Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow


    Well . . .   I can't speak for the entire country, but I can tell you that where I live in metropolitan Minnesota (a place that -- apparently -- fervently hopes to become Massachusetts someday when it grows up) there is no job shortage; many companies are having trouble finding reliable, productive candidates. Now, I may be unduly cynical, but I can't help but think that offering people what must look like an endless supply of free subsistence doesn't do much to dissuade them from holding out for that "perfect" job.

    What it's beginning to look like more and more to me is a society that is gradually becoming convinced that it doesn't really need to work.

    I don't expect to live long enough to see it, but the tax revolt that eventually takes place in this country is going to be a wonder to behold.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to p-mike's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well . . .   I can't speak for the entire country, but I can tell you that where I live in metropolitan Minnesota (a place that -- apparently -- fervently hopes to become Massachusetts someday when it grows up) there is no job shortage; many companies are having trouble finding reliable, productive candidates. Now, I may be unduly cynical, but I can't help but think that offering people what must look like an endless supply of free subsistence doesn't do much to dissuade them from holding out for that "perfect" job.

    What it's beginning to look like more and more to me is a society that is gradually becoming convinced that it doesn't really need to work.

    I don't expect to live long enough to see it, but the tax revolt that eventually takes place in this country is going to be a wonder to behold.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Thanks for your observation. Maybe this is something that should be looked at as well. I am sure that Massachusetts was not the only state who had unemployment numbers low enough to be ineligble for the federal extension. Sounds like that could be the case in your state as well. So..why are some states doing better in this regard than others..and what could be done to address this issue and fix the problem for the long term rather than just keep extending all these short term fixes.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     




    Please take your own advice. Thank you.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But one can't keep incurring debt without some plan to pay it back. I guess I am just frustrated because continuing unemployment extensions over and over again is just another example of how we ( dems and repubs) let big businesses off the hook. It's difficult to justify record breaking profits by corporate America while we are still paying unemployment extensions..don't you agree that that needs to change?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But one can't keep incurring debt without some plan to pay it back. I guess I am just frustrated because continuing unemployment extensions over and over again is just another example of how we ( dems and repubs) let big businesses off the hook. It's difficult to justify record breaking profits by corporate America while we are still paying unemployment extensions..don't you agree that that needs to change?

    [/QUOTE]


    That is true, but of all the waste in gov't, UI benefits ain't one of them.

    It is a self-sustaining program that helps both the recipients and businesses and is resupplied by current tax rates.

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay...good point. In the grand scheme of things I guess I see your point. I guess with the ever weakening union situation I don't see an end in sight for the long term problems that plague the economy..the problems that NO politician seems to want to address.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, most economists refer to debt as debt.

    This idea that debt is good is a complete misreading of Keynes on government spending during economic downturns.  Keynes was only speaking about limited spending in short timeframes.  Nothing short-term about what is going on today.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     



    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey spanky, check out the rates in the 50's - 60's, then get back to me.

    I see ya haven't found anyone who doesn't want to be rich because taxes are too high or a 1%-er who won't invest because he doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits.

    And where is that magic number? We all know it ain't 100% or 0% but you keep talking as if an expert and throwing around insults .... so if anyone should be able to nail it down it should be you. Where is it? What's the magic number?

    The Laugher curve is a joke and part of the voodoo economics that the right has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker and they haven't been able to spit out the tackleline since.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you denying the Laffer curve?

    I said nothing about what rates were desirable, neither does the Laffer curve.

    Not throwing any insults around, but you are.  Grow up.

    Get your head out of your...copy of Rules for Radicals.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the "BIG O" & the DEMS really don't want all those people working for a living !!!!  And what about all the ILLEGALS ???

    [/QUOTE]

    http://barbadosfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/shut-up-barbados.jpg

    [/QUOTE]


    Exactly.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bill-806's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the "BIG O" & the DEMS really don't want all those people working for a living !!!!  And what about all the ILLEGALS ???

    [/QUOTE]

    http://barbadosfreepress.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/shut-up-barbados.jpg

    [/QUOTE]


    Too funny..lol. Speaking of zipping it..where's skeeter? I hope he's doing okay.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Here is what I was getting at as far as GDP goes. I am saying UI is not a net growth factor in the economy because the money that is spent in UI comes from somewhere else in the economy. You are right that it is not funded from taxes, but it is funded from employers and that is essentially the same as a tax as far as the econom is concerned. I think that now with benefits being extended for so long that it is not a self-funding mechanism and tax revenues (or borrowed or printed money) are used to make up the difference.

    Look at the equation for C, consumption, in the GDP formula:

    The simple consumption function is shown as the affine function:

    C = c_0 + c_1 Y^d

    where

    • C = total consumption,
    • c0 = autonomous consumption (c0 > 0),
    • c1 is the marginal propensity to consume (ie the induced consumption) (0 < c1 < 1), and
    • Yd = disposable income (income after government intervention – benefits, taxes and transfer payments – or Y + (G – T)).

