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  
•       •       •

901 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 10:52:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"


More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.
 
2014-01-10 10:54:43 PM  

burning_bridge: Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore. Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that. So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.



What about the failure of our society to adequately distribute economic productivity among the population?
 
2014-01-10 11:10:44 PM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100


...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.
 
2014-01-10 11:14:12 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.


You realize that's not actual logic, don't you? That doesn't refute anything.

And it's a complete lie, unless you're somehow posting from 2009. The rate has dropped almost three and a half points, with a Congress that refuses to do anything other than block everything proposed by Democrats, restrict abortions, try to repeal Obamacare, fail to repeal Obamacare, and not write a jobs bill.
 
2014-01-10 11:15:48 PM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.



You can explain the Broken Window fallacy to them a thousand times, but they won't get it.

A lot of the time it's because they're morally compromised by an addiction to government money -- government employees, welfare recipients, etc.  To borrow a phrase, you can't make someone understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.
 
2014-01-10 11:24:13 PM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.


Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.

But you're obviously not interested in learning how things work, you prefer how you think they might work.

Perfect example of the Backfire Effect

Some gems:

"A striking example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare - the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct - but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the "I know I'm right" syndrome, and considers it a "potentially formidable problem" in a democratic system. "It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual beliefs," he wrote, "but also that the very people who most need to correct them will be least likely to do so.""

And

"In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan's Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren't), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

"For the most part, it didn't. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic - a factor known as salience - the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn't backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration's restrictions weren't total."
 
2014-01-10 11:39:47 PM  

Dan the Schman: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.

You realize that's not actual logic, don't you? That doesn't refute anything.

And it's a complete lie, unless you're somehow posting from 2009. The rate has dropped almost three and a half points, with a Congress that refuses to do anything other than block everything proposed by Democrats, restrict abortions, try to repeal Obamacare, fail to repeal Obamacare, and not write a jobs bill.


You fail.  You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades.  This is fact.You are a moron.
 
2014-01-10 11:43:57 PM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.

Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.

But you're obviously not interested in learning how things work, you prefer how you think they might work.

Perfect example of the Backfire Effect

Some gems:

"A striking example was a study done in the year 2000, led by James Kuklinski of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He led an influential experiment in which more than 1,000 Illinois residents were asked questions about welfare - the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare, the number of people enrolled in the program, the percentage of enrollees who are black, and the average payout. More than half indicated that they were confident that their answers were correct - but in fact only 3 percent of the people got more than half of the questions right. Perhaps more disturbingly, the ones who were the most confident they were right were by and large the ones who knew the least about the topic. (Most of these participants expressed views that suggested a strong antiwelfare bias.)

Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the "I know I'm right" syndrome, and considers it a "potentially formidable problem" in a democratic system. "It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual belie ...


None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.
 
2014-01-10 11:44:17 PM  

Phinn: burning_bridge: Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore. Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that. So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.

What about the failure of our society to adequately distribute economic productivity among the population?


Since there's something like 3 unemployed people for every job opening right now, I'd say that's pretty much irrelevant to the issue.  But you'd have to ignore that to have your view of "peeps jus' be lazy, yo."  Which I'm sure you will.
 
2014-01-10 11:49:16 PM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100

You spend $20 on gas.
You spend $40 on groceries.
You spend $20 on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 on condoms.

Let's look at the return on investment:


OK, I'll break it down for you, since you don't seem to get it.

After you give me the $100:

You spend $20 less on gas.
You spend $40 less on groceries.
You spend $20 less on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 less on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 less on condoms.

Tell me about the return (for the economy overall) on that "investment."
 
2014-01-11 12:02:37 AM  

DrPainMD: After you give me the $100


Sure, he's down $100 but now you have $100 to spend.
 
2014-01-11 12:10:07 AM  

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

FTFY

I give you $100

...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.

Except I lose the $100 no matter what, it comes out of taxes. Extending unemployment benefits just redirects money that is already going to be spent.


But where would that money have been spent?

