Skip to main content

AP's Taylor Relays Tired 'Extending Unemployment Benefits Stimulates the Economy' Fiction

Tom Blumer's picture

The dictionary definition of "stimulate" relevant to a nation's economy is "to rouse to action or effort."

We still have journalists who gullibly relay the notion that extending unemployment benefits and increasing entitlement programs will "rouse" the economy "to action of effort," despite almost three years of evidence that such is not the case. One of them is Andrew Taylor, a writer for the Associated Press, who, in his unprofessionally titled ("Deficit deal failure would pose crummy choice") and painfully long writeup about the supercommittee's lack of action or effort in Washington, wrote the following:


Letting extended jobless assistance expire would mean that more than 6 million people would lose benefits averaging $296 a week next year, with 1.8 million cut off within a month.

Economist say those jobless benefits - up to 99 weeks of them in high unemployment states - are among the most effective way to stimulate the economy because unemployed people generally spend the money right away.

Setting aside the garbled structure of the bolded sentence, and not minimizing the suffering of many of the unemployed and their families -- exactly how does giving money to an unemployed person "rouse" him or her "to action and effort"? Sadly, in some cases, as will be shown shortly, it does the opposite by discouraging people from temporarily taking jobs they believe are supposedly beneath their dignity or outside of the chosen field.

Taylor, by not adding a qualifier like "some," "most," or even "almost all," writes as if there is no dissent from the view of his unnamed "economists."

Well, yes there is. One of many dissents came from Karen Campbell and James Sherk at Heritage in November 2008 (bolds are mine):

Extended Unemployment Insurance -- No Economic Stimulus

... Unemployment Insurance Prolongs Unemployment. One of the most thoroughly established results in labor economics is the effect of unemployment benefits on unemployed workers' behavior. Labor economists agree that extended unemployment benefits cause workers to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would.

This occurs for obvious reasons: Workers respond to incentives. Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work. Consequently workers with UI benefits look for new jobs less rigorously than do workers without them. The typical unemployed worker spends about 32 minutes a day looking for a new job. Workers eligible for UI benefits spend only 20 minutes a day looking for work during their 15th week of unemployment. They look much harder when their benefits are about to end, spending more than 70 minutes a day job hunting in the 26th week of unemployment.

... Since workers with unemployment benefits search less rigorously for work until their benefits are about to expire, it takes them longer to find new jobs. Labor economists estimate that extending the potential duration of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks increases the average amount of time workers on UI remain unemployed by two weeks.

This has economic consequences. Workers do not create economic wealth during the additional weeks they remain unemployed. They save and consume less because UI insurance replaces only a portion of their wages. Labor markets become less flexible because it takes more time for workers to transition from one industry or state to another. This hinders economic growth.

Of course continuously extending unemployment benefits hinders growth. The question which champions of the dependency state seek to avoid addressing is whether that hindrance and the direct cost of the benefits themselves are worth it when compared to other potential benefits which might include such things as keeping families from breaking apart or in some cases preventing homelessness. So they pretend that there really is no cost -- and that's even before getting into the extent to which those who are working become demoralized when they see their neighbors sliding by relatively effortlessly.

The authors go on to debunk the assumption that ever dollar of unemployment benefits equals an additional dollar cycling through the economy, noting that "For a large number of families, extended UI benefits do less to increase consumption than to provide alternative financing for consumption that would nonetheless take place."

There may be justifications for extending benefits, but doing so because it's good for the economy isn't one of them. A reporter at the self-described Essential Global News Network shouldn't be echoing the talking points of Nancy Pelosi and Sherrod Brown while pretending there isn't another side to the story. But apparently that's just another day at the office for Andrew Taylor and The Administration's Press.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Comments

#1 Give unemployment benefits to everyone!

Let's do a trial run. Put everyone on unemployment. This means you're not allowed to work. Using this clown's theory, the economy would explode - or something. "Unnamed" economists were unavailable for comment.

#2 Yes, the unending benefits have really "helped" the economy ;oD

Libs truly border on idiots, perhaps they even cross the line.
They tell us this crap, or record cold temps are a sign of AGW, or that the
Bush tax rates werent extended last Dec by the massive Dem Congress, etc
The big question: are libs really this stupid, or just dishonest, and if the latter, to what end?

#3 "99 weeks of unemployment in the mail, 99 weeks in the mail..."

"...You take one down and cash it around, 99 weeks of unemployment in the mail."

Okay, let's test this assertion, okay?

Surely between week 1 and week 99 we'll see a change in America's economy, right? Something lasting, meaningful, right?

Let's see:

1. Nope.
2. Not yet.
3. Stlll not feelin' it.
4. Bummer.
5. Not even a tingle yet, dammit.
6. Waiting
7. Waiting
8. Waiting
9. Still waiting. Can I have that bagel?
10. Anyone seen my car keys?
11. Anyone seen the price of gas?
12. Crap. Can't afford to drive anyway.
13. Change yet?
14. Nope.
15. I still need a job.
16. Is it Recover Summer yet?
17. Didn't the recession officially end in June 2009?
18. What the?
19. I'm not being lazy, dammit.
20. I haven't lost my imagination.
21. I need printer toner to print out another 100 resumes.
22. Can't afford it.
23. Still waiting.
24. No change yet.
25. Is this thing on?
26. He's "focused" on job creation.
27. Says he "wake up every day thinking about it."
28. Goes to bed "every night, thinking about it."
29. Me too.
30. Is this thing on?
31. How much is a first class stamp these days?
32. Maybe I should snail mail the next 100 resumes.
33. Crap.
34. Can't afford it.
35. Has anyone seen my car keys?
36. Has anyone seen my car?
37. Whah?
38. They repo'd it?
39. Was it that bald guy in the overalls? He's tough, man.
40. I like that show.
41. Got a lot of time to watch it now.
42. Is that the phone?
43. Maybe it's a job offer!
44. Wrong number.
45. Are we stimulated yet?
46. Waiting.
47. Waiting.
48. Waiting.
49. Am I too young to have dinner at 4?
50. That's just too sad.
51. Never mind.
52. What happened to Bob Barker?
53. He hosted Price is Right last time I looked.
54. Damn.
55. Is that the phone?
56. Where' the mute button?
57. Bill collector.
58. Crap.
59. Are we stimulated yet?
60. Waiting.

#4 Good one Annie*

This one also comes to mind

#5 Accidentally hit "return"

Thanks for the props, but I feel bad cluttering up NB with TWO long posts.
I can't seem to delete the one with 60, I presume because we've (both now) replied to it.

Think if I post to the Admin, here, DELETE IT, he will?

If you do it too?

I don't want to be a bad doobie ;)

#6 Sorry Annie

Cajun didnt even give you a chance to "preview"...

Dont feel bad about long posts.   Take a look at Clevenative and all shame is gone....;-)

#7 I'm not the admin, but I say keep it ...

... it builds suspense for the other 39.

#8 Don't worry,

Don't worry, Annie.........we've seen worse clutter - especially lately.

#9 99 Weeks of "Stimulative Change"

"...You take one down and cash it around, 99 weeks of unemployment in the mail."

Okay, let's test this assertion, okay?

Surely between week 1 and week 99 we'll see a change in America's economy, right? Something lasting, meaningful, right?

Let's see:

1. Nope.
2. Not yet.
3. Stlll not feelin' it.
4. Bummer.
5. Not even a tingle yet, dammit.
6. Waiting
7. Waiting
8. Waiting
9. Still waiting. Can I have that bagel?
10. Anyone seen my car keys?
11. Anyone seen the price of gas?
12. Crap. Can't afford to drive anyway.
13. Change yet?
14. Nope.
15. I still need a job.
16. Is it Recover Summer yet?
17. Didn't the recession officially end in June 2009?
18. What the?
19. I'm not being lazy, dammit.
20. I haven't lost my imagination.
21. I need printer toner to print out another 100 resumes.
22. Can't afford it.
23. Still waiting.
24. No change yet.
25. Is this thing on?
26. He's "focused" on job creation.
27. Says he "wake up every day thinking about it."
28. Goes to bed "every night, thinking about it."
29. Me too.
30. Is this thing on?
31. How much is a first class stamp these days?
32. Maybe I should snail mail the next 100 resumes.
33. Crap.
34. Can't afford it.
35. Has anyone seen my car keys?
36. Has anyone seen my car?
37. Whah?
38. They repo'd it?
39. Was it that bald guy in the overalls? He's tough, man.
40. I like that show.
41. Got a lot of time to watch it now.
42. Is that the phone?
43. Maybe it's a job offer!
44. Wrong number.
45. Are we stimulated yet?
46. Waiting.
47. Waiting.
48. Waiting.
49. Am I too young to have dinner at 4?
50. That's just too sad.
51. Never mind.
52. ONE YEAR OF WAITING - Hey - What happened to Bob Barker?
53. He hosted Price is Right last time I looked.
54. Damn.
55. Is that the phone?
56. Where' the mute button?
57. Bill collector.
58. Crap.
59. Are we stimulated yet?
60. Waiting.
61. Still waiting.
61. I can't even pronounce "Barrista."
62. Beside, I refuse to call a medium "Grande."
63. Forget it.
64. Maybe Dunkin' is hiring?
65. Do people still thumb?
66. Maybe I should hitch a ride to Yellowstone or something.
67. Nah.
68. Long winters.
69. Are we stimulated yet?
70. Waiting.
71. Waiting.
72. Still waiting.
73. I've decided I don't like Price is Right without Bob Barker.
74. But old Pyramid reruns are cool.
75. Hey!
76. Game six of the Red Sox 1986 series is on!
77. Billy Frickin' Buckner.
78. There's always next year guys.
79. I'm starting to know how they feel.
80. Hello?
81. Hello? I'm here! Don't hang up.
82. No, I don't need diabetic supplies.
83. How did I get on your list?
84. Take me off your g*ddamned list.
85. I'm going for a walk.
86. No messages waiting when I got back.
87. Something's gonna change, right?
88. They said so, right?
89. When?
90. Taco Bell is not food.
91. But I eat it anyway.
92. I think I'm going to take up mall-walking.
93. I'll be the youngest one there by 50 years.
94. Maybe they could tell me what they did during the first Great Depression.
95. I could be a better janitor than the mall guy.
96. Really.
97. Has anything changed yet?
98. Hello?
99. Hello????

