• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToxicAdam

Member
KHarvey16 said:
I think allowing more people to spend money creates jobs.
Click to expand...

You missed a key word .. NEW jobs.

There are certainly plenty of unemployed in this country, and I think it's silly to simply dismiss unemployment compensation as having any effect on aggregate demand or job creation. If the author is stating his opinion that these things do not stimulate job creation, he hasn't justified it one bit. I don't think he has even tried but if he did, I suspect he wouldn't be able to.
Click to expand...

I think the author is stating that these are not new programs, so it's very likely they will not have dramatic (positive) effect on our current situation.
 
J

jay

Member
empty vessel said:
He is. It's just that he's traditionally so, about the only one left these days besides David Frum, a Canadian. So it's easy to mistake him for something else.
Click to expand...

If he were a conservative wouldn't he be for extending tax cuts? Seems like he is a Republican to me.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
jay said:
That's interesting. I'll definitely read more about it.

In all likelihood the reaction to proposing that would be complaints that it's the same old green stimulus spending that already failed. I'm not saying you would dismiss it, but there's no chance the Republicans wouldn't write it off as tired. Some may even call it a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

The problem with the current Republican leadership is that they will not agree to anything a Democrat initially proposes. Once they do, it becomes a bargaining chip they want to use. Regardless of how they really feel about the program or if they supported it in the past.


Another good idea I have seen floated around is already being done at the state level (and has received bipartisan support at the national level):


Under Georgia Works, people who register with the state for unemployment benefits can volunteer to receive up 24 hours of on-the-job training for up to eight weeks. They also receive a weekly stipend to cover costs such as child care or transportation. According to statistics compiled by the Georgia Department of Labor, 10,589 people participated in Georgia Works from February 2003 until January 2010. Of that number, 6,105 completed training and 3,363 were hired either during or at the end of their training.

An additional 1,170 people found work within 90 days of completing training, Thurmond said. Those who did not find work received a training certificate to help boost their marketability
Click to expand...

Link
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
ToxicAdam said:
You missed a key word .. NEW jobs.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Businesses hiring more employees because there exists more demand(and more money to be spent) would constitute new jobs.

ToxicAdam said:
I think the author is stating that these are not new programs, so it's very likely they will not have dramatic (positive) effect on our current situation.
Click to expand...

And how does he know that? Just because net unemployment rises doesn't mean everything you've done to create jobs has failed. If, for instance, 100 jobs are lost for whatever reason and unemployment checks fund purchases that create 50 jobs, you can't just look at the end result of 50 lost jobs and declare all efforts to stimulate job growth have been equally useless or lacking. Clearly these are just random numbers used to illustrate a point but that point applies to our current situation and our efforts to help solve this problem.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
Anything that prevents more jobs from being lost is good. We've had several months where public sector job losses effectively canceled out gains in the private sector. We can't move forward by running in place.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
KHarvey16 said:
I don't understand. Businesses hiring more employees because there exists more demand(and more money to be spent) would constitute new jobs.
Click to expand...

This is money already built-in to the current economy. This is not 'new' stimulus. This is also money that is used to buy essential goods. These people are not going out there and buying boats, cars or adding additions with this money.

And how does he know that? Just because net unemployment rises doesn't mean everything you've done to create jobs has failed. If, for instance, 100 jobs are lost for whatever reason and unemployment checks fund purchases that create 50 jobs, you can't just look at the end result of 50 lost jobs and declare all efforts to stimulate job growth have been equally useless or lacking. Clearly these are just random numbers used to illustrate a point but that point applies to our current situation and our efforts to help solve this problem.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I fail to see how people making lower class wages can have that dramatic effect on demand. Especially when that effect is spread out all over our country.

You can go back in time and look at the absolute anemic response our economy had when GWB passed out stimulus checks to everyone earlier last decade.


In short: All 'temporary' tax cuts must end. All extended unemployment must end. It's time for America to 'eat it's peas'.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
ToxicAdam said:
This is money already built-in to the current economy. This is not 'new' stimulus. This is also money that is used to buy essential goods. These people are not going out there and buying boats, cars or adding additions with this money.
Click to expand...

But...people are employed making and selling essential goods. I don't understand what you mean by "new" stimulus.

ToxicAdam said:
Sorry, I fail to see how people making lower class wages can have that dramatic effect on demand. Especially when that effect is spread out all over our country.

