Government

WH Adviser Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Checks Actually ‘Good For’ & ‘Stimulate’ Economy

Try to wrap your head around this one (which is actually an old argument) from White House adviser Valerie Jarrett: according to her, unemployment checks — in some round about way — are actually “good for” and “stimulate” the economy:

Jarrett delivered the remarks at North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina.

“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,” Jarrett said. “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.”

While the audio may sound incredible, the argument has been paraded out before. In August, Press Secretary Jay Carney said nearly the same thing:

“It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it, they’re going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually.”

Bryan Preston took Carney to task at the time:

Here’s the thing. True, unemployment pays people money and they’re likely to spend it. But you’re also paying people not to work. Not to produce anything. The longer you pay them to not work, the longer they’re likely not to work. And the money to pay people not to work has to come from somewhere. Guess where (besides Jay Carney’s back side)?

That’s right — from people who are working, being productive, and who also are likely to spend the money. While unemployment insurance of some form and length is reasonable, the notion that it creates jobs is laughable on a Seinfeldian level. It’s a safety net, not an engine of our economic might.

Put it this way: If Carney’s logic held up, we should just carpet bomb the country in unemployment checks, forever. That would create a billion jobs and we’d all be swimming in prosperity.

Then just a week later, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack went on MSNBC to make the case that food stamps are job creators:

Back then, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey did a good job pointing out the flaws in that logic:

So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers reflected that fabulous growth?

It makes you wonder, why is the White House trumpeting an argument from the fall that was so heavily ridiculed?

(H/T: Weekly Standard)

This story has been update.

Comments (316)

1 2 3 ... 7
  • Dougral Supports Israel
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:32am

    The Democrats confuse the spending of money with the creation of wealth. Their way to prosperity is to take money from one person and give it to another which accomplishes little. It is essentially denying one person the right to spend it and granting it to another. Real jobs create actual wealth which increases the size of America’s economic pie.

    Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:53am

      “Real jobs create actual wealth which increases the size of America’s economic pie.”

      Sure, but you see, that‘s not actually a counterpoint to Jarrett’s claim. To say that “the solution isn’t unemployment, it’s new jobs” is like saying the solution to a burning house isn’t to put water on it, it’s to put out the fire.

      The problem is that new jobs can‘t be created if there isn’t a demand for the goods or services that those jobs would provide. A person can’t contribute to market demand if they have no money, so its the unemployment checks that are keeping demand alive so those new jobs could be created. The idea that new jobs could somehow be created if we stopped or reduced unemployment (thereby dramatically reducing demand at the bottom of the pyramid) we could create new jobs is so counterintuitive that I truly wonder if people have thought about this at all!

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:04am

      So Pubic, Just raise Taxes on everyone. Then Barry and his band of thieves will have tons of cash to distribute to the REAL job creators in America, THE UNIONS. The reason citizens have NO money are the everyday hidden taxes that Gubbermint everywhere steals. For instance, in CT the oil company’s profit for 1 ONE gallon of gas is 2-3 Cents. the Fed takes 17.4 Cents Per Gallon and our thieves in Hartford TAKE 47 cents Per Gallon. Add all the Phone, Water, Electric, Fuel oil, TAXES and you get today’s Thieves

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • The_Jerk
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:15am

      “WH Adviser Valerie Jarrett: Unemployment Checks Actually ‘Good For’ & ‘Stimulate’ Economy”

      Stands as proof of stupidity.

      Report Post »  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:18am

      As one who is on unemployment; I have shrunk our household expenses, cut non essential purchases to a minimum. No longer do I go to the hardware store looking for deals; I do not go. I look for where the next expense caused buy the gov’t is going to come from.
      Yea real stimulation. PHFFT…

      Report Post » Stoic one  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:20am

      wow…
      Thanks, val !
      That gives me a GREAT idea !
      Since unemployment checks are so stimulating, let’s just ratchet up that form of stimulus! We can lay off ANOTHER 15% of the nation’s REMAINING workers. That will DOUBLE the stimulus of unemployment checks! A doubly-stimulated economy should be RAWKIN ! Woo Hoooo!
      Then we can all sit around and sing praises to our new king, Barack Hussein Obama.
      Won’t that just be GRAND?!?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:28am

      13th Imam,

      I noticed that nowhere in that rant did you even attempt to disprove Jarrett’s logic. If you think she is wrong, show me why.

      Report Post »  
    • CLEttinger
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:33am

      I know this is extreemly unpopular but I heard a quote a long time ago, “Starvation is powerful motivation”.