California, as an example, has borrowed $8.8 billion from the Fed to pay for their extended UI benefits.  They've taken $300 million out of their Social Security Disability Fund just to pay the INTEREST payment on that $8.8 billion loan. This, at a time when more people are on SSDI than in any time in our history. They're going to have to make up for that shortfall somehow.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with extended UI being 73 weeks or 99 weeks or whatever the current maximum is, but more needs to be done to encourage job growth.  The middle of a recession was probably not the best time to be raising taxes on SMBs and forcing them to pay thousands of dollars for the ACA (or pay a $2,000 fine per employee), but I realize it was also pretty much a "now or never" proposition.
 
2014-01-11 12:49:46 AM  

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

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


Are these words actually coming out of your brain?
 
2014-01-11 01:21:45 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: You fail. You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades. This is fact.You are a moron.


Jesus f*cking Christ you lying piece of sh*t. THIS is the quality of troll Drew pays for these days? Your lie is so blatant... You might as well say the sky is green and water turns people into mermaids.

There are two ways Fark can start actually making money from members again: 1) make the ignore feature exclusive to members 2) crack down on the goddamn trolls.

DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.


Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

DrPainMD: OK, I'll break it down for you, since you don't seem to get it.

After you give me the $100:

You spend $20 less on gas.
You spend $40 less on groceries.
You spend $20 less on clothes for your kids.
You spend $15 less on flowers for your wife.
You spend $5 less on condoms.

Tell me about the return (for the economy overall) on that "investment."


First, read my reply above.

Shorter version: I have a job, no wife, and no kids, losing "$100" isn't as hurtful to my lifestyle.

Once again, I lose the $100 no matter what, it came out of the taxes I pay each year, because unlike some of the people who need these benefits, I make enough that I have to pay taxes.

This is one of the several hundred ways that governments function completely differently from a common household budget. People pay taxes, and spend money on various other government products, government convenes and decides how to spend that money...

So, the money is already sitting there, should we channel it to a few people who probably couldn't spend all the money they already have in their lifetime, or should we send it to millions of people who might die or become homeless? Well, rather than base it on "guts" and "instincts" and how we think the system works, let's look at studies that have investigated what happens when we extend unemployment benefits (which are temporary and automatically expire when the unemployment rate improves)?

Oh gee, the vast majority say that those benefits (as well as other "welfare" programs like food stamps and infrastructure) actually put more back into the economy (to a certain extent, of course), than things like tax cuts.
 
2014-01-11 01:25:20 AM  
Never mind the studies that prove otherwise. You're WRONG because REASONS and MADE UP "FACTS"!
 
2014-01-11 01:45:27 AM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.


IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.
 
2014-01-11 02:33:20 AM  

DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.


Oh, so you're incompetent? That explains a lot.

1) Not a single, literate, competent person could read what I said and believe that I think the economy wouldn't benefit, because I EXPLICITLY stated the opposite.

2) One could only say that the economy was "harmed" if one defined every penny paid to a government, regardless of consequence, as a "harm" AND ignored any consequential benefit.

3) Whether you're a troll or a true believer, if you want to be taken seriously-by anyone who doesn't share every single ideological opinion with you- then you should a. actually address points made by the people to whom you respond, preferably with facts/studies/citations, and b. don't delete 90% of their comment. Otherwise, everyone will think you're a piece of sh*t troll, because smart people who are right don't do those things. When facts are on your side, you don't have to ignore paragraphs of information, you don't have to make broad generalizations that merely insult and don't offer any new information.
 
2014-01-11 07:34:27 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: cousin-merle: We did speak up earlier, but we couldn't pass anything without the less effective tax cuts that Republicans demanded, and what we passed was too small. Unemployment benefits get more bang for the buck.

Let's try this. I provided a few reasons as to why small businesses that SHOULD be hiring are not. Among them was the absence of lending to SMBs. I gave referenced the HBR article a few times, but since no one seems inclined to even explore what I'm talking about (opting instead for the typical 'nuh-uh yer a poopy head and you are probably just saying poopy stuff' approach) let's give it one more go for an intelligent discussion, shall we?

