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
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

906 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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