Pelosi: Extending jobless benefits will “make a difference of 600,000 jobs”

posted at 1:40 pm on December 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Via CNS News and our friend and Townhall colleague Greg Hengler, Nancy Pelosi lectured America on macroeconomics yesterday by insisting that an extension of unemployment benefits would “make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”  Greg recalled a similar claim from Pelosi about ObamaCare, and adds it to the end of Pelosi’s claim from yesterday:

“Christmas is 10 days away,” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Capitol Hill today. “The president and Democrats in Congress have been very clear. We’re not going home without enacting a payroll tax cut for America’s working families and extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans.”

“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.”

“Again, [not only] a safety net for individuals, but a safety net for the economy,” she said, “and again this money when received is immediately spent, it’s urgently needed, and injects demand into the economy, creating jobs.”

This is a fairly testable hypothesis.  The last time Congress extended the jobless benefits was a year ago, in another crunch-time compromise between Republicans and Democrats on Pennsylvania Avenue.  Since then, the economy has added about 1.5 million jobs — an average of 125,000 a month, which is only enough to keep up with population growth.  Assuming that Pelosi’s correct and we subtract 600,000 from the 2011 numbers, the Obama adminstration’s economic policies would account for growth that falls well below that of population maintenance — at only 75,000 per month.

The number and the claim is absurd.  Whatever short-term economic benefit arises from giving benefits to the unemployed is not enough to generate enough marketplace demand to create 600,000 jobs, nor would its absence be enough to eliminate 600,000 jobs, either.  Its absence would probably force the long-term unemployed into part-time and low-paying jobs to maintain themselves, which would not only service much of that same demand, it would also not take capital from the future — where its absence will cost jobs.  There are social and humanitarian reasons for providing unemployment benefits, but job creation and economic growth are not among them.

At least, though, we can say that the deal Pelosi makes here is much better than ObamaCare.  That will cost $2 trillion in its first ten years, according to the CBO, which works out to five million dollars a job.  Sheesh!  Even Obama’s green-tech boondoggles have a better price-per-job than that.  With the proposed extension of jobless benefits expected to add $44 billion, that works out to $110,000 per job … which is still a ridiculous figure, and shows why capital is used more efficiently when left in the marketplace.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sometimes after she makes a statement and has that blinky deer in the headlight blank stare and pauses for a few seconds before going on? I wonder if she’s trying to recall what she just said and whether or not it made any sense. Or she’s waiting for applause or something. It’s just creepy.

scalleywag on December 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Nancy Pelosi: Imbecile.

Babsy on December 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

And did one person in that “press conference’ ask ‘Hey Nan, where did you come up with that number…’ Oh, wait….

We’ve got to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Got it.

Future historians will surely marvel at the stupidity.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on December 16, 2011 at 2:43 PM

This woman is either the most naive person in the free world, blatantly stupid or hopelessly insane. I find it incredible that her constituents afford her even the slightest credibility.

rplat on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Sadly, employers ultimately pay the price for this nonsense. UI is a direct tax to job creators based on payroll (in Texas, the cap is $9,000 per employee). We just received our audit and our rate increased from .78% to 4.52%. Kinda makes you want to run out and hire a bunch of people.

Spark Chaser on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Sometimes there is a brief delay when her human opperator is entering her next statement. Hence the blank stares.

jhffmn on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Aunt Clara.

Over30 on December 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Nah, Aunt Clara was a nice witch.

Flora Duh on December 16, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Paying for my Botox will create 600,000 jobs!

Paying for me and my family to regularly fly on govvernment/military planes will create 600,000 jobs!

Paying for my husband’s companies will create 600,000 jobs!

Just paying attention to me will create 600,000 jobs! Please, someone, anyone other than Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias, please… pay attention me!

