🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

Obama-Bots are hilarious. High Unemployment is 'Good' now. Guess they got rebooted, and just in time for the Election. Nutter bots be craaaazy.
 
Computers have damaged the Obama economy because all that automated work could be done by people thereby causing unemployment, which ironically, stimulates the economy
 
If crusaderfrank has a degree in finance he hides it well. If he does my perception of him as one of the dumbest and foolish member of the echo chamber may be wrong - he simply may suffer from a mental illness. But, I digress.

Those collecting unemployment had been employed. It is not paid to those who never worked, nor to those not seeking employment. Because of the fiscal mismanagement of the Congress and the failure of the executive branch to regulate, our economy tanked in Oct. 2008. Too many Americans through no fault of their own suffered a devastating economic crisis.

Fools and liars (Hi Frank) continue the drum beat of ain't it awful the sky is falling and it's all Obama's fault. Fools and liars hope to restore the same incompetence next November which exacerbated years of fiscal mismanagement under GWB and a Congress which saw no limit on spending while cutting taxes.

Your side believes that bank ATM's and airport kiosks hurt the economy and unemployment stimulates the economy. It's not just wrong, it's insane

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, 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."

Only the seriously mentally ill believe their word salad is clever Frank. Seek help and you will be medicated, seek not and you will remain a very strange fellow indeed.
 
If crusaderfrank has a degree in finance he hides it well. If he does my perception of him as one of the dumbest and foolish member of the echo chamber may be wrong - he simply may suffer from a mental illness. But, I digress.

Those collecting unemployment had been employed. It is not paid to those who never worked, nor to those not seeking employment. Because of the fiscal mismanagement of the Congress and the failure of the executive branch to regulate, our economy tanked in Oct. 2008. Too many Americans through no fault of their own suffered a devastating economic crisis.

Fools and liars (Hi Frank) continue the drum beat of ain't it awful the sky is falling and it's all Obama's fault. Fools and liars hope to restore the same incompetence next November which exacerbated years of fiscal mismanagement under GWB and a Congress which saw no limit on spending while cutting taxes.

Your side believes that bank ATM's and airport kiosks hurt the economy and unemployment stimulates the economy. It's not just wrong, it's insane

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, 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."

Only the seriously mentally ill believe their word salad is clever Frank. Seek help and you will be medicated, seek not and you will remain a very strange fellow indeed.

Poor Obama Fluffer. Can't give a coherent answer to why he doublethinks.

Bank ATMs hurt the economy, unemployment stimulates the economy.

Sure it does.

Sure it does.
 
Obama-Bots are hilarious. High Unemployment is 'Good' now. Guess they got rebooted, and just in time for the Election. Nutter bots be craaaazy.
you are the one PURPOSELY being the Nutter....for your own delusional partisan satisfaction I suppose and you have every right to be that "nutter"....

that does not negate you being wrong nor negate the LIE you are spreading

NO ONE SAID high unemployment is good...that's simply a LIE on your part and YOU know it, yet you babble on about it and regurgitate the LIE over and over again.... I suppose that is called "good ethics" in your book, but it ain't in mine....
 
Obama-Bots are hilarious. High Unemployment is 'Good' now. Guess they got rebooted, and just in time for the Election. Nutter bots be craaaazy.
you are the one PURPOSELY being the Nutter....for your own delusional partisan satisfaction I suppose and you have every right to be that "nutter"....

that does not negate you being wrong nor negate the LIE you are spreading

NO ONE SAID high unemployment is good...that's simply a LIE on your part and YOU know it, yet you babble on about it and regurgitate the LIE over and over again.... I suppose that is called "good ethics" in your book, but it ain't in mine....

Simple linear logic, care.
If unemployment compensation stimulates the economy we need only to put more people on the dole to get the best effect.

Signed,
Cloward and Piven
:cool:
 
Obama-Bots are hilarious. High Unemployment is 'Good' now. Guess they got rebooted, and just in time for the Election. Nutter bots be craaaazy.
you are the one PURPOSELY being the Nutter....for your own delusional partisan satisfaction I suppose and you have every right to be that "nutter"....

that does not negate you being wrong nor negate the LIE you are spreading

NO ONE SAID high unemployment is good...that's simply a LIE on your part and YOU know it, yet you babble on about it and regurgitate the LIE over and over again.... I suppose that is called "good ethics" in your book, but it ain't in mine....

