OMG Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy

[The Rabbi]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

 

[The T]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

Agreed. Keeps them from becoming lazy and further ensconced in government handouts while sitting on thier asses.

 

[The T]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

WE don't mind a safety net. We however object to them being a burden on the rest of s whom pay the bills by turning the net into a hammock and setting up housekeeping in that hammock.

 

[Full-Auto]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

WE don't mind a safety net. We however object to them being a burden on the rest of s whom pay the bills by turning the net into a hammock and setting up housekeeping in that hammock.

Good arguments have been presented.

But on the other side of the coin. A government policy put them out of work.

The argument about were paying is a failing one. We borrow.

 

[Bfgrn]

I still say let folks have the first six months of unemployment insurance to look for a new job. Then if the government is going to insist that unemployment insurance be extended beyond that six months, require recipients to do six to eight hours a day of community service picking up trash or cleaning off graffiti or whatever in return for their unemployment check--they will be allowed time off from their community service work to go to job interviews.

I guarantee that if that is the policy, there won't be a whole lot of folks needing unemployment insurance extensions.

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

 

[The T]

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

WE don't mind a safety net. We however object to them being a burden on the rest of s whom pay the bills by turning the net into a hammock and setting up housekeeping in that hammock.

Good arguments have been presented.

But on the other side of the coin. A government policy put them out of work.

The argument about were paying is a failing one. We borrow.

Couldn't agree more.

Prescription? De-regulation...get Government the Hell out of the way.

And yes, it is that simple.

 

[The T]

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

So now you're moving the goal posts to prisons? Statists never met any criminals they didn't like.

Good move.

Idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

How is expecting somebody to work for what is provided for them intruding into anybody's life? If the person doesn't ask for somebody else's money, nothing at all will be required of him.

How is forcing somebody else to pay somebody not to work NOT intruding into people's lives?

 

[Full-Auto]

SO, you right wingers really don't have a problem with government dictating, controlling and intervening into people's lives. Hey maybe they could be forced to piss in a cup before their work on the chain gang.

You people are really fucked up...BIG time.

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

It sure was nice of Bill to incarcerate the most Blacks during his terms.

Heaven forbid we arrest and hold violent criminals.

A good argument to bring back the death penalty has it was intended.

 

[The T]

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

How is expecting somebody to work for what is provided for them intruding into anybody's life? If the person doesn't ask for somebody else's money, nothing at all will be required of him.

How is forcing somebody else to pay somebody not to work NOT intruding into people's lives?

I am seated and await the spin from BuFu...

 

[The Rabbi]

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

So now you're moving the goal posts to prisons? Statists never met any criminals they didn't like.

Good move.

Idiot.

And it is the Left that wants to criminalize activity. Like failing to support health insurance companies by buying their products. Aren't leftists supposed to be anti-corporation?
Yes, BigFuckingRetard loses the argument so has to deflect to something completely unrelated.

 

[Bfgrn]

You leftist loons have no problem doling out other people's money with no accountability.

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

How is expecting somebody to work for what is provided for them intruding into anybody's life? If the person doesn't ask for somebody else's money, nothing at all will be required of him.

How is forcing somebody else to pay somebody not to work NOT intruding into people's lives?

Why are you right wingers ALWAYS looking to dole out some form of punishment? You are the cousins of every totalitarian regime throughout history.

We have had to extend UE in other less severe recessions. Grow the **** up!

Unemployment Compensation

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.

Unemployment Compensation

 

[Foxfyre]

And you right wing slime have no problem doling out other people's money at $30,000-$40,000 per person per year to support the right wing Nanny State.

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...

[

How is expecting somebody to work for what is provided for them intruding into anybody's life? If the person doesn't ask for somebody else's money, nothing at all will be required of him.

How is forcing somebody else to pay somebody not to work NOT intruding into people's lives?

Why are you right wingers ALWAYS looking to dole out some form of punishment? You are the cousins of every totalitarian regime throughout history.

We have had to extend UE in other less severe recessions. Grow the **** up!

Unemployment Compensation

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.

Unemployment Compensation

How is it punishment to require somebody to work for what they receive? I am fully aware that employers pay unemployment compensation and am quite happy for the unemployed person to have the six months that allows to find a new job. But if he wants more than that six months, he should have to work for it. How is that punishment? He or she can have the time off to go to job interviews. But otherwise, why should he receive other people's money indefinitely while contributing nothing in return for it?