I was the First Woman Speaker! Hey, where is everybody going?…

- Nancy Perlosi

deepelemblues on December 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Sometimes there is a brief delay when her human opperator is entering her next statement. Hence the blank stares.

jhffmn on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Romney has the same typist :(

lorien1973 on December 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

<a href="/ETAOP201http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents0-10.pdf“> as best I can tell, all of the dem statements that UI generates jobs are based on this July 2010 report from the Urban Institute where the author concludes that $1 of UI generates $2 of GDP. But if you look at his analysis beginning at p 36 and his tables 4.1,4.2 and 4.3, it is all based on simulations and an economic model with many assumptions, and actual data is sometimes ignored. Interestingly, all of his average calculations for the multiplier effect are exactly 2.0 for the tables. An economist or statitician should have a better critique of this report which is being used to make multibillion dollar decisions.

beens21 on December 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Please tell me that people are not this gullible. I just don’t know if I could take it.

The one thing that I want Pelosi to answer is: How does paying people to not work create jobs for those that do?

Wouldn’t it just be easier to put them on the federal payroll as being on retainer? I mean that would make it easy to say things like “…but cutting spending will increase unemployment.” and it would make it easy to extend the unemployment when the conservatives take over. We will cut the spending and they will file a new unemployment claim.

Freed0m28 on December 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Nancy Pelosi, ladies and gentlemen.

At one time, second in line for the Presidency.

Her and Sheriff Joe are the ultimate assassination insurance.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on December 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I mean is it me or what? She is looking more and more like the Witch of the West. I mean, I can see her saying, “And you little dog too!” every time I see those bulging eyes and that stretched out face.

Bulletchaser on December 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Nanzi didn’t say if those 600k jobs were a positive or negative, just a difference. I’ll go with a negative 600,000 jobs to our economy. Jobs killed or delayed.

jukin3 on December 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Please tell me that people are not this gullible.

Sorry Virginia, they are. Obamabots are not allowed to actually think. They simply repeat what the Teleprompter-in-Chief tells them to say.

katablog.com on December 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I am so sick of these imbeciles.

Key West Reader on December 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM

I find it incredible that her constituents afford her even the slightest credibility.

rplat on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

These are the same constituents who wanted to legally ban circumcision. As a product of her environment, it just doesn’t get any better for her. Hopefully, soon, she can be retired to the Pelosi vineyard.

VietVet_Dave on December 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.” Pelosi did not name those “macroeconomic advisers.”

“We have top experts studying this.”

“Which ones?”

Top experts.”

apostic on December 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM


“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.”

While visions of sugarplums danced in her head.

Long haired country boy on December 16, 2011 at 3:25 PM

What is the qualification to be a speaker, again?

Why didn’t anyone ask the names of the macroeconomic advisers? Pray, who would they be?

Why is MSM not ridiculing this?

By her logic, would doubling this, reduce unemployment 2 times?

vpaddy123 on December 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I find it incredible that her constituents afford her even the slightest credibility.

rplat on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I just sent a resume’ for a job opening in my field in San Francisco. That’s my choice. Being unemployed or having Pelosi as my Senator. Talk about being torn.

Mitoch55 on December 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM

stupid dolt and a fake Catholic to boot.

Hummer53 on December 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM

As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”

I agree…that means that 600,000 won’t look for jobs.

cajunpatriot on December 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi’s macroeconomic views would be taken more seriously if she as Speaker and the Democratically controlled House had bothered to present an actual Budget for the United States in 2010.

MessesWithTexas on December 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Aha! She says, “makes a difference of …. jobs.” She is correct. If the unemployment insurance runs out, more people will go looking and undoubtedly find jobs, somewhere, somehow.

Now those same people might start making trips to the employment offices, and that would up the so-called ‘unemployment rate’ to 9.5 or maybe 10%?

GCStateConservative on December 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Clearly liberals have stopped even trying to tie their statements to any sort of reality or reasonableness.

If paying people not to work will create or save 600,000 jobs, then why don’t we fire more people, and let them collect unemployment? After all, unemployment is good for the economy.

hawksruleva on December 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Hey you guys: Send me a bunch of money. I promise it will save 100,000 jobs! Really!

