Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment creates jobs

[edgray]

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.

and in the meantime feed their families on thin air?

 

[Dana]

there are factors whether you get these "jobs"
are factories streamlining business?
just how many jobs are being offered?

 

[Accountable]

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.

I could just leave the statement like this so everybody could laugh at the stupidity, but just in case you really believe what you type (which would shock me) I'll try to oversimplify it for you:

When taxes go up, businesses pass the increased costs on to the consumer so as to maintain profit margin.
When taxes go down, businesses celebrate increased profit margin. They take the extra profits and reinvest a good portion of it. If they cut prices it won't be by the same amount, but it would still increase demand, which would justify hiring more employees.


erm, that means that lowering taxes leads to new jobs, in case the explanation was too detailed.

 

[Accountable]

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

Some people know that what's best in the long term might be painful short-term. Too bad not enough people are that wise.

 

[retro]

I could just leave the statement like this so everybody could laugh at the stupidity, but just in case you really believe what you type (which would shock me) I'll try to oversimplify it for you:

When taxes go up, businesses pass the increased costs on to the consumer so as to maintain profit margin.
When taxes go down, businesses celebrate increased profit margin. They take the extra profits and reinvest a good portion of it. If they cut prices it won't be by the same amount, but it would still increase demand, which would justify hiring more employees.


erm, that means that lowering taxes leads to new jobs, in case the explanation was too detailed.

I was about to comment on the ignorance of that statement of his, but you got to it before I did :24:

It's fairly simple economics. When taxes are lower, businesses have more money to reinvest, thus leading to them hiring more employees as they expand. You're the one always harping on how businesses only care about their bottom line, so I figured you'd be able to understand that concept.

 

[edgray]

I was about to comment on the ignorance of that statement of his, but you got to it before I did :24:

It's fairly simple economics. When taxes are lower, businesses have more money to reinvest, thus leading to them hiring more employees as they expand. You're the one always harping on how businesses only care about their bottom line, so I figured you'd be able to understand that concept.

In Britain, when Thatcher gave tax breaks to businesses in the 80s, unemployment continued to rise to an all-time high. I didn't improve it in the slightest, it just transfered more of the wealth upwards.

Of course, each situation was different, there were other factors at play during Thatcher's reign, such as the killing of the manufacturing and coal sectors.

 

[retro]

Some people know that what's best in the long term might be painful short-term. Too bad not enough people are that wise.

exactly. Take the gubernatorial race here in California... Steve Poizner (the Republican that ended up losing the primary) campaigned on immediately lowering taxes on citizens. Now, that's exactly what needs to happen long-term; but if you look at the big picture, it makes our immediate budget woes even worse. By lowering taxes immediately, you cause an even bigger budget shortfall. Meg Whitman is campaigning on the platform of making it easier for businesses to start up and stay in California, as well as reducing their tax burden so they can reinvest into their businesses, so we can get people back into the workforce. Then you also have to cut the fat in government and balance the budget, once those things are done then you can lower taxes on the citizens. It hurts in the short term, because Lord knows we need a tax break in this state... but it doesn't make long term sense to cut the taxes now.

It's economic common sense.

 

[retro]

In Britain, when Thatcher gave tax breaks to businesses in the 80s, unemployment continued to rise to an all-time high. I didn't improve it in the slightest, it just transfered more of the wealth upwards.

Of course, each situation was different, there were other factors at play during Thatcher's reign, such as the killing of the manufacturing and coal sectors.

Killing manufacturing is part of what has killed California. You can look at my state as an example of the rest of the United States as a whole is going to end up as in a few years if we keep up the way that we're going. We have a budget shortfall of $20B, we're furloughing state employees, killing the agriculture industry, driving businesses out of the state, and overtaxing the citizens. Government is completely out of control, we've expanded so far beyond our means that I don't think the state can last for much longer unless something happens, and happens very soon. But the state legislature by and large is clueless, and our worthless governor has let them walk all over him while he's been in office. Electing an actor was a good idea with Reagan, not so much with Schwarzenegger.

