Obama: "Unemployment Benefits Create Jobs"

[LeadBolt]

I prefer action by those in control to theoretical plans by those who are not. Obviously, you believe that theoretical plans by those out of power are more important than actions by those in a position to do so as what should be focused on.

[kalm]

I prefer action by those in control to theoretical plans by those who are not. Obviously, you believe that theoretical plans by those out of power are more important than actions by those in a position to do so as what should be focused on.

It took 10 years and WWII to get employment up and get out of the last recession of this magnitude. Btw, those truly in power control both parties. But I asked a serious question...what are the conk plans? No need to get snippy.

[Ibanez]

I prefer action by those in control to theoretical plans by those who are not. Obviously, you believe that theoretical plans by those out of power are more important than actions by those in a position to do so as what should be focused on.

It took 10 years and WWII to get employment up and get out of the last recession of this magnitude. Btw, those truly in power control both parties. But I asked a serious question...what are the conk plans? No need to get snippy.

They are busy fixing Obamacare.

[LeadBolt]

OK, Kalm, I'll take you at face value on your comment..

The Republican plans were well defined in Romney's 2012 campaign. Here are some quotes and links to refresh your memory:

"The proposals include:

Lowering tax rates for businesses and middle-class housholds. Romney said lowering corporate taxes will help lure firms to invest in the US, while eliminating capital-gains and dividend taxes for households earning less than $200,000 will encourage saving.
Reducing government regulation, including a rollback on Obama's health care law.
Encouraging domestic energy production.
Promoting US exports.
Streamlining the federal government, so that rising national debt doesn't hobble the nation's potential growth.
"It's a practical plan to get America back to work," Romney said of his plan, which includes 59 specific proposals. "America should be a job machine.""

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... four-years" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Romney economic adviser John Taylor takes this and other similar forecasts as validation that the candidate has set a realistic goal.

"It's a solid estimate. It's a robust estimate. It's something that can be done with the right policies," Taylor says.

Taylor, a professor at Stanford, and three other prominent conservative economists wrote a white paper making the case for Romney's economic plan. The argument in short — this economic recovery has been weaker than those in the past because of Obama's policies. For his part, Obama isn't setting many specific economic goals for his second term, though he has said he'd create a million manufacturing jobs.

Taylor says a Romney presidency — with his plan for economic growth — would lead to a more typical recovery."

Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... f-he-loses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Mitt Romney says he has a plan with 59 bullet points detailing how to boost growth and job creation. He gives a short list in one of his most recent ads:

"First, my energy independence policy means more than 3 million new jobs, many of them in manufacturing. My tax reform plan to lower rates for the middle class and for small business creates 7 million more. And expanding trade, cracking down on China and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs."

That's 12 million new jobs in his first term in office. As Romney says, more than half of those jobs, 7 million, would be generated by his tax plan. One of the people behind that tax proposal is Kevin Hassett, a Romney economic adviser and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute."

Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162547180 ... x-proposal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a link to slides showing the 59 points:

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-d ... l-income-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now that I have posted the information you asked for, what does it have to do with the POTUS believing increasing the length of time that jobless benefits are paid create jobs or are you just trying to change the subject from the failed policies and wrong headed rhetoric of this administration?

I await your non-snippy reply...

[Ibanez]

Did you seriously say the GOPs plan is based off a failed campaigns plan?

[LeadBolt]

Did you seriously say the GOPs plan is based off a failed campaigns plan?

The performance of the successful campaign makes that of the unsuccessful campaign look good in retrospect...

[SDHornet]

Did you seriously say the GOPs plan is based off a failed campaigns plan?

The performance of the successful campaign makes that of the unsuccessful campaign look good in retrospect...

Hmmm...addition by subtraction...go on...

[Ibanez]

Did you seriously say the GOPs plan is based off a failed campaigns plan?

The performance of the successful campaign makes that of the unsuccessful campaign look good in retrospect...

Wigga what? Mittens failed. His policies and ideas failed. Maybe they weren't the best.

[CID1990]

The performance of the successful campaign makes that of the unsuccessful campaign look good in retrospect...

Wigga what? Mittens failed. His policies and ideas failed. Maybe they weren't the best.

Ridiculous premise.

15 yards and loss of down for intellectual dishonesty

[Chizzang]

Wigga what? Mittens failed. His policies and ideas failed. Maybe they weren't the best.

Ridiculous premise.

