Thoughts on a Second Stimulus Package?

[m3racer]

I heard or read something to the effect that this stimulus will or might be different.

It might not be given in the same form as last one (a check to taxpayers). This stimulus might take a different form. Not sure what that form could be...

for example funding government projects which create jobs which pay people wages

You are partially correct. However, our lame duck Congress with president Obama are planning to give $$$ back to people who don't pay any federal income tax as part of this "stimulus package." This should piss you off if you are a taxpayer in any bracket. Doesn't it feel "patriotic" to help pay and promote the laziness that transpires our society? Also, for the record...Obama's plan of cutting taxes for 95% of Americans is just plain misleading. How many Americans understand that half of the 95% he's talking about don't pay a single penny in federal income tax. God I fuc*in hate politicians and their lies!!!!!

[m3racer]

Since unemployment benefits are usually earned through a direct tax on the people who eventually collect it, I don't have a problem with that. You don't get unemployment until you've paid for the right to the benefits.

That is not true. Also, it does not justify someone leaching off of society. Please re-read Steve's post.

[disneysteve]

Since unemployment benefits are usually earned through a direct tax on the people who eventually collect it, I don't have a problem with that. You don't get unemployment until you've paid for the right to the benefits.

You do need to work a certain amount of hours to qualify for unemployment benefits, but you can still collect a lot more than you paid in. Unemployment benefits should be a safety net, not a replacement for a job for 26 weeks, or more. As with most government aid programs, I think there is a tremendous amount of abuse of the system.

[Inkstain82]

That is not true. Also, it does not justify someone leaching off of society. Please re-read Steve's post.

I read it the first time quite thoroughly. Please don't assume that because I disagree that I don't understand what you and he are saying.

If a tax is taken out of your paycheck to pay for unemployment insurance, and you collect on that insurance, how are you leeching on society? Although the insurance is administered by the government, it is an insurance policy. Collecting on it is no different from collecting on medical insurance if you get sick or car insurance if you are in an accident.

[Inkstain82]

You do need to work a certain amount of hours to qualify for unemployment benefits, but you can still collect a lot more than you paid in. Unemployment benefits should be a safety net, not a replacement for a job for 26 weeks, or more. As with most government aid programs, I think there is a tremendous amount of abuse of the system.

All forms of insurance present the possibility of collecting more than you put in. If they didn't, insurance would be a horrible deal that no one would have incentive to take.

I understand and respect your opinion, but I disagree on how prevalent and relevant abuse is.

[disneysteve]

I understand and respect your opinion, but I disagree on how prevalent and relevant abuse is.

Understood, and I respect your opinion.

My point was simply that by extending benefits, I'm afraid you would just increase the abuse by giving folks more time during which they don't need to work or look for a job. The people who are truly looking for work would benefit but all those who are just sucking up every dollar they have coming to them would just drain more money from the system.

[MonkeyMama]

Since when was unemployment taxes taken from your paycheck???
Unemployment taxes are paid by employers. (Not employees - though you can certainly argue it is an indirect tax that affects wages. I'm with you there).

Some states may also fund employment differently.

[Inkstain82]

Since when was unemployment taxes taken from your paycheck???
Unemployment taxes are paid by employers. (Not employees - though you can certainly argue it is an indirect tax that affects wages. I'm with you there).

Some states may also fund employment differently.

That's what I was getting at, I should have been more explicit. Taxes paid on your behalf by employers are part of your compensation, imo.

[disneysteve]

That's what I was getting at, I should have been more explicit. Taxes paid on your behalf by employers are part of your compensation, imo.

If more people are collecting benefits for a longer period of time, might that not lead to the need to raise the taxes paid by employers to fund those extended benefits? Seems like that could backfire and cause even more unemployment.

[Inkstain82]

If more people are collecting benefits for a longer period of time, might that not lead to the need to raise the taxes paid by employers to fund those extended benefits? Seems like that could backfire and cause even more unemployment.

