• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Nancy Pelosi-Unemployment creates jobs

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi- Unemployment Creates Jobs

Seriously? Food stamps and unemployment insurance is a job creator?

I'm at a loss as to why Sarah Palin is CONSTANTLY called dumb by the media (and I agree she is not the sharpest tool in the toolbox) yet this brain-dead woman is rarely maligned by the press.

Thoughts?
 

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
So, giving people dole money creates jobs?

How the fuck does that work?! No really, can someone help me with this, because I don't see how welfare goes towards businesses creating new jobs.

Oh, wait, unless she means that suddenly everyone wants to be on benefits because it's easier, damn she's good!
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Thoughts? Are those the funny noises my brain makes that no one else can hear?

Personally, I think she's just as dumb as Palin. Both are batshit crazy and never seem like they know what they're talking about.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
She's absolutely right. Money paid out to provide social benefits gets spent, thereby enriching businesses, and potentially driving them to expand. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the less wealthy someone is, the more of whatever money they acquire is going to be spent. Therefor, giving money to poor people is better for job growth than giving money to rich people.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
She's absolutely right. Money paid out to provide social benefits gets spent, thereby enriching businesses, and potentially driving them to expand. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the less wealthy someone is, the more of whatever money they acquire is going to be spent. Therefor, giving money to poor people is better for job growth than giving money to rich people.
But then taxes are raised to pay that money back thus layoffs occur to make up for the increase in taxes.

Investment creates jobs, not spening on entitlement programs.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
CaptainObvious said:
But then taxes are raised to pay that money back thus layoffs occur to make up for the increase in taxes.
There doesn't need to be an increase in taxes. Funds can be diverted, for example. Taxes could also be taken from sources other than businesses. In any case, I believe fluctuations in demand have more influence on employment than fluctuations in profit not resulting from decreased demand or redundancies in a companies workforce.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
There doesn't need to be an increase in taxes. Funds can be diverted, for example. Taxes could also be taken from sources other than businesses. In any case, I believe fluctuations in demand have more influence on employment than fluctuations in profit not resulting from decreased demand or redundancies in a companies workforce.
Fluctuations in demand though are influenced by discretionary income. The more one pays in taxes the less one has in discretionary income.

The problem I have is while I agree this money will be spent in the market, it also has to be paid back, thus an increase in our federal deficit, the raising of taxes, or cuts from somewhere else. So while it may have a short-term influence on employment it could also have a negative influence in the long run. Which is why in my opinion the spending of the stimulus money hasn't had an affect on employment, there is no certainty for investment.

Real job growth comes from an increase in consumer spending which dictates what is in demand and what is not. Investment will increase if there is confidence in the market and consumer spending.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
She needs a better speech writer, for sure, but I think she means unemployment benefits are better for the economy than no unemployment benefits. Just a guess.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
CaptainObvious said:
The more one pays in taxes the less one has in discretionary income.
I addressed that when I said that poor people spend more of whatever money they acquire than do rich people. Effectively, redistribution through taxation and social programs causes more money to spent than otherwise would, therefor enlarging the economy.

CaptainObvious said:
Which is why in my opinion the spending of the stimulus money hasn't had an affect on employment, there is no certainty for investment.
Historically speaking: job creation always lags behind GDP growth. Just because people are making money doesn't mean they're comfortable adding to their payroll just yet. In fact, businesses are holding onto trillions of dollars right now, out of fear the economy might turn sour again. The shareholders of some companies have even demanded they start doing something with their huge reserves.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
She needs a better speech writer, for sure, but I think she means unemployment benefits are better for the economy than no unemployment benefits. Just a guess.
This I would agree with. She did say it is the most effective way to create jobs which I disagree with.
 
Top