Malkin Calls Valerie Jarrett "Magical Thinking Czar" For Accurate Statement About Unemployment Insurance

You're an idiot.

Why doesn't your beloved Job Creators magically create some jobs instead of shoveling hundreds of millions into Gop campaigns. Its amazing to me how these job creators can afford to contribute to a campaign because I've heard nothing except that Obama's punitive tax policies are killing those fine Americans. They will spend hundreds of millions to prevent having to pay tens of millions.

Because, people who have jobs don't need unemployment checks. Far better for the economy to let the unemployed become homeless, don't you think? I'm sure the additional foreclosures would boost the housing market.

You obviously slept through the entire Econ 101 class and flunked.

If drinking water is healthy, why not pour gallons of it down people's throat? Just imagine how healthy they would be.

nazi war machine says If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be!

Ha ha you are really dense. If lowering taxes increases revenue then why don't we have everyone pay zero taxes so revenue would go through the roof. (Oh you only want your billionaire masters to pay zero taxes.....)

Hey, Panzer... call for you from Fox News. You're hired!

Could it that they haven't yet become unemployed in the Bush Great Recession and thus they do not qualify for unemployment insurance? Moron.

What Jarrett said:

"Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community[.]" "And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it's good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that's healthy as well."

Perhaps what really irks Malkin is that the unemployed use their checks to pay for food, rent, utilities, etc. instead of Tweety Bird suits.

Boy, the ignorant and uninformed are getting up early these day! Mommy change your nappy yet?

panzy

Are you still trying this ignorant bit of stupidity? If vitamin A is good for you why dont you eat six pounds of it? IT is sad that you are this stupid. But this is about the sixth go around with this ignorant talking point for you because you are a LIAR. You know it doesnt make a point you just love to tell lies

. . .we will be if any of your clowns get in office

Wow, that was one of the most ridiculously stupid comments I've ever seen you make, panzer.

It was really sad.

70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending in US. Reducing unemployment benefits to those who need will lead to less Consumer expenditure in the private sector. Less demand for private firms will mean less revenues. Less revenues leads cutting of jobs by firms

It wasn't an unemployment check but way back in 2008, just as the economy was collapsing, W did mail every taxpayer a rebate check to... guess what.... stimulate the economy.

"The government hopes the measure, which will send most Americans tax rebate checks by May, will either prevent a recession or make one relatively brief."

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/politics/bush.stimulus_1_rebate-checks-economic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS

Taking things to the extreme isn't what is needed now. What is needed is temporary help in a time of crisis. If the economy tanks and millions of people are out of work, common sense will tell you that you don't want all these people going broke and losing everything they own.

Your stupid question, panzer, is like me asking, "If you don't like taxes, why don't we eliminate all taxes?" But maybe you think that is a good idea.

I wish we could give a properly functioning brain to everyone that doesn't have one.

Jobs, of course, are the most stimulative, but when there are not enough jobs available (1 job for every 5 looking)then unempoyment checks are not only stimulative, but keep millions of Americans alive.
Now do you understand Panzer

The checks do provide some stimulus. Obviously, money in the hands of needy will be readily spent and put back into the economy. Most on the right believe in unemployment, we just don't think it should go on for a year, or two years... Make it last a few months, and if at that time, you still can't get a job, get off unemployment, and get on welfare. People tend to actually find work fairly quickly after their unemployment benefits run out. Not all, but most. That might mean taking a lower paying job than you want, but oh well, at least you're earning your money and can do so until you find something better. Employers frown upon hiring someone who has been out of work fo 99 weeks, and providing people with endless access to unemployment benefits ultimately makes it much harder for them to find work.

And while I'll once again admit the checks do provide some stimulus, those checks come from somewhere. The money backing those checks comes out of the economy from somewhere else.

Well... It WOULD. And what's more we've already done it! What do you think the difference is, purely economically speaking, between what you're proposing, and the Bush Tax Cuts? Or the Bush Stimulus Checks that we all got?

Let's see...:

1) More money in people's pockets
2) Less tax money left in (or ending up in) the treasury
3) Proportionate increase to the deficit
4) Proportionate benefit to the economy

The only difference is that UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS are given on the basis of NEED, and that NEED is what drives the spending that would otherwise not be happening, and THIS is where the STIMULUS comes from. But when Bush did it, he gave money to people who DIDN'T need it, and thus didn't SPEND it - or spend AS MUCH of it. So the defict part was larger, relative to the stimulus part.

And BTW, the ongoing need for all this unemployment? Represents a FAILURE of our free-market economy; A FAILURE of capitalism, nothing more. If the private sector can't (or won't) create jobs and income for people, then they will be taxed to pay for the gov't programs that provide what they have failed to.

Keynes has never been proven wrong: An economy needs SPENDING to succeed.