#10 Facts are facts

The unemployed guy will not put this money in a 1% interest acct--he will spend it. Someone else will get it and they will spend it. It may not heal the econ, but does not make it worse. Similar to this was a NYT story last week on how kids staying at home cost landlords and Home Depot money and were hurting the economy. If they paid rent to the parental units--those people would spend it--if they spent it on electronics, the electronics people got it and maybe could put more people on. If they had no money--they at least had a safety net not from the state or feds. Hating unemployed people is just another division of this country. This is a consumer based economy and we better consume!

 

 

#11 WRONG

The underlying premise is where libs always go wrong on this one.

You're assuming that the pie is fixed. That the dollar is predestined to be spent the way the employee, now unemployed, would spend it. You don't know that. The employee might make very different choices if not for the inducement to stay in one place.

Further, these dollars are spent TWICE. Once to the unemployed recipient, and then AGAIN because after the first 26 weeks, WE ALL have to pay for it. Employers PAY THE BOAT for the insurance on this & WE'RE the insurer! THEY'RE NOT STUPID. They will do what anyone in survival mode does when they know the feds are reaching in for another 13, 20, 26 weeks, drip, drip, drip... THEY'LL SUSPEND PRO-GROWTH ECONOMIC ACTIVITY UNTIL THE THREAT IS PASSED.

That's basic g*ddamned human nature. Unless you are ready to argue against the existence of the survival instinct you must concede that point.

I have NO PROBLEM with 99 weeks in ObAmerica, by the way. And could go for another year, even. Because NOBODY is going to hire ANYONE until OBAMA IS GONE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS. So, I regard it as the humane thing to do until the boy tyrant is dethroned. Let 'em have it, and get rid of Bam-Bam, then we can all get back to being America again.

#12 ~Star

In order to spend money that comes from the government, the government must first take it from the economy in order to send it to the guy who spends it. Or, they must borrow it from another country's economy and pay interest on it later. In order to pay it off, and pay the interest on it, they must take money out of our economy.

About two and a half years ago I had a tagline: "Expecting the government to fix the economy is like trying to live off the leech stuck to your @ss."
They can only give us what they've already taken from us, or will take from us in the future. That means it doesn't do a thing for the economy except freak us all out.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#13 Well, I know what I am reading in the WSJ next week.

Yes. The government had to borrow all that money to pay all those extra unemployment checks. Who does it borrow it from? Mostly the people in this country and other countries governments.

7.7 Trillion is marketable and held by investors.

Of that 7.7 Trillion -

      3.2 Trillion are held by private investors here.

      4.4 Trillion are held by foreigners and foreign governments.

Figures here.

#14 ~I ♥ The Vet and his links

After a week-long migraine I'm just not up to dredging the net for links. Thanks for all your work around here, love.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#15 Hmmm

Let me guess--you are working. Since you choose to patronize me with oversimplified explanations, allow me to point out that we need to hand money to each other or this thing is going down. Even living under that overpass, you need some. No, it should not come from China, but just sitting on these boards and saying that does nothing. And yes, someone might see a bottle of Mad Dog 20-20 as a priority for their unemployment--one more liquor factory guy who keeps a job.

 

 

#16 Hmmmmm.

   That sounded hostile. Was that hostile? It sounded hostile. What was with the oversimplified explanation gag? That was hostile, wasn't it? As though we needed to hit the books to have this complicated sentence sink into our brains ---

The unemployed guy will not put this money in a 1% interest acct--he will spend it.

#17 ~Patronize you?

I thought whatserface was over the top harsh to you, and I like you, so I explained my point of view in a simple, direct, non-hostile manner. (so I thought)

I made $20 watching the neighbor's kid for her for a few hours last week, if that counts.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#18 Bru

Well now you've gone and done it. You better report that income to the IRS, they need every penny of that $20 they can tax!

Proud member of the 53%!

#19 ~I put it in my 1% interest-bearing account

Okay, that was a joke. I spent the cash at Costco and left $20 in my 1% interest-bearing account that would otherwise have been spent at Costco. It saved me a step.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#20 But more to the point....

You did not borrow the $20 from your neighbor and leave an IOU. Thus leading him to spend $20 less that week at Costco. Leading to the same amount of spending at CostCo that would have come in anyway. Net result of the borrowing money to give to someone on the economy of CostCo - Big Fat Zero.

Or did I oversimplify that?

#21 ~Stop patronizing me!

:-p

We now return you to your regularly programmed 'Economics in a Nutshell, Wrapped in Humor' weekly drama.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

#22 I thought it was hostile.

Yep. Sure did seem hostile. Then there was the "...just sitting on these boards and saying that does nothing" What was up with that? All we do is sit here on this board and say things. It is kinda the entire point of the boards, to let people say things. Most definitely hostile I believe.

#23 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Only a liberal could write a story like guy Taylor...

#24 More deflection to “make your point”.

NOTHING you provided here – EVEN from the right-wing “think tank” liars at The Heritage Foundation does ANYTHING to disprove the FACT that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. It’s all DEFLECTION or think-tank "opinion".

The “authors” at The Heritage Foundation are paid shills. Of course “they say” this or they say that. They say what they are paid to say. EVERYONE knows that (Well, most everyone I guess). What I am never able to figure out is – are people who buy into the Heritage Foundation lies just ignorant to what they really are, or is it the tendency for conservatives to embrace “what they want to hear” that causes them to ignore fact for fiction?

Unlike the partisan, Heritage foundation – Moody’s Economics is one of the most respected fiscal analysis corporations in the world. They produced a “bang for the buck” graph of the effectiveness of economic “stimulus” incentives, and their analysis shows that ALL of the “supply-side” Republican favorites are the least effective. For every dollar spent on Unemployment Benefits $1.63 is put back into the economy. For Food Stamps the amount is $1.73. Yes it costs and adds to the deficit but it does stimulate the economy and provide jobs which is what is needed in such bad economic times.

Here are 2 graphs from Moody’s – one is the “Bang for the Buck” graph of Tax Cuts and spending increases that shows the “per dollar” investment return or loss. That graph was published when the Obama Stimulus was being debated. The other is a recent graph comparing progressive proposals to Heritage Foundation proposals.

Bang For The Buck

Jobs Created per $10 Billion Spent

The “Reaganomics” spin never ends – despite have been proven a failure how many times now? And yet Republicans still hang on to it as infallible gospel.

I don’t get it, really. What makes you think these people who have been unable to find work will magically “find a job” if Unemployment Insurance is cut off? And if not, what will they do to sustain themselves and their family without Unemployment Insurance? (Something they have to pay into to be qualified to receive) Do you people really believe that these people are “just lazy” and that there are jobs out there for them if they just look?

Another thing I don’t understand is how this has become a partisan political issue. There are as many conservatives as there are liberals who are unemployed and receiving benefits. As a matter of fact, there are numerous studies that have shown Red States receive more federal funding (per capita) than Blue States.

I don’t know how you fools can think this problem will just “go away” if you eliminate Unemployment extensions. Without the safety net, more families will fall into poverty, lose their homes, turn to crime, lose mental stability, rely more heavily on other state and local social programs, and on and on and on with all the other consequences of such an idiotic notion.

And where are the “jobs, jobs, jobs” Republicans ran on to trick the voters in 2010? I thought you folks were going to be our saviors to fix the problem? We wouldn’t be having this argument if the Teapublicans held true to their promises – rather than their decision to sabotage the economy in hopes of political gains. I’ll be laughing my ass off next November when you are faced to realize how badly this has all backfired on you (as if what’s been going on over the past few months isn’t wake-up call enough). Yet you continue to blatantly inflict further pain on working class voters hoping they will “blame Obama” for their suffering. You don’t think Democratic 2012 campaign ads will be reminding voters where that pain really originated? Teapublicans deserve all the pain they have coming.

#25 And there it is again.

The whining insulting rant troll, little fruit Clementine, once again insults anything on the right and then claims oh gee, you guys just don't like dissenting opinion.

