It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the Anger over Unemployment Extension?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Does nobody on ATS understand that we HAVE to create money that is backed by nothing? Do you honestly think there is enough "gold" in the world to shove into a secret bunker to back up our money supply? You would complain even more then because you would be more poor because money would be more scarce and chances are you would have less.

Do yourself a favour and go take a basic economics course. You'll learn that it is healthy to allow individuals time to seek new employment and at the same time, having money backed by nothing is the only solution if you want 300 million Americans to have a roof over their head and food on the table.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 





My lord, you clowns must have found a package of stupid cookies and ate every one of them.


(Ring ring, ring ring) Hello?

Hello, Kettle? This is Pot, you're black! (Click)





Unemployment benefits are the 2nd highest economic stimulus next to food stamps. For every $1 that goes to food stamps, it puts a $1.73 back into the economy. For every $1 in unemployment benefits it returns $1.63 into the economy.


Talk about stupid! How many smart cookies would it take to get it through your thick head that if unemployment benefits, (financed through taxes), and food stamps, (also financed through taxes), are the highest stimuli for the economy, that the economy is in serious trouble. If the best the federal government can do in terms of stimulating the economy is to use tax dollars to give to unemployed and poor people to spend, then the economy is not going to get better through government fiscal policy.

No matter how you slice it, unemployment benefits are paying people to be unemployed. There is simple math, and then there is the mathematics of the Marxist. Take for example, your ridiculous assertion that for every dollar spent on food stamps, that dollar spent returns $1,73 back into the economy, or your other stupid assertion that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits it returns $1.63 to the economy. Now that is truly some voodoo economics, and fully explains the genuine problem with fiat money.

If a dollar is a dollar, then every dollar spent, means one dollar returned to the economy. You can not squeeze more out of a dollar than what it is worth, unless of course, that dollar is worth absolutely nothing, then you can make up any figures you like. This is why the deficit continues to grow at the pace it is growing, because of ridiculous figures like this where less is more...until later, when the more becomes so astronomical no amount of voodoo economics is going to stave off the inevitable crash.

There is absolutely no long term fiscal policy set in place, and the shortsightedness of the current fiscal policy is nothing more than a ploy to save electoral seats in Congress come November. Any fool that actually thinks 100 pennies totals 173 pennies, deserves the government they are getting. Lay off the cookies pal, and go back to school and try to learn some basic math.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 





Does nobody on ATS understand that we HAVE to create money that is backed by nothing? Do you honestly think there is enough "gold" in the world to shove into a secret bunker to back up our money supply? You would complain even more then because you would be more poor because money would be more scarce and chances are you would have less.


Of course there is not enough gold to back up our money supply, that is the problem with our current fiat money supply, and why the rate of inflation continues to rise. If the money supply were backed by the gold in storage, then yes, the money supply would shrink, and so would prices, while the value of the dollar would rise. If a car only costs $1,000 as opposed to $10,000 then why would anyone complain about having less money?

If a dollar today only buys a third of what a dollar bought a decade ago, then how does creating more dollars help? What is needed is a strong currency, so that every dollar spent actually holds value.




Do yourself a favour and go take a basic economics course. You'll learn that it is healthy to allow individuals time to seek new employment and at the same time, having money backed by nothing is the only solution if you want 300 million Americans to have a roof over their head and food on the table.


Do yourself a favor and go back to school and learn basic math, before graduating up to economics. It would also be nice if you took some civics courses and understood that governments have nothing to gain by taking an attitude that they "allow" individuals to do anything that is not illegal. Seeking new employment does not require permission from the government and it certainly does not require unemployment benefits. Prudent people, when seeking new employment, keep the job they have before seeking new employment, unless of course, your usage of the phrase "seeking new employment" is a euphemism for being unemployed.

Having money backed by nothing is the surest way to undermine an economy, and that is what has happened, and because of that, fewer Americans have a roof over their head today, then they did prior to 1972 when the currency was switched to fiat money.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Hey, whoa whoa whoa! I am just repeating what very smart and well respected economist have said....again and again and again:

Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:





You see, I don't need to take economic classes, a lot of other people have for me. If you don't agree with their findings then you can take it up with them and then you can kiss my cookies. I await you humble apology, retraction of insults, and a 100 word written statement saying I'm right.




