Mises Institute is known for this kind of dishonesty (okay, okay, outright lying), and it's why nobody takes them serio ...


Noted. It was the first source I found via google with the data that I remembered. Though, looking through the rest of the paper there does seem to be some more reputable sources with more recent data.

Also, I was under the impression that people dismissed the Mises Institute for being a priori and deductive. Can you share where there is discussion about other examples of severe distortion/dishonesty? I don't use them for much, but I'd like to know if there's good reason to avoid them altogether.
 
2014-01-10 02:17:06 PM  

colon_pow: clearly what we need are millions more people to lose their jobs and go on unemployment.  then it will begin raining jobs.


Nice strawman you got there.
 
2014-01-10 02:17:24 PM  

colon_pow: clearly what we need are millions more people to lose their jobs and go on unemployment.  then it will begin raining jobs.


clearly, we need a "no open flames" sign put up - any ignition in the vicinity of your statement is likely to set strawmen ablaze.
 
2014-01-10 02:18:12 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

There are 2 distinctly different kinds of Republicans. The first are the wealthy people you mentioned, who want to cross the bridge into wealth and then burn it behind them.

Then there are dirt poor, undereducated, dumb as fark backward hicks who honestly believe "If I just vote against my best interest ONE MORE TIME, the prosperity will come rolling in. Sure, I've been on disability for 10 years, but I'm not really the problem. IT'S THOSE PEOPLE."


Yep, you nailed it.  The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.
 
2014-01-10 02:19:07 PM  
Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the Poor

this is pretty much all you need to know
 
2014-01-10 02:19:46 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.



Source: "mises.org"

Nah, pretty sure the potato's still in yours - and shoved up the cloaca of a very, very abused chicken.

"The Review endorsed Ferrara's thesis, and criticized Mises scholars who advocate for the legal right to (though not the morality of) "selling children to the highest bidder, or starving them to death at the whim of their parents". "

Citing lunatics like the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn't the way to make a convincing case.
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:20:10 PM  

Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.


So the USA is over 49% bigots?
 
2014-01-10 02:20:48 PM  
It does stimulate new jobs, just not for the people on unemployment. It helps people who have jobs at places people need to shop at instead of dieing like grocery stores or WalMart.

Jesus Christ these people are stupid.
 
2014-01-10 02:21:28 PM  

m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?


Well, not self-identifying bigots, just those who vote the bigot platform.  Better?
 
2014-01-10 02:22:09 PM  

GrailOfThunder: Keep in mind that unemployment benefits are managed at the state level, not Federal.


Yep. Mentioned that upthread. And as you say, It is important to note that employers pay into the fund directly for this specific purpose, so it's not entirely a pull from 'Joe taxpayer'. (ours has gone up). That cost ALSO has a negative economic impact when scaled to large employers.

I agree with the overall gist of your post. Unemployment benefits are a good thing to do, but not in perpetuity, and are a lousy tool of economic recovery, which many people mistakenly believe it to be. It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that paying more unemployment benefits is an effective way to produce more jobs.

I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people. As I mentioned above there WAS a poorly implanted and uselessly restricted plan at the beginning of the recession that just sort of disappeared from everyone's minds. We need a good version of THAT more than we need to give out unemployment for two years.
 
2014-01-10 02:23:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.


Inded.  In fact like food Stamps UI benefits tend to generate about $1.25 in economic stimulus for every dollar so spent.   As opposed to top tier tax breaks which give us about $0.14 ROI for every dollar.   So efficiency-wise...
 
2014-01-10 02:24:02 PM  

coeyagi: m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?

Well, not self-identifying bigots, just those who vote the bigot platform.  Better?


Not bigots. But #1 with bigots.
 
2014-01-10 02:25:24 PM  
I'm not going to debate whether or not it creates jobs, but I can guarantee you that it keeps jobs.
 
2014-01-10 02:25:55 PM  

m00: So the USA is over 49% bigots?


Obviously! Binary politico Farkers can only accommodate two extremes at any given moment. There are no bigots on Team A, therefore ALL bigots are on team B. It's just simple logic.
 
2014-01-10 02:28:15 PM  
How can we ever expect America's younger generations to preserve America's greatness when the president of this nation keeps preaching damaging economic myths

Says the assholes who preach the Trickle Down Economics religion.
 
2014-01-10 02:28:17 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that paying more unemployment benefits is an effective way to produce more jobs.


produce more jobs than doing....?...with the money instead?
 
2014-01-10 02:29:11 PM  
It almost seems like they don't want the economy as a whole to get better.   Or they have no plans or ideas to help it get better.
 
2014-01-10 02:29:47 PM  

iawai: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.

And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.


You're making shiat up, and it's blindingly obvious.
 
2014-01-10 02:30:39 PM  
I am never going to give Townhall my click for this kind of shiat, no matter how clever a subby is.

But how dare we care about our FELLOW CITIZENS who have been harmed by the current economic climate!
 
2014-01-10 02:31:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that paying more unemployment benefits is an effective way to produce more jobs.


Well, there's an intermediate step that's generally not mentioned.  Robust (but not excessive) unemployment benefits strengthens the economy and a stronger economy produces jobs.

It's kind of like saying that this or that policy creates jobs...  usually those policies don't SPECIFICALLY create jobs.  They create economic conditions where more jobs are needed (and hence, created).
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:31:26 PM  

FlashHarry: Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the Poor

this is pretty much all you need to know


Well, then tell me something else.

What has caused the complete failure of the Democrats' War on Poverty in Democratic strongholds where every elected official is a Democrat. Talking about urban inner cities that have been solid D since the Johnson Administration.

For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?
 
2014-01-10 02:32:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that paying more unemployment benefits is an effective way to produce more jobs.


It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that ending unemployment benefits would not have a significant negative impact on the economy. What sort of sense does it make to remove or seriously reduce people's ability to consume in a consumer-driven economy?
 
2014-01-10 02:33:15 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: m00: So the USA is over 49% bigots?

Obviously! Binary politico Farkers can only accommodate two extremes at any given moment. There are no bigots on Team A, therefore ALL bigots are on team B. It's just simple logic.


It's simple lying.  No one said that.  But keep believing it if you want, if it makes you happy to think you're "sticking it to someone".
 
2014-01-10 02:33:33 PM  

m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?


the Republican Party:  Not racist, but #1 with racists.
 
2014-01-10 02:34:49 PM  

m00: FlashHarry: Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the Poor

this is pretty much all you need to know

Well, then tell me something else.

What has caused the complete failure of the Democrats' War on Poverty in Democratic strongholds where every elected official is a Democrat. Talking about urban inner cities that have been solid D since the Johnson Administration.

For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?


I see no mention of poor, rural folks who have voted Republican since the Johnson Administration; clearly they are losing the War on Poverty, as well. It's almost as if the partisan explanation you're trying to shoehorn into the discussion doesn't exist.
 
2014-01-10 02:38:18 PM  
If you give people money, don't they usually spend it?


just asking.


I kinda thought people spending money is a good thing.


....because the economy and capitalism or something.

Please don't tell me the Govt can't afford it. The Govt has a magic money fairy that pays for everything.

You know, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Wall Street, bankers and the Auto Industry bailouts. Money Fairy would NEVER waste hundreds of billions on those while families suffer.
 
2014-01-10 02:39:06 PM  
So here's what I don't get about this:

Premise 1:  Extending unemployment insurance benefits does not create jobs
Premise 2:  People with no income have a strong incentive to acquire one.
Premise 3:  People with low income have no incentive to increase their income through work.

Conclusion:  We should not extend unemployment benefits.

It's Premise 3 that I take issue with. (Well I also take issue with premise 1, but that's another post)  People who have low income have a very strong incentive to increase their income.  I'll grant you that the amount of money made from minimum wage jobs don't really make it worth their while, in many cases.  But wouldn't that be an argument FOR raising the minimum wage?  Not an argument AGAINST extending unemployment benefits?

And anyone who's tried to make ends meet on minimum wage would more than certainly take issue with the idea that it provides no incentive to find a higher-paying job.
 
2014-01-10 02:39:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people. As I mentioned above there WAS a poorly implanted and uselessly restricted plan at the beginning of the recession that just sort of disappeared from everyone's minds. We need a good version of THAT more than we need to give out unemployment for two years.


I find it extremely interesting how some of the states affected are paying for the interest on their Federal UI loans, too.

In 2011, for example, New York simply sent a bill to all its businesses of up to $21.25 per employee to cover its $95.4 million interest charge.

California "borrowed" its $303.3 million interest payment from a disability insurance fund.

Ohio dipped into tobacco settlement funds to settle a roughly $70 million interest bill.

(How the Feds can charge interest on a loan they're basically forcing the states to make is a whole different topic).
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:40:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.


What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?
 
2014-01-10 02:42:07 PM  

Headso: produce more jobs than doing....?...with the money instead?


As I said in the very post you excerpted from, creating incentives for Small/Medium Businesses (who employ the overwhelming majority of Americans) would probably be better.

Remember that I am not advocating for NOT giving unemployment benefits - we can and should do that. The question is about the special, additional and extended unemployment period out to almost two years.

See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.

Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.

So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.

Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.
 
2014-01-10 02:42:26 PM  

m00: FlashHarry: Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the Poor

this is pretty much all you need to know

Well, then tell me something else.

What has caused the complete failure of the Democrats' War on Poverty in Democratic strongholds where every elected official is a Democrat. Talking about urban inner cities that have been solid D since the Johnson Administration.

For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?


Aren't pretty much all cities Democratic? What big Republican city are we comparing DC to?
 
2014-01-10 02:42:57 PM  

m00: Well, then tell me something else.

What has caused the complete failure of the Democrats' War on Poverty in Democratic strongholds where every elected official is a Democrat. Talking about urban inner cities that have been solid D since the Johnson Administration.

For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?


I'd say two things.  Firstly, a war on poverty can never be won in any active system of government currently on earth.  And certainly not in a capitalist society.

Secondly, I know that in the US people are often told that the GOP is right wing and the Dems are left wing.  It only looks that way because there are two parties.  In reality the Dems are center-right and there's about the level of poverty that one would expect in a centrist gov't.
 
2014-01-10 02:43:04 PM  

m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?


Derp, idiot thinks that 49% of the country is republican because 48.6% of those who voted in the most recent presidential election, who make up a fraction of registered to vote, who make up a fraction of the populace, voted for a republican candidate.

I have yet to see a non-bigot republican.
 
2014-01-10 02:43:30 PM  

m00: Of course it increases jobs. People on unemployment insurance spend money.


Why limit the goodness to the unemployed? Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:43:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: m00: So the USA is over 49% bigots?

Obviously! Binary politico Farkers can only accommodate two extremes at any given moment. There are no bigots on Team A, therefore ALL bigots are on team B. It's just simple logic.


Well, it's simple math really. I was responding to "The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots." Republican Party represents about 50% of the voters nation-wide. So if the Republican party is comprised of the 1% and bigots, then 49% of voters are bigots.
 
2014-01-10 02:44:26 PM  

m00: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.

What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


You'd have them actually hire people, then apply for the tax benefit. This is not, in and of itself, a terrible idea, but it misses a larger point: if a business doesn't need to hire, they won't hire, regardless of the tax benefits they might get.
 
2014-01-10 02:44:36 PM  

m00: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.

What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


This chart will help...
i41.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-10 02:45:18 PM  
What would help the economy and job creation more would be tax cuts so 'makers' could take those savings and invest in off-shore bank accounts, I'm told by prominent farkers.
 
2014-01-10 02:45:18 PM  

farkstorm: Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!


What do you think the rationale behind tax cuts, tax rebates, and economic stimulus is?
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:46:03 PM  

qorkfiend: I see no mention of poor, rural folks who have voted Republican since the Johnson Administration; clearly they are losing the War on Poverty, as well. It's almost as if the partisan explanation you're trying to shoehorn into the discussion doesn't exist.


I was posing a counter-example to the assertion of the previous post "Democrats: War on Poverty / Republicans: War on the Poor / this is pretty much all you need to know"

But yah, I'm the one shoehorning in partisanship.
 
2014-01-10 02:47:01 PM  

m00: qorkfiend: I see no mention of poor, rural folks who have voted Republican since the Johnson Administration; clearly they are losing the War on Poverty, as well. It's almost as if the partisan explanation you're trying to shoehorn into the discussion doesn't exist.

I was posing a counter-example to the assertion of the previous post "Democrats: War on Poverty / Republicans: War on the Poor / this is pretty much all you need to know"

But yah, I'm the one shoehorning in partisanship.


Um, ok?
 
2014-01-10 02:47:08 PM  

A Cave Geek: So here's what I don't get about this:

Premise 1:  Extending unemployment insurance benefits does not create jobs
Premise 2:  People with no income have a strong incentive to acquire one.
Premise 3:  People with low income have no incentive to increase their income through work.

Conclusion:  We should not extend unemployment benefits.

It's Premise 3 that I take issue with. (Well I also take issue with premise 1, but that's another post)  People who have low income have a very strong incentive to increase their income.  I'll grant you that the amount of money made from minimum wage jobs don't really make it worth their while, in many cases.  But wouldn't that be an argument FOR raising the minimum wage?  Not an argument AGAINST extending unemployment benefits?

And anyone who's tried to make ends meet on minimum wage would more than certainly take issue with the idea that it provides no incentive to find a higher-paying job.


I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system.  That makes sense.  The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.
 
2014-01-10 02:48:19 PM  

qorkfiend: It takes a special kind of myopic or distorted thinking to arrive at the conclusion that ending unemployment benefits would not have a significant negative impact on the economy.


