Consider this video a demonstration of Democrat economic genius on full display.
Ohio Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown says people need their unemployment benefits so they’ll have enough money to pay their property taxes. In other words, “Let’s just take this money out of one pocket and put it in the other.”
Let us save you some pain. The quote comes at the 6:00 mark of the video.
“The other reason to maintain unemployment benefits is all economics. Senator McCain, when he was candidate for President, his chief economic advisor said the best way to grow the economy – the best stimulus dollar you can spend – is unemployment insurance. Because when you put a dollar in a laid-off worker’s pocket from Lima, Ohio or Zanesville, Ohio she will spend it at the local grocery store, the local shoe store, pay her property tax, pay her gas bill, whatever. That money is recycled in the economy.”
Do not make the mistake of thinking Senator Brown simply misspoke. He has given variations of this speech numerous times on the floor of the Senate and always uses the “pay her property tax” line.
Sherrod Brown is, of course, a successful graduate of the Obama School of Economics, where they teach that it’s a rational use of taxpayer money to buy General Motors, order them to make electric cars, give money to General Electric so they can buy the electric cars from General Motors, and then announce that the whole shebang is a huge success.
Round and round the little ball goes and where it stops nobody knows. Well, actually, we do know where it stops – third world status for the United States.
Source: TheRightScoop.com
This post was last modified on June 21, 2021
View Comments (34)
O.k., Donny boy, the little problem with your comparison of the old adage that "it takes money to make money" is this: When I go to the bank and borrow money for a project of mine that I see making a nice return on the investment, I still have to repay the money I borrowed with interest. When the government sends out unemployment checks, it usually borrows that money or has taken it from other productive citizens by force, robbing them of opportunity. Or, they have left us with a debt that is incurring interest with no plan to pay it back. Not a good situation. It will not work for private individuals or corporations in the real world and the end game for the nation is near. So the argument that every dollar of gov't spending yields back $1.61 or whatever is an old Keynesian lie. That deficit spending only works if the principal gets paid back and something of value is produced. It's very similar to the argument of the broken window causing economic activity for the window repair guy and so on,
it's a false argument.
donavan: I'll try to explain this as simply as I can. In all your explanation of the wonderful $1.61 returned for every $1 spent on unemployment benefits the government has to take (or borrow) that $1 from somebody else. Not so wonderful.
jim stewart—are we not a consumer driven economy? we have about... 15ML that are unemployed, of that amount around 10ML are receiving unemployment. i guess i'd like to ask if you get what happens when stop unemployment for the unemployed when we clearly don't have the jobs to give them? i guess you could go to any third world country and see what that's like.
oh and by-the-way, when i said i was simplifying numbers, that was the benefit of not complicating my explanation... it wasn't a slam on your intelligence.
BHO caves on tax deal in Lame Duck session to avoid getting a REAL shellacking by Tea Party congress.
That BEHAVIOR which you tolerate (and reward!) will continue.
What is good for the economy is for it TO GROW. Period. If people are making it on their unemployment checks, then they will not look for work until they have to do so (and that has been delayed due to extention of unemployment benefits) It was for 99 weeks (hello, people, that's ALMOST 2 years) and now it is extended even more.
It is hogwash that having people on unemployment is good for the economy. [please read first sentence of paragraph above] Anyone who argues this is not living in reality.
People want to work, and support themselves. The more the government crushes small business, the more people out of work. The government needs to get off small business's back (you do know that small business owners file regular tax returns, and those are the people always targeted by this idiot administration as the rich people).
I never, ever got a job from a poor person. EVER.
I do't know about the rest of you, but I'm sure getting tired of Donavan's sophomoric self- righteousness, thinking he is going to enlighten all of us.
For the record, I've never collected unemployment, even though I qualified. ..
pride I guess. . . . Or the fact that I'm self employed and re-hire myself after I've fired my lazy ass cuz I can't find anyone else who will work the stupid hours that I do .. . and as cheaply.
i'm definitely not trying to enlighten anyone... i'm glad you've never collected unemployment, neither have i... i just don't see the need to demonize those who truly need it... so before you assert that i'm "sophomoric and self righteous" you might want to re-read your last statement because you're clearly trying to elevate yourself based on your life circumstance... not everyone has the ability to be self employed or has the luxury of passing on unemployment insurance.
