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  
•       •       •

900 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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