Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment creates jobs

[retro]

WTF kind of fantasy world does this crazy bitch live in?

[youtube]WUAG3Fqz56s[/youtube]

 

[Minor Axis]

Did you actually listen to it or are you just quick arriving at conclusions? I'm curious what site you picked this up from...

Whether you agree or not, I believe she was saying the bill or unemployment benefits (whatever she was talking about), comparing it to a stimulus, would inject money into the economy and have a secondary effect of creating jobs (or at least maintaining other jobs) due to money being spent in the economy. I think you have misrepresented this clip.

Edit: So I can say Fox News misrepresented this clip? Thanks Tim!

 

[Tim]

This was a topic over at Fox "news" just now... :24:

 

[Accountable]

Did you actually listen to it or are you just quick arriving at conclusions? I'm curious what site you picked this up from...

Whether you agree or not, I believe she was saying the bill or unemployment benefits (whatever she was talking about), comparing it to a stimulus, would inject money into the economy and have a secondary effect of creating jobs (or at least maintaining other jobs) due to money being spent in the economy. I think you have misrepresented this clip.

Edit: So I can say Fox News misrepresented this clip? Thanks Tim!

She was putting lipstick on a pig, that's all. It's a little embarrassing that she would actually think somebody would seriously equate an unemployment check to economic stimulus. I'd be hard-pressed not to believe anyone trying to support her view was an apologist. Fox News misrepresented this clip? Pelosi misrepresented the benefit.

 

[Tim]

She was putting lipstick on a pig, that's all. It's a little embarrassing that she would actually think somebody would seriously equate an unemployment check to economic stimulus. I'd be hard-pressed not to believe anyone trying to support her view was an apologist. Fox News misrepresented this clip? Pelosi misrepresented the benefit.

There is no doubt that unemployment checks help the economy.

There are several things an unemployment check can do...
1. It can prolong unemployment since there is a safety net. But this net is very small in comparison to what they would be getting if they were employed. So I doubt that this is more than a few percent of the recipients.
2. Help those who are looking for work bridge the period where they aren't getting a paycheck. For these people, working is very important to them and would much rather have a paycheck than collect. The unemployment check helps them survive so they can continue paying their bills. This in itself helps the economy. No matter how you slice it, if your neighbor defaults on his mortgage, it hurts him, it hurts the lender and it hurts everyone in the neighborhood financially. Lets face it, if people in your neighborhood start losing their homes, your property taxes go up while your property value goes down. That's just looking at one aspect of not having any sort of income. You can apply this across the board with everything they buy/pay for. And I would say that the vast majority of people who collect unemployment fall into this category (people who would much rather work than collect)

 

[retro]

It's the same concept as the bullshit "stimulus" the almighty Obama decided that we needed last year... spending money that we don't have to "stimulate" the economy. It didn't work when we poured billions of dollars into the economy that we didn't have then, and it won't work now by extending unemployment benefits even further. People are already getting unemployment checks and it's not boosting the economy or creating more jobs. Instead we're spending ourselves further into debt hoping that something is going to change.

Here's a novel concept, reduce regulations and taxes on businesses (especially small businesses), and that will stimulate them to hire more employees. Certainly a better idea and spending more and more and more and more and more money.

The thought process that unemployment checks create jobs has got to be about the most inane political babble that I've heard in a while, and that's saying something.

 

[Tim]

It's the same concept as the bullshit "stimulus" the almighty Obama decided that we needed last year... spending money that we don't have to "stimulate" the economy. It didn't work when we poured billions of dollars into the economy that we didn't have then, and it won't work now by extending unemployment benefits even further. People are already getting unemployment checks and it's not boosting the economy or creating more jobs. Instead we're spending ourselves further into debt hoping that something is going to change.

Here's a novel concept, reduce regulations and taxes on businesses (especially small businesses), and that will stimulate them to hire more employees. Certainly a better idea and spending more and more and more and more and more money.

The thought process that unemployment checks create jobs has got to be about the most inane political babble that I've heard in a while, and that's saying something.

Or, we can cut the taxes to the rich. They will have more money and it will trickle down to the rest of us. We can call it "supply side" economics. It will stimulate the economy and put everyone to work.

:sarcasm

 

[Minor Axis]

Or, we can cut the taxes to the rich. They will have more money and it will trickle down to the rest of us. We can call it "supply side" economics. It will stimulate the economy and put everyone to work.

