She said what ??!!

[SteamWake]

Nacy Pelosi states...


Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/01/pelosi-unemployment-checks-best-way-create-jobs/

Just wow... :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Ummm...yeah, that is an interesting concept. :hmmm:

[tater]

LOL.

Once they pass it, then the people they represent can learn what's in it...

[UnderseaLcpl]

I could believe her, as long as we're talking about programs. Unemployment compensation has to be creating some jobs, even if a bunch of them are involved in unemployment compensation, which is more than can be said for the "Green Jobs" initiative, which relies almost entirely on artificial demand....and supply, come to think of it.

Of course, bear in mind that creating jobs for the electorate is not exactly what most state unemployment insurance is for; it's more about preserving jobs for the elected. In that respect it has a pretty decent track record, minus one significant attempt at welfare reform.

[Snestorm]

Her goals seem to have the stench of communism.

The working people who are the pillars of society, have already been weakened far to much.
If, and/or when they fall, so too will society as people now know it.

Socialism does not strengthen the weak.
It weakens the strong.

The weak are multiplying, at the expense of the strong.
This goes against the laws of nature, and can not be sustained.
The longer it contimues, the higher will be the end price tag.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Waxing poetic today, Snestorm?;)

[Snestorm]

Waxing poetic today, Snestorm?;)

Help.
Your taking lessons from your prof, and leaving me in bewilderment over the question.

At minimum, did I earn a plus or minus?

[SteamWake]

I just would have had to raise my hand and say "Excuse me madam speaker but what about that stimulus package?"

[krashkart]

It doesn't help our unemployment numbers any by having so many jobs outsourced to lower-wage countries, either. I don't mean to stray off topic. But we can manufacture tires here just as efficiently as the Chinese... of course the Catch-22 of that is that Americans demand higher wages. We're screwing ourselves for products on the cheap.

Anyway, sorry. I digress. :-?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Help.
Your taking lessons from your prof, and leaving me in bewilderment over the question.

At minimum, did I earn a plus or minus?

A plus, I suppose. I just meant that your post sounded poetic, and I wondered if that was intentional.

[SteamWake]

It doesn't help our unemployment numbers any by having so many jobs outsourced to lower-wage countries, either. I don't mean to stray off topic. But we can manufacture tires here just as efficiently as the Chinese... of course the Catch-22 of that is that Americans demand higher wages. We're screwing ourselves for products on the cheap.

Anyway, sorry. I digress. :-?

I'm guessing that the enviromentalist have a great deal of impact there as well.

[Snestorm]

A plus, I suppose. I just meant that your post sounded poetic, and I wondered if that was intentional.

Thanks for the clarification.

No intention toward poetics.
Just my, admittedly odd at times, organization structure.

[conus00]

She's a stupid broad.

"You can't fix stupid"
---Ron White

[Gerald]

Help.
Your taking lessons from your prof, and leaving me in bewilderment over the question.

At minimum, did I earn a plus or minus? :haha:

[mookiemookie]

It doesn't help our unemployment numbers any by having so many jobs outsourced to lower-wage countries, either. I don't mean to stray off topic. But we can manufacture tires here just as efficiently as the Chinese... of course the Catch-22 of that is that Americans demand higher wages. We're screwing ourselves for products on the cheap.

Anyway, sorry. I digress. :-?

Well, from a purely economic theory standpoint, outsourcing your low-wage, low-skill jobs is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as you replace them with higher wage, higher skilled jobs. Think about it - an engineer for the ipod gets paid a lot more than the guy who assembles one. So, which one would you rather have your economy full of - engineers or assemblers?

[AVGWarhawk]

I love Nancy. She is so special.....:88)

[tater]

Her claim is absurd.

Welfare is at best a subsistence level payment (even if many spend it inappropriately—presumably she assumes this is most spending by welfare recipients?). As a result, it gets spent on food, housing, utilities. Since the payee had a job BEFORE collecting welfare, welfare doesn't expand spending, at best in some areas it maintains spending.

There is not job-growth with flat spending. Mr. X spent $200 on groceries this month last year with a job, spends the same this month on welfare. Jobs created? ZERO.

It shows that they think that not losing a job is the same as "creating" a job. Sort of like they say that not increasing government spending is a "cut," or even increasing spending, but by less than last year is also a "cut."

Idiots.

[mookiemookie]

And it's this sort of cluelessness when it comes to the principles of economics that prevents me from identifying with the Democratic party. Maybe we could send them textbooks?

[UnderseaLcpl]

And it's this sort of cluelessness when it comes to the principles of economics that prevents me from identifying with the Democratic party. Maybe we could send them textbooks?

I doubt it would do any good, notwithstanding the current iteration of democratic slant that many textbooks have when it comes to economics.
Their view of economics is utterly confusing to me, as they simultaneously support social programs, aid to less-developed economies, and government means, whilst never considering that the latter may be mutually exclusive to the aforementioned pair, which flies completely in the face of modern economic theory.

Time and time again I see examples of the state failing at absolutely everything it does, and yet people still buy that the state is an effective agency for implementing policy. One would think that the problems of a monopolisitc state would have become apparent by now, but it isn't so, for reasons that should be obvious when considering the nature of modern state structure.