Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of jobs, you know

posted at 2:41 pm on January 4, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Appearing on CNBC this morning to offer the official government spin on the somewhat less-than-uplifting final jobs report of the 2012, Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis aptly demonstrated what seems to be a disturbingly prevalent attitude among our federal officials: That money taken out of the private sector, essentially laundered through the federal government, and then spent by the federal government, is somehow even comparatively effective at producing real gains in economic growth than that money would have been if it just remained in the private sector to begin with. What the what?

“We helped to provide, I think, some stop-gaps, and what I think about is, those two million people who would’ve lost their unemployment insurance — because think about it, all that money that goes out in terms of what’s being spent by that unemployment check, helps to generate two additional dollars back in the community so small businesses, everyone continues to keep their jobs, so, I can’t give you an exact figure but I’ll tell you that just by the movement the president made, we saved millions and millions of jobs.”

This is the same type of thinking we’ve endured from the likes of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack time and again: Not so long ago, he argued that food stamps actually function as a sort of stimulus that can actively create jobs. But hey, if that’s the really the case, why don’t we provide food stamps and extended emergency unemployment benefits for everyone — that will kickstart our economy like crazy, right?

The Keynesianism is overwhelming me.

For the umpteenth time: Republicans do not want to eliminate these benefits. They want to foster a healthy economy in which most people neither need nor even want these benefits, because the material attractions of employment are so much better — and that’s a goal made infinitely harder with the federal government taxing and spending the heck out of us.


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

Heh, Goebbels laughs his dead azz off.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

I cannot believe how stupid these people are.

UltimateBob on January 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

We’re surrounded by morons.

The Count on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The Keynesianism is overwhelming me.

This stupidity of the masses is overwhelming me. I hope that all who brung these fools are going to be utterly destroyed by them. They and theirs deserve no less, incl. those from the right.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Another wise Latina. Does being an Obama crony drop one’s IQ by half a hundred, or idiots just naturally gravitate to each other?

Archivarix on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That’s about par for the course of the ignorance of the people that work in this Administration.

gsherin on January 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM

We’re surrounded by morons.

The Count on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

…and scroomed by the charlatanich thugs, the one in chief, foremost. Enjoy.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Another wise Latina. Does being an Obama crony drop one’s IQ by half a hundred, or idiots just naturally gravitate to each other?

Archivarix on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

If the once freest land w/b any smarter these turkeys w/b shunned.

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM

If she woman wasn’t in politics she would be a community organizer.

Oil Can on January 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM

all that money that goes out in terms of what’s being spent by that unemployment check, helps to generate two additional dollars back in the community

Ahh, yes. The oft-touted, but never-proven, unemployment benefits multiplier. Have the lead Dem fiction writers finally settled on 2?

steebo77 on January 4, 2013 at 2:47 PM

INCOMPLETE STATEMENT: “Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of jobs”
COMPLETE STATEMENT: “Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of jobs from being filled by these FREELOADERS.”

FYI: Hilda Solis – OBOZO’s labor-union-lackey secretary – her TAX CHEAT husband didn’t pay about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business — liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years – until the day before her confirmation hearing!

TeaPartyNation on January 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Obama must have looked through binders of women before he picked this loser!

KS Rex on January 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Hilarious, sadly.

Only one correction, Erika, but it’s merely a grammatical issue:

It’s not What the what? Is it?

I believe the expression is WTF. With lots of these !!!!!!

Either fortunately or unfortunately, my kids have taught me the use of certain initials for texting and other nefarious purposes.

I’m thinking you knew that, though.

IndieDogg on January 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

IndieDogg on January 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I like Erica’s “what the what?” much better than WTF.

KS Rex on January 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM

This is fantastic– unemployment benefits are so good for the private sector, that we should heavily tax people who insist on continuing to work in order to compel them to go on unemployment, and improve the economy and, uh, save jobs.

