{BS} Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment insurance creates jobs.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: * ŞEBNEM FERAH-BEN ŞARKIMI SÖYLERKEN
Next: This is a f**king sperm whale in the Gulf of Mexico!!!!
From: Jeff Strickland on 3 Jul 2010 21:42 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:2zwXn.15128$dx7.5227(a)newsfe21.iad... > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:22:32 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote: > >> >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:4c2e2f9d$0$1049$afc38c87(a)read01.usenet4all.se... >>> DAMN! Where do I sign up?!?!?! >>> >>> >>> >> Of course it does! >> >> Unemployemnt creates jobs because people without jobs collecting >> unemployment can buy stuff, which creates a job for somebody else. Or, it >> saves a job from going away. But a job that goes away simply means that >> another person collects unemployment so they can buy stuff and create >> another job. >> >> The really funny part is that nobody seems to care where the money comes >> from, but the reality is that they are taking a dollar from the right >> side >> pocket and putting it into the left side pocket, and counting up how full >> the left side pocket is getting and ignoring how empty the right side >> pocket is getting. >> >> What they also seem to ignore is that if there is a worker making $25 per >> hour, and you give him $250 in unemployment benefits, he's still not >> gonna >> buy anything, and no jobs are created or saved. > > That money will be going to pay a mortgage, which does not create jobs, or > to pay for groceries, which does not create jobs, or to buy Chinese made > goods, which ships the dfollar overseas. > > Buying groceries creates or saves the job of the person that makes them. Ask Nancy. She'll tell you .
From: Jeff Strickland on 3 Jul 2010 21:44 "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore(a)databasix.com> wrote in message news:i0ner3$8tp$2(a)blackhelicopter.databasix.com... > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:41:18 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> > wrote: > >>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:22:32 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote: >> >>> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:4c2e2f9d$0$1049$afc38c87(a)read01.usenet4all.se... >>>> DAMN! Where do I sign up?!?!?! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Of course it does! >>> >>> Unemployemnt creates jobs because people without jobs collecting >>> unemployment can buy stuff, which creates a job for somebody else. Or, >>> it >>> saves a job from going away. But a job that goes away simply means that >>> another person collects unemployment so they can buy stuff and create >>> another job. >>> >>> The really funny part is that nobody seems to care where the money comes >>> from, but the reality is that they are taking a dollar from the right >>> side >>> pocket and putting it into the left side pocket, and counting up how >>> full >>> the left side pocket is getting and ignoring how empty the right side >>> pocket is getting. >>> >>> What they also seem to ignore is that if there is a worker making $25 >>> per >>> hour, and you give him $250 in unemployment benefits, he's still not >>> gonna >>> buy anything, and no jobs are created or saved. >> >>That money will be going to pay a mortgage, which does not create jobs, > > Mortage Industry. > Electric Company > Gas Company (optional) > Water Company > Trash Pickup > > Unemployment benefits DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Nancy is passing out Kool Aid, and you're drinking it.