I guarantee you, there would be a fraction of the people drawing extended unemployment benefits if they were required to perform community service to get them. If they have to get their butt out of bed, get cleaned up and dressed to report to a community service job in return for a meager unemployment check, they'll be far more likely to take any better paying job that comes along.

You object to that? Why?

 

[Bfgrn]

How is expecting somebody to work for what is provided for them intruding into anybody's life? If the person doesn't ask for somebody else's money, nothing at all will be required of him.

How is forcing somebody else to pay somebody not to work NOT intruding into people's lives?

Why are you right wingers ALWAYS looking to dole out some form of punishment? You are the cousins of every totalitarian regime throughout history.

We have had to extend UE in other less severe recessions. Grow the **** up!

Unemployment Compensation

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271) created the Federal-State Unemployment Compensation (UC) Program. The program has two main objectives: (1) to provide temporary and partial wage replacement to involuntarily unemployed workers who were recently employed; and (2) to help stabilize the economy during recessions.

Unemployment Compensation

How is it punishment to require somebody to work for what they receive? I am fully aware that employers pay unemployment compensation and am quite happy for the unemployed person to have the six months that allows to find a new job. But if he wants more than that six months, he should have to work for it. How is that punishment? He or she can have the time off to go to job interviews. But otherwise, why should he receive other people's money indefinitely while contributing nothing in return for it?

I guarantee you, there would be a fraction of the people drawing extended unemployment benefits if they were required to perform community service to get them. If they have to get their butt out of bed, get cleaned up and dressed to report to a community service job in return for a meager unemployment check, they'll be far more likely to take any better paying job that comes along.

You object to that? Why?

I learned a long time ago that this axiom is absolutely true: It takes one to know one...

You know what, you right wingers are such scum bags. This post is so typical of the shit that comes from the right. You right wing scum always KNOW other people's actions and motivations. And you always look down on anyone that is down on their luck. But the truth is you DON'T know if unemployed sleep in or need to clean up, so all you are doing is giving us a real good picture of who and what YOU are, not them.

 

[Cuyo]

So will a decrease in unemployment cause an increase in unemployment?

Stopping unemployment insurance will cause an increase in unemployment.

It's really hard to believe that you could be that stupid...you just get a kick out of jerking people around don't you?

Wait a ******* second

You assholes are saying that unemployment (insurance) stimulates the economy

I'm saying that a decrease in people on unemployment should therefore hurt the economy and cause an increase in unemployment

And you're arguing with me?

Do you even know what you're saying?

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the bazillion subsequent pages which I'm not reading, but I'll lay it out (presumably, 'again.').

Stimulus is relative. Unemployment insurance stimulates the economy relative to an unemployed individual with no UE insurance. Nobody's saying it's relative to a working individual.

It helps to 'Stop the bleeding' so to speak. Piss broke is piss broke, and it spreads like a cancer.

 

[copsnrobbers]

I have no words except heaven help us.: What a freaking economic policy!!!

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett has adopted a stance on unemployment that is sure to infuriate many, arguing that it stimulates the economy because people who receive unemployment checks are going out and spending them, reports The Weekly Standard.


Here's another gem

“People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well,”



Valerie Jarrett: 'People Who Receive that Unemployment Check Go Out and Spend It and Help Stimulate the Economy' | The Weekly Standard

It just goes to show you how dumb the majority has become and assholes like V. Jarret know it while taking full advantage. Most (not all) Americans are a total disappointment. Especially the 18-30 crowd.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stopping unemployment insurance will cause an increase in unemployment.

It's really hard to believe that you could be that stupid...you just get a kick out of jerking people around don't you?

Wait a ******* second

You assholes are saying that unemployment (insurance) stimulates the economy

I'm saying that a decrease in people on unemployment should therefore hurt the economy and cause an increase in unemployment

And you're arguing with me?

Do you even know what you're saying?

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the bazillion subsequent pages which I'm not reading, but I'll lay it out (presumably, 'again.').

Stimulus is relative. Unemployment insurance stimulates the economy relative to an unemployed individual with no UE insurance. Nobody's saying it's relative to a working individual.

It helps to 'Stop the bleeding' so to speak. Piss broke is piss broke, and it spreads like a cancer.

Yes it has been covered.
Where do you suppose the money comes from for unemployment? It must be taxed or borrowed from someone else, diverting money used efficiently for money used inefficiently.
How is that a stimulus to anything except Democrats' re-election campaigns?

