Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I'm not sure why you would use a definition nobody else uses. When anyone else, ESPECIALLY the government, talks about "Unemployment" they're talking about TOTAL unemployment.No one ever in this country has ever been no longer considered unemployed because they no longer collect benefits.
UI benefits have NEVER been part of the definition of Unemployed.
When you don't even know something that basic, what makes you think you can rationally comment on any other part?
Darlingheart, I'm referring only to the "under 8.3%" of people actually collecting unemployment (insurance checks), I'm not talking about the people who fell off the UI rolls.
How the Government Measures UnemploymentPersons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
It appears crusaderfrank has lost it (whether he ever had it is an open question).
You're right. He's lost his capacity to tolerate idiocy, ignorance, and willful suspensions of disbelief. Your capacity to buy into stupidity continues unabated.
That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.
What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)
I've said it before that the need to qualify this imagery stimulus as unemployment insurance checks is a distinction without a difference.
I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks. I'm mocking the very notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy.
The very idea that you buy into the notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy means you have been absorbed by the collective.
The idea that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy is at least as stupid as the idea that bank ATMs are hurting the economy.
I never heard either concept in my life until we get the Neo-Marxists in the White House
Really? Automatic stabilizers such as UI are taught in Macroeconomics 101. It may or may not be correct but it is very well known as a concept to every economics student.
And the test of whether or not it is stimulative is empirical, not some narrow-minded dogma.
It appears crusaderfrank has lost it (whether he ever had it is an open question).
You're right. He's lost his capacity to tolerate idiocy, ignorance, and willful suspensions of disbelief. Your capacity to buy into stupidity continues unabated.
"unabated"? Hardly, I generally ignore you, knowing as I do that you're a liar and a fool.
But it is zero sum income. The unemployed get income because working people get less. There is no free lunch. There is no stimulus going on.
Idiots like Lakhota can believe in "multipliers" all they want. But that doesnt make it true. The actual multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Meaning every dollar spent by the gov't results in less than a dollar of new GDP.
The concept is debatable and the empirical evidence is mixed. It's a fair criticism to say that unemployment checks are not stimulative.
It is not fair to say that someone who thinks otherwise is saying that unemployment is stimulative. That's ignorance, stupidity or mindless partisan hackery.
UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.
Note that it doesn't say anything about receiving benefits.I'm not sure why you would use a definition nobody else uses. When anyone else, ESPECIALLY the government, talks about "Unemployment" they're talking about TOTAL unemployment.Darlingheart, I'm referring only to the "under 8.3%" of people actually collecting unemployment (insurance checks), I'm not talking about the people who fell off the UI rolls.
No, dipshit. Frank is right. "Unemployment" refers to people on unemployment rolls, i.e. collecting checks. It does not count people who have given up looking for work or who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
I've said it before that the need to qualify this imagery stimulus as unemployment insurance checks is a distinction without a difference.
I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks. I'm mocking the very notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy.
The very idea that you buy into the notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy means you have been absorbed by the collective.
The idea that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy is at least as stupid as the idea that bank ATMs are hurting the economy.
I never heard either concept in my life until we get the Neo-Marxists in the White House
Really? Automatic stabilizers such as UI are taught in Macroeconomics 101. It may or may not be correct but it is very well known as a concept to every economics student.
And the test of whether or not it is stimulative is empirical, not some narrow-minded dogma.
I was taught a lot of crap that's either not true or just a lie, they also teach that FDR was "Great" too, that the New Deal rescued us from the Great Depression and that's the opposite of true and accurate.
Harding, Coolidge and Mellon addressed a bad economy by letting assets, liabilities and labor reprice and in 18 months UI went from 12% to 4%, that's what I call stimulus.
Hoover and FDR addressed a bad economy with Government spending, programs and higher taxes and we got an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years.
During the height of the FDR Depression, from 1933 to 1940, UI AVERAGED just under 20% and never dipped below 14%, where's the beef? Where's the stimulus doling out those UI checks?
I knew you'd join the non-thinking eventually, you have almost perfect State Defense response, I had hope you'd hold out longer than 45 seconds.
Remember this later when Val Jarett tells you that eating the brains of the living stimulates the economy
Your reasoning is grossly flawed. First you say I am making assumptions about causality. Then you say what matters is what unemployment would ahve been without it, i.e. what the insurance causes.The concept is debatable and the empirical evidence is mixed. It's a fair criticism to say that unemployment checks are not stimulative.
It is not fair to say that someone who thinks otherwise is saying that unemployment is stimulative. That's ignorance, stupidity or mindless partisan hackery.
UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.
Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
Really? Automatic stabilizers such as UI are taught in Macroeconomics 101. It may or may not be correct but it is very well known as a concept to every economics student.