No matter how you slice it, unemployment benefits are paying people to be unemployed.


How about I slice it this way: unemployment benefits are not paying people to be unemployed, it's paying them because they are unemployed.

Edit to add: It looks like I was wrong by one penny...oops! I shorted the figures by $.01





[edit on 21-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
And another thing...if you have seen any of my other billion posts, you would know not to challenge me because I don't just puke up bullpuckey. I bring lots and lots of links, graphs, testimony, historical references, expert corroborations, and undeniable FACTS! You can hate me, hate what I have posted, hate that it goes against your crap, and hate that it makes you look stupid, but it will just lead to the darkside, and I'll still be right.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 





Hey, whoa whoa whoa! I am just repeating what very smart and well respected economist have said....again and again and again:


In the marketplace of supply and demand, exactly what do very smart and well respected economists supply, and exactly how much demand is there for economists? How many people who spend every dollar that your very smart and well respected economists insists translates into $1.73 go out shopping for an economist? Did you hire an economist to make these posts? How much of your hard earned money, (assuming you aren't collecting unemployment), do you spend each year on an economist?

Very few economists sign paychecks on the front of a check, like employers do, and most of these very smart and well respected economists sign their pay checks on the back of their pay checks just like all other employees do. Very few employees create wealth, and certainly less today under a system of fiat currency where the interest rate on their savings account amounts to far less than the rate of inflation. It is wealth creation that stimulates economies, not unemployment benefits and food stamps.




You see, I don't need to take economic classes, a lot of other people have for me.


Oh, I see. You let other people do your thinking for you. You think what you're told to think, which is why you feel so comfortable entering a thread and telling other people they're eating too many stupid cookies, because someone else told you to think that. Okay.




If you don't agree with their findings then you can take it up with them and then you can kiss my cookies. I await you humble apology, retraction of insults, and a 100 word written statement saying I'm right.


Not a single soul who wants to create wealth has to take that issue up with economists. People who create wealth do not ask economists permission to do so. So, while you're waiting for a humble apology from me, try not to hold your breath, because it will be a long wait. You would do better offering up apple pies, and banana cream pies, then silly little pie charts. The beauty of mathematics is that it is a language where lies are easily exposed, and no matter how many "very smart and well respected economists" you point to, 2+2 will always equal 4.




[edit on 21-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
And another thing...if you have seen any of my other billion posts, you would know not to challenge me because I don't just puke up bullpuckey. I bring lots and lots of links, graphs, testimony, historical references, expert corroborations, and undeniable FACTS! You can hate me, hate what I have posted, hate that it goes against your crap, and hate that it makes you look stupid, but it will just lead to the darkside, and I'll still be right.


Dream on sport, you haven't supplied any facts and all that you've supplied is nothing more than bullpuckey. The economy is in the crapper right now, and all the while economists, very smart and well respected economists, have been insisting it isn't, and now that it is, keep insisting they know how to get back on track, and their answer is to increase deficit spending, raise taxes, and pretend that 100 pennies will translate into 173 pennies. Businesses do not succeed by increasing deficit spending while decreasing profits. Maybe that is too simple for you and your very smart and well respected economists, but then again, you and your very smart and well respected economists aren't in business for yourselves, are you?

Edit to Add: After looking at your profile, which of course I did not need to look at to know that you had not made a billion posts, your post count totals 430. Your understanding of numbers couldn't be better demonstrated than by your own assertion of a billion posts made. Exaggerate much?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 



You obviously do not understand what I mean, and you find it necessary to throw the thinly veiled insults. If you were serious about wanting to understand, you would ask respectfully.

Claim what you want about me. Attract more flies with sugar.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
And another thing...if you have seen any of my other billion posts, you would know not to challenge me because I don't just puke up bullpuckey. I bring lots and lots of links, graphs, testimony, historical references, expert corroborations, and undeniable FACTS! You can hate me, hate what I have posted, hate that it goes against your crap, and hate that it makes you look stupid, but it will just lead to the darkside, and I'll still be right.



