Fox continues to attack unemployment insurance
Fox & Friends continued to attack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and advanced the false claim that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for jobs. In fact, economists agree that extending unemployment insurance has a strong stimulative effect on GDP and employment and does not discourage recipients from seeking jobs during a recession.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox & Friends continues to attack unemployment benefits as nonstimulative and discouraging job hunting
Fox hosts guest to deny that "unemployment check[s] creates jobs." On the July 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade hosted Partnership Staffing Inc. CEO Bill Auchmoody, who claimed that unemployment benefits prevent unemployed workers from searching for jobs. During the segment, Kilmeade played Pelosi's comments and asked Auchmoody to comment. Auchmoody stated: "I don't know how an unemployment check creates jobs. You know, businesses create jobs. The economy and the government getting out of the way, in my opinion, helps create jobs."
Kilmeade: "Maybe" eliminating "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up" and get jobs. Referencing Senate Republicans who have blocked extending unemployment benefits, Kilmeade concluded the interview by telling Auchmoody that "maybe" the elimination of "unemployment benefits will get people to sober up and take some of your offers."
Economists agree unemployment benefits not a disincentive to search for work during economic downturn
Krugman: Charge that extending benefits makes unemployment worse during a recession is "dead wrong." In a July 4 op-ed, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote that some "honestly misinformed" people "who believe, for example ... that extending benefits would make unemployment worse" hold a belief that is "dead wrong." Krugman explains that although "it's a real effect when the economy is doing well ... it's an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation" because there are fewer available jobs. According to Krugman:
When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn't booming -- again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work -- but they can't take jobs that aren't there.
Labor economist Lawrence Katz says possibility of unemployment benefits extending joblessness isn't currently a concern due to the scarcity of jobs. In an August 2009 New York Times article, Harvard labor economist Lawrence Katz said that the claim that unemployment benefits prolong unemployment "should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce." From the Times article:
Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard.
For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. "Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can't find work even if they are hustling to look," he said.
With the economy still listing, he added, a temporary extension can provide a quick fiscal stimulus. And, Dr. Katz said, when people exhaust unemployment and health insurance, many end up applying for disability benefits, which become a large, unending drain on the Treasury.
MarketWatch chief economist Irwin Kellner: "[T]here are now more than five applicants for every job. Clearly, this is not caused by more benefit checks." In a July 13 MarketWatch op-ed, chief economist Irwin Kellner wrote:
To the extent that duration of unemployment and benefit checks move together, it is a spurious correlation, like electric motors and school grades. Both may appear to correlate, but in actuality they are related to something else.
In the case of the duration of unemployment and number of benefit checks, both are really determined by the lousy economy!
Specifically, I am referring to the after-effects of the bursting of the housing bubble, the financial crisis and technological change, which resulted in the worst recession in 70 years and the highest overall jobless rate since the 1930s.
As a consequence there are now more than five applicants for every job. Clearly, this is not caused by more benefit checks.
Washington Post: Unemployment benefits are "probably not discouraging many people from accepting available work," because in "reality ... jobs [are] scarce." A July 13 Washington Post editorial also pointed out that low job openings make the argument that unemployment benefits keep workers from finding jobs irrelevant: "In theory, longer periods for drawing benefits reduce recipients' incentives to find work. In the current reality, with jobs scarce and unemployment benefits hardly lavish, the program is probably not discouraging many people from accepting available work."
Alan Greenspan: "When you're in a period of job weakness ... then obviously you want to be temporarily generous." In 2003, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said to the Joint Economic Committee:
Unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness, where it is not a choice on the part of people whether they're employed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous. We ought to be temporarily generous.
And I think that's what we have done in the past and it has worked well.
[...]
I think that because it is stringent in normal periods, that one should recognize that people who lose jobs not because they did anything and can't find new ones, you have a different form of problem, which means that you have to allow the unemployment system to be much broader and, indeed, that's what we need to do.
Economists agree that unemployment insurance has strong stimulative effect on GDP, employment
Krugman: "Aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly." In his July 4 op-ed, Krugman wrote:
One main reason there aren't enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That's why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly -- while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months.
CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:
Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.
According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.
Elmendorf: Policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on GDP." In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified:
Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.
A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.
Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy." From an April 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities document:
Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in "bang-for-the-buck" calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders. Policymakers have always ended these emergency UI benefits once a strong and sustainable economic recovery is underway.
Joseph Stiglitz: Stimulus "should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system." In a January 23, 2008, op-ed, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that "America's economy is headed for a major slowdown" and that "[t]he country needs stimulus." Proceeding to describe the "optimal package," Stiglitz recommended: "We should begin by strengthening the unemployment insurance system, because money received by the unemployed would be spent immediately."
Blinder: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know." On July 2, NPR reported that former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and Clinton economic adviser Alan Blinder "supports the effort to extend expiring unemployment benefits." NPR quoted Blinder as saying: "Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know."
Martire: Stimulus from unemployment benefits "greater than any other fiscal action government can take." In a June 30 piece in the State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability Executive Director Ralph Martire wrote:
As for the contention that extending UI encourages people to avoid finding jobs so they can stay on the public dole -- well, it's just plain goofy. In May 2010, the private sector created only 41,000 jobs. That's 72,000 less than what's needed to keep up with the demand generated by natural work-force growth, much less creating the positions needed for the unemployed to find work. No one's thumbing a nose at getting hired to live in luxury eating government cheese -- there simply are no private sector jobs available.
Perhaps the hawks have forgotten that consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation's economy. The best consumers are low- and middle-income folks, who don't earn enough to save, so they spend their paychecks. That is, when they have paychecks. See, if they've lost their jobs and the private sector isn't creating jobs and the feds cut off unemployment benefits, their ability to spend drops to, well, nil. Which is why the amount of private sector economic activity stimulated by unemployment benefits is greater than any other fiscal action government can take. In fact, dollar-for-dollar, it's five times more stimulative than the Bush tax cuts.
Sure, the long-term deficit has to be dealt with -- but honestly and responsibly. Short-term, deficit spending -- particularly on things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and the like -- is creating jobs and saving the U.S. economy from disaster.
EPI's Mishel explains why unemployment insurance is "such good stimulus." In a June 10 hearing before the House Ways and Means Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, the Economic Policy Institute's Lawrence Mishel testifed:
As I have explained, the only real option for increasing economic activity and consumer demand for goods and services is federal government intervention in the economy, specifically through more deficit spending. The safety net programs are a vital part of this picture.
[...]
The reason extending unemployment insurance is such good stimulus is that it gets money to people who are the most likely to have depleted their savings and thus tend to have no choice but to quickly spend essentially every dollar they receive on necessities found in their local economy. In other words, virtually every dollar spent on extending unemployment insurance benefits goes directly, and immediately, toward the purchase of local goods and services, providing an extremely efficient demand boost. Not only is extending and expanding UI benefits the right thing to do for the people hurt most by this economic downturn, it is also excellent economic policy.
CEPR's Schmitt: Unemployment insurance helps "sustain a community." In an April 28 article, McClatchy Newspapers reported:
And allowing workers to fall off the unemployment insurance rolls can have negative ripple effects, said John Schmitt, senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
"It hits individuals hard, but it also hits their communities, and more broadly the country," Schmitt said. "Having unemployment insurance benefits can help sustain a community through a very difficult time."
Fox correspondent agreed with Pelosi that in economic downturn, unemployment insurance "is a job creator"
Garrett: Unemployment insurance is "a job creator when there are no other job creators out there." In a July 2 segment on Fox & Friends, guest co-host Alisyn Camerota asked Fox News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett, "[Pelosi]'s basically saying it injects cash into the economy. That is true. But it's a job creator?" Garrett responded:
GARRETT: It's a job creator when there are no other job creators out there. ... When you have a climate where pervasive attitude among potential job hirers, meaning employers, is that we're just going to hold pat, then you really have nothing else to do to fuel the economy other than provide stimulus. And if you give cash to unemployed workers, at least that's cash they can spend in their local economy. So from that limited perspective, if you have no other alternatives and no one is hiring, or hiring is very, very low or slack, then unemployment benefits do provide ready cash at the local merchants to keep those businesses afloat.