      Report Post » CLEttinger  
    • cuinsong
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:34am

      Another singer of the devils song!
      “The Devils Song” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10789987

      Report Post » cuinsong  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:49am

      Saul, (Pubis)
      You figure it out. If Val said the moon was made of green cheese, will I have to dis prove that. Go screw yourself

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:59am

      PUBLIUSPENCILMAN, Valerie Jarrett is merely parroting Nancy Pelosi’s early version of this claim. And it sounds just as stupid coming from her as it does from The Nancy. Unemployment is a mere stipend when compared to a true earned income. It’s very design is to be nothing more than fund for existence while trying to find another job and nothing more. Rarely is this ever enough to pay the bills of a household to include utilities, rent, or mortgage, and most important of all…groceries which amounts to nothing more than bare sustenance. Those on unemployment for length periods of time fall into arrears with so many of their payments and often eventually loose their homes, and/or cars. As far as a car goes, how can these people afford gas at today’s prices? Unemployment merely delays the inevitable for all to brief period of time.
      So, if you want to believe this, by all means go right ahead. I do hope that you are never unemployed for any length of time to have to prove this to yourself.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:02am

      Do we have complete morons advising Obama. Put her statement along with Pelosi ‘s identical statement and you begin to wonder if there is an ounce of intelligence between the two of them!

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:20am

      “If Val said the moon was made of green cheese, will I have to dis prove that.”
      No, she didn’t say anything like that. She made a clear economic argument for unemployment benefits, and your inability to even begin to disprove that argument does not speak well for your own understanding of the issue.

      “Valerie Jarrett is merely parroting Nancy Pelosi’s early version of this claim.”
      Because two people on the same side of the political spectrum have the same argument doesn’t mean that argument is invalid. I agree with most of what you said–only the Republicans are suggesting that people can easily live for a long time on unemployment. As you demonstrate, it is not a comfortable lifestyle, so the idea that it fosters long term dependence is just silly. It does, as you also say, allow bills to be paid for a time, and when bills aren’t paid, that’s when the economy suffers. I couldn’t have made the argument any better myself.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:31am

      Yes, another Translucently Clear query from the economic giant , Valerie Jarrett.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • last frontier
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:39am

      New Green idea! print the welfare and unemployment checks on banana leaves it will save our planet and stimulate our banana republic.

      Report Post » last frontier  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:43am

      PUBLIUSPENCILNECK…..seriously? You‘re buying Jarrett’s insult? So by Jarrett’s measure, if more people were getting unemployment checks and spending them, the economy would be growing at an acceptable pace for real growth rather than the sluggish, almost imperceptable rate we’re seeing now? These kinds of “jedi mind tricks” are par for the course now for the Obama administration. Obama said he’d halve the deficit by the end of his first term, it’s quadrupled under his watch. Gallup just released numbers indictating that the unemployment rate (excluding the underemployment rate) has risen back to 9%. Foreclosures are still rising. Home prices are falling. Inflation is starting to creep up and fuel prices are rising. In the face of the failure of his tenure Obama and his minions have no choice but to spin and spin hard. Subsequently we get insults to our intelligence like the Pelosi endorsed..“unemployment benefits are one of the best ways we know to stimulate the economy”. Or the appropriately named “Carney” telling us that Obama didn’t deny the Keystone Pipeline. I can almost see Carney sitting in a “landspeeder” with a robe and hood on, waving his hand and saying to the nation…”these aren‘t the droids you’re looking for”. You defend the indefensible..but then again…you’re a stupid liberal troll.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:52am

      Exactly, AVENGER! Progs are so shortsighted they can’t possibly think through the consequences of the entitlement mentality. Oh I know……let’s just tax the rich more. That will solve the problem and more people can remain unemployed for the rest of their lives. Because we all live and breathe to take care of anyone who just doesn’t feel like working. Well, heck…..I guess that doesn’t work either.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9097219/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html

      Report Post »  
    • Beckofile
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:56am

      And since we put this on the national credit card what will happen to our children when the bill arrives? We are just buying time for this generation to exist while leaving our children to pay the tab. This is generational theft and really just amounts to the old saying “If you take a bucket of water from one side of the lake and dump it in the other side- Have you done anything to really stimulate a damn thing?

      Report Post » Beckofile  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:11pm

      AvengerK,

      “seriously? You‘re buying Jarrett’s insult? So by Jarrett’s measure, if more people were getting unemployment checks and spending them, the economy would be growing at an acceptable pace for real growth rather than the sluggish, almost imperceptable rate we’re seeing now?”

      No. And Jarrett isn’t saying that at all. As I’ve explained to several people on this board, Jarrett and everyone else who knows anything about economics knows about the law of diminishing returns. It’s a simple principle of investment. If more and more people get unemployment benefits, eventually the scale will tip the other way and growth will go back down again. This is all completely logical, so your failure to grasp it does not speak well for you.

      Report Post »  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:16pm

      Now, now, Jarrett is merely observing how all of those unemployment checks have boosted the European economies. Most unemployment checks? Greece and Spain.

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:26pm

      PUBLIUSPENCILNECK…no seriously? You’re defending Jarrett, Pelosi, Obama et al’s assertion that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? Only not too much or else it tips the other way? Did I understand that right? Such a delicate balance isn’t it? Ok sport…so how much unemployment benefits is “good” for the economy to “stimulate” it. This should be hysterical.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:38pm

      COPATRIOTS…I saw the story about the UK’s 50% rate being a failure. This must be another of PUBLIUSPENCILNECK’s “delicate balancing” acts whereby you should indeed tax and tax hard…but not too much or it “goes the other way”. It must be fun to be a liberal and make it up as you go along.