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/12/why-small-businesses-are

"Despite the economic progress driven by business performance since the recession, the country has not recovered jobs at the same pace. Job growth, while improving, is slow by post-recession standards: The New York Times reported last year that percentage change in payroll, from business cycle trough to business cycle peak, averaged from all previous recessions, is 15%. For the current recovery it is 2%. By contrast, in an average recovery, corporate profits rise 38 percent from trough to peak. In this recovery, they have risen 45 percent. We have better than average profitability and much, much lower than average job growth."

The MONEY is out there. Paying unemployment benefits or not paying them isn't the problem. Businesses are reaping the rewards of the economic increases, but aren't turning that into jobs. Even more puzzling is that SMBs are already increasing revenue more than anyone, but are hiring less than anyone. And this is important: small businesses (those with 500 or less employees) amount to 99.7% of all businesses and employ 49.1% of private sector employment.

"In 2013 alone, micro business revenue on average grew by 2.14% while small business revenue grew by 1.18%. Yet medium business revenue stayed relatively flat, losing 0.2% overall. The large businesses on average in our data decreased revenue by 1.56%.
(Microbusinesses are defined as those earning less than $500,000 in annual revenue, small businesses earn less than $5 million, medium-sized businesses earn between $5 million and $100 million, and large businesses earn over $100 million.)

So what gives? Clearly these businesses are seeing more money (That's the DEMAND that the idiot brigade pretends isn't already there, or mistakenly seems to think is magically multiplied when it is unemployment benefits). So there is DEMAND. And increases in business. But they aren't hiring. And we NEED the SMBs to hire. "In the past 20 years, about two-thirds of all net new jobs were created by small businesses".

So what 's the problem? Well it's not ONE single problem, but here's an important one:

"We tend to equate job growth with business success but the reality is far more nuanced than that. Adding jobs is a capital investment, not a cash flow issue. In other words, crude as it may sound, additional employees are hired for future growth, similarly to the way business owners purchase computers, software, and other capital goods.

For large businesses, the cost of employment is relatively low, so this point becomes largely academic. As revenues and profits rise, the largest businesses simply dip into their capital reserves to hire more people and grow their businesses. But small businesses do not have reserves significant enough to support new employment growth. It is a far bigger investment for a small business to hire an additional employee than for a larger business to do so.
Today, access to capital for small businesses is a significant problem. The largest businesses are able to secure financing with relative ease and on strong terms, including historically low interest rates. But as business size gets smaller, access to capital shrinks dramatically. For example, a recent Pepperdine University study showed a large discrepancy in bank loan approval rates: 75% of medium-sized businesses that sought a bank loan were successful, compared with 34% of small businesses and only 19% of microbusinesses.
Without capital, small businesses are not in a position to increase employment. This explains why even though small businesses have increasing revenues and remain optimistic, they are still not adding jobs.

So.

When I say that we are better served by focusing the nations resources and tax dollars on incentivizing Small to Medium Businesses, it's because THAT is where the problem is. THAT is where we can have the most impact, and THAT is where we can most quickly and effectively get the most people back to work.

Thoughts?


It does come down to capital investment. Large businesses are focused upon because of their potential, at least on a city and state level to create new opportunities. Smaller businesses, who don't create the sort of sexy numbers that look good on paper, but who incrementally do more good with the amount of money that they inject into local economies, they are sort of left out of the equation.

Smaller businesses don't make for the sexy numbers. They don't drop the same amounts in taxes in one fell swoop, they don't post crazy profits, but they are the businesses that have the potential for real growth. And you touched upon a point earlier upthread, that we can't bribe large businesses to simply "make jobs" that they don't need to. Incentivizing them with tax breaks to "make jobs" doesn't really work, without projects, facilities, or a reason to grow their presence in an area. Be that a plant, be that a distro hub, be that MOAR restaurants. There has to be a reason for their new presence, and tax cuts alone don't create new product lines, which is exactly why tax cuts alone don't create new jobs. And I'm glad you touched upon that, because I think that some folks did miss it.