Do you think I am advocating NOT giving unemployment benefits? If so, you might want to give my comments so far a run through again before posting further.

m00: What's stopping them from just taking that tax break and using it to issue stock, pay dividends, pay executive bonuses, put it in the bank, etc?


...the requirement that they hire someone in order to get the breaks in the first place? I'm not saying we pay them money, I'm saying we give them a tax holiday WHEN they HAVE hired someone. What they do with the savings is largely irrelevant, so long as the jobs are created.

Mercutio74: Well, there's an intermediate step that's generally not mentioned. Robust (but not excessive) unemployment benefits strengthens the economy and a stronger economy produces jobs.


As we have discussed above, it doesn't make the economy BETTER. It just helps keep the economy from getting as worse as it would otherwise. This is an important distinction.
 
2014-01-10 02:49:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.


I did read your whole post. Demand for products and services from consumers is what produces employment. Giving a consumer that can't find work for 2 years benefits creates demand for products and services. No business is going to hire people just because you gave them a tax cut if they don't have demand for whatever they are selling.
 
2014-01-10 02:49:49 PM  

mrshowrules: I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system. That makes sense. The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.


That's the big point here.  Unemployment is a bandage.  But you have to stop cutting yourself if you want to heal.  The GOP either doesn't get this, or just doesn't care.
 
2014-01-10 02:50:18 PM  

qorkfiend: farkstorm: Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!

What do you think the rationale behind tax cuts, tax rebates, and economic stimulus is?


And bank bailouts and tax loopholes and general corporate welfare,

But it's the green stamp queens who are bleeding us dry!
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:52:26 PM  

odinsposse: Aren't pretty much all cities Democratic? What big Republican city are we comparing DC to?


Cities with Republican Mayors:
Albuquerque
Indianapolis
Fresno
Mesa
Miami
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Virginia Beach

So you're right that vast majority of large cities are Democrat. I'm genuinely unsure what that means with respect to the urban poverty issue... maybe poverty is unrelated to economic policy, or both parties have economic policies that contribute to poverty.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As we have discussed above, it doesn't make the economy BETTER. It just helps keep the economy from getting as worse as it would otherwise. This is an important distinction.


I guess that hair gets split over how much benefit there is to money moving through the economy.  There's a secondary benefit when money is spent on goods and services and I think it's clear that no one's squirrelling away their unemployment checks.  That stuff gets spent and then some.

Economists generally look at unemployment benefits as having a net beneficial effect on the economy so I'm inclined to go with their analysis.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:04 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm saying we give them a tax holiday WHEN they HAVE hired someone. What they do with the savings is largely irrelevant, so long as the jobs are created.


Businesses that can meet demand with their current workforce aren't going to hire anyone, even if they get a tax break for it.
Businesses that can't meet demand with their current workforce will hire people, even if they don't get a tax break for it.
 
2014-01-10 02:53:11 PM  

m00: For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?


DC is a horrible example to use. Let's start with these two reasons:
-Marion Barry
-Congress (which still has an insane amount of control over DC, unlike the relationship of every other city in the country to the Feds or the state)

Feel free to add more.

// and there are non-Democrats in Council seats: David Grosso (at-large, so not elected by a specific Ward) and David Catania (also at-large)
// so, 12 of 14 are Democrats
// Republicans run here, it's just tough with a message of "Have you tried NOT being [poor|black|gay]?"
 
2014-01-10 02:54:14 PM  

m00: or both parties have economic policies that contribute to poverty.


Winner!
 
2014-01-10 02:55:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.



Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back.
 
2014-01-10 02:56:00 PM  
Townhall is such a misnomer.

No one with any levelheaded sense would be at one of theirs.
 
2014-01-10 02:56:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: BojanglesPaladin: And yes, yes you will need to biatch about paying taxes now. At a certain point, if it get high enough, (somewhere around the 35% bracket) you will also begin to feel the urge to vote Republican. This urge can vary. Unless you currently live in a home that can be made mobile, go mudding in a pick up truck, or have an American, Confederate, or Revolutionary flag, an eagle, or the Alamo tattooed anywhere on your body in which case income is irrelevant and you likely already do.

Nice.

I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)

Also, difficulty: DC. I'll be a liberal long after the last union member is strangled by the entrails of the last homosexual. :)


If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun. Very well made, very accurate and very cool. Note that the calibre isn't necessarily the limiter on the frame size. I have handled 9mm handguns that had much bigger grip size than some .40s. You best bet is to try a bunch of different models and makes in different calibres. Some makes also allow for interchangeable backstraps that can change the size of the grip.
 
m00
2014-01-10 02:56:46 PM  

farkstorm: Why limit the goodness to the unemployed? Let's really get the economy going with FREE MONEY FOR EVERYBODY!


This is the economic theory, yes. Unfortunately "free money for everybody" translates to "free money for those wealthy enough to afford lobbyists"
 
2014-01-10 02:57:31 PM  

Mercutio74: mrshowrules: I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system. That makes sense. The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.

That's the big point here.  Unemployment is a bandage.  But you have to stop cutting yourself if you want to heal.  The GOP either doesn't get this, or just doesn't care.



Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, that's self-defeathing socialism and un-American.
 
2014-01-10 03:02:45 PM  

m00: Pincy: Yep, you nailed it. The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots.

So the USA is over 49% bigots?


You think that 50% of the country is republican?


Mittens will be confused as to how he only got 60mm votes.
 
2014-01-10 03:02:55 PM  

Lord_Baull: BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people.


Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back.


www.gothereforeministries.org

Page 293.  "When determining whether or not your business needs to hire more employees, first, verify your effective tax rate.  If it is lower than the year before, hire.  Higher than the hear before fire.  The same, you probably don't want to take any action as it relates to hiring or firing."
 
2014-01-10 03:04:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)


.40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

.02¢
 
2014-01-10 03:07:56 PM  

m00: iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?

Well, we use a fiat currency system so it's created out of thin air. Technically the money comes out of our credit, less technically it comes from future generations. But taxes don't actually pay for anything. How could they? We collect taxes for a fiscal year after the money is paid out.

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Either it wouldn't exist, or it would go to into the off-shore accounts of hedge fund managers.

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.

It's not necessarily a net benefit. But I think in most cases preventing a bunch of homeless, starving families certainly does.


That is what a lot of conservatives do not seem to understand.  They talk about the government taking "their money", "you can't spend your way into prosperity", and fighting "redistribution of wealth".  They fail to realize that the money is worthless without the government's backing, that backing/value depends on the production ability of the nation, and that production ability works best when money is redistributed to the areas it is needed.  You create more consumers which creates demand.  Demand increases the value of products produced which increases the GNP, and that is how you build the wealth which gives value to a fiat currency.

Supply side economics kind of does the opposite.  Not enough of the wealth ever seems to get to the consumer due to stagnant wages; and the side effect is the demand fails to materialize for the increased production, which lowers the value of the goods produced.
 
2014-01-10 03:09:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Businesses that can meet demand with their current workforce aren't going to hire anyone, even if they get a tax break for it.Businesses that can't meet demand with their current workforce will hire people, even if they don't get a tax break for it.


Headso: Demand for products and services from consumers is what produces employment. Giving a consumer that can't find work for 2 years benefits creates demand for products and services. No business is going to hire people just because you gave them a tax cut if they don't have demand for whatever they are selling.


And surely you agree that what is even BETTER than those same people having a fraction of their previous income to put into the economy is for them to have their previous income or better? And that as MORE people put MORE of that income into the economy MORE businesses will need to hire MORE employees?

The issue here is that unemployment benefits help maintain the status quo and/or prevent a further downward slide. But unemployment benefits are LESS than employment. So we need more employment. Obviously, we aren't going to spontaneously generate ALL the jobs at once, but what *IS* clear is that 6 years of paying long term unemployment benefits isn't INCREASING demand. Obviously. It's LESS than the previous status quo.

It's weird that you guys seem to think that continuing to make sure that LESS money than before going into the economy will somehow magically cause MORE economic growth. Especially as we can see that it's just not.

The economy is no longer in freefall. That's great, and the extended unemployment benefits are a significant part of the reason for this. Now it's time to put resources toward increasing growth. There are plenty of companies who have put of growth, or held back. That's why so many companies are sitting on larger and larger cash reserves for instance. And it's why we need to focus on the SMB businesses. give those companies who are on the verge of hiring a reason to do so NOW, not "at some point, based on how things go".

Hell, get radical. Give any company with less than 50 employees and automatic $10,000 tax write-off for every additional employee that is there a year later.

The point is that JOBS are better for the economy than unemployment benefits, and unemployment benefits do not INCREASE demand.
 
2014-01-10 03:10:55 PM  

Lord_Baull: Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back


Did you have a point to make? I don't recall getting any tax breaks for hiring staff during those years.
 
2014-01-10 03:12:27 PM  
You know, as someone who spent the better part of the last five years unemployed or underemployed, I'd like to extend a hearty "Fark You" to every single politician bloviating about how unemployment insurance is a disincentive to find work.

Seriously, fark you and yours.
 
Bf+
2014-01-10 03:14:19 PM  

impaler: How can we ever expect America's younger generations to preserve America's greatness when the president of this nation keeps preaching damaging economic myths

Says the assholes who preach the Trickle Down Economics religion.



I see we're done here.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And surely you agree that what is even BETTER than those same people having a fraction of their previous income to put into the economy is for them to have their previous income or better? And that as MORE people put MORE of that income into the economy MORE businesses will need to hire MORE employees?


Sure it would better but you can't force companies to hire people, they will when demand for their product or service dictates they should.

 It's weird that you guys seem to think that continuing to make sure that LESS money than before going into the economy will somehow magically cause MORE economic growth. Especially as we can see that it's just not.

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?
 
2014-01-10 03:16:14 PM  

Psylence: Dr Dreidel: I have no tattoos (yet...?), but I probably will head to the shootin' range in the next 3-4 weeks. I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)

.40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

.02¢


Perceived recoil also has a lot to do with the model of handgun as well. A metal framed pistol will have less recoil than a polymer framed. If the bore axis is set lower to the frame the recoil moves the pistol upwards less and back into the hand more. Practice and grip will also allow you to get back on target quickly and easily. The right pistol with the right grip in the right hands will be accurate regardless of calibre. Not to toot my own horn, but I shoot a .40 in IPSC and I am at least as accurate as 9mm shooters in my class (B).

.02¢ as well.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I don't own a weapon yet, but I have my eye on the Sig .40 models. (Any advice on .40 models, even non-Sig, is appreciated. I find that 9mms are too small for my gigantic hands, and .45 is too much round - and too expensive - for simple paper-holing.)


I'm not as gun guy AT ALL, but I don't think grip size is tied to caliber. I have big 'ol frog hands and I found both the 9mm and .45 Glocks to be too small, requiring a grip extender to even be workable. I went with a Springfield which had a longer grip and the added benefit of a double safety (grip and trigger). Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.
 
m00
2014-01-10 03:16:49 PM  

Tigger: You think that 50% of the country is republican?


Mittens will be confused as to how he only got 60mm votes.


48% of votes went for Romney Yes, popular vote is usually very close. Party self-identification is roughly equal.
 
2014-01-10 03:16:53 PM  
Interesting employment  report.pdf:

- 66% of low-wage workers are employed by large corporations with 100+ employees
- Top exec compensation averaged $9M
- Dividends/share buybacks totaled $174M
- Of the 50 largest, almost all were profitable, and 75% "have higher revenues now than before the recession"
- McDonalds saw a 130% increase in profits over the last 4 fiscal years

I don't think a minimum wage hike is a great idea, not unless it's paid for with salary/bonus cuts for top execs.
 
2014-01-10 03:21:41 PM  

Headso: You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?


I understand. But given a choice between unemployment for the EXTRA, supplemental period (out to two years) and that same money producing actual jobs, I would go with spending the money to get jobs.

Here's a question for you. How many people are we talking about here anyway? Most people who get unemployment have it for an average of, what? 6 months? 9 months? How many people are still on it nearly two years later? And how many have just fallen off unemployment entirely, already producing this negative economic impact?

People tend to throw out the TOTAL number of people on unemployment, but we are really just talking about a percentage of people on unemployment. So what are the numbers here?
 
2014-01-10 03:22:23 PM  
mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.
 
2014-01-10 03:22:31 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Lord_Baull: Yeah, 2001-2006 called. They want their bullshiat back

Did you have a point to make? I don't recall getting any tax breaks for hiring staff during those years.



Are you being purposefully obtuse? The Bush Tax breaks were sold to the public as necessary for 'makers' to be able to hire more. Tax cuts = more jobs.
 
2014-01-10 03:24:33 PM  
lol reagan
 
2014-01-10 03:24:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: m00: For example, DC has had a Democratic Mayor since the position was created in 1975, and has been run by a Democrat since 1967. Every Ward of DC elects Democrats to the City Council. Yet they are clearly losing the War on Poverty. This situation isn't unique to DC.

what gives?

DC is a horrible example to use. Let's start with these two reasons:
-Marion Barry
-Congress (which still has an insane amount of control over DC, unlike the relationship of every other city in the country to the Feds or the state)

Feel free to add more.

// and there are non-Democrats in Council seats: David Grosso (at-large, so not elected by a specific Ward) and David Catania (also at-large)
// so, 12 of 14 are Democrats
// Republicans run here, it's just tough with a message of "Have you tried NOT being [poor|black|gay]?"


BS, DC is a great example.

Anyone who wants to claim DC is all poverty obviously doesn't understand quite what is considered DC.

Is SE poor as crap, yes. But NW is one of the priciest places to live in the country.
 
