Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs
“It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”
Pelosi said the aid has the “double benefit” of helping those who lost their jobs and acting as a “job creator” on the side.
“It’s impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we’re not going to have unemployment benefits,” Pelosi said. 
(Read more from foxnews.com)
My reaction:
job
And do you know why Pelosi is pretty much right. It’s because the poor pretty much spend all their money, they buy food, clothes, fuel, pay their rent etc. all things which immediately move money into the economy and allow businesses to expand and hire extra workers, which allow people on the dole to find jobs and get better pay. It is one of the basics of economics, if your going to pump money into the economy do it at the bottom, because people will spend it all there. If you pump it in at the top (which is what all the bank bailouts either side of the Atlantic were) it just gets siphoned off into some tax haven like the Caymans never to be heard of again.
“if your going to pump money into the economy do it at the bottom”
Your analysis neglects the fact that government doesn’t rain wealth down upon the needy like mana from heaven. The government first takes away (by force or threat of force) what it then hands out. Real wealth is taken from the productive and given to the unproductive.
No society in history has ever bettered itself by taking wealth from one group of people and giving it to another. On the other hand, many societies (including their poorest members) have been hugely improved by respecting property rights, and free markets — China & India most recently.
Some reading for you:
Affording the Unemployed
Now a Bigger Bailout for the Unemployed “little attention is being given to the fact that by subsidizing people’s unemployment you create the incentive for them to be unemployed even longer.”
The Unemployment Racket
[...] http://www.lostrepublic.us/archives/4329 [...]
> No society in history has ever bettered itself by taking wealth from one group of people and giving it to another.
That’s such a load of BS. In most societies throughout history, the ruling class lived on the backs of their subjects, who in some cases were little better than slaves.
Interesting paradox of quotes:
“” No society in history has ever bettered
itself by taking wealth from one group of
people and giving it to another.””
“That’s such a load of BS. In most societies
throughout history, the ruling class lived on
the backs of their subjects, who in some cases
were little better than slaves.”
Then go back and read, “government doesn’t
rain wealth down upon the needy like manna
from heaven. The government first takes away
(by force or threat of force) what it then hands
out. Real wealth is taken from the productive
and given to the unproductive.”
This is the flaw of Marxism and central planning.
Now looking at history, central planning differs
little from systems like feudalism where the nobility
lived on the backs of peasants, that is productive
members of the system. It was said that they did
so to provide protection for the workers, but in
maintaining the armies they quickly got fat and
lazy off the work of others.
Central planning by bureaucrats or elite or know-
It-alls has also failed. The bureaucrats or elite
decision makers often have no clue to the effect
of their decisions. They relish the power, thought.
The decisions are often based on illusory ideals
rather that what the people want and what a
free market or black market would yield. The
elites know what is best, like the Obamamobile
and the curly light.
What Marxism does is replace the nobility with
bureaucrats. What a free market does is meet
the wants and desires of people. A free market
is by its nature is volatile and causes disruption
of things from the way they were.
Property rights means that the guy who meets
what the market wants may get rich, and in
order to do may drag employees along the ride
up. The increase in wealth created inures to a
small group and only to society in general when
that innovative change satisfies the market of all.
The wealth created is not for elite to distribute
according to their, Obama’s, ideals.
Ed K