      Report Post »  
    • GETLIFE
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:45pm

      Wow, what an education I am getting!
      I guess according to Professer PUBLIUS the “law of diminishing returns” proves to us that Greece and Spain just haven’t gone far enough with the unemployment checks.

      First belly-laugh I’ve had all day! :D :D :D!!!

      Report Post » GETLIFE  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:55pm

      Indeed AVENGER! The fact that anyone believes progs spend tax money well and charitably to begin with is beyond laughable. I‘d almost believe progs want to help the poor if they didn’t happen to love spending our tax money on their 5 star vacays and/or actually didn’t cheat on their personal taxes. Let me just name a few hypocrites off the top of my head. Any one of these people could give their vast wealth to the government and keep a fraction to live on humbly for the rest of their lives. Hmmmm…….why don’t they do that since it is such an honorable and right thing to do and the gov spends tax money so incredibly wisely?

      Buffet, Heinz & Kerry, Michael Moore, Obama, Pelosis, Soros

      And a few tax avoiders/cheats:

      Buffett, Geitner, Kerry, Rangel

      Report Post »  
    • sigsauerkraut
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:04pm

      Pencilhead, you too have not thought this through. The reason it does not work is because the money that was taken out of the system for UC could have been used by the original owner to spend. Due to the inefficiencies of Gov’t spending and handouts, every dollar taken out does not make it to the recipients. Val and company are using the velocity of money to come up with the 1.84 jobs supported. Due to the inefficiencies, this is not sustainable. It it better when real jobs stimulate the economy. You would think that some of these folks would have learned that in college, but not for Poly Sci types.
      When is this admin going to roll out all the “braniacs” that was promised? Val and Timmy are not qualified and should themselves be put on unemployment. Fire BHO for under-performance.

      Report Post »  
    • faithkills
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:13pm

      @pubicus Unemployment benefits cause unemployment. Therefore it cannot possibly create wealth or help the economy. It will help some people maintain their ability to purchase for a short period, but that just sends signals to business that there is a market which really doesn’t exist. In the worst case they may hire or expand, but when economic reality arrives, all those benefits must stop, and thus all that business that was planned on will cease. The lowered demand comes and that causes business distress, and even some to go out of business. Same principle as monetary bubbles, it only defers the pain, but when it comes, it will be worse than if met head on. The best thing for the economy is for them to take any job they can get, and start actually producing. Right now they are dead weights contributing to the national debt.

      Report Post » faithkills  
    • Gold Coin & Economic News
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:24pm

      We have sick mental midgets running our country.

      Report Post » Gold Coin & Economic News  
    • Hollywood
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:49pm

      I just can’t wait until Valerie,Barry et al, start getting their unemployment cheques to add to the economy!

      Report Post » Hollywood  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:55pm

      You know, I just love pulling what Rush call his “ Media Tweeks of the Day”. To get a DEMOCRAT to splain their cockamamey views, what a hoot. If this dope is what makes up today’s DEMOCRAT Party, that says it all. you Blazers are the Bomb. Can I say Bomb??

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:03pm

      Let me put this in the simplest possible terms:

      Government takes money out of economy. Government gives money to unemployed person. Unemployed person puts money back in the economy. 2-2=0.

      There is no gain, only a movement of money from one place to another. No net wealth is created. It is a game, a farce, a mask. It means nothing in reality, eliciting only an emotional response in uneducated minds. It is purely, simply, and only a tactic to retain power.

      In the current scenario, it’s worse though. The money isn’t obtained through direct taxation, but rather through borrowing. Therefore, we are taxing future generations for today’s unemployment. In other words, we are harming and weakening our own economic future.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:19pm

      Kank

      Can i amend your formula?? DC takes a cut out of the Stolen Taxpayers “Donation” and only does what left get doled out.

      So 2 -.50 -2 = -.50 Therefore a net loss

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • MYHEROISRON
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:21pm

      Liberal Marxism is a sickness. This dumb broad is a perfect example of that.

      Report Post » MYHEROISRON  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:25pm

      I appreciate the correction. In a perfect world its a zero-sum equation. In a world ruled by liberalism, it is a negative-sum equation. In practice, it’s actually a backward-in-time equation leading to a precipitous collapse, but now I’m getting a little too technical.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • jzs
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:31pm

      Let me explain how supply side economics works. Suppose I own a Godfather’s Pizza joint. We‘re struggling to get by because the fact is many people today don’t have the disposable income to eat at a restaurant. But because I am a “job creator” the Republicans give me a big tax break. So I go out and start another Godfather’s pizza with my tax break.

      There are barely enough customers to keep my first restaurant out of bankruptcy, but that’s were the supply side economics comes in. The fact that I have opened that second restaurant creates a kind of “economic vacuum.” I’m ready to sell pizza, but no customers: hence the economic vacuum. That vacuum sucks dollars in from another dimension, perhaps a parallel world, and deposits those dollars in the bank accounts of potential customers. They then have the money to support my second pizza place. The important take away is this: First, rich people get a tax break, then they start a business, then money is transferred transdimensionally via the Higgs boson into this world, giving people enough money to buy more pizza.

