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

[Antares]

Republicans think moving jobs to China and then cutting benefits for those who lost their jobs, makes this a better country and teaches those unemployed a lesson. Personally, I don't get it.

So uhhhh........you should look into the Heinz Corps overseas escapades.

 

[Antares]

Does anyone have any unbiased sources with facts to dispute my thread? Anyone? No? Didn't think so.

Oh and citing crap like Fox News or Forbes.com doesn't count.

Yeah, but citing some Keynesian blather from About.Com does ?

Their sources are the CBO and Moody.

So how much do you know about Keynesian Economics?

 

[Billy000]

They sure do. Billyboy is a left leaning Obamabot moron. He wouldn't know truth if it hit him right between the eyes.

The CBO can only shoot out what it does with the numbers its given. If the numbers are bogus, as in the ACA, then the numbers the CBO shoots our are bogus.

Yup. Billyidiot is just that. An idiot. I wonder who he thinks will support all this "free" money when everyone is on unemployment?? Guess he didn't think of that because he's an idiot.

Lol it's posts like this that let's me know I am getting my point across. Some people can't handle facts for what they are.

Oh and it isn't just the CBO that came to these results. Moody, Time, JP Morgan etc all say the same thing.

Well you believing it shows what a moron you are.

Tell me. How great would the economy be if EVERYONE was on UE??

Of course you'd have to have a working brain cell to work it out. Never mind.

Obviously it is still needed if our unemployment rate is still high...

 

[Billy000]

Yeah, but citing some Keynesian blather from About.Com does ?

Their sources are the CBO and Moody.

So how much do you know about Keynesian Economics?

Clearly more than you.

 

[1776]

Like Rush said....we should quit our jobs and go on welfare....to so-called stimulate the economy....

 

[Billy000]

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.

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.

3) Only 10,000 jobs are created every billion dollar TAX CUT. This is because the employed only spend HALF of their tax cuts. They have the luxury of saving some. All in all it does more harm than good: every dollar lost in revenue only creates .59 cents in growth.

4) This fiscal policy was a great success during the Great Depression.

This isn't Leftwing bull. We are talking basic economics. Demand side economic policies is the answer. Trickle down economics is a republican lie.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Billy consider the possiblity (as so few partisans are willing to) that there is NO SINGLE CURE for what ails an economy.


There ARE times when assisting the DEMAND side is what is called for. This is one of those times, in both our opinions.

HOWEVER..

There are times when the SUPPLE side needs stimulation and where TAX BREAKS do make sense.

The macroeconomy is not a simple machine, folks.

As long as we're going to have the basic monetary system we have, (getting rid of it should be our goal) well...

Then we proably will need to tinker with the economy from time to time.

Sadly we've tinkered it into a DEMAND SIDE nightmare by giving the SUPPLE SIDE almost every advantage for the last 50 years!

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

 

[Rozman]

It's a crappy economy...
It's been this way for years now...
Anything that can be done to make Obama look good is being done.
Like saying people collecting UE checks is good for the economy.That it creates jobs.

 

[Rozman]

Get up at 5:30 AM
Head out to work.
A nice comfortable 7 degrees.
And people staying home and collecting UE benefits are the lifeblood of this economy...

 

[Meister]

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.

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.

3) Only 10,000 jobs are created every billion dollar TAX CUT. This is because the employed only spend HALF of their tax cuts. They have the luxury of saving some. All in all it does more harm than good: every dollar lost in revenue only creates .59 cents in growth.

4) This fiscal policy was a great success during the Great Depression.

This isn't Leftwing bull. We are talking basic economics. Demand side economic policies is the answer. Trickle down economics is a republican lie.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Billy consider the possiblity (as so few partisans are willing to) that there is NO SINGLE CURE for what ails an economy.


There ARE times when assisting the DEMAND side is what is called for. This is one of those times, in both our opinions.

HOWEVER..

There are times when the SUPPLE side needs stimulation and where TAX BREAKS do make sense.

The macroeconomy is not a simple machine, folks.

As long as we're going to have the basic monetary system we have, (getting rid of it should be our goal) well...

Then we proably will need to tinker with the economy from time to time.

Sadly we've tinkered it into a DEMAND SIDE nightmare by giving the SUPPLE SIDE almost every advantage for the last 50 years!

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

For most of Bush's tenure, the unemployment numbers were between 4-5%. Most of those were people who weren't going to work no matter what. Just who were you going to get to fill the positions?

 

[Agit8r]

What makes the CBO qualified to make any such determination?

another brilliant argument

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

3) Only 10,000 jobs are created every billion dollar TAX CUT. This is because the employed only spend HALF of their tax cuts. They have the luxury of saving some. All in all it does more harm than good: every dollar lost in revenue only creates .59 cents in growth.

4) This fiscal policy was a great success during the Great Depression.

This isn't Leftwing bull. We are talking basic economics. Demand side economic policies is the answer. Trickle down economics is a republican lie.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

So if we all became unemployed, that would be a real boost to the economy?

