PDA

View Full Version : 33 Economists Speak Out Against Repub Policy



Gayle in MD
11-30-2010, 10:56 AM
The Congressional Budget Office says every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The program is the most effective government policy for generating growth among 11 options the CBO has analyzed.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, puts the bang-for-a-buck figure at $1.61, and a recent Labor Department study estimates it at $2.

Analyst Mark Miller of William Blair & Company figures that, in particular, discount retailers like Dollar General and Family Dollar will see their revenue pinched by a couple of percentage points next year if extended jobless benefits expire.

"If you've been unemployed for six months, you've gone through your savings," says Heidi Shierholz, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "You have no choice but to spend (jobless benefits) immediately."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>By contrast, money given to higher-income families say, through tax cuts tends to deliver less economic benefit because those taxpayers typically save a big chunk of their windfall.</span>In July 2008, Congress extended jobless benefits to up to 99 weeks: 26 weeks of regular benefits from the states, plus up to 73 weeks in federal aid in states with high unemployment rates. The extended federal benefits will start phasing out on Wednesday if Congress doesn't act.

When lawmakers extended the benefits, they were responding to a jobs crisis: Unemployment was on its way to double digits for the first time since the 1981-82 recession. The long-term unemployed those out of work for more than six months hit a record-high 6.8 million in May this year. Those people represented 46 percent of all unemployed Americans. That's the highest such proportion on record dating to 1948.

At its peak in the first week of this year, just over 12 million people were receiving unemployment benefits the most on records dating to 1986. The Labor Department estimates that if Congress lets the aid run out, nearly 2 million people will lose their benefits by Christmas.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Without an extension of aid, the number of impoverished Americans would rise, economists say. The income from unemployment checks kept 3.3 million people from falling into poverty in 2009, according to government estimates. The Census Bureau defines poverty as annual income of roughly $22,000 for a family of four.</span>Still, some economists worry that renewing jobless aid would discourage some unemployed people from seeking work. A study this year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco lent some support to that notion. But it downplayed the impact as "quite small."

For most recipients, the average $300 weekly unemployment check doesn't go very far: It covers just half of basic household expenses, according to the National Employment Law Project.

In Glenview, Ill., Robert Horvath is barely hanging on. He says his jobless aid $385 a week doesn't amount to even 15 percent of his former income as a commercial loan officer. Out of work nearly six months, he's paying $1,300 a month to keep his health insurance. He's burning through his savings and is trying to hold onto his home of 25 years.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Thirty-three economists have signed a statement circulated by the Economic Policy Institute calling for benefits to be extended for 12 more months. Signatories included Alan Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and five winners of the Nobel Prize in economics, including Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Solow.</span>Republican lawmakers oppose an extension of the jobless aid if it would enlarge the government's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. They insist that the cost around $5 billion a month be offset with budget cuts elsewhere. Those cuts would reduce the economic impact of extending the jobless benefits. Some in Congress want to pair an extension of unemployment aid with a deal to also extend the Bush-era tax cuts.

Just outside Chicago, Horvath wonders why the lawmakers can't reach a deal: "What's going to happen Dec. 1 when I have no benefits at all?"

__



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/unemployment-benefits-extension_n_789643.html

sack316
11-30-2010, 03:22 PM
I agree that the expiration of unemployment benefits is bad for the economy.

My solution is to get people back to work, though. Then the people have some income, the gov't saves on paying out benefits and gets some taxes that can reduce the deficit... and everybody wins!

Sack

cushioncrawler
11-30-2010, 04:07 PM
There iz no such thing az a Nobel Prize for Krappynomix.
Iznt, never haz been, never will be.
mac.

llotter
11-30-2010, 05:28 PM
Economics is not an exact science to say the least. 33 is not a large number and my guess is that few if any predicted the dire situation we are now in so it is hard to believe them now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Congressional Budget Office says every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The program is the most effective government policy for generating growth among 11 options the CBO has analyzed.</div></div>

This appears to say that the more we spend on unemployment benefits, the better off we are and that is exactly what Pelosi said also. But following that logic leads to the conclusion that we would all be better of if we all were on unemployment and even I doubt that would be the case.

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 12:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Economics is not an exact science to say the least. 33 is not a large number and my guess is that few if any predicted the dire situation we are now in so it is hard to believe them now.