Tax cuts PERSONALLY ENRICH those who pay taxes! It's their selfish self-interest that they're pushing. It's yet another example of how they don't actually want to do the right thing, the effective thing - they simply want to make themselves better off and demean and mock the opposition.
Of course MMfA lauds it.
Squeeling like a pig.
Typical ... Leave me alone until I need your help.
The fact that the EPI republished that info is NOT an indication that the underlying info is suspect - it's evidence that factual info about the best forms of economic stimulus favors what Obama and other Democrats wanted to do, and destroys the arguments that FoxNews and others make!
Too funny!
For some people, getting those benefits ARE a disincentive to looking for work. They can live okay on the benefits, and are lazy, or want to spend time with their families, or want to 'punish' the employer who laid them off, or they want to take the summer off, or they want to party for a while, or any number of reasons why they don't try very hard, or in some cases, don't try at all to find work.
And don't bother telling me that people HAVE to look. Nope, they have to attest to the fact that they're looking. For most people, during times like these when unemployment offices across the country are swamped, most applicants for bi-weekly benefits aren't asked to prove that they've done the required job searches. A few are, but not many. More people have to verify their searches when unemployment is not so high.
Economists agree with me that it doesn't really matter, though, if some people aren't vigorously looking for work during periods of high unemployment, because there are so many people looking for each job available. It doesn't matter if Person A is lazy and Person B gets the job, or if Person A gets off their butt and they get the job, and Person B remains on unemployment.
At best, that might be true when there's plenty of jobs. But when there are not any, then it doesn't matter in the least the attitude of the recipent, because there's no work anywhere no matter how happy they might be to have that dole.
And, BTW, the first 26 weeks of UI are employee-earned, as a benefit-- it's self-funded as part of their benefit package.
But I guess you didn't READ the rest of my post, or any one of the dozen of similar posts I've made in the past month or so.
And the economists cited by MMFA didn't say what MMFA claimed they said - go back and READ MMFA's claim and then read what the economists actually had to say.
I hope they get their ass handed to them in the fall again. They have done nothing to earn anything else.
Stimulating jobs can include both job creation and job retention, doofus.
Fox & Friends continued to attack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and advanced the false claim that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for people to look for jobs. In fact, economists agree that extending unemployment insurance has a strong stimulative effect on GDP and employment.
From Obama's own website,
President Obama signed legislation to jumpstart our economy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, less than a month after his inauguration. The plan will save or create 3.5 million new jobs, make critical investments in our infrastructure and give 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut.
The STANDARD has ALWAYS been "save or create", not just "create".
And I was showing how it's been clear that the standard for stimulative spending has ALWAYS been "save or create", and not just "create".
You're wrong again, and again you're just showing everyone your personal animus.
I DID refute him, AND I called him a troll.
YOU didn't refute a thing I said, and then made a couple of baseless personal attacks.
That's why I have credibility and you have none. I understand that frustrates you. Too bad, so sad.
That's why the first two sentences from my post replying to him were
Yet another dishonest, word parsing post from a weasel troll poster.
Stimulating jobs can include both job creation and job retention, doofus.
Again, do you STILL really think that people can't SEE previous posts in order to understand the context? Really?
Here you are earlier;
"From Obama's own website, President Obama signed legislation to jumpstart our economy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, less than a month after his inauguration. The plan will save or create 3.5 million new jobs, make critical investments in our infrastructure and give 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut".
And here you are now;
"I was NOT talking about the stimulus bill"
Unless you're here to tell us that ARRA is not the stimulus bill, are you?
This is clear to anyone with half a brain.
In my first post replying to the weasel, I had the first two sentences talking about how it's not just job creation, and I HIGHLIGHTED with bolding "save and create" from the stimulus bill language!
Thanks for showing us that you don't even have that much intelligence.
And thanks for showing everyone how desperately powerful your personal animus is that you'll crop a comment OUT OF CONTEXT in order to make a baseless personal attack! Keep destroying your credibility, doofus.
