Unemployment Checks: The fastest way to Creat Jobs....

Well at least according to Nancy Pelosi:

Nancy Pelosi: "[Unemployment checks] create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

The money taken from Small Business in the form of unemployment insurance is a stimulus fund to create jobs according to the speaker.

So I guess what the speaker is trying to equate this to is that if we can more & more people collecting from unemployment, we can turn around this staggering unemployment figure.

Here is ARCHIE...



This is from 30years ago and the show producers hit it right on target back then.

Source











[edit on 2-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

When I first heard this I thought OMG thats the dumbest thing ive heard in quite a while , all the face lifts must have finally started squeezing her brain. But she goes on to explain that the money will be spent in the economy so she may have a point I guess .... sort of anyway .

wow. that is stupid. i know quite a few people on unemployment. they live on it. a close friend of mine took welding classes because they were going to end his unemployment if he didn't. he took the classes/is still taking them, and has no desire to do well or get a job. he views it as something to do while they pay his salary.

reply to post by bluemooone2


She is thinking about the flow money the way she wants it to flow.
Her Theory:

Taxpayer --> Government --> Unemployed --> To Business --> More Jobs.


In the reality of things, people who are unemployed are using these handouts to pay for shelter, feeding family, car insurance, & medical costs. Hardly the job creators.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

This creature needs cancer.

She is a cancer on the American people, and its time she reaped what she has sewn.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

She is thinking about the flow money the way she wants it to flow.
Her Theory:

Taxpayer --> Government --> Unemployed --> To Business --> More Jobs.


In the reality of things, people who are unemployed are using these handouts to pay for shelter, feeding family, car insurance, & medical costs. Hardly the job creators.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

Yup . IMO the Dems have it half-ass backwards most all of the time on just about everything.

Pelosi never said that!

That was a right wing blogger that started that lie. What she said was unemployment insurance "injects demand into the economy," which in turn, "is a job creator".

And according to most sane economist, she is absolutely right. For every 1 dollar spent on unemployment it generates $1.61 back into the economy. For Food Stamps, every dollar yields $1.71 back into the economy. These are highly stimulating programs.

CBO scores "increasing aid to the unemployed" as the highest-scoring policy proposal to stimulate economy. In a January 14 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2010 and 2011," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated:

Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.

According to a table in the report, CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effects on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the second highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered.

Here is the CBO director Douglas Elmendor: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.

A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved."

See? Unemployment checks=good for economy, and tax cuts =not so good.

But wait, that isn't what you have been told by the right wing. Hmmmmm. Surely they aren't lying to you, to indoctrinate more cheerleaders into their cult? But the mathematical facts do suggest that. Hmmmm, it's puzzling.

Here is a flash of truth that did come out of Faux News about this, here is Major Garrett, "Unemployment insurance is "a job creator when there are no other job creators out there."

In a later segment on Fox & Friends, Camerota asked Fox News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett, "[Pelosi]'s basically saying it injects cash into the economy. That is true. But it's a job creator?"

Garrett responded: "It's a job creator when there are no other job creators out there. ... When you have a climate where pervasive attitude among potential job hirers, meaning employers, is that we're just going to hold pat, then you really have nothing else to do to fuel the economy other than provide stimulus. And if you give cash to unemployed workers, at least that's cash they can spend in their local economy. So from that limited perspective, if you have no other alternatives and no one is hiring, or hiring is very, very low or slack, then unemployment benefits do provide ready cash at the local merchants to keep those businesses afloat."


I know you guys have a good time bashing Pelosi with this, but like with everything else, you are wrong. Those pesky facts always ruin your good time, don't they?

Unemployment benefits always are good for this country, the American people, our economy, and yes...job creation. Suck on it!

One more thing...the idea that unemployment checks is lazy people sucking on the tit of the taxpayers, IS FALSE. It is called unemployment insurance because it is paid in when these people were employed. It is paid in by all of us and is there for all of us. It is NOT the unemployed taking money from the employed. That is another misconception that the rich want you to believe because they hate the poor.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Pelosi never said that!

I would like to direct your attention to the video above, its only a minute and half long clip. I am sure you have enough time to watch a minute and a half since your tirade took longer than to type.

Clearly Pelosi thinks that UI money is being spent on new cars, TV's, buying new Houses, creating demand for services...and yada yada. Though the people on UI barely have enough to pay rent, insurance, provide food for the family, and medical costs.

So creating new jobs, umm yea right....

As far as CBO goes, you still believe they have any idea what they are talking about? These guys have backtracked from all of the numbers they have put out there.