15 yards and loss of down for intellectual dishonesty

The only thing Mitt failed at was:
Convincing black people and women NOT to vote for Obama



(and magic underwear and a free planet after you die... I think he kinda wiffed on that too)

[LeadBolt]

Let me ask a simple question, if the election proved that Romney's policies were wrong and Obama's policies were correct, why do we need to extend long term unemployment benefits 14 months after the election and 5 years after Obama took office?

Last week was the 50th anniversary of LBJ's announcing a war on poverty, have we won yet?

Still waiting on Kalm's response to the question above and not just another re-directing post trying to change the subject...

[CID1990]

Ridiculous premise.

15 yards and loss of down for intellectual dishonesty

The only thing Mitt failed at was:
Convincing black people and women NOT to vote for Obama



(and magic underwear and a free planet after you die... I think he kinda wiffed on that too)

I think every election that the GOP has won since 1960 pretty much has proven that you don't even need the black vote. Just convince the women and you're in.

[CID1990]

Let me ask a simple question, if the election proved that Romney's policies were wrong and Obama's policies were correct, why do we need to extend long term unemployment benefits 14 months after the election and 5 years after Obama took office?

Last week was the 50th anniversary of LBJ's announcing a war on poverty, have we won yet?

Still waiting on Kalm's response to the question above and not just another re-directing post trying to change the subject...

ZAP

[CID1990]

Ridiculous premise.

15 yards and loss of down for intellectual dishonesty

The only thing Mitt failed at was:
Convincing black people and women NOT to vote for Obama



(and magic underwear and a free planet after you die... I think he kinda wiffed on that too)

Well all we've had so far is a bunch of guys who believe in an old bearded man who lives in the clouds who had his beatnik kid nailed to a tree and some nebulous ghost who never says anything.

I'd be willing to give a Mormon a shot

[Chizzang]

The only thing Mitt failed at was:
Convincing black people and women NOT to vote for Obama



(and magic underwear and a free planet after you die... I think he kinda wiffed on that too)

Well all we've had so far is a bunch of guys who believe in an old bearded man who lives in the clouds who had his beatnik kid nailed to a tree and some nebulous ghost who never says anything.

I'd be willing to give a Mormon a shot

It's Christianity (PLUS) which adds to the hilarity factor

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TApvveQk1wM[/youtube]

[kalm]

Let me ask a simple question, if the election proved that Romney's policies were wrong and Obama's policies were correct, why do we need to extend long term unemployment benefits 14 months after the election and 5 years after Obama took office?

Last week was the 50th anniversary of LBJ's announcing a war on poverty, have we won yet?

Still waiting on Kalm's response to the question above and not just another re-directing post trying to change the subject...

What...you mean the "San Demas High School Football Rules" platitudes?

You have me confused with being an Obama fan. I'm not. I also really don't care if the unemployment benefits expire. I'd be much more in favor of some of the workfare ideas being bantied about. But if truth be told, jobless benefits in a fragile economy do provide stimulus which at least helps maintain jobs.

My point is that 1) 5 years is not neccessarily a long time to turn around the jobs situation when compared to how long it took us to climb of out the Great Depression and 2) supply side policies of cutting taxes only work if there's an incresed demand - which in a 67% consumer based economy is closely tied to wages.

[LeadBolt]

Let me ask a simple question, if the election proved that Romney's policies were wrong and Obama's policies were correct, why do we need to extend long term unemployment benefits 14 months after the election and 5 years after Obama took office?

Last week was the 50th anniversary of LBJ's announcing a war on poverty, have we won yet?

Still waiting on Kalm's response to the question above and not just another re-directing post trying to change the subject...

What...you mean the "San Demas High School Football Rules" platitudes?

You have me confused with being an Obama fan. I'm not. I also really don't care if the unemployment benefits expire. I'd be much more in favor of some of the workfare ideas being bantied about. But if truth be told, jobless benefits in a fragile economy do provide stimulus which at least helps maintain jobs.

My point is that 1) 5 years is not neccessarily a long time to turn around the jobs situation when compared to how long it took us to climb of out the Great Depression and 2) supply side policies of cutting taxes only work if there's an incresed demand - which in a 67% consumer based economy is closely tied to wages.

First of all there is no where in this thread that I have said nothing about you being an Obama fan. We all know you are much too "progressive" for that, for you have told us so several times..

I agree with you about workfare ideas. No doubt jobless benefits provide some benefits in a fragile economy, I have not questioned that. Any type of deficit spending will provide stimulus and benefit to a fragile economy and unemployment benefits qualify, although not all types of deficit spending stimulate equally, nor provide a permanent stimulus to the economy.