You can't seriously believe that I'm flushing away any credibility, nor that my credibility is in the toilet.
Again, you're simply frustrated and angry that you apparently had years of posting history here when you were able to make troll posts and still retain credibiility, and when I came along late last summer, you suddenly and permanently lost that as a result of my behavior! Too bad, so sad.
You are a phony sham of a poster who has been banned under numerous screen names over and over, always resurfacing trying to act all new, when you are as old as anyone here. If you want links, I can do it. Stop the charade you hypocrite.
I think you're making a big fuss over something that isn't really there in the post. Even if it were, I think there isn't enough of a degree of separation to condemn her post over it.
That would be like saying someone loses credibility in an argument over immigration reform or enforcement because they referenced the recent Arizona laws...It's all part of the debate and relevant.
Dolly...don't do as you warn others of doing and get so emotional and bent out of shape. Admit that RightOn has figured out some of your "buttons" and is pushing them with great glee. I can see it, and it's just fueling this silly feud between you two.
Now on the topic at hand, I mentioned this in another thread:
Unemployment benefits are important even if they weren't directly stimulative...even though it has been shown in great detail that they are and that the consequences of simply telling average Americans to go fend for themselves is far worse. Getting back on your feet after a loss of income can be difficult even while receiving benefits. But the mortgage payments, electric bills, car payments, food for their families, etc...that are being paid for with pretty much ALL the money being received from these benefits is being cycled right back into the economy, and the effected person doesn't have to crawl back up from nothing.
I am so sick of these conservatives who cry for these tax-evading, super-wealthy, crises-creating billionaires when anyone even suggests they have to play by rules even remotely as strict as the working class must abide by. But God forbid someone who works for a living with their hands or for someone else should have a safety net that's even close to being as cushy as the ones we've created for the corporate gamblers.
Am I jealous of their wealth? Nope, not really. I know I can't take it with me when I die, and I could care less if my neighbor has a bigger TV or newer car then I do. Perhaps you conservative types are so unhappy because you equate happiness and success ONLY with gains in material wealth. I hate to break this to you, but after we're all long gone from this mortal coil, it won't be those who exploited the system and other human beings for selfish short term wealth that are remembered fondly. Those who used their wealth and influence to make the world a better place however, is another story.
So let Atlas shrug once in a while, and maybe us peons would happy to take on some of that burden when we aren't being treated like mindless insects by the elite, mostly inherited wealth crowd. I think they are more afraid of a world full of people in control of their own destinies and see an independent middle class running a sane and responsive government as the biggest threat to their ability to continue exploiting the system. That is why they seek to control all of the wealth and every aspect of our lives.
So, no, I don't need to 'realize' that he pushes my buttons, because he doesn't!
After your performance a few days ago, on the thread relating to the NJ S. Court's recent decision, you have no room for accusing anyone of deliberative dishonesty. You willingly exposed yourself as a liar.
A person who is too impaired to understand the right to refuse to agree to a breath test - like someone who won't respond/is virtually catatonic/is passed out/ is unintelligible because they are so drunk CAN'T agree, would not be said to agree to the test.
That's what I said. I compared him to a deaf person being read their rights not being able to agree or refuse to agree to the breath test. It's not my fault if you couldn't understand what I wrote - it was in English, but often you seem to not be able to comprehend plain English.
I didn't LIE at all, but thanks for providing me yet ANOTHER example of YOUR dishonesty and YOUR fealty to RightON, your apparent troll boss.
You are clearly in your own world, and I do not want to visit. Please have your therapist send us messages from beyond when he or she is embroiled in your mind. It's too scary to imagine.
I wasn't and am not embarrassed by what I said on that previous thread, doofus!
We will miss the Sue of limited sanity. Give her a big hug if she returns.
Newsflash:
Not everyone likes you either, and I'm sure there are people who don't like me.
Now if we're all in agreement, can we turn off the broken record with the you need therapy/conspiracy that Dolly was some other poster schtick? Not to sound like Dolly, but it IS rather TROLL-ISH to spend post after post rehashing the same lame insults.
