Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs--200,000 More Than O

Cowboy · Dec 17, 2011

Unbeleivable!!!! I wonder how she comes up with this crap, and why the other democrats havn't put her in a friggen straight jacket yet. :doh:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60jJRT_ppAY&feature=player_embedded"]Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs--200,000 More Than Obamacare! - YouTube[/ame]

thcri · Dec 17, 2011

So it did not create jobs the first time around why would it today?

squerly · Dec 17, 2011

She always looks like she's on crack and someone shoved a stick up her ass.

Kane · Dec 17, 2011

You see, the tragic thing is the woman actually believes this stuff. Sad, really.

Best thing to do is just smile at her and say yes, Nancy, yes, Nancy. Now why don't you just go back to San Fran, hand out condoms and watch that nobody gets circumcised. Leave governing to the sane people.
.

EastTexFrank · Dec 17, 2011

Kane said:
You see, the tragic thing is the woman actually believes this stuff. Sad, really.
.

What's really sad is that we are allowing lying bastards like that to run our country. I'm sorry but one of my hot buttons is politicians and public servants who flat out lie to the people they are supposed to be representing. As you can imagine, I spend a lot of time pissed off.

FrancSevin · Dec 17, 2011

EastTexFrank said:
What's really sad is that we are allowing lying bastards like that to run our country. I'm sorry but one of my hot buttons is politicians and public servants who flat out lie to the people they are supposed to be representing. As you can imagine, I spend a lot of time pissed off.

I disagree. Nancy Pelosi represents the SanFransico and Californians whoe elected her. I know far too many from out their and they actually and militantly believe this Bull Shit.

She is just a victim of the process. Not her fault. Our beef should be with them not her.

joec · Dec 17, 2011

Actually guys if you really think about it unemployment benefits can add jobs. People can pay bill they couldn't otherwise pay including food, utilities etc. This keeps people employed that might otherwise be laid off in the retail business. Also the will also buy some items that might keep others employed. Now that handles the jobs it saves, no as for making more jobs the more money spent by consumers the better for everyone hence more jobs to fill the need once inventories begin to drop. As for the number they arrive at that is pretty much a guess but figure between unemployment and a tax cut amounting to about $1500 a year though not much the aggregate of which could mean a serious number of jobs it either saves or creates. Just a simple fact of economics 101 to sell goods one must be able to buy said goods. It probably does more good in the long run than tax breaks do for the wealthy as how has that worked out since the taxes where cut? I sure don't see more jobs but do see less, so a tax cut for the "job creators" is pretty much not a good proposition really.

squerly · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
Actually guys if you really think about it unemployment benefits can add jobs. People can pay bill they couldn't otherwise pay including food, utilities etc. This keeps people employed that might otherwise be laid off in the retail business. Also the will also buy some items that might keep others employed. Now that handles the jobs it saves, no as for making more jobs the more money spent by consumers the better for everyone hence more jobs to fill the need once inventories begin to drop. As for the number they arrive at that is pretty much a guess but figure between unemployment and a tax cut amounting to about $1500 a year though not much the aggregate of which could mean a serious number of jobs it either saves or creates. Just a simple fact of economics 101 to sell goods one must be able to buy said goods. It probably does more good in the long run than tax breaks do for the wealthy as how has that worked out since the taxes where cut? I sure don't see more jobs but do see less, so a tax cut for the "job creators" is pretty much not a good proposition really.

Or... you can lower the tax rate that busienss pay so that they can invest in their trade, produce more, make more moeny, hire more people and presto... Joec, you have bought into the liberal mentality that the govenrment can do better things with OUR money than we can.

joec · Dec 17, 2011

squerly said:
Or... you can lower the tax rate that busienss pay so that they can invest in their trade, produce more, make more moeny, hire more people and presto... Joec, you have bought into the liberal mentality that the govenrment can do better things with OUR money than we can.

Well facts are facts and if no one can buy your goods you can't make money. Take out those that actually buy the most in our sociality and it doesn't matter what a business tax rate is now does it? Nothing liberal just a fact of how economies work in this system. We don't have a shortage problem we have a demand problem.

squerly · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
Well facts are facts and if no one can buy your goods you can't make money. Take out those that actually buy the most in our sociality and it doesn't matter what a business tax rate is now does it? Nothing liberal just a fact of how economies work in this system. We don't have a shortage problem we have a demand problem.

Sorry Joe, the facts are that if the government gives away money (doesn't matter the amount, the result is the same) it may make some temp jobs. But when the money runs out, the jobs run out. If you give the moeny to the people who create jobs (generally by not taking it away from them in the first place) the jobs that are created are more permenant type, and the cycle will continue.

