I'm sorry, I realize I said I wouldn't post any more political stuff, but I can't believe that this idiot is 3rd in line for president. I hope she doesn't have any children. God, they walk among us! Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs | Caffeinated Thoughts
I'm sorry,
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
The sad part is she keeps getting reelected.
She's getting re-elected for where she's from, not because she's capable. People there probably think she's making sense. Let's see, unemployment stimulates the economy and creates jobs. That's like saying death stimulates life and brings more people into the world, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!
Al, you go right ahead. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate on all sides.
Just one question: who is it that's voting for Pelosi??
Just one question: who is it that's voting for Pelosi??
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
A blanket "economists will tell you" is not what I would consider "not making the statement on her own".
Just trying to be fair and balanced.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Nancy Pelosi can say a lot of ridiculous things, but this isn't one of them -- and things like saying "I hope she doesn't have any children" are just rude and un-American.
The basic economic principle here is sound. People who are not working do not spend money. That means those who depend on that spending for jobs are out of luck.
Unemployment checks don't get saved. They are spent. They are an inmmediate infusion of cash into the economic cycle. That is what she is saying -- that these government dollars immediately turn into consumer spending that helps keep and create jobs.
The spending does come from taxes, which removes dollars from the system. That is true, but it also ignores the spending multiplier effect.
Frankly, the statements I've seen in response to this clip (Pelosi says unemployment creates jobs!) have led me to question people's intelligence, not this clip itself.
The basic economic principle here is sound. People who are not working do not spend money. That means those who depend on that spending for jobs are out of luck.
Unemployment checks don't get saved. They are spent. They are an inmmediate infusion of cash into the economic cycle. That is what she is saying -- that these government dollars immediately turn into consumer spending that helps keep and create jobs.
The spending does come from taxes, which removes dollars from the system. That is true, but it also ignores the spending multiplier effect.
Frankly, the statements I've seen in response to this clip (Pelosi says unemployment creates jobs!) have led me to question people's intelligence, not this clip itself.
Pat is right, she didn't say "I was told by economists", she said "economists will tell you". No economist in his right mind would claim making that statement. The women is not the brightest bulb in the box, she has said some pretty stupid things before.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Here are a lot of economists not in their right mind:
Economists agree that unemployment insurance has strong stimulative effect on GDP, employment
CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:
Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.
According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.
Elmendorf: Policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on GDP." In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified:
Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.
A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.
Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy." From an April 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities document:
Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in "bang-for-the-buck" calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders. Policymakers have always ended these emergency UI benefits once a strong and sustainable economic recovery is underway.
Economists agree that unemployment insurance has strong stimulative effect on GDP, employment
CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:
Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.
According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.
Elmendorf: Policies such as unemployment insurance "have a significant impact on GDP." In January 2009, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified:
Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.
A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved. The nonbusiness tax cuts in H.R. 1 would reduce revenues much more in calendar year 2010 than in calendar year 2009 because much of the reduction in taxes would be realized by households when they filed their returns in 2010.
Zandi estimated that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides significant stimulus. In his July 24, 2008, House testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, rated "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck," defined as "One year $ change in real GDP for a given $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending." "Extending UI Benefits" was the second-highest of 13 policy options, behind "Temporary Increase in Food Stamps." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy." From an April 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities document:
Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in "bang-for-the-buck" calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders. Policymakers have always ended these emergency UI benefits once a strong and sustainable economic recovery is underway.
It's still a stupid statement!
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Honestly Al, I think it is stupider to have a knee jerk reaction to it like that than to think about it critically.
Let's see people are out of work collecting money paid in the most part by the government who gets it by taxing the people who are working, or by just grabbing it out of thin air and increasing the deficit. The people who were working and paying taxes and buying lots of stuff, are now out of work and getting about 1/4 of their working wage. They are now buying less and are probably not taking out the taxes so they will default at tax time. There's my knee jerk! The economist can say whatever they want, working people stimulate the economy, not people on unemployment. You can always find someone with a degree to support most any notion, right or wrong.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
False comparison. We are not comparing people who are employed v. people who are not.
We are comparing whether people who are unemployed and on temporary unemployment benefits to carry them through a tough patch are better for the economy than people who are unemployed and left without any benefits.
You do understand this speech and this whole debate was over whether to extend unemployment benefits correct? And not some evil leftist plan to convince people that the economy is better off with people not working?
We are comparing whether people who are unemployed and on temporary unemployment benefits to carry them through a tough patch are better for the economy than people who are unemployed and left without any benefits.
You do understand this speech and this whole debate was over whether to extend unemployment benefits correct? And not some evil leftist plan to convince people that the economy is better off with people not working?
Interesting Al, where does this come from if you don't mind me asking?
You see people with degrees supporting opposite views every day on most news networks. Not concerned about my car Mike?
Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Is the economy better off with people working or is it better off with people not working?
(The answer is that is better off WITH people working, in case your blind support of Nancy Pelosi is clouding your thinking)
(The answer is that is better off WITH people working, in case your blind support of Nancy Pelosi is clouding your thinking)
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Except, AGAIN, that is not what she was discussing. AGAIN.
I understand that the speech was to use money we don't have and increase the deficit. I collected unemployment one time in my life when I was 64, I figured I had that coming. I am not collecting now. I think that if I went out right now I could find some sort of work to provide more than I would get on unemployment. If someone really wants to work there are jobs to be had, maybe at a lesser rate but work. I saw a black guy that I had made friends with a while back on the way home from working on my car today. He was going around the industrial sites looking for scrap that he sells. He was laid off and has another lesser paying job, he collects scrap to supplement his job. I asked about unemployment, he said that he found the other job and would have gone nuts at home. I asked if there was work out there. He said "if you look hard enough".