And the test of whether or not it is stimulative is empirical, not some narrow-minded dogma.
I was taught a lot of crap that's either not true or just a lie, they also teach that FDR was "Great" too, that the New Deal rescued us from the Great Depression and that's the opposite of true and accurate.
Harding, Coolidge and Mellon addressed a bad economy by letting assets, liabilities and labor reprice and in 18 months UI went from 12% to 4%, that's what I call stimulus.
Hoover and FDR addressed a bad economy with Government spending, programs and higher taxes and we got an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Years.
During the height of the FDR Depression, from 1933 to 1940, UI AVERAGED just under 20% and never dipped below 14%, where's the beef? Where's the stimulus doling out those UI checks?
I knew you'd join the non-thinking eventually, you have almost perfect State Defense response, I had hope you'd hold out longer than 45 seconds.
Remember this later when Val Jarett tells you that eating the brains of the living stimulates the economy
empiricism > ideology
You should try it some day.
Your reasoning is grossly flawed. First you say I am making assumptions about causality. Then you say what matters is what unemployment would ahve been without it, i.e. what the insurance causes.UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.
Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
You can't have it both ways.
Either unemployment insurance (and let's concede this is what she meant) is stimulative, or it is not stimulative. There isn't a third possibility.
Your reasoning is grossly flawed. First you say I am making assumptions about causality. Then you say what matters is what unemployment would ahve been without it, i.e. what the insurance causes.Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
You can't have it both ways.
Either unemployment insurance (and let's concede this is what she meant) is stimulative, or it is not stimulative. There isn't a third possibility.
What would have been unemployment without the stimulus? If it's 8% today and it would have been 9% without it, or it would have been 8% anyways with or without it, that is the question that needs answering. The answer is not "Its 8% so it didn't work" - which is what you are arguing - without understanding what otherwise would have happened.
Your reasoning is grossly flawed. First you say I am making assumptions about causality. Then you say what matters is what unemployment would ahve been without it, i.e. what the insurance causes.
You can't have it both ways.
Either unemployment insurance (and let's concede this is what she meant) is stimulative, or it is not stimulative. There isn't a third possibility.
What would have been unemployment without the stimulus? If it's 8% today and it would have been 9% without it, or it would have been 8% anyways with or without it, that is the question that needs answering. The answer is not "Its 8% so it didn't work" - which is what you are arguing - without understanding what otherwise would have happened.
OK, so you're going with, "Things would have been much worse without it." That is a big fail-o. It is the last refuge of gov't failure.
Even the Obama Administration was smarter, saying the stimulus would keep UE under 8% (or whatever the figure was). In fact, with the stimulus UE rose above their own projections of what it would have been without the stimulus, never mind with.
Again, UE insurance is either stimulative or it is not stimulative. Theory would predict increased UE with longer UE benefits. Which is exactly what happened. Which part of that is wrong? That theory does not predict that if you reward certain behavior you get more of it? Or that we have not had unprecedented UE benefits? Or that UE is not historically high coming out of a recession? Because all three are demonstrably true.
The concept is debatable and the empirical evidence is mixed. It's a fair criticism to say that unemployment checks are not stimulative.
It is not fair to say that someone who thinks otherwise is saying that unemployment is stimulative. That's ignorance, stupidity or mindless partisan hackery.
UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.
Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.
Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
Those arguing that unemployment checks are stimulative are making major false assumptions, the first being that the money would not have been used in a stimulative way at all if government had not confiscated it from taxpayers and then spent it in this way. Provably false.
The 2nd is that money spent by the recipient of an entitlement check is more economically stimulative than when spent by the person who earned it. Get real.
The 3rd is the absolutely stupid and repeatedly proven false idea that government spends money more wisely and in a more economically stimulative way than the forces of the free market. That is beyond stupid and just flat out wrong. Government trying to pick economic winners is provably more wasteful and provides a fraction of the stimulative effect than the far more efficient forces of the free market. You get far more stimulative bang for your buck in the free market than you ever will from government which will always automatically mean layer upon layer of waste, fraud, inefficient and ineffective use of money and saving and rewarding waste, mismanagement and inefficient use of resources when government tries to replace the forces of the free market. If government is really after the most stimulative bang for the buck, the provably best course of action is to put more money back in the hands of those who earned where it will be used in the widest means possible and naturally flow to its most effective use. A tax cut is more stimulative than those who happen to occupy government rewarding political cronies, spending taxpayer dollars on politicians' pet projects like Solyndra or using taxpayer money to shore up failing businesses that can't attract private investment. If a business can't attract private investment, it's because it is too risky and a poor use of investment dollars. Not an indication that substituting private dollars with taxpayer dollars makes it less risky! Provably false and nothing but another inefficient use of precious resources.