      That, simply put, is supply side economics 101.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:48pm

      And now the JZS Special Ed. middle school economics class begins. Pay Attention everyone.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:57pm

      Once you graduate to high school, you may learn about how supply-side economics really works. See, I may have a Godfather’s Pizza (awesome, by the way), but I understand that I am not the only company in the universe, and my product is not the only product in the universe. Times are tough, and my pizza sales are down. The the Republicans pass a tax cut for small businesses. I have three choices with that tax cut: expand another franchise, hire more employees, or lower my prices. I cannot remain unchanged because, as stated, sales are down, and the franchise is on the road to bankruptcy.

      If I expand to another franchise, I end up losing money. People aren’t buying as much pizza, so that won’t do any good. If I hire more employees, my bottom line is still in trouble because, as stated, pizzas aren’t being bought. So I lower my prices, giving me an edge in the pizza industry. People like pizza, and when people see that they can now afford pizza, they will buy it. Revenue increases under the lowered costs and higher demand, and I find I need more employees. I hire more employees, but demand is still high under the lower price, so I expand to another franchise, hiring more employees.

      That is how supply-side economics really works.

      Then the Democrats get in power and raise my small business taxes. I have to raise prices. No more pizza demand.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 3:02pm

      “Only not too much or else it tips the other way? Did I understand that right? Such a delicate balance isn’t it?”

      So, am I understanding this right: several of you have objected to the idea that such a thing as “diminishing returns” happens. Therefore, am I to believe that all of you must necessarily think that any economic model must necessarily work the same no matter how large or how small the magnitude is? This clearly isn’t true simply because of the rudimentary concepts of supply and demand. How is this difficult to understand?

      “There is no gain, only a movement of money from one place to another.”

      That’s how the economy actually works–it’s circulation of money. In short, it’s what is called buying and selling. That’s the only way there is any gain at all!

      “Unemployment benefits cause unemployment. Therefore it cannot possibly create wealth or help the economy.”

      No–not having a job causes unemployment, which prevents one from contributing to the economy. Unemployment doesn’t create an “imaginary” market–it merely sustains the market that would be there if those people had incomes. It isn‘t like suddenly waterski sales are booming where they normally wouldn’t because of unemployment checks. If unemployment stops, fewer products will be bought, then businesses will either have to downsize or close down, causing more unemployment and exacerbating the effects. Am I wrong? Is that not a logical prediction?

      Report Post »  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 3:16pm

      The logical conclusion is that when unemployment stops, people will do whatever they can to get money including – GASP – getting a lower-paying job.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 3:43pm

      “So I lower my prices, giving me an edge in the pizza industry. People like pizza, and when people see that they can now afford pizza, they will buy it.”

      This is a big assumption–you are assuming that a tax cut would so significantly reduce expenses that you could significantly cut pizza prices to the point that people who could not afford pizza before suddenly can–that you can effectively lower the price of your pizza so dramatically that you create a whole new market. Now, considering that fact that the price of ingredients makes up a huge portion of the cost of the pizza and the fact that profit margins in any restaurant tend to be thin in the first place, the idea that you could reduce prices that much seems pretty far fetched.

      Report Post »  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 3:58pm

      If you simplify the problem too much, you will lose valuable information. I said that I, as an imaginary pizza chain owner, understand I am not the only company in the universe. I understand I have to purchase ingredients. Other companies have to deal with their own issues, and one fairly reliable constant is that higher prices will yield less sales, particularly in a weak economy. Not just in pizza, but also with ingredients. Lower pizza output not only stresses me, but the suppliers of the ingredients. To stay in business, the ingredient companies (who would likewise receive a tax cut) would have to go through a similar exercise to maintain business. If the pizza guy can afford to buy more ingredients because he lowered his prices and gained a larger market share, then the ingredient company can likewise get a larger market share by reducing their sale price and selling more product to the pizza guy. This then goes back to the farmers and producers, who also get tax breaks. The velocity of money is towards the market, adding positive value and, most importantly, happiness through delicious pizza.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 4:11pm

      When it comes down to it, Valerie put sprinkles on a turd and is trying to sell it as a donut. However, as per the last statement in my last post, there is a lot of happiness to be had (not just through delicious pizza, but certainly not without it), and there is a lot of potential for us, as a nation, to really get the economy rolling again. The thought of being able to keep more of the earnings of my labor excites me, and I see what a great effect it can have on the wealth of not just me, but my neighbors. More money leads to more charity, and more charity leads to more societal contentment. More societal contentment leads to increased living conditions with those living elsewhere, and increased living conditions leads to general peace and prosperity.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • jzs
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 4:20pm

      Kankokage, Bush tried that, twice, in what are called the Bush tax cuts. They didn’t help the economy at all, as in zero (no jobs, no growth in GDP, nothing), nor did those tax cuts prevent businesses from going under starting in 2007. Maybe they didn’t think of your idea to lower the price of their products? Or maybe margins were low to start with and they could no longer cover fixed costs because the volume of business dropped.

      What business owners need is for their customers to have more money.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • Kankokage
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 4:24pm

      JZS, your last comment is the most conservative thing I’ve ever seen you type.

      Report Post » Kankokage  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 4:38pm

      “What we need is for customers to have more money”
      So we should increase the amount of Unemployment Compensation for the Terminally unemployed, so they can afford pizza
      While at the same time , steal more Taxes from the employed, while leaving them enough to be able to buy a Pizza once in a while.

