How about this: “Good News: We At Least Know Social Security Is Bankrupt”

Recognize this?

This is the same propaganda that GW Bush used to spread around. From his State of the Union speech in 2005:
“The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy .”

Only he was not as brave as you are to admit his goal was to phase it out.

Just as Bush, you know very well the SS is not bankrupt but choose disseminate this right wing propaganda. Why?

Then there’s this: “…the Obama stimulus was a bomb” based on your opinion. Then :” [Krugman] preaches his doctrine to loyal and brainwashed followers”, another one of your opinions …

So I don’t know why some of your survey takers think you’re leaning too far to the left when based on what you’re actually writing you seem to do quite the opposite.

Now, granted, this is your blog and you can express whatever fact-free opinions you feel like it. But at least acknowledge your bias. Krugman, at least, does his.

Some people said you lean too far left?

In what Universe would that be? You’re as right wing as they come, in case nobody pointed that out to you.
Peace.

CBO estimates – Your link includes a disclaimer that further analysis is necessary. Even if these estimates were accurate, they are estimates are fall far below the payoff using a GDP multiplier which is the basis of stimulus spending. And either way, the results were disappointing compared to what Democrats advertised the stimulus to be. And finally a clarification, yes, saying the stimulus was a bomb is an opinion.

Partisan position – I chuckled at this because in a feedback survey some people said I leaned too far to the left.

Benefits/demand – while you can say you know people that are struggling, the simple fact is that, on average, people over extended themselves and remain this way. Unemployment benefits will not stimulate spending, on average, because people will have to put a good chunk of it towards settling debts. I am all for food stamps and other federal programs that provide basic needs, but the case for extending cash benefits for the economy’s sake is week. Extend it for human decency, I can argue FOR that, but not for the sake of the economy as Krugman has. And I have very close people to me that are struggling too.

Deficit – we’re all concerned about the deficit, even Krugman. But it’s always been a few billion here and there. Again, I’m against this because it won’t help the economy, not because of the people it will hurt.

Congress – they’re simply terrible, but I can still applaud certain efforts. We must encourage the behaviors we support, even if we don’t support the people with those behaviors.

The situation with unemployment is not about not giving people support. I’m all for support. But cutting a check isn’t the way to do it. And in terms of economic support, it won’t help very much. What will be spent will be spent on staples, not discretionary items. Discretionary spending will drive the economy, and unemployment doesn’t help discretionary.

Thanks again for your comment, you’re welcome to respond further but I have to move on to new things. In real life I’ll hold more conversations but on the web I’m more of a conversation starter.

When you can’t find “the perfect job”, take what you can get to pay your bills and keep looking for something better. Oh wait, that would involve actually WORKING. They’d rather take a handout from people that are working than go take a lesser job.

I have many disagreements with your post, but will only bring up 2:

First point: “…since the Obama stimulus was a bomb…” – that’s opinion not fact. Check out this report from the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan body): http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=967

Here’s an excerpt:

“Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,

Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,

Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and

Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)”

Still think that the stimulus bombed? Is this a partisan position you are taking or will you accept facts collected by a neutral party?

I will also say this – I work in the wireless industry, where I have seen first hand the impact of the $7.2B in broadband stimulus funds. Without these funds, many companies would have gone under in my industry.

Second Point – “First of all, extending benefits won’t do much for demand. People still have to pay off their demand from a few years ago, via credit cards, HELOCs, and mortgages.”

I know very talented, hard working and qualified people who have been out of work for over a year in spite of aggressive job hunts. These people have exhausted their savings – unemployment benefits that they receive will be used pay for food, rent, fuel – you know, keeping their families clothed and fed – this money will not go to savings accounts. By necessity, it will stimulate demand.

You’re concerned about the deficit? Well, so am I. But stopping unemployment benefits is an asinine way to try to fix it.

You’re giving props to the imbecile Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are responsible for this fiasco? Are there the same idiots that authorized two wars without paying for them? Are they also they same imbeciles that have cut taxes repeatedly without cutting spending?

Get the facts straight.

I’ll post the text of my response on my blog as well.

Unemployment Benefits are still subject to taxes, by the way. So let’s see, borrowing money (which will lead to higher taxes) and giving it to people to NOT work (produce nothing), then taxing said money is a good WAY to stimulate the economy??? It looks like a death spiral to me.