This poll is open to anyone, but I would especially like to hear from those who answered "NO" on this thread........http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/200296-do-tax-cuts-help-create-jobs.html Do Unemployment Checks create Jobs? To anyone answering Yes in this poll, millions of Obama voters want to know, Billions upon Billions of unemployment checks later...... .....Where da Jobs be At?...... . . . . In a sane world, everyone would answer NO in the poll, but there are boxes of hair out there that actually believe paying people not to work is the best way to create jobs and stimulate an economy. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE-z38pXUAo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE-z38pXUAo[/ame] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/05/obama_extending_unemployment_benefits_will_help_create_jobs_right_now.html Obama: I want to move quickly on things that will help the economy create jobs right now--Extending unemployment insurance...... . . . The sad part for Americans today......those boxes of hair are ru(i)nning this economy.....and their utopia is an America where everyone is unemployed (which of course means tons of jobs, somehow) and everyone is (D)ependent upon the Almighty Gubmint. The Unemployment Check: From Your Employer's Pocket, to Your Pocket.....the only thing missing.....the Work..... . . . . .
Jobs are being made. It has been stated over and over again that there is job growth. Just because you are too ignorant to accept that there is job growth for whatever reason doesn't mean that there isn't job growth.
Do tell......... Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress Unemployment Rate Since Obama became President . . . So do you believe Unemployment Checks create jobs? . . . . Reagan Recovery 600,000 new jobs per month Obama Recovery 60,000 new jobs per month (40,000 of which were at McDonalds) . . . .
phlegm talk by politicians trying to solicit votes with unemployment payments. How many automobile, business or home loans are obtained with unemployment income? If the answer is anything other than zero, some loan officers need to be fired. The erroneous concept that unemployment creates jobs is also patently false. It looks at employment from only one side. To generate 1 unemployment dollar, almost all of the income is now borrowed and not acquired from unemployment insurance. The concept that the 1 dollar creates jobs is based upon the consumption of legal goods (i.e. prostitution, drugs and gambling dilute the return). Additionally, the concept that the dollar creates jobs ignores the government bureaucrats necessary to deliver the dollar to the unemployed. When that is factored into the equation, there is a net negative. This ludicrous argument is also used for welfare and food stamp payments and those argument are also patently false when viewed in entirety (i.e. not just slanted accounting that ignores the tax payments and entropy (IRS, DHS, etc.) required to generate the welfare or food stamp dollar).
Dems don't care. They know full well that the administrative and delivery costs far outweigh the actual effect of the recipient spending all his money. When they say "create jobs" they mean, it creates another wasteful GOVERNMENT JOB. I just can't understand how someone can say that it is perfectly okay to spend 1 dollar, and the recipient after admin costs, etc gets to spend 20 cents.. yeah that 20 cents is really going to create a bunch of jobs! Dems are literally stting in war rooms thinking "How can we force people to spend money?" That is the problem. We should be shifting to a saving society, the raw mass consumerism we've become used to is simply unsustainable.
Truer words were never spoken...... To believe Unemployment Checks create jobs........is to believe every and any government handout in world history was somehow a Job Creator. . . . .
It's not to create jobs. It's to keep them off the streets. Conservatives always strive the have the same government policies as every third world country out there. The countries who are doing the best are the most socialist in the world. If you don't believe that, look it up, it's a fact.
More like unemployment checks flow 100% into the economy. People getting them, spend them. Spending money creates jobs. Having people lose their house and car and become homeless does not create jobs. So if the comparison is to cut $1000 in taxes for the rich so they can invest in stocks, or give $1000 to the unemployed to help them bridge the gap until they find work, then unemployment checks is the better of two ways for the government to spend $1000 to create jobs.
You really need to listen to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama....Unemployment Checks not only create jobs.....they are the best and fastest way to create jobs. Everyone needs to go on unemployment and really get this economy pumping..... Well what happens when the exhaust their unemployment? Of course....its a scientific fact. As long as by "Best" you mean "Beyond Bankrupt". When your Debt/GDP exceeds 200%......you know Socialism is working perfectly. . . . .
Unemployment checks keep people from being tossed into the streets during hard times, such as we are having. All of the unemployment monies go right into the economy of the USA by people who are in need of goods and services.