No offense, but you have a lot of time on your hands. You should check out the debate forums. Some of us have lives and simply can't come back to post link after graph, just to satisfy you,



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Wasn't the Porkulus Spending Bill suppose to take care of this? Then why wasn't Porkulus money spent? Why did we just take on another $34 Billion when there is still funds available from the Porkulus???



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
You are absolutely 100% Correct. This employment scam will be in the history books along with all the other financial enslavement scams.

Freedom is near folks. Hold onto your hats.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Wasn't the Porkulus Spending Bill suppose to take care of this? Then why wasn't Porkulus money spent? Why did we just take on another $34 Billion when there is still funds available from the Porkulus???


I am going to answer my own question:

The unspent Porkulus money was not spent on this because.....

We are not close enough to the mid-term elections, and we also got to save a majority of this money for the 2012 elections.

Does anyone else see this? Open your eyes!



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





In the marketplace of supply and demand, exactly what do very smart and well respected economists supply, and exactly how much demand is there for economists? How many people who spend every dollar that your very smart and well respected economists insists translates into $1.73 go out shopping for an economist? Did you hire an economist to make these posts? How much of your hard earned money, (assuming you aren't collecting unemployment), do you spend each year on an economist?


What a load of derailing gobbledygook. Hello, we were discussing economic stimulation, not hiring economists. I know that is your thing, derailing with babble. I saw you the last 2 days derailing one of my threads with ATSer evil incarnate. I am not getting into that time consuming trap with you. For now, I will entertain myself at your expense.




Oh, I see. You let other people do your thinking for you. You think what you're told to think, which is why you feel so comfortable entering a thread and telling other people they're eating too many stupid cookies, because someone else told you to think that. Okay.


Yea, when it comes to building automobiles, space shuttles, working with atom smashers, and working out nation's economies, I let others think for me. Tell me, are you so awesome and smart that you designed your own microwave, or programmed a chip for your car to get better gas mileage? BTW are you an economist? No? Then perhaps they, along with Physicists, car designer, and computer programmers know more than you and I, yes?




Not a single soul who wants to create wealth has to take that issue up with economists. People who create wealth do not ask economists permission to do so.


"they don't ask economist permission to do so"? That is so ridiculous, of course they don't, why would anybody. That's not the function of an economists. But you already know that, and this is a trap. Damn I fell into it. Moving on.




You would do better offering up apple pies, and banana cream pies, then silly little pie charts. The beauty of mathematics is that it is a language where lies are easily exposed, and no matter how many "very smart and well respected economists" you point to, 2+2 will always equal 4.


The other great thing about math is you can display mathematical facts in a pie chart. Thus it becomes a mathematically factual pie, not a banana cream or apple pie. Please expose the lie you see and enlighten us with all the details of why it's a lie. Your ball.




Dream on sport, you haven't supplied any facts and all that you've supplied is nothing more than bullpuckey.


And you have yet to specifically challenged any of the bullpuckey I have supplied, thus you are full of hot air. All these paragraphs of nothing. No alternate conclusions, no contradicting facts, no supplying any of your own facts, not even a point. You brought this thread nothing, and you sucked me in to bring nothing too. I won't do this with you again.




After looking at your profile, which of course I did not need to look at to know that you had not made a billion posts, your post count totals 430. Your understanding of numbers couldn't be better demonstrated than by your own assertion of a billion posts made. Exaggerate much?


And you finish with trying to take me to task on a sarcastic exaggeration? Don't talk to me anymore, you are too weird for me. Good day.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I would like to know what basic math has to do with this?
Actually, I have some basic math that might help you. Take a look at this*:

1975 Per Capita GDP:

American GDP (1.62 trillion) for 1975, adjusted for inflation, would equal 6.32 trillion dollars in 2009 CPI (Try it yourself). Due to the lack of public information for American population levels in 1975, we will have to derive it from info available now. So, between 1980 and 1981, American population levels have grown ~3 million to 229,465,744 people, so subtract 6 years (multiplied by 3 million) to 1975, I estimate the American population to be (1985 population - 18 million=) 211,456,744 people.

