On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:49:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:26:53 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

As usual, you're full of it.

Not really, have you seen any of the $4 trillion Obama-debt is flowing?

Who knows, maybe Ashley Turton and John Wheeler knew. No one else knows
where it is all going.

Because you would think the 100M workers would notice $40K/per and that
is just the debt part.

You really need to get some meds or something. You're just ranting and
honestly it's very unattractive.



The State I reside in (MA) received just under $8B of the federal stimulus
package.
The bulk of the money was spent on:

1. Extension of initial unemployment benefits to 46 weeks.
2. Increase in the maximum unemployment benefit payouts by $25/week.
3. Subsidizing of 67 percent of Cobra Health Insurance costs by the
unemployed.
4. $400 tax credit to anyone with a job for the year (if you make under
$95k/year).
5. One time $250 Social Security payment bonus for non-workers.

You can argue that the $8B was spent wisely and for good reasons but I don't
think it can really be called "Stimulus" money.
It hasn't stimulated a thing in terms of creating jobs. All it did was to
make the current economic conditions a tiny bit more tolerable by those
affected for a limited period of time. The money is now gone and there's
no more coming.

That's certainly not true. Assuming your numbers are correct,
extending unemployment and all the other things you mention pump money
directly back into the economy and jobs are created or retained as a
result. This is really econ 101. Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

FYI, http://arraprweb1.itd.state.ma.us/mapapp/money.html

“Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime.”
(Chinese Proverb boating content)

Which has nothing to do with the situation...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

The people collecting partial pay (unemployment) are not stimulating the
economy. They are barely getting by after 20 years of stagnant payroll
as it is. These folks are tightening their belts and they are not buying
anything more than what they need to live on. Just look at real estate,
retail, auto sales, vacation destinations, electronics stocks, etc, and
you know Emma is only posting talking points everyone here knows are
just more Obamaspeak!

There is just no evidence that a family making 50-70% of what their
lifestyle was based on just two years ago, is spending money on anything
other than bare necessities now. And certainly no evidence a family
making 50-70% of what they made just two years ago, is going to
stimulate the economy more than a family with a real job, making 100% of
what they made two years ago. It is just silly and dishonest to suggest
otherwise. Add in the fact that we are up to $3.50 a gallon for gasoline
again, and you know nobody is spending money on sneakers or wide screen
TV's. And we are not creating any new jobs except at the IR$.

Here are some facts, not talking points.

Mass. received just under $8B of the federal stimulus
package.
The bulk of the money was spent on:

1. Extension of initial unemployment benefits to 46 weeks.
2. Increase in the maximum unemployment benefit payouts by $25/week.
3. Subsidizing of 67 percent of Cobra Health Insurance costs by the
unemployed.
4. $400 tax credit to anyone with a job for the year (if you make under
$95k/year).
5. One time $250 Social Security payment bonus for non-workers.

You can argue that the $8B was spent wisely and for good reasons but I
don't think it can really be called "Stimulus" money. It hasn't
stimulated a thing in terms of creating jobs. All it did was to make
the current economic conditions a tiny bit more tolerable by those
affected for a limited period of time. The money is now gone and
there's no more coming.

These are the facts on the ground.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:


Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

Unless you at the BEP when Obama tells them to turn it up.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.

On 2/19/2011 11:12 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.
I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.
Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.
No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.
Spent on what Jessica? booze cigarettes drugs gambling whores Walmart.
What did you do with your stimulus?

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.


You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package.

Economic growth.

Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent
people from falling off a cliff
but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of
people who have lost jobs are getting
by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt
tightening and controlled spending.

The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and
competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for
outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business.

Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks.

With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with
Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay
scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high
to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at
China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the
Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled
around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car.
People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what
would be expected here in the USA.
That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and
are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years
ago.

In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA
and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit
packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But
that's a long way off.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain
a market for their manufactured goods.
The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the
Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the
world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will
hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away.
It's happening right now.

The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to
have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes,
property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of
living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales
and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland.

Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content)

Eisboch

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.


You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package.

Economic growth.

Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent
people from falling off a cliff
but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of
people who have lost jobs are getting
by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt
tightening and controlled spending.

The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and
competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for
outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business.

Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks.

With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with
Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay
scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high
to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at
China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the
Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled
around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car.
People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what
would be expected here in the USA.
That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and
are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years
ago.

In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA
and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit
packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But
that's a long way off.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain
a market for their manufactured goods.
The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the
Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the
world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will
hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away.
It's happening right now.

The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to
have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes,
property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of
living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales
and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland.

Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content)

Eisboch

Every man for himself. The next to suffer will be the undereducated
American who've just been getting by. The urban undereducated are
already suffering. Walmart will have a harder time finding buyers for
its Chinese goods when our country is even further divided by haves
and have nots.

China has its own problems.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:32:06 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:20:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

No idiot... most if not all of the money from an unemployed person who
receives benefits is SPENT IMMEDIATELY. That is stimulative. Giving
rich people a few $1000 does next to nothing. They put it in savings
and maybe a little of it ends up as stim.


You are leaving out the real purpose of a true "stimulus" package.

Economic growth.

Extending unemployment benefits may be a necessary thing to do to prevent
people from falling off a cliff
but it does nothing to generate growth in the economy. The families of
people who have lost jobs are getting
by on a percentage of their former income. For them it's a time of belt
tightening and controlled spending.

The problem (as I see it) is the ramifications of a global economy and
competitive manufacturing. It's convenient to simply blame business for
outsourcing jobs but in reality they *have* to in order to stay in business.

Here's what is going on ... and it ain't pretty folks.

With the emergence of China as a major global manufacturer (along with
Mexico and a few other nations) the USA can no longer compete. Our pay
scales and benefit packages, established over decades, are simply too high
to compete with those of places like China. Many point fingers of blame at
China citing worker abuse and slave labor, etc., but the fact is that the
Chinese worker never had it so good. 20 years ago he and his family pedaled
around on bicycles. They have traded them in for their first car.
People tend to compare working conditions, pay and benefits relative to what
would be expected here in the USA.
That's a mistake. Factory workers in China are making more money now and
are enjoying a standard of living that they never dreamed of 20-25 years
ago.

In time Chinese workers may follow the same path as those here in the USA
and start demanding higher pay, better working conditions and benefit
packages and the cost of Chinese produced goods will begin to rise. But
that's a long way off.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is financing the USA in order to maintain
a market for their manufactured goods.
The USA is the largest importer of their products .... for now. Once the
Chinese establish significant markets elsewhere in the
world, the financing of the US economy will end. That's when the **** will
hit the fan big time. And it's not 5 or 10 years away.
It's happening right now.

The whole relative pay scale and benefit expectations in the USA is going to
have to be completely revamped. This will affect the values of homes,
property and everything else that makes up an economy and standard of
living. Those who are living in the past, with expectations of payscales
and benefits of the 80's 90's and early 2000's are living in a dreamland.

Stand by for heavy rolls. (boating content)

Eisboch

Nice argument, but poor conclusions... there's no crisis on the scale
you're arguing for. It's just fear-based. Most of China is very, very
poor. They will remain that way for a very long time.