After they flew right out of the economy....... .....clearly pouring water from the deep end into the shallow end is going to fill the jobs pool up in no time. Really.....I mean if you lost your job and were receiving 1/2 your income, wouldnt you be pinching pennies? Im betting your going to be saving a lot more than somebody with money to blow...... Well lets make the correct comparison........ We take $1000 from every Business Owner, Entreprenuer, Job Creator, and Employer.......and give it to the unemployed.......to create jobs. Or......we stop stealing other people's (*)(*)(*)(*). . . . .
So what happens when they exhaust their unemployment? .....shouldnt we make lifetime unemployment checks available? I mean you dont want them tossed into the street do you? I have been in business over a decade.......I have yet to have one unemployed customer. B.C. is out.......but plenty of time let in A.D. for your miracle to finally happen.....and an unemployment check might finally create its first job. . . . .
Ahhh, the old phoney and delusional "job creator" arguement.... Tell me, have you ever been hired by a rich person? Here are some other facts to shoot a hole in your talking point. The rich current receive the largest percentage of the income in this country since before the great depression in 1929. So according to your arguement, those rich people should be creating massive amounts of jobs, where are they? And the Bush tax cuts would have created a lot of jobs too according to you. Yet the lowest job creation since the great depression was in Bush's first term and the 2nd lowest job creation since the great depression was in Bush's second term. The facts just don't support your sound bite.
I work directly for a very rich person, an Indian immigrant who came here with nothing but the clothes on his back and couldn't even speak English. Now he's one of the richest hotel magnates in Cincinnati and a personal friend who provided me with an education and a shot at a life I never would've been able to achieve. I'll be eternally grateful to the man. The rich help those who help themselves, just like God. I don't understand this argument about them having the highest percentage of generated income. Why does that matter so much to you people? Forced charity is not charity.. it's tyranny. I'm not against taxation, I'm against taxation being used as a means to attack people, which is what the left does. If the middle class is shrinking, it's because it is too uneducated and unskilled to compete in the modern technologically advanced world we live in today, not because someone just hates people and loves money so much they don't want to hire people.
Yes...... ....coincidentally....I have never been hired by a poor or unemployed person. You mean the income gap is growing? Would you prefer a country where the population is headed towards zero? Well let me ask......do you blame all the job loss resulting from the .com bubble, 9/11, the mortgage collapse, and the recession on The Bush Tax Cuts? Unemployment Rate After The Bush Tax Cuts Employment Level After The Bush Tax Cuts .....if only we would have sent out more unemployment checks....... . . . .
Really, If he actually owns the hotel himself and your paycheck says his name and not the name of a corporation, then he is an idiot. But I suspect you work for a corporation, and not for him. You were hired by a corporation, and not a rich person. Giving this guy you respect a 3% PERSONAL tax increase or a 3% tax cut is not going to change whether he creates a job or not.... It is the "job creator" crap that is the problem.... I have no problem with the rich, trust me. And I am not attacking the rich. And unless you think Warren Buffet hates rich people, you need to seperate your believe that paying taxes is theiving and stealing. The government has legitimate roles in the country and need tax revenue to pay for those. As far as the rich paying the lowest tax rate they have paid in 80 years while earning the largest percentage of the income in 80 years being relevent, well that seems self evident to me. If the country is going broke and is also receiving a historically low percentage of GDP as tax recenue, then it makes sense to have tax increases as part of the solution to balancing the budget. And if the wealthy are getting a record percentage of income while paying record low taxes, that seems like a fair place to place some of those taxes.... However, the left is not saying that the budget does not need significant spending cuts and that spending cuts need to be much larger than new tax revenue. And the attacks seem to be coming from the right, not the left. The right are the one who call the left, *******s, and say everyone on the left are leeches sucking off the work of the conservatives, etc.... Well, I paid over $40,000 in taxes to uncle sam last year. Trust me, I don't love paying those taxes. I have hired people in my own business and paid their salaries and provided them with healthcare. I am a capitalist. But when the top 10% of the country make 24% of the income and the bottom 50% of the country make 12% of the income, then I don't see the problem with the top 10% paying more in taxes. It seems to me like the right wingers think that the wealthy paying more taxes is wrong because there are fewer of them in numbers than the bottom 50%. But the fact the top 10% earn twice as much as the bottom 50% is why they should pay more taxes. And this argument that it is taking form the rich to give to the poor is also BS. 90% of the government budget has nothing to do with safety net programs. You could cut every school lunch for hungry children, every food stamp for a working mother with children on minimum wage, every unemployment check to a laid off worker and not even come close to balancing the budget. The "charity" that the government provides for society, as you put it, is not the biggest spending problem we have by far. The right wing caracterizing government spending as "charity" is invalid. Unless you want to personally go take the school lunch from a poor hungry childs hands, you may want to re-think where government spending needs to be cut to save those rich people who you think deserve to pay lower taxes than you do because they are "job creators".
