Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs

that would appear to be a very stupid question since I explained in the quote you cited what velocity means. It originates from the Latin Velocitas which means swiftness, as in an actual thing moving not as in mental capabilities.

I am confused by your hostile tone as I have been agreeing with you throughout this discourse. That is very rude and insulting, suggesting that I am ignorant.

I am leaving now. I hope you enjoy being all alone with all the people you think little of.

goodnight.

 

I now have no clue what you are talking about. But that is normal on this forum. You guys have obviously never read a book in your lives.

 

Pelosi is an Elitist feminist snob.If you'll notice she acts,dresses and
appears very much like an uppity country club snob.
That is who she's playing to.That is why she is so obsessed with her
appearance.Look at the way she moves her lips and talks.
Like Leona Helmsely.Very rigid and proper and uppity.Very proud of
herself and smug.Her words are also rigid and rehearsed as if
part of putting on her makeup.
She hasn't an ounce of honesty or integrity in her entire
phoney baloney exterior.The worst part being she seems very at ease
with that persona.As if So What.She got what she craved.A Leadership
role in her Party.To be Miss Big Cream Cheese.Boss lady.Decides
who and what gives.
She will rightfully go down as THE Most arrogant and selfish House
Speaker of all time.

 

that is an insulting post and defiles both the letter and the spirit of the mission statement of this forum.

It is also elitist and demeaning and contains not one reference to the subject matter of the OP in direct violation of the rules of the forum.

 

Wow. And here I thought she was just another rich liberal with a good wardrobe and an expensive face lift.

 

extending unemployment creates demand for workers

 

That's it. We should go out and read some weak sauce that has brought the world to its knees, riddled with debt.

So does mass genocide, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

Pssst....the debt wasn't created by poor people (just so you know).

 

No crap. When someone espouses their intelligence and regards books as lending to their advantage, the topic and legitimacy of the substance in the books is drawn into question. Considering the general topic is economics, I drew from his comments on this board to determine that he was in fact referring to books supporting the economic path that has produced our current abysmal results. While the poor people did not create the debt, they do not escape a portion of the responsibility for it.

 

That's crapitalism for ya. It's "just business" I guess.

 

Life isn't that bad

 

All your posts are a thinly veiled attempt to be disrespectful. I have no sympathy for you.

 

Oddly enough, this is coming from the guy that thinks, it's wise fiscal policy to either create money out of thin air, with nothing to back it, or too borrow money from until we're trillions of dollars in debt.

This leads me to believe that much like global warming alarmist, Keynesian belong too fanatical cult, they believe what they want to believe, no matter how destructive or nonsensical the consequences of their actions are.

 

dude, at least 50% of walmarts money goes out of the country to pay for everything chinese in the store. the employees probably account for 5% of walmarts total revenues.

Anyways, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ONLY LEAD TO MORE UNEMPLOYMENT. Stability in the economy arises when people are able to save and retain value of their money. Stimulus reduces the value of savins, which erodes the market's ability to create new jobs.

Other countries have stopped unemployment benefits and indirectly forced those people to go back to work. Unemployment benefits serve as a disincentive to work.

 

Didnt realize you were being sarcastic.. lol sorry bout that

 

Oh no!

I am so crushed. How will I go on?

 

Well then eliminating unemployment meets that demand.
Take Dat.

 

That theory is wrong. There is no single relationship between aggregate demand and employment.

 

Whenever the Box of Hair from San FranFreakshow or The Kenyan Tyrant say "Economists Agree"........

........they mean Krugman and Reich.......while omitting all economists with active brain waves.
.
.
.
.

 

Perhaps Obama should make the unemployment checks permanent.........as well as increase the number of unemployed.......

.......that should really get demand going and the economy booming.

Liberal economics resides in Imaginationland.....
.
.
.

 

Come on dude, you dont ACTUALLY think she believes any of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) she says, do you? She knows it's factually incorrect, but that does not matter to these people. It's that elitist mentality. She will say whatever she wants as long as it makes her look good.

 

What do you mean nothing to back it? We have $15 trillion of productivity backing our dollars. If creating new money creates new productivity, than there is something backing those dollars. It's something you guys fail to understand.

 

What I'm gathering from the argument thus far is that some people believe that it's a bad idea to "pay people for not working."

Unemployment insurance may be annoying when you have to pay into it every month whether you like it or not, but at least if you end up unemployed you can say that you're only drawing on money that you already set aside for that exact purpose.

So I don't think the "pay people for not working" argument is accurate. That's just a turn of phrase that triggers an emotional response.

The other argument I'm seeing against what Pelosi is saying is that putting money into the hands of poor people just ends up putting it in the hands of the Chinese, or Taiwan, or wherever the crappy knock-off products people can actually afford come from. But that's not really an argument against unemployment insurance, that's an argument against poor people having money from any source.

I don't think that argument works, since we all do agree that spending at all economic levels is necessary for the economy to work. Right?

And even if the money does go to China, unless these poor people are somehow getting on a plane and spending their money in China, the money still has to pass through the hands of stores in America, which creates jobs in America.

So, while I still don't know if Pelosi is right about anything, the arguments against her haven't convinced me that she must be wrong about anything, either.

 

Explain more, please.

 

No....your drawing other people's money.....especially your employer's money.....who is paying you not to work.

The majority of those collecting unemployment paid NOWHERE NEAR the amount they siphon. Its not a savings account....its more like a Ponzi Scheme.

Paying People Not To Work is exactly what it is..........

Unemployment checks only ensure more unemployment........there is no economic benefit from them what so ever.......just the opposite.

She isnt.....
.
.
.