Our small businesses do need more than just tax relief, to keep money in their pocket, but access to capital is another issue, that does need to be touched upon. Because the playing field is NOT level in the least in regards to adding small businesses, and it is discouraging smaller players from even entering the game, and that stifles not just growth, but it stifles competition. Yet, we keep focusing on the largest of players, who, despite all the advantages, have little reason to continue to expand in the ways that will encourage job growth on a functioning and sustainable fashion.
 
2014-01-11 07:45:30 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x343]


Hey look, a Potato-American is posting a strawman!  I am Jack's complete lack of surprise!
 
2014-01-11 08:39:56 AM  
I'm bummed I missed this thread.

1. It takes less people to build and maintain a standard of living for all people than it used to. As technology continues to advance, it will take even fewer.
2. The owners of the capital allowing for point 1 are receiving large amounts of money because of this.
3. Giving people money does not change 1 or 2. If you cut checks to people, that money goes the exact same place it is going now (corporate bank accounts and wall street). It will not create additional jobs for average Americans.

The solution is a basic income paid for via taxes. The exact opposite of a solution is borrowing/printing money and giving it to people.
 
2014-01-11 09:16:41 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"

More people are out of work now than anytime in the last 40 years,  Shove that empirical data up your ass and STFU.


Okay, and can you attribute that to the fact that we have unemployment benefits? Because I have a newsflash for you; we've had those for 40 years as well. You're gonna have to find some new data!
 
2014-01-11 09:18:28 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: You fail.  You want a tissue for your obamacare shiat? MORE people are out of work now than anytime in the last four decades.  This is fact.You are a moron.


And now you're trying to tie it to Obamacare? Come on, are you kidding me? We just had an economic crash worse than anytime int he last four decades. This is a fact. You are a moron.
 
2014-01-11 09:20:59 AM  

MattStafford: I'm bummed I missed this thread.


We're not.
 
2014-01-11 10:07:54 AM  

DrPainMD: Say's Law. Parasites don't add to the economy.


I couldn't agree with you more.  Get the Welfare Queens off the government teat.  The next time Halliburton wants to get its oil out from under some other country's sand, they can recruit, train and equip their own army at their own expense and hire whatever-Blackwater-is-calling-itself-this-week on their own dime, and get their grubby mittens out of the taxpayers' pockets.
 
KIA
2014-01-11 11:22:58 AM  

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


Well they sure as fark don't go out and hire people to support their lavish lifestyle.

In fact, I think they usually do things like pay their mortgage.
 
m00
2014-01-11 11:48:20 AM  

DrPainMD: ...then you have $100 less to spend. Why is that so hard to grasp? Absolutely nothing is added to the economy. In fact, since you now don't have $100 worth of whatever you would have bought with the money, the overall economy is smaller.


The entity with "$100 less to spend" in this case is the Federal Government. If it makes no difference whether that $100 is in the hands of Federal Government or individuals, then tax cuts wouldn't matter.

Now I presume your follow-up post will point out that the $100 belonged to a different person before it went into the hands of government, which then redistributed it. Which would be a sensible counter-point, except for the fact taxes don't work like that, due to the fiat currency system. Receipts are paid in a fiscal year by the government before taxes are collected. So imagine that nobody pays taxes in a given year and the government has zero income -- this is irrelevant to the fact the Federal government's budget had already been allocated and paid out. Debt would run up, but it goes to show that the government's income and revenue are completely decoupled. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.

So the government never takes from person A to give to person B. Instead it first creates money to gives to person B, and then taxes A. The difference is called deficit. But another thing to consider is that A and B depending on their economic situation will contribute to the economy to different degrees. Cries of "class warfare" from corporations and the wealthy would hold more water if they they actually paid their taxes, and didn't receive all sorts of welfare from the government.