:sarcasm

Big money loves supply side economics because they love being pampered, you know the people who need being pampered the most. It's just completely puzzling that rank and file Republicans/Conservatives/fiscally conservative Libertarians swallow this swill (the standard Republican stimulus policy).

If someone promoted cutting taxes for the rich to energize the economy I know our little crowd of fiscal conservatives would be here cheering it on. I guess I should ask, has anyone recently promoted it lately?

 

[retro]

Or, we can cut the taxes to the rich. They will have more money and it will trickle down to the rest of us. We can call it "supply side" economics. It will stimulate the economy and put everyone to work.

:sarcasm

Way to completely avoid a perfectly legitimate plan that would work in order to act like a smarmy little child. Not to mention the bullshit that Pelosi is spewing.

 

[retro]

Big money loves supply side economics because they love being pampered, you know the people who need being pampered the most. It's just completely puzzling that rank and file Republicans/Conservatives/fiscally conservative Libertarians swallow this swill (the standard Republican stimulus policy).

If someone promoted cutting taxes for the rich to energize the economy I know our little crowd of fiscal conservatives would be here cheering it on. I guess I should ask, has anyone recently promoted it lately?

Nobody said a damn thing about cutting taxes to the rich (though I do think it's ridiculous that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the total taxes in this country). I'm talking about cutting business taxes and making it easier for businesses to run without having to jump through 12 million different hoops and 90 miles of red tape. Not to mention this whole bullshit health care program that's going to hurt businesses even more and lead to even more jobs being cut.

But hey, the liberals are getting their way, pretty soon we're all going to be wholly dependent on the government.

 

[retro]

God, you guys are the kings of non-sequiturs, straw men, and red herrings... it's fucking pathetic. But I suppose it's the liberal way.

 

[Tim]

Way to completely avoid a perfectly legitimate plan that would work in order to act like a smarmy little child. Not to mention the bullshit that Pelosi is spewing.

Ok, I'll take your question as being serious...

So what regulations could be cut for small businesses to promote hiring of new employees? And how does cutting taxes to small businesses allow for the hiring of more employees?

 

[Accountable]

Here's a novel concept, reduce regulations and taxes on businesses (especially small businesses), and that will stimulate them to hire more employees. Certainly a better idea and spending more and more and more and more and more money.

Both "sides" give lip service to small business and blow jobs to big business. The federal gov't needs to get out of the employment trade altogether. AT MOST, the federal gov't should be using the bully pulpit to tell the rest of the country about success stories they find so that other state & local gov't can decide if it's worth trying in their own area.

Unemployment checks have fuckall to do with interstate trade.

 

[Accountable]

Here's a novel concept, reduce regulations and taxes on businesses (especially small businesses), and that will stimulate them to hire more employees. Certainly a better idea and spending more and more and more and more and more money.

Ok, I'll take your question as being serious...

So what regulations could be cut for small businesses to promote hiring of new employees? And how does cutting taxes to small businesses allow for the hiring of more employees?

When you start a post like that you are not taking anything as serious; you are patronizing. If you really are that big an asshole you should rent it out for garage space.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's Stossel on gov't intrusion. It seems to focus on state gov't as much as federal. If you're in a hurry, watch the last one for a summary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye2AI9uIxd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79NL_aKGgfM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVbW8tyVgCk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7udQDUgleg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4T1YeG_qiE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMI82G-ff88&feature=related

 

[Minor Axis]

Nobody said a damn thing about cutting taxes to the rich (though I do think it's ridiculous that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the total taxes in this country). I'm talking about cutting business taxes and making it easier for businesses to run without having to jump through 12 million different hoops and 90 miles of red tape. Not to mention this whole bullshit health care program that's going to hurt businesses even more and lead to even more jobs being cut.

But hey, the liberals are getting their way, pretty soon we're all going to be wholly dependent on the government.

The concept of a progressive tax scale is that the more money you make, the more taxes you can afford to pay. Now I can see how that would really gripe someone if they think "their money" is being wasted on stupid social programs. But it's really up to the majority to decide what is stupid and what is required. I'd say that even if Republicans were in charge.

In contrast to "liberals", the so-called fiscal conservatives campaign on one issue, "vote for me and I'll lower your taxes". There is absolutely no attempt to discuss what we want or need for our tax dollars. It is simple pandering to our built-in selfishness and offering the illusion of a free lunch. I know a woman who was on public assistance and she had two kids paid for by the state, and she votes Republican, I guess because she wants her taxes lowered. But really I think it's because of all the wedge issues, the RP pushes. This is the kind of thinking the Republican party promotes.

