Did you know that extending unemployment benefits will create jobs? Nancy Pelosi says that extending them would create 600,000 jobs!

“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,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said at a briefing on Capitol Hill Real Clear Politics

How will paying people NOT to work create jobs? How will extending the time people can sit home and draw unemployment suddenly create in them a desire to get up and get a job?

How can taking taxpayer money (money we do not have) and paying it to people who are not working create more jobs? The only jobs I see possibly coming out of this are government jobs for people to handle the unemployment claims. Those jobs, if they were created, would cost more taxpayer money we do not have and would certainly NOT get anywhere close to 600,000.

No Nancy, extending unemployment will NOT create any jobs. Not one, not ten, not 600,000. If extending unemployment created that many jobs we would have no unemployment because we have extended those benefits out to more than two years. Those past extensions did NOT create jobs and any new extension will fail just as miserably.

This is typical liberal thinking (though the term thinking is a stretch) and it shows, once again, that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

A case study:

Despite all the spin the Stimulus did NOT create jobs in numbers of any consequence. The Dems are crowing now about the unemployment rate drop to below 9% but that will likely go up after Christmas when seasonal employees end their run. It is also worthy to note that if the same number of people were looking for jobs today as were in 2007 the unemployment rate would be 11%.

Don’t worry, Debbie Washer Woman Schultz says unemployment is not increasing.

You can make any claim if you manipulate the numbers your way…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Let me start off by saying I applaud Barack Obama for announcing a freeze on the pay of federal employees. As many employers let employees go or freeze salaries it is time for the people who are paid by the taxpayer to have their pay frozen as well. Obama finally came on board with what Eric Canter had proposed quite some time ago. Back then Democrats thought it was a gimmick but at least they have come around.

I am serious when I say this is a good first start but Obama did not go far enough. If the people who work for government (and we can debate that there are too many and the number needs to be cut but we do need people to work for government to make it work) then those who receive money from the government and DO NOT work for it need to have their allotments frozen as well.

NO MORE extensions of unemployment. You have your 99 weeks (and we need to reduce that) and bam, you are frozen out. No more welfare increase, you get what you get and that is it. I do not care if costs go up, you need to learn to live on a tight budget. In fact, these programs need to be under more scrutiny so we can see who does not really need to be on them. If you have flat screen TVs (and/or cable), a few cars, a house and cell phones then you need to have your benefits (as if you deserve a “benefit”) cut or eliminated. We are in a budget crisis and we are freezing the salaries of workers who are paid with tax money so it is only appropriate that we freeze or eliminate the payments of tax dollars to those who are not doing anything to earn them.

Obama took a good first step but he needs to go farther. He needs to freeze out the people who are getting taxpayer money and not doing a thing to earn it.

If federal employee’s pay is being frozen (and I am on board with that) then those who are getting checks for doing nothing should be frozen or, better yet, pared down or eliminated.

While we are at it, we should force all elected officials to take a 20% pay reduction.

We will see where this goes because Congress needs to approve it.

Source:
AP (via Yahoo)

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama had a White House event July 19^th at which he asked Congress to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who have already been on unemployment for a very long time. This is the debate in which the Democrats, who promised to “pay as you go”, said Republicans did not want to help people who are out of work when the reality is, Republicans wanted the program paid for. There is about 350 billion in stimulus money that has not been spent. The money for the unemployment extension could have come from that.

But I digress. At the event Obama featured Leslie Macko, woman who worked at some fitness center and lost her job last year. The latest news is that she is a convicted felon who was found guilty of prescription drug fraud. This seems to be the big news about the event which I find surprising because Obama has surrounded himself with people who lie, cheat, and steal as well as commit fraud. He is comfortable around those types of people so it is not surprising that he would find a felon to push for more robbery from the US taxpayer.

The story to me is a line from the event where Obama is making his case for extended welfare and he says that it is needed because poor Leslie has found herself doing something she did not think she would do, especially at this point in her life. Could it be she has turned to prostitution or other crimes (she is, after all, a felon)? No, Leslie had to turn to her father for help.

