- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How are government subsidies "stimulative"?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:17 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:17 am
and more importantly, is this the biggest example of an overt, direct vote grab program that we've seen in a long time?
i'm watching my girl MHP and they just went over the hot-button issue of unemployment benefits. this bled into a discussion of how we're going to see a similar fight about SNAP and other programs in a couple months, and we should just bundle them all into 1 fight
the primary argument from the leftists/progressives/democrats/liberals was that these programs are not only good, but necessary because of all the "stimulus" they provide the economy. they even posted this article
ok ignoring the mythical "multiplier effect", how are these subsidies going to be positive net, over the long term? what the government delivers to the population via these programs is being borrowed (or taken from others). any amounts borrowed will have to be paid back (with interest). not only is that not a net positive, it's a net negative (ignoring inflation).
i'm watching my girl MHP and they just went over the hot-button issue of unemployment benefits. this bled into a discussion of how we're going to see a similar fight about SNAP and other programs in a couple months, and we should just bundle them all into 1 fight
the primary argument from the leftists/progressives/democrats/liberals was that these programs are not only good, but necessary because of all the "stimulus" they provide the economy. they even posted this article
quote:
The expiration of federal unemployment insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than $400 million out of the pockets of American job seekers nationwide and state economies, according to a new analysis by Ways and Means Committee Democrats.
quote:
Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is conservative because it only takes into account the total dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5 to 2 to show the true economic impact.
ok ignoring the mythical "multiplier effect", how are these subsidies going to be positive net, over the long term? what the government delivers to the population via these programs is being borrowed (or taken from others). any amounts borrowed will have to be paid back (with interest). not only is that not a net positive, it's a net negative (ignoring inflation).
8
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
How are they not stimulative?
They are stimulating unemployment and indolence. Corruption and fraud. Massive government bureaucracy.
I don't understand your point?
They are stimulating unemployment and indolence. Corruption and fraud. Massive government bureaucracy.
I don't understand your point?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is conservative because it only takes into account the total dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5 to 2 to show the true economic impact.
This always amuses me.
Sure. A subsidy can be "stimulative" if only measure where it stimulates but don't measure where it takes away. IE, If I hand you $100 this week and you go out and spend that money on something in your neighborhood, that was stimulative. If no one takes the time to also measure what happened with me when I gave away the $100, then boom. All good.
Now yes, a govt is different but the principle is the same. They are measuring the effects of the money in but completely ignoring that the money didn't come from the money fairy. It came from somewhere and if money in = stimulation, money out clearly does the opposite.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Have you taken an economics course? It should be obvious that money given to poor people gets spent rather quickly... spent on goods and services with a multiplier effect.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:30 am to Rex
That's the funny thing. The money just goes right back up to the top anyway.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:32 am to Rex
quote:
It should be obvious that money given to poor people gets spent rather quickly.
this isn't always ideal, and again, as my OP asks:
quote:
and more importantly, is this the biggest example of an overt, direct vote grab program that we've seen in a long time?
that is basically admitting as much
quote:
with a multiplier effect.
if you spend $1, you spend $1. that $1 doesn't magically increase or decrease because it flows through other people down the line. if you want to explain to me how $1 can become more, i'm willing to listen
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:33 am to Powerman
quote:
That's the funny thing. The money just goes right back up to the top anyway.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:33 am to Powerman
Rex I think u need to go back and take that economics class again.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:34 am to Powerman
quote:
That's the funny thing. The money just goes right back up to the top anyway.
And on the way back to the top a poor person gets to eat and air condition his house. And the AC repair man gets to eat and buy a TV... etc, etc, etc.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:35 am to Rex
So what happens when that person spends all his stimulus money?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Just point out the abject failure of the Obozo/Nancy/Harry stimulus package that spent close to a trillion dolllars(I think the hid some shite in the package to exceed that number) and all the jobs created/saved by it. You know the ones that kept the unemployment rate at less than 8% so well or any bar graphs that she can comprehend on the subject. Inform her of the fact that for two years the UE numbers have dropped as people ran out on their benefits and not finding a job as she thinks is the case. Reporting on the true acts by the MSM on the smoke and mirrors of the numbers will never be reported for the sake of the Messiahs legacy in books on his career.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:37 am to Rex
quote:
And on the way back to the top a poor person gets to eat and air condition his house. And the AC repair man gets to eat and buy a TV... etc, etc, etc.
and the prices for that food and air conditioner service repair goes up, which hurts everyone else (especially the working poor who don't receive these subsidies). why do you want to hurt the working poor and middle class?
*ETA: you're also taking money out of their pockets, or the pockets of their kids down the line. why do you hate the FUTURE economy?
This post was edited on 1/5/14 at 9:38 am
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:38 am to Rex
quote:
Have you taken an economics course? It should be obvious that money given to poor people gets spent rather quickly... spent on goods and services with a multiplier effect.
Except that money was redirected not earned. There was no good produced or service rendered for that money. The economy consist of more than just currency. The other end of the spectrum is production. Redirecting currency is just that. It doesn't really create new stimulation, it simply relocates stimulation.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:38 am to Rex
quote:
And on the way back to the top a poor person gets to eat and air condition his house. And the AC repair man gets to eat and buy a TV... etc, etc, etc.
You see people. This is the stupid shite I mean. He's measuring only where the money went, but not any effects from where it left.
This is nothing more than a money shuffle. It simply moves where the money is spent and then, only measures that spending and its effects.
Meanwhile, how many poor people went unhired because the guy who would've hired them had that money taken from him? How many got lower raises? Or, are paid less in the first place because despite them being productive, the person paying them has to also give away money to be handed to someone unproductive?
And on and on.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:39 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Redirecting currency is just that. It doesn't really create new stimulation, it simply relocates stimulation.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:41 am to Rex
quote:
And on the way back to the top a poor person gets to eat and air condition his house
And in the meantime the middle American who is on a fixed budget now has more of his money taken from that budget by the government to help pay for the a/c. Now, middle American has less money to spend that he earned thus sacrificing his needs and wants for someone who will probably not have one ounce of gratification in their body.
I really don't see your line of reasoning. It all washes out in the end.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:42 am to Powerman
quote:
That's the funny thing. The money just goes right back up to the top anyway.
That's the Wal-Mart lobby making that happen. That's big government for you.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:46 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
And in the meantime the middle American who is on a fixed budget now has more of his money taken from that budget by the government to help pay for the a/c
Correct. Instead of that dollar being spent by the person who earned it, it is spent by another person.
This like arguing that business who employees five workers who produce at $100,000 each would be better off employing ten workers (only five of which produce) at $50,000.
Would you argue the business is now growing thanks to the reallocation of salary?
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:48 am to Antonio Moss
Favorable policy and taxation is the only way to stimulate pure growth.
Posted on 1/5/14 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if you spend $1, you spend $1. that $1 doesn't magically increase or decrease because it flows through other people down the line.
You really DON'T understand stimulative subsidies or the multiplier effect. That $1 gets spent all the way back up the chain, just as Powerman said.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News