SO, to get the per capita GDP for 1975, we divide the GDP (adjusted for inflation) by population, which is 6.32 trillion/211,456,744=$29,887.91 Per capita.

2008 Per Capita GDP:

American GDP in 2008, adjusted for 2009 CPI inflation levels would be equal to 14.54 trillion. The American population in 2008 can be said to be 304,059,724 people.

SO, to get the per capita GDP for 2008, we divide the GDP (adjusted for inflation) by population, which is 14.54 trillion/304,059,724=$47,819.55 Per Capita.

The truth
To discover how accurate your statement regarding


fewer Americans have a roof over their head today, then they did prior to 1972 when the currency was switched to fiat money.
, we can do more simple math:

2008 Per Capita GDP - 1975 Per Capita GDP = Wealth Difference
$47,819.55 - $29,887.91 = $17,931.64

As you can see, technically the average American is $17,931.64 richer than in 1975 even when adjusted for inflation. Of course, this number isn't exact, nor is it fully represented in todays corrupt capitalistic system, but on the contrary is true to some extent.

So no matter how you put it, Jean Paul, Americans are richer on average (even if money isn't spread out fairly/evenly) today than in 1975, thanks to the evil fiat currency. I would insist your purpose a model that could solve all our economic woes since basing our money off of a valuable mineral seems to be your ideal form of an economy.

Oh, and also, next time crunch your own numbers so that I don't have to say

Oh, I see. You let other people do your thinking for you. You think what you're told to think, which is why you feel so comfortable entering a thread and telling other people they're eating too many stupid cookies, because someone else told you to think that. Okay.
and

Do yourself a favor and go back to school and learn basic math, before graduating up to economics.
because I did in fact get a C in linear algebra and an A in introductory economics.



*Population and GDP numbers derived from Google - Public Data numbers



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


I hope you are right, about freedom being close....


There's more of us than them!!! We can have what we want, instead of fulfilling wishes of what the few want.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Ok, you're right...




This is what the state is about. Children are control over us. With children, they are able to take your paycheck.


Could you tell me please, what does that mean?

Sorry you don't have more time for bringing facts, er....I mean, links and graphs. It is annoying for me for people to come on and just go blah, blah, blah. What if I went on some UFO thread and said "quantum accelerator gets five atoms thick plasma x-ray quark blackhole bluebook."?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


Honestly now you kinda make me laugh. But Birth certificates are basically certificates of ownership. That might be what our "currency" uses as collateral. So WE might be what actually backs our currency.

With government owning your kid, basically forcing their vaccines and indoctrination, how can one not say kids are property of government?

They may take their property back at any time. Basically if we live opposed to how they want.


PS:
Are you here just to rile people up and instigate???



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Birth Certificates prove where you are born and help identify your origin. They don't act as "collateral" for the things you purchase. If you haven't noticed, if you cannot pay your home or car, they take it away from you, not kill you.

I am not American, so I don't know about vaccines being mandatory (because they aren't where I live and probably never will be), but I am against them. However, if you do treat your children badly, abuse them, and do other terrible things to them, you do not deserve to have children and the state should have the right to relocate them to a better home for both your sakes.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
The welfare lines and food stamp programs are going to become over burdened, people are going to sink to unbelievable levels to try and support their very lives.

For most they have already discovered what it is to drop level after level in a sinking economy with only a fraction of what they have previously made before their joblessness.

Eventually what happens to one happens to all.

When the Government continues to support and fund the most insidious causes, to allow another extension would be a drop in the ocean of their indebtedness.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Birth Certificates ARE collateral, it is so with every country. Literally your parents sign your rights as a sovereign being, a free person when signing the certificate at your birth.

Each country then uses 'your' life as a promise to pay in the bigger game of finance which uses you until the day you die a slave.

Each individual is good for what is equal to a lifetime of work.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join