You can go back in time and look at the absolute anemic response our economy had when GWB passed out stimulus checks to everyone earlier last decade.
Click to expand...

You just keep assuring me these things are true.
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
So two votes Empty, two others Toxic, and another Rusty


Where are the votes for Gaborn? He's one of the few sane far right wing people out there.

RustyNails said:
You have a choice people. The way your America will look in the future will depend on your vote. We need a choice other than Rapture from Bioshock or Soviet Union under Lenin. And that choice my friends, is me! Vote for me, and we'll vote for America. We need a broom, a dustbin and a real American to dust the capitol hill, and dust them we will!!

You my friend, just qualified yourself for the VP position.

Rusty Spec 2012! Bring the Brooms!
Click to expand...


Spec as the VP? This is going to be hard to beat.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
KHarvey16 said:
But...people are employed making and selling essential goods. I don't understand what you mean by "new" stimulus.
Click to expand...

It's an extension of already present tax cuts. So the effects on jobs would just be a continuance of it's effect right now.
 
B

besada

Banned
Flying_Phoenix said:
Gaborn - The Libertarian Party
Empty Vessel - The True Left Party
RustyNails - The Labor Party
Toxic Adam - The Troll Party


EDIT - So far 1 for Toxic Adam and 1 for Empty Vessel.
Click to expand...
I'll be voting for EV. And campaigning for him.

It'd be the first time in my life, other than primaries, that I'd have the opportunity to vote for a candidate whose values I admired.
 
T

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Why can't be just return tax rates to what they were under Reagan (EXACTLY), specifically call it "The Ronald Reagan Plan" while extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan in every paragraph of every speech talking about the plan. Make a website commemorating Ronald Reagan and discussing how taxes need to go back to what they were in that era, to "what worked".
Why not take what the GOP says and directly use it against them.

Maybe this idea is REAL dumb though. :?
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
besada said:
I'll be voting for EV. And campaigning for him.

It'd be the first time in my life, other than primaries, that I'd have the opportunity to vote for a candidate whose values I admired.
Click to expand...
I'd vote for EV. Bumper stickers and all.
 
G

Gr1mLock

Passing metallic gas
besada said:
I'll be voting for EV. And campaigning for him.

It'd be the first time in my life, other than primaries, that I'd have the opportunity to vote for a candidate whose values I admired.
Click to expand...

Im pretty new to this thread but id go with EV as well.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Byakuya769 said:
It's an extension of already present tax cuts. So the effects on jobs would just be a continuance of it's effect right now.
Click to expand...

The payroll tax is extended and increased for employees and the unemployment compensation has few other things attached(Obama specifically mentioned the program in Georgia that ToxicAdam cited a few posts above). My point is though, where is the justification for declaring the existing unemployment compensation a failed source of stimulus? All anyone does it assert it is. How do they know?
 
B

besada

Banned
Timedog said:
Why can't be just return tax rates to what they were under Reagan (EXACTLY), specifically call it "The Ronald Reagan Plan" while extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan in every paragraph of every speech talking about the plan. Make a website commemorating Ronald Reagan and discussing how taxes need to go back to what they were in that era, to "what worked".
Why not take what the GOP says and directly use it against them.

Maybe this idea is REAL dumb though. :?
Click to expand...
That's actually hilarious, and I'd love watching the GOP vote against it.
 
B

besada

Banned
RustyNails said:
Besada, how can you do this to me, maaaan! Fine, no more federal emergency funds for you when I'm in office!
Click to expand...
Gotta vote with my heart when there's no question of electability.
 
T

Tristam

Member
Timedog said:
Why can't be just return tax rates to what they were under Reagan (EXACTLY), specifically call it "The Ronald Reagan Plan" while extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan in every paragraph of every speech talking about the plan. Make a website commemorating Ronald Reagan and discussing how taxes need to go back to what they were in that era, to "what worked".
Why not take what the GOP says and directly use it against them.

Maybe this idea is REAL dumb though. :?
Click to expand...

This is genius.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
KHarvey16 said:
But...people are employed making and selling essential goods. I don't understand what you mean by "new" stimulus.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what to tell you. You can check out this profile, divide it by 1/3, then multiply it by the numbers of people still collecting extended unemployment benefits. Then tell me if that will make a sizeable difference in an economy that spends 10 trillion dollars a year.