I doubt it, unless you are a maid or landscaper. I bet you work for a corporation.... Any individual hiring people personally would be too stupid to be rich. Corporations provide legal protections. But cutting the personal tax rate of a corporate CEO does not make that person decide to stop his company from hiring... False dichotomy. I though a rising tide was supposed to lift all boats. I would prefer a country were all the population was benefiting from their labor, not just a small minority gaining wealth while the vast majority lower their standards of living. Is that the kind of country you prefer? Oh I see..... Bush inherited all these bad things, so the pathetic job growth is not his fault.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Face it, Bush created 1.1 million jobs in 8 years, Clinton created 22.7 million in his 8 years, after rasing taxes, and Jimmy Carter created 10.3 million in just his 4 years.... Bush was awful at creating jobs, and his presidential term was disguinshed economically by tax cuts, large government spending and a ever increasing wealth inequality. So it seems like these policies don't create jobs. Bush's tax cuts and massive spending spree are not responsible for any of that stuff. However, they are only responsible for about a half a trillion a year of deficits and over $6 trillion in debt.
I wish people would wise up stop using Wikipedia like it's a valid source of information. Even I'm not naive enough to believe Obama only created so little jobs. With that being said there are Bush's employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statisitcs: Never mind the months pay attention to the annual job numbers. Assuming that you're math is not bad Bush created 7.5 million jobs. 7,594,000 jobs to be exact. The only years with net loses in jobs were 2002, 2003, and of course 2008. So, yeah good research there buddy.
So it is Poor people that are hiring......how about that. CEO's make up about .01% of the population.......Corporations represent 20% of Employment.......your boogymen have been acknowledged. So why do you want to stop the tide? Well did Bush or his Tax Cuts cause the .com bubble, 9/11, the mortgage meltdown, or the recession? Please come back to reality....... Can you name ONE SPECIFIC CLINTON POLICY that led to all those jobs? See what a joke your contention is..... Well as long as you ignore all the data, facts, truth, reality that have been presented.........and believe Unemployment checks create jobs. . . .
I was hired by a private franchisee of a corporation. He owns the property outright and up until his health began to fail recently, ran his hotels on a day to day basis moving from one to the other throughout the week. This is NOTHING unusual in the Hotel business. When his health began to fail he STILL refused to hire a General Manager and most of the work fell onto my shoulders. I was under alot of pressure, but he finally hired in a General manager and has semi-retired. Anyone who doesn't think that Government has adopted to many "legitimate roles" is part of the problem and I'm not talking about welfare. I am talking about the proclivity of Government to hire bureaucrats in astounding numbers and to literally create departments and institutions that are duplicative, etc.. just to keep people in useless jobs. When a person gets hired into a Government office, they expect that Government to protect their job for their entire career, regardless of economic downturns. The Government makes that guarantee, why? No employer in the Private Sector can guarantee job security, neither should the Government. The charity isn't in the program, the job itself IS the charity. As I said, I don't beleive it's welfare entitlements that are the problem. it's the natural bureaucratic BLOAT! There are too many Indians in the tent, too many petty little chiefs with a fiefdom and unions who can hire gobs of college kids and bums off the streets to tear up state houses in mock protest of "worker's rights".. There are too many Government workers because the only way Government can "create jobs" is mostly to expand some department and just hire people.. a job created out of charity and to guarantee some votes.. not because of any real need. That is what we have become. THE JOB ITSELF IS THE CHARITY. THE JOB ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE. No, I don't want kids to go hungry or seniors to eat dogfood. I want Government to stop expanding itself for the purely political purpose of creating fake and useless positions for people to have jobs. That is the problem. America is staggering under the weight of it's own Byzantine Bureaucracy. I want administrative costs to DROP INTO THE GUTTER. Instead of the average recipient geting 25 cents out of every dollar and the rest going to admin costs, I want to see the admins fired for the most part, or technology leveraged to raise the actual benefit the recipient gets to 50 cents on th dollar, or 75 cents on the dollar. why does the Government always punish the people who recieve the money, but NEVER EVER questions or punishes the BUREAUCRATS who work for them? That is the problem. Politicians create fake jobs and implant political cronies into them as a means of influence peddling and as a result of it, our bureaucracy has become so bloated that it has become a parasite. The USA isn't falling apart, we're being eat from the inside out by a massive bureaucracy that hasn't been seen since the days when Justinian was fighting the exact same problem. Civil servants have too much power in this country and there are too many of them. I don't care if the unemployment rate jumps a few percent.. Civil Servants need to be fired EN MASSE regardless of the effect. Regardless of the crying, regardless of the calls of cruelty. The Government has over employed.
