The GOP tax bill would be very bad for the economy.

Does it?

$0.70_____$1.00__________________$1.90
( _Squidward_ )..( ________Kode________ )

Have to admit, looking at the numbers above, it would appear the odds would be in your favour.
The article appeared to be about unemployment benefits going to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
Such persons usually have debts and bills to be paid, home mortgage, car loan, utilities, gas, water, electric, phone, Internet, etc.
As such, unemployment benefits most likely only allow most of the monthly bills to be paid on time while reducing spending in other areas.
So at best unemployment benefits add nothing to the economy, but only diminish slightly any loss in the economy.
Suppose someone was earning $1,000 per week and lost their job. If unemployment benefits provided them with $500 per week it would result in a loss of $500 that they could spend in the economy. Perhaps they were investing $250 per week while employed. Likely they would reduce greatly, if not eliminate that for the duration of their unemployment. But they would still be $250 short of what they had been spending in the economy.

So unemployment benefits produce no gain but simply limit some of the loss to the economy.

 

WHAT "study" and what are your questions about it?

 

Spin it!! YEAH!!!!

 

Facts don't require being spun.
What, in my post was not a fact?

 

You presented it as unemployment benefits vs. previous income. But the studies mentioned by Politifact simply say that each dollar of unemployment benefits generate some greater value of economic benefit. So there's no comparison going on with previous income. It's just "what is the result on the economy of each dollar of unemployment benefit." Would a continued job be better in most cases? You bet! But that's not the question. Some people, most notably on the right, have complained for a long time that the unemployed are a net drain and even "leeches". These studies show that isn't true. That's all.

 

Please post the text of the studies you are referring to, making such a claim.
While it's undeniable that the unemployed person benefits from the dollars received, the benefit to the economy is less than what that person was contributed when employed and earning a larger sum to spend.

There most definitely is a comparison, unless you can make a rationed case that the economy would be better if all people were unemployed and simply given money to spend by government.

I think you're trying to mix unemployment benefits with welfare benefits.
Let's stick to unemployment benefits as that is all the article you presented was talking about. And you might take note that unemployment benefits are funded as a result of the profits produced by those who are employed, and distributed when losing ones employment through no fault of their own. More or less similar to Social Security and Medicare.

 

Reference to CBO and Moody's studies are all over the web, as you see here.

But I was also able to track the CBO report to this: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21922?index=11960
Unfortunately you would have to buy their report. So that is apparently why their report is referenced so much but not linked to. You and I have to satisfy ourselves with the many references or pay for the CBO report. The references are good enough for me.

 

OMG!! typical illiterate liberal?? Republicans have made 30 attempts to make debt illegal. Last big effort was Newt's it passed House and fell one vote short in Senate thanks to Democrats obviously!! If it had passed debt today would be $0 not $20 trillion. Do you want to print out on put on your fridge so you won't forget?

 

Republicans have never tried to make debt illegal. They love debt. Every time they are in power, the EXPLODE the deficit and debt. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

OMG!! typical illiterate liberal?? Republicans have made 30 attempts to make debt illegal, Democrats none. Last big effort was Newt's it passed House and fell one vote short in Senate thanks to Democrats obviously!! If it had passed debt today would be $0 not $20 trillion. Do you want to print out on put on your fridge so you won't forget?

 

Republicans have never tried to make debt illegal. They love debt. Every time they are in power, the EXPLODE the deficit and debt. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

for 8th time what does the liberal call 30 Balanced Budget Amendments if not trying to make debt illegal????????

 

Pretty much agrees with what I posted "While it's undeniable that the unemployed person benefits from the dollars received, the benefit to the economy is less than what that person was contributed when employed and earning a larger sum to spend."

 

and the person taxed to pay for the unemployed person does not benefit,spends less, and so the economy shrinks

 

OF COURSE THAT IS CORRECT, but that isn't the point. The point is that the right wing line that unemployment benefits are an objectionable "entitlement" and a net loss, is wrong.

 

Republicans have never tried to make debt illegal. They love debt. Every time they are in power, the EXPLODE the deficit and debt. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

I already asked you.
But maybe, since you presented a study of ROI for government unemployment spending, you wouldnt mind discussing the inclusion criteria, methods, data collection, control group statistical methods, conclusions and weaknesses of the study.
Thanks in advance

 

Of course those benefits were taken from some other part of the economy to be given to the recipient. That must be accounted for

 

No need for 2 untrained amateurs to struggle to duplicate what proper studies have already found and published. Go read up on them.

 

So you're ignorant of a study you chose to support your position? Thanks, much appreciated

 

No, the problem here is that rather than use your head, you march in lock-step with Republican liars.

 

Let's do it this way: what effect do you say unemployment compensation has on the economy?

 

You're going off on a tangent now. The point is that spending an unemployment dollar does not ADD anything to the economy, it simply reduces the loss to the economy and the newly unemployed individual.

 

How do you think the CBO and Moody's concluded that every U.C. dollar generates from $1.61 to $1.90 of economic activity? Do you think they just made it up? How could they have come to such conclusions? Do you know their explanation?

 

Are you claiming the CBO and Moody's study was specifically done on a U.C. dollar?
From the link you provided:
"When you give $1 to people who have lost their jobs and they have run out of savings, those dollars get spent. So Mary gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses."
The above is more or less true of the impact of disposable income spending that occurs with what remains AFTER recurring debt payments, home loan, auto loan, utilities, etc. have been paid. So Mary, from the link article you provided would more likely use her U.C. to pay her debts owed the bank so she will have a house to live in, and her auto loan, and utility bills, and Mike and Tom lose, or suffer a reduction of income, as a result of Mary's spending while she seeks new employment.
And that would explain the quote also from the article you provided a link to, which said:
"I would change his statement going forward to 'up to $1.90' or 'between 70 cents and $1.90 goes back into the economy.' "
As U.C. is LESS than what an individual was receiving from employment, it does not add anything to the economy, it only reduces some of the loss to the economy, that does not engage the multiplier effect.
While I agree that studies can show the spending of a dollar producing more than a dollar of benefit in the economy, it would be quite foolish to apply such reasoning to every dollar spent.