Democrats are NUTS – Unemployment grows the economy?

These  people are NUTS.

“Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, announced Wednesday that food stamps and unemployment benefits are one of the best ways to help grow the economy.”

And Barney Frank and Joe Biden agree.  I saw a link where Media Matters has said, “Yes, they are right,” which I would not click on and read for any amount of money.

They are stupid, delusional, crazy, and I guess they think that people are going to believe that food stamps and unemployment benefits actually GROW THE ECONOMY???  I cannot believe Pelosi and Frank were re-elected.  I cannot believe it.  Supposedly some economist has said, yes, they are right.  Well, whoever that is stupid, too.  Must be the same economist who said the stimulus money would actually stimulate the economy and keep unemployment no higher than 8 percent – all those shovel-ready jobs that did not exist.

And so unemployment goes up to 9.8, Obama goes to Afghanistan and leaves Joe Biden holding the bag.  I am sure the troops were happy to see him. I know I had to turn off the tv when he came on because if I hear one more word from him and his busted lip, I am going to scream.

Joe Biden has demeaned himself beyond repair by becoming a part of this madness.

And as you may have guessed I can’t stand any of them.  I mean I can’t stand them.  Someone may say that is a little extreme.  But I ask you:  They are all running this country in the ground and I’m supposed to like or respect them?   They disrespect me and the American people by lying and trying to deceive us and I hold them in as much contempt as they do me.

I wish I were a registered democrat so I could go down to the elections office and change it – but I’ve already done that.  My family has always been democrat, grandparents, parents, all of them.  They would turn over in their graves if they could hear or see what is going on in this country.

Posted:  12.03.10

25 Comments

Filed under politics

25 responses to “Democrats are NUTS – Unemployment grows the economy?

  1. $100 says you don’t have a college education.

  2. The Center Square

    We need to listen very carefully. It is not “unemployment grows the economy,” but unemployment BENEFITS grow the economy.” You got it right in your post, but your headline is incorrect.

    This is actually confirmed by the CBO, which identifies unemployment benefits as among the most stimulative actions government can take in the short run. The reasoning is simple. Jobs are created when demand for goods and services increase. The most direct source of demand is consumers. Since most unemployed persons are living on the financial edge, they necessarily tend to spend every dollar of those benefits, creating immediate demand, therefore immediate economic stimulus, therefore an immediate positive impact on jobs creation.

    The head of the CBO recently presented on this topic (can be viewed here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11971/11-15-CBOPresentation-SGE.pdf). Page 11 is the key here, showing that unemployment benefits actually ranked FIRST among eleven fiscal actions to stimulate jobs creation.

    Of course, there is a serious counterargument to be made: that increasing spending increases deficit and therefore debt, thereby putting a fiscal burden on our future. And that is the trade off: unemployment benefits are to our short term advantage but to our long term detriment. The CBO analysis is very clear on this point, addressing the question “can short-term fiscal stimulus be reconciled with the imperative to put fiscal policy on a sustainable medium-term and long-term path.”

    So, there’s really no rational basis for acting like Pelosi is nuts. Democrats are on the side of the debate that focuses solely on immediate impacts and ignore the long term, just as Republicans are on the side that focuses solely on the long term and ignores the current situation. Neither is nuts. Both tell only half the story.

    Thanks for letting me comment.

    • bellalu0

      Democrats are nuts. Unfortunately, they have been in charge of congress since 2006 with top nut, Nancy Pelosi, in charge. They care nothing about the American people. They care nothing about this country.

      And the CBO is nuts as well. Unemployment benefits I believe are about $300 a week. It is nonsense to say this little bit of money is going to stimulate anything or grow the economy. This is supposed to be short term – very short term sub-standard existence.

      We’ll see if anything changes in January.

  3. bellalu0

    “The only Congressional Democrats who understand the message of 2010 are the ones currently cleaning out their offices.” — Mark Halperin

  4. The Center Square

    The reason that $300 makes a difference is that is $300 x 2,000,000, and every penny of it gets spent. Consumer spending creates jobs. Think how many jobs it takes to provide $600 million worth of goods and services. And that is the amount every month! Think how many people will lose their jobs when those families suddenly do not have the $600 million to spend.

    Other than them doing economic research that contradicts your views, do you have any basis for attacking the CBO? I’m trying to get a feel for your views.

    Thanks again.

  5. bellalu0

    This administration is grasping at straws to justify their incompetence. I honestly don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face that a person without a job who gets a small check from the government is somehow increasing consumer spending. Are you suggesting that this same person did not eat when they were employed and now that they get this pittance they suddenly start consuming?