2014-01-10 03:25:37 PM  

Mouldy Squid: If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun.


Psylence: .40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...


BojanglesPaladin: Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.


Looks like I'd need a grip extender (though I should think "widener" is the better noun, yes?). I'm not as concerned about accuracy since I'll only be using it for target practice, which sounds weird, but I figure as long as it's sighted properly, I'll get more accurate with more range time.

And my range (On Target, near Ft Meade, MD - anyone know of anything comparable in NOVA?) does indeed have a wide assortment, though boxen of .40s are $5-10 cheaper than .45s).

Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).
 
2014-01-10 03:29:26 PM  

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


Would have helped if congress considered any of the jobs bills instead of trying to repeal Obamacare or enact abortion restrictions.

Oh hey, that's YOUR team acting like assholes.  SHOCKER!
 
2014-01-10 03:30:13 PM  

Brick-House: I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


I'm sure Iran would chip in for that operation.
 
2014-01-10 03:31:07 PM  

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]


"At the end of each recession that each inherited."


Are you purposefully ignoring the decline of jobs for additional 7-12 months after your Obama starting point, and the complete obstructionism from the GOP over the course of his entire administration?
 
2014-01-10 03:31:46 PM  

INeedAName: BS, DC is a great example.

Anyone who wants to claim DC is all poverty obviously doesn't understand quite what is considered DC.

Is SE poor as crap, yes. But NW is one of the priciest places to live in the country.


I live in NW (DuPont Circle). Also, I said nothing about poverty.

One of the biggest problems with DC is meddling by Congress - they retain veto power over ALL laws passed by the Council (and could, in theory, dissolve the DC government entirely) - while at the same time being subject to ZERO whining from representatives from it.

St Louis, NY, LA, Chicago...all of them have a Rep in Congress that has some sway (almost by virtue of the millions of voters that live in those districts). DC does not, unlike every other city in America. For that reason (and Marion Barry still having lots of sway here for some unfathomable reason), DC is a bad city to compare to.
 
2014-01-10 03:32:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?

I understand. But given a choice between unemployment for the EXTRA, supplemental period (out to two years) and that same money producing actual jobs, I would go with spending the money to get jobs.


Spend the money how to get the jobs? what demand are you creating to make companies hire? We know unemployment creates demand just from the simple fact that people gotta eat...
 
2014-01-10 03:33:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Mouldy Squid: If you can find them, CZ75s in .40 are a sweet handgun.

Psylence: .40 is usually more $ than .45 ammowise. Also has a sharper, snappier recoil than a 9mm or a .45 and is more difficult to be as accurate with...

BojanglesPaladin: Most firing ranges have an assortment of guns you can chew thru a few boxes with and I would definitely try out some different makers with actual firing before making a purchase.

Looks like I'd need a grip extender (though I should think "widener" is the better noun, yes?). I'm not as concerned about accuracy since I'll only be using it for target practice, which sounds weird, but I figure as long as it's sighted properly, I'll get more accurate with more range time.

And my range (On Target, near Ft Meade, MD - anyone know of anything comparable in NOVA?) does indeed have a wide assortment, though boxen of .40s are $5-10 cheaper than .45s).

Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).


Ask your gun dealer about models with "interchangeable backstraps". There are several on the market now, including S&W (the M&P). I am not a big fan of polymer frames so I get to miss out on the "grip-size-changiness" (although I am looking at getting a Walther P99 in .40). Metal frames are heavier, sure, but I am not and LEO and don't carry a pistol around all day (Canadian so I don't get concealed carry either). My personal favourite is the CZ75. You can't go wrong with a SIG, but they are IMHO over priced for what you get.
 
2014-01-10 03:33:54 PM  

Brick-House: Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


Lol... Are you actually old enough to remember the Reagan years?


Yes, indeed, Mr. "I do not recall" would have bee on top of it... *rolls eyes*
 
2014-01-10 03:34:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).


Great, you committed statutory rape and we all had to watch.  Thanks for that.
 
2014-01-10 03:35:00 PM  
www.thereformedbroker.com

A better job creation investment to place unemployment checks
 
2014-01-10 03:37:02 PM  

Lord_Baull: Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]


"At the end of each recession that each inherited."

Are you purposefully ignoring the decline of jobs for additional 7-12 months after your Obama starting point, and the complete obstructionism from the GOP over the course of his entire administration?


He's a Brick....
...
...
House!

Derpy, derpy.  He's letting it all hang out!
 
2014-01-10 03:37:07 PM  

m00: Tigger: You think that 50% of the country is republican?


Mittens will be confused as to how he only got 60mm votes.

48% of votes went for Romney Yes, popular vote is usually very close. Party self-identification is roughly equal.


But that's not 48% of the country is it.
 
2014-01-10 03:37:28 PM  

vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".


It's not even priming the pump. It's called filling the gas tank.
 
2014-01-10 03:37:48 PM  

heavymetal: That is what a lot of conservatives do not seem to understand.  They talk about the government taking "their money", "you can't spend your way into prosperity", and fighting "redistribution of wealth".  They fail to realize that the money is worthless without the government's backing, that backing/value depends on the production ability of the nation, and that production ability works best when money is redistributed to the areas it is needed.  You create more consumers which creates demand.  Demand increases the value of products produced which increases the GNP, and that is how you build the wealth which gives value to a fiat currency.

Supply side economics kind of does the opposite.  Not enough of the wealth ever seems to get to the consumer due to stagnant wages; and the side effect is the demand fails to materialize for the increased production, which lowers the value of the goods produced.


I'm not a conservative, but your understanding of money seems rather skewed.

I do agree that typical "supply side economic policies" harm the consumer - but not through "lowering the value of goods produced."

All this aside, how about we compromise: end all corporate welfare, and transfer that massive payment program to either a direct-to-taxpayer payout or help for the most needy (e.g. unemployed or poorest x%).
 
2014-01-10 03:37:55 PM  
I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.
 
2014-01-10 03:38:05 PM  
img.fark.net

Man:
 Here's one.
Dead Collector: Nine pence.
"Dead" Man: I'm not dead.
Dead Collector: What?
Man: Nothing.  [hands the collector his money] There's your nine pence.
"Dead" Man: I'm not dead!
Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
 Man: Yes he is.
"Dead" Man: I'm not.
Dead Collector: He isn't.
Man: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
"Dead" Man: I'm getting better.
Man: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
 
2014-01-10 03:39:55 PM  

Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.


Which is much funnier since most people who vote Republican are of the trailer park/hillbilly type and hardly "have theirs." But there's someone even worse off they're sticking it to (in their minds, anyway).
 
2014-01-10 03:40:19 PM  

Mercutio74: Dr Dreidel: Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).

Great, you committed statutory rape and we all had to watch.  Thanks for that.


Hey, at least I'm apologizing.
 
2014-01-10 03:40:19 PM  

Mugato: I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.


Your facts are liberally biased. You need True Conservative Facts™.
 
2014-01-10 03:41:15 PM  
I feel happy! Oh so happy!
 
2014-01-10 03:45:41 PM  

Mugato: I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.


The GOP have perfected ignoring things that mess up their narrative.
 
2014-01-10 03:45:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I understand. But given a choice between unemployment for the EXTRA, supplemental period (out to two years) and that same money producing actual jobs, I would go with spending the money to get jobs.


The problem is that that same money can't be used to produce jobs, at least not directly (unless we're talking about the government directly hiring people). Giving it to businesses with the expectation that they'll hire just because they've got extra money is fundamentally flawed, and quite obvious based on the enormous piles of cash businesses are hoarding without hiring.

If demand produces jobs, and jobs produce money, and money produces demand, which part is currently not working as well as it should?

My assertion is that it's the third step: there's not enough money moving in the economy to produce self-sustaining demand, based on my observation that money appears to be pooling in certain locations, notably large corporations and the stock market (to wit, the rich; I'm sure you've seen the charts detailing where the overwhelming majority of income increases end up).

Yours seems to be the second: there's not enough jobs to get money moving in the economy. While these are both true, there's only so much the government can directly do about the jobs question, but there is a lot more it can do about the money question. In addition, more jobs does not necessarily equate to more money moving; if you have to work two jobs now for the income you used to make for doing just one job, a job's technically been created but there's no extra money moving.

In any case, pulling more money out of the economy is not going to help with jobs.

What might your opinion of an employer of last resort be? It would seem to be a somewhat reasonable middle ground.
 
2014-01-10 03:46:18 PM  

Mugato: I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.


Also it's interesting that the quote on the chart talks about private sector jobs but the chart seems to indicate total jobs.  Since Obama's been in office, about 3/4 of a million public sector jobs have been eliminated at the state and local levels.  Reagan saw an INCREASE of about 1.5 million over his two terms.
 
2014-01-10 03:47:11 PM  

Lord_Baull: The Bush Tax breaks were sold to the public as necessary for 'makers' to be able to hire more. Tax cuts = more jobs


A) No one was talking about the Bush Tax cuts, and that's not really relevant to what I'm talking about regarding focused incentives to businesses who ACTUALLY hire additional full time employees, so if anyone is being obtuse, it's you (to the surprise of no one).
B) While the Bush Tax cuts certainly benefited the rich more than they should have they were clearly also 'sold' under the auspices that every day people would go out and spend those refund checks and thereby infuse more cash into the economy. (whether that worked and how well is another discussion).

But thank you for expanding your... "point"?
 
2014-01-10 03:47:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Mercutio74: Dr Dreidel: Thanks all (and sorry to the rest for the minor 'jacking).

Great, you committed statutory rape and we all had to watch.  Thanks for that.

Hey, at least I'm apologizing.


Don't worry, I secretly enjoyed it.
 
2014-01-10 03:49:07 PM  

urbangirl: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


I say this in complete and total sincerity:  that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.


Also, Republicans give to "charity" in any amount only if you count churches as charities. Since many campaign openly to make sure other people don't have/get rights and all sorts of sinister things, churches are in general no more a charity than hate groups are. Charities, my ass. They're the opposite, really.

Also, it's still unbelievable to me that in 2013 these folks saying that the needy should be forced to rely on whatever handouts the private community decides to give them is absolutely unconscionable in a civilized country. What is this, Dickensian London? We tell them to fend for themselves instead of, as a people, seeing to their wellbeing? Astounding.
 
2014-01-10 03:49:57 PM  

menschenfresser: urbangirl: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


I say this in complete and total sincerity:  that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.

Also, Republicans give to "charity" in any amount only if you count churches as charities. Since many campaign openly to make sure other people don't have/get rights and all sorts of sinister things, churches are in general no more a charity than hate groups are. Charities, my ass. They're the opposite, really.

Also, it's still unbelievable to me that in 2013 these folks saying that the needy should be forced to rely on whatever handouts the private community decides to give them is absolutely unconscionable in a civilized country. What is this, Dickensian London? We tell them to fend for themselves instead of, as a people, seeing to their wellbeing? Astounding.


It's 2014 now; sorry. Even worse!
 
2014-01-10 03:50:15 PM  

efgeise: Mugato: I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.

Your facts are liberally biased. You need True Conservative Facts™.



What conservative facts might look like:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth \
"For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus, viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years
Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in Potassium decay rates and other radiometric methods."
 
2014-01-10 03:50:54 PM  

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.



In fact, he wouldn't rely on anything to find out what's going on in his administration, for that matter --

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."

Also your graph's retarded.
 
2014-01-10 03:50:59 PM  
I'd like to know what employer went on a hiring spree (or even just hired ONE more employee) because his/her taxes were cut.
 
2014-01-10 03:51:12 PM  

iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.


Nothing. That money would have likely ended up in an investment fund not generating demand.
 
m00
2014-01-10 03:52:02 PM  

Tigger: But that's not 48% of the country is it.


So you think Republicans have more voter turnout? I don't get it.

57.5% of possible voters cast a ballot. Half of those are Republicans. You think the remaining 42.5% of Americans are just liberals who don't vote for whatever reason? Really?
 
2014-01-10 03:57:39 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.

Nothing. That money would have likely ended up in an investment fund not generating demand.


Do you know what an investment fund is? It is money looking for capital investments, it IS demand.
 
2014-01-10 04:00:02 PM  

Lord_Baull: efgeise: Mugato: I'm not saying that Obama is a perfect President but you can't ignore the shiatstorm that he inherited, nor the blatant obstructionism from the republicans to stop anything Obama was trying to do, by their own admission. Not to make excuses but the facts are the facts.

Your facts are liberally biased. You need True Conservative Facts™.


What conservative facts might look like:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth \
"For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus, viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years
Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in Potassium decay rates and other radiometric methods."


If you want to go for Conservapedia's Greatest Hits, there are much better choices.
 
2014-01-10 04:01:34 PM  

m00: 57.5% of possible voters cast a ballot. Half of those are Republicans. You think the remaining 42.5% of Americans are just liberals who don't vote for whatever reason? Really?


I would assume they're either apolitical or just too ignorant to care.
 
2014-01-10 04:01:58 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?

What would that money have done in the economy if not distributed via unemployment benefits?

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.

Nothing. That money would have likely ended up in an investment fund not generating demand.


Again, that depends.  Since UI is paid at a state level, and states were already paying UI for up to 26 weeks, I imagine some states where in a "break even" mode - that is, they were paying out just as much as they were taking in from employers.

Right now though, there's no question - with extended UI benefits most states are having to borrow money from the Fed to cover their UI obligations, and the interest on those loans are really hurting state coffers.

Is anyone here that's unemployed from North Carolina? I've run across a few articles that indicate that N.C. has completely withdrawn from the Federal UI program, so there IS no UI extension in N.C. Anyone have any info on that?
 
