Another 2.5 million votes for Democrats in November

[PLC1]

Democrats to give jobless benefits another vote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of people stuck on the jobless rolls would receive an extension of unemployment benefits averaging $309 a week under a Senate bill that appears set to break free of a Republican filibuster.

If all goes as expected, about 2.5 million people will receive jobless benefits retroactively, injecting almost $3 billion into the economy once they're paid out.

Partisan Republicans have been rubbing their collective hands in glee as they anticipate big wins in November. They could, indeed, gain some seats, as the voters are none too happy with the current Congress, but it seems unlikely that they will forget about this particular vote.

 

[PLC1]

 

[BigRob]

Democrats to give jobless benefits another vote

Partisan Republicans have been rubbing their collective hands in glee as they anticipate big wins in November. They could, indeed, gain some seats, as the voters are none too happy with the current Congress, but it seems unlikely that they will forget about this particular vote.

The problem is that the government cannot just "inject" money into the economy, because it first has to take that money out of the economy in order to then put it back it.

Wonder why we are seeing a a high unemployment rate with all the "jobs" that have been "created?" It is because the government must first kill a private sector job to fund a new job with the same money. No one is actually any better off because of any stimulus.

For the people on unemployment, they need to wake up. Unemployment spending is really a job killer in terms of the overall economy. If they are willing to vote based on which party pays them not to work (in the name of economic recovery), then those people deserve just what they elect.

 

[PLC1]

The problem is that the government cannot just "inject" money into the economy, because it first has to take that money out of the economy in order to then put it back it.

Wonder why we are seeing a a high unemployment rate with all the "jobs" that have been "created?" It is because the government must first kill a private sector job to fund a new job with the same money. No one is actually any better off because of any stimulus.

For the people on unemployment, they need to wake up. Unemployment spending is really a job killer in terms of the overall economy. If they are willing to vote based on which party pays them not to work (in the name of economic recovery), then those people deserve just what they elect.

Unemployment is high because there isn't a big demand for goods and services because people don't have money because they're unemployed.

If there are no jobs available, isn't it better to provide people with a minimum amount of money at least? That cash gets spent on goods and services that in turn produce jobs. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the situation in the '30s when there was no unemployment or anything else.

The money will add to the deficit, to be sure, but it won't add 100% of the money that is spent to the deficit, as some will be recovered in taxes.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The problem is that the government cannot just "inject" money into the economy, because it first has to take that money out of the economy in order to then put it back it.

Wonder why we are seeing a a high unemployment rate with all the "jobs" that have been "created?" It is because the government must first kill a private sector job to fund a new job with the same money. No one is actually any better off because of any stimulus.

For the people on unemployment, they need to wake up. Unemployment spending is really a job killer in terms of the overall economy. If they are willing to vote based on which party pays them not to work (in the name of economic recovery), then those people deserve just what they elect.

well go ahead and send them all a letter saying its better if they just don't get any..and sure there may not be any jobs...but trust us, its better if they have no money, lose evrything...you know...so we can't test your theory....

also if you want we could remove the stim, and see if the unemployment goes up to say 15% ...the fact its still at 10, just shows how bad it was when Bush left office and it was tanking ( at least now we are gaining jobs, not losing them)

 

[BigRob]

Unemployment is high because there isn't a big demand for goods and services because people don't have money because they're unemployed.

If there are no jobs available, isn't it better to provide people with a minimum amount of money at least? That cash gets spent on goods and services that in turn produce jobs. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the situation in the '30s when there was no unemployment or anything else.

The money will add to the deficit, to be sure, but it won't add 100% of the money that is spent to the deficit, as some will be recovered in taxes.

No, it is not better. That money has to come from somewhere. When the government takes money to use on government spending, it must first take it from the private sector, which eliminates the exact same multiplier effect that money would have if used in the private sector.

No one is any better off because of it. It is the broken window fallacy. If I threw a brick through your window, you might argue that it was a good thing because it created a "job" of fixing the window. In reality, it just limited the amount of disposable income you had, and you might have wanted to buy a shirt with that money instead, which would have created a "job" for a shirt-maker.

Unemployment benefits are basically the same thing.

 

[BigRob]

well go ahead and send them all a letter saying its better if they just don't get any..and sure there may not be any jobs...but trust us, its better if they have no money, lose evrything...you know...so we can't test your theory....

People are not entitled to maintain a lifestyle courtesy of the government...

also if you want we could remove the stim, and see if the unemployment goes up to say 15% ...the fact its still at 10, just shows how bad it was when Bush left office and it was tanking ( at least now we are gaining jobs, not losing them)

I would be happy to remove the stimulus, it has been a complete failure. In my opinion the stimulus has completely shown the lunacy of Keynesian economics. I also seem to recall May's unemployment numbers going up, not down. (I have not seen if June was out yet)

 

[Gipper]

People are not entitled to maintain a lifestyle courtesy of the government...

Oh you heartless brute...(says the lib with a limp wrest).

And besides, libs do believe people are entitled to live off the backs of those of us who actually work and make money. We are so evil you know. Libs think the government should confiscate all our property and give it whomever the government wishes...as long as the government is liberal minded...

 

[The Scotsman]

If there are no jobs available, isn't it better to provide people with a minimum amount of money at least? That cash gets spent on goods and services that in turn produce jobs. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the situation in the '30s when there was no unemployment or anything else.

doesn't that presuppose the quality of the jobs created and their duration? Simillarly you cannot direct the recipient as to the origin of those goods and services they consume. The far east has done very well out of western financial easing.

