Acemona-I am simply saying that forever in many countries, you do what you have to do to survive. In the old days-folks moved out west, even though they may be killed in the process with the hope of a better life. That is what I meant by chancing survival. Cubans have defected to the USA-another country. Some in life rafts in the ocean. Many died trying to escape to a better life. Mexicans are defecting now for the hope of a better life. I am simply saying that people need to look at all options.

 

I wish your sister and her family the best, and may I suggest that perhaps you PM malachicrunch as it appears he has some positions he could tell you about. Keep your eyes and ears open.

Best of luck to her and you!

Congress declined to extend UE benefits to long-term unemployed.

 

What's the right thing to do?

 

The "right" think to do? The answer depends on how each poster interprets the word "right". And I'm not sure we as a country have the luxury of doing what's right, even if we could get a majority of people to agree on what is right. We may be limited to only doing what we can afford to do even it that doesn't amount to what's right.

Sorry Clyde, I'd rather not post the exact position that was turned down, but it was in NKY at a financial institution.

 

There were a couple others but not first shift. I also know of people, but not friends of mine that could have returned to their old jobs at a little less per hour and three guys declined it and kept collecting UE.

The "right" think to do? The answer depends on how each poster interprets the word "right". And I'm not sure we as a country have the luxury of doing what's right, even if we could get a majority of people to agree on what is right. We may be limited to only doing what we can afford to do even it that doesn't amount to what's right.

 

Could it be that NOT extending (which I assume you mean when you say "what we can afford to do) hurts the economy? Can it be that extending is "less bad" than adding debt? Is it possible the push to limit debt at this time in this economy is bad for everyone?

Many analyst are now saying it may get worse, again.

Could it be that NOT extending (which I assume you mean when you say "what we can afford to do) hurts the economy? Can it be that extending is "less bad" than adding debt? Is it possible the push to limit debt at this time in this economy is bad for everyone?

 

Certainly one line of thinking is that efforts to limit the debt could hurt the economy and making it bad/worse for everyone.

 

Then again, continuing to pile on debt, while helping the economy in the short run, may make things much worse in the long run.

Certainly one line of thinking is that efforts to limit the debt could hurt the economy and making it bad/worse for everyone.

 

Then again, continuing to pile on debt, while helping the economy in the short run, may make things much worse in the long run.

 

Extending the unemployment adds less than 1% - LESS THAN 1% - to the debt.

 

How much did the tax cuts - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt.

 

Lost revenue is lost revenue.

Extending the unemployment adds less than 1% - LESS THAN 1% - to the debt.

 

How much did the tax cuts - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt.

 

Lost revenue is lost revenue.

How much did the Stimulus packages - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt?

How much did the Stimulus packages - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt?

 

Now I only scanned through a CNN article, but I thought it said the stimulus money is gone and that is being felt. Were just in a nasty mess with little room for error.

How much did the Stimulus packages - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt?

 

Not as obvious as you would have us believe. The economy is not where anyone would want it to be today, but it is in a MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT WAS WHEN THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED. The actions of the Obama administration helped to pull the country out of a very serious tail spin. So far the attempts to gain altitude have been meager, but it is far better than the crash we were headed for. To answer your question, my guess would be that it added about $500,000,000 to the debt.

Not as obvious as you would have us believe. The economy is not where anyone would want it to be today, but it is in a MUCH BETTER PLACE THAN IT WAS WHEN THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED. The actions of the Obama administration helped to pull the country out of a very serious tail spin. So far the attempts to gain altitude have been meager, but it is far better than the crash we were headed for. To answer your question, my guess would be that it added about $500,000,000 to the debt.

Any unbiased sources to show the stimulus has done what you say, created jobs and such? Has it been any more successful than the tax cuts? Also, do you give Bush the same credit for the stimulus he passed?

 

Wasn't it just last month that nearly 100 prominent U.S. economists told the President that his economic stimulus has failed and that “immediate action is needed to rein in federal spending”?

Edited July 7, 201016 yr by Run To State

Any unbiased sources to show the stimulus has done what you say, created jobs and such? Has it been any more successful than the tax cuts? Also, do you give Bush the same credit for the stimulus he passed?

 

Wasn't it just last month that nearly 100 prominent U.S. economists told the President that his economic stimulus has failed and that “immediate action is needed to rein in federal spending”?