2014-01-10 04:04:48 PM  

Headso: Spend the money how to get the jobs? what demand are you creating to make companies hire? We know unemployment creates demand just from the simple fact that people gotta eat...


Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

Your logic just seems weird to me. Paul was making $10 dollars when he had a job. Now he gets $6 dollars in unemployment. That $6 dollars will magically grow the economy more than if he had a job. And let's spend more money to do that for two years instead of spending that money to help Paul get a job again. Because there is no way for the economy to grow at all without that $6 magically causing an increase in demand.

Also, you haven't answered the question about how many people we are really talking about here.
 
2014-01-10 04:10:53 PM  

Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.


It same first 5 years.  The jobless rate under Reagan dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%.

Under Obama it went from 7.8% to 6.7%.  A 220% better net improvement than Reagan.

This happened for Reagan during a period of global economic growth.  Under Obama, it was during a period with a pretty bleak global economy.
 
2014-01-10 04:18:27 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Headso: Spend the money how to get the jobs? what demand are you creating to make companies hire? We know unemployment creates demand just from the simple fact that people gotta eat...

Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.


Here, you're right.

Your logic just seems weird to me. Paul was making $10 dollars when he had a job. Now he gets $6 dollars in unemployment. That $6 dollars will magically grow the economy more than if he had a job. And let's spend more money to do that for two years instead of spending that money to help Paul get a job again. Because there is no way for the economy to grow at all without that $6 magically causing an increase in demand.

Here, you're wrong.  $6 in unemployment is not better than a $10 job.  But it is infinitely better than a $0 non-job, for both the economy as a whole and for the actual HUMAN BEINGS affected.

And of course it would be better if Paul just got another job. But the government can't give Paul a job -- that's up to the private sector.  It can, however, make sure Paul has at least some money coming in so that, in the meantime, HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.
 
2014-01-10 04:18:43 PM  

mrshowrules: Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.

It same first 5 years.  The jobless rate under Reagan dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%.

Under Obama it went from 7.8% to 6.7%.  A 220% better net improvement than Reagan.

This happened for Reagan during a period of global economic growth.  Under Obama, it was during a period with a pretty bleak global economy.


Population of United States in 1980: 226 million
Population of United States in 1988: 244 million
Population of United States in 2009: 306 million
Population of United States in 2013: 316 million

Just something to consider when speaking of "percentages".
 
2014-01-10 04:20:09 PM  

GrailOfThunder: Population of United States in 1980: 226 million
Population of United States in 1988: 244 million
Population of United States in 2009: 306 million
Population of United States in 2013: 316 million

Just something to consider when speaking of "percentages".


lolwut?
 
2014-01-10 04:23:14 PM  

magusdevil: iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.

So for every $4 the government spends on welfare a dollar goes to the needy and $3 goes to government employees. And as everyone knows all government employees are independently wealthy and don't respend that money.


What I don't get is that the Federal bureaucracy is already there and established so where do these extra costs suddenly come from?
 
2014-01-10 04:24:20 PM  

GrailOfThunder: mrshowrules: Brick-House: [mysterypatriot.files.wordpress.com image 850x638]

I am of a mind to just go dig up Reagan and put him back in the White House because I am absolutely sure we would get better leadership, job growth, and economic policies from Reagan in his current condition than Obama could ever come up with. Not to mention that Reagan wouldn't rely on the news to find out whats going on in his administration, unlike Obama.

It same first 5 years.  The jobless rate under Reagan dropped from 7.5% to 7.0%.

Under Obama it went from 7.8% to 6.7%.  A 220% better net improvement than Reagan.

This happened for Reagan during a period of global economic growth.  Under Obama, it was during a period with a pretty bleak global economy.

Population of United States in 1980: 226 million
Population of United States in 1988: 244 million
Population of United States in 2009: 306 million
Population of United States in 2013: 316 million

Just something to consider when speaking of "percentages".


Isn't the point of percentages (and the jobless rate) is to eliminate population growth as a factor.
 
2014-01-10 04:31:04 PM  

mrshowrules: Isn't the point of percentages (and the jobless rate) is to eliminate population growth as a factor.


Is it? I'm not sure, to be honest.  Logic (at least to me) would dictate that it is not, since a 7.5% rate in 1980 would equate to ~17 million unemployed, vs. a 2013 rate of 23.7 million unemployed. I'm not a statistician though, so I really have no idea how to compare UE numbers from 30 years ago to today..

By the end of Reagan's term in 1988 though, the UE rate was 5.4%.  Obama still has time to catch up though. :)
 
2014-01-10 04:32:54 PM  

GrailOfThunder: mrshowrules: Isn't the point of percentages (and the jobless rate) is to eliminate population growth as a factor.

Is it? I'm not sure, to be honest.  Logic (at least to me) would dictate that it is not,


*blink*
*blink*

dafuq?
 
2014-01-10 04:33:19 PM  

vernonFL: Oh ho ho its magic. You know. Never believe its not so.


You know, as far as earworms go that isn't a bad one. So thanks, I guess.
 
2014-01-10 04:36:11 PM  
All right, here we go - went and looked it up:

It's 1.3 million people who have already been collecting unemployment for more than 26 weeks. (Over 6 months)
We are talking about returning unemployment benefit period from the expanded 60+ weeks (Over 15 months) back t the standard 26 weeks. (varies slightly state to state).

www.washingtonpost.com
www.washingtonpost.com
Average benefits are about $300/month. That's approximately 390 million being recycled back through the economy via unemployment benefits. Since all that was ALREADY being previously spent, it is in no way, shape, or form contributing to ADDITIONAL economic stimulus, and compared to what these same 1.3 million had been spending in the economy prior, it represents a reduction.

Now these 1.3 million are real people, with real problems. But they are less than 1% of the population and if we can get jobs and the economy rolling again, it benefits all 96% of Americans. (fark the top 2%).

But here's the KEY:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are now about 2.9 unemployed workers for every job opening. That's worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession. It is absurd to insist that unemployment benefits in any way CREATE additional demand, and thereby increase job demand. It not only doesn't make any sense, it is demonstrably not happening.

We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.

Hell, a $25K a year job means over $1,500 a month in take home pay, and it's a sure bet that all of that will have to go to rent, food, gas, etc. and go straight into the economy. Just ONE low-wage job worker is better for putting money into the economy than 3-5 people getting unemployment benefits. Imagine what a $50K (average median income) job does.

So I think we KEEP the unemployment benefits where they have always been, let the extension lapse, having served it's purpose, and refocus the money and resources toward job creation. KEEPING the extended benefits is just deciding to tread water (while accruing interest).
 
2014-01-10 04:37:37 PM  

GrailOfThunder: mrshowrules: Isn't the point of percentages (and the jobless rate) is to eliminate population growth as a factor.

Is it? I'm not sure, to be honest.  Logic (at least to me) would dictate that it is not, since a 7.5% rate in 1980 would equate to ~17 million unemployed, vs. a 2013 rate of 23.7 million unemployed. I'm not a statistician though, so I really have no idea how to compare UE numbers from 30 years ago to today..

By the end of Reagan's term in 1988 though, the UE rate was 5.4%.  Obama still has time to catch up though. :)


The jobless rate is comparable regardless of population.

You could go by their budget periods.  Ronald Reagan went from 7.9% to 5.9%. A 2% drop.

Obama went from 10% (October 2009, when his first budget started) to 6.7%.   Obama has already achieved a 3.3% drop and he has 3 years to go.
 
2014-01-10 04:40:08 PM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.
 
2014-01-10 04:41:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.


So instead of this:

Here Mr. Unemployed, while you are looking for a job we are going to give you some money to buy food and stuff. This clearly will have no impact to the number of workers the place you buy stuff from will need, because..... magic.


You think we should:

Here Mr. Corporation, we are going to give you tax incentives to hire people you don't need (clearly you don't need them, if you had you would have hired them already). Hopefully the people we stopped giving money to will buy your products and then you will need that employee you hired!


This is why no one takes you seriously.
 
2014-01-10 04:49:14 PM  

urbangirl: Here, you're wrong. $6 in unemployment is not better than a $10 job. But it is infinitely better than a $0 non-job, for both the economy as a whole and for the actual HUMAN BEINGS affected.


No shiat Sherlock. You obviously didn't notice, despite the many times I have articulated it, but I am not advocating for the end of all unemployment insurance.

urbangirl: And of course it would be better if Paul just got another job. But the government can't give Paul a job -- that's up to the private sector. It can, however, make sure Paul has at least some money coming in so that, in the meantime, HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.


Again, Perhaps you should read what I have posted. It seems like you skimmed looking for excerptables to argue against. Otherwise you would have noticed that not only did I NOT say the government can give him a job, I am specifically calling for government tax dollars to be used to incentivize private businesses to HIRE THESE PEOPLE SO HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.
 
2014-01-10 04:49:22 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.


How do you justify this policy in light of the failure of trickle-down over the last three decades? It is glaringly obvious that simply giving money to a business does not make them hire people.
 
2014-01-10 04:51:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I am specifically calling for government tax dollars to be used to incentivize private businesses


We have done that for the last three decades, and it has failed utterly.
 
2014-01-10 04:53:47 PM  

jst3p: This is why no one takes you seriously.


What you mean to say is that this is a good example of why no one takes YOU seriously. If your best response is to pretend I said something very different than what I clearly articulated, then you don't really have a response worth posting.

Also your example is dumb. Why would we REALLY care if employers are hiring people they don't "need"? I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.
 
2014-01-10 04:55:08 PM  
Holy farking christ they're STILL banging the trickle down drum after years of failure.  Absolute insanity.
 
2014-01-10 04:56:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: This is why no one takes you seriously.

What you mean to say is that this is a good example of why no one takes YOU seriously. If your best response is to pretend I said something very different than what I clearly articulated, then you don't really have a response worth posting.

Also your example is dumb. Why would we REALLY care if employers are hiring people they don't "need"? I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.


You think a business will hire someone they don't need to realize a $5,000 tax savings?

This is why no one takes you seriously.
 
2014-01-10 05:01:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Why would we REALLY care if employers are hiring people they don't "need"?


We wouldn't care if they did, but to expect them to do so is absurd and not supported by any evidence.

If you're actually saying something other than "give corporations tax incentives to hire people they don't need", then you've been pretty unclear about your position this entire time.

BojanglesPaladin: I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire.


That's great. The problem is that no business is going to spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need. How is this so hard to comprehend?
 
2014-01-10 05:02:10 PM  

qorkfiend: How do you justify this policy in light of the failure of trickle-down over the last three decades? It is glaringly obvious that simply giving money to a business does not make them hire people.


Who's talking about 'trickle down'? Who's talking about 'simply giving money to a business'?

For Fark's sake I STARTED by referencing one of Obama's plans to do this EXACT THING,

BojanglesPaladin: Does anyone remember that tax break for employers who actually, you know, HIRED people? I do. SOUNDED like a great idea, and I was excited by it, but the rules were so limiting and nonsensical that it was virtually impossible to actually qualify. I ended up hiring three employees during the time frame, but not a one qualified me for the tax break. I assume some people did, though.
BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people. As I mentioned above there WAS a poorly implanted and uselessly restricted plan at the beginning of the recession that just sort of disappeared from everyone's minds. We need a good version of THAT more than we need to give out unemployment for two years.
BojanglesPaladin: So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.


I think I've been pretty clear that I am advocating for programs and incentives predicated on the hiring of long term, full time employees. So since nothing in your questions is related to anything I have advocated, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you.
 
2014-01-10 05:06:20 PM  

qorkfiend: That's great. The problem is that no business is going to spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need. How is this so hard to comprehend

jst3p: You think a business will hire someone they don't need to realize a $5,000 tax savings?This is why no one takes you seriously.


Imma just repost from above:

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Or is it just asking too much that you actually read what I already posted on the topic when someone already asked?
 
2014-01-10 05:07:58 PM  

Lando Lincoln: FIRST, you give the money to the rich people. THEN, the rich people will take that money and hire poor people

in third world countries for pennies on the dollar to do jobs for fifteen hours a day. THEN, the poor people in third world countries will have a tiny little bit of the money and the rich people will hide the rest in their Bermuda shell corporations.

This is Conservative Economics 101 here, people.

FTFY.
 
2014-01-10 05:08:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: That's great. The problem is that no business is going to spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need. How is this so hard to comprehend
jst3p: You think a business will hire someone they don't need to realize a $5,000 tax savings?This is why no one takes you seriously.

Imma just repost from above:

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Or is it just asking too much that you actually read what I already posted on the topic when someone already asked?


And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?
 
2014-01-10 05:09:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: How do you justify this policy in light of the failure of trickle-down over the last three decades? It is glaringly obvious that simply giving money to a business does not make them hire people.

Who's talking about 'trickle down'? Who's talking about 'simply giving money to a business'?

For Fark's sake I STARTED by referencing one of Obama's plans to do this EXACT THING,

BojanglesPaladin: Does anyone remember that tax break for employers who actually, you know, HIRED people? I do. SOUNDED like a great idea, and I was excited by it, but the rules were so limiting and nonsensical that it was virtually impossible to actually qualify. I ended up hiring three employees during the time frame, but not a one qualified me for the tax break. I assume some people did, though.
BojanglesPaladin: I would MUCH rather see this money going to tax breaks for companies (especially SMB companies) that actually hire full time people. As I mentioned above there WAS a poorly implanted and uselessly restricted plan at the beginning of the recession that just sort of disappeared from everyone's minds. We need a good version of THAT more than we need to give out unemployment for two years.
BojanglesPaladin: So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.