This recession was bad, but not really to Great Depression standards. I don't see us needing 10+ years and a world war to recover. In this instance I do believe 5 years is sufficient time to recover, if the government pursued the correct policies.

I believe that a mix of WPA, CCC, etc. type programs that create either ongoing efficiencies or new infrastructure that increases demand and supply-side tax cuts would be most effective. Much of the problem we have today is in needless government regulation and delay that limits jobs, but again that is not the question above.

I'd be all for raising the minimum wage, if there was a cut in corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are not really a tax on corporations but are passed through to employees through limiting their wages, investors by limiting their investment returns, and consumers by increasing their costs. They put a drag on the economy from all three prospectives.

The question above for you was:

"Now that I have posted the information you asked for, what does it have to do with the POTUS believing increasing the length of time that jobless benefits are paid create jobs "

[kalm]

What...you mean the "San Demas High School Football Rules" platitudes?

You have me confused with being an Obama fan. I'm not. I also really don't care if the unemployment benefits expire. I'd be much more in favor of some of the workfare ideas being bantied about. But if truth be told, jobless benefits in a fragile economy do provide stimulus which at least helps maintain jobs.

My point is that 1) 5 years is not neccessarily a long time to turn around the jobs situation when compared to how long it took us to climb of out the Great Depression and 2) supply side policies of cutting taxes only work if there's an incresed demand - which in a 67% consumer based economy is closely tied to wages.

First of all there is no where in this thread that I have said nothing about you being an Obama fan. We all know you are much too "progressive" for that, for you have told us so several times..

I agree with you about workfare ideas. No doubt jobless benefits provide some benefits in a fragile economy, I have not questioned that. Any type of deficit spending will provide stimulus and benefit to a fragile economy and unemployment benefits qualify, although not all types of deficit spending stimulate equally, nor provide a permanent stimulus to the economy.

This recession was bad, but not really to Great Depression standards. I don't see us needing 10+ years and a world war to recover. In this instance I do believe 5 years is sufficient time to recover, if the government pursued the correct policies.

I believe that a mix of WPA, CCC, etc. type programs that create either ongoing efficiencies or new infrastructure that increases demand and supply-side tax cuts would be most effective. Much of the problem we have today is in needless government regulation and delay that limits jobs, but again that is not the question above.

I'd be all for raising the minimum wage, if there was a cut in corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are not really a tax on corporations but are passed through to employees through limiting their wages, investors by limiting their investment returns, and consumers by increasing their costs. They put a drag on the economy from all three prospectives.

The question above for you was:

"Now that I have posted the information you asked for, what does it have to do with the POTUS believing increasing the length of time that jobless benefits are paid create jobs "

Here was the part of your post I was responding to:

One has to wonder if the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has more to do with the destruction of jobs rather than an unfair system.

It kills me how this is twisted by those that defend this incompetent administration and it's ideological ilk. Even more how it is bought by the 3% of the sheeple that determine how elections come out. How do Republicans get the blame for this when the Democrats control the administration, the Senate and the Supreme Court by blackmailing Roberts over his adopted children?

I agree with your first question and I also agree with CCC/WPA style infrastrucure investments as a way of keeping folks employed through the recession. We're still benefiting to this day from depression era projects (thank you FDR) And no, this recession doesnt appear to be as deep but we also have a much better social safety net than in the thirties (thank you LBJ ).

We agree on some things LB. Where we differ is that I dont believe the current unemployment rate is all Obama's fault, I do believe we have systemic problems that go way back and that still haven't been fixed, and I believe both parties are responsible for things like the wealth gap and wage suppression.

(But I do think the Republicans are a little more to blame )

[kalm]

Here's an interesting article on how poverty levels are measured. It indicates that the War on Poverty might have been a little more successful than reported....parasitic, generational welfare recipients notwithstanding...

If you want to appreciate just how much progress America has made fighting poverty since Lyndon Johnson declared his war on it 50 years ago this week, here's a tip: Forget the official poverty rate. 

Well, don't forget it entirely. But do understand its limits. In 1964, the rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent, which, as my colleague Derek Thompson wrote yesterday, suggests we've barely made a dent in economic deprivation. But for such an influential and obsessed-over number, there's widespread agreement that the government's standard poverty measure is deeply flawed, and it almost certainly understates how much the social safety net has improved U.S. living standards over time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... te/282849/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

If we made people actually WORK for their welfare/unemployment checks, there'd be a LOT less people on welfare/unemployment. Guaranteed.