It could. Or it might cause those people to spend more money, thus stimulating local businesses and allowing for even more hiring.

We're getting into the classic left/right economic debate here, supply-side vs. demand-side. If either of us could prove either side right or wrong, there's probably a Nobel Prize for economics waiting for us

[maat55]

Since unemployment benefits are usually earned through a direct tax on the people who eventually collect it, I don't have a problem with that. You don't get unemployment until you've paid for the right to the benefits.

Actually, the employer pays the unemployment. I pay the State and federal unemployment.

I can't think of anyone I've known that did not use unemployment to the max. Ironically, I've paid unemployment most of my working life and do not qualify for it.

[Inkstain82]

Actually, the employer pays the unemployment. I pay the State and federal unemployment.

I can't think of anyone I've known that did not use unemployment to the max. Ironically, I've paid unemployment most of my working life and do not qualify for it.

I was recently on unemployment and only used four of the six months of benefits. I also did some freelance work during those four months, so I didn't get the full benefits every week.

[kork13]

It could. Or it might cause those people to spend more money, thus stimulating local businesses and allowing for even more hiring.

This is good in theory, but I'm too much the realist to accept it... Did the stimulus checks work? I argue they did not. People spent more money and sustained our overall GDP for that quarter, but in the end, unemployment still rose. I will never understand how handouts can be thought to replace people holding jobs and earning their wage.

Handouts and salaries both give people more money. However, handouts draw upon society. Those with jobs produce for society, whether that is as a farmer, construction worker, or senior executive--they're contributing to something getting done/being produced.

That said, I do accept that this second stimulus *could* have a better effect, if done correctly. Opening new contracts potentially could cause increased hiring. For example: Guam (home for me) is going to be getting a huge influx of Marines from Okinawa within the next few years. Companies throughout Guam and the CNMI are looking to hire thousands of new employees to build up the infrastructure of the island and the military bases there to support the increased military presence. This military buildup is considered a boon for the island, as this dramatic increase in WORK BEING DONE will be extremely beneficial for the island's economy.

[Inkstain82]

This is good in theory, but I'm too much the realist to accept it... Did the stimulus checks work? I argue they did not.

That's what we're arguing about, yes

People spent more money and sustained our overall GDP for that quarter, but in the end, unemployment still rose.

The problem is, we'll never know how much it might have risen without the stimulus. The stimulus and other government actions aren't trying to prevent a recession, they are trying to minimize it.

I will never understand how handouts can be thought to replace people holding jobs and earning their wage.

Not replace, supplement.

Handouts and salaries both give people more money. However, handouts draw upon society. Those with jobs produce for society, whether that is as a farmer, construction worker, or senior executive--they're contributing to something getting done/being produced.

Sort of. For one thing, I wouldn't put farmers on that list. Most of them would be out of business without government handouts and protection.

I guess that all works if the goal of our society is to produce as much as possible at all times. That's not our goal, though, so other factors have to be considered, such as our desire to have everyone live at a minimum standard (though we often disagree on what that minimum should be).

That said, I do accept that this second stimulus *could* have a better effect, if done correctly. Opening new contracts potentially could cause increased hiring. For example: Guam (home for me) is going to be getting a huge influx of Marines from Okinawa within the next few years. Companies throughout Guam and the CNMI are looking to hire thousands of new employees to build up the infrastructure of the island and the military bases there to support the increased military presence. This military buildup is considered a boon for the island, as this dramatic increase in WORK BEING DONE will be extremely beneficial for the island's economy.

The danger with that is that you now have an entire economy dependent on a continued government presence.


(BTW, I'm new here, so someone lemme know if this is getting too political).

[m3racer]

That's what I was getting at, I should have been more explicit. Taxes paid on your behalf by employers are part of your compensation, imo.

I think many would disagree with you on that.....I certainly do. To each his own I guess.