CBO: extending unemployment benefits creates 19,000 jobs per billion dollar stimulus

[S.J.]

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

How do you manage to dress yourself?

Yes I I guess it is impossible to pop that Fox News/republican bubble of yours. I feel bad for you more than anything.

I feel bad for your family.

 

[Papageorgio]

The CBO says the debt is unsustainable, they say social security is unsustainable, they say Obamacare is unsustainable. Our entire government and its programs are unsustainable, when are we going to wake up and get the debt and the spending under control. The Dems and Repubs, seem to think this is all sustainable, that every thing is ok. It's time to face reality.

It IS unsustainable but try telling that to the idiot sycophants who are following Obama off the cliff.

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

Talk to the CBO and the actuaries, they are the ones that are saying our debt, our medical, our social security are unsustainable. How do you not understand without enough money coming in, it will all collapse.

 

[Billy000]

oh, I forgot, participation rate under Obama latest release -

62.8

And that would be because the economy lost millions of jobs in the first place.

Yet, you tout the millions of jobs that Obama created and the participation rate is sinking.
Also, it shows that Obama isn't bright enough to turn things around himself.

You idiot. 2.5 million jobs were created from one piece of legislation. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess. You can blame republicans for that. They are what's fucking over this country.

 

[Meister]

And that would be because the economy lost millions of jobs in the first place.

Yet, you tout the millions of jobs that Obama created and the participation rate is sinking.
Also, it shows that Obama isn't bright enough to turn things around himself.

You idiot. 2.5 million jobs were created from one piece of legislation. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess. You can blame republicans for that. They are what's fucking over this country.

The boy still hasn't a clue.

 

[ilia25]

1) The benefits that the unemployed spend creates economic demand where there wouldn't be otherwise. For every tax dollar spent on these benefits, it creates $1.64 in economic stimulus (or 10 billion spent creates 16.7 billion in demand). Why? Because it creates a ripple effect in the market. Capitalism 101.

How many jobs does a dollar of taxes or government borrowing destroy? What makes the CBO qualified to make any such determination?

Government borrowing does not destroy jobs, not in the current conditions. It helps to create jobs. And CBO is qualified because they know how the economy functions.

2) When the unemployed receive this insurance, they quickly spend ALL of it on basic essentials like food, clothing, and shelter. That is why it is so effective in creating jobs. Without this extra demand, more businesses are forced to lay their workers off.

Investment is what creates jobs. That requires people to save money, not spend it.

This economy is depressed because desired saving exceeds desired investment. There is no shortage of saving. But there is no point in expanding production capacity if there is no demand. Aggregate spending must rise before companies see the need to invest -- so yes, we need to spend more, not to save more.

As I already explained, saving creates job. Every dollar not sent to Washington means productive people put money in the bank and other people invest it.

Wrong. When economy is depressed, people put money in the bank, and the bank puts those money in reserves (deposits it with Fed).

Again, there in no point in hiring more workers if your existing production capacity is underutilized.

It's liberal propaganda, not economics.

Science and facts have a well known liberal bias.

 

[ilia25]

It's staggering that you can find people who really believe this economic alchemy.

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

The broken window fallacy

The broken window fallacy is not a fallacy when the economy is depressed, with too much saving chasing too few investment opportunities. In this case, spending of fixing windows would not crowd out spending on other things -- rather it would put to work savings that would otherwise be sitting idle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's staggering that you can find people who really believe this economic alchemy.

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

 

[Billy000]

It's staggering that you can find people who really believe this economic alchemy.

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1) The benefits that the unemployed spend creates economic demand where there wouldn't be otherwise. For every tax dollar spent on these benefits, it creates $1.64 in economic stimulus (or 10 billion spent creates 16.7 billion in demand). Why? Because it creates a ripple effect in the market. Capitalism 101.

How many jobs does a dollar of taxes or government borrowing destroy? What makes the CBO qualified to make any such determination?

Government borrowing does not destroy jobs, not in the current conditions. It helps to create jobs. And CBO is qualified because they know how the economy functions.

Government borrowing ALWAYS destroys jobs. If adding $1 billion would create 40,000 jobs in one depressed part of the economy, then losing $1 billion will cost roughly the same number of jobs in whatever part of the economy supplied Washington with the funds. This is just obvious. Government does not - cannot - create new purchasing power. It can only move it from one spot to another, so any "gains" you might think you're seeing in the place the money is moved to is offset by losses in the place it moved from.

This economy is depressed because desired saving exceeds desired investment. There is no shortage of saving. But there is no point in expanding production capacity if there is no demand. Aggregate spending must rise before companies see the need to invest -- so yes, we need to spend more, not to save more.