Unemployment checks are not handed out because government spending my money is more stimulative than if I spend it - what a total crock of dumb ass bullshit! And for Obama or Pelosi to even suggest it provides an economic stimulus that would otherwise not exist, much less suggest it is a greater and more effective one than otherwise would exist is a LIE and an insult to the intelligence of most people who can immediately spot the flaw in that "logic". (sadly not an insult to some people's intelligence at all -lol).
Let's keep the discussion about unemployment checks here in the real world and not the liberal fantasy land that government is an all-wise, all-knowing magical entity instead of the bloated, inefficient institution it is even when it is at it's very best. (to say nothing of the fact it is a destructive, abusive monster at its worst) Unemployment checks are ONLY handed out in the belief it temporarily benefits the unemployed individual until he finds another job -but confiscating money from me so a different individual can spend it instead of me is NOT an economic stimulus, much less a better use of my money than it would have been in my hands. It is a form of charity and that's all. Charity is done to help someone in distress which is a worty goal -but it isn't an economic stimulus. So the real discussion should always be about how long unemployment checks are handed out before the benefit to the individual is offset by increasingly undesirable consequences like the fact the longer one is on unemployment, the more difficult it will be for the person to ind a job and less likely he will find one that paid him as well as the job he lost, becomes more likely to drop out of the work force -and then becomes another poor use by government of precious resources. In other words, the only argument is what length of time on unemployment maximizes the benefit to the individual and taxpayers. That time period has been REPEATEDLY proven to be THREE MONTHS. Not 3 years looking at 4.
Any economist will tell you that your reasoning is flawed because you are making assumptions about causality. What matters is what the unemployment rate would have been without it. It's like the protectionist saying that jobs are saved because of tariffs.
Again, I am not saying the argument is correct. What I'm saying is that it is ignorant or intellectually dishonest to say she is saying unemployment is stimulative. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
Those arguing that unemployment checks are stimulative are making major false assumptions, the first being that the money would not have been used in a stimulative way at all if government had not confiscated it from taxpayers and then spent it in this way. Provably false.
The 2nd is that money spent by the recipient of an entitlement check is more economically stimulative than when spent by the person who earned it. Get real.
The 3rd is the absolutely stupid and repeatedly proven false idea that government spends money more wisely and in a more economically stimulative way than the forces of the free market. That is beyond stupid and just flat out wrong. Government trying to pick economic winners is provably more wasteful and provides a fraction of the stimulative effect than the far more efficient forces of the free market. You get far more stimulative bang for your buck in the free market than you ever will from government which will always automatically mean layer upon layer of waste, fraud, inefficient and ineffective use of money and saving and rewarding waste, mismanagement and inefficient use of resources when government tries to replace the forces of the free market. If government is really after the most stimulative bang for the buck, the provably best course of action is to put more money back in the hands of those who earned where it will be used in the widest means possible and naturally flow to its most effective use. A tax cut is more stimulative than those who happen to occupy government rewarding political cronies, spending taxpayer dollars on politicians' pet projects like Solyndra or using taxpayer money to shore up failing businesses that can't attract private investment. If a business can't attract private investment, it's because it is too risky and a poor use of investment dollars. Not an indication that substituting private dollars with taxpayer dollars makes it less risky! Provably false and nothing but another inefficient use of precious resources.
Unemployment checks are not handed out because government spending my money is more stimulative than if I spend it - what a total crock of dumb ass bullshit! And for Obama or Pelosi to even suggest it provides an economic stimulus that would otherwise not exist, much less suggest it is a greater and more effective one than otherwise would exist is a LIE and an insult to the intelligence of most people who can immediately spot the flaw in that "logic". (sadly not an insult to some people's intelligence at all -lol).
Let's keep the discussion about unemployment checks here in the real world and not the liberal fantasy land that government is an all-wise, all-knowing magical entity instead of the bloated, inefficient institution it is even when it is at it's very best. (to say nothing of the fact it is a destructive, abusive monster at its worst) Unemployment checks are ONLY handed out in the belief it temporarily benefits the unemployed individual until he finds another job -but confiscating money from me so a different individual can spend it instead of me is NOT an economic stimulus, much less a better use of my money than it would have been in my hands. It is a form of charity and that's all. Charity is done to help someone in distress which is a worty goal -but it isn't an economic stimulus. So the real discussion should always be about how long unemployment checks are handed out before the benefit to the individual is offset by increasingly undesirable consequences like the fact the longer one is on unemployment, the more difficult it will be for the person to ind a job and less likely he will find one that paid him as well as the job he lost, becomes more likely to drop out of the work force -and then becomes another poor use by government of precious resources. In other words, the only argument is what length of time on unemployment maximizes the benefit to the individual and taxpayers. That time period has been REPEATEDLY proven to be THREE MONTHS. Not 3 years looking at 4.
