U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[bergmann620]

2009 spending included TARP and Obama stopped the Bush practice of pretending the wars were free. Obama has actually been a better fiscal conservatives than conservatives.

The numbers I'm quoting are total expenditures. Unless Bush actually managed to simply not pay for them, in which case, hell, they were free.

Has done both.

By actual budget, I meant one that, at the very least, other democrats would actually pass.

Not his job.

My bad, I thought leading the country was his job.

[Wells]

By actual budget, I meant one that, at the very least, other democrats would actually pass.

Which one did they not want to pass?

My bad, I thought leading the country was his job.

Congress controls spending, not the president.

[ishootblanks]

2009 spending included TARP and Obama stopped the Bush practice of pretending the wars were free. Obama has actually been a better fiscal conservatives than conservatives.


Has done both.

Not his job.

TARP and the wars were not counted toward the 1.4 trillion dollar increase in spending in 2009.. please stop repeating that lie..

[Wells]

TARP and the wars were not counted toward the 1.4 trillion dollar increase in spending in 2009.. please stop repeating that lie..

Wait the wars and TARP stopped costing us money in 2009? That's awesome.

[ishootblanks]

There is tons of waste in the federal budget, but what's being talked about being cut are things that not-poor, not-middle class people see as waste. Off the top of my head, I can think of $100B in DoD spending that was pure waste (but I can't talk about the specifics because I would have to research each thing to make sure it wasn't classified), and the reason that they were pure waste is that they were partially funded projects that were shut down. Spending $10B to start up a new program for a tank or plane or whatever and then writing the whole thing off without even a single piece of tech as a result is a waste.

Foodstamps is pretty simple: Are you poor? y/n?

Does fraud occur? Sure. Fraud is everywhere. But the idea that foodstamps should be cut because people should 'be more responsible' or whatever is dumb.

The same with Medicare and Social Security. The programs need to be retooled, but not slashed up to preserve defense spending.

the number of people on foodstamps has increased 70% since Obama has taken office..

the number of people on disability has increased by 33% since Obama has taken office..

just a couple of things to keep in mind..

[ishootblanks]

Wait the wars and TARP stopped costing us money in 2009? That's awesome.

no Wells.. they still cost money.. just the cost was attributed to Bush.. not Obama.. that's why Bush ended his presidency with a 9 trillion dollar deficit..

[eriseis]

the number of people on foodstamps has increased 70% since Obama has taken office..

the number of people on disability has increased by 33% since Obama has taken office..

just a couple of things to keep in mind..

Has taken office is rather broad...day 1? month 1? year 1? half-term 1?

[ishootblanks]

Obviously the President's fault. I reluctantly turned him down when he knocked on my door asking if I wanted food stamps or if I wanted to be disabled.

Obama is a symptom.. not the problem.. liberal economic policy is the problem.. there are not 2 million more injured people today.. government has greatly relaxed the qualifications for short term disability which is now functioning as a make-shift additional 26 weeks to extend unemployment benefits..

and Chonogo.. if you were going to college and working part time.. you could collect food stamps

[Wells]

We have liberal economic policy?

[ishootblanks]

Has taken office is rather broad...day 1? month 1? year 1? half-term 1?

since he changed policies that allow it.. on Jan 20, 2009 unemployment benefits only lasted 26 weeks.. he upped it to 99

[Wells]

Average period of unemployment over the last couple years has been over 26 weeks as is. Plus UI is fantastic for the economy when times are bad.

[ishootblanks]

Average period of unemployment over the last couple years has been over 26 weeks as is. Plus UI is fantastic for the economy when times are bad.

can you please explain to me how increasing debt and taking money that a corporation could otherwise use to expand and create jobs in order to pay people an amount of money that allows them to only afford essential services all while not producing anything or providing any services helps anything?

[Wells]

can you please explain to me how increasing debt and taking money that a corporation could otherwise use to expand and create jobs in order to pay people an amount of money that allows them to only afford essential services all while not producing anything or providing any services helps anything?