Dippy,
Either you're just incredibly dumb, or a liar. Read the opinion. If you refuse to agree to the breath test, you're license is revoked. Ergo, refusing is not your "right."
More importantly, twit, intoxication is no defense. That's to say, being drunk (too impaired) to refuse consent is no defense under the statute. Read the opinion before spouting off like an idiot again.
HOW do YOU not get THIS. I mean, IT'S not rocket SCIENCE!!!!
And you did lie. You stated the mmfa article said that being too drunk is a defense. This is flatly untrue, and mmfa never did, and never would, say something so utterly stupid. Either you're a fool or a liar, which is it honey?
As I said, it's not MY burden if your reading comprehension is so poor that you misinterpreted what I wrote!
if they refuse to give their consent to a breath test, and later can document that they were too drunk to make that determination and to understand what they were doing, they can get off on the charge of refusing to consent to a breath test.
And guess how I know that? Because I read the article above, doofus!
You're a shameless liar. Please link to or otherwise identify the portion of the article that supports your statement. I'll be waiting.
Consumer spending is WHAT creates and saves jobs. It is THE thing that does that. It's undeniable.
So anything that fosters that spending helps stimulate the economy.
For you to suggest that I haven't made that undeniable point before is ridiculous and further evidence that you aren't really trying to participate in a fair debate on the actual topic.
Exactly what bludog said you'd do. Your predictability is so endearing.
It's not like during normal economic times, consumer spending ONLY generates new jobs. It ALSO saves existing jobs. People spending money keeps those existing jobs for people who've had a job for a while, but when consumers spend more, they hire back people who were laid off or they hire new people!
This is not rocket science. Yet you delude yourself into believeing that you've scored a point here?
It creates new demand versus what would be happening if the UIB were NOT extended.
This is NOT rocket science.
The comparison is between NO UIB and UIB.
How can you POSSIBLY not know this? This really is not that hard to grasp!
That's honesty.
That's what you've said they DON'T do.
You don't want honesty. You lie when you assert you do.
The economic effect of 1$ going to the unemployed creates $1.62 of economic activity. Got it so far?
That added spending created by 1$ is the increase in demand for goods and services which you eagerly seek.
Put money in the hands of people who MUST spend it to survive creates economic stimulus and INCREASED DEMAND for services and goods not previously purchasable.
next . . .
These numbers were provided byh
Bludog and right on, you have nothing but dishonest, factless rantings.
Fact is government does not create wealth, it only consumes it. Look it up.
The point is missed on you and your strawman argument. The context of this spending is unemployment insurance benefits and wether they are stimulative and create jobs. The real world believes that UIB does stimulate and create. Your willful dismissal of facts makes you a dishonest participant in a discussion of this nature.
Here goes anyway: no i dont support . I also never claimed to support that.
You seem unable to stick to topic at hand which (just to remind you) is whether UIB "creates jobs." I, and economists, say it does. Adress the specifics of why I am incorrect instead of asking me unrelated strawman questions, troll.
Refute my evidence with evidence of your own. Go ahead.
UIB , dude, UIB. You and your freind made an incorrect assertion that UIB doesnt create demand. It does and you cant handle the truth.
Again, UIB, dude.
It's a pretty easy answer as to why not, you are just not getting it.
It's a pretty easy answer as to why not, you are just not getting it.
.
Do you now agree that UIB creates jobs/stimulates demand/ stimulates growth? Or are you going to avoid your addressing your misstatements and keep your ideological head in the sand and continue to believe the DEMONSTRABLY FALSE idea that UIB is not stimulative?
for someone who accuses others of avoiding questions, you have yet to answer the main argument which you and bludog make. Based on the facts and links I have provided, do you now agree that UIB is stimulative? IF no, why? Please use facts and not a$$-sourced info.
You (and bludog) made a statement. I proved it FALSE. You cant refute it. Now you avoid your own words.
"As you rightly pointed out jobs are created when demand is increased. Logically, that is not possible through unemployment insurance benefits."
