From what I see, hear and live the above is commonplace more often than not.
So how does this create a million jobs? Carney/Obama's theory seems to think people are rich when they get unemployment insurance and they will go spend and shop creating jobs? On UI you go to the grocery store and pay basic bills, barely. You don't go out and buy extravagant things or eat out. They are all on crack
This is so stupid, I can’t believe he said this, or that the other dems they’ve trotted out including nancy all say unemployment insurance actually creates jobs. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING....HELLO....AND GIVE IT TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT. It’s just money exchanging hands, but, it’s the same amount of money(actually it’s probably less money). How in the heck does that create a job?
Didn’t Pelosi say this over a year ago as well?
I can't believe that Carney actually believes this crap he spews.
Moreover, I can't believe he expects those listening to believe it.
Carney, you moron, for every dollar given out for unemployment, several are taxed or borrowed out of the economy, COSTING jobs.
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy, you idiot?!!!
Based on Carney’s reasoning, maybe we should extend unemployment benefits to the 95% of the world’s population who are not American citizens or green card holders. Think about all the jobs that would create.
The hell with unemployment benefits how about employment.
Putting 25 million un/under employed back earning money, paying taxes and buying things would solve a lot of our problems.
and also beer and lottery tickets
D. oh.
How does this create jobs?
The same way smashing windows “creates jobs.”
Next we'll be promoting our latest "green manufacturing job". The one where we start manufacturing those generators that produce enough energy to run itself and everything else we need.
If we just wish really, really hard we can make it so...I promise.
hahahahahahahaha
these people are morons
This is from and email exchange with a lib friend from several months ago, but it seems to fit this discussion...
The recent battles over whether to let the tax rates set in 2001 and 2003 expire and the accompanying battle over whether to extend unemployment payments past the 99 week maximum have led to some logically flawed assertions. My personal favorite is “the unemployed, unlike the rich…, are, in fact, the job creators.” I think I follow the logic, flawed though it might be. The idea is that money given to the unemployed will be spent on consumer items creating demand that will then be satisfied with higher production. Inclusion of the phrase “unlike the rich” suggests that this argument is being combined with the desire of the left to raise the tax rates on “the rich” to pay for the extended unemployment payments. That is where the logic breaks down.
Put in real terms, this idea consists of taking money from a business to give to an individual so that individual can turn around and buy products from the business. No wealth is created in this scenario, it is only transferred, by force, from the business to the individual… from those that produced the wealth to those that did not. (Or if you prefer, from those who have accumulated work tokens to those that have not.)
And, of course, the waste inherent in the transfer actually adds an additional loss for the business because a portion gets siphoned off to pay for the government bureaucracy that uses the force to take the money in the first place.
There are only three ways this scenario can be financed, taking money from producers as discussed above, paying out the money with debt or literally printing more money.
If the unemployment or other “entitlement” benefits are paid with debt, the net effect is still negative because the higher national debt dampens future wealth creation because the service on that debt will have to be paid with future wealth… although this scenario offers the only real hope of a stimulating effect.
If the payments are made with money that was simply created from the treasury, the net effect is also negative because the dollars being used are worth less because quantitative easing simply divides existing wealth into more individual dollars, it does not increase the total wealth. Remember, wealth is simply accumulated work tokens. If you print more paper representations of work tokens than there are actual work tokens, each piece of paper is worth fewer work tokens.
Even corresponding spending cuts that offset the cost of the unemployment payments have only modest simulative effect since the debt is already high and the expenditures in other government programs would be lowered thereby taking that money out of play and putting it in play in another area… namely unemployment payments.
All this ignores the simple fact that “giving” a reduction in tax rates (even though this is maintaining an existing tax rate) is not the same as giving money. Maintaining a lower tax rate or cutting a tax rate is NOT TAKING THE MONEY in the first place. It doesn’t go on the expense side of the ledger, but on the income side.
I’m sure the next argument is that all the rich people are not, in fact, business owners. I really don’t know how many are and neither does anyone else. Presumably, most of the top earners are stockholders in various companies. That makes them at least part owner. They may not have a controlling interest or be in a position to affect hiring decisions, but their investment in a company puts more funds under the control of those that do have hiring control. Even if the rich only put the money in the bank, the bank uses that money to lend to businesses and individuals or to invest in businesses.
Giving… and I mean really giving… money or any other “stuff” to the people who do not produce has no simulative effect. NOT taking it away from people of any income level but especially not taking more from the best producers…“the rich”… does. Giving money to non-producers generates no wealth unless the recipients perform some service of some value… in other words produce.
So, if we carry this nonsense to its logical conclusion, the economy will get better as more people go on unemployment.
Just another circular argument from the left. The Marxist social justice idiots know nothing but ideology. They have no concept of what an economy is or what makes it grow. They truly believe there is a fixed amount of dollars and the only way to get their piece is to take it from the rich. It just does not occur to them to earn it on their own.
They have nothing but contempt for intellectual and monetary risk takers who think of something new that people need or want, get it manufactured, distributed and marketed. They do not understand that capitalism rewards successful risk takers. Marxism’s “from each according to his means and to each according to his needs” mantra discourages risk takers because there is no reward. Marxism does not even reward those who work hard. Tokens like the Order of Lenin Medal do not improve an individual’s or a society’s standard of living. That is why all Marxist states ultimately fail. Marxism simply flies in the face of human nature.
I just don’t see how unemployment benefits create jobs. People that need them are not buying houses, cars, restaurant dining, Blu-ray DVD players, riding lawnmowers, plasma tvs, and related. Can some reporter with backbone ask Carney the type of millions of jobs he is talking about? Expenditures for basic sustenance does create jobs. It allows someone to exist in a steady state, allows grocery stores to receive their business, and it allows utilities, auto loans to be paid.
Let’s all go on unemployment and sling this bitch into overdrive!
What he really meant to say was “create or save”. That way no matter what happens they can claim that they saved million jobs that would have been lost.
If the Carney opposition had any brains they would use this. This is a great explanation of liberal economics. He just admitted their plan to improve the economy depends on people making just enough money to get by. This implies they want people to have no savings and no safety net. Of course when he grows up,if, he will understand life is not linear. Transmissions fall out, people get very sick, life changes. Everyone needs savings and should not be forced to spend every dime to survive. Come on folks, get this out there.
Holy crap. Extreme idiocy on parade. Common sense is no longer something most people have I’m afraid.
"Perpetual Motion Machine" economics?
"Cold Fusion" economics?
"Have Your Cake and Eat it Too" economics?
Yeah, it will all be ‘spent’ - for food, mortgage, gas, etc = duh.
As will that much and MORE from someone still bringing home a paycheck - it's called the necessities of life.
But someone with a paycheck will spend MORE - even if they DO - gasp - SAVE some.
Those who save are now considered what? Unpatriotic? criminals?
What a bunch of gibberish. This was Nanny P's bright statement a few months ago...that unemployment was the greatest boon to the economy.
How long do we suffer these ignoramuses? Actually, they don't believe it for a minute. They just have such disdain for the lowly, unwashed, public that they think we'll swallow the hype - tripe?