Kane · Dec 17, 2011

Save or create 600,000 jobs? Just more liberal elite "macro-economics" BS. Now, no one says we shouldn't continue to help those in need, but anybody that has ever been near the unemployment insurance predicament knows that the money will go towards four and only four things: 1) food, 2) paying off past due rent and/or mortgages, 3) paying down debt, and/or 4) adding or creating a small bit of savings.

Unemployment insurance dollars simply do not go towards saving or a growing the economy. It goes for the bank, the cattleman or the illegal immigrants picking lettuce. Not for the carmakers or Chinese-made flat-screen TV's.

But how would Pelosi know? Government has always been the answer.

Whynot · Dec 17, 2011

squerly said:
Or... you can lower the tax rate that busienss pay so that they can invest in their trade, produce more, make more moeny, hire more people and presto...

I am so tired of hearing that lowering the tax rate is the answer. The idea is sound, but it would require that these companies actually do what you say they will after the tax rate is lowered.

Large companies have no real reason to do so. Many of them are seeing record profits by taking advantage of huge tax breaks, using a skeleton crew, and cutting the "perks" of the employees that are left, using the economy as an excuse for the cuts, but again seeing record profits. So changing the tax rate on them would mean more money in Wall Street's pockets and still the same employment numbers.

As for small business, around here if its a service related business, providing customers with outstanding service, they too are making a lot of money (good for them!). But if they are already making more money then ever, a new tax rate isn't likely going to get them to expand. Why take on the headache of more employees with the way the work ethic is today? I hear it time and time again, can't find good reliable help.

Sorry for the rant, but the truth of the matter is the past and present leadership has ran manufacturing out of this country, and has been giving too many incentives to companies to take their business off shore. We are a service related economy now and there are only so many people to service, so until manufacturing makes a come back here in the USA, we will have a stagnat economy no matter what is done.

squerly · Dec 17, 2011

Feel better now Whynot?

Not evey business is on Wall Street, and not all of us are creating goods over seas. I used to have 13 empolyees, now I have 8. We downsized, not because were greedy bastards that are making lots of money but because we were hurt by a failing economy and could no longer keep them. So we run a lot thinner today, but we would really like to hire some of them back. Know what hasn't changed? The 38% that the government takes from me. If i could keep another 10% of that I would be able to take some of the preasure off my remaining 8 employees and hire back a couple of the others back.

Just the facts my man...

joec · Dec 17, 2011

Kane said:
Save or create 600,000 jobs? Just more liberal elite "macro-economics" BS. Now, no one says we shouldn't continue to help those in need, but anybody that has ever been near the unemployment insurance predicament knows that the money will go towards four and only four things: 1) food, 2) paying off past due rent and/or mortgages, 3) paying down debt, and/or 4) adding or creating a small bit of savings.

Unemployment insurance dollars simply do not go towards saving or a growing the economy. It goes for the bank, the cattleman or the illegal immigrants picking lettuce. Not for the carmakers or Chinese-made flat-screen TV's.

But how would Pelosi know? Government has always been the answer.

Ah and they spend this money in stores that sell food, clothing, drugstores etc as well as for rent and utilities. Now if they don't buy who keeps those employees working I have to ask, then what more on unemployment perhaps. I'm just saying guys our economy is complicated and depends on a lot of moving parts to function. Some of those parts have stopped functioning hence our problems now. The government with unemployment is a temporary fix to keep it going till the damaged parts can repair itself.

thcri · Dec 17, 2011

Kane said:
Save or create 600,000 jobs? money will go towards four and only four things: 1) food, 2) paying off past due rent and/or mortgages, 3) paying down debt, and/or 4) adding or creating a small bit of savings.

When a person/family is on Unemployment the money goes to food, rent and utilities in that order. There is not enough there to do anything else.

Whynot said:
I am so tired of hearing that lowering the tax rate is the answer. The idea is sound, but it would require that these companies actually do what you say they will after the tax rate is lowered.

You are right. The government will never get its ass out of trouble by cutting taxes. But the idiots better find a way to start cutting cost or raising or lowering taxes wont' mean shit.

Whynot said:
Large companies have no real reason to do so. Many of them are seeing record profits by taking advantage of huge tax breaks, using a skeleton crew, and cutting the "perks" of the employees that are left, using the economy as an excuse for the cuts, but again seeing record profits. So changing the tax rate on them would mean more money in Wall Street's pockets and still the same employment numbers.

I think you are painting all business with a very wide brush. There is some large companies doing what you say but that is not the norm. You take the backbone business's of 100 people or less and that is not true. I have done nothing but borrow money to keep things going this last two years. If business makes that much money then why don't we have more people in business?

joec said:
Ah and they spend this money in stores that sell food, clothing, drugstores etc as well as for rent and utilities.