I think I've been pretty clear that I am advocating for programs and incentives predicated on the hiring of long term, full time employees. So since nothing in your questions is related to anything I have advocated, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you.


Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire. This is completely incorrect, and is not supported by any evidence, either historical or current. It is also the same philosophy that underpins trickle-down economics: if businesses have more money, they'll hire people just because.

They'll get a $5,000 tax break if they hire someone at $50,000? Great. Now, please explain why any business would spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.
 
2014-01-10 05:11:23 PM  

jst3p: And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?


IMMA POST FROM ABOVE:

Average benefits are about $300/month. That's approximately 390 million being recycled back through the economy via unemployment benefits. Since all that was ALREADY being previously spent, it is in no way, shape, or form contributing to ADDITIONAL economic stimulus, and compared to what these same 1.3 million had been spending in the economy prior, it represents a reduction.

Now these 1.3 million are real people, with real problems. But they are less than 1% of the population and if we can get jobs and the economy rolling again, it benefits all 96% of Americans. (fark the top 2%).
But here's the KEY:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are now about 2.9 unemployed workers for every job opening. That's worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession. It is absurd to insist that unemployment benefits in any way CREATE additional demand, and thereby increase job demand. It not only doesn't make any sense, it is demonstrably not happening.
We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.
Hell, a $25K a year job means over $1,500 a month in take home pay, and it's a sure bet that all of that will have to go to rent, food, gas, etc. and go straight into the economy. Just ONE low-wage job worker is better for putting money into the economy than 3-5 people getting unemployment benefits. Imagine what a $50K (average median income) job does.
So I think we KEEP the unemployment benefits where they have always been, let the extension lapse, having served it's purpose, and refocus the money and resources toward job creation. KEEPING the extended benefits is just deciding to tread water (while accruing interest).
 
2014-01-10 05:12:54 PM  

jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: That's great. The problem is that no business is going to spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need. How is this so hard to comprehend
jst3p: You think a business will hire someone they don't need to realize a $5,000 tax savings?This is why no one takes you seriously.

Imma just repost from above:

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. I'm not sure we are going to be able to communicate here. I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

Why is this so hard to comprehend? Or is it just asking too much that you actually read what I already posted on the topic when someone already asked?

And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?


You're forgetting about the corporate benevolence factor. Study it out.
 
2014-01-10 05:13:29 PM  

PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.


Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.
 
2014-01-10 05:15:04 PM  

qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.


Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.
 
2014-01-10 05:18:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: And what effect do you think cancelling unemployment benefits for a large group of people will do to the demand that is on the cusp of requiring more workers?

IMMA POST FROM ABOVE:

Average benefits are about $300/month. That's approximately 390 million being recycled back through the economy via unemployment benefits. Since all that was ALREADY being previously spent, it is in no way, shape, or form contributing to ADDITIONAL economic stimulus, and compared to what these same 1.3 million had been spending in the economy prior, it represents a reduction.

Now these 1.3 million are real people, with real problems. But they are less than 1% of the population and if we can get jobs and the economy rolling again, it benefits all 96% of Americans. (fark the top 2%).
But here's the KEY:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are now about 2.9 unemployed workers for every job opening. That's worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession. It is absurd to insist that unemployment benefits in any way CREATE additional demand, and thereby increase job demand. It not only doesn't make any sense, it is demonstrably not happening.
We need to be spending money on incentivizing companies (particularly small to medium businesses) to go ahead and hire that one additional employee NOW instead of down the line.
Hell, a $25K a year job means over $1,500 a month in take home pay, and it's a sure bet that all of that will have to go to rent, food, gas, etc. and go straight into the economy. Just ONE low-wage job worker is better for putting money into the economy than 3-5 people getting unemployment benefits. Imagine what a $50K (average median income) job does.
So I think we KEEP the unemployment benefits where they have always been, let the extension lapse, having served it's purpose, and refocus the money and resources toward job creation. KEEPING the extended benefits is just deciding to tread water (while accruing interest).



I agree.

You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings. You can keep reposting the same broken words over and over again, it doesn't make it make sense.
 
2014-01-10 05:20:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.

Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.


No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand. Proposing that they get a tax break does nothing to solve that problem, and still assumes that they'll spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.

"Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.
 
2014-01-10 05:20:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Remember that I am not advocating for NOT giving unemployment benefits - we can and should do that. The question is about the special, additional and extended unemployment period out to almost two years.


That two year number was probably based on previous recession periods. Unfortunately, the current recession model is far longer than it used to be.
 
2014-01-10 05:22:46 PM  

qorkfiend: "Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


Zero is a number.
 
2014-01-10 05:23:40 PM  

qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: Your entire policy recommendation is predicated on the fundamentally flawed assumption that a tax break alone is sufficient to encourage a business to hire.

Actually it is hinged on the assumption that hiring in small medium businesses is lower than it should be and would otherwise be because capital has locked up and growth is being impeded. That you continue to miss this means you need to read more carefully or slower or stop ignoring it.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
...any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas.

No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand. Proposing that they get a tax break does nothing to solve that problem, and still assumes that they'll spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.

"Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


Well, he is technically correct. Zero is a number so is a billion. I am sure the number of businesses on the cusp of needing to hire someone but "prevaling economic factors are inhibiting this" (what a vague useless description) is within the set of numbers that is 0-1,000,000,000.
 
2014-01-10 05:26:10 PM  

qorkfiend: No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand.


Actually, it's (gasp! Shock and suprise?!?!) ...not that simple.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.

qorkfiend: "Any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand". I'm sure you have some data to support this assertion.


More data than you have provided on either the number or impact of the people currently on extended unemployment.

jst3p: You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings.


Nor am I going to. That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.
 
2014-01-10 05:27:21 PM  
Have you guys gotten to the incentives part yet? I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be, cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.
 
2014-01-10 05:28:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: You still haven't explained why a business is going to hire someone at $50,000 that they almost have the demand to need in order to realize a $5000 tax savings.

Nor am I going to.


Look at my shocked face.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2014-01-10 05:28:45 PM  

Evil High Priest: That two year number was probably based on previous recession periods. Unfortunately, the current recession model is far longer than it used to be.


It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.
 
2014-01-10 05:29:32 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Have you guys gotten to the incentives part yet? I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be, cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.


Predicting his response:

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE ...
 
2014-01-10 05:31:02 PM  

menschenfresser: PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.

Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.


First, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. Nor did I say that only "I" or only "republicans" pay taxes.

Second, it is your money, then it's taken by the govt. When the GOP says "they're taking OUR money" it's not meant to say that they're not also taking YOUR money.

Third, once it's taken, you and I don't get to say what happens. It's no longer "the taxpayer's money." It's then the govt's money. And they'll do what they want with it.

If you read above, I'd support extending unemployment or a "everyone gets a govt job" plan or even a "here's your monthly check, citizen" plan if corporate welfare were ended to fund it. Throw in ending the drug war, the hot wars, privatize some national parks, bailouts, and domestic spying programs, and I'd support giving everyone $10k per month if the govt insists on playing any role in the economy.
 
2014-01-10 05:31:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.


Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

images.bwbx.io
 
2014-01-10 05:31:39 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:


"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

rzrwiresunrise: I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be


You might want to grease up that 'ol scroll button.
 
2014-01-10 05:33:03 PM  

cousin-merle: Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.


Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.
 
2014-01-10 05:34:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: No one is debating the point that hiring in small/medium businesses is lower than it should be. What do you think drives the growth of small businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's demand for their products or services. Growth is being impeded because there's not enough demand.

Actually, it's (gasp! Shock and suprise?!?!) ...not that simple.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.


You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

The stock market is actually a prime example of this: companies are performing better, better revenues and more cash on hand, and they're still not hiring. You recognize this, and yet you inexplicably continue to insist that incentivizing at the top with a $5,000 tax break will somehow make all the difference.
 
2014-01-10 05:34:24 PM  
You said the following:

m00: BojanglesPaladin: m00: So the USA is over 49% bigots?

Obviously! Binary politico Farkers can only accommodate two extremes at any given moment. There are no bigots on Team A, therefore ALL bigots are on team B. It's just simple logic.

Well, it's simple math really. I was responding to "The Republican party is composed of basically the 1% and bigots." Republican Party represents about 50% of the voters nation-wide. So if the Republican party is comprised of the 1% and bigots, then 49% of voters are bigots.


I have bolded your error.
 
2014-01-10 05:36:22 PM  

qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.


Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.
 
2014-01-10 05:36:55 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.


Booting people off unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy or create new jobs, either. In fact, it will in all probability have the opposite effect.

If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.
 
2014-01-10 05:38:47 PM  

ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes.  FACT.

Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.

And hating gays.


And transvaginal ultrasounds.
 
2014-01-10 05:39:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.


You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee. Do you disagree that this is a net cost to the business of $45,000? So, once again, why would a business spend $45,000 to hire an employee that they do not need?
 
2014-01-10 05:42:06 PM  

qorkfiend: BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You have yet to offer any reason as to why a business would spend $45,000 to hire an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee that they DO NOT NEED.

Go back and check context. Idiot boy posted that gross mischaracterization. Which I plainly said was dumb.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:
"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee. Do you disagree that this is a net cost to the business of $45,000? So, once again, why would a business spend $45,000 to hire an employee that they do not need?


Good luck, the density is strong with him.
 
2014-01-10 05:42:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Perhaps. I have no clue. But it's clear we need to get some new jobs created, and no matter HOW you look at it, endless unemployment benefits isn't going to INCREASE the economy of create new jobs.


I think you are technically correct in saying that extending unemployment benefits is not going to create jobs, but when unemployed people have less money to spend, jobs will be lost.  There will be more jobs overall if people receive unemployment benefits than if they do not.
 
2014-01-10 05:43:32 PM  

qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.


You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money. Really. try going more slowly. You keep missing things that have been stated many times. I'm going to start to think you are doing it on purpose.
 
2014-01-10 05:45:33 PM  

cousin-merle: I think you are technically correct in saying that extending unemployment benefits is not going to create jobs


CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.

CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link
 
2014-01-10 05:45:49 PM  

qorkfiend: You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee.


Go back and look for context.
 
2014-01-10 05:46:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.

You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money.


Specifically what? You have said tax breaks, but that doesn't explain why a business is going to be willing to save x on their taxes if the cost of the employee is many times x.
 
2014-01-10 05:46:53 PM  
Hey 17 charisma, when EVERYONE is not getting what you are saying, you are the common denominator.
 
2014-01-10 05:47:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: If the current system is treading water, your proposed solution is to stop paddling and hope that someone is kind enough to give you a hand when you start to sink.

You have obviously missed the countless times I have advocated DOING something with that money. Really. try going more slowly. You keep missing things that have been stated many times. I'm going to start to think you are doing it on purpose.



I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.
 
2014-01-10 05:49:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.


And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.
 
2014-01-10 05:51:12 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO says otherwise, to the tune of 200,000 jobs.

CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link


Right, but the CBO is saying that it is an increase against current law, which is not to extend benefits.  I think his argument is that if a large number of long-term unemployed people receiving benefits wase the status quo, and we simply extended benefits, that jobs would not be "created".
 
2014-01-10 05:52:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.


Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you. 

-240,000 + 200,000 = -40,000 

Jobs would not technically be "created", but it would worse if we did not extend them.
 
2014-01-10 05:52:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Link


Compared to NOT doing it? Obviously. (SEE ABOVE, 1.3 million people and $300/month on average is real money.) But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.
 
2014-01-10 05:54:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Compared to NOT doing it? Obviously. (SEE ABOVE, 1.3 million people and $300/month on average is real money.) But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.


So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?
 
2014-01-10 05:54:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But that is not the same thing as saying that it is CREATING net jobs.


Well whoopdi f*cking do. Give the outcomes, we should extend benefits.
 
2014-01-10 05:55:11 PM  

cousin-merle: Dusk-You-n-Me: And not extending benefits would cost 240,000 jobs, according to The Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Labor (PDF)

Failing to extend UI benefits would put a dent in job-seekers' incomes, reducing demand and costing 240,000 jobs in 2014.

Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say, thank you. 

-240,000 + 200,000 = -40,000 

Jobs would not technically be "created", but it would worse if we did not extend them.


Why on earth did you add together those two numbers?
 
2014-01-10 06:02:46 PM  

Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.


IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economic uncertainty and low consumer confidence, etc.
Yes, yes, wall street is doing great, but I think we have all noticed that stock prices are utterly detached from jobs numbers.
So I think it would be more effective to (for instance) give a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 months of the year for as many as they hire. Or push on the banks to give more loans to small businesses. Maybe provide additional guarantees when those businesses can show an annual employment increase of full time employees.
Basically, anything that produces actual employment is a better use of tax dollars than paying unemployment more.
 
2014-01-10 06:04:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economi ...


None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them. Your flawed post is flawed no matter how many times you post it.
 
2014-01-10 06:06:24 PM  

cousin-merle: BojanglesPaladin: It's actually up to 73 weeks which is about a year and a half, not two years. And as far as I know, we've never extended unemployment benefits this long before, but feel free to verify. Maybe in the 70s, but I doubt it.

Perhaps we started too late and ended too early.

[images.bwbx.io image 630x597]


Thanks. That was the exact graphic I was thinking about.
 
2014-01-10 06:06:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: a payroll tax exemption to any business that hires an ADDITIONAL full time salary employee for at least 9 month


I'd prefer to help people directly, instead of helping businesses and hoping they in turn help people. How about we exempt the first $20K of income from the payroll tax for all earners. You've just given everyone an instant raise, and those at the bottom who need it most will spend it.
 