It's important to note that I (or the author of that blurb) are not saying it has ZERO effect, but rather it will not have a DISCERNIBLE positive effect on our current situation.

You just keep assuring me these things are true.
Click to expand...

It's just common knowledge that consumer spending drives demand and the vast bulk of that occurs in the middle and upper incomes. Unless you are someone that subscribes to Say's law ... then that's a discussion I don't really care to have.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
ToxicAdam said:
I posted this the other day, but Al Franken has a great idea:
<payback through energy savings>
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is what I have been saying for a while. The investment market is bleak . . . the stock market is shit, mortgage-backed securities LOL, government bonds pay nothing, etc. One 'sure thing' investment is in energy savings. If you can make investment X that will reduce your energy bill by Y per month, you can find areas where you get a decent return on your investment. Just figure out which ones make sense. They can be heat pumps, insulation, PV systems, replacing oil-furnaces with natural gas, etc.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Timedog said:
Why can't be just return tax rates to what they were under Reagan (EXACTLY), specifically call it "The Ronald Reagan Plan" while extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan in every paragraph of every speech talking about the plan. Make a website commemorating Ronald Reagan and discussing how taxes need to go back to what they were in that era, to "what worked".
Why not take what the GOP says and directly use it against them.

Maybe this idea is REAL dumb though. :?
Click to expand...
I have proposed the exact same thing in many-a-messageboard posting.

Too many conservatives these days have ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY. They don't realize that we are at record low tax rates. They don't realize they are calling Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon, Kennedy . . . all of them 'communists'. It is just a non-thinking "tax cuts = good . . . ALWAYS!". Seriously now . . . Bush called it "Voodoo economics" . . . and even Reagan raised tax rates. Today it is just insane. The only Republican that has the right to call for such low rates in Ron Paul . . . and they hate him.
 
C

cooljeanius

Member
+1 for Empty Vessel. How exactly are the votes being counted? Is it just a simple plurality, or are we doing something more complex than that?
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
ToxicAdam said:
I really don't know what to tell you. You can check out this profile, divide it by 1/3, then multiply it by the numbers of people still collecting extended unemployment benefits. Then tell me if that will make a sizeable difference in an economy that spends 10 trillion dollars a year.

It's important to note that I (or the author of that blurb) are not saying it has ZERO effect, but rather it will not have a DISCERNIBLE positive effect on our current situation.
Click to expand...

And you still cannot substantiate any of it. You just know it's true because it must be. That chart isn't helpful, nor is bringing up the total size of the US economy.

ToxicAdam said:
It's just common knowledge that consumer spending drives demand and the vast bulk of that occurs in the middle and upper incomes. Unless you are someone that subscribes to Say's law ... then that's a discussion I don't really care to have.
Click to expand...

Yes, spending drives demand. More money to spend = more demand. Unemployment compensation is more money than they would have otherwise. How much demand is it driving? I don't know, but you and that author are claiming it is negligible. You have yet to justify this with anything substantive. All you're presenting is an argument from incredulity.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
See guys? I can attract left wing (spec) as well as rightwing (manos). I can bring the independent votes!
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Truthfully the only time I've voted Republican was for Arlen Spector, I think otherwise I've always voted Democratic. But what the hey!
Click to expand...
shhh
 
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
RustyNails said:
See guys? I can attract left wing (spec) as well as rightwing (manos). I can bring the independent votes!
Click to expand...
Truthfully the only time I've voted Republican was for Arlen Spector, I think otherwise I've always voted Democratic. But what the hey!
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
Chumly said:
Seriously. Just watched it also. What the FUCK. Can people possible be this dumb?
Click to expand...

Just watched a segment of Hannity with Frank Luntz and a group of voters in Atlanta. Trust me, they can.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Timedog said:
Why can't be just return tax rates to what they were under Reagan (EXACTLY), specifically call it "The Ronald Reagan Plan" while extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan in every paragraph of every speech talking about the plan. Make a website commemorating Ronald Reagan and discussing how taxes need to go back to what they were in that era, to "what worked".
Why not take what the GOP says and directly use it against them.

Maybe this idea is REAL dumb though. :?
Click to expand...

