Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (586533)	9/20/2010 4:57:37 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1575147

>There is nothing agnostic about calling unemployment checks "stimulus." It's a twist on Keynesian economics, which I doubt even Keynes himself would support because the key purpose is to "prime the pump." Why isn't that pump priming? If the money gets spent (which it does), then it does the job. >Funding continuous unemployment runs counter to that purpose. I would even argue that it destroys the Keynesian model. It's not funding continuous unemployment. There can be something of a case to be made that unemployment benefits keep people from working when unemployment rates are very low. But not now. THERE. ARE. NO. JOBS. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (586533)	9/20/2010 5:04:51 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575147

>> Funding continuous unemployment runs counter to that purpose. I would even argue that it destroys the Keynesian model. This is a perfect example of leftism at its worst. Have these nitwits considered the anti-stimulative effects of taxing employers year in, year out to fund these programs, the additional bureaucracy created by the compliance burden, or the massive pile of taxpayer dollars handed out in this welfare program? Most importantly, have the idiots considered the consequences of chronically reinforcing the undesirable behavior of sitting home unemployment? 13 weeks of unemployment benefits is plenty. One can rationalize that the so-called "safety net" is required. Anything beyond that is nothing more than a big fat welfare check.