"Unemployment checks provide jobs" ~Nasty Pelosi

@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
February 2, 2012 6:46pm CST
Pelosi, Obama and other short sighted people keep saying that unemployment checks are good for the economy and "provide jobs". Sure, they may help keep grocery stores, local restaurants and bars open, however, they don't expand the local economy. What expands economies is private enterprise. Businesses that not only hire people directly, but create a need for other businesses to support their operation. Here in Wisconsin (for example) there is a proposal by a mining company to start operations on an iron ore mine. Not only would this mine create jobs for the miners, it would also create jobs for all the support operations. Those are just the ones who work directly for the mining company. Mines require heavy machinery, so companies that build such machines (such as Bucyrus/Caterpillar in Milwaukee) would be contracted. Then ones who process the ore, transport it, refine it into steel.. etc. The difference between Pelosi and Obama's definition of "providing jobs" and reality is, unemployment checks maintain a minimum infrastructure while real job growth includes expansion and growth. But then again, the only growth Obama and Pelosi care about is their power.
3 people like this
13 responses
@crossbones27 (53005)
• Mojave, California
3 Feb 12
This is also why people overall just need to make more. The economy is always going to be stagnant if people can't afford anything, except to pay their bills.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Feb 12
I couldn't disagree with you more, crossbones27. I understand that you're well intentioned; and on its surface, people making more money makes sense. But when you look at the big picture, what does paying people more solve? For the person working in fast food, at Wal-Mart, at a car factory, etc (private industry), having the government come in and forcing people to pay more (which is the only way it would happen) only does one thing: Forces employers to discriminate more in the hiring process. Having to pay employees more means that you will only seek out the absolute best in the field. Why? Because you cannot afford to hire as many people. You now need a single employee to work beyond his or her intended job description. And this means the average person has even a tougher time finding a job. And that's just the start of it... Take a self-employed individual like me as an example. What does other people getting paid more do for me? Nothing. In fact, it hurts people who are self-employed and people who are looking to hire. Interference upsets the balance and smacks creation around. Here's part of the reason why. Why are things still so hard in today's economy? Because food prices are high, fuel prices are high, rent is high, everything is still taxed, etc. And all these things tie in together. Earning more money (read: having the government force up wages, which I'm sure you're implying) does nothing to solve these problems. Food prices are high because energy prices and fuel prices are so high. Producers' costs are going up, and those costs are passed down. People can't afford anything because everything outside of employment has caused prices to go up. The seemingly simple fix is to pay people more. It's a great way for politicians to earn points, and it's a fantastic way to divide and to cause people to call for blood. But that does nothing to solve the problems. You have to work to bring the prices down. Energy has to be far cheaper. Water needs to be cheaper and turned back on. Fuel has to be cheaper. There needs to be less red tape and less government interference. There's nothing unsavory going on with grocery stores and the like. They're not price gouging; they're not inflating rates to milk profit. They're simply paying more to do business, from the people who grow carrots and milk cows to the people who farm chickens and the people who process it all and the people who deliver it. Everyone's paying more money. And paying people more money does nothing but ensure that fewer people have ways in which to make money. Prices need to fall. I know this is longwinded, but it literally makes me sad that so many people fail to realize the actual problems we face as a nation. Everyone is so quick to act as if a pay raise across the board would fix anything. That would make the problems exponentially worse, because employers have massive costs too. Their overhead is tremendous. What we're dealing with is more government's fault than anything government would provide a solution to.
1 person likes this
• Mojave, California
3 Feb 12
I will would be willing to go that route too. Just make things affordable so people can actually afford to live in this country. To be able to let people enjoy themselves every once in a while. That is where you are going to get the economy back. Right now all people can afford is there bills and many people can't even afford that. They can't afford to go eat at the new little restaurant that just opened up, or take that trip to the zoo. I hear what you are saying about massive costs. It sounds like you are a small business though. I think small businesses just get screwed as bad as lower income people do in this country. I think people that own small businesses should be just as p!ssed with these to hig to fail companies also. Many of the regulations that get slapped on small business's are from to many big businesses acting irresponsibly, then that screws it up for everyone. Except they can afford to pay extra costs where as small businesses can't. So I would be all for lowering cost across the board. It seems like that would make things more simple too, because the more you add to anything the more complicated it is going to get. If we really want to drive down costs, we are going to have to fix our energy problem though. Lets face it oil is not going to last forever and there is no way it is going to support 7 billion going on 8 billion people for long. That should be the focus of our future for jobs. See people its not that hard for people from different sides to agree on something. You just need to come with a open mind and and ideas that make sense.
1 person likes this
@mensab (4200)
• Philippines
3 Feb 12
unemployment will not be tackled by providing checks. it temporarily relieves from the consequent miseries and financial difficulties of the unemployed but never it addresses the problem itself. politicians wanted to project themselves like what they do impacts on the development and easing of the problems. of course, they can claim that. but the people know better.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
3 Feb 12
It used to be that if you went back to school you were considered employed and could not get unemployment.
