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 70
    More: Obvious, Obama, unemployment benefits, economic liberalism, propaganda, scientific methods  
•       •       •

888 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:56 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-10 12:45:10 PM  
12 votes:
What do unemployment benefits do?

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

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

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

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

America cannot survive on Walmart and McDonald's alone...
2014-01-10 01:03:24 PM  
5 votes:
$1 in aid returning $1.6 in tax revenue and being used in the areas where capital is most needed. What a terrible idea.
2014-01-10 12:22:58 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


They know that, but like anything that doesn't fit their narrative, they ignore it or deny it.
2014-01-10 11:28:15 AM  
5 votes:
Unemployed people just spend that money.  We need to give that money to someone like a Wall Street banker who will invest it instead in things like a new Chinese factory or a sweat shop in India.
2014-01-10 01:07:15 PM  
4 votes:
The economy collapses, businesses respond by shedding staff, and people become unemployed.  Economy recovers, businesses do not rehire, and people remain unemployed.

I think it's obvious that we should blame the unemployed.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-10 11:38:42 AM  
4 votes:
Isn't that just basic economics?  I think it's called "priming the pump".
2014-01-10 02:00:18 PM  
3 votes:

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

What a great idea.

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

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

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

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

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

Potato's in your court.


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

I note that the authors cited wrote literally decades ago, and neither one is an academic. In fact, both the Tanner and Woodward books appear to be opinion pieces. The Mises Institute is known for this kind of dishonesty (okay, okay, outright lying), and it's why nobody takes them seriously.
2014-01-10 01:17:26 PM  
3 votes:
Ahh, the Republican mantra: I got mine, fark you.
2014-01-10 01:09:39 PM  
3 votes:
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl that is totally spunging off unemployment.  Therefore big government hand outs are bad.*

* Four billion a year to big oil companies is just smart government
2014-01-10 12:44:10 PM  
3 votes:
Does he seriously expect us to believe that in a consumption based economy, more people having money to consume helps boost the economy and create jobs.

Jobs only rain down upon us by giving tax breaks to rich people.
2014-01-10 11:26:33 AM  
3 votes:
Stupid Obama, trusting virtually every reputable economist and the CBO.
2014-01-10 01:56:16 PM  
2 votes:
Remember back in 2008 when GWB cut a $300 check for every American and the Republicans went apeshiat about handouts and excessive spending that will hurt the economy?

Yeah, I don't remember that either.
2014-01-10 01:31:59 PM  
2 votes:

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

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



I say this in complete and total sincerity:  that might be the single most stupid comment I've ever seen on FARK.
2014-01-10 01:24:11 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

What a great idea.


That's certainly one way to look at it.  I'm thinking that judging by the round numbers it's pulled out of your ass. Also, it's an intellectually dishonest way of looking at what's already an existing bureaucracy to make it seem wasteful.  Plus it doesn't factor in continued benefit to the economy where wealth moves at a high velocity, but it's a way to look at it.
2014-01-10 01:22:12 PM  
2 votes:

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

What a great idea.


Well his is based on tested facts and your's is based on... errr.... potato?
2014-01-10 01:19:15 PM  
2 votes:
"Have you ever noticed that pointy-headed liberal academics and unctuous politicians espouse sophisticated-sounding theories to prove what common sense tells us is surely wrong? "

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

I think he just managed to sum up the religious right, tea party, and stupid people in one simple sentence.
m00
2014-01-10 01:12:04 PM  
2 votes:
Of course it increases jobs. People on unemployment insurance spend money.
2014-01-10 01:06:40 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


See, the conservatives really believe it's impossible that their system predicated firmly on assuming a lot of bullshiat about economies cannot be wrong.  And thus any position backed by anything approaching reasonable modern economics is "bizarre".  Like, we're dealing with people who think that we've backslid since 1870 in terms of understanding.
2014-01-10 01:06:36 PM  
2 votes:
Where does the unemployment money come from?