 

[edgray]

Killing manufacturing is part of what has killed California. You can look at my state as an example of the rest of the United States as a whole is going to end up as in a few years if we keep up the way that we're going. We have a budget shortfall of $20B, we're furloughing state employees, killing the agriculture industry, driving businesses out of the state, and overtaxing the citizens. Government is completely out of control, we've expanded so far beyond our means that I don't think the state can last for much longer unless something happens, and happens very soon. But the state legislature by and large is clueless, and our worthless governor has let them walk all over him while he's been in office. Electing an actor was a good idea with Reagan, not so much with Schwarzenegger.

Killing manufacturing is such a big problem in western societies. The unemployment it leaves behind becomes a massive burden to the society, and can take over a generation to correct. Unfortunately it's fueled by our desire for ever cheaper goods, in even bigger quantities.

The govt should be focusing on keeping manufacturing alive, it would be better for society than any tax break or any increase in Unemployment Benefits.

 

[retro]

The govt should be focusing on keeping manufacturing alive, it would be better for society than any tax break or any increase in Unemployment Benefits.

:eek

We're in agreement about something?

*faints*

Now don't go doing that again!

 

[Minor Axis]

I could just leave the statement like this so everybody could laugh at the stupidity, but just in case you really believe what you type (which would shock me) I'll try to oversimplify it for you:

When taxes go up, businesses pass the increased costs on to the consumer so as to maintain profit margin.
When taxes go down, businesses celebrate increased profit margin. They take the extra profits and reinvest a good portion of it. If they cut prices it won't be by the same amount, but it would still increase demand, which would justify hiring more employees.


erm, that means that lowering taxes leads to new jobs, in case the explanation was too detailed.

Neither one of those are a given. Look at Exxon, they take extra profits and pay their top executives with it and then stash the other cash away instead of reinvesting it into the business, while underfunding their pension obligations. Not of the executives, just the employees because "they can't afford it". This might not be typical, but you are assuming we are always dealing with responsible business owners.

Killing manufacturing is such a big problem in western societies. The unemployment it leaves behind becomes a massive burden to the society, and can take over a generation to correct. Unfortunately it's fueled by our desire for ever cheaper goods, in even bigger quantities.

The govt should be focusing on keeping manufacturing alive, it would be better for society than any tax break or any increase in Unemployment Benefits.

The perfect task for government to deal with if government wants to step up to the plate. It's beyond businesses ability to deal with the issue, although business should be worried, it does not care about society and long term security and economic health, only the short term opportunity to make money. Business is responsible for lowering the living standards of those in the U.S., and other Western societies.

 

[edgray]

:eek

We're in agreement about something?

*faints*

Now don't go doing that again!

it had to happen eventually!

 

[retro]

Neither one of those are a given. Look at Exxon, they take extra profits and pay their top executives with it and then stash the other cash away instead of reinvesting it into the business, while underfunding their pension obligations. Not of the executives, just the employees because "they can't afford it". This might not be typical, but you are assuming we are always dealing with responsible business owners.

That's why I've emphasized small businesses. I know a number of small business owners around here that would love to expand, but the regulatory requirements and tax burden make that incredibly difficult to do. Hell, I'm trying to start my business up, and I have to fight through 10 miles of red tape just in order to get my DBA, LLC, and tax ID paperwork taken care of. Plus it's going to cost a small fortune to even do any of that. Granted, California is a bad example, as we're the worst state in the country for small businesses, but it's a picture of the direction that we're going. Our current administration has proven itself to be wholly anti-business, and that's going to make things even worse in the long-run.

 

[Minor Axis]

That's why I've emphasized small businesses. I know a number of small business owners around here that would love to expand, but the regulatory requirements and tax burden make that incredibly difficult to do. Hell, I'm trying to start my business up, and I have to fight through 10 miles of red tape just in order to get my DBA, LLC, and tax ID paperwork taken care of. Plus it's going to cost a small fortune to even do any of that. Granted, California is a bad example, as we're the worst state in the country for small businesses, but it's a picture of the direction that we're going. Our current administration has proven itself to be wholly anti-business, and that's going to make things even worse in the long-run.