You are wrong and cant handle addressing your own topic. Hypocrite.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007150029#921385
Now RO wants to change the topic to a macro-analysis of government spending all together:
"But it's government spending, giving people money to spend in the economy. It's UIB now, but why not use that formula for all government spending. Why not give everyone that amount of money and watch the economy soar?"
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007150029#921707
Move goal posts much? Strawman argument much? RO will not address his misstatement that "logically" it is not possible to stimulate demand and create jobs with UIB.
Again, RO is a hypocrite.
So save it, it's unproven. And you keep repeating it doesn't help.
In the face of evidence to the contrary, do you believe that UIB is stimulative and can create demand?
Do you still believe that "logically" UIB does not stimulate demand as you have previoously stated?
Now that we agree UIB does indeed stimulate demand we can address the question of how much demand and whether or not, in this economic situation, UIB can be stategic.
Increase in demand for goods and services = increase in demand!
We are providing income to those that HAD income but now have NONE. How is 600 that must be spent not stimulative? You compare the impact of earnings from employment with an unemployed workers econ impact . . . wtf?
go home troll.
you are a willful liar.
It creates greater demand versus than person who is collecting UIB NOT getting it.
That's the choice! An unemployed person GETTING unemployment or an unemployed person NOT GETTING unemployment benefits!
The comparison is NOT between the economic stimulus that a person with a job does and that same person only getting unemployment! What a tool you are!
And if employer A pays employee B $2000 a month and B gets laid off and gets $600 a month from the government, then that $600 is going to create jobs when the $2000 a month salary could not?
Only to a liberal.
So full of $h1t. where to begin?
Noone has said they prefer UIB to actual employment so you analogy is useless. Of course 2000/mo is better than 600. But you and your troll friend have argued that there is NO STIMULATIVE BENEFIT to the $600. Noone has said 600 UIB is better than 2000 job. WTF?
He was right.
He never SAID that they were as good as job income!!!
What a liar you are, as well as a word-parsing paid troll.
He was ALREADY getting overtime - it was 7:05 for cripes sake!
When the private sector grows of course you have stimulus. Nobody said otherwise When the private sector is not growing the gov't can and should stimulate the economy through targeted spending in places like UIB and infrastructure. Your arguing that gov't spending doesnt creates stimulus is illogical.
http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/041410mztest.pdf
1) Who pays salaries and expenses of people working in the private sector?
2) Who pays salaries and expenses of government workers?
I had already answered this on THIS thread, and have explained this to you at LEAST two other times.
The issue HERE is YOUR failure to address the actual topic - the LIE that unemployment insurance benefits aren't economically stimulative because they save or create jobs, JUST LIKE 'normal' consumer spending does.
And here's a link to ONE of those threads.
Or this thread, where I had to explain to you the simple concept that for stimulating the economy, it doesn't matter where the money comes from?
The more consumer spending we have, the more the economy is stimulated, yes, and that's why during the Depression they tried to put everyone they could to work, because the situation was so dire.
This recession wasn't that bad, and so it's irrelevant if more hiring would have stimulated the economy more. But more job creation would have been a good idea, yes. We don't need to try to find work for everyone except in dire financial emergencies, because there IS a cost to the gov't stimulating the economy. You ONLY want to do as much as you need to.
Why would you assert that it needs to be explained to you again? How can it possibly benefit you to expose the fact that either you're too dumb to have understood it the first two times OR you're simply being dishonest when you assert that it needs to be yet can't be explained to you?
During economic downturns, a few consumers and businesses stop spending money initially because their income is restricted. Then, many consumers and businesses that could spend money become skittish, and they too restrict their spending.
In order to temporarily stimulate the economy to approach normal levels, the government steps in with additional economic stimulus!
The BEST economic stimulus is the normal stimulus done by consumer and business spending. Government spending is simply a bridge to the time when consumers and businesses who could have been but weren't restart their spending. Once that happens, gov't can dial back their efforts.
There is a COST to us to make that effort to artificially stimulate the economy during the recession. It is OFFSET by the good it does, and so given a cost/benefit ratio that's positive, it's a worthy thing to do. If you exceed the cost/benefit ratio, then it no longer is a good thing to do!