... right-wing “think tank” liars..... ....The Heritage Foundation are paid shills. ...are people who buy into the Heritage Foundation lies...ignorant ...conservatives,...ignore fact for fiction? ...the partisan, Heritage foundation... The “Reaganomics” spin... never ends.... ....you fools ...an idiotic notion... ...Teapublicans...decision to sabotage the economy. ...you...inflict further pain on working class voters... Teapublicans.

  Insults and lies. It is all you do troll.

Troll Alert - Clevenative - insulting bigoted rant troll.
 

Now don't forget to go back there and tell everyone we are picking on you juz cuz yu dizagreez.

 

#26 They certainly have their talking points down, don't they!

Too bad it's all off the center of the topic.

Now, if they came back and said "history teaches us this, this, and that. look" then I would be happy to look. Or if they would frame the argument some other way than a rearranged set of the same words they used the first time, only with exclamation points, it would be more credible.

Guess that's what happens when you can't support a moral impulse with economic data.

And for the record, I say give EVERYBODY another YEAR of unemployment until we vote the boy tyrant out of office. I never, ever, thought I would support 3 years of aid, but I think the relentlessly toxic message coming out of the Oval has proven itself fixed. He just doesn't understand us, or like us very much, and as such, will not trust us with our own money, and as such, it will be withheld until the threat of him is gone. Therefore, help the suffering - as long as we get this commie out next year!

I know Krugman likes to make this wicked hard, but its not. His told us in February 2009 "there comes a time you've earned enough" and that's why he is hellbent on chipping into profits, certain (wrongly) that we will have a "moral awakening" and "share the wealth" with our workers.

You know, Barry, I know that your mother abandoned you at 10, but surely she or your grandmother must have told you "Life isn't fair." Not everybody gets to be a boss. Know why? Because not everyone is talented enough, will work hard enough, will risk everything, and/or be lucky enough to make a go of it.

Some people are very content just punching in and out and being good citizens.

LEAVE US ALONE.

Free up the best capital you have - US - We'll help where our eyeballs land - AT HOME - in our own communities, our neighbors.

We're good people. Don't you know that?

#27 Extending unemployment

Extending unemployment benefits and food stamps ....create jobs?

Without a doubt one of the stupidest things I have ever heard come out of a Liberals mouth.

#28 If anyone's lacking grey matter here it's not the "liberals"

At a time when unemployment for some groups is over 25%, what do you think would happen to all the "small businesses" that Republicans claim to support (and even big retailers like Wall Mart) if not for Food Stamps and Unempolyment Benefits? It is the economy being stimulated by those programs - from people who immediately spend it - that helps keep those businesses afloat and prevent loss of jobs during bad times when people with jobs are "tightening their belts".

Is that REALLY too hard to understand?

So you deny the $1.63 and $1.73 "bang for the buck" and job-saving figures presented by Moody's over some right-wing "think tank" funded by the corporate elite who PAY Heritage to push the propaganda and lies? Moody's is "liberal media" propaganda - and Heritage Foundation is "non-partisan" and "fair and balanced". Got it. [roll]

I can't believe so many people have been poisoned by the Heritage Foundation Kool Aid.

Deny, deny, deny - that's all Teapublicans know how to do is deny - oh, and attack the "libtards" (meaning anyone "not like us"). There is no shame - absolutely no shame in their lies and denial. I continue to just shake my head in disbelief.

#29 The Minnesota. clevester

According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at MoodysEconomy.com and a senior advisor to Senator McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, extending unemployment insurance benefits creates $1.63 in demand for every dollar spent. That's pretty stimulative. And it makes sense - unemployment benefits are likely to be spent, quickly and in local communities

I've seen that!  EBM Machines creates 163 % over OverUnity Power Plant units working on youtube,.These things are all over China.

 

Great word there in that report "Creates", As if the hand of God is upon them, the new green god.

Whom figgured the math on that one $1.63.... not $0.99 or after taxes, $0.66...

#30 Just

one point at a time, Cleve. Your insistence on the efficacy of UI as an economic stimulus overlooks the fact that, for every dollar spent on UI, a dollar is taken OUT of the economy in the form of taxes and then preloaded with governmental administration costs. Never mind the simple fact that seems to escape you: more unemployment does not indicate a stimulated economy.

Your logic is much like the EU's ruling this week that says water companies may not claim that water helps prevent dehydration. Typical leftist reasoning--totally illogical, completely without merit, but you'll defend it to your last breath.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

#31 Only one person is being simple-mided here

Look – I understand where the money has to come from and that it adds to the debt and has to be repaid. The economy is much more complicated than just the 3rd grade math that Teapublicans try to make it out to be. My point was that there isn’t an economist worth their salt who would say government stimulus is not needed when “the free market” is not working up to snuff. And throughout history both parties have used tax dollars to kick-start the economy.

The only argument was, and continues to be, the type of stimulus. And the Moody research shows exactly which party had the better plan for stimulus. (Go back to the graphs I included links to 2 posts back) Compared to permanent tax cuts especially, some of the best “bang for the buck” comes out of Unemployment and Food Stamps.

If you don’t realize the failures of supply-side economics, you must have been playing Rip Van Winkle for the past 3 decades – especially the last decade. Money to the wealthy and corporations did not create jobs. Those people (and corporations) when given more money “under the threat of bad times” only hang on to it all the more. But stimulus such as Food Stamps and unemployment compensation is immediately 100% put back into the economy (and then some). It doesn’t take a Herman Cain “rocket scientist” to figure that out – all it takes is a look at statistics and graphs of the economy and (lack of) job creation under the GW Bush Administration following the GW Tax Cuts. It’s not like I’m telling you anything that most Americans don’t FINALLY understand. Most now realize those Republican promises were all “coddle-the-rich” hot air as much as I do.

Back in 2009, If not for the recent uproar over the taxpayer costs for the GW TARP bailout - and using over 1/3 of the stimulus to provide one of the largest tax cuts in history (mostly in order to get Republicans onboard) - and the need to use a large chunk to keep teachers, police, and firefighters at their jobs in states across the nation - the Obama stimulus would have been twice the size. Most economists today agree that, despite effectively pulling the economy out of the nosedive, it was not as effective as needed because it was too small. If not for that unforeseen situation, the majority of an "Obama Stimulus" would have been used on public works projects to create millions of jobs and rebuild our long-neglected infrastructure (which we will still have to pay for at an even higher cost as it continues to crumble) - as were the visions of "change" our new progressive president had in the summer of 2008 before the housing bubble burst and the economy fell off the cliff.

There it is in one paragraph - why things did not work out as well as visioned and promised by Pres. Obama in the last campaign and since (less the filibustering "Party of No" and Tea Party "mandate" insanity part of the story). I can only begin to imagine where we'd be today if not for what happened in the final months of the GW Bush administration.

#32 Go Browns!!!!!

Go Browns!!!!!

#33 Well, Henry, your comment

Well, Henry, your comment makes a helluva lot more sense than Clevie-Poo's.

And..........hey, meat.............I thought you were leaving this site - as it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beneath your 'pay grade', (and definitly beneath your IQ and your total grasp of the 'truth'), as your Boy Barry might say.

And, since you're so successfully retired - after 30 years in the union, and another 25 as some kind of computer whiz - the only thing that you can get upset with is some God-fearing woman who's been laid off 3 times, expousing her 'conservative values', while using YOUR tax money to pay her mortgage, and educate and subsidize her kids????

But the trillions of dollars in unemployment and food stamps are actually OK with you??? Well, I can understand the unemployment - since you've probably TAKEN it, and never PAID into it. But the food stamps are undoubtedly partially paid for by your precious tax dollars - unless you were in some public sector union, in which case WE paid your taxes, asshole.

Are you going to make good on your 'word' (which is worth about as much as your 'truth') and get the hell out of here??

Oh, yeah.............you really had your gay panties in a bunch about me calling you out for using the word 'teabagger', right???
Don't you have a blog using the same term???

Oh........but you hate liars, and you're the only guy here who knows the 'truth'..................

#34 It usually looks that way

I was on Unemployment 4 times in my entire life - and never for longer than 3 months.

You’re whining about supplementing a program that provides insurance protection for an employee should you experience a slowdown and have to lay them off and put another family at risk of sliding into poverty? You’re whining about a net average $56 per year payout per employee for such an insurance? Geeze, you’re even greedier and more selfish than I thought.

Just like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance is one of the most popular social safety net programs in the country - and by design, is self-sufficient. When times are good the funds build to supplement the need to “dip into the kitty” when times are bad. If the idiots in Congress (and state legislatures) weren’t dipping into those funds to pay other debts and expenses, there would be no “solvency” issues. The problem with Social Security is not Social Security, it is the spiraling out-of-control costs of healthcare in this country and that comes from the Medicare (and now, thanks to an UNPAID FOR bill passed by Republicans under the GW Bush Administration, Prescription Drug coverage). The solution is not to trash SS, it is to figure out why healthcare costs in this country are almost double that of many other nations while we have virtually no statistical data that makes us “the best” in any area of healthcare (except the best “5 Star Hotel” healthcare facilities).

I can agree that “reform” is needed in many areas of government, but I will never agree to slash or eliminate the very programs that sustain the working class during bad times, or turn them over to “for-profit” private entities just to appease the anti-government Teapublicans who see everything the government does that doesn’t help their interests as evil socialism.