    So statements such as this only prove these warmed-over politicians have not a clue what it would be like to have no income. I’m sure a lot of unemployed have bought a house, but just say they have to rent. A one-bedroom apartment in this town costs $500 to $600 a month. There’s two week’s unemployment benefits. Utilities – probably $150. There’s another week. Now there’s $300 for a month’s groceries. No car payment. No gas for the car. No cable tv. No phone service. No internet service. No clothes. No shoes. I am not one who believes a person would want to live like this, so I am sure each one is trying to find work. In fact, something is wrong with this picture, because it is not possible to live on unemployment benefits. Some other money is coming in some how.

    And yet in Washington, they act as though they are so wonderful and caring, saying, here, take this, and look what we are doing for you. Jobs are what is needed. Jobs were promised. Yet instead of jobs, one gets $300 a week. Insulting. People don’t want unemployment checks – they want jobs. Give them jobs and the $600 million is multiplied, and people are actually able to support themselves and their families to boot. But, please, don’t say an unemployment check is helping the economy.

    Bottom line: Have a job – make $1,000 a week. Lose job – make 0 per week. Get unemployment benefits – $300 a week. Net loss to the economy – $700.

    I have no confidence in the CBO. I saw how that works. Congress sends them some figures to analyze. They come back and say this legislation adds to the deficit. Oops. So congress takes out part of the expenses of that particular measure, inserts it in some unrelated bill, and sends back the jerry-rigged figures. Magically, the CBO comes out with the figures they desire. I don’t necessarily fault the CBO. It’s just that their figures are manipulated by what is submitted to them, and those who are submitting it. But then I do fault the CBO, too, because they know this is happening and they participate in it.

  6. The Center Square

    Well, you’ve argued the politics well. But from the economics side, yours is a radical, fringe position. There just isn’t a single non-partisan economist who agrees with you. Nor is there any logic to it.

    Don’t get me wrong. I also have real problems with extending the unemployment benefits. But that is because I am anti-debt. I know that these benefits provide a short term economic boost. I just don’t know if they are worth borrowing more to fund them. But I don’t permit myself false arguments, even if they support my position.

    Thanks for the lively discussion.

  7. bellalu0

    What I hear you saying is any economist who would agree with me is “partisan.” That just dismisses any disagreement out of hand. My position is nothing but logic. But, okay, if fringe radical means reality, then mark me down.

    I added this to my previous comment:
    Bottom line: Have a job – make $1,000 a week. Lose job – make 0 per week. Get unemployment benefits – $300 a week. Net loss to the economy – $700.

    I will agree with you that any movement from zero could be called a bounce.

  8. The Center Square

    No. I’m not saying that there an economist who agrees with you is partisan, nor would I think that. I’m saying there aren’t any such economists.

    Think about it: have you ever heard ANY economist refute the idea that unemployment benefits stimulate jobs creation in the short run? You haven’t. I haven’t. No one has.

  9. The Center Square

    On a related subject, there is related political position that isn’t well supported by economic analysis, namely, that unemployment benefits motivate people not to seek jobs, thus actually causing more unemployment.

    As you pointed out, though, unemployment benefits are a small fraction of a regular wage, so this doesn’t seem to make much sense on the surface. To use our examples here, people are really going to forego $1000 a week working, just to get $300 in unemployment benefits? Not likely, and not for long.

    Quoting economic research reported in The Economist, “Two researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that jobless workers who qualify for benefits have been unemployed, on average, only 1.6 weeks longer than those who don’t.” Ref: http://www.economist.com/node/16322800?story_id=16322800.

    Again, this suppors the realization that our political leaders feed us a lot of ideological orthodoxy, and not so much sound economics. They are more motivated to stir our passions (because that translates into votes) than to persuade our minds. Hopefully, some day, our great country can have an honest debate that recognizes our competing and contradictory short- and long-term needs.

    Thanks once more.

  10. bellalu0

    This article was written at the beginning 2008, and the discussion here is extending unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/01/Unemployment-Insurance-Does-Not-Stimulate-the-Economy

    We are now beyond 99 weeks and still talking about extending UI, and unemployment has risen now to 9.8. Whatever has been done in 2009/2010 is not working. Maybe the question should be what is “short term” in short term benefits. Regular unemployment is paid by the states for 26 weeks. The graph in the article you linked shows that benefits stayed at regular levels from 2004 until 2008 and has spiraled to record highs since then and still climbing. And it’s way up in the federal money contribution. Following the “unemployment benefits stimulates job growth” logic, there should be a record overflow of new jobs.

