It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Create ‘600,000 Jobs’

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   




December 15, 2011 cnsnews

(CNSNews.com) -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that extending unemployment benefits would add “600,000 jobs to our economy.”

She also said that the money from unemployment benefits creates a “safety net” for the U.S. economy because it “injects demand into the economy -- creating jobs.”



She claims “macroeconomic advisers" told her !!

Who or What are “macroeconomic advisers" ??




“The payroll tax cut that the president proposed would put $1,500 in the pockets of 160 million Americans,” she said. “The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”

Pelosi did not name those “macroeconomic advisers.” She continued: “Again this is important because this is about the safety net not just for these individuals, but for our economic system that, in times of unemployment, we have a safety net and that is important.”

Maybe She is mistaking "600,000 jobs" with "600,000 new unemployed" that might be "created"

Were ANY jobs created from the last extension Nancy ? Hmmm.

As usual, She fails to explain any details, or provide any statistics to back up this wild "claim"



source article WITH a ..... v-i-d-e-o !!
Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Would Create ‘600,000 Jobs’


I solemnly swear, I never lie !!





posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
What makes me the most angry is they throw around the number "600,000" NOT something that sounds like a non-made-up number, like: "around 500,000" (not that this will create any jobs, just saying). Not only that, but they state "600,000" like it's a fact, a sure thing, when it's obviously a contrived number.

The arrogance of politicians on both sides appalls me.


edit on 16-12-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Yeah it creates 600 000 jobs... in China.

Giving money to unemployed people means they can pay the big banks on their mortgages and buy stuff from China.

It's just more money sucked from the middle-class and sent abroad.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that extending unemployment benefits would add “600,000 jobs to our economy.”



She's not the only nutter who has said this recently.

Says Jay Carney, Barack Obama's White House Press Secretary...


“It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.”

Jay Carney bashes WSJ reporter, claims unemployment checks create jobs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its clearly a Dem. line of thinkinbg.

edit on 16-12-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yeah it creates 600 000 jobs... in China.

Giving money to unemployed people means they can pay the big banks on their mortgages and buy stuff from China.

It's just more money sucked from the middle-class and sent abroad.




good one !

I never thought of THAT !



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CREAM
What makes me the most angry is they throw around the number "600,000" NOT something that sounds like a non-made-up number, like: "around 500,000" (not that this will create any jobs, just saying). Not only that, but they state "600,000" like it's a fact, a sure thing, when it's obviously a contrived number.

The arrogance of politicians on both sides appalls me.


edit on 16-12-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)


to answer the question in the picture...

YES !!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that extending unemployment benefits would add “600,000 jobs to our economy.”



She's not the only nutter who has said this recently.

Says Jay Carney, Barack Obama's White House Press Secretary...


“It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.”

Jay Carney bashes WSJ reporter, claims unemployment checks create jobs
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its clearly a Dem. line of thinkinbg.

edit on 16-12-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Ya !

If it's SOOOOO Guuuud...

Why not double the benefits while they're at it !!



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
If your parents screwed up and turned you into a non productive person in society, good ridence.

I work for a living, and I mean living. Lazy useless people shouldn't get a hand out. Ever hear of nature? Survival of the fittest.

I know I sound harsh but in a SHTF scenario are you really gonna go back and help the stupid weak person? FYI we are in a SHTF scenario, stop wasting money on the weak.

You're in or you're out.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Can I see your math, data, and facts please?
I wonder how this compares to all the jobs created by giving the same or more money to GE, etc went.
Any stats on that to compare with?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Can I see your math, data, and facts please?
I wonder how this compares to all the jobs created by giving the same or more money to GE, etc went.
Any stats on that to compare with?


Nancy says it!

You need NO proof!



OP, S&F
edit on 16-12-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
600,000 jobs by paying people to not work? well i guess we have to extend the benefits to find out what it will do.

the only way i could see this as working is if they start to count people on unemployment as being employed.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Can I see your math, data, and facts please?
I wonder how this compares to all the jobs created by giving the same or more money to GE, etc went.
Any stats on that to compare with?


Well I'm not the genius. And I didn't make the wild and general statement.

Nancy is supposed to be in this single case. She did the talking and arm waving.

I wasn't aware of any job creation from the GE money?

I know the banks got plenty of "help", and ended up laying off many.

Did GE or GM do layoffs?

You bring this up, YOU answer.

My math is limited to 1+1=2

Nancy's limits are 1+1=5 (as in overspending)

What was Nancy's math during the 111th Congress (2009/2010)?

Maybe Healthcare 101=1,000,001 ?

That's what it might end up costing the taxpayers and "working" employees of the U.S.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
600,000 jobs by paying people to not work? well i guess we have to extend the benefits to find out what it will do.

the only way i could see this as working is if they start to count people on unemployment as being employed.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


Actually,

I thought they were



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
600,000 jobs by paying people to not work? well i guess we have to extend the benefits to find out what it will do.

the only way i could see this as working is if they start to count people on unemployment as being employed.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


While we're at it, why don't we just make the whole country a welfare state, where everyone gets free money printed from the federal reserve? Then, we can just use our military-industrial-complex to force every other country to use the US dollar as their reserve currency. Like good ole' fashioned slavery and imperialism!

I kid, of course, but this is the direction both republicans and democrats are taking us in.
edit on 16-12-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Just imagine the job's created with an " Who wouldn't sleep with Nancy Pelosi campaign"?

We hire all participants, on the basis that they will agree to never sleep with Nancy, under any circumstances, and pay them all the standard minimum SF wage of $10.24 hr......

I feel we would have a number that would dwarf the current one proposed by the Former Squeaker of The House.....



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


I forgot to ask .....

Who or What are “macroeconomic advisers" ??

The math is with these guys.

Nancy "forgot" to tell us.


Ummm?




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CREAM



While we're at it, why don't we just make the whole country a welfare state, where everyone gets free money printed from the federal reserve? Then, we can just use our military-industrial-complex to force every other country to use the US dollar as their reserve currency. Like good ole' fashioned slavery and imperialism!

I kid, of course, but this is the direction both republicans and democrats are taking us in.

 


Actually,

The worldwide central banks might be on that course !

Then we can all have "religion".



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by freetree64
Just imagine the job's created with an " Who wouldn't sleep with Nancy Pelosi campaign"?

We hire all participants, on the basis that they will agree to never sleep with Nancy, under any circumstances, and pay them all the standard minimum SF wage of $10.24 hr......

I feel we would have a number that would dwarf the current one proposed by the Former Squeaker of The House.....




sounds like a new "Occupy San Francisco" theme


Of course, that must include women too !!!!

PC is everything today ya know !



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Pelosi is giving stupid people a bad name. Would someone PLEASE get grandma? She's gotten into the cooking sherry again!

I'd like to know how entitling people to stay unemployed creates jobs.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 





The sad part is they need to extend them until the economy comes back around. If they do not extend them the economy will tank. And all they people crying about them getting the payments will also be out of jobs.



Think about how many people are living check to check every week. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. The money comes back into the system as fast as it goes out. Without it watch the final cards at the bottom of the stack get pulled out. Also remember this is benefit for people that worked and lost a job.





Millions of people one check away from starving and loosing everything. When they do stop it the house of cards will come down.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join