I'm sorry,

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
That's a pleasant story. And yes, I agree, there are jobs out there. But should the IT professional spend his days collecting beer cans to recycle, or should he collect unemployment and spend this time looking for another IT job? Which is better for the economy?

Seems to me that when you were faced with that decision, you chose to collect unemployment.

And here is what Pelosi was really talking about. When you did collect that unemployment, what did you do with it? Save it, invest it, or spend it?
 
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".

Al,

I too took a lower paid job working in a call centre, 3 years ago in order to get back into the job market. It was the worst 9 months of my working life, I didn't know young managers could treat employees so badly until I took that job.

However, I am in my 40's and I suspect like you in your 60's was able to subsidize my poor pay with assets I had accumulated over my previous 25 years of working and receiving a good wage.

I suspect it would have been a totally different story if we had both been a lot younger, with big mortgages young families possibly only one wage in the family and had to take a lesser paid job even if there were any.

Some quotes from another thread :-

No one is hiring now. My experience and a headhunter friend, very well respected, and they are placing almost no one.

There are no jobs due to a variety of reasons.

Slow US hiring signals ‘lethargic’ jobs market
 
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.

Jeff, totally agree with you here - exactly right.

One minor nit - an "economist would tell you" that dollars are neither "infused" nor "removed" - the economic phenomenon I think you're referring to is the rate of money flow. In other words, how fast is money being earned and spent in the economy. Government spending helps to jump start the rate of money flow....which is helpful for all, usually.
 
That's a pleasant story. And yes, I agree, there are jobs out there. But should the IT professional spend his days collecting beer cans to recycle, or should he collect unemployment and spend this time looking for another IT job? Which is better for the economy?

Seems to me that when you were faced with that decision, you chose to collect unemployment.

And here is what Pelosi was really talking about. When you did collect that unemployment, what did you do with it? Save it, invest it, or spend it?

I saved it. And it wasn't a story.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
So you took unemployment benefits you didn't need and saved them? That's very John Galt of you.

Garry, you are correct. A more accurate description would be a reference to how fast money is circulating through the system. Money does not come "in" and "out" as some believe (and as I stated) -- government spending is all part of the money stream. Good point.

I saved it. And it wasn't a story.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
So you took unemployment benefits you didn't need and saved them? That's very John Galt of you.

Garry, you are correct. A more accurate description would be a reference to how fast money is circulating through the system. Money does not come "in" and "out" as some believe (and as I stated) -- government spending is all part of the money stream. Good point.

Al, Jeff just paid you a compliment. :thumbsup: John Galt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


<BIG>John Galt's Speech</BIG>
mini-version
<SMALL>[ 964 words ]</SMALL>



For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it. The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I was actually being sarcastic. Many of the "objectivists" who rail against some of the benefits modern society provides are the FIRST to take them. Rush Limbaugh being one. Al apparently being another.

John Galt, if such a person existed, would never take unemployment benefits.

And, Roark raped Dominique!
 
So you took unemployment benefits you didn't need and saved them? That's very John Galt of you.

Garry, you are correct. A more accurate description would be a reference to how fast money is circulating through the system. Money does not come "in" and "out" as some believe (and as I stated) -- government spending is all part of the money stream. Good point.

I contributed to them all of my life, I don't have a problem with collecting them once. I don't have a clue who you are, what you do or how old you are. And you don't know me, or what I do, but you do have a propensity to be condescending.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I don't think it is condescending to point that someone who rails against Democrats, leftists, communists, etc. and wants a divorce from them turned to a social program and "stole from us all" when it served his needs.

I've been through some of the older threads on this board and you say some inflammatory stuff. Yet, when you hit tough times, you line up and take the dole.

You don't see anything askew with that? Seriously?

I for one am glad that program helped you through a difficult time, and that you got back on your feet.
 
It's kinda hard to follow your build - no detailed build thread as far as I can tell. I, for one, would be interested to see what you've done so far (more so than this kind of banter, that is for sure).

Happy 4th,
Mike


Mike, Sorry about that. I've been getting the rear clip, spyder, doors, and front clip ready to give to the paint & body guy. Putting hinges, headlight mounts, naca vents, ect. in so I won't have to screw it up after paint. I've been taking pictures so I will do some kind of thread later. Have a great 4th, Al
 
Jeff, This is the part of the speech that I had a problem with. "It creates jobs faster than any other initiative you can name". You don't find that odd to say the least?
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
If you think about it, no, it's not so odd. It's because that money gets spent immediately. Spending creates jobs, since jobs are needed to produce the goods and services that are bought.

From my post above:

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.
 
Geeez Jeff, If either of the Bushs or Reagan or any other republican said something stupid, I don't have a problem admitting that it was stupid. On the other hand, you can't bring yourself to say anything about a democrat. "It creates jobs faster than any other initiative you can name". That was a stupid statement, no matter what you dig up to somehow support it. It may go into the economy quickly, but our present unemployment doesn't give a hint to it creating jobs. We are still at 9.5% to 9.7% unemployed With all that compensation money floating around, I don't see jobs being created.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Actually I find Democrats say and do things at about the same rate of stupid as Republicans. While I probably believe in, and think necessary, a larger federal government than most of you, I do not believe that government can solve all problems or even that they should try. I also don't think in many cases that government should be the one to try first.

But there are things that it is clear (to me) that history has shown don't mesh well with the profit motive, and for those types of things, government performs a necessary role.

On tax and spending policy, I think the record since 1945 is clear. While cutting taxes as means to economic growth SOUNDS like a good idea, every time we have done it without similar cuts in spending (except for the Kennedy tax cuts, which are an anamoly and I don't think it had anything to do with partisan politics), we've had trouble.

That's where we are now. In a huge mess, with a slow economy.

Pelosi's statement was not stupid. Overly exuberant perhaps but it is based on fundamentally sound economic policy which is getting money circulating through the system quickly helps create and keep jobs when the economy is down.

9.5% is a decrease from the worst of the recession by the way, and the economy has been added jobs in the private sector (even last month when letting census workers go created a net loss in jobs) for a while.

But the recovery is slow, and tenuous. We could easily slip back into recession. One way would be to fail to extend jobless benefits for the tens of millions of folks on them now who are (a) depending on them and (b) immediately spending that money.
 
Jeff, "It creates jobs faster than any other initiative you can name". I give up! It is a stupid statement! I guess it would be safe to say that the more people we keep on unemployment the more jobs will be created. Makes sense to me. Not!
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Al, in the context which it was spoken it does make sense.

Either you can not see that or more likely you choose not to see that!

Because if you admit that it makes sence your post becomes just another of your missleading, half truth filled rants.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top