OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[The Rabbi]

CrusaderFrank continues to fuck that chicken.

You'd know all about chicken-fucking.

Your chosen idol is simply wrong, with his head up his ass.

 

[uscitizen]

Frank has to push everything he disagrees with to new levels of absurdity.

And try to push the absurdity he believes in towards normalcy (for him).

 

[Bfgrn]

What is your evidence of this?

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf

So the best way to stimulate an economy is to have the highest unemployment

Reagan accellerated depreciation and cut taxes and his economy > Obama's and Moody "Analytics"

No Frank, high unemployment is not desirable, but when there is high unemployment, the private sector is not hiring, consumers are not spending and the economy is contracting, THEN the best ROI is government spending that gets spent, not invested.

What Reagan taught us is licking rich people's assholes does not stimulate the economy. It only leads to what you and Rabbi see every time you look in a mirror...a brown tongue.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CrusaderFrank continues to fuck that chicken.

Yes, Dear.

Because your side believes that:

A. Bank ATM's and airport kiosks hurt the economy, and

B. Unemployment (insurance benefits) stimulate the economy

I feel like a Special Ed teacher and I have no patience for it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf

So the best way to stimulate an economy is to have the highest unemployment

Reagan accellerated depreciation and cut taxes and his economy > Obama's and Moody "Analytics"

No Frank, high unemployment is not desirable, but when there is high unemployment, the private sector is not hiring, consumers are not spending and the economy is contracting, THEN the best ROI is government spending that gets spent, not invested.

What Reagan taught us is licking rich people's assholes does not stimulate the economy. It only leads to what you and Rabbi see every time you look in a mirror...a brown tongue.

Sure, honey. Sure.

Reagan's approach actually worked while the Obama Guaranteed Failed Bank ATMs Bad Unemployment (insurance checks) Good economy is Failing

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo]Obama: Shovel Ready jobs not shovel ready - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank has to push everything he disagrees with to new levels of absurdity.

And try to push the absurdity he believes in towards normalcy (for him).

It is absurd to believe as you do that: bank ATM's hurt the economy and Unemployment (insurance checks) stimulate the economy

Orwell described it perfectly, "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them... Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink"

 

[pinqy]

I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks.

No one ever in this country has ever been no longer considered unemployed because they no longer collect benefits.

UI benefits have NEVER been part of the definition of Unemployed.

When you don't even know something that basic, what makes you think you can rationally comment on any other part?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks.

No one ever in this country has ever been no longer considered unemployed because they no longer collect benefits.

UI benefits have NEVER been part of the definition of Unemployed.

When you don't even know something that basic, what makes you think you can rationally comment on any other part?

Darlingheart, I'm referring only to the "under 8.3%" of people actually collecting unemployment (insurance checks), I'm not talking about the people who fell off the UI rolls.

OK sweet heart?

I'm only dealing with the absurdity of the "Unemployment stimulates the economy" statement as it relates to people collecting unemployment (insurance checks)

I made the mistake of assuming I was dealing with people who understood that when I said "unemployment" I meant people collecting unemployment (insurance checks)

I have to type it out unemployment long hand now as "collecting unemployment (insurance checks)"every time because I'm dealing with Mindless Zombies

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears crusaderfrank has lost it (whether he ever had it is an open question).

 

[uscitizen]

Frank has to push everything he disagrees with to new levels of absurdity.

And try to push the absurdity he believes in towards normalcy (for him).

It is absurd to believe as you do that: bank ATM's hurt the economy and Unemployment (insurance checks) stimulate the economy

Orwell described it perfectly, "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them... Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink"

You are clearly not smart enough to understand the application of that Orwell quote.
It kinda bounces right back in yer face.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank has to push everything he disagrees with to new levels of absurdity.

And try to push the absurdity he believes in towards normalcy (for him).

It is absurd to believe as you do that: bank ATM's hurt the economy and Unemployment (insurance checks) stimulate the economy

Orwell described it perfectly, "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them... Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink"

You are clearly not smart enough to understand the application of that Orwell quote.
It kinda bounces right back in yer face.

Yes, clearly.

I don't understand how bank ATM's hurt the economy.

Can you explain it to me?

 

[uscitizen]

It is absurd to believe as you do that: bank ATM's hurt the economy and Unemployment (insurance checks) stimulate the economy

Orwell described it perfectly, "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them... Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink"

You are clearly not smart enough to understand the application of that Orwell quote.
It kinda bounces right back in yer face.

Yes, clearly.

I don't understand how bank ATM's hurt the economy.

Can you explain it to me?

I did not say that ATM's hurt the economy.
That is your angle in your effort to push any opposing view to new levels of absurdity.

But you clearly do not have the intellect to understand that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Malkin Calls Valerie Jarrett "Magical Thinking Czar" For Accurate Statement About Unemployment Insurance | Media Matters for America

Media Matters????

Wigger Paleeeeeze.

 

[The Rabbi]

It appears crusaderfrank has lost it (whether he ever had it is an open question).