    The last variable shows what I am talking about - consumption is increased by benefits but decreased by taxation.

    Anyway, you still do not get a free lunch with UI. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, most economists refer to debt as debt.

    This idea that debt is good is a complete misreading of Keynes on government spending during economic downturns.  Keynes was only speaking about limited spending in short timeframes.  Nothing short-term about what is going on today.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Keynes said to save the surpluses to spend in bad times to boost the economy. He didn't say borrow in good times and borrow more in bad times to boost the economy.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Continuing to extend a benefits program that was only supposed to be a temporary bridge is not going to add more money to the economy..not at an average of $300 per week..that's for sure. It makes no sense.  Instead we should have been focusing on job creation all along.

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

    You are uninformed on basic economics.

    Every person who spends money on food, clothing etc comprises the nat'l GDP.

    Economic theory, not to mention business, doesn't care where that money originates, they only care that the money is spent.

    So if 1000 people lose their $300/wk and that monetary input into the economy isn't replaced then the GDP, the economy, takes a $300K hit per week to growth. That is a lot of lost demand which then reverberates back to the companies that supply the food and clothing and they don't produce as much and they may lay off workers.

    A capitalistic free market relies on supply and demand to be in equilibrium. If that balance gets out of whack then it rebalances. If the demand side falls by $300K/wk then there has to be an equal fall in the supply side.

    Losing the monetary input of millions of consumers will most certainly cause a fall-off in demand and by extension, the companies that supply the markets will need to reduce output.

     

     



    Wow. That is enlightening. Can you tell me - where does the $300 a week for unemployment come from in your example?

    I believe it comes from the private economy in the form of taxes or fees, no?

    Maybe you can find a formula for GDP but I am guessing that the two cancel each other out somehow. Plus if you account for the government overhead to actually conduct the transactions needed it is a net negative on the economy.

    THe government can borrow the money and create some short term benefit, but eventually that has to be paid back in some form. When it is paid back, it will be a drag on the economy. Could it be that is one reason why employment is stagnant?

    Basically, there is no free lunch. We are stealing from future generations when we bahve this way.

    [/QUOTE]


    UI is a payment system whose reserves fluctuate with the economy.

    When the economy is healthy, more people pay into the system than take out, so it runs in the black.

    In recessions, more unemployed people means a faster drain on the system, the excess comes from general revenue.

    Once the economy is growing again, the more people employed means the reserves are replenished back into the black.

    There is no need for new taxes because the system has been in place for decades and has always operated cyclically. The only added cost is the short term interest on the treasuries currently less than 1%. A bargain for the economic multiplier effect of the program.

     

    I don't understand your GDP reference.

    GDP refers to 'production' only, so the UI benefits only add to GDP when they are spent on goods or services, not when the gov't issues them.

    GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exportsimports), or

     

    GDP = C + I + G + \left ( X - M \right )

    Note: "Gross" means that GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which that production can be put.

     

    Debt is not a bad thing.... most economists refer to debt as an investment.

    Every large company uses debt to expand and grow. Look at the balance sheets of any fortune 500 company and they all have debt, some larger relative to many years worth of their projected earnings.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But one can't keep incurring debt without some plan to pay it back. I guess I am just frustrated because continuing unemployment extensions over and over again is just another example of how we ( dems and repubs) let big businesses off the hook. It's difficult to justify record breaking profits by corporate America while we are still paying unemployment extensions..don't you agree that that needs to change?

    [/QUOTE]


    That is true, but of all the waste in gov't, UI benefits ain't one of them.

    It is a self-sustaining program that helps both the recipients and businesses and is easily resupplied by current tax rates when the employment picture improves.

    [/QUOTE]


    12angrymen,

    Your last post is very succinct and right on the money...pardon the pun.

    Of all the places to go, this was just not one of them based on basic economic theory.

    This decision was a political decision.

    Everything in D.C. revolves around power and money.

    Decisions are traced to these two terms.

    For political reasons, to help retain their power, they decided to end extended federal unemployment benefits.

    That is a very popular thing to do. That is NOT the economically wise thing to do.

    Most people do not understand mico or macro economics.

    Most people do not understand it is not in their self interest to end this program. They just believe it is.

    So tomorrow some people will be having their own little square dance that this program has ended.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    Paying unemployment benefits is how a clueless leftist like angryman thinks the private economy grows....

    Dont know whether to laugh or cry at such ideological ignorance about basic economic principles...

    Why dont we pay everyone in the country unemployment benefits? Wouldnt that do the trick, spanky? After all, it is 'free money' ,  the money grows on trees, and the Almighty Government can spend it.....

    Or, better yet, have a trillion dollar "stimulus" where the Government will spend to increase "demand"? Oops, never mind...that was already tried , it was Obama's worst failure (before ObamaCare).  Though it did result in the employment of hundreds of state economists who swore the stimulus was a hugh success..

     

     

     




    Heh, heh, heh ... this critique by someone who believes in the laugher-curve and that reducing taxes increases revenues.

