Are unemployment benefit extensions really "helpful" to the economy in the long term?

[SunnyD]

But if the GOVERNMENT taxes and invests and keeps the economy moving, businesses are glad it is. Hopefully, the investment is on something more useful than war - but even that horrible investment spent on things left in scrap on the battlefield helped the economy recover with WWII. It needed the government to borrow a lot of money - which then grew the economy and let the debt go down.

How is this any different from what I alluded to? You simply cut out the middleman (Government). I'll admit, it may appear to be an oversimplification, but none-the-less, it is what it is.

Yes... I do get it, despite what you seem to think.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Unless you can force employers to hire people you either have UI or you have the disintegration of the nation and eventual anarchy. People have to eat, and if there's no other way for them to get the money to do so they WILL turn to crime. So that's your choice: subsidy or chaos.

 

[PingSpike]

It doesn't seem like they are accomplishing anything besides delaying the adjustment and probably keeping more people from being pissed off at the government. Let's face it the government is not actually trying to fix any of the more fundamental problems with the US economy, they were just hoping the next bubble would have shown up by now so we could all be distracted from the orderly looting and pillaging. So we'll extend those UE benefits and hope we can kick that can down the road one more time. The trouble is we've been trying to pretend things are the same using a pile of debt for so long that we've finally started to "run out" of the debt.

On an individual level I can't blame some one choosing to sit at home taking UE benefits for years at a time rather than taking a low paying job at home depot. It just doesn't make any sense to do otherwise. Both are situations where your skills will be considered stagnated by higher paying employers when (if?) the economy picks up again, but in one situation you don't have to go to work at a demeaning job and you could probably make up some BS about consulting during the 2 years to pad your resume.

If your spouse has a decent enough job you could do something else like start a family or fix up your house while the government pays you. And since the government has shown it will continually extend the benefits to stave off angry voters it seems like a good bet they'll continue doing it for at least a little while longer.

 

[JS80]

Unless you can force employers to hire people you either have UI or you have the disintegration of the nation and eventual anarchy. People have to eat, and if there's no other way for them to get the money to do so they WILL turn to crime. So that's your choice: subsidy or chaos.

Yea, because there was anarchy prior to the passing of unemployment insurance laws

 

[bfdd]

Unless you can force employers to hire people you either have UI or you have the disintegration of the nation and eventual anarchy. People have to eat, and if there's no other way for them to get the money to do so they WILL turn to crime. So that's your choice: subsidy or chaos.

yes, you're talking about drastic change. you know the thing everyone says this country needs, but will do everything to fight. chaos brings about order. you're simply ok placating the masses so you can be comfortable. pathetic. you guys talk about wanting to help people, want to make the world a better place, but you have no interest in it. you simply want them to go away so they don't distract you from your sunshines and rainbow farts.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Yea, because there was anarchy prior to the passing of unemployment insurance laws

As a matter of fact, there was to some degree. The depression caused skyrocketing crime until early spending provided options (soup kitchens, tent cities, etc) and dropped the rate 10 points overnight. Even with those programs crime stayed high (comparatively) until the war.

Under normal economic times it wouldn't be a big deal because most people would have income to live from, and those that didn't could get enough from the limited support services to make it. Now, however, even those who are employed can't handle basic living costs, unemployment is through the roof (real numbers, not the government fed 9% bullshit), and services are stretched beyond breaking. With NO net, and NO hope forthcoming, it WILL be crime and chaos.

 

[PrinceofWands]

yes, you're talking about drastic change. you know the thing everyone says this country needs, but will do everything to fight. chaos brings about order. you're simply ok placating the masses so you can be comfortable. pathetic. you guys talk about wanting to help people, want to make the world a better place, but you have no interest in it. you simply want them to go away so they don't distract you from your sunshines and rainbow farts.

I'm all for a revolution, because it brings about change. Anarchy just hurts the common man while empowering those who caused the problems in the first place.

 

[Fern]

Wow that's quite a logic fail. You are arguing that continuing unemployment benefits aren't an economic benefit by comparing people being on unemployment with people working? That isn't the RELEVANT comparison as no one claims that people being on unemployment is better than people working. The comparison is with people being out of work and having the benefit versus not having it. Since the benefits stimulate consumer spending versus not having them, they prevent further job loss, which incidentally prevents even more unemployment payouts. That is the theory of it. You can argue against the theory but your comments suggest that you do not understand or are straw manning it.

Where did the money for the benefits come from?

Basically someone else.

So no net demand created, we have a transfer.

While you're at it, perhaps you can answer a related nagging question I have. If tax cuts are supposed to stimulate the economy by putting money in people's pockets that they will then go and spend, how is it that unemployment benefits don't do the same thing, or provide, as you claim, only a minor or incidental benefit?

You're just taking from person and giving to another.

Seems to me the entire GOP notion of "stimulus" is tax cuts so perhaps you are disagreeing with that concept. If you don't think unemployment benefits are all that stimulatory then you certainly don't think tax cuts are either, at least not for the middle class or the poor.

Tax cuts are just taking from one person (fed govt) and giving to another (individuals).

I wish those of you on the left could take step back a take a look at yourselves, so are so completely obsessed with income tax. Virtually every thread in here eventually turns to income taxes on the rich. This thread is about unemployment benefits.

It's some kind of blind (moral) outrage.

You know, sorry to get in the way of a progresive's little tizzy fit, but you can NOT find a post where I've advocated tax cuts for people. Instead, I've (1) posted complaining about the carried interest provision and want that fixed which will INCREASE taxes on fund managers, and (2) agreed to roll back the Bush cuts for the 'rich' if it will get (real) spending cuts in return.