This is NOT rocket science!
Now, contrary to the apocalyptic rantings of the right wing media, most liberals and progressives don't want the government to control the economy, but rather to regulate the industries that take advantage of our capitalist system. By take advantage I mean in a completely neutral way...to use our resources, like an educated work force, national defense, legal system and transportation system.
Just get this phony caricature out of your head of us liberals wanting the government to make our cars, and clothes, and cell phones. That's nothing more then a caricature created by right wing media to make you think the opposition to the free market purists are out to destroy capitalism.
Instead of debating this as an all or nothing, black or white, my way or the highway argument, we should be discussing the intricacies and merits of specific policies in relation to unemployment benefits instead of trying to convince you that the feudal system sucked centuries after it' downfall.
And that's why I told him back a LONG time ago that it's unfair to ONLY talk about jobs created - that one MUST talk about jobs created and SAVED, which he doesn't want to do.
But even THERE he's not being fair.
Because while a job at a dept store might be lost, a job at a Goodwill store MIGHT be gained - people still need clothes. So, that's a job CREATED. No one said that every job needs to be equivalent to every job that is LOST.
Some jobs are retained due to a group of consumers receiving UIB spending money. Some jobs are created due to the economic stimulus that their spending provides!
It's undeniable, yet they deny it.
Because they are dishonest paid trolls.
It creates greater demand versus than person who is collecting UIB NOT getting it.
That's the choice! An unemployed person GETTING unemployment or an unemployed person NOT GETTING unemployment benefits!
The comparison is NOT between the economic stimulus that a person with a job does and that same person only getting unemployment! What a tool you are!
And as a legendary word parsing weasel, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that. We see again that you're doing it by using the "create" word instead of "save or create".
Consumers spending money saves and creates jobs.
Consumers receiving unemployment insurance benefits spend that money that they receive - in fact, they spend about all of it.
And then those businesses that RECEIVE that money spend that money - to their employees as salaries, which allows for more consumer spending, for their suppliers who then can pay THEIR suppliers who can then pay THEIR suppliers!
If you can't understand this basic economic cycle where people spending money is what fuels our economy, then you are too ill-educated to even be trying to participate in this debate.
But, then again, you AREN'T looking to participate in a fair and reasonable debate - we already KNEW that.
http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/041410mztest.pdf
Here are some facts for you to ignore, liar.
increased consumer spending is an increase in demand. you are a willfull liar. you ignore fact and retort with hors$it.
NO ONE IS SAYING that we'll get MORE jobs overall with UIB than we had with that same recipient WORKING!
As a result of the recession, many jobs will be lost. But because of unemployed people getting UIB, and their resulting consumer spending, some jobs will be retained, and some other new jobs will be created!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not rocket science.
Doofus.
It creates greater demand versus than person who is collecting UIB NOT getting it.
That's the choice! An unemployed person GETTING unemployment or an unemployed person NOT GETTING unemployment benefits!
The comparison is NOT between the economic stimulus that a person with a job does and that same person only getting unemployment! What a tool you are!
And SOME jobs WILL be created to deal with new opportunities. One store might close, and another might fill its slot in the strip mall, and so a NEW position is then FILLED - that's a NEW job created!
What does that mean from a policy response? Since tradtional responses such as lowering interest rates cannot be employed (we're effectively at zero), govt spending should be used TEMPORARILY to fill in the gap in demand.
Other useful ways to fill in the demand gap is to put the money into the economy by putting money into the hands of those who will spend it. Which is why all this hogwash about tax cuts for the rich won't be as effective as they tend to save this money. Thus, it doesn't go back into the economy.
Also, to answer Right On's question about why shouldn't the govt spend more since it creates $1.62 of stimulus (I'm paraphrasing). Simple - you're using linear logic when that type of relationship is much complex. Here's an example using two extremes - you can't have a 0% tax rate nor a 100% tax rate as govt income would be zero in both instances (the first case is self explanatory whereas in the 2nd case, who would work if they didn't get paid?). In other words, RO, you're simplistic question was really just a ploy without any basis in reality.