 

[PLC1]

No, it is not better. That money has to come from somewhere. When the government takes money to use on government spending, it must first take it from the private sector, which eliminates the exact same multiplier effect that money would have if used in the private sector.

No one is any better off because of it. It is the broken window fallacy. If I threw a brick through your window, you might argue that it was a good thing because it created a "job" of fixing the window. In reality, it just limited the amount of disposable income you had, and you might have wanted to buy a shirt with that money instead, which would have created a "job" for a shirt-maker.

Unemployment benefits are basically the same thing.

I think you need to examine your ideology in the light of history. Let's compare this recession to the one that hit in the '30s.

Are people better off now than they were during the last great depression? If so, why is that?

Would we really be better off to just have a laissez fair sort of reaction that we did during the Hoover administration? If you can't find work, tough. It isn't any concern to the public sector, after all.

Sure, the ideology of allowing the private sector to create jobs and bring the economy back sounds good. Capitalism works, as has been demonstrated over and over, except when it doesn't work. Sometimes, ideology has to stand aside for practicality.

That 39 billion that was set aside for extending unemployment for people who are willing to work but can't find jobs amounts to about 20% of just one of those urgent bills to fund the war that Congress kept passing. Compared to bailing out GM, AIG, and so on, it's a pittance. Compared to even the deficits of the past few years, let alone this year, it is insignificant.

Let's not gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.

 

[GenSeneca]

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/blog.php?b=178

You should watch that if you haven't already....

Our current problems are the result of an artificial bubble in the housing market. The "cure" is to cleanse the system of these malinvestments, which the free markets do all by themselves when left free to do so... sure it's painful but it is the only "practical" solution. The Keynesian solution is what we see now... continue to prop up the malinvestments with government funding, ad infinatum. Bailouts and subsidies do not eliminate the malinvestments that created the problem, they attempt to take away the "pain" and thereby prolong, and even exascerbate, the underlying problem.

This unemployment vote is just another bandaid to cover up a more serious problem. It in no way solves the underlying problem, nor does it even attempt to address it, the whole purpose of this measure is to take away the "pain", which is politically popular but only serves to prolong the inevitable.

 

[BigRob]

I think you need to examine your ideology in the light of history. Let's compare this recession to the one that hit in the '30s.

Are people better off now than they were during the last great depression? If so, why is that?

Would we really be better off to just have a laissez fair sort of reaction that we did during the Hoover administration? If you can't find work, tough. It isn't any concern to the public sector, after all.

Well, there are numerous studies coming out now by prominent academics and economists stating that FDR's New Deal policies extended the Depression by seven years... so would they have been better off without it? Maybe.

Sure, the ideology of allowing the private sector to create jobs and bring the economy back sounds good. Capitalism works, as has been demonstrated over and over, except when it doesn't work. Sometimes, ideology has to stand aside for practicality.

Capitalism works except when it is not allowed to work.

That 39 billion that was set aside for extending unemployment for people who are willing to work but can't find jobs amounts to about 20% of just one of those urgent bills to fund the war that Congress kept passing. Compared to bailing out GM, AIG, and so on, it's a pittance. Compared to even the deficits of the past few years, let alone this year, it is insignificant.

Let's not gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.

We have thrown a lot more than $39 billion at the "unemployment" problem. Compared to the failed stimulus, the bailout of GM and AIG are a mere pittance. However, I do not support either of those either.

Arguing that we should spend $39 billion because "it is not much money" is a poor argument and you know it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, there are numerous studies coming out now by prominent academics and economists stating that FDR's New Deal policies extended the Depression by seven years... so would they have been better off without it? Maybe.



Capitalism works except when it is not allowed to work.



We have thrown a lot more than $39 billion at the "unemployment" problem. Compared to the failed stimulus, the bailout of GM and AIG are a mere pittance. However, I do not support either of those either.

Arguing that we should spend $39 billion because "it is not much money" is a poor argument and you know it.

where those studies down with a crystal ball that tells you what would have happened if you did not act? How does one do a study of a what if, in econ...all you can study is what happened...what if's are just nothing but some guys guess.

 

[PLC1]

Well, there are numerous studies coming out now by prominent academics and economists stating that FDR's New Deal policies extended the Depression by seven years... so would they have been better off without it? Maybe.

"Studies" can prove pretty much whatever the studier wants them to prove. The fact of the matter is that people in the '30s were orders of magnitude worse off than anyone living today, even the jobless, and there were many people living in abject poverty.

Capitalism works except when it is not allowed to work.

Gambling with other people's money was not an example of capitalism not being allowed to work, but of government failing to adequately regulate commerce.

We have thrown a lot more than $39 billion at the "unemployment" problem. Compared to the failed stimulus, the bailout of GM and AIG are a mere pittance. However, I do not support either of those either.

Arguing that we should spend $39 billion because "it is not much money" is a poor argument and you know it.

Yes, I have to admit you're right about that, however the Republicans blocking the extension of unemployment was pure political posturing, and we both know it. The money this measure cost is inconsequential, particularly when you factor in the amount that will come back to government. This measure may not be a fix to the economic problems we face, but will mean that two and a half million Americans will be able to pay their bills and put food on the table for a while longer.

 

[The Scotsman]

Capitalism works except when it is not allowed to work.

I think that's a good point as there needs to be a degree of economic and corporate Darwinism