And I guess the "upper case" key on his computer is still missing. Not only stupid, but illiterate.
it doesn't surprise me that the economic genius living in the conservative mind doesn't get the point sen. brown is making... for every dollar spent that unemployment provides to the unemployed, adds $1.61 back to the economy. for those who own a home and are unemployed this money allows them the opportunity to pay their property tax and for those who understand where their property taxes are applied... understand that your property taxes are mostly applied locally—state, county and community—not federally. pretty much the same way that unemployment benefits are helping state, county and community. administrator...get educated. this is economics 101. i learned this in high school economics. i find it interesting how you focused on these 4 words out of a ten minute speech that was really focused a lot on the bush tax cuts... we've had about ten years of the bush tax cuts and for some reason they haven't worked.
Well, then, shouldn't the government then pay EVERY citizen unemployment? And pay even more of it per person? Then our economy would even take off more!
I mean, if we can turn every dollar into $1.61, it's a no brainer. Hell, Ben B. should bring unemployment dollars for all. We could profit $610 billion for every trillion doled out!
Donovan, I think you are on to something.
@Hellraiser
Awesome!
..or he's on something.
unemployment is insurance, meant specifically for those that have lost a job. it's a means for people who have lost their job to get support until they find another job—to keep the unemployed active in our economy—we're a consumer focused economy (did you not know this?). we need people active, with purchasing power. to add, those who are employed don't need unemployment and to pay the employed would be stupid and a waste of money, because they're employed. to give everyone unemployment would mean there would be NO unemployment and it would run up our deficit... this isn't rocket science.... any idiot could figure this out. the goal is to keep as many people active in our economy as possible, it has very little to do with helping people and has far more to do with keeping our economy healthy... by your assessment, i guess that means we should all get our social security now? and exactly what would that do to social security? you're an idiot.
Hi Donovan, this is the idiot.
There are lots of unemployed people that are not on the unemployment rolls -- people who fell off and all those evil business owners who went BK and don't qualify to collect. And then there are many tens of millions of people who don't have any discretionary money -- hell, probably 50 million -- who spend everything they make just to stay in their homes. If these people had extra money it could go into the economy at the 1.6X rate as you stated. And don't forget the teens who no longer get an allowance or have a part-time job -- surely their spending would help the economy.
According to your brilliant economic principle, why would that not help? Why would not placing maybe 50 - 75 million on unemployment help? Sounds like it would be a bonanza!
hi hellraiser/idiot
i completely get that people are using unemployment to stay in their homes/survive. they're also using that money to buy food. food is a commodity and every dollar that is spent on food or gas or any other commodity that we use for survival puts $1.61 back into the economy... i'm not talking about luxury items like ipods or cell phones, i'm talking about basics. and here's why putting 50 - 75 million on unemployment wouldn't help... because it's insurance for the unemployed... your rationale is as stupid as asking for your homes fire insurance right now, even though there hasn't been a fire... i stand by idiot comment.
Let's see, "idiot" and now "stupid." Nice. If you look back at my comments to you, there is no name calling. But that's just the way liberals debate -- especially in your neighborhood of Berkeley -- if you can what you do debate.
kinda sensitive for a conservative aren't you? for what it's worth i've been called more names on this site than i can remember, so if you haven't called me a name in the past i apologize... i just assumed you had like every one else has been.
Not sensitive at all, just calling you out for who you are.
hm...sounds a little sensitive, but that aside... it still doesn't change the fact that you.... are.... wrong... just sayin.
Unemployment insurance typically pays out for 26 weeks and many people have been collecting for much longer than 26 weeks. So now it's gone from insurance to a deficit financed give way. Donavan, I would say you're the idiot but that would be redundant.
you know, jim stewart, sometimes i have idiot moments, but not in this case. you see we are not in a "typical" state of unemployment... are we? i think you would actually be an "idiot" if you tried to argue that we are. we are in a deep recession, so your "typical" 26 weeks is applicable to times that are more typical. so.. i guess your assessment of what's normal applies to a time that doesn't exist right now, which i wouldn't say makes you an "idiot", but it kind of makes you.... i don't know you feel in the blank...
