The GOP and the Politics of Economic Pain

[mendeleev 68]

So the GOP is somehow intentionally killing the economy without winning any major legislative battles for the last year and half.

So you really think people should be entitled up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits?

The Party Of No is able to do quite some damage with their refusenik politics.

Do I really think people should be entitled up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? The question, to me, misses the point.

The economy is depressed largely because Investment Spending is on strike and because the Consumer is afraid to spend, because too many of us are afraid that we might lose our jobs, too. (One of the things we should have learned in school, is that GDP = I + C + G, right?)

Individually, it is a very good idea, in general but especially in this economy, to spend less and save more. I'm using all of my money from Obama's income tax cut, and quite a bit more, to save and invest.

I'm like a lot of people here. I'm saving and getting rid of debt. Soon, within a month or two, I'll be 100% debt free, and since the Great Recession began my debt has never been more than 4% of personal income. And as I save aggressively, I'm finding, like lots of people, that there are better investment opportunities outside the USA right now than in it That is, my personal share of Obama's tax cut is not helping to revive the economy, because I'm well-enough off to save and scared enough to save aggressively. Probably lots of folks here at like that, too.

The unemployed, as a cohort, are not in such a nice position. They aren't earning money and they aren't in any position to pay of debt or save. The unemployment money they get, essentially all of it, goes right back into the economy as consumer spending. It is just about the strongest countercyclical spending government could engage in -- because essentially none of it gets siphoned off into savings or debt service.

Especially while Capital (that is, investment spending) remains on strike and the Consumer remains nervous or worse, providing a safety net for the long-term unemployed is just good economic policy. Do all of them deserve it? Probably not. (Do all recipients of business tax cuts deserve it? Does BP deserve their generous tax credits?) To ask the "deserve" question is to have an inappropriate, perhaps prejudicial moral judgement cloud what should be a simple economic calculation. What is one of the most effective things government can do to support the economy in times of great economic stress? Support the unemployed -- because essentially all that money gets plowed right back into the economy.

But this is basic stuff some of us learned, and all of us should have learned, in school.

Edited July 6, 2010 by novotul

[DEDixon 39]

ever noticed steve posts, but hardly ever engages in debate? i have noticed.

[DEDixon 39]

more unemployment for the long term unemployed is just keeping them from taking jobs they feel are beneath them. time is bow one's head and head out the door, for some. with millions of jobs lost, their previous job isn't going to return anytime soon.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

ever noticed steve posts, but hardly ever engages in debate? i have noticed.

Probably because he doesn't like to engage in personal attacks which is what most threads devolve into.

[DEDixon 39]

Probably because he doesn't like to engage in personal attacks which is what most threads devolve into.

that is true, steve doesn't partake in personal attacks. but, i have noticed, post and run.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Party Of No is able to do quite some damage with their refusenik politics.

Do I really think people should be entitled up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? The question, to me, misses the point.

The economy is depressed largely because Investment Spending is on strike and because the Consumer is afraid to spend, because too many of us are afraid that we might lose our jobs, too. (One of the things we should have learned in school, is that GDP = I + C + G, right?)

Individually, it is a very good idea, in general but especially in this economy, to spend less and save more. I'm using all of my money from Obama's income tax cut, and quite a bit more, to save and invest.

I'm like a lot of people here. I'm saving and getting rid of debt. Soon, within a month or two, I'll be 100% debt free, and since the Great Recession began my debt has never been more than 4% of personal income. And as I save aggressively, I'm finding, like lots of people, that there are better investment opportunities outside the USA right now than in it That is, my personal share of Obama's tax cut is not helping to revive the economy, because I'm well-enough off to save and scared enough to save aggressively. Probably lots of folks here at like that, too.

The unemployed, as a cohort, are not in such a nice position. They aren't earning money and they aren't in any position to pay of debt or save. The unemployment money they get, essentially all of it, goes right back into the economy as consumer spending. It is just about the strongest countercyclical spending government could engage in -- because essentially none of it gets siphoned off into savings or debt service.

Especially while Capital (that is, investment spending) remains on strike and the Consumer remains nervous or worse, providing a safety net for the long-term unemployed is just good economic policy. Do all of them deserve it? Probably not. (Do all recipients of business tax cuts deserve it? Does BP deserve their generous tax credits?) To ask the "deserve" question is to have an inappropriate, perhaps prejudicial moral judgement cloud what should be a simple economic calculation. What is one of the most effective things government can do to support the economy in times of great economic stress? Support the unemployed -- because essentially all that money gets plowed right back into the economy.

But this is basic stuff some of us learned, and all of us should have learned, in school.

[evli1966 88]

The Party Of No is able to do quite some damage with their refusenik politics.

Do I really think people should be entitled up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? The question, to me, misses the point.

The economy is depressed largely because Investment Spending is on strike and because the Consumer is afraid to spend, because too many of us are afraid that we might lose our jobs, too. (One of the things we should have learned in school, is that GDP = I + C + G, right?)

