Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

are you one of those white people at Glenn Beck's rally yesterday? Everybody knows white people go to Glenn Beck rallies.

I stayed home to discriminate against and profile Latinos. More fun, because in Arizona you can do it with a gun.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

One of the quickest ways to get people spending again (who aren't spending now) would have been to extend unemployment benefits, no?

No.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

No.

The brevity of an answer doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The brevity of an answer doesn't make it any less wrong.

The paucity of logic in your analysis doesn't make it right, either. In part because the benefits were extended, it was in all the papers. And we can all look forward to these folks buying cars and other durable goods on these tiny checks.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The paucity of logic in your analysis doesn't make it right, either.

Of course. There was no logic in my post. Nor was there in yours. We were both merely reciting ritualized positions.

The only difference is that I'm not wrong.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Of course. There was no logic in my post. Nor was there in yours. We were both merely reciting ritualized positions.

The only difference is that I'm not wrong.

The suggestion that extending unemployment benefits is the road map out of a recession is not just illogical, it's silly. And if you're trying to entertain us with your mordant wit, try harder.

 

[SteveF]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

One of the quickest ways to get people spending again (who aren't spending now) would have been to extend unemployment benefits, no?

its funny that the people who argue most for extending bush tax cuts say that putting money in people's hands will spur the economy the most.. but then those same people turn around and object to extended unemployment benefits which would do the same thing. hypocrisy or stupid?

they make the argument that extending unemployment benefits hasnt been paid for through other spending cuts elsewhere... but then turn around and overlook that renewing bush tax cuts isnt offset by spending cuts either. again hypocrisy or stupid?

i lean toward hypocrisy. but the stupid jokers on here make it hard to tell.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The suggestion that extending unemployment benefits is the road map out of a recession is not just illogical, it's silly. And if you're trying to entertain us with your mordant wit, try harder.

Who said anything about roadmaps out of the recession. Nobody has a roadmap out of the recession. Nobody. Heck, I didn't even say it was good long-term policy.

Folks a few posts down were talking about people spending. Or more accurately not spending. Extending unemployment benefits is a much faster way of getting people to spend more in the short term, putting money back into their local economy. Compared to:

infrastructure spending? Arguably more worthwhile in the long run, if managed properly. A huge if. Either way, by the time the allocation is sorted out, and the contracting and subcontracting details are sorted out, who knows how much time has passed.

lowering taxes for FY2011? Not exactly short term.

Giving tax rebates? Faster than revising tax code, but not as efficient as unemployment. Rebates don't discriminate against recipients (one reason why some people like them so much). It creates a short-term boost, but not as efficiently, for the simple reason that a good chunk of the money goes to people who are already spending, who either will sit on the rebate or simply buy more expensive goods (better restaurant, bigger iPod) rather than more goods, period.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

One of the quickest ways to get people spending again (who aren't spending now) would have been to extend unemployment benefits, no?

Sure, if you don't mind millions of people living hand to mouth for an extended period of time, spending money that hasn't come from anything produced.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

its funny that the people who argue most for extending bush tax cuts say that putting money in people's hands will spur the economy the most.. but then those same people turn around and object to extended unemployment benefits which would do the same thing. hypocrisy or stupid?

they make the argument that extending unemployment benefits has been paid for through other spending cuts... but then turn around and overlook that renewing bush tax cuts isnt offset by spending cuts. again hypocrisy or stupid?

i lean toward hypocrisy. but the jokers on here make it hard to tell.

People on unemployment (jeebus I hate explaining this to presumably intelligent people) are barely making it. Cutting back everywhere they can, cancelling cable, eating out less often or not at all, making things do, trying to juggle their monthly payments to keep their heads above water while hoping they can find a job. The whole idea of unemployment benefits it to provide a weekly amount that will encourage people to look for work instead of living off the benefits and eating up their savings.

People with jobs are paying their bills, contemplating large purchases, vacations, high speed internet, new clothes for school and all the rest. And the money they earn will be taxed at a higher rate if the tax cuts are eliminated. We have a consumer economy in this country and keeping real money in people's pockets is one way to get them spending again.

If anybody is stupid around here, it would be someone who suggests that once we get everyone on a paltry weekly unemployment check and increase taxes on those who are working, our economy will take off. That's not just stupid, it's criminally stupid.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Who said anything about roadmaps out of the recession. Nobody has a roadmap out of the recession. Nobody. Heck, I didn't even say it was good long-term policy.

Folks a few posts down were talking about people spending. Or more accurately not spending. Extending unemployment benefits is a much faster way of getting people to spend more in the short term, putting money back into their local economy. Compared to:

infrastructure spending? Arguably more worthwhile in the long run, if managed properly. A huge if. Either way, by the time the allocation is sorted out, and the contracting and subcontracting details are sorted out, who knows how much time has passed.

lowering taxes for FY2011? Not exactly short term.

Giving tax rebates? Faster than revising tax code, but not as efficient as unemployment. Rebates don't discriminate against recipients (one reason why some people like them so much). It creates a short-term boost, but not as efficiently, for the simple reason that a good chunk of the money goes to people who are already spending, who either will sit on the rebate or simply buy more expensive goods (better restaurant, bigger iPod) rather than more goods, period.