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Your guess, is wrong. Some of them actually did predict the situation we are in now, left to us by George Bush, and Republican policies during the blank check majority. They drained the treasury, before Wall Street crashed, hence, far harder to get the show back on the road, when Bush left us broke!</span> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Congressional Budget Office says every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The program is the most effective government policy for generating growth among 11 options the CBO has analyzed.</div></div>


This appears to say that the more we spend on unemployment benefits, the better off we are and that is exactly what Pelosi said also. But following that logic leads to the conclusion that we would all be better of if we all were on unemployment and even I doubt that would be the case.
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This appears to say that the more we spend on unemployment benefits, the better off we are and that is exactly what Pelosi said also. But following that logic leads to the conclusion that we would all be better of if we all were on unemployment and even I doubt that would be the case.
</div></div>


<span style="color: #CC0000">I have no clue how you would arrive at that completly irrational conclusion, other than by failing to integrate into your thinking process, that same little prerequisite which is always left out of RW thinking...

"Under the conditions prevailing."

Obviously, you didn't thoroughly grasp the statements from the letter written by the Economists, a number of which are Pulitzer Prize Winning, economists.

It's very simple, really. Tax cuts for the wealthy, do not create jobs. Spending and buying by the Middle Class, create jobs, not tax cuts.

Businesses do not hire workers, if they can't sell what that extra worker would produce, so there is no economic reason, to hire more workers, when most people have no extra money to spend in the first place.

The Middle Class, drives the economy, not the wealthy, and not tax cuts for the wealthy.

The "Trickle Down" theory, is not economically sound nor is it logical, nor effective. That has been proven, over and over again.

Ronald Reagan, raised taxes six times. Bush one, remember him, Mr. read my lips? He had to raise taxes, also.

George Bush dug in his heels, continued to spend, grow the government, cut taxes, prosecute wars, and did not pay for any of it.

That was what crippled our economy, that and crooks on Wall street, who were gambling with money, that wasn't theirs to gamble with, and hiding their own economic circumstances from their stock holders.

Tax cuts do not create jobs. Unemployment dollars, are spent by the unemployed, immediately. Tax cuts for millionaires, and billionaries, cannot drive an economic engine, they stash their money. Study after study, proves this simple fact.

If tax cuts could stimulate the economy, Bush's Administration wouldn't have been the disaster that it was, obviously.

Hence, the more hungry people that are out there, with no grogcery money, people out of work, people for whom there are no jobs available, and those barely hanging on, who count the days for the unemployment check to arrive, because they NEED IT, NEED IT TO SPEND IT IMMEDIATELY, yet, Republicans block them from getting those unemployment checks, but Republians will borrow money, increase the deficit, spending money we don't have, to give the wealthy more tax cuts, the deeper the recession will grow...

This entire Tax Cuts for the Wealthy mantra, has destroyed the American Middle Class, and grown a huge void, between the wealthy and the Middle Class.

No society, can thrive, without a healthy and upwardly mobile, Middle Calss.

Tax cuts for the wealth, are a burden on economic growth, not a stimulus...


G.</span>

llotter
12-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Government spending cannot both be the cause of our problems under Bush and the cure now. The other contributers that you list were carried out under the rules that the government established.

When sooner you recognize that the is not capable of planning the economy the sooner you will realize that excessive government is a burden, not a savior and we already have about three times more burden that we should have.

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 10:53 AM
[quote=llotter]Government spending cannot both be the cause of our problems under Bush and the cure now.

<span style="color: #990000">LMAO! To say that Bush's spending wasn't the cause of his massive debts, is absurd.

To say that we wouldn't have been in a far better position to pull out of Bush's massive recession, if he hadn't left us burried in debts, and suffered trillions in revenue losses from his tax cuts, and incompetent managing of two wars, is just as absurd.

To say that spending to avoid disaster, is the same thing as spending out of policy choices, ias even more absurd.</span>



The other contributers that you list were carried out under the rules that the government established.

<span style="color: #990000">What rules? Bush's rules? </span>

When sooner you recognize that the is not capable of planning the economy the sooner you will realize that excessive government is a burden, not a savior and we already have about three times more burden that we should have.
<span style="color: #990000">The burden is a result of Republican policies.all Republican Presidents, have grown the government, and grown the deficits. The Government charts prove that Republicans always grow both.