This silly little leftist fallacy assumes that savings takes money out of economic circulation, where consumption keeps it in, and government appropriation of "unused assets" put money into circulation that wasn't.

I don't hide my savings in my mattress, or bury it in a mayonnaise jar in the backyard. Do you? When modern-day Americans save money, they do it one of three ways: they invest it in financial assets such as stocks or bonds (which then finances spending on business investment); they purchase non-financial assets such as real estate or collectible items like gold coins (and the people from whom those assets were purchased then spend the money themselves on other things); or they deposit it in banks. Banks, in their turn, are not simply taking a handful of paper currency from people and storing it in a vault somewhere. They take the money put into savings accounts and lend it, spend it, and invest it themselves. So in reality, savings are just as circulated as spending.

As I already explained, saving creates job. Every dollar not sent to Washington means productive people put money in the bank and other people invest it.

Wrong. When economy is depressed, people put money in the bank, and the bank puts those money in reserves (deposits it with Fed).

Again, there in no point in hiring more workers if your existing production capacity is underutilized.

What are you, retarded? Do you really not understand what banks are, or what they do, or why?

Banks don't have the option of simply hiding all their money away somewhere safely out of circulation. They're businesses, and like all businesses, they have to generate income and turn a profit if they don't want to go bankrupt and shut down. If I put my money in a savings account, the bank is going to have to pay me interest on that money. Where do you think they're going to get that interest from if they're not investing and circulating that money to make more money, and instead of doing the equivalent of hiding it in a vault somewhere?

It's liberal propaganda, not economics.

Science and facts have a well known liberal bias.

No, leftists have a well-known tendency to spout nonsense and label it "science and facts".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

The broken window fallacy

The broken window fallacy is not a fallacy when the economy is depressed, with too much saving chasing too few investment opportunities. In this case, spending of fixing windows would not crowd out spending on other things -- rather it would put to work savings that would otherwise be sitting idle.

Savings do not sit idle. That is also a fallacy.

 

[S.J.]

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

One person spending an unemployment check isn't going to create any jobs. Unemployment is a subsidy, and subsidies are money that never comes back. Maybe 20 UE checks could create the need for 1 job, which means it costs the taxpayers more to create that job than the job pays. Besides that, ANY job (or UE check) that is paid for by the government is a drag on the economy because someone else has to pay for it. Private sector jobs pay for themselves, which is the only way to grow the economy. Government jobs do not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

 

[zeke]

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

Rabbit, how fucking stupid are you really? You write lots of stupid shit over and over. Matter of fact, you write the SAME stupid shit over and over. It was wrong the first time and didn't get right by repeating it.

Stupid fucking rabbit. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. But that spending doesn't "stimulate" the economy.

That statement is fucking amazing in its stupidity.

Silly fucking rabbit.

 

[The Rabbi]

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

If that were the case we would see UE about 5%. We have seen the biggest "stimulus" ever over the last 5 years and it resulted in the worst performance out of a recession in post war history.

Consumer spending does not stimulate the economy. I have written this over and over and provided links and proof. Government does not stimulate the economy. This has also been proven over and over.
The broken window fallacy is just that: a fallacy. You do not stimulate anything by taking from productive people and giving to unproductive people.

Rabbit, how fucking stupid are you really? You write lots of stupid shit over and over. Matter of fact, you write the SAME stupid shit over and over. It was wrong the first time and didn't get right by repeating it.

Stupid fucking rabbit. 70% of our economy is consumer spending. But that spending doesn't "stimulate" the economy.

That statement is fucking amazing in its stupidity.

Silly fucking rabbit.

It's Zeke, ignorant toothless stumpbroke of USMB chiming in with his own special brand of ignorance.
It doesn't matter what percentage of our economy is consumer spending. What matters is what causes growth. And consumer spending isn't it.
As typical, libs get cause and effect mixed up a lot.

 

[Antares]

The CBO says the debt is unsustainable, they say social security is unsustainable, they say Obamacare is unsustainable. Our entire government and its programs are unsustainable, when are we going to wake up and get the debt and the spending under control. The Dems and Repubs, seem to think this is all sustainable, that every thing is ok. It's time to face reality.

It IS unsustainable but try telling that to the idiot sycophants who are following Obama off the cliff.

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

How do YOU not understand that taking money from person A and giving it to person in no way stimulates the economy.....further stupidity from you people......

You try tell us that when you take 1 dollar from person A it magically morphs into 1 Dollar and 60 cents by the time it reaches person B's hands...seriously you people are not very bright.