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

Nobody doubts that giving people money helps them and creates more spending. But that's a gross benefit, not necessarily a net benefit.
2014-01-10 01:05:42 PM  
2 votes:

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


Yeah, as soon as they get it unemployed people will just irresponsibly spend it all on things that other people produce. We should instead give money to responsible people who will put that money in a bank account.
2014-01-10 11:44:49 AM  
2 votes:

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


You know that, and I know that, but the GOP doesn't know that.
m00
2014-01-11 11:48:20 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-11 10:07:54 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-11 08:39:56 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2014-01-10 11:24:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:27 PM  
1 votes:
Maybe we just don't need quite so many people in the workforce anymore.  Now a minimum income or something that addresses our economy's inability to adequately distribute among the population might solve that.  So would a lot of people suddenly not begin there anymore.

I'm not very optimistic about the outcome.
2014-01-10 08:56:25 PM  
1 votes:
It's just hilarious how many conservatives base their opinions on complete gut feelings rather than empirical data. "It just SEEMS like this is how it could be, so it MUST be true!"
2014-01-10 08:40:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

There is no pump. There is nothing to prime. Parasites (e.g., those who consume while producing nothing) do not add to the economy.


Really? You come into the thread THIS LATE with this bullsh*t? Ugh.
2014-01-10 06:07:16 PM  
1 votes:

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

IMMA REPOST FROM ABOVE:

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

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

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

You might want to grease up that 'ol scroll button.


Here you mention how you hired 3 employees but failed to qualify for a tax break.
Here you mention tax breaks for businesses, especially SMB companies.
Here you you mention payroll tax exemptions, which is just another term for tax breaks.
Here you mention a tax holiday, which is another term for tax break.
Here you get a little vague and mention a "reason" to hire new employees. And then you mention a tax write-off, which is just another term for tax break.
Here you still remain a bit vague, with "focused incentives", and then Bush tax cuts wasn't what you meant.
Here is where you get a bit flowery, with that "cusp of demand" and "prevailing economic factors", but you still stay vague with that term "incentives."

And you did mention the $50K job. Others speculated what the tax break might be, say $5K, but if that's not reasonable, you didn't throw your own figure out there as a counterpoint.

So you went from tax-breaks to tax exemptions to tax holiday to write-off to incentives, without answering the question posed: how does a business justify hiring someone at $50K to receive $X (X < $50K) in tax breaks?

Since you didn't answer that question, then it could be that you imagine there are other incentives that might tip a business on the cusp of demand that would require more employees to, in fact, hire those employees. What might those incentives be?

If there aren't any others, then what would justify the hiring in hopes of a tax break that equals far less than the cost of hiring that employee?

You said you hired 3 new employees. What motivated you to do that?
2014-01-10 05:09:38 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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

They'll get a $5,000 tax break if they hire someone at $50,000? Great. Now, please explain why any business would spend $45,000 to hire someone they don't need.
2014-01-10 04:55:08 PM  
1 votes:
Holy farking christ they're STILL banging the trickle down drum after years of failure.  Absolute insanity.
2014-01-10 04:51:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:10:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:33:54 PM  
1 votes:

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


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


Yes, indeed, Mr. "I do not recall" would have bee on top of it... *rolls eyes*
2014-01-10 03:16:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument, giving them extended unemployment benefits is MORE than the NOTHING they would have without the benefit, comprende?
2014-01-10 02:47:08 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Conclusion:  We should not extend unemployment benefits.

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

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


I sort of understand the GOP argument that unemployment benefits is intended as a temporary system.  That makes sense.  The fact that GOP is also against food stamps, raising the minimum wage, job creation programs and pretty much anything else that will help the poor is where I lose them.
2014-01-10 02:19:07 PM  
1 votes:
Democrats: War on Poverty
Republicans: War on the Poor

this is pretty much all you need to know
2014-01-10 02:04:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:57:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Source is Mises Institute, which means there is a 100% chance they are lying to you somehow.
2014-01-10 01:50:37 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

That's really the most galling part of the republicans' "plans". Their refusal to just be honest about what they really want: poor people to die and decrease the surplus population.
2014-01-10 01:36:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

What a great idea.


[Citation needed]
2014-01-10 01:35:28 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

What a great idea.


There is another word for "bureaucracy". JOBS. People getting PAID to process/coordinate/support benefits.
m00
2014-01-10 01:28:45 PM  
1 votes:

iawai: Where does the unemployment money come from?