Now to insert your own eloquently put verbage "Suck on it"

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


Really, as if those of us on unemployment are stimulating the economy. We are not buying anything that is not necessary for basic survival. So as a consequence there is not as much money in the system. Which means that the demand for non-essential is low so the companies that are involved with said goods require fewer people to be working. Like the freight companies. So basically it is like life support for a vegetable. Life support keeps you alive but without medical treatment the body is not going anywhere. Same with the economy, it is propping up the economy but not doing anything to solve the problem.

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Clearly Pelosi thinks that UI money is being spent on new cars, TV's, buying new Houses, creating demand for services...and yada yada. Though the people on UI barely have enough to pay rent, insurance, provide food for the family, and medical costs.

Well what if the rent, insurance, food and medical costs weren't being paid? Those things also stimulate the economy like new cars and TVs. You pay your rent, your landlord spends the money and the retailer stays open. You pay your insurance, the company maybe hires more workers. You buy food and agricultural workers get to keep their jobs. And let's not forget UI is insurance. If you qualify for UI, it means your employer has purchased an insurance policy for you. Your employer paid for insurance from the funds available to pay you - ie: it's money you didn't get in your paycheck.

Yea, Prince Glauca, I saw both your videos and I would like to redirect you to my previous post that has FACTS. I know you want to attack the CBO when they present facts that go against your cult philosophy, but when they say this idea or that one will add x amount to the deficit, you are all like, "CBO said it!! IT'S THE TRUTH."

To hangedman13:

Now that you have admitted to the people on this thread that you are on unemployment, you are now seen as a lazy loser who has been spoiled by the glamorous life of free money from their pockets. They believe you should be denied the money (that you paid in) and take one of the millions of jobs that are awaiting you. You are seen as a leech on society, and directly responsible for the nation's economic woes. They believe your unemployment check is going straight to your drug dealer or the liquor store.

On a side note, you too are wrong. Your unemployment check that barely pays for your rent and some food DOES stimulate the economy. It is second only to food stamps.

A study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows that tax cuts are among the least effective and most economically inefficient of fiscal stimulus strategies. Food stamps deliver the greatest bang for the stimulus buck, followed by unemployment insurance (UI), infrastructure spending, and assistance to states.

See graph, read facts:
www.epi.org...

Mod edit to correct members name

[edit on 7/3/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip


One more thing...the idea that unemployment checks is lazy people sucking on the tit of the taxpayers, IS FALSE. It is called unemployment insurance because it is paid in when these people were employed. It is paid in by all of us and is there for all of us. It is NOT the unemployed taking money from the employed. That is another misconception that the rich want you to believe because they hate the poor.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

I don't think you understand the basis of unemployment insurance and who pays for it. You seem to be quite confused about those mechanisms and might lead to confusing others who have no clue about this either.

First of all, the employee never pays for UI. Let me repeat that again The employee never pays for UI

Department of Labor

Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal/state UI tax).

You might then find an argument about those taxes withheld from an employee's pay check. Lets talk about that also:

US Payroll Taxes

Payroll tax generally refers to two different kinds of similar taxes. The first kind is a tax that employers are required to withhold from employees' pay, also known as withholding tax, pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go tax (PAYG). The second kind is a tax that is paid from the employer's own funds and that is directly related to employing a worker, which can consist of a fixed charge or be proportionally linked to an employee's pay.

In the United States, employers are required to withhold federal income tax, plus one-half of the Social Security tax, and one-half of the Medicare tax. Together, the employer's and employee's shares of the Social Security and Medicare taxes are known as the FICA tax. In some places, employers may be required to withhold state income tax, or even county or city income tax. In addition the employer is required to pay State and Federal unemployment tax.

Nowhere is it mentioned that employees pay into the unemployment insurance benefits. Now who pays for the unemployment insurance? Lets see:

Unemployment Taxes, Scroll down until a little bit on the page

Each employer also must pay State and Federal Unemployment Taxes (SUTA and FUTA). The FUTA rate is equal to 6.2% of gross compensation, but normally nets to 0.8% because the employer is allowed to take a credit of up to 5.4% of compensation for SUTA taxes paid by the employer. This will be the case if the employer is eligible for the maximum credit. The wage base for FUTA is $7,000 (i.e., the employer is liable for FUTA only on the first $7,000 of compensation paid to each employee per calendar year ). Each state has a different rate, so that employers must consult the state requirements for each applicable state regarding tax rates and maximum wage base. Many states require new business to have an average starting rate until an employment history is created. For example, Indiana requires new employers to pay 2.7% for the first 3 years. Afterwards the rate is adjusted depending on various factors, such as whether an ex-employee files a request for unemployment benefits.