2014-01-10 06:07:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: rzrwiresunrise: cuz he keeps deflecting the "$5K tax break for a $50K employee" scenario.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:

"That was a response to his dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What he said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it wrth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway."

But you knew that already. Right? Surely you haven't gotten confused about things.

rzrwiresunrise: I'm waiting to see what BJpaladin imagines incentives other than tax breaks might be

You might want to grease up that 'ol scroll button.


Here you mention how you hired 3 employees but failed to qualify for a tax break.
Here you mention tax breaks for businesses, especially SMB companies.
Here you you mention payroll tax exemptions, which is just another term for tax breaks.
Here you mention a tax holiday, which is another term for tax break.
Here you get a little vague and mention a "reason" to hire new employees. And then you mention a tax write-off, which is just another term for tax break.
Here you still remain a bit vague, with "focused incentives", and then Bush tax cuts wasn't what you meant.
Here is where you get a bit flowery, with that "cusp of demand" and "prevailing economic factors", but you still stay vague with that term "incentives."

And you did mention the $50K job. Others speculated what the tax break might be, say $5K, but if that's not reasonable, you didn't throw your own figure out there as a counterpoint.

So you went from tax-breaks to tax exemptions to tax holiday to write-off to incentives, without answering the question posed: how does a business justify hiring someone at $50K to receive $X (X < $50K) in tax breaks?

Since you didn't answer that question, then it could be that you imagine there are other incentives that might tip a business on the cusp of demand that would require more employees to, in fact, hire those employees. What might those incentives be?

If there aren't any others, then what would justify the hiring in hopes of a tax break that equals far less than the cost of hiring that employee?

You said you hired 3 new employees. What motivated you to do that?
 
2014-01-10 06:07:51 PM  

cousin-merle: So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?


Extending them how? Past the 60-73 weeks? Restoring the recently expired extension back to 60-73 weeks?

No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.

I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.
 
2014-01-10 06:10:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: So, now that this pedantic argument is out of the way, do you support extending long-term unemployment benefits?

Extending them how? Past the 60-73 weeks? Restoring the recently expired extension back to 60-73 weeks?

No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.

I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.


WHAT DOES THAT MEAN??!?
 
2014-01-10 06:10:14 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tyrano Soros: I have yet to see what would motivate a business to hire more empoyees. Giving someone a tax break wouldn't make them automatically hire more employees if demand in a consumer-based economy doesn't increase. Businesses only hire if there is a need for more employees.

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

BojanglesPaladin: I've thrown out some general ideas, and they are there to be read, but I'm not presenting a detailed policy paper or sponsoring a bill here. The point is that now that the economy is not going down and beginning to creep up, any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum.

Feel free to propose your own ideas.

And again, unemployment benefits do not CREATE demand. They preserve a slightly lower amount of demand, which is good, but does not add ADDITIONAL demand. if you want ADDITIONAL demand (more than the current reduced status quo) you need these people to have MORE income to spend than the reduced level of unemployment benefits. That means jobs.

BojanglesPaladin: See no matter HOW long we pay unemployment, it will by it's nature be LESS than an actual paycheck. So what is BETTER for the economy is to get JOBS. Paying unemployment may help reduce the negative impact on the economy and limit the resulting further loss of even more jobs, but it doesn't really do anything to get new jobs, or even replace lost jobs. The last 6 years are a good indication of that. We've BEEN paying the long term unemployment, but job growth is still very, very anemic. There are, of course, many reasons for this, but the primary one is that the rate of new job creation in the SMB market is way down from where it needs to be. Part of that is a lack of credit (HBR did a good break-down of this), part of that is a stagnant economy, part of that is economi ...


Just out of interest, do you have any formal economics education or is this stuff that you just sort of cook up yourself at the library?
 
2014-01-10 06:12:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: No. The long-term extension was an emergency measure and I think it is time to go back to the norm, which is about 26 weeks. That's where the bulk of people on unemployment are anyway, and the long term unemployed are already off the rolls.


This is now going to bite you on the ass.

This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.
 
2014-01-10 06:13:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I think instead we should be focusing our money and resources on incentivizing job growth.


Will this create more jobs than will be lost by not extending benefits?  Why would businesses hire when their customers have less money to spend?
 
2014-01-10 06:15:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: urbangirl: Here, you're wrong. $6 in unemployment is not better than a $10 job. But it is infinitely better than a $0 non-job, for both the economy as a whole and for the actual HUMAN BEINGS affected.

No shiat Sherlock. You obviously didn't notice, despite the many times I have articulated it, but I am not advocating for the end of all unemployment insurance.

urbangirl: And of course it would be better if Paul just got another job. But the government can't give Paul a job -- that's up to the private sector. It can, however, make sure Paul has at least some money coming in so that, in the meantime, HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.

Again, Perhaps you should read what I have posted. It seems like you skimmed looking for excerptables to argue against. Otherwise you would have noticed that not only did I NOT say the government can give him a job, I am specifically calling for government tax dollars to be used to incentivize private businesses to HIRE THESE PEOPLE SO HE DOESN'T LOSE HIS HOUSE AND STARVE ON THE STREET BECAUSE HE CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS.


If you want to incentive businesses to hire workers then you want to boost demand - period.

Tax breaks are useless because without additional demand to justify the extra labor cost no one is going to hire more workers. Those tax credits just are a giveaway to companies already hiring workers anyway. There's no point to put another person on the payroll if you don't already need them just for a tax credit less than their salary.

We DO NOT have a tax problem in our economy, we have a demand problem. The American worker has seen their wages and wealth slowly eviscerated by conservative class warfare for decades. Those workers are the consumers who keep our economy functioning. We need some policies to encourage payrolls to shift their costs towards the workers and away from the executive class for a while if we want to strengthen our economy.

Consumers with more money to spend = more demand. More demand = more economic activity and more jobs. We shouldn't cripple our economy just so a few plutocrats can get ever more obscenely wealthy while everyone else gets poorer and poorer.
 
2014-01-10 06:16:10 PM  

jst3p: None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them.


Which is a position that YOU posted.

YOU are the one who said:
jst3p: "Here Mr. Corporation, we are going to give you tax incentives to hire people you don't need (clearly you don't need them, if you had you would have hired them already). Hopefully the people we stopped giving money to will buy your products and then you will need that employee you hired!"

So I guess you leave me no choice...

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it worth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.

eventually you'll figure out that I'm not going top defend YOUR nonsense post, and that my post making fun of your post isn't a position statement.
 
2014-01-10 06:18:16 PM  

Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.


Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?
 
2014-01-10 06:20:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


If demand exists and hiring leads to increase profit, then why would additional incentives be necessary?
 
2014-01-10 06:21:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.

Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???!?
 
2014-01-10 06:21:36 PM  

cousin-merle: Why would businesses hire when their customers have less money to spend?


Are you of the opinion that a fraction of 1% of the population and, what? .02 POTENTIAL spending in GDP is the critical difference between stagnation and economic recovery?

Surely we have a better plan than maintain the status quo.
 
2014-01-10 06:27:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: jst3p: None of that explains why any business would hire someone they don't yet need for a tax break that saves them less than the employee costs them.

Which is a position that YOU posted.

YOU are the one who said:
jst3p: "Here Mr. Corporation, we are going to give you tax incentives to hire people you don't need (clearly you don't need them, if you had you would have hired them already). Hopefully the people we stopped giving money to will buy your products and then you will need that employee you hired!"

So I guess you leave me no choice...

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE

That was a response to your dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying. What you said I said was dumb, but while I was pointing out that it was dumb, I thought it worth pointing out that if true, we should all support it anyway.

eventually you'll figure out that I'm not going top defend YOUR nonsense post, and that my post making fun of your post isn't a position statement.


It has been pointed out by more than just me that your "position" is long on abstract ideas but short on details. YOU provided the closest things to detail when you said, in response to my post:

 I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.

When it was pointed out to you by more than just me how incredibly flawed that is you started distancing yourself from it as fast as it could.

And my post wasn't a "dumbass effort to recharicterize what I was saying". It is a simplified but accurate restatement of what your "plan" is. To believe that ending extended unemployment benefits wouldn't have a negative impact on overall demand, thus have an impact on those "number of businesses on the cusp of having to hire someone"  shows a "coconut island" level of lack of understanding of very basic macroeconomics.

To believe that you can give tax breaks to get people to hire people they don't need when clearly the cost will be greater than the benefit is profoundly ignorant.

To think that these two things together will reduce unemployment... well.

It is why no one takes you seriously.
 
2014-01-10 06:29:44 PM  

cousin-merle: If demand exists and hiring leads to increase profit, then why would additional incentives be necessary?


You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.
 
2014-01-10 06:32:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.


What losing an argument looks like.
 
2014-01-10 06:34:03 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BojanglesPaladin: You know what? You have convinced me. You have ALL convinced me.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPENDING TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE HIRING. SINCE THE GOVERNEMNT CANNOT DO ANYTHING.

Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.

What losing an argument looks like.


It's what he does best.
 
2014-01-10 06:35:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Evil High Priest: This recession is not 'normal'. See the chart, above. And the long-term unemployed are off the rolls because they've given up completely.

Oh I agree entirely. we need to get those jobs going and one of the biggest impediments is economic uncertainty and the reluctance of banks to lend to SMBs (see HBR article). How do you think this means we should NOT be directly incentivizing job hiring?


This is where you lost. Good try though! I'm sure there will be other threads where you can trot out your worn out rw talking points.
 
2014-01-10 06:36:41 PM  

jst3p: It has been pointed out by more than just me that your "position" is long on abstract ideas but short on details.

YOU provided the closest things to detail when you said, in response to my post: [PREFACE DELIBERATELY REMOVED] I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.


nubian please. Do you think people can't see your snip?

What I ACTUALLY said:

BojanglesPaladin: Also YOUR example is dumb. Why would we REALLY care if employers are hiring people they don't "need"? I'm happy to give up $5,000 in tax revenue for every $50,000 job eevil corporations hire. It would be a helluva lot cheaper and makes as much sense as paying people a lot less to not work.

I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5 as your moron mischaracterization would suggest.

That you are pulling this kind of elementary school nonsense pretty much identifies your intellectual level.

/ironically I at one point had you labeled as 'sometimes reasonable'. Dunno what has happened, but the level of your comments has taken a nosedive over the last 6 months or so.
 
2014-01-10 06:38:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: This is where you lost.


Lost what? Are you the WINNAH?

Are you actually arguing AGAINST using tax dollars to incentivize job creation?
 
2014-01-10 06:39:18 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5


That isn't AT ALL what you did, but keep spinning.
 
2014-01-10 06:39:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Please Tell Obama I would like all that Stimulus money and 'shovel ready money' and guaranteed loans to businesses and the TAX INCENTIVES HE ALREADY DID back.

Thank you for making it clear that using tax dollars to directly increase job growth is futile and impossible. What a brilliant set of minds we have here. If only you had spoken up earlier! we could have saved TRILLIONS.


We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small.  Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.
 
2014-01-10 06:54:42 PM  

jst3p: BojanglesPaladin: I pointed out that your example was absurd and nonsensical as illustrated by the fact that business would not hire a $50K employee to save $5

That isn't AT ALL what you did, but keep spinning.


I knew a man Bojangles and he'd dance for you in worn out shoes
Silver hair, ragged shirt and baggy pants, that old soft shoe
He'd jump so high, he'd jump so high, then he lightly touched down
Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles, dance.


--Bob Dylan  RAND PAUL
 
2014-01-10 06:59:15 PM  
"Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong?"

Have you ever noticed that uneducated conservative morons espouse illogical-sounding theories with nary a fact nor study to back it up simply by convincing themselves and others that it is "common sense"?
 
2014-01-10 06:59:20 PM  

iawai: menschenfresser: PsiChick: iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.

I think we found the  real Republican mantra: I don't know how money works so I assume I'm the only one paying taxes and giving to charity will solve all problems.

Why do they always trot out this derp about Democrats taking other people's (or even their) money? Everyone paying taxes, regardless of political affiliation, can use this logic to "claim" the money as "theirs." And from what I've noticed, most of the loud republicans/conservatives are something along the lines of low-earning trailer people, low-earning rednecks/hillbillies and government/SSI-earning retirees. I'd be surprised if even 1% of registered Repubs are the actual rich the entire party exists to serve exclusively. It's our money too, derptards, and we have a right to try and see it spent on helping people as much as you have a right to make sure we waste it all on military equipment and corporate welfare.

First, I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican. Nor did I say that only "I" or only "republicans" pay taxes.

Second, it is your money, then it's taken by the govt. When the GOP says "they're taking OUR money" it's not meant to say that they're not also taking YOUR money.

Third, once it's taken, you and I don't get to say what happens. It's no longer "the taxpayer's money." It's then the govt's money. And they'll do what they want with it.

If you read above, I'd support extending unemployment or a "everyone gets a govt job" plan or even a "here's your monthly check, citizen" plan if corporate welfare were ended to fund it. Throw in ending the drug war, the hot wars, privatize some national parks, bailouts, and domestic spying programs, and I'd support giving everyone $10k per month if the govt insists on playing any role in the economy.


I was going by the "and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans" part. However, based on what you've just said, I think we actually agree on some things. Regardless, I appreciate your feedback and respect your views no matter how similar or different they may be to mine. Thank you!
 
2014-01-10 07:01:13 PM  

cousin-merle: We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small. Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.


Let's try this. I provided a few reasons as to why small businesses that SHOULD be hiring are not. Among them was the absence of lending to SMBs. I gave referenced the HBR article a few times, but since no one seems inclined to even explore what I'm talking about (opting instead for the typical 'nuh-uh yer a poopy head and you are probably just saying poopy stuff' approach) let's give it one more go for an intelligent discussion, shall we?

