The Huffington Post says that "Democrats Won't 'Pay For' Extended Unemployment Benefits" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/scott-brown-unemployment-benefits_n_790383.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1242947,b=facebook).
The Dems (lead by the subniscient Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA)) claim that to "pay for" unemployment benefits the way Sen. Scott Brown (R, MA) suggests would weaken the effect of extending the benefits. They claim (truthfully) that every dollar put into a needy person's hands is multiplied at or near to 100% in cycles.
Because Republicans want the Democrats to "pay for" the benefits by taking $60 Billion from fattier areas of the budget, the Democrats are saying "no." (Now who's the Party of No). They say that taking $60 Billion from other entitlement programs will deaden the effect. Because of this, they are willing to let the benefits expire.
There are two main problems with stopping there, though.
1. Tell that to the people who need the money.
These unemployed people are being told by the Democratic Mouthpieces (i.e. the media) that Republicans are letting unemployment benefits end. They are being told that the Republicans are not offering any real answers or solutions. What they are not being told is that the Democrats are acting like surly children who have just been roundly reprimanded by their parents; the parents have left for a little bit, but they'll be back. In the meantime, they are taking their revenge on the other children that were right all along.
2. So long as we only go for the quick fix, the real problems of the economy will never truly be corrected.
There are people who would like nothing more than to get back to work. It is a definitive truism that a dollar spent by a poor person has a much larger multiplier effect than a dollar spent by a rich person. Putting $400 every two weeks into the hands of an unemployed person will usually equate a lot more than $400 every two weeks in economic growth.But it also true that letting a rich person keep a larger percentage of their money creates more jobs. In addition, while the multiplier effect may be lower for a rich person, that person is spending much more than the poor person.
For example:
Suppose multiplier effect for Poor Jim is .9 with $400 and for Rich James it is .6 with $4,000. After 3 rounds, the $400 becomes roughly $2750. After 3 rounds, the $4,000 becomes roughly $16,400.While we need to help those that need help the most, we also cannot raise taxes, or we will remove money from the economy.
Hey, what I know? I just know how to read and think critically.
What do you think?
The Dems (lead by the subniscient Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA)) claim that to "pay for" unemployment benefits the way Sen. Scott Brown (R, MA) suggests would weaken the effect of extending the benefits. They claim (truthfully) that every dollar put into a needy person's hands is multiplied at or near to 100% in cycles.
Because Republicans want the Democrats to "pay for" the benefits by taking $60 Billion from fattier areas of the budget, the Democrats are saying "no." (Now who's the Party of No). They say that taking $60 Billion from other entitlement programs will deaden the effect. Because of this, they are willing to let the benefits expire.
There are two main problems with stopping there, though.
1. Tell that to the people who need the money.
These unemployed people are being told by the Democratic Mouthpieces (i.e. the media) that Republicans are letting unemployment benefits end. They are being told that the Republicans are not offering any real answers or solutions. What they are not being told is that the Democrats are acting like surly children who have just been roundly reprimanded by their parents; the parents have left for a little bit, but they'll be back. In the meantime, they are taking their revenge on the other children that were right all along.
2. So long as we only go for the quick fix, the real problems of the economy will never truly be corrected.
There are people who would like nothing more than to get back to work. It is a definitive truism that a dollar spent by a poor person has a much larger multiplier effect than a dollar spent by a rich person. Putting $400 every two weeks into the hands of an unemployed person will usually equate a lot more than $400 every two weeks in economic growth.But it also true that letting a rich person keep a larger percentage of their money creates more jobs. In addition, while the multiplier effect may be lower for a rich person, that person is spending much more than the poor person.
For example:
Suppose multiplier effect for Poor Jim is .9 with $400 and for Rich James it is .6 with $4,000. After 3 rounds, the $400 becomes roughly $2750. After 3 rounds, the $4,000 becomes roughly $16,400.While we need to help those that need help the most, we also cannot raise taxes, or we will remove money from the economy.
Hey, what I know? I just know how to read and think critically.
What do you think?