“We need to extend unemployment compensation benefits for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year, and has been looking for work ever since. Because she’s eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she never thought she’d have to do. Not at this point, anyway. She’s turning to her father for financial support,” Obama said in his speech. [emphasis mine] Newsplex

Obama says this like it is a bad thing to ask for, and receive, help from your family. This is terrible to Obama and he implores Congress to right this injustice and give Leslie, and many like her, money from taxpayers. Obama would rather Leslie get money from hard working people who have never met her and who owe her nothing in life rather than have this poor woman rely on her own flesh and blood until she gets back on her feet.

Obama cannot have families looking out for each other if he is to ever convince people that government is the only solution to our problems and that government can handle everything in our lives. If the Marxist Messiah is to take control of our lives he cannot allow pesky things like families to get in his way.

Obama frames the entire issue as if it is a bad thing that Leslie had to turn to, and is getting help from, her father. It is a horrible injustice for this woman to get help from her family when government and hard working taxpayers are there to come to her rescue. Act Congress, act so we can keep this woman from having to rely on her own flesh and blood.

Yes, of all the indignities suffered by this convicted felon the one that is unacceptable is that she must rely on her father for help. Instead of relying on family Obama and the Democrats would have this poor woman get money that will be borrowed now and repaid generations from now by our children.

Yes, our children and grandchildren will pay for Leslie so her daddy does not have to.

And in the world of Obama, this is how it should be…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Nancy Pelosi is a shrewd politician but she is as dumb as a box of rocks. Her entire existence revolves around getting reelected and staying in power so she can institute Socialist programs. She lies constantly in order to push her agenda.

Remember, it was Pelosi who claimed TEA Party members (and others dissenting) were not patriotic and were violent. She had heard the rhetoric before and it was dangerous. Of course, the violence has come from the left and the stuff she heard before with the violence was liberal on liberal violence where Harvey Milk was killed over a political dispute among politicians.

The other problem with Pelosi is that she has no concept of what it is to run a balanced budget. She has no concept of how the economy works. She has no concept in what it means to make payroll, to produce profit, to provide for employees or to combat government intrusiveness as most business people do. This is evident in her latest bout of moronitis.

Nancy Pelosi said that unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs. Pelosi said this about unemployment; “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

Only a moron would tell you that unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs. First of all, unemployment is paid out of taxpayer money and money paid in by employers. If people are receiving this money and spending it they are just redistributing taxpayer money from one pair of hands to another. Any sales tax collected will never reach the level of the taxes paid to fund unemployment.

Besides, when people on unemployment spend money in casinos and strip clubs, how many jobs are created and how is this activity needed in any way?

It is also well known that you get more of what you subsidize. If you pay people to be on unemployment then more people will be on unemployment. There are jobs being offered right now that pay $12 an hour and people are not applying because they get more on unemployment. Pelosi would have you believe that paying people to do absolutely nothing will motivate them to actually do something. As long as unemployment benefits (and the term benefit is misleading at best) are continually extended there is no incentive for people to get a job. If those benefits had an end date then people would be forced to find a job. By continually extending the end date the motivation to find a job is diminished.

Pelosi is a moron who does not understand this concept.

She is also working against what reasonable people can see. If unemployment is the fastest way to create jobs then why, after extension of benefits up to 99 weeks (nearly TWO YEARS), has unemployment not been fixed. If it is a way to create jobs then why are we losing jobs each month? Why is the unemployment rate hovering around 10% and why did we lose 125,000 jobs in June. Keep in mind that the unemployment rate would be much higher but the number of people who have quit looking and reportedly dropped out of the labor market has increased which means that there are fewer people looking for jobs so they are not counted in the numbers.

I wonder if they are receiving unemployment checks. We should be counting each and every person getting an unemployment check in the numbers even if they have stopped looking for work (I thought Pelosi said the checks would create employment).

If unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs then why has the Obama regime missed its job creation goals and why has Joe Biden been forced to eat his words about how many jobs would be created?

And perhaps the biggest question of all is, if unemployment benefits are the fastest way to create jobs why have we not seen massive numbers of jobs created? Millions of people are on unemployment and it has been a few years since this all started so we should see all these jobs that Pelosi says unemployment checks create.

No, it will not happen because unemployment will NOT create jobs. Spending taxpayer money will NOT create jobs. Government does not create private sector jobs which are the only jobs that will increase tax revenues (public sector jobs are paid for with taxes so they do not help anything).