To suggest that the prevailing conditions of our economic circumstances, should not rule our decisions, is the most ridiculous statement I can imagine.

Bush launched two wars.

Bush borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined.

Bush sent out the loose regulatory policies.

Bush appointed lobbyists from the Financial Institutions, to oversee the same corporations they had represented.

Bush mislead the public into fighting a war in Iraq, in order to fill the pockets of his oil cronies, and lied, over and over, to America, and the world, AND the Congress, in order to pull it off.

Bush tortured people, making the problem of dealing with prisoners, in the courts, AND closoing Gitmo, nearly impossible.

Bush drove up our debts, by launching his trillion plus prescritpion drug program, without a thought by him, or the Republicans or a mention from any righties on here, about how he intended to pay for it.

Bush drove this country into a debt pit, then walked out and left the worst economic circumstance since The Great Depression, after decades of Republicans, cutting taxes for, and subsidizing the very same corporations who were outsourcing American jobs, hiring illegals under the table, pollutimng the environment, making more Americans ill, and calling those of us who saw the mounting dangers from such policies, "Protectionists"
and "Tree Huggers"

Republicans did everything they could possibly do, to obstruct progress after President Obama was elected.

We're in the mess we're in because of FAILED REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

The founders believed that the job of government was to step in to handle for individuals, what they could not handle for themselves.

Social Security and Medicare, far from the culprit...

The Military Industrial complex, which Eisenhower, originally wrote as, "the Military Congressional Industrial Complex" is the cause of all of our economic problems, and will be the eventual ruination of our country, and possibly the world.

Killing people, is NOT more important than feeding people.

Subsidizing oil, is not more important than creating renewable fuels, and suing conservation methods, to reduce fuel usage.

To this day we are paying with blood and treasure, for all of America's interference in the Middle East. If we had gone the way of conservation, renewable fuels, investing in our own educational system, and infrastructure, high speed rail, higher cafe standards, all of the things that Republican policies blocked since the days of Ronald Reagan's invitation to an illegal alien invasion, we'd be leading the world right now, instead of owned by China..

The right completely distorts those facts, just as they distort the principle of Separation Of Church and State.


"The separation must be complete and perfect or both are threatened."

Do you know who wrote that?
G. </span>



http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

pooltchr
12-01-2010, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hence, the more hungry people that are out there, with no grogcery money, people out of work, people for whom there are no jobs available, and those barely hanging on, who count the days for the unemployment check to arrive, because they NEED IT, NEED IT TO SPEND IT IMMEDIATELY, yet, Republicans block them from getting those unemployment checks,

G.[/color] </div></div>

And yet congress, which is still under control of Dems, by a very large majority for the next several weeks, had the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits this week, and decided not to do it. So we will have millions of people who will have absolutely no money to spend on groceries, right here at the holidays.

Don't talk about Republicans blocking anything. NNancy could "deem" the extention passed, if they really wanted to pass it. It worked for Obamacare.

Your double standard, and blindmess to the crap the dems keep feeding you continues to make you look pretty foolish.

Steve

LWW
12-01-2010, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hence, the more hungry people that are out there, with no grogcery money, people out of work, people for whom there are no jobs available, and those barely hanging on, who count the days for the unemployment check to arrive, because they NEED IT, NEED IT TO SPEND IT IMMEDIATELY, yet, Republicans block them from getting those unemployment checks,

G.[/color] </div></div>

And yet congress, which is still under control of Dems, by a very large majority for the next several weeks, had the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits this week, and decided not to do it. So we will have millions of people who will have absolutely no money to spend on groceries, right here at the holidays.

Don't talk about Republicans blocking anything. NNancy could "deem" the extention passed, if they really wanted to pass it. It worked for Obamacare.

Your double standard, and blindmess to the crap the dems keep feeding you continues to make you look pretty foolish.

Steve </div></div>

It's worse than that.

They proved they had the votes to pass it ... without even enacting "PAYGO" ... and chose to set the bill up in a parliamentary fashion which which required a 2/3 majority.

Put another way ... they enacted policy which led to the unemployed and then used them and their family misery as stage props.

LWW