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

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

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

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

It's not necessarily a net benefit. But I think in most cases preventing a bunch of homeless, starving families certainly does.
2014-01-10 01:27:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

Answer: There isn't one, because that's a strawman argument.
2014-01-10 01:24:19 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Are there no rich Democrats?

And charity is fine.  But that doesn't create jobs either.
2014-01-10 01:22:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


They consume drugs. Hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of drugs. Every two weeks. Rent doesn't get paid to their apartment management company. Food isn't purchased from grocery stores or corporations like Walmart. No one uses it to pay for a childs field trip or for new slacks for their interviews. Its not used to pay cell phone bills and for internet providers so that they can use the web to send applications (and surf porn). Its only used for drugs. Then, those drug dealers ship the money to Columbia to the drug kingpins who stash it all in safehouses outside of the United States. The money is totally taken out of circulation. Unemployment benefits are bad for the economy.
2014-01-10 01:21:46 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Common sense tells me a lead ball falls faster than a wood ball. But liberals espouse their sophisticated sounding theory of gravity. I WON'T HAVE IT!
2014-01-10 01:16:40 PM  
1 votes:
Because there are millions of job vacancies waiting to be filled and the only reason it's not happening is because we're paying people to sit at home and eat refrigerated lobster.
2014-01-10 01:15:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


wxboy: hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

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

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


Wouldn't the cocaine trade be a good example of an unregulated and untaxed market?  Perhaps we should base our economy on that.
2014-01-10 01:13:54 PM  
1 votes:

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


Exactly. But that is not the same thing as casting it as a tool for economic recovery as many people here seem to think it is. It is effective and VITAL in softening the downward trend of a recession - of minimizing how far down we go. But it's a lousy tool for helping on the UPswing.
2014-01-10 01:13:16 PM  
1 votes:
But if they aren't destitute, how do I get the poor to degrade themselves for pocket change?
2014-01-10 01:11:03 PM  
1 votes:
Does anyone remember that tax break for employers who actually, you know, HIRED people? I do. SOUNDED like a great idea, and I was excited by it, but the rules were so limiting and nonsensical that it was virtually impossible to actually qualify. I ended up hiring three employees during the time frame, but not a one qualified me for the tax break. I assume some people did, though.

Can't find any CBO stats on how that worked out, and it's like it never happened. Any informed Farkers able to shed any light? Or remember enough to assist in the Googling?
2014-01-10 01:10:46 PM  
1 votes:
freakoutnation.com
2014-01-10 01:10:07 PM  
1 votes:

hubiestubert: What do unemployment benefits do?

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


Lies!  I have been assured by good folks such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump that the poor and unemployed spend all their "benefits" on cocaine and boxed wine!
2014-01-10 01:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

Dude needs to turn off the moral aggrandizing for a few minutes.
2014-01-10 01:08:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs


Excuse me? What about all those jobs for the creators of 10 Commandments monuments for our courts?
2014-01-10 01:08:19 PM  
1 votes:
fta estimates from Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics that "every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits produces $1.61 in economic activity."

I thought it was more than that. Regardless, quibbling over how much unemployment benefits help the economy misses the point. The benefits help provide food, clothing, and shelter for the workers who earned them.
2014-01-10 01:07:10 PM  
1 votes:
What kind of crazy talk is that, trusting the established cause-effect relationship?
2014-01-10 01:06:03 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


And hating gays.
2014-01-10 01:04:34 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Or repealing Obamacare.
2014-01-10 01:00:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


Hey, hey, let's not forget dumping toxic waste.
2014-01-10 12:58:53 PM  
1 votes:

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


RINO!

Banning birth control also creates jobs
2014-01-10 12:05:45 PM  
1 votes:

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


The Limbaugh brothers are known for having their pump primed.   David.   Rush.  Coincidence?   Probably, but it makes you think...
2014-01-10 11:41:08 AM  
1 votes:
FIRST, you give the money to the rich people. THEN, the rich people will take that money and hire poor people to do jobs. THEN, the poor people will have the money.

This is Conservative Economics 101 here, people.
2014-01-10 11:06:20 AM  
1 votes:
The farking nerve of that guy.
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report