Solis is an inspiration to stupid people– it’s great to see that you don’t need brains or talent to attain high office.

morganfrost on January 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Leftard ‘logic’

Schadenfreude on January 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Also, why doesn’t the stupid Dem logic behind unemployment benefits multipliers and federal spending multipliers (which actually cause the economy to suffer in the long run) ever extend to tax cuts (which have actually been proven to have stimulative, multiplicative properties)?

steebo77 on January 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of jobs, you know

These benefits are holding up the facade that our country is in a depression.

portlandon on January 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I miss Elaine

cmsinaz on January 4, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Is she Norm Crosby’s niece or sumpin’?

My head hurts.

kingsjester on January 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Using that reasoning, everyone should be at home, on unemployment. For one thing, people wouldn’t be driving to work, burning fossil fuels and worsening global warming.

/

Ward Cleaver on January 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Let’s see…people on UI tend to purchase only what they need, keeping their expenses down because UI pays less than the lost job by a lot. That means they’re not buying extras like DVDs, CDs, new appliances, new cars, movie theaters, nice dinners with the family, etc.

Since UI payouts are taxed at both the state and Federal levels, that’s even less money for the unemployed. So they either have the taxes deducted before they receive their allotment or get stuck paying by April 15.

These people aren’t stupid. They’re liars, with the biggest lie being told to themselves and each other in that they think we’re morons who actually believe them.

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Using that reasoning, everyone should be at home, on unemployment. For one thing, people wouldn’t be driving to work, burning fossil fuels and worsening global warming.

/

Ward Cleaver on January 4, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Unemployment is good for the environment! /

Liam on January 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

It would be funny if she really didn’t believe it.

Ellis on January 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM

“. . . helps to generate two additional dollars back in the community . . . ”

What the what?

The Reasonable Man on January 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM

If it’s so effective, put everyone on these benefits, watch the economy boom!!

right2bright on January 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM

This woman is full of more crap than a holiday turkey . . . but she also vividly reflects the attitudes of this screwball, left wing administration.

rplat on January 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM

For the umpteenth time: Republicans do not want to eliminate these benefits.

With all due respect, Erika, speak for yourself. I want to see federal unemployment benefits end and all unemployment insurance handled by the states, for two reasons:

1. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in this in the first place. It is yet another usurpation of a power that is not enumerated. And I am an absolutist on this. Either it is in the black-and-white text of the Constitution or the federal government does not do it. Period.

2. The original idea of unemployment insurance was that it was supposed to be, er, insurance. Y’know, employees paid into this unemployment insurance policy while they were working, and then if they got laid off, they collected on that insurance. But the federal government has stepped in, extended the benefits ad infinitum, and turned it into nothing but another welfare program. The net effect of which is to actually discourage finding employment.

Shump on January 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Guess this old harpy, solis, got with that even older harpy dear nan to come up with this krap? Both harpies came up with the same beyond stupid statement!
L

letget on January 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of jobs, you know

…MY GAWD!…a turd from the ex-Speakers a$$!…where unemployment checks were the greatest contribution to the STIMULUS of the economy! WTF? LABOR SEC…!!!…W…T…F?

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM

For the umpteenth time

Quoted just as something Dad would say. Depression era.

Paul-Cincy on January 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Then lay off the entire workforce to end unemployment.

The Rogue Tomato on January 4, 2013 at 3:02 PM

What the what?

It’s consistent with the Obama Campaign’s stance that 5 year old tax cuts caused the 2008 housing market collapse and recession. The government would have put the extra money to better use by taking it from people who earned it and giving it to other people in exchange for not working.

Brawndo. It’s got electrolytes.

forest on January 4, 2013 at 3:02 PM

By her logic, everyone should go on unemployment then, so we’d have full employment.

How do these people remember to breathe?

rbj on January 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM

But hey, if that’s the really the case, why don’t we provide food stamps and extended emergency unemployment benefits for everyone — that will kickstart our economy like crazy, right?

Democrats could use the same critique on Republican views on tax cuts: “If cutting tax rates will result in MORE money due to economic growth, cutting rates to nothing should get us a ton!” But of course no one claims that the Laffer Curve has a maximum at zero. And no Democrat claims that government-benefit-as-stimulus has no limit, either. It’s a straw-man argument, and although good people can disagree with the Secretary, good people shouldn’t say that she’s making a claim she’s not.

calbear on January 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Think about it from her perspective.