Mr Apple, meet Mr. Orange

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

People on unemployment (jeebus I hate explaining this to presumably intelligent people) are barely making it. Cutting back everywhere they can, cancelling cable, eating out less often or not at all, making things do, trying to juggle their monthly payments to keep their heads above water while hoping they can find a job. The whole idea of unemployment benefits it to provide a weekly amount that will encourage people to look for work instead of living off the benefits and eating up their savings.

People with jobs are paying their bills

I'm going to cut you off here, because we agree on more than we disagree.

The debate isn't about *raising* unemployment benefits to a point that makes looking for a job irrational. It was about extending UI to folks who aren't even receiving *that* any more.

If folks on UI have it that bad, how bad do you think the unemployed folks have it who don't even receive it? That's the point - living on UI is hard enough that you can basically guarantee that every dollar goes back into the economy by way of spending.

It's even more rational if your characterization of living on UI is accurate. It means there's basically no moral hazard. Not even I would go *that* far.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

One of the quickest ways to get people spending again (who aren't spending now) would have been to extend unemployment benefits, no?

If I needed unemployment benefits I wouldn't be using the $ to buy anything more than the necessities. I'd live like Thoreau if I depended on unemployment for any length of time.

if you expect people who are jobless to run and spend unemployment checks on things other than necessities I'm not sure if you want to encourage dependency of if you think people spend unemployment (and not doubt some do) like high school kids spend their part-time $. to expect people to do this is I'd argue tacitly encouraging failure.

and by no means does spending unemployment $ boost an economy anyway. there's simply not enough $ nor inertia there.

each time we cycle through periods of high taxes and then get tax cuts from a reagan-type we have to re-learn over and over what seems a basic truth (and John Kennedy seems to be the last major democrat who understood this)...

in periods of Reagan or Bush II tax cuts the economy improves because there is more money flowing through the system, more money for you and I to spend or save, and for the real movers, CEO's, Managers, etc, that's more money to hire or consider opening a new store, etc. that perpetuates itself.

then, for liberals, there is also more $ flowing into the government coffers as a result as well.

there's been a lot of talk lately about recession #2 as it's beginning to look unavoidable. what's scary to me is how Obama and Bernake are reacting to all of this.

If Obama has any part of the "smartest man to ever reside at 1600 pennsylvania" he'd call Steve Wynn (my preference) or Warren Buffet to Washington tomorrow, let them go to work and basically give them the next 2 years to produce and implement economic policy in this country with no input whatsoever from Obama or any of his "still in college dorm" mentality Alinksyites.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

We were both merely reciting ritualized positions. The only difference is that I'm not wrong.

This is embarrassing, since you just summed up everything I've tried to say on political threads in 10 years and 10,000 posts, in 15 words and one emoticon.

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If anybody is stupid around here, it would be someone who suggests that once we get everyone on a paltry weekly unemployment check and increase taxes on those who are working, our economy will take off. That's not just stupid, it's criminally stupid.

Criminally stupid is fitting for both Obama and his predecessor. Making war like tough guys, but letting the next generation or two pay for it.

You want to make war. Pay for it. Sorry about the unemployment. Sorry about the tax cuts. We have wars to pay for.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You want to make war. Pay for it. Sorry about the unemployment. Sorry about the tax cuts. We have wars to pay for.

You may want to check and see how much the war cost compared to some of the other things these guys put future generations on the hook for. The term "drop in the bucket" comes to mind.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

This is embarrassing, since you just summed up everything I've tried to say on political threads in 10 years and 10,000 posts, in 15 words and one emoticon.

Sure he did. He also demonstrated how condescending and elitist both of you are.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm going to cut you off here, because we agree on more than we disagree.

The debate isn't about *raising* unemployment benefits to a point that makes looking for a job irrational. It was about extending UI to folks who aren't even receiving *that* any more.

If folks on UI have it that bad, how bad do you think the unemployed folks have it who don't even receive it? That's the point - living on UI is hard enough that you can basically guarantee that every dollar goes back into the economy by way of spending.

It's even more rational if your characterization of living on UI is accurate. It means there's basically no moral hazard. Not even I would go *that* far.

You're conflating two arguments that are unrelated except for the currency involved.

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

You may want to check and see how much the war cost compared to some of the other things these guys put future generations on the hook for. The term "drop in the bucket" comes to mind.

Sorry but a $1T is a big deal, this was today's money spent. When we get to some of the future spending, the money isn't going to be there and nobody is going to lend it.

In my opinion it really isn't going to matter our future financial commitments are. When there is no money and no lenders, the programs are going to be forced to be reduced.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If I needed unemployment benefits I wouldn't be using the $ to buy anything more than the necessities. I'd live like Thoreau if I depended on unemployment for any length of time.

if you expect people who are jobless to run and spend unemployment checks on things other than necessities I'm not sure if you want to encourage dependency of if you think people spend unemployment (and not doubt some do) like high school kids spend their part-time $. to expect people to do this is I'd argue tacitly encouraging failure.

Necessity is an elastic concept. With extra income, I expect people to buy some of the necessities that they forgo without that income, sure.

As with any kind of insurance, there's always an element of moral hazard. By itself, that isn't an argument against it.