Which can be attained by shutting off almost all deductions/tax loopholes/subsidies. The rich may be able to have reasonable claims that tax rates should stay the same, but they have far less standing when it comes to loopholes. Tax hikes AND loophole closures are an impossible dream. If Obama had come out in support of the Deficit commissions cuts and revenue hikes, his political position would've been so much stronger. But he has just as radical a base as the Republicans, who are not in the mood to compromise. Lets face it, the far left and the far right are at war, and independents are suffering. Part of it is the Democrat base that absolutely refuses to change entitlements in any way except expansion.. but that still doesn't explain why Obama abandoned his own commission's findings. No one, on right or left, has been able to properly explain that head scratcher. 20 million dollars to Seattle to create 14 jobs? If that isn't the result of a greedy and evil bureaucracy taking advantage of the system I don't know what is, and that isn't just an "isolated incident" I know from personal experience with my own local Government that the bureaucratic disease is far deeper than just the Fed. We have Local and State Bureaucrats pining for Federal money.. that is where the real waste is.. at the state and local level, but the Feds refuse to simply shut off the money supply. All of which have which have extremely powerful special interest groups who are fighting tooth and nail to protect every single dollar and if they are anything like some of the union leaders who I see stand up and literally threaten politicians jobs as if they are kingmakers, then I fail to see that happening in any significant way, which frightens me. Most of these bases are small logistics bases and FOB's set up to provide supplies to our troops in the wars. We cannot shut them down until we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which isn't happening for years, no matter what presidents promise. Every single Government department is awash in cash. Many of these departments have so much money they don't even know what to do with it all, and all it does is provide a huge incentive for corruption and embezzlement by the greedy thug bureaucrats who administer these programs. I don't believe that Obama is an incompetent socialist(Social Democrat is a different story). I believe that bureaucrats and underlings have become so entrenched in the political system, like ticks, that even a President with an obvious mandate from the people and the will to change, can't stop the system. Nancy Pelosi was the true leadership of the Democrat party, but she is so corrupt, that she allowed the special interests to write Obamacare and Frank Dodd.. both complete wastes of paper and one of which is about to probably see the File 13 in the Supreme Court's archives. Obama's Presidency isn't a total failure, but it has not been a cost effective administration at all.
The answer is yes, and it is not really up for much debate either. Ideologues will try to point out the disincentive to work built into unemployment benefits as a reason why unemployment keeps people from working hard to get a new job. This logic has some legitimacy when the economy is booming. People do tend to get jobs more often the closer they get to the end of their unemployment benefits. The problem with that logic is that it only holds true during times when jobs are there to be gotten. When they aren't, all you would be doing is taking away the only source of income from millions of people, who have no legitimate job opportunities. What you would be doing is taking the money those people spend out of the economy. Less money spent is quite clearly bad for the economy. On the flip side, when those people spend their unemployment benefits to keep their family with food on the table, a roof over their head, etc. That benefits not only those people, but the people who they are buying from. It is incredibly simple, and only made fuzzy by ideological dishonesty!!
That is absolute NONSENSE!! The multiplier effect of of every UI dollar is between 1.60 and 1.80. Which means what you are saying is not only inaccurate, it is the antithesis of accuracy. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_responds_is_unem.html There are hundreds of other sources saying the exact same thing. You are allowing ideology do dictate your position, even when the evidence shows your position to be absolute nonsense.
That is a completely separate issue. Right now, we should not only be extending unemployment benefits indefinitely, but we should be cutting corporate tax rates as well. Or if we want to be a bit more proactive, give tax breaks to any company that creates new jobs. Or both, a general tax break to every company, plus extra tax breaks for creating jobs. Unfortunately that won't happen because too many people make their economic decisions based on ideological fervor, instead of sound economic judgment. Another problem now is that with the invented debt crisis, it is politically untenable to cut taxes and raise spending, even though it would be sound economic practice. It is a shame that people cannot see beyond their partisan blinders, because it hinders this country to an incredible degree.
The question you ask is too simplistic (or at least the commentary included is). Unemployment checks do increase demand (or at least prevent it from dropping further), which is one of the variables that will affect whether people continue to have jobs and whether the private sector will create more. Unemployment checks do not guarantee the creation of jobs, and by their nature (more of them come about when the economy is bad), they're more likely to just keep poor job growth from being worse... but not having unemployment checks would, at best, not help and would most likely make job growth even slower (or more negative) and would certainly increase human strife. I think a better question is whether higher corporate profits create jobs. The answer is a definite sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes, if the company needs more workers to boost production, sees the possibility of more profits, and was only putting off creating jobs do to lack of demand or lack of capital. No, if the company does not see any additional profit to be made from creating another job. The connection, ignored by supply-siders, is that demand is directly involved in whether a company will see reason to spend in order to go after more profit. Unless demand is sufficient or could be boosted through more expenditure of capital, why would any company choose to grow? As such, unemployment benefits help keep demand from getting worse and keep companies from dropping production and laying off more workers.
Then if we spent one trillion dollars on UI it would net the economy $600 to $800 billion in new job creation or growth?
It is not exactly that simple. The evidence exists to show for example, that 100 million dollars of unemployment benefits will create a net benefit of between 60 and 80 million dollars. However, unemployment benefits have never been given out on the scale you are talking about, so I cannot say with any certainty whether or not that number would hold true on such a large scale. However, the basic reason the unemployment benefits do benefit the economy so much, is that it is money that will almost certainly be reinvested in the economy. People on unemployment spend the money they receive, and they need to do this just in order to survive. That means almost every dollar paid out gets reinvested into the economy. That dollar goes to another person, who uses it to do what they will with it, and the cycle goes on. When you say, give a tax cut, it is possible that the money will be reinvested into the economy. However, it is also quite possible that the money will simply be saved, and not reinvested. It is also very possible, that while some of the money will be reinvested, a lot will be saved as well. Now I am not about to say saving is a bad thing, but as a government policy used to stimulate the economy, you want that money reinvested so that it actually does stimulate the economy.