Individually, it is a very good idea, in general but especially in this economy, to spend less and save more. I'm using all of my money from Obama's income tax cut, and quite a bit more, to save and invest.

I'm like a lot of people here. I'm saving and getting rid of debt. Soon, within a month or two, I'll be 100% debt free, and since the Great Recession began my debt has never been more than 4% of personal income. And as I save aggressively, I'm finding, like lots of people, that there are better investment opportunities outside the USA right now than in it That is, my personal share of Obama's tax cut is not helping to revive the economy, because I'm well-enough off to save and scared enough to save aggressively. Probably lots of folks here at like that, too.

The unemployed, as a cohort, are not in such a nice position. They aren't earning money and they aren't in any position to pay of debt or save. The unemployment money they get, essentially all of it, goes right back into the economy as consumer spending. It is just about the strongest countercyclical spending government could engage in -- because essentially none of it gets siphoned off into savings or debt service.

Especially while Capital (that is, investment spending) remains on strike and the Consumer remains nervous or worse, providing a safety net for the long-term unemployed is just good economic policy. Do all of them deserve it? Probably not. (Do all recipients of business tax cuts deserve it? Does BP deserve their generous tax credits?) To ask the "deserve" question is to have an inappropriate, perhaps prejudicial moral judgement cloud what should be a simple economic calculation. What is one of the most effective things government can do to support the economy in times of great economic stress? Support the unemployed -- because essentially all some of that money gets plowed right back into the economy.

But this is basic stuff some of us learned, and all of us should have learned, in school.

Not sure anyone would applaude this statement.

You did not answer the question you tried to spin it and in doing so admitted you are part of the problem here in the states; whether someone else does or not your part of the problem by not reinvesting here. (That is a very Republican/GOP/Capitalist thing to do)

Your right they are not earning any money and the fact is what little is returning to the economy does not compare to what is being paid out or the debt that is being incurred. (A very spendthrifty thing to do that leads to finacial distaster)

Why should they take work when the government will keep handing them cash; why should they even work partime where the benefits they recieve for free is lowered by the amount the earn. (to many people believe it is beneath them to take a job in the fast food industry, retail or manufcturing because the starting wages do not compare to the job they lost)

While there are those of use investing here and helping the economy to many people tend to preach how to fix the economy but provide nothing of value themselves to help stimulate it and hope taxes and government will do the job we all should be doing.

Not all the money returns to the economy and per your statement (even with the double talk) you know this.

We have been supporting the unemployed it is time for them to support themselves or at least ####### help.

(have you heard the debt consolidation commercials "since my husband lost his job the finicails geniouses have helped keep our RV so we can keep takign our family vacations)

School doesnt teach basic knowledge anymore

(some schools no longer differentialte between boy and girl; while none is allowed to tech there are winners and losers; most USA schools do not teach respect for the American Flag; shall I keep going) so why should we trust what teachers are telling our children or what you learned in scholl and not trust your common sense?

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

The Party Of No is able to do quite some damage with their refusenik politics.

more like the democrats can't organize a trip to the bathroom, much less capitalize on their majority in the house and senate along with having a democrat president. they'll blame anyone but themselves.

[mendeleev 68]

You did not answer the question ...

I addressed it though: the question was whether the long-term unemployed deserve unemployment insurance payments. My point is that this is a rather dumb question. For me, the more interesting questions have to do with the best responses to get the economy moving again.

(have you heard the debt consolidation commercials

No. I do not waste time watching television and therefore don't see TV commercials.

School doesnt teach basic knowledge anymore

Well, that's a pity but it doesn't seem to keep some of the young ones around here (and maybe not so young, who knows?) from spouting off all sorts of wingnut economic nonsense. By pointing out that they *should* have learned about basic economics in school I hope to encourage them to go back and learn it now themselves. As for myself ... my formal schooling was done decades ago but learning continues ... partly with the time saved by not seeing TV commercials!

[mendeleev 68]

more like the democrats can't organize a trip to the bathroom, much less capitalize on their majority in the house and senate along with having a democrat president. they'll blame anyone but themselves.

Oh, Charles! -- you shouldn't need a basic civics lesson, but here goes: in the United States Senate, a obdurate minority can prevent any progress if they can marshall 40 votes. You might have heard that there are 41 members of the GOP in the Senate -- or maybe you learned it just now. One things you have to admire these guys for -- they are a disciplined party that is saying "NO" to just about everything. In a republic such as ours, laws cannot get passed if that PARTY OF NO is unified. And they are.

The majority in the House is one thing, but to get things done in the Senate, apparently a larger supermajority is needed. The PARTY OF NO, despite their minority status, can prevent anything from happening. They cannot get what they want, but they can stop all progress. And they have apparently made the cynical calculation that anything they can do to obstruct economic recovery is in their partisan interest.

