U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2010, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Tallahassee
1,869 posts, read 836,838 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Is there a chance that you and Obama and the CBO have been listening to Nasty Nancy talk about this subject? It sure sounds like it. Why didn't 2 years of unemployment checks bring any more jobs than it did? You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Why? What is the answer?

Why did all those years of tax breaks for the wealthy not create enough jobs to keep unemployment low?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2010, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 69,870,497 times
Reputation: 27519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
Why? What is the answer?

Why did all those years of tax breaks for the wealthy not create enough jobs to keep unemployment low?
Newsflash..they lost money too in this recession.
Some even went out of business..Lehman, Bear.
Others are in over their eyeballs in debt..AIG, GM, etc.

Those are the wealthy; they have no extra money to spend and what money they have they are using to offshore their work because of labor costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:15 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,591,148 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
Why? What is the answer?

Why did all those years of tax breaks for the wealthy not create enough jobs to keep unemployment low?
I'm not sure where you live, but here in america we had unemployment rates below 5% for 4 1/2 years due to the tax cuts.. Just so you know, 5% is considered pretty close to full employment by almost all accounts. Even in todays economy, if the unemployed would fill the vacancies, the unemployment rate would fall to around 8%.. bad, but no where close to what we have right now..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,683 posts, read 14,804,749 times
Reputation: 3839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117 View Post
If you are making $25 an hour then lose your job, and have to accept unemployment checks that amount to a fraction of that, you are living off of significantly less than you were before. Therefore, you buy less, go out less, and eat at home more. That means economic output is reduced, not increased the longer the individual is unemployed.

The only way to remedy the problem is to focus on job creation, not enabling more people to live on significantly less income each week.
The output is less than if the person had the job making the $25 they use to, but its certainly not reduced compared to the $0 they would get if no unemployment check.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,683 posts, read 14,804,749 times
Reputation: 3839
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
We've seen just how well that theory works, haven't we?

2 years of UE benenits HAVE NOT resulted in an increase in jobs, exactly opposite in fact.

So again, if UE are so stimulative, we should want even MORE people out of a job and on UE, right? With that question, do you see how this "theory" of the Left falls to pieces?
More people would be unemployed without it.

Of course we shouldn't want more people out of work. No one is trying to argue that unemployment benefits is better than an actual job. What is being argued is providing benefits to those who are unemployed has the largest return in investment compared to other policies. Unemployment benefits will result in the unemployed spending more than they would without the benefits because the benefits is the difference in whether or not they can afford something. That spending would then boost demand which boosts growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,683 posts, read 14,804,749 times
Reputation: 3839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts? View Post
I may agree with this statement if the unemployed were out buying new TVs and clothes etc. The ones I know try to pay rent, utilities, insurance, taxes and buy food. For most, anything beyond that just isn't in the cards. So yes, I would believe the CBO could suggest that those on UE are the quickest to spend it. I'm just not sure how those necessities are going to stimulate the economy.
Well the unemployed do buy clothes when they need it. For example unemployment benefits might be the difference between if someone can afford to replace the aging winter jacket, the shoes their child is started to outgrow, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,683 posts, read 14,804,749 times
Reputation: 3839
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
But if UE is a fraction of their old salaries then how is demand increased ?
I would assume they are paying their rent and utilities first and whatever is left over goes to food.

I don't think UE provides much discretionary spending which IS what drives demand.
I just don't see the logic here that people getting less money than what they used to get will boost the economy. If anything, it will stagnate it or drive it lower.

Less money = less demand.
That is exactly what Bernanke is complaining about..the recovery isn't happening as fast as he wants it.
Of course less $$ is less demand. The argument isn't is unemployment better than being employed. Of course it isn't, no one would argue that. However its about getting a little something or getting nothing. Getting that little something (whether its $300 or $400 a week) boosts demand because that $$$ is much more likely to be spent than if that person was getting nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:30 PM
 
890 posts, read 597,310 times
Reputation: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Is there a chance that you and Obama and the CBO have been listening to Nasty Nancy talk about this subject? It sure sounds like it. Why didn't 2 years of unemployment checks bring any more jobs than it did? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

The unemployment benefits have prevented 3 million people from poverty. This is an achievement.

Unemployed people spend their money faster (food,utilities, clothing), while richer people sit on their money or spend it on luxury goods.

Democrats support unemployment insurance/benefits not just because it makes them feel fuzzy inside, but because it is economically sound and stimulative....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
18,683 posts, read 14,804,749 times
Reputation: 3839
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I'm not sure where you live, but here in america we had unemployment rates below 5% for 4 1/2 years due to the tax cuts.. Just so you know, 5% is considered pretty close to full employment by almost all accounts. Even in todays economy, if the unemployed would fill the vacancies, the unemployment rate would fall to around 8%.. bad, but no where close to what we have right now..
It was about 2 years it was under 5% not 4 1/2 (late 05- late 07) and it bottomed out higher than what it was before the cuts took place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:33 PM
 
3,065 posts, read 3,693,245 times
Reputation: 2695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perlier View Post
Why? What is the answer?

Why did all those years of tax breaks for the wealthy not create enough jobs to keep unemployment low?
I love people like you. It's always about "the tax breaks for the wealthy", and "the tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs" blah blah blah.

You never point out that those tax breaks were/are tax breaks for EVERYBODY, oh no. You make it sound like the tax breaks for the middle class were a raging success for not creating any jobs, but the tax breaks for the wealthy were a colossal failure.

How come the tax breaks for the middle class didn't create the jobs you wanted? Oh wait...you can't answer that, because you'd have to admit your argument sucks, and you'd have to admit you just want YOUR tax breaks because you like them, but you want other people to pick up the slack and pay the share you aren't paying anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top