 

[The Rabbi]

It IS unsustainable but try telling that to the idiot sycophants who are following Obama off the cliff.

How do you not understand the basics of supply and demand?

How do YOU not understand that taking money from person A and giving it to person in no way stimulates the economy.....further stupidity from you people......

You try tell us that when you take 1 dollar from person A it magically morphs into 1 Dollar and 60 cents by the time it reaches person B's hands...seriously you people are not very bright.

A stranger comes to town and wants to stay in the local hotel. He tells the owner he'd like to check the room first but gives him a $100 bill to hold it. The owner knows the guy will like it so runs the hundred across the street to the butcher, whom he owes $100. The butcher takes the bill and runs it one block over to the auto mechanic, who did some work on his car. The mechanic takes it and gives it to his assistant for salary. The assistant wants to have an affair with someone and goes to the hotel and gives the $100 to the hotel owner. In the meantime the original customer comes downstairs and says he doesnt want the room and the owner returns his $100.
And Democrats call that a stimulus.

 

[zeke]

Company A comes up with a product that they have more demand for than production. It's not that they can't make more, they just hadn't because the demand for this product was not there. Then people went crazy for the product.

What to do says the production manager. Well, we could hire a few more workers to run the machines to make the product to satisfy the demand that is not being met. Good idea.

Or the silly stoopid rabbit, (if he were production manager) would say; go to the bank and borrow a bunch of money the company don't need. That will fill the demand.

Rabbit would fail to increase production to meet the demand. (that would create jobs) Because he thinks the company doesn't have enough money.

He would saddle the company with more debt and then scratch his ass wondering why his company wasn't as profitable. Because rabbit couldn't figure out that demand for a product makes jobs and the company more money.

Rabbit thinks a company can just borrow it's way to success and prosperity. That it is borrowing that creates jobs.

Right you silly rabbit? Borrow your way to jobs and prosperity. Of course you say the government can't borrow its way to prosperity, but somehow a company will create more jobs than they need by borrowing money that they don't need.

Silly rabbit.

 

[Flopper]

It's staggering that you can find people who really believe this economic alchemy.

Anytime you pump money into the economy you stimulate it and thus create jobs so the president is correct. Extending unemployment benefits will create jobs. The points that should be debated is not whether it will create jobs but rather what kind of jobs are created, how efficient is extending unemployment benefits at creating jobs, and what happens to those jobs when the unemployment benefits stop.

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

I think you'll find few economists that would disagree with the statement that government spending pumps money into the economy. The money for the spending either comes from future tax collections or debt. The spending creates an immediate stimulus increasing current demand and jobs. If the stimulus does promote enough growth in the economy then future tax collections and interest on debt can be drag on the economy. That has been an argument between supply side and demand side economist for many years. However, your claim that government spending doesn't pump money into the economy is ridiculous.

 

[1776]

Again....if unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, then when are liberals going to claim a 100% unemployment rate is a good thing????

 

[Billy000]

What a load of rancid horseshit.

Government spending doesn't "pump money into the economy". It merely shifts money from one spot to another without creating any new purchasing power. AND since it tends to shift money away from producers to the less-productive, it tends to retard the economy, rather than "stimulating" it. It isn't as though the government is famous for being a wise, thrifty shopper and getting good value for its dollar.

I don't doubt that you think we shouldn't even bother to discuss whether or not your assertions are worth the air it takes to say them, and instead believe that we should just jump right to assuming you're right, and then discussing HOW right you are. Unfortunately for you, most of us aren't as stupid and gullible as you are.

It shifts without creating any purchasing power? What are you talking about? The money goes to consumers. Of course it creates purchasing power. This isn't hard to figure out. The benefits go to people who would otherwise be not spending any money. They spend ALL of it quickly on basic goods. That stimulus creates jobs.

One person spending an unemployment check isn't going to create any jobs. Unemployment is a subsidy, and subsidies are money that never comes back. Maybe 20 UE checks could create the need for 1 job, which means it costs the taxpayers more to create that job than the job pays. Besides that, ANY job (or UE check) that is paid for by the government is a drag on the economy because someone else has to pay for it. Private sector jobs pay for themselves, which is the only way to grow the economy. Government jobs do not.

Have some humility that economists would know more than you. You have no idea what you are talking about and you know it. And it is just one person, it is the entire million. This money creates economic demand, as in stimulus. That is how our economic system works. Your dumbass also doesn't seem to understand that the government is directly creating any jobs. Demand is created by the consumer.

You think tax cuts are free? No they are not. Every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar to our national debt. Stop watching Fox News.