I don't have a clue. I think you could take any of the regs you deal with and there is or was a reason. Now the question becomes is it a good necessary reason? I can see some of it being bull. But hopefully a sizable portion of the regs have a good reason behind them. If not, maybe a review of regs is in order?

 

[Alien Allen]

The regulatory crap has affected my business hugely

In many, many ways

 

[Alien Allen]

I don't have a clue. I think you could take any of the regs you deal with and there is or was a reason. Now the question becomes is it a good necessary reason? I can see some of it being bull. But hopefully a sizable portion of the regs have a good reason behind them. If not, maybe a review of regs is in order?

:24::24::24:

Now that was funny

You just proved your ignorance

Because regulations are set in stone

It is pretty much unheard of to get them reversed

I was given the bullshit line many times with regulators when negotiating that if things do not work out they can always rescind the rules or regs. Never seen it done yet. Instead they just expand their power

 

[retro]

Also, since our democrat friends around here have thoroughly derailed the thread from its original purpose.

Please explain to me how unemployment checks create jobs.

 

[Alien Allen]

Also, since our democrat friends around here have thoroughly derailed the thread from its original purpose.

Please explain to me how unemployment checks create jobs.

It is the same logic that Clinton used when mortgage rates were low. He said we did not need tax cuts because in effect low interest rates equaled a tax cut.

Gotta love the liberal logic eh

 

[Minor Axis]

Also, since our democrat friends around here have thoroughly derailed the thread from its original purpose.

Please explain to me how unemployment checks create jobs.

How many times do I have to tell you to stop calling me a Democrat, you died in the wool closet Republican! (That's what you say).

I all ready said it. It probably mostly stimulates the economy with local level spending in areas that have been hit hard by unemployment. At a minimum it helps retail jobs remain viable. So should the unemployed people get help? Does it help the economy? And the reason that is bad is because... we can't afford it? JC.

It is the same logic that Clinton used when mortgage rates were low. He said we did not need tax cuts because in effect low interest rates equaled a tax cut.

Gotta love the liberal logic eh

Are you saying that low interest rates do not stimulate the economy? :humm:

 

[retro]

How many times do I have to tell you to stop calling me a Democrat, you died in the wool closet Republican! (That's what you say).

If it looks, quacks, and walks like a duck...

Meanwhile, the only principles that I share with the GOP (and not the current GOP either) are smaller government, lower taxes, and less ridiculous regulations on businesses. However, I take the concept of small government far further than they ever would, I'm pro personal responsibility, pro legalization of drugs and prostitution, I'm pro-choice, and actually respect and revere the Constitution (unlike both of the major political parties in this country).

I all ready said it. It probably mostly stimulates the economy with local level spending in areas that have been hit hard by unemployment. At a minimum it helps retail jobs remain viable. So should the unemployed people get help? Does it help the economy? And the reason that is bad is because... we can't afford it? JC.

Unemployment benefits should have limits on them... and they wanted to extend them further. I've been on unemployment before, so I know how it feels. But the understanding that you're not going to get unlimited benefits should spur people to look for jobs outside of their areas of expertise or that they might consider "below" them. I finally got a job with Best Buy because I frankly needed work and didn't want to be on unemployment anymore.

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off to be honest... people whining about this bill not passing.

Just canceled my Sunday Ticket renewal. Died a little inside. With the government not granting unemployment extension, I have to be smarter.

http://twitter.com/BVanWyck/status/17371200219

Wow, seriously? You're complaining that you're not going to be able to afford Sunday Ticket now that you're not going to get more unemployment benefits? Sure as hell sounds like you weren't using that money responsibly. Now take your own advice and go find a fucking job. That sounds harsh, but give me a break. Go flip burgers or something. I see corner stores, fast food places, and other "menial" jobs in the job classifieds every single day. Swallow your pride.