Labor Sec Solis: All of these unemployment benefits have saved millions of [GOVERNMENT] jobs, you know

Be very frightened.

TenRing on January 4, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Is she Norm Crosby’s niece or sumpin’?

My head hurts.

kingsjester on January 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM

…lol…I liked it better when Dire or Walker or Resist or Shan… or someone said recently…”it makes my hair hurt” !

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Idiotic electorate—> idiotic leader—>idiotic Cabinet members.

Vicious cycle with no end in sight.

hillsoftx on January 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

By her logic, everyone should go on unemployment then, so we’d have full employment.

How do these people remember to breathe?

rbj on January 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM

…more frightening yet!…do you think she had children?

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

My head really hurts after this.

TturnP on January 4, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I cannot believe how stupid these people are.

UltimateBob on January 4, 2013 at 2:44 PM

You’re not trying hard enough, Bob.

Kraken on January 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Why are you still looking for logic in all the wrong places? Abortion saves lives. It’s speed that kills.
We have to destroy capitalism to save it.
It’s not the forrest, it’s all these damn trees!

if that’s the really the case, why don’t we provide food stamps and extended emergency unemployment benefits for everyone

Ah. There’s the nugget of truth better left unsaid. It is the new(math) era of progress(ive). We should call it the new and improved time of bread and circuses.

onomo on January 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Democrats could use the same critique on Republican views on tax cuts: “If cutting tax rates will result in MORE money due to economic growth, cutting rates to nothing should get us a ton!” But of course no one claims that the Laffer Curve has a maximum at zero. And no Democrat claims that government-benefit-as-stimulus has no limit, either. It’s a straw-man argument, and although good people can disagree with the Secretary, good people shouldn’t say that she’s making a claim she’s not.

calbear on January 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut. All you’re doing is giving people more money to spend. All the other arguments, that it encourages freeloading, that we shouldn’t be borrowing money to give it to others, that we shouldn’t be taxing workers to redistribute their income, etc., are all perfectly valid as well and I’m sure there is empirical data on whether unemployment benefits as a whole are beneficial. But don’t jump up and down and call her stupid because her economic views differ from yours.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

But she means well…

claudius on January 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Take $100 from productive worker.
Spend $40 of it on government overhead.
Give remaining $60 to unemployed person to pay for cheetos and text messaging.
Profit.

JeremiahJohnson on January 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM

God help us; they’re all this functionally stupid. It’s amazing they don’t crap their pants daily for want of enough sense to remember to go to the restroom.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM

all that money that goes out in terms of what’s being spent by that unemployment check, helps to generate two additional dollars back in the community so small businesses, everyone continues to keep their jobs

this is so stupid. she acts as if the money from the unemployment check magically comes out of nowhere. obama’s stash? but it comes from taxpayers… if the taxpayers kept that money, they could put it back into the community and small business. but noooo government has to do it!!

and “keeping their jobs”? how about helping the unemployed GET a job?

instead, we are paying people not to work. that doesn’t actually create jobs

wow these people are idiots.

Obama must have looked through binders of women before he picked this loser!

KS Rex on January 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

i hope he has more binders available then!

Sachiko on January 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

all that money that goes out in terms of what’s being spent by that unemployment check, helps to generate two additional dollars back in the community so small businesses, everyone continues to keep their jobs

This is the core of how leftards think: take a dollar from someone who earned it, run it through the government machine, and it magically reappears as two dollars of “stimulation” in the economy.

It doesn’t work as a theory, the math doesn’t work, and it doesn’t work in practice. It’s just a stupid Progressive religion.

peski on January 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

But don’t jump up and down and call her stupid because her economic views differ from yours.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

That’s not an economic view, it’s an excuse to justify continuing high unemployment.

darwin on January 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Another wise Latina. Does being an Obama crony drop one’s IQ by half a hundred, or idiots just naturally gravitate to each other?

Archivarix on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The latter, just ask any physicist. It’s completely expected when dealing with such extreme densities.

CapnObvious on January 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Another wise Latina. Does being an Obama crony drop one’s IQ by half a hundred, or idiots just naturally gravitate to each other?