 

[pinqy]

Where do you suppose the money comes from for unemployment? It must be taxed or borrowed from someone else, diverting money used efficiently for money used inefficiently.

Ok, let's look at this. The money for UI comes from taxes on employers. The money is primarily from the states, supplemented as needed by the Federal government. So let's take away all taxes for UI. Would that mean that there would be no more unemployment? Of course not. So we'd still have people involuntarily laid off with no income or means to support themselves or their family until/unless they find a new job (which is almost never instantaneous).

In a recession/post-recession period, where large numbers of people are unemployed, this is worse, and the fewer people with income, the fewer people spending money, the lower the revenue for businesses.

It seems your claim is that without UI, none of this would happen or not be a major problem (if that's not your position, please clarify). But I don't see how that would work. How EXACTLY do you think the taxed amount would be used otherwise to alleviate these specific problems?

Yes, for some people, at some UI rates, there is a disincentive to work. I've never seen any data to suggest that at the relatively low benefits rate in the US that this has ever been a major issue (meaning while of course there is some abuse, it's not widespread and the harm from no programs at all would be worse).

Yes, the money could be used for other things, and probably more efficiently, but the NEED, efficient or not, is to alleviate the escalating problems of unemployment. During normal times, the 26 weeks from the state are more than adequate. Under current times, when average length of unemployment (for ALL people, not just those receiving benefits) is 40.1 weeks (mean...median is 21.1) it's clearly not.

I have pointed out the situation in Mexico, where there is no UI. Yes, the UE rate is lower, but for all the wrong reasons, and the results are just not good. Feel free to give another example of a place or modern time with no UI benefits where things work out just fine.

How is that a stimulus to anything except Democrats' re-election campaigns?

Because it puts money into the system at the right place and the right hands to improve things over no UI benefits. Yes, there can be a long-term cost from borrowing (though we should solve that by more efficient overall spending) but without taking care of the short run issue of unemployment, the long term costs would be higher.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So according to the Democrats unemployed should not be allowed to use ATM's.

Right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Where do you suppose the money comes from for unemployment? It must be taxed or borrowed from someone else, diverting money used efficiently for money used inefficiently.

Ok, let's look at this. The money for UI comes from taxes on employers. The money is primarily from the states, supplemented as needed by the Federal government. So let's take away all taxes for UI. Would that mean that there would be no more unemployment? Of course not. So we'd still have people involuntarily laid off with no income or means to support themselves or their family until/unless they find a new job (which is almost never instantaneous).

In a recession/post-recession period, where large numbers of people are unemployed, this is worse, and the fewer people with income, the fewer people spending money, the lower the revenue for businesses.

It seems your claim is that without UI, none of this would happen or not be a major problem (if that's not your position, please clarify). But I don't see how that would work. How EXACTLY do you think the taxed amount would be used otherwise to alleviate these specific problems?

Yes, for some people, at some UI rates, there is a disincentive to work. I've never seen any data to suggest that at the relatively low benefits rate in the US that this has ever been a major issue (meaning while of course there is some abuse, it's not widespread and the harm from no programs at all would be worse).

Yes, the money could be used for other things, and probably more efficiently, but the NEED, efficient or not, is to alleviate the escalating problems of unemployment. During normal times, the 26 weeks from the state are more than adequate. Under current times, when average length of unemployment (for ALL people, not just those receiving benefits) is 40.1 weeks (mean...median is 21.1) it's clearly not.

I have pointed out the situation in Mexico, where there is no UI. Yes, the UE rate is lower, but for all the wrong reasons, and the results are just not good. Feel free to give another example of a place or modern time with no UI benefits where things work out just fine.

How is that a stimulus to anything except Democrats' re-election campaigns?

Because it puts money into the system at the right place and the right hands to improve things over no UI benefits. Yes, there can be a long-term cost from borrowing (though we should solve that by more efficient overall spending) but without taking care of the short run issue of unemployment, the long term costs would be higher.

People could either purchase private UE insurance or actually have savings to tide them over. Since UE insurance is coming out of their paychecks they would end up with more money.
"Putting money in the rght hands" is a bullshit argument that has been disproven on many forms of tax cuts already. How do you put money in the right hands? You are taking the money from productive people and enterprises and putting it in the hands of unproductive people.