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Oh, Charles! -- you shouldn't need a basic civics lesson, but here goes: in the United States Senate, a obdurate minority can prevent any progress if they can marshall 40 votes. You might have heard that there are 41 members of the GOP in the Senate -- or maybe you learned it just now. One things you have to admire these guys for -- they are a disciplined party that is saying "NO" to just about everything. In a republic such as ours, laws cannot get passed if that PARTY OF NO is unified. And they are.

The majority in the House is one thing, but to get things done in the Senate, apparently a larger supermajority is needed. The PARTY OF NO, despite their minority status, can prevent anything from happening. They cannot get what they want, but they can stop all progress. And they have apparently made the cynical calculation that anything they can do to obstruct economic recovery is in their partisan interest.

i'm hearing more excuse making for the dems.....

[evli1966 88]

I addressed it though: the question was whether the long-term unemployed deserve unemployment insurance payments. My point is that this is a rather dumb question. For me, the more interesting questions have to do with the best responses to get the economy moving again.

No. I do not waste time watching television and therefore don't see TV commercials.

Well, that's a pity but it doesn't seem to keep some of the young ones around here (and maybe not so young, who knows?) from spouting off all sorts of wingnut economic nonsense. By pointing out that they *should* have learned about basic economics in school I hope to encourage them to go back and learn it now themselves. As for myself ... my formal schooling was done decades ago but learning continues ... partly with the time saved by not seeing TV commercials!

My apologies for misspeaking that particular commercial was on the radio.

Ahh I do pity people who do not listen to the radio or even watch a little ####### tube; to be so close minded is to actually miss seeing what is happening in the world.

But unfortunately due to my work and avctivities I do not watch much tv either but I do listen to both liberal and conservative radio and try to sort the truth.

The point being the commercial shows the mentality of those losing work and not downsizing themselves to survive. Why is that because they are in denial and believe the Federal Government (rather the people that are busting their az$ to make a living) will support them until it gets better.

Again you addressed it with out answering it. but believe what you will.

Here is an answer with my explaination of the answer.

No. There is nothing Deserving of unemployment unless the employer acted in a liable manner; with that said we have a system in place to Assist people to get going again. There is nothing in that system nor should there be that states that we support them until they find an equivalent job of the equivalent pay.

How many unemployed people do you know and have provided monatary assistance too? Besides family of course I would hope we would all help our families.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

I addressed it though: the question was whether the long-term unemployed deserve unemployment insurance payments. My point is that this is a rather dumb question. For me, the more interesting questions have to do with the best responses to get the economy moving again.

Well, that's an opinion, I guess. I'd think that the more important question would be "can we afford to do it?" ("it" being anything that's proposed, not just this...). If we can afford it, then we can get to the second question (I'd say it's "do they deserve it?", and I'd say the answer is "no"). There may be value to providing some sort of "income equalization" for a brief period of time (6 - 12 months, tops), whereby people get the difference between what they're "entitled" to (ha!) under the current system, and what they're making in their new "lowly" job. It would definitely cost less than the current system, and it would get people working again, which is a good thing.

How many unemployed people do you know and have provided monatary assistance too? Besides family of course I would hope we would all help our families.

This is something I keep noticing - the big government people generally want to hand money to the government to then hand out to other people because it's the "right thing to do" rather than getting involved on their own, volunteering at local soup kitchens, donating via private charities, etc. I'm not suggesting everyone needs to go to church (I don't, as a rule), but there's no denying that when churches were more central to American culture, people generally did a better job of "taking care of their own". Now that more and more people are worshipping at the altar of government programs, that whole approach has all but gone the way of the dodo.

[mendeleev 68]

How many unemployed people do you know and have provided monatary assistance too? Besides family of course I would hope we would all help our families.

I am a founder of a church-based soup kitchen that provides tens of thousands of meals a year. I don't give money to individually unemployed persons -- and I do give to charities that target the unemployed. I suspect, evli1996, that my individual actions to support people at the bottom compare just fine to anyone else on this board.

But this string is about "The GOP and the Politics of Economic Pain" and my thesis that the GOP has made a cold, calculated decision to do everything they can to obstruct economic recovery stands unchallenged -- and indeed supported by many responding to this string. The economic principles I've addressed here are really pretty simple to understand provided one has a modicum of basic economic knowledge. But, as Upton Sinclair observed long ago, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Its fair to observe that the same goes these days for a political party doing anything they can to regain power.

[mendeleev 68]

This is something I keep noticing - the big government people generally want to hand money to the government to then hand out to other people because it's the "right thing to do" rather than getting involved on their own, volunteering at local soup kitchens, donating via private charities, etc. I'm not suggesting everyone needs to go to church (I don't, as a rule), but there's no denying that when churches were more central to American culture, people generally did a better job of "taking care of their own". Now that more and more people are worshipping at the altar of government programs, that whole approach has all but gone the way of the dodo.

Sgt.: you "notice" things without *any* evidence and if I were more prone to take offense, you certainly would have offended me. You might look and consider my post immediately above and reflect whether an apology is warranted.