Scrappy on December 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

She doesn’t even sound like she believes what she is saying.

tru2tx on December 16, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Why does anyone listen to the most moronic and arguably evil woman ever to draw breath? Please, just gag her and throw her in a cell and stop pretending her job is to make sense or even do the right thing. Clearly she is incapable of either.

Wolfmoon on December 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM

There’s not a lie that Nancy Pelosi won’t use and why not? No one in the MSM ever calls her on them.

TooTall on December 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM

So, if unemployment benefits were doubled, would that then create an additional 600,000 jobs for net benefit of 1.2 million?

Still trying to figure out this maths thing.

BobMbx on December 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I find it incredible that her constituents afford her even the slightest credibility.

rplat on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

You must not know who her constituency is.

For a biography of her district, spend an hour or three at zombietime.com

You’ll need pepto-bismal and some eyewash, but the damage won’t be permanent.

BobMbx on December 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I’m amazed that nobody in the Democratic caucus is smart enough to shut her up.

ghostwriter on December 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Why don’t they increase unemployment payments until we have 100% employment? What could go wrong? Why does she hate the unemployed?

HarlanJim on December 16, 2011 at 4:32 PM

“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.”

Would someone care to diagram this sentence for me, please?

It’s almost coherent and meaningful in its incoherence and meaninglessness.

arik1969 on December 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM

“Sometimes after she makes a statement and has that blinky deer in the headlight blank stare and pauses for a few seconds before going on? I wonder if she’s trying to recall what she just said and whether or not it made any sense. Or she’s waiting for applause or something. It’s just creepy.”

The “blinky” is what happens when you tell a “lie-y”. Even she doesn’t believe it. And she’s more amazed that no one blasts her for it while she’s speaking it. She’s like this all the time. She’s Captain Queeg.

RobertMN on December 16, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I live in one of the poorer towns in one of the poorer states in America and there are jobs that we can’t fill, from minimum wage jobs at Dollar General to $12 per hour jobs at the prison that require no skills whatsoever. Why can’t we fill them? Because everyone is milking their unemployment benefits.

Rancher on December 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Why does anyone listen to the most moronic and arguably evil woman ever to draw breath?

Wolfmoon on December 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM

The democRats discriminate on neither race,gender, or intelligence. I believe it was Ann Coulter who said that the democRats have taken non-discrimination to its logical extreme by electing a retarded woman as Speaker of the House.

arik1969 on December 16, 2011 at 4:39 PM

So, if unemployment benefits were doubled, would that then create an additional 600,000 jobs for net benefit of 1.2 million?

Still trying to figure out this maths thing.

BobMbx on December 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Take it all the way: 100% unemployment creates 100% employment. Read “Animal Farm.” Read “1984.” It’s happening.

RobertMN on December 16, 2011 at 4:40 PM

She always clicks her heels together three times before she says stuff like that.

zenron on December 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM

If you add in all the jobs food stamps and welfare payments create you can see where we got the recovery summer.

Rancher on December 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM

The only member of congress who may be dumber and less articulate that Ms. Pelosi is Barbara Boxer. Where do we get these dimb bulbs? Partly my fault though, I reside in the formerly great state of California (now “lead” by the dumb monk, Jerry Brown). We elect these morons.

StevC on December 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM

I think Annunciata Pelosi might be on to something here. But, come on, Nanc, think BIG! Let’s borrow enough money from the Chinese to pay unemployment benefits to EVERYONE. We can say “American Pay for Americans,” or something. Unemployment will immediately go down to zero, no women will die on the floor, we won’t have to pass any more bills to see what is in them. Happy Days for all!

Of course, we’re gonna have to pawn Montana, Oklahoma and most of the Rocky Mountains to pay back China, but who cares when it’s Party Time?

So, build the dang fence or something or other.

Horace on December 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM

My Compliments to Everybody!