      It’s a delicate balance , this generational theft. Delicate i tells ya.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 5:28pm

      JZS

      You said “What business owners need is for their customers to have more money.”

      If you believe your previous statement, why do you demonize the bush tax cuts? Those tax cuts put more money in the hands of every single tax payer?

      Studies show liberals give considerably less to charity than conservatives. What is the explanation behind those who hate the poor out-donating liberals in charitable donations?

      Which is incorrect, the evidence or your premise?

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 5:41pm

      JZS….please…don’t explain anything. You’re a drooling idiot and a media matters regurgitator. You‘re the same clown that asserted that Bush ok’d the Solyndra loans and recently you offered a “poll” by an Obama appointee and George Soros funded group. You’re worthless. Nothing you have to say is worth anything to anyone. There is no credible basis to assert that unemployment benefits stimulate any economy. They don’t. They are tax money in, tax money out. They are zero growth. At best it’s treading water, at worst, businesses shut their doors in heavy unemployed neighborhoods and move creating greater local unemployment and a leaner economy. Keep your idiocies to yourself you obnoxious little lefty plant.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 5:48pm

      SPECKCHASER…let me give you an example of the madness of JZS. He cites the media matters issued talking point, “Bush tax cuts”. Now in reality, JZS is a mindless troll who doesn’t have a clue about these or another tax cut for that matter. Let’s take Cap gains taxes for example. Bush lowered the rate to 15%. What happened? Government revenue went up over 100% from Cap gains taxes. Why? Because more people invest and participate in a lower cap gains taxed environment. More activity means more government revenue. This isn‘t speculation it’s cold hard fact. When Obama was asked why he wants to raise cap gains taxes he gave us the same tired old line..”it’s not fair”. Much like JZS..Obama is clueless about macro economics but is very much marinated in leftist thought. Any tax that’s “low” in Obama’s eyes..is “not fair”. It doesn’t even dawn on the idiot that the lower rate increased government revenue. This is the same with JZS..he has absolutely no idea what he’s asserting, but media matters told him to say “Bush tax cuts” so that’s what the idiot says. Remmber also…JZS was pushing a poll recently by an Obama appointee who sits on a board funded by George Soros and the Tides Foundation. Nothing JZS says should be taken seriously or as truth he’s simply spouting media matters approved propaganda.

      Report Post »  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 6:28pm

      If unemployment were to cease it would reveal just what is being lost in the shuffle.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:04pm

      AVENJERK says, “Bush lowered the rate to 15%. What happened? Government revenue went up over 100% from Cap gains taxes. Why? Because more people invest and participate in a lower cap gains taxed environment. More activity means more government revenue.”

      AVENJERK, I’m not sure where you get your information, but lowering taxes has never increased government revenue. Maybe I should remind you that Bush cut taxes for the rich, twice, and there was no economic growth, no extra jobs, no extra “government revenue”, no extra pizzas sold, and the deficit skyrocketed.

      Taxes were far higher under Clinton and the economy was booming, taxes were far lower under President Bush and President Obama, and the economy is abysmal (although getting better under Obama’s policies). So we have a real life experience in the America. When we had much higher taxes under Clinton, the United States balanced the budget and the economy was great. We have much lower taxes now, and the economy is tepid. Bush lowered taxes and it did nothing to help the economy, the deficit went through the roof, and then the economy collapsed.

      That is what happened in the real world. The richest, and the politicians they keep in office want you to believe that giving them more money helps the economy. Sorry, been there, done that.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 7:17am

      Just thought of a good analogy on this unemployment “stimulous” nonsense…

      Sure, it may be the FASTEST way to stimulate, but so is

      plowing a 60,000LB semi-tractor trailer into an overheated, stalled Pinto. Sure, it might be the fastest way to get it moving, but, the LONG TERM DAMAGE is MUCH WORSE !
      Instead, we need to FIX IT ! (replace a radiator hose, etc.) Takes a half hour longer, but, it doesn’t damage the car.
      PLUS, one you ram into the Pinto, you’ll NEVER get it going again. You’ll have to KEEP ON ramming into it over and over… perpetually. It does NOTHING to fix the PROBLEM.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • cosette
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 2:10pm

      @ Publicpencil- Definition of “stimulate”..To rouse to action, spur on, encourage . If unemployment checks “stimulated” the economy, why then do we continue to find ourselves in the worst recession since the great depression? Unemployment is still at record levels and has been for 3 plus years. After all of the unemployment checks that have gone out, by now, according to Jarrett, Pelosi and you, we should have full employment. Yet we continue to be well above those levels. The economy is still in a depressed state,and will be until people start believing their own eyes not what the Marxist and his minions tell us to believe.

      Report Post »  
    • cosette
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 2:32pm

      @JZS Dec. 17, 2010….Obama signs bill to extend Bush era tax cuts. In doing so called it “ A substantial victory for the middle class who otherwise would have seen a tax increase”. Obama stopped parroting the“ Bush tax cuts for the rich” myth. Isn’t time for you to follow his example?