Archivarix on January 4, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The latter.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

That literally makes no sense.

What the what?

That’s because you aren’t suppose to apply logic to her statement, you are just suppose to swallow it like the Kool-aid at Jim Jones Peoples Temple.

SWalker on January 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

CapnObvious on January 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM

You beat me to it. I blame the third martini. :-)

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2013 at 3:21 PM

That’s not an economic view, it’s an excuse to justify continuing high unemployment.

darwin on January 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I would say it’s an excuse to avoid remedying high unemployment through methods known to be effective.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Brawndo. It’s got electrolytes.

forest on January 4, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Two Thumbs Up for the Brawndo reference!

Fogpig on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

No – no, it isn’t. A tax cut leaves 100% of the money in question in the hands of the people that earned it, and they can do with it as they with.

Unemployment benefits are the result of that 100% but after reducing it to pay for federal overhead and costs and and and… sending something less than 100% back.

It is NOT the exact same as a tax cut.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Well, then, everybody should quit working and go on the dole. Imagine the roaring economy we’ll have!

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

For the umpteenth time: Republicans do not want to eliminate these benefits.

Proof of that is what happened earlier this week. A damn shame neither party wants to return unemployment insurance to the states.

Steve Eggleston on January 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM

LSOTUS Hilda Solis = walking talking human excrement.

 …

For the first time in my adult life — I am so not proud of my country.

And it took only 4 short years out of nearly an entire lifetime for Preezy of the United Steezy Barack Hussein Obama and his endless clown-car cavalcade of sycophants and lickspittles to render me as such.

SD Tom on January 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut. All you’re doing is giving people more money to spend. All the other arguments, that it encourages freeloading, that we shouldn’t be borrowing money to give it to others, that we shouldn’t be taxing workers to redistribute their income, etc., are all perfectly valid as well and I’m sure there is empirical data on whether unemployment benefits as a whole are beneficial. But don’t jump up and down and call her stupid because her economic views differ from yours.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

It does not stimulate the economy if you took it to redistribute it in the first place – nevermind all the overhead costs of employing bureaucrats who don’t know that they’re doing to facilitate the money transfers.

If I steal your wallet and use your debit card to buy myself a big screen TV and throw a big superbowl party I haven’t stimulated the economy.

gwelf on January 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I would say it’s an excuse to avoid remedying high unemployment through methods known to be effective.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Agreed

darwin on January 4, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I would say it’s an excuse to avoid remedying high unemployment through methods known to be effective.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Except that, as has been acknowledged by countries such as Germany and Denmark, which are not exactly bastions of Austrian economic thought, the more welfare and longer the length of unemployment benefits, the fewer workers and higher unemployment you get.

Here is some data and handy-dandy charts that might entertain you:

More Welfare, Fewer Workers

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I would say it’s an excuse to avoid remedying high unemployment through methods known to be effective.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Yeah, things known to be effective, like not taxing the f*ck out of the private sector to begin with, which leads to high unemployment.

You guys worry about unemployment benefits to put a bandaid on a problem that your policies make worse at the outset.

Quit making unemployment worse, quit undertaking policies that make it hard for employers to hire new employees, and you’ll have to worry less about the ins and outs of unemployment benefits. Crazy idea, i know.

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I would say it’s an excuse to avoid remedying high unemployment through methods known to be effective.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:22 PM

What does Obama or anyone in his administration know about remedying high unemployment? Real unemployment is in the teens and has been his whole presidency.

gwelf on January 4, 2013 at 3:27 PM

…so, I can’t give you an exact figure but I’ll tell you that just by the movement the president made, we saved millions and millions of jobs.”

?????

Imagine saying something along this line to stockholders or board members of a private sector company in justifying successful results from an investment. But in the Obama administration this statement is good enough for reporting success of public policy. And what in the heck does ‘movement the president made’ mean in this context anyway?

DaveDief on January 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Oh, and even the “just-this-side-of-Marx” Shadow Secretary Ed Balls in the UK is announcing that the Labour Party’s new policy will be two years of dole, then work. If you refuse to accept employment, then you lose all benefits. So, that’s what the dolers will get to look forward to if they return Labour in 2015.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Is she Norm Crosby’s niece or sumpin’?