I got news for you people who buy into this unsustainable fairytale libertarian utopian dream… We, just like most democratic nations in the world, are a “social democracy” and have been so for nearly a century now. YOU ARE A SOCIALIST and have been one all of your life. The only difference in your love of socialism is that you promote the “government welfare” for yourself and corporations – and the rest of us embrace it “to promote the GENERAL WELFARE” of “we the people” - just as explaned as the purpose of the federal government in the Preamble to the Constitution that you claim to support but are really hell-bent on destroying.

#35 Tell us about it little fruit Clementine.

I was on Unemployment 4 times in my entire life - and never for longer than 3 months.

Tell us about how you lost your house when you were disabled in 1985 yet you were on unemployment for less than 3 months.

Tell us about your disability that stopped you from being able to SIT in front of a computer.

Tell us about your union that included white collar programmers, the first union on the planet that still cannot be located anywhere.

Tell us about your fake white collar computer programmers union that wiped out their pension, again a first for a union to lose a pension.

Do tell us all about your fake life story while you insult everyone here.

Come on. Tell us. How you still lay down to type on a computer to this day due to your cantsitdownitis.

Insults and lies. You are really building up that troll resume.

#37 Do you EVER debate the REAL issue?

Or are "attack the messenger" personal attacks, name-calling, and stereotypical assumptions the ONLY thing in the right-wing playbook? Is that all you got, really?

You're showing EXACTLY why Republicans are on their way out - why Americans are rejecting and fed-up with their childish no-compromise bickering and gossip - where their first knee-jerk reaction is to deflect, distract, and smear the individual who exposes the truth behind their lies. Constantly playing the holier-than-though saints while whining about how they are the victims of "haters" and "liberal media bias" yet constantly preaching their hate and bigotry and accusing everyone else of "playing the victim". Some things never change I guess, but more than ever you keep pigeonholing yourself into the stereotype of "utter hypocrites" that you've created for yourselves.

#38 Talking to yourself AGAIN, Liar?

If you're going to do that, please do it over at your own lame blog.

#39 Actually, Clevenaive,

According to a Gallup poll taken in August of this year  the number of conservatives is increasing slightly and outnumbers liberals by about 2-1 (42% to 21%).

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer

#40 ...And this means???

Maybe if conservatives hadn't spent the past 40 years on a smear campaign turning liberal into a dirty word, those numbers would be vastly different. I could care less about some poll telling me how people label themselves. MOST people don't have the slightest idea about what either conservative or liberal even means.

Republicans especially have turned the word “conservative” on its head over the past few decades. If you look further at the “conserve” part of the word – they have literally made a mockery of that. You see, unlike what you like to believe, government has grown larger and spending risen under each of the post WWII Republican presidents when compared to the Democratic Administrations. They are every bit as responsible for both “big-government” and “government-spending” – and not such a great record on raising taxes either. Saint Ronald of Reagan alone raised taxes 11 times and increased federal spending by 53 percent over his 8 year span. But why worry about facts when you have Heritage Foundation to re-write history and set the narrative?

Also, in the wake of the GW crash and the landslide Obama victory, the number of people who were willing to even call themselves “Republican” dropped off a cliff. A Gallop Poll taken in May 2009 showed that the number of Americans who were self-identified Republicans had dropped to 27%. It only proves the jump-on-the bandwagon mentality of your loyal “clan”. All you need do is look at the deep history of flip-flopping amongst the Republican Presidential candidates to see the “wherever the roses smell prettiest” mindset of conservative sheep.

Self-identity labels are merely a representation of popular culture of the time. Most people are basically followers; they identify with what is popular (or not being demonized) at the time and just want to fit in. You can call yourself a Christian too – but it hardly means you live your life by true Christian standards. For many self-professed “Christians” in America there are few things “Christ-like” about their lifestyle or worldview.

Just sayin’…;)

#41 ...and this means

That conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1.

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer

#42 come on cleve*

We know the difference between liberals and conservatives. In fact, all around the world, the truth about liberals is coming out finally.

Been there, done that , don't want it anymore.

#43 Lemme see

Lemme see here...........you've just disdained a Gallup poll, and then used another one to try and back up your post. And in previous days, you've done the same thing repeatedly.....................I guess the only polls that matter are the ones that fit your agenda. Personally, I don't give a whole lot of credence to any of them, because they are fabricated to try and come up with some desired result.

I could go 'poll' a bunch of people around here and come up with the result I was looking for, and then jump in here on the evil 'group-think' NewsBusters and use it to back up my own statements. In fact, I'll bet you a month's pension that if I polled this place right now, it would be a 'landslide' (like Boy Barry's victory) in DISFAVOR of you.................but you'd write that poll of as worthless.

#44 Cleve,

That is funny when responding to yourself - it happens when you are fighting on multiple fronts though.

But seriously - look at what just happened in the 'Super Committee' (what a joke no matter what side you are on).  The Republicans just offered exactly what the Democrats asked for 8-9 months ago and the Democrats walked away saying it wasn't a serious offer.  I agree that it was an mistake and would not have accomplished any spending cuts but it had the increased taxes asked for by the Democrats and less spending cuts then they originally said they were willing to accept as a maximum.  They walked away. 

Why?  Because it is all political.

20+ programs sent by the House to the Senate on budget programs, cuts and jobs - NOT even debated because Reid won't bring them to the floor.  It is one thing to not agree with each other but when the Democrat leadership won't even allow an opposing bill to be heard time after time you know it has more to do with politics than the American People. 

Eventually you are going to run out of other peoples money to use for your largesse so please try to see beyond the most recent media crying game.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#45 OK Clevie-Poo.........let's

OK Clevie-Poo.........let's have a little discussion here. I apologize for being late for the thread - but the first thing I want to ask is -WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE??? Yesterday you sanctemoniously stated that 'you'd had ENOUGH of this site'......basically because nobody here was in your mental or IQ ballpark, and that you didn't learn anything here, other than we were all a bunch of wingnut crazy teabagging right-wing hate-ranting whackos. So, I'll ask one more time - WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE???

But, like the residue of some junk-food flatulence, you're still here - and I can't do much about that.

Now, the reason I"m late today (although it's only 11:30 AM here on an outer island of Hawaii) is because I had to get up early and meet with a client who is going to have me, my employees, my subcontractors, and my suppliers build him a house, starting early next year. Now this guy is paying for this project with his OWN money, and there IS a budget, and we ARE going to have to execute the project professionally, and with quality, in some kind of time frame - and ON a budget. We WON'T be able to tax, print, or borrow MORE money if we run out. We won't be able to have 'paid' days off, or 'paid' vacations, or 'sick leave', or any of those other perks that you were probably used to when you were a 30 year union guy and a software programmer for some Fortune 500 companies. Since we're in the People's Republic of Hawaii, I will be FORCED to provide health care coverage to my full-time employees - at great cost to my own budget. And, as you know - since you're the smartest financial and economic person on this thread - I'll have to pay HALF of their Medicare and SS, as well as about 5 different insurance compliances, which add up to a LOT of money!!! And this ALL comes out of a fixed budget.

Now, let's talk about unemployment for a minute, since that actually IS what this thread is about. I will admit to collecting unemployment ONCE - when I was about 21 - but I worked 2 jobs, 7 days a week for about 4-5 months before I could collect it, and when I was unemployed, the agency was very strict with regards to who, how, why, when, and how many times I tried to find another job...........and I had to go into the unemployment office in Honolulu (I lived out in the country) at some intervals for an interview. And, I can't remember how long it lasted.........maybe 4-6 months. I KNOW people on unemployment theses days, and they can write down anything they want, and it's all by mail, and aside from the initial meeting - I don't think that they have to do anything else. And what is it now - 99 weeks or something like that??? Hell, I've got guys in the surf asking me 'hey Killa, do you have any work'??? - just so that they say they tried to find a job. But somehow you think this is productive???

I'm 'greedier and more selfish' than you thought??? This - coming from a guy who has a nice house, savings, pension, and a Cadillac health insurance policy from your union days??? As I asked the other day - WHO'S paying for all of this??? Now, let's get down to your bogus unemployment contribution number. I don't know what world you live in - I doubt seriously if you've EVER hired anybody or gone through all of the hoops of being self-employed - but I could only WISH - on my best day - that the unemployment contribution was an average of $56 per year payout per employee!!!! I'd take that in a hearbeat, and I'd never say another thing about it!!! But - since your own 'facts' and 'truths' have been proven - time and time again in the past few days - to be totally bogus, then this doesn't surprise me.

Around here, the unemployment contribution is anywhere between the mid 3% to a current cap, I believe, of 5.5% I don't know about the mainland. But............Mr. Financial Genius............that means if the gross pay of a weekly empoyee was $1000, then I have to pay anywhere from $30 to $55 EVERY WEEK. Gee...........that's almost as much as your yearly number!!! So, if I've got a few employees, and my subs have a few employees...............well, to use the phrase - 'do the math'.