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/why-small-businesses-are

"Despite the economic progress driven by business performance since the recession, the country has not recovered jobs at the same pace. Job growth, while improving, is slow by post-recession standards: The New York Times reported last year that percentage change in payroll, from business cycle trough to business cycle peak, averaged from all previous recessions, is 15%. For the current recovery it is 2%. By contrast, in an average recovery, corporate profits rise 38 percent from trough to peak. In this recovery, they have risen 45 percent. We have better than average profitability and much, much lower than average job growth."

The MONEY is out there. Paying unemployment benefits or not paying them isn't the problem. Businesses are reaping the rewards of the economic increases, but aren't turning that into jobs. Even more puzzling is that SMBs are already increasing revenue more than anyone, but are hiring less than anyone. And this is important: small businesses (those with 500 or less employees) amount to 99.7% of all businesses and employ 49.1% of private sector employment.

"In 2013 alone, micro business revenue on average grew by 2.14% while small business revenue grew by 1.18%. Yet medium business revenue stayed relatively flat, losing 0.2% overall. The large businesses on average in our data decreased revenue by 1.56%.
(Microbusinesses are defined as those earning less than $500,000 in annual revenue, small businesses earn less than $5 million, medium-sized businesses earn between $5 million and $100 million, and large businesses earn over $100 million.)

So what gives? Clearly these businesses are seeing more money (That's the DEMAND that the idiot brigade pretends isn't already there, or mistakenly seems to think is magically multiplied when it is unemployment benefits). So there is DEMAND. And increases in business. But they aren't hiring. And we NEED the SMBs to hire. "In the past 20 years, about two-thirds of all net new jobs were created by small businesses".

So what 's the problem? Well it's not ONE single problem, but here's an important one:

"We tend to equate job growth with business success but the reality is far more nuanced than that. Adding jobs is a capital investment, not a cash flow issue. In other words, crude as it may sound, additional employees are hired for future growth, similarly to the way business owners purchase computers, software, and other capital goods.

For large businesses, the cost of employment is relatively low, so this point becomes largely academic. As revenues and profits rise, the largest businesses simply dip into their capital reserves to hire more people and grow their businesses. But small businesses do not have reserves significant enough to support new employment growth. It is a far bigger investment for a small business to hire an additional employee than for a larger business to do so.
Today, access to capital for small businesses is a significant problem. The largest businesses are able to secure financing with relative ease and on strong terms, including historically low interest rates. But as business size gets smaller, access to capital shrinks dramatically. For example, a recent Pepperdine University study showed a large discrepancy in bank loan approval rates: 75% of medium-sized businesses that sought a bank loan were successful, compared with 34% of small businesses and only 19% of microbusinesses.
Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment. This explains why even though small businesses have increasing revenues and remain optimistic, they are still not adding jobs.

So.

When I say that we are better served by focusing the nations resources and tax dollars on incentivizing Small to Medium Businesses, it's because THAT is where the problem is. THAT is where we can have the most impact, and THAT is where we can most quickly and effectively get the most people back to work.

Thoughts?
 
2014-01-10 07:04:56 PM  
And THAT is why I have repeated over and over that "any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas."
 
2014-01-10 07:15:25 PM  
<crickets>

Not surprised. I'll check back later and see what it looks like once the kids have gone to bed. (mine and the posters on here)
 
2014-01-10 07:17:32 PM  
This just makes it clear that Obama denies basic science.  If you continue to let people feed and house themselves, they remain unemployed longer.  If you simply cut off all UI (and also other entitlements like food stamps), they dehydrate/starve to death within a week or two.  You will see unemployment drop dramatically within a month, guaranteed.  It's science; study it out.
 
2014-01-10 07:22:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment.


That's an interesting article, though it seems to conflict with the WF/Gallup Small Business Index.

content.gallup.com

December 30, 2013

"Having enough money for capital investment" is 3rd, and Credit availability is last on the list.

"Attracting new customers" (demand) is number one, "The economy" (of which demand is a function) is number two, and "Financial stability/Cash flow" (demand) is number three. These are the same answers small businesses owners have given the past two years in other surveys (Gallup and otherwise).
Which is why I prefer putting money into the hands of consumers with a payroll tax exemption on initial income.
 
2014-01-10 07:23:05 PM  

Egoy3k: BunkoSquad: Rev. Skarekroe: Only one thing creates jobs - lowering taxes. FACT.

RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs

Well abortion clinic staff, maternity nurses, OBGYNs, and pediatricians all need work too.


They're going to ban abortions, and without Medicaid none of those other people get paid.
 
2014-01-10 07:30:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: <crickets>

Not surprised. I'll check back later and see what it looks like once the kids have gone to bed. (mine and the posters on here)


You keep saying the same thing in slightly different ways even when people prove you wrong.  What is it you want, exactly, other than attention?
 
2014-01-10 08:19:49 PM  
Say's Law. Parasites don't add to the economy.
 
2014-01-10 08:22:38 PM  

vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".


There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.
 
2014-01-10 08:25:13 PM  

hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

They keep landlords paid up. They keep utility companies paid up. They keep banks paid on car notes. They buy groceries. Without unemployment insurance, all of those sectors take a hit. It's a stop gap to prevent further hemorrhaging in the economy.


We'll just ignore the fact that, for every dollar paid out in unemployment benefits, the taxpayer has one less dollar to spend. A zero-sum game is still a zero-sum game, even if you ignore half of the equation.
 
2014-01-10 08:26:26 PM  

Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea

bullshiat.

FTFY
 
2014-01-10 08:30:07 PM  

DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.



I'm glad to see we agree on something.  Those with truly large sums, do nothing for the economy, yet continue to consume.

No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered.Theodore Roosevelt
 
2014-01-10 08:34:27 PM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-10 08:40:00 PM  

DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.


Really? You come into the thread THIS LATE with this bullsh*t? Ugh.
 
2014-01-10 08:40:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And THAT is why I have repeated over and over that "any number of businesses are on the cusp of demand that has risen to the level that additional employees are needed, but prevailing economic factors are inhibiting this. So incentives to get them off the fence and on the side to hiring would help build the momentum. Feel free to propose your own ideas."


Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't magically make it true.
 
2014-01-10 08:44:22 PM  
All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.
 
2014-01-10 08:47:22 PM  
DrPainMD:There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.

Hm. You do pose an interesting dilemma. Shall I favorite you as wing-nut or just not very smart?
 
2014-01-10 08:49:18 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


Yes. We should be taking water out of the deep end to fill the shallow end!
/wait..
 
2014-01-10 08:55:19 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


Of course, you have some evidence of this don't you?

/of course you don't.
 
2014-01-10 08:56:25 PM  
It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"
 
2014-01-10 08:56:33 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: All government spending is like taking water out of the shallow end of the pool to fill the deep end.  Of course some spills in the process.  Net gain is always  negative.


www.arrl.org
 
2014-01-10 08:57:11 PM  

DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY


I give you $100

You spend $20 on gas.
You spend $40 on groceries.
You spend $20 on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 on condoms.

Let's look at the return on investment:

With the extra gas, you can widen your scope in looking for a new job, and spend more time looking for a new job, thus increasing your odds of getting a job and getting off unemployment.
With the groceries you're able to feed your family for more than a week, giving the kids energy for schoolwork, your wife energy at her job, and maintain your health so nobody is malnourished.
Thanks to their new jackets, your kids won't be as cold, won't burn as many calories, and so the food they eat stays with them longer and together you can maybe afford to skip a meal to help stretch every penny.
Those flowers you got her on a whim put your wife "in the mood", and thanks to the condoms you can have sex without worrying about a pregnancy, which would compound your problems exponentially.

Not to mention the effect your money has on the local and chain businesses in your area.
 
2014-01-10 08:58:27 PM  
Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore.  Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that.  So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.

I'm not very optimistic about the outcome.
 
2014-01-10 09:25:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!
 
2014-01-10 09:35:23 PM  

Ablejack: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!


"I just don't  believein [this scientifically proven fact]." That one gets me every time, no matter how many times I hear it. As if facts need for them to  believein them to be true. I'm telling you, their brains are... different.
 
2014-01-10 09:42:45 PM  

menschenfresser: Ablejack: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

SEEMS like this is how it could be:
Gubmint cain't save money by spendin' it!
Ya want folks workin', stop paying 'em fer not workin'!

"I just don't  believein [this scientifically proven fact]." That one gets me every time, no matter how many times I hear it. As if facts need for them to  believein them to be true. I'm telling you, their brains are... different.


I should have responded directly to cameroncrazy1984 here rather than you, Ablejack my friend. Sorry for my oversight.
 
2014-01-10 10:02:23 PM  

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


hookers and blow
 
2014-01-10 10:07:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: DrPainMD: vpb: Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.

Really? You come into the thread THIS LATE with this bullsh*t? Ugh.


He's late because he had to got cash his welfare check.
 
2014-01-10 10:41:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


Faith Based Economics
 
2014-01-10 10:44:12 PM  
scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-01-10 10:50:02 PM  

Yakk: $1 in aid return[s] $1.6 in tax revenue ....


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-01-10 10:52:00 PM  

Phinn: Yakk: $1 in aid return[s] $1.6 in tax revenue ....

[www.quickmeme.com image 400x300]


Let's try that again:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-10 10:52:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.
 
2014-01-10 10:54:43 PM  

burning_bridge: Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore. Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that. So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.



What about the failure of our society to adequately distribute economic productivity among the population?
 
2014-01-10 11:10:44 PM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100


...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.
 
2014-01-10 11:14:12 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.


You realize that's not actual logic, don't you? That doesn't refute anything.

And it's a complete lie, unless you're somehow posting from 2009. The rate has dropped almost three and a half points, with a Congress that refuses to do anything other than block everything proposed by Democrats, restrict abortions, try to repeal Obamacare, fail to repeal Obamacare, and not write a jobs bill.
 
2014-01-10 11:15:48 PM  

DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.



You can explain the Broken Window fallacy to them a thousand times, but they won't get it.

A lot of the time it's because they're morally compromised by an addiction to government money -- government employees, welfare recipients, etc.  To borrow a phrase, you can't make someone understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:13 PM  

DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.


Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.

But you're obviously not interested in learning how things work, you prefer how you think they might work.

Perfect example of the Backfire Effect

Some gems:

"A striking example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare - the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct - but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the "I know I'm right" syndrome, and considers it a "potentially formidable problem" in a democratic system. "It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual beliefs," he wrote, "but also that the very people who most need to correct them will be least likely to do so.""

And

"In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan's Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren't), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

"For the most part, it didn't. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic - a factor known as salience - the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn't backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration's restrictions weren't total."
 
2014-01-10 11:39:47 PM  

Dan the Schman: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.

You realize that's not actual logic, don't you? That doesn't refute anything.

And it's a complete lie, unless you're somehow posting from 2009. The rate has dropped almost three and a half points, with a Congress that refuses to do anything other than block everything proposed by Democrats, restrict abortions, try to repeal Obamacare, fail to repeal Obamacare, and not write a jobs bill.


You fail.  You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades.  This is fact.You are a moron.
 
2014-01-10 11:43:57 PM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.

Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.

But you're obviously not interested in learning how things work, you prefer how you think they might work.

Perfect example of the Backfire Effect

Some gems:

"A striking example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare - the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct - but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the "I know I'm right" syndrome, and considers it a "potentially formidable problem" in a democratic system. "It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual belie ...


None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:17 PM  

Phinn: burning_bridge: Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore. Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that. So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.

What about the failure of our society to adequately distribute economic productivity among the population?


Since there's something like 3 unemployed people for every job opening right now, I'd say that's pretty much irrelevant to the issue.  But you'd have to ignore that to have your view of "peeps jus' be lazy, yo."  Which I'm sure you will.
 
2014-01-10 11:49:16 PM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100

You spend $20 on gas.
You spend $40 on groceries.
You spend $20 on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 on condoms.

Let's look at the return on investment:


OK, I'll break it down for you, since you don't seem to get it.

After you give me the $100:

You spend $20 less on gas.
You spend $40 less on groceries.
You spend $20 less on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 less on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 less on condoms.

Tell me about the return (for the economy overall) on that "investment."
 
2014-01-11 12:02:37 AM  

DrPainMD: After you give me the $100


Sure, he's down $100 but now you have $100 to spend.
 
2014-01-11 12:10:07 AM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Yakk: $1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea bullshiat.

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.

Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.


But where would that money have been spent?

California, as an example, has borrowed $8.8 billion from the Fed to pay for their extended UI benefits.  They've taken $300 million out of their Social Security Disability Fund just to pay the INTEREST payment on that $8.8 billion loan. This, at a time when more people are on SSDI than in any time in our history. They're going to have to make up for that shortfall somehow.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with extended UI being 73 weeks or 99 weeks or whatever the current maximum is, but more needs to be done to encourage job growth.  The middle of a recession was probably not the best time to be raising taxes on SMBs and forcing them to pay thousands of dollars for the ACA (or pay a $2,000 fine per employee), but I realize it was also pretty much a "now or never" proposition.
 
2014-01-11 12:49:46 AM  

iawai: Pincy: Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.

Ahh, the Liberal mantra: I got mine, don't give it to anyone, and vote for the govt to take money from Republicans, even though they actually do give to charity.


Are these words actually coming out of your brain?
 
2014-01-11 01:21:45 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: You fail. You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades. This is fact.You are a moron.