My head hurts.

kingsjester on January 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM

These people are so stupid my hair hurts (whats left of it)

doublee on January 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

“Look how full the shallow end of the pool is now! We have to take more from the deep end continue filling the shallow end.”

BobMbx on January 4, 2013 at 3:33 PM

What the what?

Heh…that’s what I wind up saying when I talk to a liberal.

Visit some left-wing sites from time to time and try to spread some facts around. You’ll be astounded at the responses you get.

lynncgb on January 4, 2013 at 3:33 PM

The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy.

So if I have $100, they take $25 and give it to one of the looters…we still have a net of $100.

Stimu-licious!!

BigWyo on January 4, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Keystone Kops run this country.

sadatoni on January 4, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The stupid. It burns.

Gothguy on January 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM

For the umpteenth time: Republicans do not want to eliminate these benefits.

And that is why they fail.

Scott H on January 4, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I guess collecting unemployment is now considered honest work.

belad on January 4, 2013 at 3:37 PM

So if I have $100, they take $25 and give it to one of the looters…we still have a net of $100.

Stimu-licious!!

BigWyo on January 4, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Don’t forget that your $100 is ~70% of what you started with (income taxes took the ~30%). In addition, that $25 is given tax free. So not only are you paying taxes on all your income, but you’re giving $25 tax free to someone who hasn’t earned it.

And you still aren’t paying your fair share.

BobMbx on January 4, 2013 at 3:37 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Uh, no. The government has no money other than what it seizes from us or borrows in our name. So by definition, whatever it spends comes at the expense of someone else. Therefore, no wealth is created, and is actually reduced by the cost of government itself.

Money in the private sector is earned by creating value for someone else. Both sides benefit and wealth is created. You can’t say spending stimulates anything unless the source of the money is also considered.

RadClown on January 4, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Your inability to understand her point makes you seem stupid, Erika. Unemployment benefits have been shown to have one of the highest multipliers of any government spending, because people go out and spend the money. And no, this does not mean she is saying that everyone should go on unemployment to cure the economy; anyone who thinks she is saying this is stupid, as well.

This is also not welfare, these are people who had jobs and were laid off through no fault of their own, who are being paid barely enough to live on (as an aside, when I lost my job in finance after 9/11, I survived off Bush’s extension of UE benefits, and it was not fun).

You really can’t have it both ways: You can’t say the economy sucks, and then say at the same time, people who have suffered don’t need a little extra help. That’s how we lose national elections.

The real issue here is tha total bankruptcy of ideas in the current administration to actually create jobs, so they have to point to these benefits as some sort of job creation idea, which they are not, they are a symptom of failed economic policies.

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Affirmative action strikes again. An administration made up of people too stupid to function in the world on their own merit.

Jaibones on January 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’m sorry, but if you can’t find some kind of job after 2 goddamned years you’re not getting ‘a little extra help’…….

BigWyo on January 4, 2013 at 3:44 PM

*Book of Obama: Psalm 666

The State is my shepherd.
I shall not want.

It maketh me to lie down in federally owned pastures.
It leadeth me beside still waters in banned fishing areas.
It restoreth my soul through life control from cradle to grave.
It guideth me unto the path of dependency for its namesake.

Even though our nation plunges into the valley of the shadow of generations of debt
I shall fear no evil
For Barack shall be with me.

Thy Affordable Care Act and 48 Million residents on Food Stamps
They comfort me.

You prepare a table of Michelle Obama approved foods before me
in the presence of my Conservative and Libertarian enemies.

You anoint my head with hemp oil
My government approved 16-ounce Slurpee cup runneth over.

Surely mediocrity and an entitlement mentality will follow me
All the days of my life
And I shall dwell in the HUD house of the Obama
Forever and ever.

Amen.

 

*(To be sung by children, K-12, every morning of their seven-day school week.)**

**(Special Note: For union workers teaching their subjects the Book of Obama: Psalm 666 in government schools, it is to be revered and regarded as a Psalm of unsurpassed exquisite beauty. The main tenet is the watchful care that the Government extends over its dependents and the consequent faux assurance that you must make them feel that the State will supply all their needs. The leading thought — the essential idea — is to get gullible Americans to fully believe that Big Government will provide for them and that they will never be left to want. Ever. Make certain the vapid little basturds get the message, okay?)