Some of you want to raise taxes on the "rich". A few facts for you. The govt is like an anchor keeping the economy from moving. The deficit for 2011 is about TEN TIMES the deficit from just 4 years ago. In order to pay for Barack's budget this year, we would need to tax 100% of the income of the entire top 10%. That is about 14,000,000 taxpayers or everyone making about $114,000 a year or more. THINK about that. Also, you must realize that the super-rich make their money from stocks and investments that are subject to capital gains taxes. Even Barack knows that if you raise capital gains tax rates, you reduce revenues and hurt the middle class. The super-rich have the option of waiting for a bigger payday. The middle class gets screwed. Someone once asked Buffett why he didn't just give more money to the govt. He said he would if it was a choice between the govt and a Buffett kid, but he figured he could give to the Gates foundation or his daughter's charity and they would a better job than the govt. http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
Well his private franchise was also a corporation that he owned. Sounds like he was a hard working man who earned his wealth, that is highly commendable. My point is not to punish his success. My point is that balancing the budget will require lots of cuts, but also some revenue. If you look at the Obama bi-partisian deficit commision, or the gang of six deficit reduction plans, they all have tax increases as part of them. I think the best analogy is if you want to lose weight. You should diet AND exercise. Sure you can try to do it with just one, but it works better and is more effective and less painful if you use both. We need spending cuts and tax increases. If it was up to me, I would repeal all the Bush tax cuts, not just those on the wealthy. I would also cut spending massively. I might disagree with how wasteful government is. First, you claim of having permanant job security is not true, the government has been cutting jobs if you look at job creation numbers. Although I would say that there are certainly ways it could be made more efficient, and should be made more efficient. that is still a small amount of the spending. I mean a lot of spending is just spending on government programs, not administration. I mean ALL discrectionary spending outside defense is only $660 Billion. You can't reduce administration here and save $1.4 Trillion. To truely balance the budget will require cutting discrectionary spending, cutting military spending, cutting farm subsidies, cutting medicare and social securty spending and increasing taxes. But these spending cuts do need to be done responsibly. Close overseas military bases and stop buying new weapons systems. This will spread the pain out and allow defense contractors not to be forced to lay off thousands immediately. Cut farm subsidies over 10 years to let farmers and markets adjust, not overnight. Close departments, consolodate locations and sell off buildings to lower costs. There needs to be a real long term plan to follow. And this is where everyone, left and right are lacking.
But you also have to consider all those claims about how half the country doesn't pay any taxes. If you did not just take the income, but every single penny of wealth from the bottom half of the country. Sold their cars, sold their houses, sold all their possessions and left 50% of the country with absolutely nothing, you would not even get the $1.4 Trillion needed to balance the budget for one year. So taxing the poor, as the right want to, is not the answer either. You are also being dishonest about Obama spending and citing the deficit. The deficit does not come mostly from Obama spending. I am sure you know that. Read any unbiased article about where the huge deficits are coming from and Obama spending is a small percentage. Bush policies get a larger share of the credit in every analysis. The deficts are coming from safety net programs that were in place prior to Obama, spending programs put in place pior to Obama, lost revenue due to the recession and lost revenue from Bush era tax cuts. For example: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3036 What the government needs to do is stop all this whining and pointing demonizing the other party to the detriment of the country... Stop all this selective amnesia where the right denies their massive spending and entitlement programs and blames the deficits on democratic spending, or the left forgets about the bank deregulation they supported that helped the housing bubble. The government needs to get together, put a realistic and smart plan together, like those presented by two different bi-partisian deficit commitees, ignore the far right and far left and get a long term plan passed. This is how the country needs to start moving forward and getting out of the current malaise.