• Mojave, California
3 Feb 12
I do agree with you, but I have been hearing many people say certain high tech companies have plenty of jobs but they have no one to fill those jobs because they can't find people with the skills. Personally I think part of that may be true, but I still think corporations are just using that as an excuse to keep jobs overseas so they don't have to pay as much in employee cost. I heard one person say, "that this is why they are shipping jobs oversea, because our people aren't as smart as China and India's are." Even if that was the case, if these people would would invest in their own people they wouldn't have that problem. I also do agree with you, and this is what I find so frustrating from the right, that there is just not enough jobs out there. You have all the college educated people taking all the low income jobs that normal high school graduates usually do. Yet the right is just trying to say people just don't want to work. It is kind of hard to work if there is nothing available. I bet you this problem isn't that hard to fix. Its just no one wants to put in the time and effort to fix and overly complicated system that was designed to do one thing keep the rich getting richer. Plus many people are just trying to keep certain things from surfacing so they don't go to jail.
• United States
3 Feb 12
That'd be a great idea, only no one would ever qualify for unemployment. The reason people aren't employed isn't a lack of training its a lack of jobs. People with great job skills are getting jobs that require almist no skills just to work, many people have 2 jobs just to afford to live. If people unemployment paid people to train on the job, greedy employers would use it to get free labor and turn over workers as a way to get new people on unemployment. All unemployment does is give people a small window to get another job. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, so imagine the havoc if every time there was a big layoff, people defaulted on loans, lost their homes, and cars, and health care. Every major layoff would cause an almost instant collapse of the local economy.
@peavey (16936)
• United States
3 Feb 12
Unemployment checks don't provide an increase in wealth, which is what it will take to get us out of this tailspin. They're more like eating your own arm to stay alive. Neither Obama nor Pelosi have even a vague shadow of common sense, as is evident by this concept. Of course, if you want the government to grow and people to depend only on it, then unemployment checks (and welfare) are the way to go, so there is a reason for their stance.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
4 Feb 12
We can also not forget the Keystone Project that would have provided lots of jobs as well, and not only in the oil industry. And with unemployment, the more the unemployment benefit is expanded, the less likely people will go look for jobs because they will feel that they will be losing benefit.
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
3 Feb 12
Para, you are 100,000% right in your assessments. Obama's mission is to deliberately destroy our economy, make us a welfare, then third world nation, remove our sovereignty, and subjugate us to the corrupt UN. He is doing an excellent job of keeping Americans jobless, giving our jobs away to immigrants, illegal and otherwise, and making sure businesses and every opportunity for a legitimate business fails. If he is allowed on the ballot for 2012, his mission will be completed. As for Nazi Pelosi, why would anyone believe anything she says after announcing her complete ignorance and insanity to all when she said of the "healthcare bill", "We have to pass the bill before we can read it." At the very least, she should be painting the grass green in a mental institution. Alan West suggested she, BHO, and Harry Reid "get the h--- out of America" He needs to put his power where his mouth is; no more rhetoric, just bring them to justice for sedition, treason, fraud, and more. Congress has standing to abrogate this illegal administration, but remains cowardly and covering up the truth. At the very least they could be deported, but the old penalty for treason was hanging. Prison for life works for me.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Feb 12
They are better than nothing, and so are those jobs you mentioned. Especially the local grocery store. I love when people argue that lowering taxes and wages etc. is going to grow the economy and create jobs. That might have been the case 200 years ago when there weren't any billionaires, but we live in a different economic model with different principles. The average persons lifetime earnings is usually only 1 or 2 million dollars. The rich of our society have more money than most would make in 100 lifetimes. So they really don't have any incentive to continue to do business beyond extravagant expenditures. So really what keeps the economy going is the common person who's spending almost everything they make. The rich have nothing to lose from a 50% unemployment rate or equally as dire scenario. They'll still have the means to buy anything they want. The only thing keeping us from collapse is the ability of the average personn to be able to afford basic needs and then some. And honestly that's even vanishing. It doesn't matter wether the job chain is the dairy farmer, the milk bottler, the trucker, the stocker,and the cashier, or some other chain. If the people in that chain, even the consumer, aren't making enough to keep the chain going indefinitely. The chain will fail. And what's happening now is the chains are breaking. People aren't making enough to buy cars, and tvs, etc. And all those people lose their jobs and can't buying milk. Everything is starting to collapse. And it has nothing to do with investing. It has to do with the fact that people haven't been earning enough to afford to keep up the consumer chains.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
3 Feb 12
If raising taxes will help grow the economy why not tax everyone at 100% and we will have a bombing economy. The truth is that for every dollar the government takes in taxes $0.35 to $0.65 is used by the government to sustain itself and collect more taxes and only a small portion is used to grow the economy. When private industry takes a dollar they use it to create a product that is worth more than a dollar. The company then takes it expenses out and the difference is called profit. They create goods and services that people want and are willing to pay for. The government on the other hand takes your money by force, if necessary, and they decide how it will be spent and who will benefit. As for me I will trust business over government every time.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Feb 12
The concept of "better than nothing" has never improved anything.