Jesus f*cking Christ you lying piece of sh*t. THIS is the quality of troll Drew pays for these days? Your lie is so blatant... You might as well say the sky is green and water turns people into mermaids.

There are two ways Fark can start actually making money from members again: 1) make the ignore feature exclusive to members 2) crack down on the goddamn trolls.

DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.


Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

DrPainMD: OK, I'll break it down for you, since you don't seem to get it.

After you give me the $100:

You spend $20 less on gas.
You spend $40 less on groceries.
You spend $20 less on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 less on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 less on condoms.

Tell me about the return (for the economy overall) on that "investment."


First, read my reply above.

Shorter version: I have a job, no wife, and no kids, losing "$100" isn't as hurtful to my lifestyle.

Once again, I lose the $100 no matter what, it came out of the taxes I pay each year, because unlike some of the people who need these benefits, I make enough that I have to pay taxes.

This is one of the several hundred ways that governments function completely differently from a common household budget. People pay taxes, and spend money on various other government products, government convenes and decides how to spend that money...

So, the money is already sitting there, should we channel it to a few people who probably couldn't spend all the money they already have in their lifetime, or should we send it to millions of people who might die or become homeless? Well, rather than base it on "guts" and "instincts" and how we think the system works, let's look at studies that have investigated what happens when we extend unemployment benefits (which are temporary and automatically expire when the unemployment rate improves)?

Oh gee, the vast majority say that those benefits (as well as other "welfare" programs like food stamps and infrastructure) actually put more back into the economy (to a certain extent, of course), than things like tax cuts.
 
2014-01-11 01:25:20 AM  
Never mind the studies that prove otherwise. You're WRONG because REASONS and MADE UP "FACTS"!
 
2014-01-11 01:45:27 AM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.


IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.
 
2014-01-11 02:33:20 AM  

DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.


Oh, so you're incompetent? That explains a lot.

1) Not a single, literate, competent person could read what I said and believe that I think the economy wouldn't benefit, because I EXPLICITLY stated the opposite.

2) One could only say that the economy was "harmed" if one defined every penny paid to a government, regardless of consequence, as a "harm" AND ignored any consequential benefit.

3) Whether you're a troll or a true believer, if you want to be taken seriously-by anyone who doesn't share every single ideological opinion with you- then you should a. actually address points made by the people to whom you respond, preferably with facts/studies/citations, and b. don't delete 90% of their comment. Otherwise, everyone will think you're a piece of sh*t troll, because smart people who are right don't do those things. When facts are on your side, you don't have to ignore paragraphs of information, you don't have to make broad generalizations that merely insult and don't offer any new information.
 
2014-01-11 07:34:27 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small. Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.

Let's try this. I provided a few reasons as to why small businesses that SHOULD be hiring are not. Among them was the absence of lending to SMBs. I gave referenced the HBR article a few times, but since no one seems inclined to even explore what I'm talking about (opting instead for the typical 'nuh-uh yer a poopy head and you are probably just saying poopy stuff' approach) let's give it one more go for an intelligent discussion, shall we?

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/why-small-businesses-are

"Despite the economic progress driven by business performance since the recession, the country has not recovered jobs at the same pace. Job growth, while improving, is slow by post-recession standards: The New York Times reported last year that percentage change in payroll, from business cycle trough to business cycle peak, averaged from all previous recessions, is 15%. For the current recovery it is 2%. By contrast, in an average recovery, corporate profits rise 38 percent from trough to peak. In this recovery, they have risen 45 percent. We have better than average profitability and much, much lower than average job growth."

The MONEY is out there. Paying unemployment benefits or not paying them isn't the problem. Businesses are reaping the rewards of the economic increases, but aren't turning that into jobs. Even more puzzling is that SMBs are already increasing revenue more than anyone, but are hiring less than anyone. And this is important: small businesses (those with 500 or less employees) amount to 99.7% of all businesses and employ 49.1% of private sector employment.

"In 2013 alone, micro business revenue on average grew by 2.14% while small business revenue grew by 1.18%. Yet medium business revenue stayed relatively flat, losing 0.2% overall. The large businesses on average in our data decreased revenue by 1.56%.
(Microbusinesses are defined as those earning less than $500,000 in annual revenue, small businesses earn less than $5 million, medium-sized businesses earn between $5 million and $100 million, and large businesses earn over $100 million.)

So what gives? Clearly these businesses are seeing more money (That's the DEMAND that the idiot brigade pretends isn't already there, or mistakenly seems to think is magically multiplied when it is unemployment benefits). So there is DEMAND. And increases in business. But they aren't hiring. And we NEED the SMBs to hire. "In the past 20 years, about two-thirds of all net new jobs were created by small businesses".

So what 's the problem? Well it's not ONE single problem, but here's an important one:

"We tend to equate job growth with business success but the reality is far more nuanced than that. Adding jobs is a capital investment, not a cash flow issue. In other words, crude as it may sound, additional employees are hired for future growth, similarly to the way business owners purchase computers, software, and other capital goods.

For large businesses, the cost of employment is relatively low, so this point becomes largely academic. As revenues and profits rise, the largest businesses simply dip into their capital reserves to hire more people and grow their businesses. But small businesses do not have reserves significant enough to support new employment growth. It is a far bigger investment for a small business to hire an additional employee than for a larger business to do so.
Today, access to capital for small businesses is a significant problem. The largest businesses are able to secure financing with relative ease and on strong terms, including historically low interest rates. But as business size gets smaller, access to capital shrinks dramatically. For example, a recent Pepperdine University study showed a large discrepancy in bank loan approval rates: 75% of medium-sized businesses that sought a bank loan were successful, compared with 34% of small businesses and only 19% of microbusinesses.
Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment. This explains why even though small businesses have increasing revenues and remain optimistic, they are still not adding jobs.

So.

When I say that we are better served by focusing the nations resources and tax dollars on incentivizing Small to Medium Businesses, it's because THAT is where the problem is. THAT is where we can have the most impact, and THAT is where we can most quickly and effectively get the most people back to work.

Thoughts?


It does come down to capital investment. Large businesses are focused upon because of their potential, at least on a city and state level to create new opportunities. Smaller businesses, who don't create the sort of sexy numbers that look good on paper, but who incrementally do more good with the amount of money that they inject into local economies, they are sort of left out of the equation.

Smaller businesses don't make for the sexy numbers. They don't drop the same amounts in taxes in one fell swoop, they don't post crazy profits, but they are the businesses that have the potential for real growth. And you touched upon a point earlier upthread, that we can't bribe large businesses to simply "make jobs" that they don't need to. Incentivizing them with tax breaks to "make jobs" doesn't really work, without projects, facilities, or a reason to grow their presence in an area. Be that a plant, be that a distro hub, be that MOAR restaurants. There has to be a reason for their new presence, and tax cuts alone don't create new product lines, which is exactly why tax cuts alone don't create new jobs. And I'm glad you touched upon that, because I think that some folks did miss it.

Our small businesses do need more than just tax relief, to keep money in their pocket, but access to capital is another issue, that does need to be touched upon. Because the playing field is NOT level in the least in regards to adding small businesses, and it is discouraging smaller players from even entering the game, and that stifles not just growth, but it stifles competition. Yet, we keep focusing on the largest of players, who, despite all the advantages, have little reason to continue to expand in the ways that will encourage job growth on a functioning and sustainable fashion.
 
2014-01-11 07:45:30 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x343]


Hey look, a Potato-American is posting a strawman!  I am Jack's complete lack of surprise!
 
2014-01-11 08:39:56 AM  
I'm bummed I missed this thread.

1. It takes less people to build and maintain a standard of living for all people than it used to. As technology continues to advance, it will take even fewer.
2. The owners of the capital allowing for point 1 are receiving large amounts of money because of this.
3. Giving people money does not change 1 or 2. If you cut checks to people, that money goes the exact same place it is going now (corporate bank accounts and wall street). It will not create additional jobs for average Americans.

The solution is a basic income paid for via taxes. The exact opposite of a solution is borrowing/printing money and giving it to people.
 
2014-01-11 09:16:41 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.


Okay, and can you attribute that to the fact that we have unemployment benefits? Because I have a newsflash for you; we've had those for 40 years as well. You're gonna have to find some new data!
 
2014-01-11 09:18:28 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: You fail.  You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades.  This is fact.You are a moron.


And now you're trying to tie it to Obamacare? Come on, are you kidding me? We just had an economic crash worse than anytime int he last four decades. This is a fact. You are a moron.
 
2014-01-11 09:20:59 AM  

MattStafford: I'm bummed I missed this thread.


We're not.
 
2014-01-11 10:07:54 AM  

DrPainMD: Say's Law. Parasites don't add to the economy.


I couldn't agree with you more.  Get the Welfare Queens off the government teat.  The next time Halliburton wants to get its oil out from under some other country's sand, they can recruit, train and equip their own army at their own expense and hire whatever-Blackwater-is-calling-itself-this-week on their own dime, and get their grubby mittens out of the taxpayers' pockets.
 
KIA
2014-01-11 11:22:58 AM  

El_Perro: Just what does lesser Limbaugh think people do with their unemployment benefits?


Well they sure as fark don't go out and hire people to support their lavish lifestyle.

In fact, I think they usually do things like pay their mortgage.
 
m00
2014-01-11 11:48:20 AM  

DrPainMD: ...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.


The entity with "$100 less to spend" in this case is the Federal Government. If it makes no difference whether that $100 is in the hands of Federal Government or individuals, then tax cuts wouldn't matter.

Now I presume your follow-up post will point out that the $100 belonged to a different person before it went into the hands of government, which then redistributed it. Which would be a sensible counter-point, except for the fact taxes don't work like that, due to the fiat currency system. Receipts are paid in a fiscal year by the government before taxes are collected. So imagine that nobody pays taxes in a given year and the government has zero income -- this is irrelevant to the fact the Federal government's budget had already been allocated and paid out. Debt would run up, but it goes to show that the government's income and revenue are completely decoupled. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.

So the government never takes from person A to give to person B. Instead it first creates money to gives to person B, and then taxes A. The difference is called deficit. But another thing to consider is that A and B depending on their economic situation will contribute to the economy to different degrees. Cries of "class warfare" from corporations and the wealthy would hold more water if they they actually paid their taxes, and didn't receive all sorts of welfare from the government.

There are billionaires out there with government subsidies. So I don't begrudge someone another year of unemployment -- we could even pay for it by making corporations pay taxes, and removing subsidies for the wealthy. But that's not going to happen as long as lobbying exists.
 
m00
2014-01-11 12:07:14 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: I couldn't agree with you more. Get the Welfare Queens off the government teat. The next time Halliburton wants to get its oil out from under some other country's sand, they can recruit, train and equip their own army at their own expense and hire whatever-Blackwater-is-calling-itself-this-week on their own dime, and get their grubby mittens out of the taxpayers' pockets.


This. Oh, and not only does GE not pay taxes... it gets about 2 billion each year from the government.... because lobbyists. This is what Republicans mean by "welfare queen" right?
 
2014-01-11 04:14:47 PM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.

Oh, so you're incompetent? That explains a lot.

1) Not a single, literate, competent person could read what I said and believe that I think the economy wouldn't benefit, because I EXPLICITLY stated the opposite.


Here's what you said:

"I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you."

It's an admission that transfer payments are a zero-sum game, which is my entire point. Stop calling me an idiot... you're too stupid to read, not only what others write, but what you, yourself, write.
 
2014-01-11 05:24:37 PM  

iawai: morlinge: iawai: And that $1 output in aid only takes $3 in input from borrowing/taxes after you pay the bureaucracy. So it's not a $1 investment by govt that returns 60% to govt. It's instead a $3 investment by taxpayers that returns $1 to the private economy.

What a great idea.

Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?

"...public income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients."

- The Costs of Public Income Redistribution and Private Charity, p. 3-4

So it takes $3 earmarked to a govt program to distribute $1 to recipients.

Potato's in your court.


...Which is cited by only 7 other papers.
 
2014-01-11 06:32:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee.

Go back and look for context.


longship.ca

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context, and reasons and furthermore
 
2014-01-11 10:31:29 PM  

El Pachuco: mage 246x228]

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context



Way to show up late and completely swing and a miss. The context is mocking someone's dumb ass mischaricterization. The point is that they wouldn't, but if they did, it would be super awesome.

But thank you for playing.
/not really sure you felt the need to jump in blindly.
// is it lonely being an Alt
 
2014-01-12 01:45:34 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: El Pachuco: mage 246x228]

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context


Way to show up late and completely swing and a miss. The context is mocking someone's dumb ass mischaricterization. The point is that they wouldn't, but if they did, it would be super awesome.

But thank you for playing.
/not really sure you felt the need to jump in blindly.
// is it lonely being an Alt


This is why no one takes you seriously.
 
m00
2014-01-12 01:47:43 AM  

El Pachuco: /implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break


Well, really what would happen is the company needs an engineer but there's only 45k in the budget. But then with a 5k tax break you can pay him 50k, and get an engineer that didn't graduate from Phoenix University. I worked for a company that did some fancy accounting to get the government to pay 1/3 of the salaries of all engineers. Stuff like that lets you hire more people of better quality, but it means that the company isn't profitable absent government help. Which creates unfair competition for startups that might have a better idea and more sustainable business model, but no accountants.

So I think corporate welfare necessarily diminishes innovation and economy. Whereas a person on welfare might actually be building the next big thing in his basement -- and this happens in Nordic countries, who do this and are very start-up friendly. But the whole work ethic is culturally different, so it might be apples to oranges on that.
 
Displayed 383 of 383 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report