Or what if the government gave all of us hard working Americans an extra $500,000 this year, that would create an extra $835,000 into the economy for each man woman ad child.

We could then be out of debt and have millions back to work in no time!

Great idea! I'll take mine first.

 

[Antares]

Their sources are the CBO and Moody.

So how much do you know about Keynesian Economics?

Clearly more than you.

[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION] Cool, then help me understand this?

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is, policies that acted against the tide of the business cycle:.

 

[Stephanie]

Democrat/liberal/progressive know how to play their base like a fiddle

Now the unemployed don't seem to mind they are now living OFF US TAXPAYERS...not a frikken thanks from them just more whine give me give give

they spew this dumb stuff and they eat it up and regurgitate back in public

my gawd, now we know how a community organizer was elected President

 

[Antares]

In a "countercyclical" situation one should...

and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays.


So if Keynes advocated Tax Hikes in boom times....and if he was going to be true to his theory, what should the Gov do in a recession ?

[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]

?

 

[The Rabbi]

What makes the CBO qualified to make any such determination?

another brilliant argument

Which is why you fail to understand it.
The CBO has been wrong on virtyally every projection they have ever made.

 

[Antares]

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.

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.

3) Only 10,000 jobs are created every billion dollar TAX CUT. This is because the employed only spend HALF of their tax cuts. They have the luxury of saving some. All in all it does more harm than good: every dollar lost in revenue only creates .59 cents in growth.

4) This fiscal policy was a great success during the Great Depression.

This isn't Leftwing bull. We are talking basic economics. Demand side economic policies is the answer. Trickle down economics is a republican lie.

Why Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits Boost the Economy

Billy consider the possiblity (as so few partisans are willing to) that there is NO SINGLE CURE for what ails an economy.


There ARE times when assisting the DEMAND side is what is called for. This is one of those times, in both our opinions.

HOWEVER..

There are times when the SUPPLE side needs stimulation and where TAX BREAKS do make sense.

The macroeconomy is not a simple machine, folks.

As long as we're going to have the basic monetary system we have, (getting rid of it should be our goal) well...

Then we proably will need to tinker with the economy from time to time.

Sadly we've tinkered it into a DEMAND SIDE nightmare by giving the SUPPLE SIDE almost every advantage for the last 50 years!

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION] Cool, then help me understand this?

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is, policies that acted against the tide of the business cycle:.

 

[Billy000]

Billy consider the possiblity (as so few partisans are willing to) that there is NO SINGLE CURE for what ails an economy.


There ARE times when assisting the DEMAND side is what is called for. This is one of those times, in both our opinions.

HOWEVER..

There are times when the SUPPLE side needs stimulation and where TAX BREAKS do make sense.

The macroeconomy is not a simple machine, folks.

As long as we're going to have the basic monetary system we have, (getting rid of it should be our goal) well...

Then we proably will need to tinker with the economy from time to time.

Sadly we've tinkered it into a DEMAND SIDE nightmare by giving the SUPPLE SIDE almost every advantage for the last 50 years!

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

For most of Bush's tenure, the unemployment numbers were between 4-5%. Most of those were people who weren't going to work no matter what. Just who were you going to get to fill the positions?

Bush had nothing to do with the lower unemployment rate.

 

[Billy000]

Billy consider the possiblity (as so few partisans are willing to) that there is NO SINGLE CURE for what ails an economy.


There ARE times when assisting the DEMAND side is what is called for. This is one of those times, in both our opinions.

HOWEVER..

There are times when the SUPPLE side needs stimulation and where TAX BREAKS do make sense.

The macroeconomy is not a simple machine, folks.

As long as we're going to have the basic monetary system we have, (getting rid of it should be our goal) well...

Then we proably will need to tinker with the economy from time to time.

Sadly we've tinkered it into a DEMAND SIDE nightmare by giving the SUPPLE SIDE almost every advantage for the last 50 years!

I disagree because we've seen just how ineffective supply side has been. Before the Bush tax cuts expired revenue as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest point in history. We should have saw massive job growth during Bush's presidency but we didn't. Not even close. Job growth under Bush was pathetic.

[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION] Cool, then help me understand this?

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is, policies that acted against the tide of the business cycle:.

What exactly is your point? You are clearly just regurgitating something you read.

 

[Rozman]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

 

[Billy000]

So when a republican president is in office he has nothing to do with the UE numbers when they are low.
And when Obama is president and the UE number drops a tenth of a point it's all because of Obama...

I'm glad that has been clarified....

Well here's the difference. Much of the job growth under Obama can be directly attributed to The Recovery Act. As pathetic as the job growth under Bush was, I still attribute the minor growth to his tax cuts. However, given how small the growth was, it had very little to do with the unemployment rate.

And let's not forget the financial crisis happened under his watch. We lost million of jobs in his last few months and millions more in Obama's first few. It wasn't until the recovery act that the massive job loss rate turned to job growth.