I was going to post a comment, but with all you new HA people, I am in awe of the sudden perspicasity and, in many cases wit, in the postings. There is no way I can match youse guys and gals today.

Old Country Boy on December 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Why don’t we just lay everybody off so we are all on unemployment. Think of the economic stimulus that would be.

Southern Yankee on December 16, 2011 at 5:45 PM

If we really want to save America, we should forget about Mexico and build a wall around San Francisco.

Bacon4allah on December 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Going by Pelosi’s count, that would be one million jobs the federal government has neither created nor saved.

Kudos to the New Fascist Party for redefining progess in America!

madmonkphotog on December 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Truly the dumbest woman…err…person on the planet…err… universe. Smoking the good stuff in Frisco. Poster witch for your brain on drugs when you vote.

msupertas on December 16, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Somebody help me here. Is this trickle down or trickle up taxation?

nitram on December 16, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Notice how Bela (not “bella”) Pelosi stutters and stammers all over the word “macroeconomic.” She’s not yet able to pronounce words that the grown-ups use.

29Victor on December 16, 2011 at 1:56 PM

lulz

I don’t understand why the men in the white coats haven’t taken
her away already.

VBMax on December 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I don’t, either, but it may be sooner than we think:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck8OsLl14DU

Aunt Clara.

Over30 on December 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Definitely. Or Jessica Tate from Soap.

MisterElephant on December 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM

OMG, Mrs. Piglosi is the gift that keeps on giving, and the left has the nerve to say Sarah Palin is dumb.
Can anyone say “moonbat”?

mmcnamer1 on December 16, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Is this what botox does when it gets into the brain? Utterly delusional

keithofboston on December 16, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Would like to post more, but I used too much toilet paper while wiping my Nancy Pelosi, and that, combined with the Pelosi’s I had deposited in the bowl, has backed up my home sewage system. Gotta work the plunger big-time. Later, amigos.

Horace on December 16, 2011 at 8:00 PM

nitram
Never, ever, ever again use the phrase “trickle down” in a thread concerning Nancy Pelosi. Never, ever, ever.

Horace on December 16, 2011 at 8:02 PM

While I doubt anyone can by the 600,000 jobs bit. I do think considering the state of the economy and the job market benefits should be extended. Doesn’t seem right to cut them off when no jobs are being created.

iidvbii on December 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

funny, companies are on the hook for the cost of this when they fire or lay someone off. This money just does not come to being. Employers hate this idea because now they have to pay for a longer amount of time than they normally would. So all this does, is in fact make employers think twice about adding onto the staff because if they dont need the people down the road… they are on the hook for more cost.
This is not so much a issue for huge companies that have thousands of workers… what this hurt is what is our main driver in the workforce… the mom and pop small businesses where an added cost long term actually hurts them that much more in a garbage economy…

I do have one thing to say to Nancy… My job at work requires me to make sure that I kill the bacteria… why anyone would want to inject something like that into their body is beyond me. I am sure that all those injections have affected her brain… then again shes a liberal so it might just be natural.

watertown on December 16, 2011 at 8:54 PM

in case your wondering, its botulism that I have to make sure is good as dead. You dont want to be eating that now.

watertown on December 16, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I think Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman must sleep together.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 16, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Pelosi:

Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Shut up.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 17, 2011 at 12:06 AM

600,000 – a number which she got from the voices in her head.

wdkeller on December 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM

$110,000 per job is fairly low for a job that lasts a full year, actually. The burden rates on employee pay can be pretty high when you need to consider health plans (if any), physical facilities, taxes, materials, and all the other incidental expenses companies have. Unless these were very low paying jobs $110,000 per job is not bad at all. Jobs that are temporary and particularly jobs that are seasonal in nature should not even be considered as jobs created unless you offset that figure with jobs ended or destroyed.

Also note the slight of hand with counting jobs created as anybody accepting new employment. If somebody else had left that job then no net job creation happened. And if the person taking that job had moved from another job you could even have a net one job deletion.