Most people I know - especially reliable and responsible people, and those with families, would rather be working than collecting unemployment...............but there is no doubt in my mind that the current Administration WANTS to have as many people either unemployed or underemployed as possible, because it makes it easier for them to gain more control over people's lives, and create more dependancy on the government. I guess that would be one of your justifications for your support of these government sponsered programs. I'd rather see conditions that made for more job opportunities and entrepenuership and other private-sector situations. Hell, Cleve - you've admitted yourself that you're an entrepunuer, right??

So, on top of everything else that you rail against - you're also anti-'profit', huh??? I guess that would be expected from a guy like you - since the government or the public unions or the 'non-profits' (now there's a scam!!!) don't NEED to make an evil profit to survive - they just increase the budget!!! And when they increase the budget, where does the money come from?? Now, if l'il ol' Killa actually MAKES an evil profit.............I might be buying some tools, or hiring somebody to paint my house, or treat myself to something that I normally can't afford, or even take a little surf trip............but in the business I'm in, and in the current economic climate, making an evil profit is very hard to do. Maybe I should have become a software programmer.

But I'll tell ya sumpin, Cleve - the more money that I get to KEEP...........that I busted ass and EARNED .........the more chance that I will spend, or save, that money in a way that I want to - and, believe me, I can 'spread the wealth' as good as Boy Barry can - but I do it with my OWN godd*mn money!!!!

YOU ARE A SOCIALST, meat..........not me. But didn't I read one of your rants the other day about how some God-fearing Conservative woman was using YOUR tax dollars to survive??? Where's your compassion, meat??? I'm forced to play a government-mandated type of 'socialist' game, but I'll fight it in any way that I can - and guess what, I'll AVOID it if possible - and there ARE ways of doing that - and I do it every chance I can. Go ahead, call me un-American!!! And don't sit over there in front of your computer, on a 5-day hate-rant, and try and tell me that our 'socialism' is ALL the fault of EVIL Republicans!!! Like I told you before..........you're a half-man, because you only want to know half the 'truth'.

One more thing.........the 'general WELFARE' statement - in NO WAY whatsoever - means what you think it does!!! But, given your addled mindset, I can see how you would interpret it that way.

Now..........when are you leaving????

#46 C'mon, Clevie!!! I'm trying

C'mon, Clevie!!! I'm trying to be 'civil' here!!! I just want to have a discussion about some of the points you brought up - nothing more and nothing less - no secret agenda, no conspiricay theory, no John Birch society, no Koch brothers.............none of that right-wingnut whack teabagger 'you people' stuff.......just you and me having a conversation.

And, since you did collect unemploymet a few times (and I'm NOT getting on your case about it), did you feel a little bit justified, since you had paid into it with your own tax dollars???

#47 Who let ...

... Sherrod Brown out of his cage?

By the way, CleveNative/Sherrod, you still owe me an "I was wrong, I am sorry" for ridiculing the notion that Herman Cain has been a rocket scientist as proven here:

BUSINESS INSIDER

Waiting ... and for the record, every time you fail to apologize you demonstrate your utter lack of integrity. So by all means, keep it up. You show what kind of person you really are.

#48 Shouldn't you be picking the lint out of Soros' belly button?

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

#49 BS

Unemployment "benefits" do NOT "stimulate" the economy. It can only stagnate it, at best. And, since they are funded by deficit spending, the additional costs deficit spending naturally imposes on the government, and the taxpayers who fund that government, each extension negatively affects the economy as a whole. That's why every "extension" lead to increased unemployment and a worsening of our economic situation. Our economy has only stabilized since those extensions ended. Do you think that's just a coincidence? No, it's a prime example of cause and effect. All that a new extension will do is worsen the unemployment further, thus compounding the problem.

How many times do people need to watch an unemployment benefit "extension" lead to increased unemployment, something that has occurred every time it's allowed, before they realize that, hay, this is a bad idea?

There's a REASON why unemployment benefits are set for a certain length of time. It's because each State has calculated that this is the maximum time wealth can be redistributed through taxes, as opposed to created through employment, without negatively affecting the economy as a whole. By extending those "benefits" past the maximum beneficial time limit, the economy as a whole is going to suffer and that will lead to increased unemployment, just as we have witnessed every time it has happened. WHY is that so hard for some people to understand and accept?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#50 Hey, meat................have

Hey, meat................have YOU ever given anybody a job?? Have YOU ever paid somebody else's payroll burden, and contributions into state and federal unemployment assessments. If I'm to believe what you've said here - and that would take some severe 'suspension of reality' - you've done 30 years for the union, and have a nice house, savings, pension, and a Cadillac health plan............and you're sitting pretty with a lot of time on your hands to spend on finding whatever polls or graphs or stories to back up your 'half-man' agenda, as well as hurl insults and accusations.

Basically, you seem to think that more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, and more printing IS the solution for bringing this country back up to speed...........but given your own self-admitted employment history, as well as where you say you are today, I can understand how you've come to that conclusion - you ARE on the receiving end of this mindset.

You don't have the slightest idea of how jobs are created, or what it takes to actually employ someone, much less keep it going for any length of time, Mr. 'I'm the most fiscally conservative guy on this website'. I'd try to run my own construction outfit they way you operate - borrow money from some government-backed agency..........go do a job that either doesn't need to be done, or isn't 'shovel-ready', or is destined to fail anyway.........pay myself quite well, as well as everyone else working for me..........run out of money............go back to the government - get more money (either taxes, printed, or borrowed)............and then either finish the job, or not finish the job, or close up shop and go into bankruptcy..................but still be paid well, and pay my workers and subs, and kick-back a percentage of the money to the people who gave it to me..............and then everybody can collect unemployment when it's over, and I'm off the hook for any responsibility with regards to the money.

Unfortunalty, I'm not 'too big to fail', plus, I wouldn't pass the political anal exam when it came to handing out money - so I've actually got to find clients who want something done right, and completed within some time-frame and a budget, because it is THEIR damn money that they are paying, and they don't have the ability to just fabricate more money out of thin air - and neither do I............and I can't go back to them in the middle of the job and tell them that I'm XXXXX thousands of dollars under budget, so that they can just write me a check - on somebody else's dollar - so that I can keep going.

I'll tell ya sumpin, half-man - you need to expand your horizons and get 'the rest of the story'............you're too hung up on your little convoluted mind-set. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening - you don't want to know any more than what you focus on, and it sure ain't 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'...................like any lib, you've got a re-defined version of 'truth', as well as a lot of other words.

I know you're a big OWS supporter - you've stated it many times in your 4 diahreatic days here - but do THEY know about YOUR situation??? I think they ought to be camped out on YOUR front lawn, and leaving as many piles of steamy human excrement as you have done here on NB the last few days.

#51 Half True

For every dollar spent on Unemployment Benefits $1.63 is put back into the economy

I regard PolitiFact as left-leaning and even they rate your statement as half true.

Lawmaker claims unemployment benefits boost economic growth

#52 PolitiFact Is Indeed Left-Leaning

PolitiFact gives it a half true rating not on the veracity of the claim itself but that the claim is on the upper range of a spread of claims made

PolitiFact doesn't explain how the "multiplier-effect" works. It just refers to the CBO, which, as we know, crunches the numbers its told to crunch. Or did the CBO use more than one political party's "data" in determining their conclusions?

#53 Princess Nancy

Taylor is just following orders from Princess Nancy. Not doing so would cause his banishment to the dungen where he would be given Rack Treatment for mental disorder.

#54 Wow. I bet Cleve...

...thinks thay our government paying one guy to dig a hole and another to fill it sounds like a brilliant plan.

So $1 in foods stamps generates an extra seventy sumthin cents in the free market? Maybe tbey should give everyone a few grand in food stamps every month; we'd have a budget surplus in no time!

#55 OT: Heads up to NewsBusters - This a.m's MTP

Off the charts in terms of bias, with back-to-back interviews by David Gregory of John Kyl and then John Kerry.

Gregory was confrontational with Kyl, constantly interrupting, with Kyl pleading with Gregory to let him finish his point.

Then it was Kerry's turn and Gregory's tone was flat-out apologetic whenever he asked Kerry a question. 100% deferential, like "I'm sorry I have to ask you this, but..."

BTW, Kyl represented himself very well. Very thoughtful comments and responses, even in the face of Gregory's onslaught.

Kerry, on the other hand, was downright hysterical and incoherent, and Gregory allowed him to babble for minutes at a time. And, during one exchange where Gregory said his reporting indicates that the Dems refused a generous offer from Republicans, it was very clear that Kerry was lying - huge pause before his denial - another pause - then carefully repeated the denial. Had a deer-in-the-headlights look on this face during the exchange.

#57 $1.63 = Streets of Gold!

Kids... Only in the fantasy land math of government can you PROFIT $.63 on $1 investment.

Hello?

If you saw an ad in the paper that said "Invest with ABC Brokerage! We guarantee you SIXTY-THREE PERCENT interest on every dollar... and then, with the magic of compound interest, YOU'LL BE RICH."

Please... If it's so friggin' stimulative, how come we don't have 63% return on the UI we have spent sitting in the Treasury? Revenues are DOWN. BIG. HUGE. Even if you factor in the taxes you MIGHT have collected if all those people were WORKING, THEY'RE SURE AS SH*T NOT PAYING 63 CENTS ON EVERY DOLLAR THEY EARN.

THINK.

#58 I’ll try this one more time.