 

[Codrus]

....If you really are that big an asshole you should rent it out for garage space.

:24: x 10

my first great laugh of the day...repped:thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

Way to completely avoid a perfectly legitimate plan that would work in order to act like a smarmy little child. Not to mention the bullshit that Pelosi is spewing.

Ok, I'll take your question as being serious...

So what regulations could be cut for small businesses to promote hiring of new employees? And how does cutting taxes to small businesses allow for the hiring of more employees?

When you start a post like that you are not taking anything as serious; you are patronizing. If you really are that big an asshole you should rent it out for garage space.

I assume you calling Tim an AH? I always frown upon name calling because the meaningful conversation is usually finished. But I think you should have picked a better quote to base it on. :humm:

 

[Meirionnydd]

The concept of a progressive tax scale is that the more money you make, the more taxes you can afford to pay. Now I can see how that would really gripe someone if they think "their money" is being wasted on stupid social programs. But it's really up to the majority to decide what is stupid and what is required. I'd say that even if Republicans were in charge.

In contrast to "liberals", the so-called fiscal conservatives campaign on one issue, "vote for me and I'll lower your taxes". There is absolutely no attempt to discuss what we want or need for our tax dollars. It is simple pandering to our built-in selfishness and offering the illusion of a free lunch. I know a woman who was on public assistance and she had two kids paid for by the state, and she votes Republican, I guess because she wants her taxes lowered. But really I think it's because of all the wedge issues, the RP pushes. This is the kind of thinking the Republican party promotes.

I find it quite amusing when people actively vote against their own economic interests.

 

[Tim]

When you start a post like that you are not taking anything as serious; you are patronizing. If you really are that big an asshole you should rent it out for garage space.

You are absolutely correct, I did not take his post seriously. It was nothing more than bullshit talking points that come right from the very people that are trying to destroy the middle class. It comes from the same people that gave us supply side economics and every other concept designed to destroy the middle class, yet the packaging of these programs was such that the very people that it would hurt were the strongest proponents.

Now back to Retro's concept...

I seriously want to know what regulations could be relaxed that will create new jobs. Where does the federal government stifle the creation of new jobs?
I can not think of any regulation that can possible be removed or relaxed in my industry that would allow for the creation of any jobs.
As far as lowering taxes... Why? How is that going to lead to the creation of more jobs?
How many times have I heard the same line from you guys about when more taxes are placed on businesses you really aren't taxing the business. That they just take those added costs and pass them onto the consumer with higher prices. Well wouldn't that apply to lowering their taxes? If we were to lower the taxes on businesses it would lower prices, but that doesn't lead to new jobs.
Again, let me apply that to real world examples. In my industry, the taxes are figured into our overhead. I know that if our overhead is reduced, my pricing will reduce accordingly. I would need to reduce my price especially since I know that my competition is getting the same reduction. This is not going to lead to more jobs. It would only lead to more jobs if it was a zero sum game, and business isn't like that.

So no, I didn't take him seriously since he was providing nothing more than lip service.

 

[Alien Allen]

There is no doubt that unemployment checks help the economy.

There are several things an unemployment check can do...
1. It can prolong unemployment since there is a safety net. But this net is very small in comparison to what they would be getting if they were employed. So I doubt that this is more than a few percent of the recipients.
2. Help those who are looking for work bridge the period where they aren't getting a paycheck. For these people, working is very important to them and would much rather have a paycheck than collect. The unemployment check helps them survive so they can continue paying their bills. This in itself helps the economy. No matter how you slice it, if your neighbor defaults on his mortgage, it hurts him, it hurts the lender and it hurts everyone in the neighborhood financially. Lets face it, if people in your neighborhood start losing their homes, your property taxes go up while your property value goes down. That's just looking at one aspect of not having any sort of income. You can apply this across the board with everything they buy/pay for. And I would say that the vast majority of people who collect unemployment fall into this category (people who would much rather work than collect)

You must be following all the liberal talking points

and you say people should not be conned by Fox News

I believe this debate is over the extension of benefits is it not? This is almost becoming like welfare. Maybe the people out of work for a year need to reassess their lives. And not wait for the millions of jobs lost to come back. That pipe dream is over. They will need to expand their horizon.