You're making a couple mistakes in here.

1) That if we lowered the corporate tax rate they would start creating jobs. Corporations don't increase production without demand to meet it, and our demand is already below our potential productive capacity.
2) The assumption that the debt is a greater threat to our economic health than unemployment and the lower demand that brings.
3) You don't seem to understand how UI is funded. Because its not welfare.

What UI does is allow people who would otherwise not be consuming to keep consumption up, though at a lower level, until they find employment and it improves work force utilization. Of all the things you can spend money on in a recession at a macro level UI is one of the best, far more productive per dollar spent than tax breaks.

[ishootblanks]

You're making a couple mistakes in here.

1) That if we lowered the corporate tax rate they would start creating jobs. Corporations don't increase production without demand to meet it, and our demand is already below our potential productive capacity.
2) The assumption that the debt is a greater threat to our economic health than unemployment and the lower demand that brings.
3) You don't seem to understand how UI is funded. Because its not welfare.

What UI does is allow people who would otherwise not be consuming to keep consumption up, though at a lower level, until they find employment and it improves work force utilization. Of all the things you can spend money on in a recession at a macro level UI is one of the best, far more productive per dollar spent than tax breaks.

1.. I wasn't even referring to an income tax cut.. I was referring to the fact that corporations have to pay 50% of the unemployment insurance costs..
2.. debt in itself isn't the biggest threat.. the measures in which to reduce it are.. as are the consequences of not reducing it..
3.. UI is funded 50% by the employer.. and 50% by the government.. this is why positions that are exempt from unemployment insurance like contractors tend to get higher pay rates for the same work..

I don't think you understand that most people CAN'T keep consumption up when they lose a third of their income.. typically the people most affected by unemployment are the working class.. the people who aren't exactly rich already.. while in many cases they can still pay their existing bills.. they can't afford to buy a new TV.. or a new car.. or go out to dinner a couple times per week..

and can you give some real sources that justify the ridiculous notion that paying people to not work is somehow better for the economy than simply allowing the people who do actually create things and perform services to keep more of their money? because I can't think of a single logical way to make that happen

[Wells]

1.. I wasn't even referring to an income tax cut.. I was referring to the fact that corporations have to pay 50% of the unemployment insurance costs..

So? Where do you think UI money gets spent by the people getting it?

2.. debt in itself isn't the biggest threat.. the measures in which to reduce it are.. as are the consequences of not reducing it..

There are consequences for reducing it too. Ones we can't afford to face when the economy is bad. Cutting spending will cost jobs, there's no avoiding that. So wait until the economy can absorb the loss. Cutting right now will lead to a recession, just like it has in Europe where they pursued austerity.

I don't think you understand that most people CAN'T keep consumption up when they lose a third of their income.. typically the people most affected by unemployment are the working class.. the people who aren't exactly rich already.. while in many cases they can still pay their existing bills.. they can't afford to buy a new TV.. or a new car.. or go out to dinner a couple times per week..

Lower consumption is still better than no consumption. From the perspective of aggregate demand there's no difference between purchasing electricity and purchasing a new tv, its still demand.

paying people to not work

This isn't even close to what UI is. Like not even close.

and can you give some real sources that justify the ridiculous notion that paying people to not work is somehow better for the economy than simply allowing the people who do actually create things and perform services to keep more of their money? because I can't think of a single logical way to make that happen

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news...ysis/index.htm

UI gets the second biggest bang for the buck, just under food stamps.

Your making the same logical fallacy I called you on earlier, by assuming by just giving producers more money that they'll expand their production. Again, demand is already below our current productive capacity. Production will not improve until demand does.

[ishootblanks]

So? Where do you think UI money gets spent by the people getting it?