     

     

     

    So to use your sophmoric ad absurdum response ... why don't we just reduce taxes to zero and the gov't would be swimming in revenue and the debt and deficit would disappear overnight. Heck, then we could pay everyone just for being a citizen.... wasn't that Palin's grand scheme in AK?

     

     



    Laffer curve doesn't work? 

     

    I bet you don't even know what it represents.

    Typical leftist economic ignorance.

     




    Okay spanky, if you're so bright, why don't you tell me exactly where the Laugher-curve falls. You know, that point at which people will stop working once their income taxes hit a certain level.

     

    Tell us where, to the exact percentage, that is.

    And while you're at it, maybe you could show some millionares who stopped working because their taxes were too high.

    Or maybe someone who simply quit working, quit trying to make money, who said they didn't want to be rich because the taxes were too high.

    How about a 1% who wouldn't invest money because they didn't want to pay taxes on all those profits.

     

     



     

     So, you don't understand the Laffer curve.  Let me explain:

    The Laffer curve, defined by Art Laffer, shos thatthere is a maximum tax rate which maximizes reciepts, given the current economic condition, i.e. it changes given the state of the economy.

    You have a very childish notion that you can tax people at a rate approaching 100% and these people would continue to work, simply because they are "rich".  

     




    Hey spanky, check out the rates in the 50's - 60's, then get back to me.

     

    I see ya haven't found anyone who doesn't want to be rich because taxes are too high or a 1%-er who won't invest because he doesn't want to pay taxes on the profits.

    And where is that magic number? We all know it ain't 100% or 0% but you keep talking as if an expert and throwing around insults .... so if anyone should be able to nail it down it should be you. Where is it? What's the magic number?

    The Laugher curve is a joke and part of the voodoo economics that the right has swallowed hook-line-and-sinker and they haven't been able to spit out the tackleline since.

     



    Are you denying the Laffer curve?

     

    I said nothing about what rates were desirable, niether does the Laffer curve.

    Not throwing any insults around, but you are.  Grow up.

    Get your head out of your...copy of Rules for Radicals.

     




    Now you're just being childish and petulant.

     

    The Laugher curve states that there is a point where maximum revenue intersects the tax rate which is the point for optimum economic performance and growth for the country.

    A) In the 50-60's the top tax rate was over 90% and yet tax receipts were up, little to no nat'l debt and it was the longest economic expansion in history ... and that included enacting 'great society' programs like medicare.

    B) Today the tax rate is the lowest in generations and tax receipts are below historic avgs and the economy is moving sideways while the safety net is being cut and still we have continued debt.

    This ain't rocket surgery:

    A+B represent the two extremes of the tax rate in the US in the modern era.

    That means that the Laugher curve has never, ever, been found to hold true in the real world because scenario B with the lowest rates proves it doesn't work on the low end and scenario A with the highest rates of the 60's proves it can work at least up to 95% or so. Which means it's nothing but a useless talking point for the neo-con crowd.

    Of course you could try the ad absurdum and argue at 0% or 100% but that would just be foolish... let's keep it in the realm of reality, shall we.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what you are missing is the part where the Laffer curve is for a given economic condition.  Sorry that the common sense of the Laffer curve escapes you.  Let me illustrate:

    Let's say taxation is 100%.  How much in taxes is collected?

    As far as unemployment being stimulus and additive to the GDP:  If we layoff 100% of the workforce and pay them benefits, what is GDP?

    Is the word elasticity springing into your head?  Or the lack of elasticity in your argument?  Huh?

    See, this is where liberal economics falls apart.  The key concept in liberal economics is to divorce incentive for the equation.  Completely inelastic.  In your bizzare little world, people work and pay 100% taxes becasue they are not motivated by earning money.  The rest of us see the folly in this thought process.

    Hence, the Laffer Curve.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    "The rest of us see the folly in this thought process."

    Quite a sweeping generization there, is it not?

    By the rest of us , whom do you mean?

    Certainly you do not mean what you wrote...i.e., everybody but the poster in question.

    So, do you mean the majority of conservative Republicans?

    Do you mean a smaller group, like say Tea Party supporters...or even just Tea Party members?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Federal Unemployment benefits ending tomorrow

    In response to andiejen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "The rest of us see the folly in this thought process."

    Quite a sweeping generization there, is it not?

    By the rest of us , whom do you mean?

    Certainly you do not mean what you wrote...i.e., everybody but the poster in question.

    So, do you mean the majority of conservative Republicans?

    Do you mean a smaller group, like say Tea Party supporters...or even just Tea Party members?

    [/QUOTE]


    The Laffer curve is absolute common sense.  Sorry, but I can't be any clearer than that.  It shows that there is a level of taxation where government revenues are maximized.  Might be 1%, might be 99%.  It doesn't say anything like what 12 Angry men is implying, whihc I take to be that the Laffer curve prescribes lower taxes as a means to maximize revenue.  It does not.

    So, I guess I mean the "rest of us" as in those that actually have thought this through,  Liberal, libertarian, or conservative.  The Laffer curve is agnostic as to political thought.  It just is.

     

Share