From: ah on 3 Jul 2010 23:42 On 7/3/2010 8:09 PM, Aratzio wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:51:16 -0400, in the land of alt.autos.toyota, > Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for > writing: > >>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:46:55 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> > > Post edit restore. >>> Now if you listen to the wingnuts we need to put the same people that >>> did that back in charge because it is the democrats that are fiscally >>> irresponsible. >> >>Wow. For maybe the third time I can agree with you on something. >> > No doubt you believe the people who flushed 4 trillion dollars down > the toilet need to be put back in charge. You haven't a clue about > economics so fulshing 4 trillion means nothing to you, just so long as > it is republicans flushing the money. But, but . . . fiscal responsibility is the foundation of the Republican base! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/03/AR2010070301666.html?hpid=politics -- a "http://users.aristotle.net/~swarmack/aurohist.html" h
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 4 Jul 2010 14:49 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:37:12 -0700, Aratzio wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:22:49 -0400, in the land of alt.autos.toyota, > Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for writing: > >>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:06:33 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:45:21 -0400, in the land of alt.autos.toyota, >>> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> got double secret probation for >>> writing: >>> >>>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:35:21 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Now I understand you cannot conceptualize the concept that not losing >>>>> jobs is the virtual equivalent of adding jobs but that is because you >>>>> are a wingnut and not an American. >>>> >>>>Off we go to LALA Land again. >>>> >>>>As usual, Aratzio adds 2+2 and comes up with Blue. >>>> >>>> >>> Like I said, the concept of virtual equivelence is lost on you. >> >>"Virtual Equivalence". Translation: "Once again I've been had, so we'll >>use some bullshit concept." > > "the concept that not losing jobs is the virtual equivalent of adding jobs > " > > Yes, you are so stupid you can't grasp that simple concept. Duh; I grasp the 'concept', imbecile. If you could read, you'd see I'm saying it's invalid. > > >> >>> Yes, it was incredibly obvious and carried not one subliminal or >>> insinuation so I am sure your ability to process English to Wingnut was >>> highly impeded. >> >>A job saved does not equal a job created. Period. > > Which would explain what I used that very specific qualifier of "virtual > equivalent" Right. A term you made up to make it appear that you are not wrong, as usual. Nice try, Chowderhead. > No , they are not *exactly* the same, however to the local economies they > have virtually the same effect. That you would be whining about it like a > prissy little fuckbot is not a surprise, given your obsession with > everything Obama/Pelosi. YAWN. Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. > > No amount of simple easy to understand logic will ever overcome that > obsession. Your complete refusal to recognize the macro economics of jobs > and the necessity of maintaining employment. A job 'saved' is not a job 'created', no matter how much you go on and on about it, or what terms you make up to make yourself appear intelligent. Fact is, you're a Chowderhead, entered into yet another discussion you know nothing about, and have to make stuff up to try to save your bacon. And, as always, you are wrong. > > All you can focus upon is what you see as a *gaff* by someone with whom > you have an unhealthy obsession. The real world effects of the current > Republican policy mean less to you than scoring what you see as *points* > against one of your personal demons. Yup. Must be the Republicans caus=ing all the evil. But I never heard a Republican call a job 'saved' a job 'created'. Only Dimmowits do that to try to save their asses when their ideas go belly-up. > > Now that is pathological. > Complete lack of empathy for your fellow Americans. Compulsive obsession > with unobtainable personage. Inability to recognize the above. Who said that? You? As usual, you have pot your keen mind to the task and come, yet again, to the wrong conclusion. This has NOTHING to do with how I feel about unemployment benefits, who should be receiving them, or how long they should receive them. This has to do with Nancy Pelosi saying that Unemployment Benefits create jobs. They don't. Period. > > Get help. Really. You get lost in discussion so easily. > > > >> >>> >>> PS: You remember your whining about responding to the same post, >>> hypocrite? >> >>About you being as dumb as a stump? > > *snicker* You shouldn't laugh, since once again you have proven yourself to be stump stupid, going off on tangents not related to the original subject. But, then, we expect nothing less than you getting lost trying to discuss anything. Chowderhead. > > >> >>Audience removed. > > Why are you so afraid of people seeing your own obsessive words? Does your > own wrting embarrass you, if it doesn't you are also obtuse. LOL! Thickhead calls me obtuse. Maximum number of groups I can post to left, because it's fun spanking idiots as dumb as you.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 4 Jul 2010 14:49
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:38:35 -0700, Aratzio wrote: >>> >>>> I recall being told many times that I couldn't be hired because I was >>>> overqualified for the job. They worried that, when things got better, >>>> I'd leave. I would of course, but it meant no job. Glad for >>>> unemployment insurance. Of course, hach and others don't get the >>>> concept of unemployment INSURANCE. >>> >>>It's an insurance policy? What insurance co underwrites it? >> >>https://ui.labor.state.ny.us/UBC/home.do >> >>Every state has a similar site. > > As many times as he has been on unemployment and he does not even know... Who's underwriting the Unemployment Insurance? |