      Report Post »  
    • Anamah
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 3:59pm

      Democrats are clueless! How are so incapable to understand reality and learn the truth!!! Jarret stupidity come from her family with ultra commie father.

      Report Post »  
    • faithkills
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 5:14pm

      @pubicus you said: “No–not having a job causes unemployment, which prevents one from contributing to the economy.” That is fundamentally incorrect. Not having a job IS unemployment. Paying someone to not have a job is, on the other hand, a salient CAUSE of unemployment. Even Europe understands this. Only an idiot should need data to show that paying people not to work causes them not to work, but there nevertheless is plenty of data to show that this is the case. When any market doesn’t clear, there is an intervention keeping it from doing so. The dole is a big one of those interventions in the labor market.

      Report Post » faithkills  
    • faithkills
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 5:18pm

      @jzs you said “What business owners need is for their customers to have more money.” That is true, the problem is there is nothing the government can do about this positively. Businesses also need investors to have money. They also need their own suppliers to have money to stay in business. The problem is the government can reduce the aggregate amount of real money, but it cannot increase it. It can only move it around and diminish it.

      Report Post » faithkills  
    • its_time_to_arrest_our_government
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 8:59pm

      just as soon as this hoe is on unemployment this nation will be much better off….. go stimulate yourself jarrett!

      Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:31am

    Silly Marxist……. That won’t work unless you raise the unemployment compensation to make up for the 99% tax rate they will have to pay..

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • Bluebonnet
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 4:09pm

      This DUMB woman is so full of IT. What’s in the water in D.C? Does she really think we are as stupid as she is to swallow this piece of fertilizer?

      Report Post »  
    • its_time_to_arrest_our_government
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 9:05pm

      this just goes to show you that stupidity is contagious in the democratic party. they have all got it now they should be shot so they dont infect anyone else. you know like cows with anthrax….

      Report Post »  
  • blackmoefugga
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:27am

    Man she dumb. That’s like saying cancer is a great way to lose weight….

    Report Post » blackmoefugga  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:54am

      You know what is a great way to lose weight? — Not having the money to feed your family.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:06am

      Or having the FEDERAL LUNCH INSPECTOR”S take your MOTHER provided lunch and replace it with an SEIU approved lunch.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:30am

      Yes, because in a country of 300 million people, The Blaze reported this happening twice. Clearly it’s an epidemic.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:34am

      The true epidemic is 47% of TAKERS paying NO federal income taxes. This corresponds with the numbers of Barry supporters. Go Figure.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:15pm

      Dodging the question again.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:45pm

      No PUBLIUSPENCILNECK…the money from unemployment checks is not “immediately revinvested” in the economy. For the economy to grow or as Jarrett says “stimulate” business needs to be hiring and expanding. Business does this when consumers are active with their spending. The “bare essential goods” purchase habits of those on unemployment benefits don’t stimulate any economy, they tread water at best or stagnate districts to the point where growth business leaves the area. These people aren’t buying durable goods, cars etc. They‘re buying enough to subsist and that’s all. This isnt’ “stimulating” for any economy, it’s stagnant. You’re an idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:49pm

      You know a great way to lose weight PUBLIUSPENCILNECK? Not having a job to pay for the food to feed your family. Oh that’s ok..unemployment benefits will fix the economy..right?

      Report Post »  
    • Lamarr01
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:29pm

      It is perfect liberal logic:

      1) Get a loan from the Chinese that you never intend to pay back.
      2) Give the money to people who don’t work.
      3) Continue until the democrats are paid enough to vote for Obama again.

      Report Post » Lamarr01  
  • 13th Imam
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:26am

    If that is true, EVERYONE should go onto Unemployment. Then our economy would be booming, right VAL??

    Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:35am

      And yesterday on Beck’s radio program we learned that somehow today high gas prices are a good thing too.

      Just how many of the entitlement crowd really think this is sustainable as a country? Surely they all can’t be that ignorant.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:57am

      13TH Imam,

      Is that really what constitutes logic in your mind? That Jarrett is saying that everyone should go on unemployment? What do you think would happen if things went the other way–how dramatically do you think the market would shrink if unemployment checks stopped coming and people no longer had money to buy things? How many jobs would be created once there is no one left to sell things to?

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:07am

      Comprehension is not your strong point, Huh.

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:30am

      Again, you dodge the question.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:46am

      For the love of Pete, PUB, give your agenda a rest. Progs have created such an entitlement society that people getting checks for doing nothing is the rule of the day. You sound as though 50% on the government dole is a new phenomenon. The fact is many able bodied and capable people didn’t work when they had the ability to with a great economy which led us to the shape we are in today. Americans used to have pride about not wanting to take government hand-outs and would work whatever job they could find to feed themselves and their families. The entitlement mentality will never end so long as the government keeps giving hand-outs until they have completely wiped out the middle class and bankrupted the country.

      I know your agenda will continue. One question though PUB…….do you pay your fair share of taxes and voluntarily pay more to support your leftist agenda?