If we want to create jobs and get people off unemployment then we need to decrease taxes and decrease government involvement in the private sector. We need to give certainty to the business world that it will not be punished when hiring employees. Government has failed to do this. It punishes businesses based on numbers of employees (if you have more than 50 employees you must provide this or that to them) and those things keep businesses from hiring people. Why hire 51 people and have to pay when you can make do with 50 and not pay?

Government is the problem, not the solution. And it continues to be the problem because it is imposing one rule after another and those rules are stifling the creation of jobs. Businesses are worried about the cost of cap and trade, health care takeover and the tax increases that will hit 1 January 2011. These will potentially cost money and businesses are not going to hire people when these business killing items are out there posing a real threat.

Government programs like these and unemployment are job killing measures.

Despite what that moron Nancy Pelosi says, unemployment checks do NOT create employment.

She cannot show this to be true because it is not. Once again, she is lying to people for political purposes.

But I have to wonder, if this is such an important issue (and if they are willing to compromise), why did Democrats go on their week long 4^th of July vacation (they come back the 12^th) without passing the measure to increase unemployment?

They refused a Republican compromise that would have required them to pay for at least some of the extended benefits (Democrats promised Pay Go meaning they would pay for everything they passed) and went on vacation instead.

Voters should remember this in November. Help Pelosi by putting lots and lots of Congress critters on unemployment.

Remember, she said it is the fastest way to create jobs.

Moron…

Get an Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card Today

Big Dog Salute to WT and Breitbart.

Barack Obama is putting pressure on Congress to pass a 30 BILLION dollar package designed to jump start job creation. Obama’s administration has lost millions of jobs (net) despite the bogus “saved job” category used to deceive people into thinking that taxpayer money has saved jobs and without it unemployment would be higher.

President Obama Friday repeated his call for Congress to pass a $30 billion package to foster hiring and help tackle painfully high levels of unemployment.

“I’m hopeful the House will pass these measures next week and that the Senate will follow as soon as possible—with support from both Democrats and Republicans,” Obama said in remarks delivered in the White House Rose Garden. CNBC

Obama passed a 787 BILLION dollar stimulus package that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% and was supposed to jump start job creation. Obama said the number one goal of his economic plan was to create 3 million jobs in the next two years (MSNBC 16 Jan 2009).

The stimulus was touted as a job creator and was needed to keep unemployment from rising. Unemployment has been stagnate at just under 10% for most of the time since the stimulus was passed.

When things kept going bad the regime told us that things were worse than they thought or that no one knew how bad it was. We were then told that this was a slow process and that the stimulus needed time to work. But we are not on the track that was spelled out in his economic report. We are well behind what they predicted.

When this has been pointed out the Obama apologists tell us that the stimulus will take time and was never intended to work quickly (despite the initial claims and the report). The Obama regime told us that it would take at least until the end of 2010 before we saw improving jobs results.

Well which is it?

In either case, Obama’s request for more money to stimulate jobs is an indication that the stimulus is a failure.

If it was supposed to work more quickly, as was initially reported, then the 30 billion dollar request is an admission that it did not work as sold.

If it was anticipated that the job growth would be slower and that we would not see results until the end of 2010 at the earliest then why ask for more money now? Let’s wait to see if it works as stated when the time frame was revamped before we throw more money into the black hole.

The fact that Obama is asking for more money now is an indication that he does not believe that his stimulus will work. He knows that things will not get better as a result of his plans and he wants to appear as if he is doing all that he can because it is an election year and he knows that his party stands to get trounced.

The request for this money to stimulate jobs is an admission by Obama that his stimulus did not work as planned and that he does not expect it to work as planned.

It is a political move to throw good money (if the US actually has any good money) after bad during an election year.

The stimulus is a very expensive failure.

How many times will Obama go to the well before people begin to see this?

Related:
Retail Sales Slump

Never surrender, never submit.

Darrel and Mike, two commenters at this site, have been having a debate about a chart that shows the number of people losing their jobs. There are still jobs being lost but not as many and these two gentlemen are discussing if losing fewer jobs is good or if it is still bad because we are losing them.

