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  
•       •       •

910 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (3 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 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.
 
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

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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