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:56am

      Oh yes, PUB, and don’t forget to pay a little extra to support the illegal aliens in the country who pay no tax (I’ll beat you to it…….except sales tax). They need your easily earned money as well.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:21pm

      CoPatriots,

      But you are completely ignoring Jarrett’s point, which is that the money spent on unemployment is immediately reinvested in the economy. Without that money continuing the circulate, the bottom of the economic pyramid would shrink dramatically, demand would plummet, and no one would be able to buy the products and services that those that have jobs are selling.

      Part of this problem you are seeing with people who can‘t or won’t work has to do with the fundamental restructuring of the American labor market over the last few decades because of production technologies and the rise of hyper-skilled labor.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:31pm

      Not missing the point at all. You only want to see one tiny little fragment of a talking point instead of looking at the big picture. I see HELP WANTED signs all around. The problem is people can make more money on the government entitlement program off the backs of other people than taking 3 jobs to make ends meet. You live in a utopia that will never exist that your tax money is going to help other people. Why not adopt a family on your own? Or buy groceries for the unemployed? Why do you need to give it to the Federal government to take care of those who need assistance? And by the way, PUB, where is it Constitutional for the government to take OPM to institute these programs to begin with?

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:32pm

      Speaking of which, is this your job to troll sites with viewpoints you don’t agree?

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:39pm

      And what will happen when we can‘t borrow anymore money from China because they don’t want to fund our entitlement society? What happens when inflation hits (like $5 a gallon gas which causes food prices to increase) and we lose even more jobs? What happens when the Fed runs at increasingly larger deficits because people avoid taxes (see UK linked article above)? What happens when the rich and companies leave the country because the taxes are too burdensome?

      Oh…..and what were the answers to the other questions you dodged? Don’t bother…..I’m done here. It’s not worth continuing to help you get paid to advance the lefts agenda. I hope you like working to pay for other people’s laziness……it will be the rest of your life if your side wins.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:57pm

      No PUBLIUSPENCILNECK…Jarrett doesn’t have any logic to her assertion. It‘s a spin to sanitize Obama’s failure and appeal to the hand out demographic the Democrats keep in poverty. Unemployment benefits have no credible “stimulative” effect on any economy. These people aren‘t buying TV’s, Cars..etc, they’re buying just enough to subsist. This is negligible economic activity. Business needs to thrive and expand to hire. People living on bare essentials don’t create the environment for this type of healthy economic activity. What happens at best is heavily unemployed districts tread water or as we see happening..business shuts it’s doors and leaves creating less employment opportunities in the area and less economic activity. You’re an idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:02pm

      Was it my imagination or did PUBLIUSPENCILNECK just try Obama’s “ATM” excuse as to why people aren’t working? Is Media Matters really giving you this crap to recite PUBLIUSPENCILNECK?

      Report Post »  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:48pm

      PUBLIUSPENCILMAN Your ignorance on economic issues is obvious so here‘s some reading for you by adults who’ve studied economics and understand it.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/01/unemployment-insurance-does-not-stimulate-the-economy

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • ZAP
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:25am

    So everybody lets sit home,collect a check and help stimulate the economy.There you go problem solved !

    Report Post » ZAP  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:57am

      I really don’t know why you take such pride in parading your ignorance.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:08am

      PUBLIUSPENCILMAN, that sarcasm must have broken the sound barrier as it obviously went right over your head. As for your response, I suggest you take a long hard look into a mirror.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:21am

      No, I got the sarcasm. That’s what I was criticizing.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:57am

      It’s looking in the mirror. No ones there

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • Noonien_Soong
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:25am

    Sub Headline:”Try to wrap your head around this one from White House adviser Valerie Jarrett:”
    That being shown, I would venture inside her head, but with thigh high waders to wade through the muck and mire. One must be careful to not bring a flame device in case there be an explosion.
    Jarrett could be a bomb thrower. In that event I would advise her to wear a blast shield so her head doesn’t explode after I get through with her.

    Report Post » Noonien_Soong  
  • wboehmer
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:25am

    We need to make Worst-President-Ever Obama a one-term president if only to get rid of Valerie Jarrett!

    Report Post »  
    • Noonien_Soong
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:01am

      Seems to me that Pelosi said the same thing awhile ago. Pelosi’s time is up as well, both V. Jarrett need to go.

      Report Post » Noonien_Soong  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:24am

    So– When we reach 100% unemployment, Obamanomics will be complete.. Nuthin’ but good times ahead…

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • hatchetjob
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:56pm

      Don’t forget the free healthcare, the same as what the gov. officials enjoy.

      Report Post » hatchetjob  
  • Banter
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:24am

    These elitist, progressive, know-nothings can keep saying it, but it doesn’t make it true. Sadly, half the country believes this tripe.

    Report Post » Banter  
  • elvisathome
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:22am

    Yeah they‘re stimulating her pocketbook because she’s a big slum lord who caters to those that have no other alternative but to rent from people like her because they can’t afford anything else. Yeah what a partnership! Jarrett, Resco and Obama! Do we cheat em? And how!

    Report Post »  
  • Turtleman
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:21am

    Is Iranian born Jarrett really that stupid? Is this possible?
    By her own reasoning, if we could only get to 100% unemployment, then the economy would really be great!
    We are so screwed!
    Anybody but Obama in November!