SD Tom on January 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Your inability to understand her point makes you seem stupid, Erika. Unemployment benefits have been shown to have one of the highest multipliers of any government spending, because people go out and spend the money. And no, this does not mean she is saying that everyone should go on unemployment to cure the economy; anyone who thinks she is saying this is stupid, as well.

If this is true, then why doesn’t the economy grow when unemployment benefit outlays increase?

Explain the multiplier effect, if you don’t mind. Shouldn’t the economy have vaulted out of recession by now, considering the ‘multiplier’ of UE payments?

But first, answer the first question.

Its a multiplier, but only if you use a value of, oh, 0.5 or 0.3.

BobMbx on January 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

And what in the heck does ‘movement the president made’ mean in this context anyway?

DaveDief on January 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Pretty sure it means bowel movements, as in “he crapped all over the economy.”

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I cannot believe how stupid these people are.

UltimateBob on January 4, 2013 at 2:44 P

PM

The real idiots are voters.

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Every time one of these birds talks about how much a dollar of government spending generates in the private sector, the amount goes up. Now a dollar in unemployment insurance spending generates two dollars of economic activity. That’s a great return on investment. Let’s have more of it!

SukieTawdry on January 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Your inability to understand her point makes you seem stupid, Erika. Unemployment benefits have been shown to have one of the highest multipliers of any government spending, because people go out and spend the money. And no, this does not mean she is saying that everyone should go on unemployment to cure the economy; anyone who thinks she is saying this is stupid, as well.

This is also not welfare, these are people who had jobs and were laid off through no fault of their own, who are being paid barely enough to live on (as an aside, when I lost my job in finance after 9/11, I survived off Bush’s extension of UE benefits, and it was not fun).

You really can’t have it both ways: You can’t say the economy sucks, and then say at the same time, people who have suffered don’t need a little extra help. That’s how we lose national elections.

So, your platform is that we need to be liberal idiots to win elections and give away.. YES welfare/goodies to win. Why then does it matter if it is “r” or “d”. Indeed, how do you think you belong with “r”.. other than they just pretend to want to get this country back to freedom when in actual fact our republican leaders are liberal democrats in elephant clothing like yourself. You are the ignorant one, sorry to say.

Noelie on January 4, 2013 at 3:47 PM

blue13326 on January 4, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The unemployment insurance is not paid by the recipient, it is paid by someone else. The gubmint has to borrow the money(printing) or it has to appropriate(tax/confiscate) it from someone earning it and then takes a cut before it gives it to the non-earner. That sounds like a most efficient system of redistributing wealth.

If the multiplier is soooo good, then we should be able to spend ourselves into prosperity. Right?

belad on January 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM

These people are so stupid my hair hurts (whats left of it)

doublee on January 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM

So Stupid, It Makes My Hair Hurt!

lol

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Dude, you’re an idiot. The only reason the government has money is because they took it from you. I am sure the economy doesn’t much care who is spending the money. I am sure you know how to spend your money as well if not better than a stranger. Please tell me you are not buying into this twisted logic.

DaveDief on January 4, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Midas on January 4, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, that’s the way it came across to me as well.

DaveDief on January 4, 2013 at 3:53 PM

This is exactly right. The Secretary is correct that giving people money to spend stimulates the economy. The effect is the exact same as a tax cut.

JoeShmoe99 on January 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Have you ever been witness to the fury of that solid citizen, James Goodfellow, when his incorrigible son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at this spectacle, certainly you must also have observed that the onlookers, even if there are as many as thirty of them, seem with one accord to offer the unfortunate owner the selfsame consolation: “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody some good. Such accidents keep industry going. Everybody has to make a living. What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?”

Now, this formula of condolence contains a whole theory that it is a good idea for us to expose, flagrante delicto, in this very simple case, since it is exactly the same as that which, unfortunately, underlies most of our economic institutions.