There are billionaires out there with government subsidies. So I don't begrudge someone another year of unemployment -- we could even pay for it by making corporations pay taxes, and removing subsidies for the wealthy. But that's not going to happen as long as lobbying exists.
 
m00
2014-01-11 12:07:14 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: I couldn't agree with you more. Get the Welfare Queens off the government teat. The next time Halliburton wants to get its oil out from under some other country's sand, they can recruit, train and equip their own army at their own expense and hire whatever-Blackwater-is-calling-itself-this-week on their own dime, and get their grubby mittens out of the taxpayers' pockets.


This. Oh, and not only does GE not pay taxes... it gets about 2 billion each year from the government.... because lobbyists. This is what Republicans mean by "welfare queen" right?
 
2014-01-11 04:14:47 PM  

Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: Dan the Schman: DrPainMD: None of what you posted is even remotely relevant. Taking $100 from Person A and giving it to Person B not only adds nothing to the economy, but Person A loses the $100 worth of goods and services that he would have bought. It's a net loss for the overall economy. If, OTOH, Person A paid Person B $100 to (for example) clean his carpets, not only would Person B have the $100, but Person A would have $100 worth of clean carpet. This isn't very complicated.

Are you really this stupid? Okay, think of a larger scale. I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you.

You're trying to frame it as if we're both in the same boat, so that my loss is equal to your gain, but it's not. This is really simple, basic stuff. It's not complicated at all.

It's called the social contract, it's a premise made really popular by this foreign dude named Jesus. Pretty much every industrialized nation practices it, and most of them are doing really well.

IOW, you agree with me that the economy does not benefit, and is actually harmed. Then WTF are you arguing about? Whether or not the person taxed can afford it was not part of the discussion.

Oh, so you're incompetent? That explains a lot.

1) Not a single, literate, competent person could read what I said and believe that I think the economy wouldn't benefit, because I EXPLICITLY stated the opposite.


Here's what you said:

"I have ten billion dollars, you have just short of one million. I give you a million dollars, and yes, I lose a million dollars, but that's nothing compared to my other 9,999,000,000, but since you had less than a million, a million dollars is a significant improvement for you."

It's an admission that transfer payments are a zero-sum game, which is my entire point. Stop calling me an idiot... you're too stupid to read, not only what others write, but what you, yourself, write.
 
2014-01-11 05:24:37 PM  

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

What a great idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Potato's in your court.


...Which is cited by only 7 other papers.
 
2014-01-11 06:32:02 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: qorkfiend: You were the one who tossed out the $5,000 tax break for a $50,000 employee.

Go back and look for context.


longship.ca

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context, and reasons and furthermore
 
2014-01-11 10:31:29 PM  

El Pachuco: mage 246x228]

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context



Way to show up late and completely swing and a miss. The context is mocking someone's dumb ass mischaricterization. The point is that they wouldn't, but if they did, it would be super awesome.

But thank you for playing.
/not really sure you felt the need to jump in blindly.
// is it lonely being an Alt
 
2014-01-12 01:45:34 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: El Pachuco: mage 246x228]

/implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break
//because context


Way to show up late and completely swing and a miss. The context is mocking someone's dumb ass mischaricterization. The point is that they wouldn't, but if they did, it would be super awesome.

But thank you for playing.
/not really sure you felt the need to jump in blindly.
// is it lonely being an Alt


This is why no one takes you seriously.
 
m00
2014-01-12 01:47:43 AM  

El Pachuco: /implies that there somehow is a context that explains why a business would spend $45k to get a $5k tax break


Well, really what would happen is the company needs an engineer but there's only 45k in the budget. But then with a 5k tax break you can pay him 50k, and get an engineer that didn't graduate from Phoenix University. I worked for a company that did some fancy accounting to get the government to pay 1/3 of the salaries of all engineers. Stuff like that lets you hire more people of better quality, but it means that the company isn't profitable absent government help. Which creates unfair competition for startups that might have a better idea and more sustainable business model, but no accountants.

So I think corporate welfare necessarily diminishes innovation and economy. Whereas a person on welfare might actually be building the next big thing in his basement -- and this happens in Nordic countries, who do this and are very start-up friendly. But the whole work ethic is culturally different, so it might be apples to oranges on that.
 
Displayed 33 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