You don't know the law. And you are an asshole besides. I am so sick of you bunch of social Darwinists. FYI, the biggest social Darwinist of the 20th century was Joseph Stalin.
Unemployment Compensation
The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives:
(1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and
(2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.
Unemployment Compensation
Condition (2) applies.
I have a couple of patients whose unemployment compensation is about to run out. I don't think they see themselves as great stimulants to the economy. I see them being scared shitless about how they will make it once their unemployment compensation is gone.
I mean, really. Other threads talk about the PC police. Claiming that unemployment 'stimulates the economy' is just crass.
So if you DON'T reward some behavior you WON'T get more of it? In which fucking universe, Einstein?What would have been unemployment without the stimulus? If it's 8% today and it would have been 9% without it, or it would have been 8% anyways with or without it, that is the question that needs answering. The answer is not "Its 8% so it didn't work" - which is what you are arguing - without understanding what otherwise would have happened.
OK, so you're going with, "Things would have been much worse without it." That is a big fail-o. It is the last refuge of gov't failure.
Even the Obama Administration was smarter, saying the stimulus would keep UE under 8% (or whatever the figure was). In fact, with the stimulus UE rose above their own projections of what it would have been without the stimulus, never mind with.
Again, UE insurance is either stimulative or it is not stimulative. Theory would predict increased UE with longer UE benefits. Which is exactly what happened. Which part of that is wrong? That theory does not predict that if you reward certain behavior you get more of it? Or that we have not had unprecedented UE benefits? Or that UE is not historically high coming out of a recession? Because all three are demonstrably true.
What is constantly flawed in right wing regressive dogma is the "if you reward certain behavior you get more of it".
The Obama administration was left with a jobless rate at 3/4 million jobs lost per month and getting worse. WTF would you do asshole? There are 5 unemployed citizens for every 1 job opening. NO ONE lost their job because of anything they did. And NO ONE is going to be satisfied or on easy street on 1/2 or less of what they made while working. And then having to either go without health insurance, or pay through the nose for Cobra.
This is such typical right wing scum talk. You right wing scum believe in only ONE solution: PUNISHMENT.
FUCK YOU!!!
So if you DON'T reward some behavior you WON'T get more of it? In which fucking universe, Einstein?OK, so you're going with, "Things would have been much worse without it." That is a big fail-o. It is the last refuge of gov't failure.
Even the Obama Administration was smarter, saying the stimulus would keep UE under 8% (or whatever the figure was). In fact, with the stimulus UE rose above their own projections of what it would have been without the stimulus, never mind with.
Again, UE insurance is either stimulative or it is not stimulative. Theory would predict increased UE with longer UE benefits. Which is exactly what happened. Which part of that is wrong? That theory does not predict that if you reward certain behavior you get more of it? Or that we have not had unprecedented UE benefits? Or that UE is not historically high coming out of a recession? Because all three are demonstrably true.
What is constantly flawed in right wing regressive dogma is the "if you reward certain behavior you get more of it".
The Obama administration was left with a jobless rate at 3/4 million jobs lost per month and getting worse. WTF would you do asshole? There are 5 unemployed citizens for every 1 job opening. NO ONE lost their job because of anything they did. And NO ONE is going to be satisfied or on easy street on 1/2 or less of what they made while working. And then having to either go without health insurance, or pay through the nose for Cobra.
This is such typical right wing scum talk. You right wing scum believe in only ONE solution: PUNISHMENT.
FUCK YOU!!!
The Obama Administration inherited an economy bottoming out. UE was the best it ever was in his administration on the day he took office. UE has never recovered to taht point since. Is that despite his actions, or because of them?
It was clearly because of his actions. There is no other explanation. Unless you want to say that gov't cannot influence the economy, which no one believes. We have had the highest rate of joblessness of any recovery. And the highest UE benefits paid. Coincidence? No, I dont think so.
So the administration's approach ahs kept people unemployed, and degraded their employable by keeping them out fo the workforce. If that isn't a big Fuck You to the workingman, I dont know what is.
I have a couple of patients whose unemployment compensation is about to run out. I don't think they see themselves as great stimulants to the economy. I see them being scared shitless about how they will make it once their unemployment compensation is gone.
I mean, really. Other threads talk about the PC police. Claiming that unemployment 'stimulates the economy' is just crass.
That's the argument for UI. People spend all of their UI. Without it, their spending will fall and the economy will suffer.
The argument against UI is that because they are scared, they will look harder to find a job and will accept any job.