No one is claiming any “profit” from Unemployment Benefit payouts (or Food Stamps). The $1.63 (and $1.73) figure is the average amount SPENT for every dollar received from such programs.

Picture this, as it sounds like you can relate… You are a 12 year old boy who has had an eye on an official NFL football with a $33 price tag sitting in the display case at a local Sporting Goods store owned by 2 uncles. Over the summer you have been mowing your neighbor’s lawn for a little “spending money”, but use most of that on social activities with friends. For your birthday you receive $10 from each of your 2 uncles. With that $20, and the little you have been able to save of the lawn money, you go out and buy the football. You just stimulated the economy by $33 because of the $20 birthday windfall. Using your uncles to represent both “the economy” and “the government”, “the economy” actually netted $1.65 per dollar spent by “the government” to “stimulate” you into making the purchase.

“The economy” and “the government” are not the same thing. Sure such spending costs the government, but when times are bad it helps the economy immensely. Yet at the same time, a portion of that spending cost is returned BACK to the government in the form of tax revenues (just as your uncles made profit off your purchase which offset their birthday gift “loss”) - so the spending is not a “total loss”, even for the government.

And yes “simple math” tells you this cannot be the fuel that creates revenue for the government. Again, NO ONE is claiming that. I’m not explaining simple math, I’m explaining simple logic. The only claim is the effect of the types of stimulus – which is a positive “immediate” spending as opposed to negative spending (a tendency to hoard those “savings” – especially for the wealthy) that comes out of permanent tax breaks.

Are you starting to get it yet, Jr.?
The only "fiction" here, as usual, is coming out of Heritage Foundation.

Oops, I just caught your nickname as I posted this. We can change the analogy to sparkling earrings, your uncles' jewelry store, and baby-sitting money. Sorry for the improper gender references. None-the-less, hopefully you "get" the analogy.

#59 "Simple math" from

the simple meth-head? Really, the faux computer programmer/union toady is giving lessons in math? It is comedic. Along with his frenetic ramblings about socialism, democracy and selective parsing of the Preamble.

Please, meth boy, give us a list of all the economists who "feel" that the stimulus wasn't big enough?  Would that be the world famous economist, Tom Friedman, or would it be "Dr". Chris Matthews, or perhaps Mika Bzrzenski, PH.D(for dumb)?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.

#60 Goof morning Cleve

How can the government be stimulating the economy when the $10 given cost the economy many times that stolen via taxes ? You promote the idea that it is a good thing for the goverment to confiscate our money then brag about giving a small portion of it to select cronies. Most of our taxes go to line the pockets of government leaders and their gang. We now have professional chicago gang leaders running Washington.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

#61 Helloooo, McFly…???

“Select cronies”? Where were you people during the entire LAST administration?

EVERYTHING Republicans did (and continue to do) was to benefit their fat-cat cronies – from the tax breaks to the wealthy – to the UNPAID Medicare Part D – to deregulations on Wall Street and the banking industry - to the TARP GW going-away present BAILOUT “reward” from taxpayers for their destructive criminal corruption and greed.

ALL OF IT led to taking us from a surplus to a $1.4 TRILLION deficit in 8 years, and the largest crash of the economy and employment since the Great Depression.

Do you really think that today anyone but Teapublicans see it any other way? I’d hate to think of what our history books would look like if the Teapublicans really gained control of this nation.

#62 WOW! Cleve,

Conservatives railed against W on Part D, TARP and the Department of Homeland Security and it wasn't pretty to watch.

All that money in TARP that went to Unions - you mean that corruption and greed - I agree.

All those fat cats that give primarily to the Democrat party?  I guess that makes sense.

The people that think we ever had a 1.4 trillion dollar surplus are hardly worth talking to about economics because it is obvious they are economic illiterates so I'm going to optimistically assume you worded that incorrectly and you meant to include the words 'projected in a dream world that didn't account for the mounting recession'.  I look at it optimistically because it provides proof that federal revenue is systematic of economic activity and not tax rates as I tried to explain in another post.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#63 Bad math - Cleve,

I get the point you are trying to make and it would make sense if it were not important to note where the money comes from and what good it does for the true sources of income.  In your example the Uncles (government via tax payers) gave up $10 a piece:

How does the purchase of the football ever replace the $10

Since the Uncles don't actually produce wealth or income the $10 is debt

It is only $10 bucks though right - $10 X 20,000,000 (nieces and nephews) X 12 (months) = $2,400,000,000

So we now have steal more money from the tax payers via borrowing, printing or taxation.  That is the revenue that everyone is so concerned about these days.  Unfortunately what is left out of the conversation is that increased revenue is only sustainable with an increased market place.  All other types of increased revenue is short lived and has opposing reactions that limit the function of the revenue increase.

True federal revenue is a function of economic activity not of tax rates.  And yes, that means that when many Conservatives say that lower taxes will increase revenues they are over simplifying the issue.  They are not wrong and neither is it necessarily wrong to say that increasing taxes will increase federal revenue.  What is important is when and how it is done and how those actions effect the short and long term economic forecasts.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#64 How many times do I have to say it?

I understand the downside of spending. No one would ever think we can go on spending more than we take in - and it’s one of the reasons I initially supported what “The Tea Party” claimed to be about. What got my blood boiling about this article was calling out the stimulus effect of those programs as a “liberal myth”, and so I was compelled to use research data and conclusions of Moody’s vs. Heritage Foundation to counter that ridiculous claim. It's not a myth, it's a fact - else neither of them would still be with us for decades and Congress would have gotten rid of them long ago.

When the economy is humming along – and hopefully that will come again someday – no one was worried about the spending. It’s not as if this happened the day Obama took office as most Teapublicans are trying to portray it. As I pointed out in other posts – rather than call for sacrifice after 9/11, even after dragging us into 2 wars, GW Bush encouraged the spending spree - LITERALLY telling Americans to “go shopping”. That is a fact.

It won’t be easy balancing the budget, but you cannot blame a teenager for whom you handed a credit card with a $8,000 balance on it for returning it to you 4 years later with a $10,000 balance, even though he/she had been acting responsible and paying off his/her purchases at the end of each month.

Teapublicans are trying to convince Americans to expect the Obama Administration to wave a magic wand and undo a decade’s worth of lowered tax revenues and increased spending. We’d be facing this same challenge regardless who was in the White House. And we should EXPECT to be facing it for decades to come. So long as we START moving in the right direction of reducing the deficit, and getting people back to work and the economy humming again, there is no need to act like Chicken Little and think “The Sky Is Falling”.

The panic is way overblown – and there is no need to have “massive cuts” anywhere. A look at what is working and what isn’t, and by asking all federal agencies and departments to find areas where they know corners could be cut, expenses could be consolidated, and taxpayer money saved – and work from there - is all that is needed to change the “money grows on trees” atmosphere that permeates government spending. Recognition and oversight of obvious cronyism and “pork barrel” spending is another area that needs vast improvement. The biggest concern, IMO, continues to be healthcare costs. Until we can get that under control so the increase is no higher than the rate of increase costs in all other areas, we are doomed to allow that to nullify all other “cuts” and “savings”.

This REALLY isn’t a partisan issue – it’s something that’s inbred in the culture of Washington – regardless the party. They both just like to play the finger-pointing game as a means to deflect and distract from the real problem.

I was watching C-Span last night with author Lawrence Lessig who wrote “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It”. His vision is a “Constitutional Convention” to circumvent Congress as the only way of getting real change in Washington. He’s probably right, as it appears our “Supercommittee” is as much the joke as the rest of Congress. IMO the only way we will see change is if it comes as a DEMAND from the people – and that’s why I support the idea behind something like the grassroots OWS movement (regardless if I am 100% onboard with their methods to date).

Another point made by Lessig was that if we were able to remove the biggest partisan noisemakers from the top-echelon of control over both The Tea Party and the OWS movement, BOTH movements would see how much they really have in common, and that would make for all the catalyst needed for compromise and true reform DEMANDED from "we the people". People who brush off such a suggestion or analogy of the similarities between the two, and demonize the OWS movement - try to turn it into a leftist anti-capitalism "hippes" thing - are those who REALLY fear change most and have the most to lose by upsetting their apple cart - ie. the 1%ers. Divide an conquer has ALWAYS been their top modus operandi.

These institutions (the media, American capitalism, and the political establishment) are so entrenched with greed and corruption that there is no way in hell they can be fixed from within. Until we get the money out of politics – and the silly notion that “corporations are people too” – we will never see change. It’s time to start from scratch, using what we’ve learned over the past two and a quarter centuries – what works and what is broken – to intervene a Convention and rethink the rules. One that eliminates the ”Robber Barons” and the highly unbalanced powers they hold, which now feeds the corruption and produces the inequities that most all of us now blatantly see, recognize, and/or experience.

The LOUDEST mouths of opposition to change OF COURSE will be those 1%ers who hold so much power and control over the narrative and what we see and hear as the truth. It won’t be easy, but I have faith and trust in the ingenuity of the American people that it can and will be done.