Suppose that it will cost six francs to repair the damage. If you mean that the accident gives six francs’ worth of encouragement to the aforesaid industry, I agree. I do not contest it in any way; your reasoning is correct. The glazier will come, do his job, receive six francs, congratulate himself, and bless in his heart the careless child. That is what is seen.

But if, by way of deduction, you conclude, as happens only too often, that it is good to break windows, that it helps to circulate money, that it results in encouraging industry in general, I am obliged to cry out: That will never do! Your theory stops at what is seen. It does not take account of what is not seen.

It is not seen that, since our citizen has spent six francs for one thing, he will not be able to spend them for another. It is not seen that if he had not had a windowpane to replace, he would have replaced, for example, his worn-out shoes or added another book to his library. In brief, he would have put his six francs to some use or other for which he will not now have them.

Let us next consider industry in general. The window having been broken, the glass industry gets six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is seen.

If the window had not been broken, the shoe industry (or some other) would have received six francs’ worth of encouragement; that is what is not seen.

And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken.

Now let us consider James Goodfellow.

On the first hypothesis, that of the broken window, he spends six francs and has, neither more nor less than before, the enjoyment of one window.

On the second, that in which the accident did not happen, he would have spent six francs for new shoes and would have had the enjoyment of a pair of shoes as well as of a window.

Now, if James Goodfellow is part of society, we must conclude that society, considering its labors and its enjoyments, has lost the value of the broken window.

From which, by generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,” and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: “To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment,” or more briefly: “Destruction is not profitable.”

What will the Moniteur industriel say to this, or the disciples of the estimable M. de Saint-Chamans, who has calculated with such precision what industry would gain from the burning of Paris, because of the houses that would have to be rebuilt?

I am sorry to upset his ingenious calculations, especially since their spirit has passed into our legislation. But I beg him to begin them again, entering what is not seen in the ledger beside what is seen.

The reader must apply himself to observe that there are not only two people, but three, in the little drama that I have presented. The one, James Goodfellow, represents the consumer, reduced by destruction to one enjoyment instead of two. The other, under the figure of the glazier, shows us the producer whose industry the accident encourages. The third is the shoemaker (or any other manufacturer) whose industry is correspondingly discouraged by the same cause. It is this third person who is always in the shadow, and who, personifying what is not seen, is an essential element of the problem. It is he who makes us understand how absurd it is to see a profit in destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is equally absurd to see a profit in trade restriction, which is, after all, nothing more nor less than partial destruction. So, if you get to the bottom of all the arguments advanced in favor of restrictionist measures, you will find only a paraphrase of that common cliché: “What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke any windows?”

- Frédéric Bastiat

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Too all those who find merit is Solis’ sorry statement, I have a better idea – Encourage me, the taxpayer/giver/financier to contribute to non-profit organizations that provide services to the unemployed by giving me a dollar-for-dollar tax credit. That way the unemployed obtain the services they need (probably at a lower cost of delivery per unit) thereby increasing the number of unemployed served per dollar donated, and I get a bigger tax break, thereby increasing the amount of money available to be spent in the economy by me.

EdmundBurke247 on January 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Hilda probably caught the flu, became light headed, fell and hit her head. Now she’s rambling incoherently. Or was that Hillary? Darn, I keep getting these people mixed up. Probably because they’re all the same.

Cherokee on January 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I just posted The ZeroHedge piece regarding the video in the unemployment thread. Sorry Erika.

We are governed by complete lunatics and incompetents.

dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM

How does anyone take these people seriously? Incredible, just incredible.

College Prof on January 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM

PM

The real idiots are voters.

cajunpatriot on January 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM

And the government is going to continue to keep them/us from feeling the pain of our stupidity…..

BigWyo on January 4, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM

I’m not inviting you to my superbowl party that JoeSchmoe is paying for.

gwelf on January 4, 2013 at 4:12 PM

This is as good a place as any to park a “you can’t fix stupid” bills introduced by John Conyers:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/01/04/conyers-reintroduces-reparations-effort/?print=1

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if millions of jobs had been saved, wouldn’t these unemployment benefits be unnecessary? Just sayin…

College Prof on January 4, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2