Spending the money on food yes, but for the most part the rent gets behind and everything else when you are on unemployment. Unemployment may have saved some jobs but it sure as heck don't create any. As for the grocery stores, I don't think having the Unemployed buying there changes much for staff.

joec · Dec 17, 2011

thcri said:
Spending the money on food yes, but for the most part the rent gets behind and everything else when you are on unemployment. Unemployment may have saved some jobs but it sure as heck don't create any. As for the grocery stores, I don't think having the Unemployed buying there changes much for staff.

Really and if people buy their food due to little money from say Burger King etc which they do tend to do doesn't keep those places in business. How about the ones that supply other things most of us take for granted or gas for one car to get to the store. These things need money regardless to stay in business no matter how one sees it. The economy is based on supply and demand period and no supply or demand it will die. The problem now is demand not supply, no demand as in the case of your business you have to borrow money to keep people working as you stated. Now how long can you keep doing that before you close your doors? It is the same regardless of the business one is in. The problem is manufacturing is mostly gone overseas for a lot of reasons so we are reduced to a country of service workers with 4 people for every available job out there.

Our tax system needs to be fixed I will grant you, however our pressing problem is getting people back to work at a wage they can by goods other than pure necessities such as cars, appliances etc. The middle class has been decimated in this country over the last 30 years. Low income levels are now at almost 1 in 2 people in this country according to the latest census report just out this last week. Meanwhile the cost of everything has gone up substantially from food to rent to gas. Trickle down economics is not the answer and that has pretty well be proven not to work.

Melensdad · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
Actually guys if you really think about it unemployment benefits can add jobs.

I disagree. Unemployment benefits may, to a very small extent, help to keep some jobs in place but they will not ADD any new jobs.

There is a huge difference between ADDING jobs and potentially helping to maintain jobs.

thcri · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
Really and if people buy their food due to little money from say Burger King

My point is they are buying food and pretty much only food. This is not helping our economy nor does it create jobs in my opinion.

Whynot · Dec 17, 2011

squerly said:
Feel better now Whynot?

Not evey business is on Wall Street, and not all of us are creating goods over seas. I used to have 13 empolyees, now I have 8. We downsized, not because were greedy bastards that are making lots of money but because we were hurt by a failing economy and could no longer keep them. So we run a lot thinner today, but we would really like to hire some of them back. Know what hasn't changed? The 38% that the government takes from me. If i could keep another 10% of that I would be able to take some of the preasure off my remaining 8 employees and hire back a couple of the others back.

Just the facts my man...

You may be one of good guys and if so, I thank you. But the fact remains that if you paid less taxes, the way the system is setup now, I would have to pick up the slack for your business paying less in taxes. That is unacceptable since I already pay in the 5 figures towards income tax, on an average salary for here (nj). Add to that high property taxes and sales tax on everything I buy, and I'm willing to bet I'm taxed at or over 38%. If I had 10% of that back I might be able to purchase what you sell/manufacture.

I guess we can agree that everyone would be ok with a tax cut if the Gov't gets their spending in check? Until then a tax cut just can't happen...

Whynot · Dec 17, 2011

thcri said:
i think you are painting all business with a very wide brush. There is some large companies doing what you say but that is not the norm. You take the backbone business's of 100 people or less and that is not true. I have done nothing but borrow money to keep things going this last two years. If business makes that much money then why don't we have more people in

I was and for that I apologize. There are only two types of business here, large utility corporations and 1-10 employee shops, so I tend to forget about the others.

joec · Dec 17, 2011

thcri said:
My point is they are buying food and pretty much only food. This is not helping our economy nor does it create jobs in my opinion.

So what you are saying is some jobs help the economy more than others and food service is low on your list? Perhaps you should tell that to the many waitress/waiter that work for less than minimum wage and mostly for tips. Which by the way many are taxed on at 10% of each check they serve regardless of the tip. Oh and many of those people also work for a small business call a restaurant or grocery store. I guess next you will say that food costs don't count, however they sure do and have gone up considerably over the last 5 years as well as continue to go up almost daily.

thcri · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
So what you are saying is some jobs help the economy more than others and food service is low on your list? Perhaps you should tell that to the many waitress/waiter that work for less than minimum wage and mostly for tips. Which by the way many are taxed on at 10% of each check they serve regardless of the tip. Oh and many of those people also work for a small business call a restaurant or grocery store. I guess next you will say that food costs don't count, however they sure do and have gone up considerably over the last 5 years as well as continue to go up almost daily.

Give it a break. These people that you are talking about are eating every day whether they are on unemployment or not. So no change to the economy. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Cowboy · Dec 17, 2011

thcri said:
Give it a break. These people that you are talking about are eating every day whether they are on unemployment or not. So no change to the economy. Stop putting words in my mouth.

joec · Dec 17, 2011

thcri said:
Give it a break. These people that you are talking about are eating every day whether they are on unemployment or not. So no change to the economy. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Really they are? Well I'll take your word for that but food in this country is a large part of our economy from growing it, moving it to market to selling it. This all costs money, money is what makes our economy go around that is my point here. I don't seem to understand if someone needs something to survive they will get it and I know better since I've seen people go without food due to no money and use junk to eat to survive.