Eh, that sounds like a great idea up until you realize that the right wingers would have a loophole by pointing out that in his final two years, Reagan lowered the top tax rate to 28%. :/
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Measley said:
Just watched a segment of Hannity with Frank Luntz and a group of voters in Atlanta. Trust me, they can.
Click to expand...
I think Fox News screens people for it's audience. Wouldn't bet on it though. Many of them usually regurgitate teaparty talking points.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
RustyNails said:
See guys? I can attract left wing (spec) as well as rightwing (manos). I can bring the independent votes!
Click to expand...
I'm not left wing. I'm indepedent . . . that is why you got my vote.

I think Rick Perry calling Social Security a 'Ponzi Scheme' is accurate albeit politically incorrect.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
Is he even allowed to do that?
Click to expand...
The President sends bills to Congress all the time (not referring to Obama here, just in general).

Obama specifically said in this case he was sending this bill, fully drafted, to Congress, so I imagine that will happen. Probably in the next few weeks after the language is drafted and the CBO score in line.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
GhaleonEB said:
The President sends bills to Congress all the time (not referring to Obama here, just in general).

Obama specifically said in this case he was sending this bill, fully drafted, to Congress, so I imagine that will happen. Probably in the next few weeks after the language is drafted and the CBO score in line.
Click to expand...


Oh, for some reason I was under the impression that he could only send outlines and agendas, but not fully written bills.

Thanks!
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
KHarvey16 said:
And you still cannot substantiate any of it. You just know it's true because it must be. That chart isn't helpful, nor is bringing up the total size of the US economy.
Click to expand...

Showing the typical spending habits of an American and then showing you the paltry amount someone collecting extended unemployment actually represents on our entire economy is not helpful?

Isn't that what we are talking about? The actual REAL LIFE effects someone collecting benefits might have on demand? That's what I did .. I showed you what the typical American might spend in a given year and what a paltry amount it represents to our economy. How is that not helpful for you to attempt to understand? Unless you really don't care to understand and just want to argue.

I'm the only one here talking in real-world terms. You have only deflected by producing hypotheticals and "I don't know's".


Yes, spending drives demand. More money to spend = more demand. Unemployment compensation is more money than they would have otherwise. How much demand is it driving? I don't know, but you and that author are claiming it is negligible. You have yet to justify this with anything substantive. All you're presenting is an argument from incredulity.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's my point. This money is not big enough to significantly effect demand.

We already know the effects of unemployment compensation in our economy, because we know what the spending power of people making 20k a year represents to our economy. So, this amount (of recipients) is even a small fraction of that small number.

I already iterated to you that the GWB stimulus checks had very little effect on improving employment or stimulating demand earlier in the decade. That was a MASSIVE influx of small amounts of money to every consumer in the economy. Much moreso than the amount of money that is provided through parts of the Obama plan.

So my argument is only incredulous because you continually sidestep the points I make and circle back to things I have already addressed. I haven't even touched on the fact that our economy is completely interwoven with the global economy, so simply giving someone 100 dollars and expecting all that money to drive up demand with American companies is flimsy at best.
 
F

Flying_Phoenix

Banned
So 6 for Empty, 3 for Toxic, 3 for Rusty, 0 for Gaborn.

Where are the libertarians?

Just watched Bachmann's reply to Obama.....Oh...my...God...


RustyNails said:
See guys? I can attract left wing (spec) as well as rightwing (manos). I can bring the independent votes!
Click to expand...

Anyone who isn't "left" in modern American politics isn't likely to be educated or sane.
 
B

besada

Banned
Anyone can submit a bill. Anyone. You, me, the President, Timedog. Only a Congressperson can file a bill, but anyone can submit one. It's how lobbyists have been writing our laws for years. They draft a bill, then find Congresspersons to sponsor and file it.

Do they even teach civics in school any more?
 
S

speculawyer

Member
WTF is this shit?
e09a9afc47403814f80e6a70670047c2.jpg

Are they gonna bring guns and a sign talking about the tree of liberty next?

And, BTW asshole, Obama proposed expanded drilling right before BP fucked it all up. Blame 'private enterprise' for fucking things up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Remember what happened to the Infinity Ward Founders?
8
2K
Chuck Berry replied
Did anyone else think that the Nintendo Wii was going to be the best selling console ever back then?
39
4K
Eddie-Griffin replied
|OT| NEOGAF 2020 Pick-Up Post! Show Us Your Gaming Goods + MORE [REAL PICS ONLY]
|OT| 2
85
11K
Godzilla Emu replied
Top Bottom