RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. That quote by Doggett is particularly rage inducing. For starters, nobody is “resting comfortably” atop the ladder because a) of how crappy our economy is and b) it takes years of work to both attain and/or maintain wealth. Second, extending UBs hurt those seeking work because it encourages dependency by encouraging sitting on the benefits and not moving on and of course plunges us more into debt which hurts everyone. Third, an extension of the current tax code that we’ve had for over a decade now is not a “tax break” which means something totally different (this clown can’t even get basic economic terms right). Lastly, consumption does not drive a successful economy, production does. That should be common sense. Saying otherwise is like saying you can put the cart before the horse. What a maroon. If he had been in the room when he said that, I’d have to fight back the urge to punch him.

    Also, CBO studies like this are worthless because they are extremely static and work on the assumptions built into them rather than actual reality.

    Comment by zf — November 30, 2012 @ 12:27 am

  2. However, the CBO report does makes sense IF you intend to fund the government’s operations via money printing (or rather wiring ones and zeros to the Treasury). The joys of Obamanomics, embrace the gift! Remember, Nancy Pelosi said unemployment benefits is economic stimulus…

    Comment by dscott — November 30, 2012 @ 8:43 am

  3. #1, of course plunges us more into debt which hurts everyone.

    This is a Zen question:

    If the money which the Treasury borrowed from the Fed to pay the unemployed never existed in the first place, then how can we be more in debt?

    If we borrowed zero, then how can we owe more than zero?

    Comment by dscott — November 30, 2012 @ 8:46 am

  4. Typical endless argument. Why not extend forever so we have massive economic growth?
    CBO does not adequately calculate the negative future impact.

    Comment by Jim — November 30, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

  5. #3, The money may not exist per se, but unfortunately the unfunded liability figure represented by the negative money transfer does, in the form of even larger (and ever increasing) numbers in front of a big minus sign.

    Comment by zf — November 30, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.293 Powered by Wordpress