#65 Cleve,

Okay, you understand the downside of spending now please expand that understanding to the ideas of budget prioritization and what the various components of the budget really mean.  The budget should be made up in an order of prioritization and should be allotted in the same manner with range being from necessity to frivolous.  Congress is fighting over maintaining luxury items while we are borrowing around 30% of our spending money.  You don't borrow money for luxuries and in the grand scheme of things social programs are luxury items albeit they are the luxury items with the highest priority of payment because of the 'promise' of payment and (here is where liberals tend to get stuck) there is a value to the economy in maintaining a healthy, ready and available work force.  It is not a myth that government spending can temporarily soften the effect of recessive activities in the market.  What is a myth is that government spending can cure or turn around a recessive market.  Perhaps the problem is the term 'stimulus' or at least the expectation created by the term 'stimulus'. 

A relatively small amount of discretionary spending done by the government to counter recessive traits in an otherwise healthy and growing economy can prevent the spread of recessive characteristics across the entire economy by buying time for more positive economic figures to become ingrained.  Large amounts of government spending such as the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress pushed through in 08 do nothing more than bring to focus the recessionary aspects of the economy and dampen the interest in investment, hiring and expansion.  All of that is best case scenario in a positive economy.  In a recessive economy government spending amounts to a loss of confidence and the overall market will react to that lack of confidence by saving their capital.  It is especially bad now because the Bush administration held interest rates too low for too long and now there is no incentive that the government can use to spark investing.

 Bush telling people to go shopping, while really bad politics, was the right thing economically and for the ideological war on terror.  Ideologically it had to do with not giving in to terror and arming the greatest weapon the US has - our economy.  Economically, the target was our economy so efficient spending kept it healthy.  From a true economic standpoint at the time we were over due for interest increases that would have been an  incentive for more people to save money and would have allowed banks to curtail their over zealous appeasement to the government agencies pushing loose lending practices.  For political reasons this was done.  The timing of 9/11 was unfortunate because it really made the economic waters murky because we should have started slowly raising interest rates as we came out of the Dot Com Bubble crash.

 The only thing I will say about your $8k to $10k, since I believe they all overspend to an extreme, is that it is more akin to $8k to $15k.  While I'm not surprised that a socialist minded President and pliable Congress (first two years) would do this to this nation - I am surprised at the amount of people who seem to be okay with it as long as it is their political side in office.

Constitutional Convention - I understand the grand expectations of such a venture but I would like you to look at the 'Budget Super Committee' and tell me you really think a Constitutional Convention would come back with anything worthwhile.  There is not 3 people I could name that I would trust to represent me at such a convention and no one running for President, including President Obama, would qualify.

 You are right and have said this in another post that I believe was response to you - you don't need massive cuts all at once.  However, you do need responsible cuts that are done in a manner that gives confidence to businesses and investors across the world.  No accounting gimmicks.  No 'savings' of money that hasn't been spent yet.  No reduction in increases passed off as cuts.  True cuts that the allows the business world to understand that the US is serious about getting their bad habits under control.

There is no way to take money out of politics but your intentions on this one I agree with one hundred percent.  My belief is that we have to make government more transparent from City Commissioner to POTUS.  No more 1000+ page bills, no more riders, no more attachments.  Make every vote mean something by making it represent a single idea.  The federal government should be looking to the states to step and be responsible for their own population and stop fighting to keep their fingers in every part of the pie.  The states need to step up and stop advocating their responsibilities and scrambling for scraps of pork from the feds.  I don't agree with the idea of a line item veto because it will be abused but I do agree with making every item a line requiring an individual vote.  They say it will take too long - I say good, get back off of vacation if it really means so much.

I have no issue if you are against the so called 1% but please know who and what you are railing against.  Is it the 1% of income earners, 1% of wealth, are these people static and what do they do with that wealth that is worth derision.  There are some worth contempt and I dare say they come from both sides of the political aisle and some are out for themselves and don't care a wit about political associations (Is that bad?).  These people, for the most part, use their money to create wealth for their investments and themselves.  Their investments being small businesses, employees and various types of entrepreneur endeavors.  The government uses your money and represent you in some of the most contemptible manners possible including climbing into bed with those people in the 1% you don't like. 

 The people I hear the loudest are those who realize that they have a job and lifestyle supported by a 1% achiever whose actions do not negatively impact the government, the economy or the nation.  Kochs and Soros are not the standard.  Do you rail against the environmental groups that have the strongest lobbying group in DC and are among the largest spenders?  It is definitely a matter of perspective and who is getting gored.

Right now, as far relative events go, in the US the government is the problem.  It is too big, too slothful, too encumbered and too corrupt.  Big business may contribute to the problem and in many cases may be the temptation that creates the problem but in truth it is the government that is the problem.  We, as voters, have failed to protect our nation.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#66 Civilty at last;)

I don’t agree with the “go shopping” thing. GW could have chosen a number of other suggestions that showed a snub at fear – and my biggest complaint is that he did NOTHING to encourage sacrifice despite the fact that he knew he was leading us into an economic quagmire. Just as Republicans at that time, and since, continue to snub their nose at environmental concerns and think oil is some bottomless pit and scoffed at any suggestion to re-think the gas-guzzling SUV craze and switch to more efficient use of energy – like the huge flap and claims of “socialism” for eliminating antiquated wasteful incandescent light bulbs form the marketplace.

Republicans like to pretend they are clean of any wrongdoings. Just like blaming Barney Frank and Fannie Mae for the housing bubble bust. It was GW Bush himself who in a speech in Feb. 2003 called for an “ownership society” and his administration early on began pushing for relaxing regulations that would have otherwise kept the loans from unqualified buyers. The “Fannie Mae” argument is only there because that is where most of the resold loans ended up. But the vast majority of the initial loans were being made outside of Fannie Mae and not to “low income households”. You didn’t have to be “low-income” to qualify for the loans. And it took 5-10 “low-income” loans to match the loss of one unqualified middle and upper-income loan. The problem wasn’t about income so much as the “worthiness” for the amount of the loan. The quote they use from Barney Frank was taken out of context as he was referencing a push for an increase in government-funded public housing not loans to unqualified buyers. But hey, as usual – repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it. It’s the Fox News Republican way.

Anyhow, it sounds like you agree that GW Bush was more concerned about the immediate economy than the long term fiscal security and a need to tighten our belts at a time of HIS “WAR on Terror”? Name me another president who did not call for sacrifice from the American people at a time of war? Most EVERYTHING that went on after 9/11 in that Administration, in hindsight, was totally irresponsible.

And it sounds like you’re willing to throw your hands in the air and declare “it is what it is – we’ll just have to live with it” – and go right on worshipping at the feet of the so-called “job creators” hoping they’ll throw you a bone, or maybe even believing that if you “just work harder” you too will become a millionaire? Isn’t that the whole “incentive” behind the “American Dream” thing?

Even if you are above the $250K range of what is today’s definition of “wealthy”, I’m sure that someone like you - who is at least willing to debate the issue without taking/making it personal - would have to understand the frustration that is out there after reading this article and seeing some of the graphs…

Plutocracy Now

If we can get past the “attack the messenger” replies, and stick to debating the facts outlined in the article, it’s a great start to continue the debate about what is wrong with this country – and why there is an OWS movement to begin with.

I cut out an entire uncompleted section about “small business” – what it really is – and what Republicans define as “small business” – and who the “job creators” really are – and aren’t. This reply is long enough already and I know how my tendency to get on a roll will only bring on all the more hate-speech. So let’s leave that for another thread.

#67 Still waiting for you to square your lying life story.

Hey troll, did you think we were gonna just lie down and go away when you run from your lies?

Clevenative: I was on Unemployment 4 times in my entire life - and never for longer than 3 months.

1. Tell us about how you lost your house when you were disabled in 1985 yet you were on unemployment for less than 3 months.

2. Tell us about your disability that stopped you from being able to SIT in front of a computer.

3. Tell us about your union that included white collar programmers, the first union on the planet that still cannot be located anywhere.

  4.Tell us about your fake white collar computer programmers union that wiped out their pension, again a first for a union to lose a pension.

Do tell us all about your fake life story while you insult everyone here.

Come on. Tell us. How you still lay down to type on a computer to this day due to your cantsitdownitis. Funny how you can sit and type out 20 minute long screeds day after day.
 
Insults and lies. You are really building up that troll resume.


Clevenative: I retired from the union (after 30 years)

Clevenative: ... my 25 years of computer programming experience...

  Clevenative: I'm an ex-programmer - and worked full time at it for over a decade - and for "Fortune 500" clients...

Liar. There is no union with white collar computer programmers. Never have been.

Because of my recent experience in helping to form a professional association for computer programmers, I'm often asked about the prospects for expanding unions within the profession. Despite some recent well-publicized successes, such as  Washtech's organization of " perma-temps" at Microsoft, the prospects for organized labor making significant inroads among programmers are bleak.

#68 Vet, this libturd will never

Vet, this libturd will never make the attempt to explain all his lies. He can't keep track of them all.

She/he/it has had an account here for over 3 years old and just recently started posting. They are attempting to make up for lost time regurgitating libturd talking points and crying foul and name calling when they are called on it.

It is tiring reading through its diatribes. It reminds me of the saying. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS." The same thing his messiah, Pres Downgrade, does everyday.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." President Ronald Reagan

#69 Vet,

Perhaps you can get Clevenaive to explain how a person with such a severe disability would be worried about keeping old people off a bike path so he can ride his bicycle to build his body.   Maybe it's a miraculous recovery, or something like that.