There are consequences for reducing it too. Ones we can't afford to face when the economy is bad. Cutting spending will cost jobs, there's no avoiding that. So wait until the economy can absorb the loss. Cutting right now will lead to a recession, just like it has in Europe where they pursued austerity.


Lower consumption is still better than no consumption. From the perspective of aggregate demand there's no difference between purchasing electricity and purchasing a new tv, its still demand.

This isn't even close to what UI is. Like not even close.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news...ysis/index.htm

UI gets the second biggest bang for the buck, just under food stamps.

Your making the same logical fallacy I called you on earlier, by assuming by just giving producers more money that they'll expand their production. Again, demand is already below our current productive capacity. Production will not improve until demand does.

that link is garbage too.. not because it's CNN.. but it assumes everything is done in a vacuum and in a very short amount of time..

and UI insurance gets spent although in a lower amount.. in the same places a person who was actually producing and doing something is.. only without the added benefit of producing or doing something..

and I'm sorry you have to face this.. but if you spend more than you have.. you have a problem.. when do we stop spending? why doesn't the government just write everyone a cheque for a million bucks? that would keep most people in really good shape for several years to come..

and yes.. UI is money paid to people who are not working.. so yes.. in a sense it's paying people not to work.. and nobody can deny that there are not an obnoxiously significant number of people who try to stretch their unemployment out as long as possible.. in fact there is an active thread right now regarding a kid who is trying to get fired from their job just so that they can try to collect unemployment for a while..

and back to the link.. the math that was vaguely mentioned in the article says little more than you get a larger return on a dollar of welfare because it's spent sooner than a business would when making the decision to purchase a new piece of equipment..

that's hardly real evidence that welfare is more beneficial to the economy than a real job..

[Wells]

that link is garbage too.. not because it's CNN.. but it assumes everything is done in a vacuum and in a very short amount of time..

I was hoping for but not expecting a more rational counter argument.

and UI insurance gets spent although in a lower amount.. in the same places a person who was actually producing and doing something is.. only without the added benefit of producing or doing something..

No one has said UI is a permanent solution. What it does do is help mitigate the economic loss of unemployment.

and yes.. UI is money paid to people who are not working.. so yes.. in a sense it's paying people not to work

No. No its not. If you keep saying things that are pants on head ridiculous I'm not going to bother. UI is aid to people who are unemployed. It is not paying people not to work. Shit looking for word is a requirement to get it in the first place.

and nobody can deny that there are not an obnoxiously significant number of people who try to stretch their unemployment out as long as possible

On the whole, internet anecdotes aside, UI has a minimal effect on dragging out unemployment.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17534.pdf

that's hardly real evidence that welfare is more beneficial to the economy than a real job..

Are you aware that no one has said this or can you just not help yourself from making things up and then attacking them?

[ishootblanks]

I was hoping for but not expecting a more rational counter argument.


No one has said UI is a permanent solution. What it does do is help mitigate the economic loss of unemployment.


No. No its not. If you keep saying things that are pants on head ridiculous I'm not going to bother. UI is aid to people who are unemployed. It is not paying people not to work. Shit looking for word is a requirement to get it in the first place.


On the whole, internet anecdotes aside, UI has a minimal effect on dragging out unemployment.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17534.pdf


Are you aware that no one has said this or can you just not help yourself from making things up and then attacking them?

you can't expect a rational counter argument to an irrational idea..

you said it all when you said UI mitigates the loss of unemployment.. because that's all it does.. you can never expect an economy to survive with a high number of long term unemployed people.. just look at Europe..

you are a college student correct?

[Wells]

you can't expect a rational counter argument to an irrational idea..

yes, Moody's is a bastion of irrational thought

you said it all when you said UI mitigates the loss of unemployment.. because that's all it does.. you can never expect an economy to survive with a high number of long term unemployed people.. just look at Europe..

No one said this.

[ishootblanks]

yes, Moody's is a bastion of irrational thought


No one said this.

you said that..

you must be a college student.. there is no other explanation!