Now the UI benefits that an employee receives come directly from the businesses they were employed under. Under current economic pressures many businesses have had to let go of employees who will eventually end up getting UI benefits and these ex-employees have the right do so. But many fail to realize that the employees themselves never paid into the system, and if an employer has several ex employees collecting UI benefits..that same employers UI taxes go up just as much if not more.

reply to post by prionace glauca


Perhaps you should read my quote again. I'm well aware that the employer pays, that's why I clearly said "your employer has purchased an insurance policy for you."

If you qualify for UI, it means your employer has purchased an insurance policy for you. Your employer paid for insurance from the funds available to pay you - ie: it's money you didn't get in your paycheck.

It's also well known and accepted that the cost of that insurance is ultimately borne by the employee. Whatever it costs your employer, is ultimately deducted from the funds available to pay your wages.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


I see where you are coming from about the final resting place of those monies and the end user using it in a way that might or might not stimulate something.

In the entire scheme of things, they would merely function to slow down decline for some sectors of economy instead of propping it up as many in congress might have you believe.

ETA: We keep typing and miss each others replies. Employers do not hold any taxes for UI benefits from an employees check. My parents and relatives have owned several businesses and I have done payroll for them. The end responsibility of UI strictly lies on the employer.

An if the employee does not have enough funds to cover all the taxes required to own a business and have employees, then that business owner needs to either pack up shop or reduce the number of employees.

Kind of like what we are already seeing small business owners doing already. Now mix into this equation the HCR bill,







[edit on 3-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

reply to post by prince Glauca


If you did the payroll then you would know that UI is figured into what is considered employee pay. You hire someone for a job, you must consider UI when tallying the cost of the employee.

Ergo: That employee would be paid a higher wage if UI didn't exist, and thus the employee pays the UI. It may come from the employers account but so does the employees paycheck.

We can go round and round like this all day, but you know you are wrong, just admit it. Trying to argue your pathetic position is only going to undermine what little credibility you have on this subject already.

Edited to fix member name

[edit on 7/3/2010 by semperfortis]

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


The wage is not determined by the UI, it is determined by the Federal/state minimum wage and the pool of employees looking for a job. Ultimately it comes down to the employer how much they want to move away from the minimum wage, it doesn't depend on UI.

Credibility? Oh right, someone who can not back up a point and resorts to name calling has a lot of credibility.







[edit on 3-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

Originally posted by prionace glauca
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

She is thinking about the flow money the way she wants it to flow.
Her Theory:

Taxpayer --> Government --> Unemployed --> To Business --> More Jobs.


In the reality of things, people who are unemployed are using these handouts to pay for shelter, feeding family, car insurance, & medical costs. Hardly the job creators.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

Not to rain on your parade, but who owns the shelter? Who grows, distributes the groceries, and retails the groceries? Who works for the car insurance company? Who creates, retails, prescribes medical costs?

Those few things you listed are actually responsible for a large chain of jobs. You have to think about how a supply chain works, there's at least 6 levels of affected industry between you and your food, moreso for medical costs.

The alternative is to have them be homeless? I'm not understanding what jobs that would create or sustain? Police?

The simple fact of the matter is that the private sector can not yet sustain job creation that absorbs the losses from the Recession and out paces population growth. Cutting people off of unemployment is just going to move wealth up the corporate ladder while it denies the very basic necessities to the people who need it most.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


You are not raining on anyone's parade. In fact my subsequent reply mentions about the end user.

All in all, such monies would only stem decline for some sectors and not be the boost as many in congress make it out to be. It almost seems that Pelosi and the gang would like to see more people collecting UI because it is the quickest way to create jobs.

And no where have I mentioned to cut off UI benefits.








[edit on 3-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

I think that the economic stimulus we need is to zero out the income tax that is collected on every employed person that is making less than $35,000 per year.

These people if they had no tax burden would put more money into the economy than any other group. They will save more for their children educations, put more money into banks that will then have more money to lend. They will also spend more and purchase more goods and services which will directly stimulate the economy.

Increasing unemployment benefits will not have near this impact on the economy. If an employer that has 10 employees all making less then $35,000 per year which is common did not have to deal with taking taxes out would see his employees doing a lot better and would not have to raise his wages paid which means he can hire more people expand his business and take more of them off the roles of the unemployed.