------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA

You do know that the soviet T-34 defeated the german tiger in WWII. Right?

You are leaving out the part about them being stimulating by getting UNEMPLOYED people to spend.

Employed people have no need for these checks to stimulate the economy.

Jobs stimulate the economy better. So why don't we just cap personal income at $5 million by taxing every dollar over that amount at 100 percent, and use the revenue to create infrastructure-rebuilding jobs (roads, schools, high-speed rail, etc?) We know that an economy in which 100 people possess a third of the wealth isn't stimulative. Let's try dropping that percentage to .0001 percent and see how that works.

I know it's just a theory, but I suspect that if more people had more money in their pockets, more money would get spent, and this would have a stimulative effect. I know, sounds kind of crazy, but I think it might be worth a try. God knows the Rich get Richer, Poor get Poorer, Middle Class Vanishes policies of the last decade sure haven't worked.

Actually, that has been done to some extent...

Remember those checks you received for tax rebates given by the Bush administration? Actually one of the smarter moves he made.

That's the same principle. Get money into the hands of people who will spend it. They use it to buy goods and services. The Stores and restaurants, etc. in turn by goods and services from other companies. And then they buy goods and services from others, and others, and others.

Get it?

Econ 101

If unemployment checks stimulate the economy, why don't we give every person in the country an unemployment check? Just imagine how great the economy would be

And if you are dieing of thirst, leaving you at the bottom of the ocean is what's best for you, right.

sorry .... creators aren't creating

. . .I saved my unemployment checks for 18months and didn't buy food, eat or pay rent, sat around, and then put it in my off shore account

few million jobs hidden in her brazier

Malkin is hiding Burger King job openings?

They come in two flavors: Evil and stupid.

One lies, the other buys.

------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA

You just don't understand! Less taxes for the benevolent job creators means freed up money so they can do what they just really really want to do which is create jobs. You don't honestly think the benevolent job creators that are reaping huge profits with the work force they already have would just pocket the extra dough, do you?

How does cutting regulations and taxes turn into more jobs?

Streamlining the permitting process for a refinery, a power plant, a factory reduces the time to market / provides competitive edge and may encourage them to actually be built.

Cutting corporate taxes increases profits which some (not all) companies will reinvest in new facilites and/or R&D.

In each case there may be net jobs lost or gained.

The important question is what do the regulations achieve and is it a necessary goal? Is 10 ppm arsenic in water safe, is 20 ppm in apple juice safe? Is new regulation needed? Will the cost borne by manufacturers to comply cause net job gain or loss (i.e., can they retool that older production facility or will they just close it and import juice from Brazil).

These are complex questions with complex answers.

Cutting regulations means: freedom to pollute wantonly, freedom to ignore safety and efficacy, freedom to manipulate prices, freedom to calculate that an employee's life costs less than implementing safeguards (especially with life insurance payments), and so forth. All these freedoms create jobs for clean-up inventors and implementers, the medical industry (and it's a neat cycle when the medical device industry creates the conditions which lead to a greater demand for medical devices and services - positive feedback baby!), accountants who create profitable manipulations, and the funeral industry! What's not to like?

How about this for magical thinking. Increasing a business expense (taxes) will require that business to offset that expense but cutting another expense, but no business would decide to let an employee go, or not hire a new one to make up for that exense.

Letting the wealthy keep more of what they earn may or may not lead to econimic growth, but taking their money surely can't help the people employed by them.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect. These people would SWEAR to you that they know what they're talking about, despite all the times they're proven wrong by people who actually do know.

I got into a tiff with Dana Loesch on Twitter a couple of days ago, in which her constant refrain to people trying to educate her on the concept of an effective mandate (we're talking about the Virginia state-sanctioned rape anti-abortion bill). Her constant rebuttal, despite dozens of thoughtful posts on the resolution requirements of the fetal visualization, and the inability of transabdominal sonograms to detect heartbeats in very early developmental stages, was, "Show me where it says that in the bill." Even when the Governor of Virginia admitted that the requirement was incredibly invasive and degrading, she stuck to her guns.

These wingnuts all remind me of trolls like tommy. They don't know anything, can't be bothered to research, and disdain people who actually HAVE expertise and education. Charlie Pierce was dead on in IDIOT AMERICA, these people think with their guts, and their guts are morons.

The GOP are experts at poor-mouthing and projecting.

Exactly who is taking your money and giving it to rich people? And you know what, if you don't make very much money, you can't get a very big tax break. You actually have to pay taxes to get the tax break. Also, tax breaks are not the government giving money to people, it's the government taking less from the people who have earned it.

So only an idiot would buy the notion that if I give someone money, and that person takes that money and buys something he otherwise would not have, that creates a benefit for the store owner by putting money into the economy, thereby STIMULATING it? Really?