Simple linear logic, care.
If unemployment compensation stimulates the economy we need only to put more people on the dole to get the best effect.

Signed,
Cloward and Piven
:cool:
but THAT is NOT simple logic Hortyhugs :)....unemployment compensation, VERSES NO unemployment compensation given to the people who were laid off, stimulates the economy....

the choice never was unemployment compensation verses having a job...it has always been about U/E compensation for those laid off verses giving those laid off NOTHING in UE compensation....and the truth be known, paying unemployment compensation for those who lost their jobs, does help the economy more than if these laid off workers were given nothing....and there just is no dancing around that fact imho....and it does keep many others from losing their jobs because the unemployment compensation is going towards paying for things in the economy....more grocers stay employed, more electric company employees stay employed, fewer landlords are stuck with renters that can't pay their rent etc etc etc....

and yes, I can see that there is a price to pay as well for issuing U/E...it gets added to our debt....but it is NOT suppose to do such and it would not be doing that if the actuaries who figured out how much employers should pay in UE insurance to cover their layoffs, had collected enough for a major downturn such as the one we faced...live and learn on that front....
 
Last edited:
you are the one PURPOSELY being the Nutter....for your own delusional partisan satisfaction I suppose and you have every right to be that "nutter"....

that does not negate you being wrong nor negate the LIE you are spreading

NO ONE SAID high unemployment is good...that's simply a LIE on your part and YOU know it, yet you babble on about it and regurgitate the LIE over and over again.... I suppose that is called "good ethics" in your book, but it ain't in mine....

Simple linear logic, care.
If unemployment compensation stimulates the economy we need only to put more people on the dole to get the best effect.

Signed,
Cloward and Piven
:cool:
but THAT is NOT simple logic Hortyhugs :)....unemployment compensation, VERSES NO unemployment compensation given to the people who were laid off, stimulates the economy....

the choice never was unemployment compensation verses having a job...it has always been about U/E compensation for those laid off verses giving those laid off NOTHING in UE compensation....and the truth be known, paying unemployment compensation for those who lost their jobs, does help the economy more than if these laid off workers were given nothing....and there just is no dancing around that fact imho....and it does keep may others from losing their jobs because the unemployment compensation is going towards paying for things in the economy....more grocers stay employed, more electric company employees stay employed, fewer landlords are stuck with renters that can't pay their rent etc etc etc....

and yes, I can see that there is a price to pay as well for issuing U/E...it gets added to our debt....but it is NOT suppose to do such and it would not be doing that if the actuaries who figured out how much employers should pay in UE insurance to cover their layoffs, had collected enough for a major downturn such as the one we faced...live and learn on that front....

Just a thought. Where in that equation is the sound economic principle that we all should be giving up certain non essentials and luxuries and saving a good percentage of the money we earn for such contingencies as a major downturn? That way every penny saved is available for our own benefit to buy those grovceries, etc. rather than a sizable percentage of it being siphoned off and swallowed up in the bureaucracy.

Back in the 50's and 60's, when there were few government programs to help anybody, responsibile people were saving up to 20 to 30% of their income. It might mean they had to drive their cars a few years longer, live in a smaller house, buy a smaller TV, etc., but it was a cultural ethic. The rule of thumb is that each family should have enough in liquid savings to support themselves for at least six months if their income was for some reason suspended. These days, many families are saving little or nothing and look to government safety nets if they should get into trouble.

I think we need a lot less government and a whole lot more personal responsibility to turn things around. I am not opposed to unemployment insurance, but it should be the 100% funded and short term program that it was originally intended to be. Instead it has become a way of life for too many just as is the case with all on going government entitlements.

Common sense and not just raw emotion has to be inserted into the equation at some point.
 
Back in the 50's and 60's, when there were few government programs to help anybody, responsibile people were saving up to 20 to 30% of their income.