Harry Reid has settled this and it would appear that losing jobs is a good thing as long as it was not as many as before. Reid tells us today that the good news is that only 36,000 people lost their jobs last month.

That is great news, unless you are one of the 36,000.

The administration was preparing us for bad numbers by telling us that the numbers would be bad because of the snowstorms in February. That is a bogus claim. I can’t see how the storms resulted in people losing their jobs. But if I concede that the storms caused job loss I would have to say it was a wash because a whole lot of people became employed clearing snow. The labor report (linked below) addresses how people were counted with regard to the storms.

In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment, employees have to be off work for an entire pay period and not be paid for the time missed.

It is unlikely that people would lose their jobs over bad snowstorms. They might get time off without pay but that is about it. But then again, that counts as unemployed to the BLS.

Now the progressive pundits, in response to an unemployment rate that held at 9.7%, are claiming the numbers would have been better if we had not had the storms. Once again, not credible (especially considering the definition of unemployed due ot severe weather). Also, when discouraged workers are counted, the number rose:

The U6 alternative gauge of the unemployment rate, which includes discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, rose to 16.8% from 16.5%. Market Watch

The government has boosted the number of jobs by hiring for the census. Thousands of people have been hired to work for the government. Those people will lose their jobs once the census is completed.

So remember, it is good when people lose jobs so long as it is fewer than before (progressive mantra). It is certainly a positive trend but it is not good news. These numbers do not indicate that jobs are being created, just that fewer people are losing them. We will not see job creation until jobs are being added to the numbers. In other words, the graph has to rise above the zero line.

It is also interesting how we continue to have jobs being lost, albeit many fewer than before, and yet the unemployment rate dropped from 10% to 9.7% two months ago and has held there. How can this happen?

No job loss is good news despite what Harry Reid believes.

Well, maybe there are a few exceptions…

Presidential adviser Larry Summers is saying that we need to look past the next set of job numbers because unemployment will be affected by the blizzards we had in February. He said the construction industry would be hit particularly hard. Right.

It seems to me that the snowstorms would not cause unemployment. It just does not sound correct that the number of jobless would go up. Workers might have been told to stay home (like they did all week in DC) but I can’t imagine that bosses said “Well, blizzard, you are all laid off. No, it is more likely that they stayed home without pay or were allowed to use vacation time to get a paycheck.

This is a snow job and it is designed to soften the blow if the jobs numbers are worse than expected. And keep in mind, with this administration everything is not what they expected. Every bit of news is reported as [some statistic] not what expected. Jobless claims not what expected, GDP rises more than expected. They are always caught off guard.

In any event, if the numbers are bad the snow will be blamed and if they turn out to be better Summers will claim they are actually pretty good because people lost jobs because of the blizzards.

So here is the deal. I want Larry Summers to tell us all right now that we need to dismiss the increases in jobs that will happen starting now and working through at least March and April.

During this time the government will be bringing on several hundred thousand people to annoy those of us who do not completely fill out the Census form. So there will be a bunch of people who get paid to come to our houses and ask us the questions we refused to answer in the first place.

It will be a total waste of money to send a census worker here so why waste the money?

Anyway, these jobs will be temporary and provide a boost and I want Summers to let us know now that we will need to look past them.

Want to bet he never mentions it and they take credit for any bump?

What a snow job. The best thing the blizzards did was keep politicians out of DC. We were safer for the entire time.

Looks like the 95,000 jobs a month the administration is predicting hit a little snag:

The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance surged to just below the 500,000 level last week, and have climbed more than 12% over the past two weeks, the government said Thursday. Money.CNN

Obama and his mouthpieces keep saying they “saved” or created millions of jobs.

The only thing I can figure is that they saved or created them in states 51 through 57…

Then again, if the White House can create ZIP codes and Congressional Districts out of thin air then it can certainly create jobs numbers the same way.

Harry Reid, while discussing the so called jobs bill, said that the incidence of abuse by men is increasing because men become abusive when they are unemployed.

“Men, when they’re out of work, tend to become abusive,” the majority leader added. “Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.” The Hill

This is anecdotal evidence but if it happens to be true then Reid will become abusive in January of 2011 when he leaves office after losing his reelection bid this November.

Considering how he has abused the country during his time in office, Reid should adjust to his unemployment without much difficulty.