  11. The Argument is between economic models Austrian vs Keynesian, we tried Keynesian.

    http://www.axiospress.com/books/Where%20Keynes%20Went%20Wrong/Excerpts.html

    In the words of Ronald Reagan I’m not worried about the deficit it’s plenty big enough to take care of it’s self.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/deficit-chicken-hawks-vs-ronald-reagan/

    Ronald Reagan we’re going to turn the bulls loose – When they put up bill board signs that say miss me yet it should be pictures of Reagan.

  12. We could take care of the deficit by applying a tariff on Chinese’s products, and spur domestic production and jobs here at home but every time it’s brought up you hear the free trader’s pols screaming “protectionism”

    Because Free Trade has become a sacred rail or something.

  13. I don’t usually agree with Pat Buchanan, because I don’t think the answer to our wows is a bunker mentality, but he does make his point on Free Trade.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2007/02/27/free_trade_and_funny_math

  14. bellalu0

    KJ, I’d like to know who thought it was a good idea to borrow money from China. Now, if we did want to tariff their products, they could demand payment.

  15. Bella

    Our two economies are too inter-twined it would be ugly, but there are other countries like India that would love to fill a bigger import role with the U.S. when it comes to consuming everyone wants a piece of the U.S. consumer. China is aware there is competition.

    The Chinese are not innovators they steal technology- they are dependent not independent. They are swimming in cheap labor. Even importing cheap low skilled illegal alien labor our U.S. companies can’t compete. (There is a reason behind U.S. companies wanting a free flow of cheap low skilled laborers) I remember back in either Clinton or Bush’s terms that the Chinese were using “Free” prison labor – that’s against the law, but we can’t compete against a country that is basically using slave labor.

    It takes Leadership with a spine. The Bush family has investments in China they weren’t ever going to challenge the status quo. I bet a President Sarah Palin would work something more equitable out with the Chinese.

    Obama threatens too, but I have seen no follow through. When The Fed started printing money, the Chinese were screaming because the Fed are basically devaluing our dollar. Like the Chinese do all the time with their yuan to artificially effect our trade deficit with them.

  16. bellalu0

    A little OT, but looks as though the left and the right are going to meet on the other side of the moon in their disgust with Obama. Funny how that is turning out. He is now seen as a weak and inexperienced leader and, frankly, it was so obvious he was weak and inexperienced Before he was elected.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132307-angry-left-sees-refusal-to-fight-as-crippling-2012-reelection-bid

    He always voted present and did not make hard decisions, his big claim to fame being his opposition to the Iraq war, which was not courageous at all because he was not in a position to even vote on it at the time, and the speech was made at an anti-war rally in Chicago.

    But that aside, is not compromise what we have been hearing incessantly is what is desired, “we must work together”, “overcome the partisan divide” and the minute he compromises, he is toast. So now we see proof that to the left, compromise means we win, you lose.

    I heard some on the right think the republicans caved. There really is a vast divide in this country. Is there any middle ground?

    There is some talk it may not even be a done deal.

  17. bellalu0

    As to Julian Assange: Who’s your daddy?

  18. bellalu0

    Wait a minute. The 2% payroll tax reduction offered by Obama is a FICA reduction not income tax reduction. I wonder if that 2 percent is going into the employee check or if it is an employer reduction or split between the two. Just interesting that the big “tax” break is coming out of money (supposedly) collected to fund social security and medicare. Of course, the unemployed pay no FICA or taxes for that matter. (I don’t think unemployment benefits are subject to payroll deductions).

  19. Bella

    That’s been the discussion for the last couple of days the left is angry with Obama for moving to the middle. Never mind he should have done it sooner.

    Bill O’Reilly is right, politically come 2012 if you are a far left zealot it’s not like you are going to chose the Republican candidate over Obama.

    Imus Guest Bill O’Reilly, Frank Rich is A pinhead for his: All the President’s Captors article. Mr Rich’s theory the President suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, the Republicans have taken him hostage.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/12/bill-oreilly-frank-rich-is-pinhead.html

  20. The more I think about it, it seems just desserts. The Democrats deserve Obama, and he deserves the Democrats.

  21. bellalu0

    Laree, they are really diggin’ that hostage syndrome thing, aren’t they?

    Taking it to the extreme – I have heard it so many times. Even a woman who was supposed to be a rank and file democrat used the term. Then afterward, somebody explained that she was more or less an operative. Well, it was obvious. She got the memo.

    I agree with you. They do deserve each other. I hope they all stew in the same pot myself. After reading some of the comments around the “internets” I am wondering if some of the Obama (maybe ex) supporters would like to borrow some of the tea party signs. LOL.

  22. bellalu0

    God bless you, Elizabeth Edwards. May you rest in peace.

    She must have been very sick when she went home the other day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s