Plenty of nostalgia to go around. February 7, 1961:

JFK Asks $1.2 Billion Jobless Aid

Washington (AP) - President Kennedy asked for billion-dollar action on his anti-recession proposals yesterday. He sent Congress two bills, one to extend unemployment benefits, the other to help children whose fathers are out of work.

The two bills would provide more than $1.2 billion of assistance to the unemployed. A third bill, calling for a boost in the minimum wage, will reach Congress today.

The most expensive bill in the package was the one on unemployment benefits. It temporarily would continue or reinstate payments to those who have exhausted all their benefits and still have no job.

Kennedy estimated this bill would provide $950 million for three million workers.

His second bill would authorize temporary help to needy children who fathers are unemployed. An estimate of the cost: $305 million for the 15 months of its operation

"The need for prompt enactment of this legislation is clear," Kennedy said in a letter that accompanied the two bills. The letter was sent to Speaker Sam Rayburn, D-Tex., and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who presides over the Senate.

The White House said the minimum wage bill would include a formula for raising the floor to $1.15 an hour immediately and to $1.25 within two years. The present minimum is $1 an hour.
 
Back in the 50's and 60's, when there were few government programs to help anybody, responsibile people were saving up to 20 to 30% of their income.

Plenty of nostalgia to go around. February 7, 1961:

JFK Asks $1.2 Billion Jobless Aid

Washington (AP) - President Kennedy asked for billion-dollar action on his anti-recession proposals yesterday. He sent Congress two bills, one to extend unemployment benefits, the other to help children whose fathers are out of work.

The two bills would provide more than $1.2 billion of assistance to the unemployed. A third bill, calling for a boost in the minimum wage, will reach Congress today.

The most expensive bill in the package was the one on unemployment benefits. It temporarily would continue or reinstate payments to those who have exhausted all their benefits and still have no job.

Kennedy estimated this bill would provide $950 million for three million workers.

His second bill would authorize temporary help to needy children who fathers are unemployed. An estimate of the cost: $305 million for the 15 months of its operation

"The need for prompt enactment of this legislation is clear," Kennedy said in a letter that accompanied the two bills. The letter was sent to Speaker Sam Rayburn, D-Tex., and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who presides over the Senate.

The White House said the minimum wage bill would include a formula for raising the floor to $1.15 an hour immediately and to $1.25 within two years. The present minimum is $1 an hour.

Plenty of nostalgia to go around. February 7, 1961:

there sure is, why stop there?



Then in 1962, at John F. Kennedy's urging, Congress raised welfare payments, and renamed the program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Under the new law, states were permitted to require beneficiaries to do community work and attend training programs. Kennedy articulated what has since been a central goal of federal welfare policy: to end poverty, not just alleviate it. Welfare should be "a hand up, not a hand out," in Kennedy's words.

AllPolitics - Welfare Reform - Background

uh huh, and you were saying?
 
The article is from a year and a half ago, and it's on the specifics of the 2010 tax compromises, which is what the "package" refers to. I'm not arguing that.

The ONLY point that I'm making is that it's not a "ridiculous claim" to think that providing UI for unemployed is more stimulative to the economy than NOT providing it.

When is it too long to be on unemployment checks. I think giving people 99 weeks makes them lazy. Why go out and look for a job when you can sit on your ass for 99 weeks. In some cases making just as much on unemployment. That is almost 2 years getting paid to do nothing.

ignorance abounds...not tht you would know about working, mooch.

btw, posting on the fly because I'm doing my seed orders.

Big giant congrats to you and your partner. Get ready for the ride of a lifetime. :eusa_angel:

Hold on to every minute. love it. live it. hold onto life.
 
High Unemployment is 'Good' now. lol! Deranged Obama-Bots. Waddayagonnado? :)

High unemployment is not good.

Aid to the unemployed, however, is the policy lever with the highest potential upside for boosting employment.

EffectsOfPolicyOptionsonEmployment.png
 
It's terrifying. One day Val "Candidate #1" Jarett is going to say, "eating brains of the living stimulates the economy"
 
Last edited:
zombies.bmp


Bank ATMs hurt the economy

Airport kiosks hurt the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy

unemployment stimulates the economy
 

Forum List

Back
Top