I heard that the compromise tax deal extends unemployment benefits for 13 more months.
As to donavan, you didn't read my post very well. After the normal 26 weeks the "insurance" part of unemployment benefit has been used up. So after 26 weeks any money paid to the unemployed is not from any employer premium. The extensions to benefits are a loan from the feds to the state programs. Since the feds are broke it's more debt.
But one thing you got right, this is not a typical recession. Dear Leader Obama has seen to that.
jim stewart: i've been away for a few days—responding now. maybe i did misread your post, however i think you're half wrong about who pays for unemployment. unemployment insurance is a jointly financed venture between the fed and states. payroll taxes that come from the employee (a portion of payroll taxes fund unemployment). i have been working for 25 years and i have personally contributed to unemployment insurance for the last 25 years up to a certain amount each year, which varies by state. statistically, i will pay far more into unemployment over my life-time of working than i will ever get back... statistics show that most never fully utilize their unemployment benefits, even in times such as these... your employer may only be responsible for 26 weeks and the fed my help pick up the bill, but the individual has been paying for unemployment insurance since they first began working...fortunately i've never had to use unemployment, and there are millions like me... so in essence we pay not only for ourselves, but for the financial wealth of our country. to add, every $1.00 given in unemployment puts $1.61 back into the economy... this isn't physics, i don't get why people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this.
donavan: at what point does the $1.00 for a $1.61 break down? I hear this $1 for $1.61 being touted by the libs all the time. Should we have a permanent 10 percent unemployment rate? A 61 percent return on investment is pretty darn good! Maybe Obama can aim for 25 percent unemployment and more people can share in the 61 percent ROI.
i'm going to explain this the best way i know how... i'm not an economist so excuse any redundancy. i'm simplifying numbers to make it easier for me to explain. when you spend a dollar on let's say.... a loaf of bread. you then pay for the entire production of the loaf of bread, from the suppliers of the wheat to the plastic company that makes the packaging to the ink company that prints on the plastic and the tractor company that plows the fields etc... your dollar that you spend puts money in the pocket of those who work on the entire production of the loaf of bread. we're not just buying the bread we're buying the entire process of making that bread and the money we spend gives buying power to those who produce it, which gives them the ability to put money back into the system. it's the foundation of a free market and the basis of profit. our single dollar on that loaf creates on average $1.61, however that is a modest estimate, because in many instances it's actually $2.00 for every $1.00. it gives credence to the cliche "it takes money to create money".
to add it makes no sense to have an escalated unemployment rate—when we are employed and have more disposable incomes we spend money on luxury items or more expensive items, which have a higher yield per dollar—thus a wealthier economy all around.
Game. Set. Match, for Jim Stewart.
And I hear the tax deal they are working on extends it 13 more months. I hope the reporter I heard got it wrong and meant 13 "weeks" not "months"
So... tax people to take their money and give it to others so they can pay their taxes... great... It is recycled but not exactly in the economy.
A liberal blood transfusion: take a pint of blood from your left arm and put it into your right arm but spill half the pint on the way.
Sorta like kiting checks, isn't it?
Property tax? What he means is the rental tax for buying a home, the illusion of every owning a home in America is a myth. If a person purchases a home, than the taxes on that home should be based strictly on sales price! Instead we have another bureaucratic appointee that assesses the homes worth, and it continually increases depending on how much the state needs in revenue to continually increase its size, miss your property tax and sheriffs auction? The property tax is a corrupt, ever changing money producing for the financially inept. Property tax based on sales prince only, and it remains that value unless the owner refinances or sells, than the cycle starts again, amazing how many fixed income retirees now have property taxes that are higher than their original mortgage? And this is the American dream.
Exactly. I hate it. This is unconstitutional in my opinion. We should not be taxed for owning anything once it has been paid for and a tax has already been paid on it at the moment of purchase (or paying it off).