Pelosi: Unemployment creates jobs

7/7/2010:

Yeah, spending government money is what we want, right?

This video of Nancy Pelosi from a few days ago has been bugging me since I saw it.

What ever happened to working hard and earning a living – instead of mooching off the government?

Leave a Reply

39 Comments on "Pelosi: Unemployment creates jobs"

MidnightRacer
Member

Pelosi’s and your position argues Keynesian theory of economics – a belief that if only the government would spend more, by taxing more (increasing debt to unsustainable levels) would it be a job creating initiative for the health of the nation’s economy.

With an ever increasing unemployment rate, and including those who stopped collecting and are without jobs (going on welfare instead of UE benefits), your Keynesian beliefs argue that if government would just inject more by taxing more, then things will recover. Keynesian theory has been historically destroyed.

I’m not against UE benefits, and that’s not my argument here. It’s the position that paying out increasing UE benefits somehow is job creating. You might argue that it slows down the increasing rate of job losses temporarily (til the benefits run out and person is still not working), but in no way is it job creating. That’s such a bold faced lie.

Redstorm
Member
Redstorm
You cant argue with facts, figures and historical data with liberals…they don’t understand them and they never will…the liberal argument is always emotional, hopey/changey, it just feels good…without any basis on fact or an understanding what are the consequences of that decision…when the results are then shown to them they will tell you that they were unintended consequences or that their plan wasn’t implemented correctly…two examples…the liberals are all squawking that the $800 billion stimulus did not work because it didn’t spend enough…if we had spent $1trillion and it still didn’t work, the refrain would be that the $1trillion wasn’t enough and should have been more…second example…if you force a bank, by threat of prosecution by the DOJ, that half of their home loans must be made to low income or minorities via sub prime lending…a rational person would say that the result of this action will be a disaster as people who can not afford to pay for this home will soon default…dragging the larger market down…a liberal will tell you that you are being a racist, that you don’t want the poor or minorities to own a home and that home ownership is a human right…when the market collapses like it has from sub prime mortgages, the liberal now tells us that it was an unintended consequence…[quote comment=”194457″]Pelosi’s and your position argues Keynesian theory of economics – a belief that if only the government would spend more, by taxing more (increasing debt to unsustainable levels) would it be… Read more »
MidnightRacer
Member

Currently, we’re seeing overhead and costs for all businesses increase. And soon, if they pass Cap & Trade, along with the cost increases of Obamacare, and other VAT, 1% on all financial transactions (including an extra tax if you use your ATM card to withdraw your own money), etc, all that money taken away from the private sector equates to a loss of resources to employ people into private jobs. More people lose their jobs and go on unemployment – a drastic reduction of spending means other people lose their jobs.

MidnightRacer
Member

The current spin is ridiculous.

Pelosi’s claim: more people on unemployment benefits creates more jobs, faster than any other initiative.

This is similar to Obama’s “create or saved jobs” spin. First, when larger and larger groups of people lose their jobs, their much larger salaries are wiped out of discretionary spending per household. What they used to spend is now significantly reduced to only spending for bills and basic survival. That’s a reduction in spending on the economy. Second, a reduction in spending means a reduction in the labor force in lay offs for reduced demand. When peoples’ monthly pay is reduced from their previous salary to a fractional amount in unemployment benefits, you lose not only that person’s job, but all those jobs lost when the larger and growing group of unemployed (like right now) can no longer purchase and buy services as they did before. That’s a job loss, not a job creator.

bradykp
Member
bradykp
again, you added more to the statement that what was said. she didn’t say that more people on unemployment benefits creates more jobs, faster than any other initiative. if you can’t even quote it right, don’t criticize it. she said that “it injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. it creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. because again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent.” lets see, you added “more people on unemployment benefits” and you subtracted “almost”, and you ignored the fact that she was talking about it as stimulus spending. so your description above is saying that people on unemployment creates more job loss because they are spending less than if they were employed – but you just conveniently ignore the fact that they ARE UNEMPLOYED and because they collect unemployment they are spending more than they would be if they HAD NO MONEY at all in between jobs.[quote comment=”194430″]The current spin is ridiculous.Pelosi’s claim: more people on unemployment benefits creates more jobs, faster than any other initiative.This is similar to Obama’s “create or saved jobs” spin. First, when larger and larger groups of people lose their jobs, their much larger salaries are wiped out of discretionary spending per household. What they used to spend is now significantly reduced to only spending for bills and basic survival. That’s a reduction in spending on the economy. Second, a reduction in spending means a reduction in… Read more »
costume
Member
costume

@Redstorm, It’s funny how you assume I’m of any particular political party. The only party I’ve ever registered for was the Republican, actually.

I was against the socialism for the rick bank bailouts back then and an entire hoboken411 article was posted with KatieScarlet’s comment telling me I was didn’t know what I was talking about for not thinking we should bail out the banks with taxpayer money. Most of the commentors on this site were on her side. Now all of a sudden everyone has revisionist history.

YipYap
Member

A federal tax holiday is what is needed not more spending.

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...01788376276.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

wpDiscuz