Personally, I prefer people get to spend the money, not Uncle Sam because I don't like how Uncle Sam distributes it. Look at the last stim bill, who got the money? It worked out pretty well if you were a state employee, or in the road paving business, not so great for anybody else.

I think stim type money needs to get out to small businesses to be effective, and Uncle Sam doesn't do that.

Fern

 

[1prophet]

Unless you can force employers to hire people you either have UI or you have the disintegration of the nation and eventual anarchy. People have to eat, and if there's no other way for them to get the money to do so they WILL turn to crime. So that's your choice: subsidy or chaos.

The third option that no one wants to talk about, revolution, either violent or non-violent or somewhere in between, that is what scares the politicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

 

[bfdd]

I'm all for a revolution, because it brings about change. Anarchy just hurts the common man while empowering those who caused the problems in the first place.

maybe, maybe not. we'd have to experience to know for sure. don't get confused either, i don't want to see something like that go down. i don't want people getting hurt, losing things etc, but wtf are we supposed to do? keep up the same old bullshit until we're drowning in it? something is going to give eventually, the longer we wait the bigger the storm.

1prophet, this is America. shit always gets violent.

 

[woolfe9999]

Where did the money for the benefits come from?

Basically someone else.

So no net demand created, we have a transfer.



You're just taking from person and giving to another.



Tax cuts are just taking from one person (fed govt) and giving to another (individuals).

I wish those of you on the left could take step back a take a look at yourselves, so are so completely obsessed with income tax. Virtually every thread in here eventually turns to income taxes on the rich. This thread is about unemployment benefits.

It's some kind of blind (moral) outrage.

You know, sorry to get in the way of a progresive's little tizzy fit, but you can NOT find a post where I've advocated tax cuts for people. Instead, I've (1) posted complaining about the carried interest provision and want that fixed which will INCREASE taxes on fund managers, and (2) agreed to roll back the Bush cuts for the 'rich' if it will get (real) spending cuts in return.

Personally, I prefer people get to spend the money, not Uncle Sam because I don't like how Uncle Sam distributes it. Look at the last stim bill, who got the money? It worked out pretty well if you were a state employee, or in the road paving business, not so great for anybody else.

I think stim type money needs to get out to small businesses to be effective, and Uncle Sam doesn't do that.

Fern

Your first point ignores the whole context of stimulus, that it is deficit spending. Longrun, yes, it is taking from one and giving to another. Not in the shortrun. Again, that's the theory of unemployment being stimulus and you're sidestepping it. No one is saying you don't have to pay the piper in the longer term. We're just saying it's better to pay the piper when the economy is healthy and unemployment is down. And most importantly, the deficit problem is exacerbated to begin with by the depressed economy.

Regarding the issue of tax cuts, I was asking you to explain what I understand to be the GOP's concept of stimulus, which is basically cutting taxes. Whether that is your position personally isn't really the issue. I think my problem is that conservatives seem to make a phony ideological distinction between cutting someone's taxes to give them more money to spend and handing out an unemployment check. From a macroeconomic standpoint, there is literally no difference, so long as the extra money is going to people with low enough income that they'll spend it. Taking the position that you'd rather have the people decide how to spend it is very populace but the distinction isn't really all that economically relevant if you're comparing a tax cut to an unemployment check.

Your final point about providing money to small business is a good one but to me that has to be just part of the solution. Providing money to prop up the supply side only works when there's demand. You can provide money to small business as a bridge to take them through the period of low demand, but the low demand has to be addressed at some point. Jobs are created only to take advantage of existing demand.

 

[Craig234]

How is this any different from what I alluded to? You simply cut out the middleman (Government).

Simply put, because the private business will not do it. They are not incented to.

Despite your 'it's a great idea to spend a dollar to get a penny' argument, it's not.

I'll admit, it may appear to be an oversimplification, but none-the-less, it is what it is.

Yes... I do get it, despite what you seem to think.

The issue isn't simplified. It's missing the point.

I've explained it clearly, so choosing not to just repeat the same thing.

 

[Fern]

Your first point ignores the whole context of stimulus, that it is deficit spending.

Yes it does, and purposefully so. I don't believe it's axiomatic that unemployment benefits are funded with debt.

Your final point about providing money to small business is a good one but to me that has to be just part of the solution. Providing money to prop up the supply side only works when there's demand. You can provide money to small business as a bridge to take them through the period of low demand, but the low demand has to be addressed at some point. Jobs are created only to take advantage of existing demand.

You misunderstand me, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I'm speaking of increasing demand to small businesses. Not speaking of the SBA type plan again.

The fed govt primarily uses venders that are large businesses (yes, I know they have a small program to use use small businesses too).

When Uncle Sam is the spending the money, they won't spend it at Suzie's Hairstyles shop, or the corner convenience store, the local coffee shop etc., nor in every community.

But when the money is instead spread to people throughout the population, so many more small businesses, in all communities, will see a direct increase in demand.

When Uncle Sam spends billions, for example, on road repaving only some select businesses in those select communities where road repavers are located may see some (trickle down) indirect increase in demand.

In my county of approx 200,000 people there is only one business that had a remote chance of seeing the 1st $ of stim money. He's a small seller of asphalt, and since we had no stim money for repaving here I highly doubt even that one business saw any of that money. Even if they did repave the interstate or state highway here, I highly doubt he would've seen any anyway because we have no big road paving companies here he could sell to.

Fern