Besides the jobs are created by farming, trucking, processing etc. All of those are real jobs which we all help keep going by simply eating.

thcri · Dec 17, 2011

Cowboy · Dec 17, 2011

joec said:
Really they are? Well I'll take your word for that but food in this country is a large part of our economy from growing it, moving it to market to selling it. This all costs money, money is what makes our economy go around that is my point here. I don't seem to understand if someone needs something to survive they will get it and I know better since I've seen people go without food due to no money and use junk to eat to survive.

Besides the jobs are created by farming, trucking, processing etc. All of those are real jobs which we all help keep going by simply eating.

Just admit it Joe , you think Pelosi is hawt and dont want nobody badmouthing her. :yankchain:

joec · Dec 17, 2011

Cowboy said:
Just admit it Joe , you think Pelosi is hawt and dont want nobody badmouthing her.

Cowboy first off I think Pelosi is a waste of energy but I do understand the point unemployment payments help keep the economy going short term. You know you have got to use your common sense if you still can and stop with the attacks due to some political point of view. Cut off unemployment in this country right now with the large number of them and it will probably lead to something worse than the last great depression. :w00t2:

squerly · Dec 17, 2011

I still think she has a stick up her butt.

FrancSevin · Dec 18, 2011

Guys,,,the actual cost of unemployemnt benefits is not carried by the tax payer. In the fina lanalysis, when the bill comes, it comes in the mail to the employer.
Unemployment contributions are made based aona formula proportional to your payroll and ratioed to your layioff rate. if you lay off often you pay a higher rate. If you have a lot of employees you pay more money.

So, knowing that everytime you hire someone, you put at risk your bottom line, an employer tends to be very conservative in their hiring of new employees. This does not encourage new hiring.

We have gone from about fifty emploees to 30. Last month, instead of hiring to keep up with added business, we just went to overtime. It is cheaper than adding new hires who we might later lay off and force a bigger bill from the State.

DC may be approving these extended benefits, but they are not sending out much cash to cover it. Right now, the extra costs of these extended benefits is being covered by a surcharge on our current rates. You can bet we are keeping our payroll down as low as possible.

How is that creating any new jobs? It doesn't.

Truth is many companies are awash with cash. Allthe while harboring survivalist strategies. Many are stifling growth and missing opportunities. Many are investing the cash in alternatives to hiring. Automation or outsourcing. Extending unemployment doesn't change those survivalist strategies.

Bottom line is that unless you allow a business the ability to grow, take out the certainty of uncertainty, none will expand no matter how much cash is floating about.

squerly · Dec 18, 2011

FrancSevin said:
Guys,,,the actual cost of unemployemnt benefits is not carried by the tax payer. In the fina lanalysis, when the bill comes, it comes in the mail to the employer.
Unemployment contributions are made based aona formula proportional to your payroll and ratioed to your layioff rate. if you lay off often you pay a higher rate. If you have a lot of employees you pay more money.

So, knowing that everytime you hire someone, you put at risk your bottom line, an employer tends to be very conservative in their hiring of new employees. This does not encourage new hiring.

We have gone from about fifty emploees to 30. Last month, instead of hiring to keep up with added business, we just went to overtime. It is cheaper than adding new hires who we might later lay off and force a bigger bill from the State.

DC may be approving these extended benefits, but they are not sending out much cash to cover it. Right now, the extra costs of these extended benefits is being covered by a surcharge on our current rates. You can bet we are keeping our payroll down as low as possible.

How is that creating any new jobs? It doesn't.

Truth is many companies are awash with cash. Allthe while harboring survivalist strategies. Many are stifling growth and missing opportunities. Many are investing the cash in alternatives to hiring. Automation or outsourcing. Extending unemployment doesn't change those survivalist strategies.

Bottom line is that unless you allow a business the ability to grow, take out the certainty of uncertainty, none will expand no matter how much cash is floating about.

Well said Franc

Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs--200,000 More Than O

Wait for it.

Gone But Not Forgotten

Supported Ben Carson

New member

Well-known member

Proudly Deplorable

New member

Supported Ben Carson

New member

Supported Ben Carson

New member

New member

Supported Ben Carson

New member

Gone But Not Forgotten

New member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Gone But Not Forgotten

New member

New member

New member

Gone But Not Forgotten

Wait for it.

New member

Gone But Not Forgotten

Wait for it.

New member

Supported Ben Carson

Proudly Deplorable

Supported Ben Carson