 

I can't "prove " what I said any more than you can "prove" what you said. What is proven is that job losses were much higher prior to the stimulus than they are now. GDP was shrinking prior to the stimulus, it is growing now. Does that prove cause and effect? No, it doesn't. I think that it does provide significant evidence that the charge that the stimulus did not stimulate the economy is at the very least suspect and is better evidence for what I said than it is for what you said. About a third of the Obama stimulus package was tax cuts. Stimulus tax cuts were also passed under President Bush. In my opinion those small individual tax cuts were the least beneficial part of each stimulus package. I think public works projects are a much better stimulus. I also think there was too much emphasis on shovel ready projects that lead to too many bike trails etc. and not enough real economic development long term projects. I'm talking about roads, sewers and water.

 

Over the long term is is very important that we get the budget under control. There are a number of things that must be a part of that. First, social security, Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed. I would be in favor of lifting the social security wage cap and raising the retirement age for social security and the eligibility age for Medicare. Second, military spending must be controlled. We are providing security to a large portion of the world that uses that security to compete against us. We will be and must be the military leader of the world but other nations must step up. If they won't, it is not up to us to defend them. Just a few places we pay a lot to defend that should be paying their own way would include, Euope, Korea and Japan. Third, ALL projects need to pass intensive scrutiny. Some obscure museum of historic balls of twine in rural Iowa may be a nice project, but we can't afford it. Fourth, we must maintain our edge in research and development in high tech. When I was in high school I spent a summer on a National Science Foundation study grant. We need to invest in educating the best technical minds in the world. Fifth, over the short term we need to increase revenues. We must be willing to pay for whatever we decide we need to buy.

Extending the unemployment adds less than 1% - LESS THAN 1% - to the debt.

 

How much did the tax cuts - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt.

 

Lost revenue is lost revenue.

 

 

As with just about every thing else that gets whacked around sometimes in a silly manner on this forum, there are conflicting theories about the effectiveness of tax cuts stimulating the economy and creating jobs. There are those like you that don't think tax cuts stimulate the economy. These folks have the theory that high taxes are actually good for the economy because every dollar collected by the govt gets re-spent, whereas not all the dollars left in tax payers pockets get re-spent because some tax payers save the tax savings. Hence, higher taxes generating more govt revenue generate more jobs than tax cuts do. Obviously, these folks believe in the benefits of big govt even if the govt inefficiently operates and spends our taxes. As long as the tax revenues are re-spent by the govt, its a good thing for the economy. These people in my opinion do not factor in the effect that high taxes have on a business' decision of where it generates income. Before international business became so prevalent, this theory had more validity in my opinion. Now businesses, when faced with really high corporate income taxes, shift their corporate income to countries with lower corporate income taxes. Individuals generally do not have that luxury.

 

And there are those that feel that if the tax payers kept more of their money they'd invest in in businesses in a more efficient manner and create more jobs. Not all of it would be invested in businesses and creating jobs; some would be saved. Those dollars saved do not directly generate jobs. However, there is a big benefit to the economy in more money being saved than the first group of people want to acknowledge. As we all know, banks are driven to generate maximum profits (some banks to the point of being reckless as we've all learned about recently). But most banks aren't normally reckless. When they have large amounts of capital available to be lent, they will lend more freely. Not always, but usually. If some tax payers save, but don't invest, that means there is more capital available to banks to be loaned. The loaning of money to business needing capital to invest does create additional jobs.

 

So the truth in my opinion, is somewhat in the middle of both camps. I fully understand the logic of both groups. Neither one is fully right and neither one is fully wrong. As a general rule, I do agree with the concept of increased govt spending during recessions, but (and you knew a but was coming) there has to be some reasonableness in the amount of debt that the govt can incur. The large amount of debt devalues the U.S. Dollar which makes the acquisition of U. S. debt less desirable for foreign countries. If the debt is less desirable, the interest rate that the U.S. govt has to pay on the debt increases, which puts further strains on the budget. Is the amount of debt currently so high that we risk becoming a Greece down the road? You put 100 economists in a room and you'll probably have 50 say yes and 50 say no. If the yes folks turn out to be right, will the benefits generated to our economy outweigh the proplems caused to our economy down the road? Who knows and any one that says they know for sure is full of baloney.

 

Bottom line: this issue isn't a black or white as the people that think the govt should spend more believe it to be, nor is it as black and white as those that think the govt should immediately institute severe reductions of the govt debt. For your reading pleasure attached is a nice article (one of probably a million out there): http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm

For the 3,000th time, come down to my area and point out those jobs that are NOT McDonalds, et al. I sit in the middle of 20% unemployment in the city and 14% in the County. Adjacent counties are just a little less in unemployment.

My parents and their generation were not too good to work at McDonald's type jobs when they needed to work. And if it was not enough money, they picked up a second job.

 

Presently, they are both retired but that has not stopped them from working. They have picked up jobs cleaning 6-8 homes and businesses in the evening and babysit 4 kids during the day.