re: Obama: Extending Unemployment Benefits “Creates New Jobs”

quote:

---

That's odd, because the very definition of "poor" means lacking in money. That's a pretty drastic redefinition of a word considering all the redefining of words the right accuses the left of doing.

---

There are no poor people in the US. All people here have money. Lots of money.

Rector

Read his studies and get back with me.

quote:

---

there is no escaping the simple truth that more customers leads to more production and more jobs

---

Maybe so but when those receiving these extensions go spend their money it's usually on stuff that's not even made in the states. Doesn't seem to have helped "our" job market since unemployment skyrocketed over the last few years.

Other than food purchases I'd be willing to bet that purchases made with UB money go towards at least 70% of products made overseas, or in Mexico.

quote:

---

There are no poor people in the US. All people here have money. Lots of money.

---

Well, if you believe that, then I can see why you don't understand the very basic principle that giving $1,000 to 1,000 people who each only have $1,000 in the bank will stir more activity, create more demand for goods, and spur more job creation than giving $1,000,000 to 1 person who already has $1,000,000 in the bank.

quote:

---

That's odd, because the very definition of "poor" means lacking in money

---

"poor" is probably one of the most misused and abused words next to "racist" in this country.

In the United States, someone can have:

Central AC
Heat
Electricity
New Clothes
More than enough food
Housing
Running water (Hot/Cold)
New Iphone
Big screen TV (multiple tv's in the household)
PS3/Xbox
Cable
Money to eat at restaurants
Money to go to the movie theater
Washer/Dryer
Microwaves, ovens, modern appliances, etc...

...and still be considered "poor".

That is not poverty....that is not "poor".
And extending unemployment benefits is perfectly fine except for the fact that among the "poor", it's not temporary. It's considered a permanent way of life like welfare, foodstamps, etc....

At what point do we realize, using money generated by the tax payers isn't the solution to every single problem?

You're taking that dollar out of my pocket via taxes and giving it to someone else and saying it's creating jobs. How about you let me keep my $1 (that I actually earned), and I'll spend it. Seems to me it can create a job just as effectively if I spend it myself versus giving it to someone who isn't working to spend.

quote:

---

"poor" is probably one of the most misused and abused words next to "racist" in this country.

In the United States, someone can have:

Central AC
Heat
Electricity
New Clothes
More than enough food
Housing
Running water (Hot/Cold)
New Iphone
Big screen TV (multiple tv's in the household)
PS3/Xbox
Cable
Money to eat at restaurants
Money to go to the movie theater
Washer/Dryer
Microwaves, ovens, modern appliances, etc...

...and still be considered "poor".

---

You have this idea that all the "poor" are just wasteful, when this is not always the case or even necessarily the norm. Your prejudice shows further in this statement:

quote:

---

the fact that among the "poor", it's not temporary. It's considered a permanent way of life like welfare, foodstamps, etc....

---

I'm not going to try to argue your opinion out of you, because it is not only pointless but it also has nothing to do with the economic principle that I am talking about.

quote:

---

You're taking that dollar out of my pocket via taxes and giving it to someone else and saying it's creating jobs. How about you let me keep my $1 (that I actually earned), and I'll spend it. Seems to me it can create a job just as effectively if I spend it myself versus giving it to someone who isn't working to spend.

---

It would, if you were equally likely to spend it as someone with no income would be. Each additional dollar in income is less likely to be spent and more likely to be saved, and spending money is what lubricates and grows an economy. Would you like to dispute this very simple point I am making, or would you like to continue going off on tangents?

quote:

---

To growth the economy you need improvements in efficiency and innovation. Just "spending money" has no long term effect.

---

You realize that consumers spending money means revenue for businesses, right? And you realize that without revenue, businesses will not have the means to improve very much, right? And you realize that revenue, or at least the prospect of increased revenue, is also necessary if you want to hire more employees or expand production, right? Where do you think that revenue is going to come from?

quote:

---

So patronizing. You fancy yourself some economic guru...however your oversimplifications are comical.

---

I honestly don't try to be patronizing. How do you recommend explaining simple concepts to people who simply don't want to understand them without simplifying things to hell?

And I am far from an economic guru, but compared to the majority of this board it sure seems like I am.

Or, perhaps you can explain to me how my explanations are wrong?

quote:

---

Well, if you believe that, then I can see why you don't understand the very basic principle that giving $1,000 to 1,000 people who each only have $1,000 in the bank will stir more activity, create more demand for goods, and spur more job creation than giving $1,000,000 to 1 person who already has $1,000,000 in the bank.

---

Well, then let's give everyone a Million dollars.
Why not? Explain it to me.

quote:

---

You realize that consumers spending money means revenue for businesses, right? And you realize that without revenue, businesses will not have the means to improve very much, right? And you realize that revenue, or at least the prospect of increased revenue, is also necessary if you want to hire more employees or expand production, right? Where do you think that revenue is going to come from?

---

quote:

---

I honestly don't try to be patronizing. How do you recommend explaining simple concepts to people who simply don't want to understand them without simplifying things to hell?

And I am far from an economic guru, but compared to the majority of this board it sure seems like I am.

Or, perhaps you can explain to me how my explanations are wrong?

---

People, including myself, have tried to explain how they are wrong; you just don't care to listen.

The core problem is you seem to think money moving through the system leads to economic growth. I will concede that it might in the short term cause some economic indicators to rise. Long-term growth comes from productivity gains (and population growth, but set that aside).

Think about the logical implications of your position: Just taxing higher income people and giving it to the poor (since they spend more) is apparently the key to a great economy. That money will get "spent." Of course you are creating both a disincentive to 1) get a job and 2) make more money. Put that aside, you are taking money from people that are productive (i.e. make more money) and give it to those that are not productive (i.e. don't have a job).

Now there are some very good reasons to have unemployment insurance, mostly related to altrusim, but also as a stabilzing force during a downturn. But it is a long term prescription for a disaster.

If this is such a good idea, why limit it to 2 years. Just keep paying people to not have a job. Why not?

quote:

---

If this is such a good idea, why limit it to 2 years. Just keep paying people to not have a job. Why not?

---

Look, the government is supposed to be a co-operative of the people. To that end, the government owes the unemployed for strangling the economy. It's just that simple.

NOW we can argue as to whether or not the government should be assaulting the economy if you like