You're right. He's lost his capacity to tolerate idiocy, ignorance, and willful suspensions of disbelief. Your capacity to buy into stupidity continues unabated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are clearly not smart enough to understand the application of that Orwell quote.
It kinda bounces right back in yer face.

Yes, clearly.

I don't understand how bank ATM's hurt the economy.

Can you explain it to me?

I did not say that ATM's hurt the economy.
That is your angle in your effort to push any opposing view to new levels of absurdity.

But you clearly do not have the intellect to understand that.

Surprisingly, it's not about what "you" said, but what Obama, his Administration and Democrat Leadership has said. But, instead of shutting the fuck up you had to challenge me and we all see now you're shooting blanks

 

[Toro]

Pelosi said it, Val "Candidate #1 Jarrett said it; it's the new economic Doublespeak

I thought you'd hold out longer before being assimilated. I'm gonna miss you

That's not what she said. It's clear what she said if you're not wallowing in partisan nonsense.

What she said was that unemployment checks are stimulative, not that unemployment is stimulative. Nor did she say that unemployment checks are more stimulative than a job. You can argue whether or not she is correct but we've got to have an honest discussion. Implying that she thinks unemployment itself is stimulative is not honest and indicative of so much that is wrong in today's political discourse. (And yes, liberals do the same thing.)

I've said it before that the need to qualify this imagery stimulus as unemployment insurance checks is a distinction without a difference.

I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks. I'm mocking the very notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy.

The very idea that you buy into the notion that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy means you have been absorbed by the collective.

The idea that unemployment insurance checks stimulate the economy is at least as stupid as the idea that bank ATMs are hurting the economy.

I never heard either concept in my life until we get the Neo-Marxists in the White House

Really? Automatic stabilizers such as UI are taught in Macroeconomics 101. It may or may not be correct but it is very well known as a concept to every economics student.

And the test of whether or not it is stimulative is empirical, not some narrow-minded dogma.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It appears crusaderfrank has lost it (whether he ever had it is an open question).

Sucks when you can't respond directly to anything I ask

 

[Toro]

This is consistent with the administration's Keynesian approach. Which has been a predictable failure.
If UE checks are stimulative why dont we really goose the economy and lay everyone off and just send UE checks?

Because a job is more stimulative to the economy than UE checks. UE checks are more stimulative than zero income. (Or so it goes.)

But it is zero sum income. The unemployed get income because working people get less. There is no free lunch. There is no stimulus going on.
Idiots like Lakhota can believe in "multipliers" all they want. But that doesnt make it true. The actual multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Meaning every dollar spent by the gov't results in less than a dollar of new GDP.

The concept is debatable and the empirical evidence is mixed. It's a fair criticism to say that unemployment checks are not stimulative.

It is not fair to say that someone who thinks otherwise is saying that unemployment is stimulative. That's ignorance, stupidity or mindless partisan hackery.

 

[pinqy]

I'm not talking about the spread between the people collecting unemployment insurance checks and those who are no longer considered unemployed because they do not collect unemployment insurance checks.

No one ever in this country has ever been no longer considered unemployed because they no longer collect benefits.

UI benefits have NEVER been part of the definition of Unemployed.

When you don't even know something that basic, what makes you think you can rationally comment on any other part?

Darlingheart, I'm referring only to the "under 8.3%" of people actually collecting unemployment (insurance checks), I'm not talking about the people who fell off the UI rolls.

I'm not sure why you would use a definition nobody else uses. When anyone else, ESPECIALLY the government, talks about "Unemployment" they're talking about TOTAL unemployment.

And since the difference between being unemployed (over 13 million people) and receiving checks (approx 7 mil) is significant, there's a big difference.

OK sweet heart?

Actually, no, it's not ok to just use a non-standard definition and expect everyone to know what you mean.

I'm only dealing with the absurdity of the "Unemployment stimulates the economy" statement as it relates to people collecting unemployment (insurance checks)

But you haven't actually made an argument.

Try explaining why it would be better for the economy for people NOT to receive any benefits. Because that's the crux of the argument.

I made the mistake of assuming I was dealing with people who understood that when I said "unemployment" I meant people collecting unemployment (insurance checks)

Why would you assume people would understand a non-standard usage of a word?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because a job is more stimulative to the economy than UE checks. UE checks are more stimulative than zero income. (Or so it goes.)

But it is zero sum income. The unemployed get income because working people get less. There is no free lunch. There is no stimulus going on.
Idiots like Lakhota can believe in "multipliers" all they want. But that doesnt make it true. The actual multiplier of gov't spending is less than one. Meaning every dollar spent by the gov't results in less than a dollar of new GDP.

The concept is debatable and the empirical evidence is mixed. It's a fair criticism to say that unemployment checks are not stimulative.

It is not fair to say that someone who thinks otherwise is saying that unemployment is stimulative. That's ignorance, stupidity or mindless partisan hackery.

UI checks are either stimulative or not stimulative. There really isn't much middle ground here. And regardless of macro-economics, the evidence is pretty clear it is not stimulative, as we have had the longest payout of UE checks and also the highest unemployment.
When you reward behavior, you get more of it. Pay people not to work, they won't. Why any of that should be complicated is beyond me.