That is where you liberals lose all credibility. Such baloney. You all think that letting rich people keep more of their own money means they will just stuff it in their mattress and be done with it. Clue - there is no differentiation. The money they don't pay in taxes isn't divided into two coffers, one before the tax cuts that they spend, and the after tax cut money that goes in that mattress. Rich people are rich because they have money to invest, and spend and grow their businesses. Some take vacations, some buy stuff, some invest, some do all sorts of things that stimulate the economy. You just won't admit it because it flies in the face of your anti tax cut theories.
Sell them to your liberal counterparts who feed off of stats like that. It isn't reality, but it's all good.
As for your explanation on the tax rate, of course you take it two to the extreme to make your point. Because you have too, come back with logic and you might deserve a response.
In the following comments RO 'proves' his point taking numbers 'two the extreme' and uses his conclusions as evidence of his correctness.
Dishonesty and hypocrisy on display for all to see. Extrapolation is bad for you but good for him. RO and his wannabees are trolls of the lowest order. RO has been pwned again and again and shown to be a liar, hypocrite and much more. Thanks for playing.
And I am not surprised you can't see the difference. My example was a logical extension of what you say is fact on $1 makes $1.62. You just couldn't handle or acknowledge it so all you have is the "troll" label. Indicative of someone who has run out of arguments.
The 0% or 100% tax rate is an extreme statistic and not a logical extension of anything.
If you can't see the distinction, tough.
And you failed to reply to that debunking, doofus, and we all KNOW it! Why you think we can't SEE other posts on this thread is baffling!
Virtually ANYTHING that ANYONE does has a benefit that's greater than the cost.
Virtually anything that ANY BUSINESS Or GOV'T entity does has a benefit that's greater than the cost!
This is NOT rocket science.
And that's why I have REPEATEDLY been able to debunk this bogus talking point from you - that if some gov't spending is good, why don't we do even more?
It's because we have to look at the cost/benefit ratio. It is great to try to mitigate the costs of many people losing their jobs by giving them unemployment payments, and it is still beneficial to the economy to extend those benefits when the unemployment rate remains high for an extended period.
It's not worth the cost to the economy to do that when the unemployment rate is relatively LOW. It's not worth the cost to up the benefit too much.
This is NOT rocket science, but it sure is telling that you ignored the post I made that refuted this bogus talking point from you!
All you said was
Really? Post something worthy of a response instead of old regurgitated tirades from your past, and those insects inside your head will give you a breather.
But it WAS worthy. It TOTALLY destroys your argument, and THAT'S why, instead of actually REPLYING to what I wrote, you make a baseless personal attack! If a stupid and baseless talking point gets repeated, the same logical argument STILL DEBUNKS IT, Doofus!!!
Oh Sue, you must be off your prescriptions today. You think that with that thoroughly ridiculous head scratcher of a statement above that you "destroy" ANYONE's argument. Only you could make such a stupid declarative piece of nothing.
The only thing you DEBUNK are the hard working therapists and psychiatrists that are trying to set you back on the road to sanity. Their job is hopeless and you DEBUNK their efforts at every turn with statements like the ones you make above. Let them do their job, turn in your MMfA posting card once and for all, stop embarrassing yourself every day around here, and be glad you are surrounded by for comforting padded walls.
Please, for your sake.
A word that the right wing and their extremist ideology has all but destroyed.
At some point, the benefit to handing out unemployment benefits results in greatly diminished returns, and at some point weakening the social safety net compounds the economic crises.
The problem with right wing media and their followers, is that they argue from a black and white, all or nothing, my way or the highway position. Why are we even arguing over whether or not unemployment benefits have a net positive result on the economy and society during economic downturns? Why aren't we debating about how to more effectively limit and or capitalize on the amounts and effects of this money being cycled back into the actual economy?
In other words, why are we even having an argument about whether or not feudalism sucked centuries after it's collapse?
And I explained that it's because there is a cost to every benefit, and when the cost outweighs the benefit, it's not a good thing.
And so, when I fully debunked your talking point, you were only left with the option to make a personal attack.
Thanks for again showing us how controlling your personal animus is.