Why should the scale matter? If one dollar spent is sixty to eighty cents netted, why would it matter if you spent ten dollars or a trillion? And where is this evidence? Could you produce some of it? And what evidence do you have that spending in lieu of saving is more beneficial to the economy?
You are living the complete fraud and utter lie that is Liberalism/Unemployment Checks create jobs........and yet you still believe. . Good times or Bad..... people like FREE MONEY. What a coincidence........ Its amazing how you can write that and yet remain so profoundly willfully ignorant on the matter........ What you would be doing is taking the money those people spend out of the economy Kind of like taking money away from employers.....taking that money out of the economy......to fund Unemployment. So if everyone went on unemployment........the economy would boom...... . . . .
When people cumulative spend scores of billions in UI benefits buying food and clothing and necessities, people are employed to provide them. . When you can't find a job people need it. Ten million people just suddenly decided to quit working and live of those lucrative UI benefits. What a coincidence .............. Nope.
If everyone went on unemployment that would be a sign that our economy had already collapsed and yet, somehow, the government retained its sovereignty and has enough money to pay everyone unemployment. In this unlikely scenario, I think hte best bet is for the government to go all-out socialist, rebuild the economy, get everyone back to work, and hope like hell they can get it done before anybody notices the economy collapses. But something tells me if we were ever in a system in which everyone could collect unemployment (let's see... that means we had not just full but universal employment, and then suddenly EVERYONE was laid off!), people wouldn't be bothering to file or collect checks. They'd probably be stockpiling ammunition.
Yes, unfortunately I am constrained by my own absurd set of standards, so that I must use reason and evidence to draw my conclusions!! I know that sort of thing may be a fraud to you, but you really should try it sometime. No, people like stuff. They can buy MUCH LESS STUFF, on unemployment benefits than they can working. Surprisingly that influences people decisions!! Who would have thought? Honestly, if all people wanted was the easiest money imaginable, greeter at walmart would be a dream job. It just so happens that people would, on average, rather work a more difficult job that pays more money!! Crazy I know. That means when faced with the decision of sitting home and collecting unemployment benefits that are a pittance, or getting a job that pays much more than that, people choose the latter. No surprise really, to anyone who understands even the smallest amount about how humans actually behave in the economy. What actually happens is that people take jobs they are unqualified for or over qualified for, because otherwise they would have no source of income. However, that is NOT an option when there are no jobs to be had. So what people would do, is look really hard for a job, not find one, and then be totally screwed. If you looked at this honestly, some people WOULD find jobs, but we would still be left with millions of people with no job, no source of income, and now no unemployment benefits. Not only would that be bad for the economy, because it would decrease demand, it would be bad for society, because poor desperate people with no income tend to causes a lot of problems!! Being ignorant in your estimation seems to be a compliment. It seems to mean, you actually have an idea of what you are talking about in your world. Employers already paid into a system to support the potential for unemployment. They pay a .8% of an employees annual wage into federal unemployment benefits, and the number varies by state, but is quite low. That is FAR less than what people are actually receiving from unemployment benefits, so quite clearly, it would not have the same impact. If everyone were on unemployment, there would be no one to buy any goods from, because no one would be selling anything. So quite clearly the answer to that is no. Do you have a legitimate point to make, or do you want to keep going on this idiotic line of reasoning?
My answer was Yes, but I'd expand on that and say that it is not a very efficient way of creating jobs. If you can't generate a lot of jobs it allows you to generate a few while allowing the unemployed to keep their income from collapsing completely (thus also avoiding people defaulting on their mortgage or being evicted for not paying their rent). It's still much better to generate a lot of jobs and pay as little unemployment benefits as possible.
So the act of stealing money from one, and giving to another.......somehow creates wealth......somehow grows the economic pie.......in Imaginationland. What is the negative multiplier effect of every dollar stolen out of the economy? Its all benefit without any detriment.....in Imaginationland. . . .
We can make it as complicated or as simple as you like. Those whose beliefs reside in Statism, will almost always prefer the latter........as it allows common sense to be removed from the equation. Which as you stiplified......is utter nonsense. Because NOBODY that loses their job and goes on unemployment........goes out and starts spending MORE......chances are they are going to be spending considerably LESS. So new Demand.....no increase in Consumption or Spending.....comes from paying people not to work. Its a net loss in each and every way..... . Well were getting closer to the truth........which means further away from Obama and Pelosi. Then you only have to ask if low corporate profits create jobs? Demand is directly involved....as is oxygen.....both required and vital to job creation......but by no means the determining factors. No successful business owner is going to look at permanent expansion from temporay artifical government created "Demand". . . . . . . . .
Its like a money tree.....all we have to do is water it with unemployment checks......and dollar bills start growing. Who knew creating wealth was this easy? The more people Obama can get unemployed......the more economic growth can be realized. . . .
EddyIsHere, Ethereal, frodly, gamewell45, Hard-Driver, skeptic-f ......so do WELFARE CHECKS create jobs too? . . . ..
And the Deep end from which it was removed, is now replenished from the Shallow end....... ......and yet the jobs pool isnt filling...... In which of the following scenarios would you be more likey to save your money? A. You with a Job B. You without a Job In which of the following scenarios would you be more likey to spend your money? A. You with a Job B. You without a Job Liberalism is a complete lie and utter fraud........come to grips...... . . .