[SuperHornet]

Wait a second, I thought the economy has recovered? If it has, then there is no need to keep extending unemployment benefits. And there are plenty of jobs out there, just not jobs Americans are willing to do.

Thats Bullshit. Most Americans are under Employed. Yeah its a Job but you are only making 10/ Hr. Yeah, let the good times Roll

I may not agree with everything SD says, but he has NEVER said anything that is bull[bleep]. His ideas are ALWAYS well-thought-out and researched. SD has one of the better brains here....

[BDKJMU]

First of all there is no where in this thread that I have said nothing about you being an Obama fan. We all know you are much too "progressive" for that, for you have told us so several times..

I agree with you about workfare ideas. No doubt jobless benefits provide some benefits in a fragile economy, I have not questioned that. Any type of deficit spending will provide stimulus and benefit to a fragile economy and unemployment benefits qualify, although not all types of deficit spending stimulate equally, nor provide a permanent stimulus to the economy.

This recession was bad, but not really to Great Depression standards. I don't see us needing 10+ years and a world war to recover. In this instance I do believe 5 years is sufficient time to recover, if the government pursued the correct policies.

I believe that a mix of WPA, CCC, etc. type programs that create either ongoing efficiencies or new infrastructure that increases demand and supply-side tax cuts would be most effective. Much of the problem we have today is in needless government regulation and delay that limits jobs, but again that is not the question above.

I'd be all for raising the minimum wage, if there was a cut in corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes are not really a tax on corporations but are passed through to employees through limiting their wages, investors by limiting their investment returns, and consumers by increasing their costs. They put a drag on the economy from all three prospectives.

The question above for you was:

"Now that I have posted the information you asked for, what does it have to do with the POTUS believing increasing the length of time that jobless benefits are paid create jobs "

Here was the part of your post I was responding to:

One has to wonder if the growing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has more to do with the destruction of jobs rather than an unfair system.

It kills me how this is twisted by those that defend this incompetent administration and it's ideological ilk. Even more how it is bought by the 3% of the sheeple that determine how elections come out. How do Republicans get the blame for this when the Democrats control the administration, the Senate and the Supreme Court by blackmailing Roberts over his adopted children?

I agree with your first question and I also agree with CCC/WPA style infrastrucure investments as a way of keeping folks employed through the recession. We're still benefiting to this day from depression era projects (thank you FDR) And no, this recession doesnt appear to be as deep but we also have a much better social safety net than in the thirties (thank you LBJ ).

We agree on some things LB. Where we differ is that I dont believe the current unemployment rate is all Obama's fault, I do believe we have systemic problems that go way back and that still haven't been fixed, and I believe both parties are responsible for things like the wealth gap and wage suppression.

(But I do think the Republicans are a little more to blame )

Did FDR put up with years of environmental reviews and lawsuits by tree huggers before starting projects like is the case now a days, or did he just get them built?

[Ibanez]

Here was the part of your post I was responding to:



I agree with your first question and I also agree with CCC/WPA style infrastrucure investments as a way of keeping folks employed through the recession. We're still benefiting to this day from depression era projects (thank you FDR) And no, this recession doesnt appear to be as deep but we also have a much better social safety net than in the thirties (thank you LBJ ).

We agree on some things LB. Where we differ is that I dont believe the current unemployment rate is all Obama's fault, I do believe we have systemic problems that go way back and that still haven't been fixed, and I believe both parties are responsible for things like the wealth gap and wage suppression.

(But I do think the Republicans are a little more to blame )

Did FDR put up with years of environmental reviews and lawsuits by tree huggers before starting projects like is the case now a days, or did he just get them built?

Was there much of an environmental lobby in the 30s?

[AZGrizFan]

Did FDR put up with years of environmental reviews and lawsuits by tree huggers before starting projects like is the case now a days, or did he just get them built?

Was there much of an environmental lobby in the 30s?

No, we were a country built on capitalism until FDR was elected.

[Ibanez]

Was there much of an environmental lobby in the 30s?

No, we were a country built on capitalism until FDR was elected.

Yeah, Because the republicans and their destruction of millions of jobs and contribution to crime via the Volstead Act was a boon for the economy. Until Prohibition, almost 1/3 of the US revenue came from alcohol. With the income tax, destroying the brewers and distillers became so much easier.

FDR did the best he could with what he had. No thanks to the Republicans.