Remember, these are government politically manipulated numbers to make a terrible situation look merely bad.

{^_^}

herself on December 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM

Actually, that while there may be a small amount of truth in what she says, I don’t think she realises why. Any money put into the economy can create some jobs. I think they use a multiplier of 1/2 to 2 jobs for government type money and 4-5 jobs for private money. The redicularity is that this woman evidently believes that keeping people unemployed longer creates jobs. Actually, they would be just maintaining current jobs in the 1/2 – 2 multiplier range by maintaining the unemployment payments. But to confabulate unemployment with creating jobs in any manner is considered by most to be moronic and ludicrous.

I think the real question would be how many more jobs would be created by forcing or encouraging people to go back to work by witholding unemployment than would be maintained by the dribble of money into the economy by the government for unemployment?

Old Country Boy on December 17, 2011 at 8:59 AM

It’s official …the botox has gone to her brain. Did anyone else notice that Nancy was off the radar screen for a few weeks and then VOILA she reappears all smoothed out and refreshed looking?

IlonaE on December 17, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Marketplace? What is that, anyway, is it something new the gubmint thought up?

ZetaReticulum on December 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Me thinks all that Botox plumped up her brain to a monstrous level of stupid.

She is scary.

pastselldate on December 17, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Evil stupid dolt and a fake Catholic to boot.

Hummer53 on December 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Fixed it for me.

Loh2o on December 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Just 600,000 job? When you’re a liberal, you get to make things up on the fly.

Why not 6 million jobs, Queen Nancy?

Alabama Patriot on December 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM

California dreamin… hope she chokes on a ham sandwich

Windsweeping on December 17, 2011 at 3:27 PM

. . And what makes the whole thing a really, really, really, really, cool deal for Madame Chiquita . . . it’s all free money!!!

P Opus on December 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM

She may have meant that extending the benifits “IS LIKE”

jpcpt03 on December 18, 2011 at 3:09 PM

She is still the idiot that all of the above statements say. Still isn’t this extension unconstitutional? After all when the employee and employer contributed to it as insurance, that is one thing, but now when they are accessioning new taxes on the general public for the benefit of some at the expense of others in need. That’s just not right. The wife and I are self employed. Last year we took a bad hit on income, lost our savings, investments, house and had to sell our cars. Not one red cent comes our way from the government yet they have the nerve to raise OUR taxes to give to some one doing nothing for it but to vote these fools in to office. Mark my word, we are at the start of the 4 year revolution, if the people of this country do not take back control in November and instead let business as usual continue, than there will be the falling of the USA starting in December 2012.

jpcpt03 on December 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM

How insane does one need to be to take a dollar from a business to give 50 cents to an unemployed person so the unemployed person can then go into the store and buy something for 10 cents rung up by the working person who ultimately lost the original dollar from his paycheck?

smfic on December 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM

A Democrat talking about business and economics is like an 8 year old talking about Nuclear Physics. They both have about the same level of experience and understanding. Unfortunately, their growing constituency consists of similarly well informed ’8 year olds’…many of whom are currently occupying Zuccotti Park.

PorchDawg on December 19, 2011 at 12:01 PM

At what point is ‘extended unemployment’ considered ‘welfare’?

PorchDawg on December 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM

While I doubt anyone can by the 600,000 jobs bit. I do think considering the state of the economy and the job market benefits should be extended. Doesn’t seem right to cut them off when no jobs are being created.

iidvbii on December 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Then you pay for it.

Not trying to be snarky, but I’ve paid enough for people to sit around not working. My sympathy for their plight ends when they start enslaving me (forcing me to pay for their liesure time). This doesn’t just apply to the unemployment situation either, it’s just the most egregious example going right now.

runawayyyy on December 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM

At what point is ‘extended unemployment’ considered ‘welfare’?

PorchDawg on December 19, 2011 at 12:08 PM

At what point was unemployment considered a job?

pencotron on December 19, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2