2 people like this
• Mojave, California
3 Feb 12
It is a necessary evil. A perfect governments job is to do things business's can not. Fix pot holes, protect the country, enforce laws so people aren't killing each other, Educate are kids so businesses can have up and coming talent. They are there to make sure businesses aren't taking advantage of people. Though they have not been doing a good job lately, but I blame that on the people. We don't pay attention enough to make sure these guys are doing there job. Then even when we do pay attention and see what is really going on, we don't do nothing about it. That is why I have to say I admire the people of Wisconsin because at least they are trying to do something about it, whether you agree with them or not.
@cher913 (25781)
• Canada
3 Feb 12
sadly, this is not only happening in the US. the fat cats in Ottawa said they have provided thousands of jobs but at part time and minimum wage, no one can support a family, let alone themselves on such nonsense.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Feb 12
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to support a family.
@oneidmnster (1384)
• United States
3 Feb 12
Jobs at decent wages are what is good for the economy. A higher minimum wage would be good for the economy. Obama and his cronies are what's bad for the economy. They think people should be given things without working for them. Getting rid of all illegal immigrants would be good for the economy. But Obama and his minions don't care about the country. They only care about votes and ruining the country.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
3 Feb 12
A higher minimum wage would hurt the economy. It would force the cost of all goods and services up and we would be right back where we were. When the minimum wage was introduced during the depression unemployment increased. People who would work for less could not and companies that were forced to pay more went out of business. During WWII companies were under government wage controls and could not increase pay. To attract better workers Companies on their own sought ways to make working for them better than another company. What the did was started to provide limited health care for workers. Now company A offered skilled medical care by a Nurse to its employees. They attract better employees. Even today we hear calls for higher minimum wages yet entry level jobs like McDonalds are starting people at $7.50 more than a dollar above minimum wage. Hardies offers a company paid college fund. Companies will pay whatever it takes to get someone to work for them. If you want to grow the economy get the government out of the way. Their regulations and taxes are killing the economy of this country.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
3 Feb 12
I went to a grocery store where I hadn't been for awhile and was surprised to find that all the sackers were gone. A lot of them were mentally disabled, with one who had been there for years. The cashiers were doing the sacking. Now I will admit the store's prices can be a bit high even when the economy is good, but to see these people lose their jobs-I just find sad.
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
3 Feb 12
That just shows how stupid they think we are. Who pays for unemployment benefits? The working people. Pelosi and her ilk seem to think we will never realize that the government doesn't make money, it takes it from the pockets of productive citizens. We really need someone to point this out publicly and often! Benefits of all types limit the income of working people, some of whom might otherwise start their own businesses then employ others. That would be real growth and prosperity. With as many people as there are on unemployment the economy seems pretty stagnant. I can't see that changing until there are more jobs that spur some growth in the economy and private sector.
• United States
3 Feb 12
I live in the state of Nevada where the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country and I really do not see any changes coming soon. I am lucky if I have enough money to pay for the basic necessities let alone extra things. I wish I could afford to splurge a little, but I know that I cannot afford to. It would be great if the US would create jobs and keep the jobs here.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Feb 12
Thats' the point. Unemployment checks simply cover basic needs, they don't allow for "splurging" once in a while.
• United States
3 Feb 12
Unemployment was meant to help keep people stable for a little while as they would go out and search for a new job. The problem is, people don't want the minimum wage jobs, they want the big paying jobs, and while minimum wage isn't meant to support a family of four, it could help someone living by themselves, if they managed their money well and took time to earn extra money besides minimum wage, they could probably be okay.
@Bluedoll (16770)
• Canada
3 Feb 12
My little viewpoint. The question of how money is distributed by government (not commerce) is reflective of government policy and voters decide on how they want a government to be. Do voters want their government to be more socialistic or more capitalistic? Consider what the words mean for I don’t mean left, right or political classifications. I mean if you have people out of work and a very tough economy you need to decide how to solve this difficult problem. If you want to help poor people and improve the economy, social programs are jobs too. On the other hand if you want to give the poor a man job instead of social programs, you actually have to create a job just not talk about it. Governments can do a lot of that. Action plans but not much action can happen too and that is not good. The bottom line I think is what ever is decided is fine as both decisions are good ones in my opinion as long as they are supported. The bottom line is will the economy actually improve? If government and the people are not in agreement with each other, then there will just be a lot of talk and not much else? What is needed is good leadership, a strong confidence and commitment from everyone, citizens and governments to be on the same page, be in union, have the same vision and respectful of that vision?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
3 Feb 12
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse doe to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” Alexander Tyler In other words, freedom cannot exist as long as the people are willing to use the government as a means of lining their pockets with other people's money. It's simply a method of bribery.
1 person likes this