There seem to be quite a few disconnects, don't there?

"But my advice to you can be summed up in two words: Thicker skin." - Jer

#70 Just one question.

How does one person making a lot of money keep me from making a lot of money?

Give Peas a Chance. ☑ ABØ in 2012

#71 Cleve, you don't get to claim a civility badge ...

... until you apologize.

I see from above you're still refusing to acknowledge that Herman Cain's resume includes being a rocket scientist, and if you think putting the words in quotes without an apology suffices, you're wrong.

Again:

You still owe me an "I was wrong, I am sorry" for ridiculing the notion that Herman Cain has been a rocket scientist as proven here:

BUSINESS INSIDER

Waiting ... and for the record, every time you fail to apologize you demonstrate your utter lack of integrity. So by all means, keep it up. You keep showing everyone here what kind of person you really are.

#72 Jeez, Tom............if

Jeez, Tom............if Clevie was actually GOING to apologize for wrong statements and demonstrating his utter lack of integrity, NB would have to increase their bandwidth!!!!! But he's a computer whiz..........maybe he could do that for you on the downlow, cash only............no bank or credit card!!!

#73 Cleve,

Agree or not, the “go shopping” comment was and is a valid alternative. What would sacrifice have accomplished? Here is thing about sacrifice from an economic point of view – all things are a balance and the equilibrium of that balance is dependent upon external factors. Showing confidence when the external factors are shaky leans you towards equilibrium. Taking non-friendly economic actions when the economy is speeding up – pushes you back toward an equilibrium. This is the concept that President Obama ran on but it is clear that he and his administration doesn’t truly understand Capitalism well enough to achieve the goals he set forth. When Obama was speaking of preventing the large downturns in the economy; what he was speaking of was preventing the extreme highs and lows of economic cycles and using the power of the government and the Fed to maintain the economy as close as possible to a point of equilibrium with only minor fluctuations up and down. It is a way of saying he was going to try to force a ‘safe’ market. The problem is that along with the lack of understanding comes the reality that unpredictable variables are almost limitless in number. The smallest event in can be like the catalyst in chemical reaction. Look at what Schumer’s letter did in 2007. Was it Schumer’s fault? – No. Did he supply the ingredient that catalyzed the current perilous economic conditions into an immediate recession? – Yes!
You are also confusing “re-think” with “forced”. I won’t insult your intelligence and make references to group think and mob mentality because while relevant they sound insulting. But I will say that term of Socialism is used in this case because of the centralized planning aspect of forced “re-thinking”. This is bad in a couple of major ways and several smaller. One really big reason centralized planning doesn’t work in the development of ideas is that no single person or entity has enough prognosticative ability and knowledge to be able to predict the needs of the entire population. The other major reason is that the centralized support of one idea will cause the abandonment of all the alternatives. There are multiple ways to create the change in technology through government without strangle holding the economy with the requisite regulations spewing forth from the government to achieve their centralized planning goals. I know the EPA, USDA and other agencies take a lot of credit for making the rivers cleaner in the 80’s (remember the decade of greed when environmental concerns took a huge leap forward even with President Reagan – the pariah of economic groups in the WH). The problem is the real reason most of the clean up was done isn’t due to forced regulations but due to the increased cost of insurance due to litigation and tax incentives.
In all fairness when you make an observation like, “Republicans like to pretend they are clean of any wrongdoings…” I think you are not responding to the true outcry from the Republicans (not the politicians but the voters). The reason the Republicans point their fingers so quickly at Barney Frank, Fannie/Freddie, Raines, Schumer, etc…, is because of the lack of media coverage. The media said Bush’s fault, just like everything for the last 11 years, and thought their job was done. Obama did not appear without pre-existing issues and either did Bush. It was the defensive reaction to the inability of the media to accurately tell the whole story that causes it to seem like Conservatives +/or Republicans are trying to lay the entire blame on people and groups listed above. Don’t tell me you don’t have a problem with Raines taking millions of dollars in salary and bonuses while Fannie was forcing bad loans, losing money and watching investment companies knowingly take bad risks because they knew they would be bailed out if they failed. Conservatives +/or Republicans responded to the lack of media honesty and their lack exposure to all aspects of the story. The “Its Bush’s Fault” theme has become a joke because it is the knee jerk reaction to any story. You expected that when he was President but it has continued until this day in order to protect the failed actions and policies of the current administration.
I’m glad you see that it wasn’t just a low income issue because a lot of people miss that. In fact it was the people at the lower end of the middle class that truly are responsible for the worst cases of abuse of the system. But the reason may not be as clear as you think. Believe it or not the mortgage companies were using these loans as a way of hedging their bets with the truly low income people. It was their belief (they may have been correct if the recession would have lasted the normal period of time – no way to really know) that even if these people making $30-45k a year couldn’t afford their home should the housing market falter they would have significant assets to refinance to a viable payment plan. For this reason the banks thought that they could offset some of their risk. Finance companies are another story and like explaining oil pricing would triple an already too long post. BTW, W was proud of the advancements in low income house ownership under his administration but please tell me how that compares to the typical liberal/media screeds that Bush didn’t care about the poor/black and that he only cared about lining the pockets of the rich oil companies (throw in what was accomplished in Africa in his administration when you ponder that answer – I don’t agree with a great deal of what he did in Africa either).
I wouldn’t call everything that occurred after 9/11 as irresponsible because they were almost all calculated risks with tangible results. Just to let you know and I do not want to be persuasive in any way on this issue because while I have been a defender of the war in Iraq and in relation - the War on Terror – I’ve never been an advocate of the actions taking on these issues: Calling it Bush’s war on terror is juvenile in its over-simplistic bumper sticker mentality that ignores everything being said by politicians and the population at the time. You are trying to make a point but it is lost in its banality in this phrase.
I do agree that the Bush administration focused too much on short term economic issues. But don’t make is sound like there is no reason for that even if I disagree that it is a good reason. The Dot Com collapse and following recession started the Bush Presidency and was followed several months later by 9/11 and a subsequent mini-recession. This double hit on the economy resulted in a need to focus short term. You will hopefully notice that even after two major hits that his pro-business, positive rhetoric and lower across the board tax plans kept the nation from suffering what we are going through now with anti-business, negative rhetoric and calls for higher taxes. No it is not that simple but it isn’t that difficult either. Also, during that time the government was piling on regulations along with mountains of red-tape due to the joke that is DHS. Political reasons during his second term kept him from doing the right thing from both sides of the aisle. Interest rates should have been increased and there should have been a real fight to get the ‘too big to fail’ people in a position where they would start reducing their risk or face failure. The first two years the political pressure to prevent action came from Democrats and Republicans in Congress (I can still remember Hillary standing up during the SOTU and applauding the Democrats for blocking any type of reform to entitlements at the time which were declared, “in good condition” – Republicans were worried about reelection) and the second two years almost completely blocked by the Democrats in Congress.
Come on and check the knee-jerk reactions. Why would I be throwing my hands up in the air just because I see the need to allow producers to produce, investors to invest, workers to work and risk takers to take risk. These are not static positions and it may be a surprise to you because I know the media never reported on it but during the Bush presidency following the invasion of Iraq we saw the most liquid periods of wealth in American History. Meaning people were moving from lower levels to upper levels and vice versa more than at any other time. The rich weren’t necessarily getting richer but the amount of wealth at the top was getting larger. This created a striated economy that opened many avenues for investment and new markets. Admittedly that this type of economic growth is unstable when done at such a rapid rate but there was a great deal of change in who held the wealth in the nation during the Bush years. That hasn’t been true under Obama – the wealthy may have less income but they are the pretty much the same people that were the wealthy when he came into office.
The “American Dream” was and should still be that you have the opportunity to leave your children better off than you were. The whole idea of becoming a millionaire is an exaggeration of the original dream but if you would like to use that example than you would have to acknowledge that more people became millionaires under lower taxes and conditions that allowed for robust economic conditions.
I’ll go through your link at greater length later but I will tell you now that the set of assumptions made to draw the conclusions make while accurate are not nearly inclusive of all the variables – especially the market striation that I noted above. The conclusions drawn, at first glance, are driven by envy and/or a lack of understanding of dynamic monetary systems. I’ll leave you with this one thought about dynamic systems as it applies to the data being used in the article: in a dynamic system absolute representations of values mean little to nothing except in relation to the elasticity and external limitations of the system itself. Basically, it is more important what the numbers mean in relation to the system when accounting for external forces because the numbers have little value when compared to one another inside the system.

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid

#74 ~The cross-eyed, hump-backed, snaggle-toothed,

luckless twit of a fairy who presided over your birth and slapped your mother must be blushing for shame right now, Clevie.

Your piss-poor excuse for an analogy leaks like a sieve. The only way it would bear any resemblance to reality is if Uncle Sam held Uncle Econ and little Billy up at gunpoint, took approximately 35% of their income, and then doled out $20 for Billy to spend at Uncle Econ's place, whereupon Uncle Sam takes some of it back again.

Uncle Sam doesn't have a dime that he didn't forcibly take from Uncle Econ and Billy in the first place.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.