    Report Post »  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:26am

      Yah– Right.. Unemployment is good FOR THE OBAMA AGENDA! That is what she is really thinking..

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:33am

      “By her own reasoning, if we could only get to 100% unemployment, then the economy would really be great!”

      No, that’s not “by her reasoning” at all. Any person who has even heard of economics know of the principle of diminishing returns. Its a simple concept–feel free to wikipedia it.

      Report Post »  
    • doomytram
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:04am

      Free Food Stamps – Free Sec 8 housing – Free Cell Phone – Free Utility Bills – Free Postage Stamps – Free Internet – Free social security disability for each kid – Free Health Insurance- Free Spending Money not enough? Unemployment checks stimulate the economy at McDonalds? What a loon bat this communist Jarrett is!

      Report Post » doomytram  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:20am

    WH advisor Valerie Jarrett and Nancy Pelosi should receive Disney World’s “Goofy” award!

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
  • Rick300
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:19am

    Didn’t know that bill paying stimulated the economy???

    Report Post » Rick300  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:54am

      It doesn’t but it does allow it to keep rolling.When people en mass, don‘t or can’t pay there bills, it creates a cascade effect.In essence, if allows half a**ed stability.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:34am

      What do you think not paying bills does to the economy?

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:54am

      DEMOCRATS, the kings and queens of not paying the bills. DEMOCRATS stealing the future earnings of our kids, our grandchildren,, and greatgrandchildren. Just to give cash to the UNIONS that recycle the cash to the DEMOCRAT thieves, for Barry’s Screw America Four More Years Tour

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • momrules
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:18am

    This is the most powerful woman in the White House. These people are so crazy they make Achmandinajab(sp) look sane.

    Report Post »  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:18am

    The best people to be unemployed that will stimulate the economy will be you Jarrett and your Marxist POS boss,when that happens in November the economy will get much better.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:23am

      I hope it happens in November Slayer. Four more of this and the republic will be done for.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:31am

      We have to have faith Gonzo that the disaster in chief will be fired,I believe he will be but who replaces him? Will he get the boot of government off business to create jobs? Slash spending like a mad man with a chain saw? That‘s what’s needed,make the government smaller and less intrusive in our lives and our economy will soar.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Atilla
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:15am

    Ignorance is teachable, stupid is permanent. This quote is really what the elite think of your intellect.

    Report Post »  
  • BOMUSTGO
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:15am

    Remember when they called it “Funemployment?” I have only been unemployed twice in my life. It was no fun.

    Report Post » BOMUSTGO  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:15am

    Well then Valerie, the economy is highly stimulated, despite your manipulation of the statistics.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • SoupSandwich
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:14am

    Especially in the black community, where 70- 80% of our demographics come from. Invest in Frito Lay and Miller brewing and Nike? What is the underlying message here? BadDoggy help me out as I don’t understand high end ebonics. What did she say, really?

    Report Post »  
  • TxSon
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:13am

    And there are economically ignorant people out there that actually believe that. Unfortunately, this administration is economically ignorant enough to actually believe it.

    Report Post » TxSon  
    • progressiveslayer
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:24am

      We can thank the public school monopoly for creating the economic illiterate’s,the dems and republican progressives need them to keep them in power.

      Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Abraham Young
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:13am

    We are watching Animal Farm in real life. The pigs are staging a revolution complete with lies and deceit.

    Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:31am

      Yep. And I can’t afford popcorn with the movie because of all those “stimulate the economy” unemployment/welfare checks I’m paying for.

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 11:02am

      You can afford going to the movies??

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:57pm

      13th – Nope. Can you? I can only afford (barely) to watch the daily “WTF is happening to my country?” episodes from my living room. Yes, I can also afford (barely) my internet access. It’s not a luxury, it’s where I make a living.

      Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:38pm

      13th – What I said about internet access wasn’t directed towards you.

      I meant it for whomever decided to give me the “If you can afford the Internet you can’t be that bad off” crap. My bad for not making that clear. :D

      Report Post »  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:45pm

      Mom– I have to apologize. Nothing was meant by my question, Sorry. My wife and I can afford to go, but there is so little to chose from. I want to see the John Carter movie. I have always been an E R Burroughs fan and have read all his series. Crush Barry Nov 2012

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 2:57pm

      13th – No need to apologize. I knew your post was sarcasm. As was my response (except for that bit about the internet). A case of “written words don’t always read the same way as one is thinking them” on both sides. Happens all the time. :D

      Report Post »  
    • MidWestMom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 3:34pm

      13th – Hubby and I are Burroughs fans & want to see John Carter too. We’re helping 2 kids save for college and vo-tech tuition so we’ll wait for it to be on pay-per-view tv. Doesn’t save a lot but every little bit helps. I think a lot of people would be amazed at how fast it can add up. Hopefully between their jobs, the money they’ve saved and our little bits they can get thru school without huge student loans.

      Report Post »  
  • MrButcher
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:12am

    Starvation is good for your appetite too.

    Report Post » MrButcher  
    • 338lapua
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:26am

      Good point! And fear is an excellent motivator.

      Report Post »  
    • SoupSandwich
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:30am

      Where intestinal fortitude is derived. What would a butcher know about hunger? Have yet to see a skinny(no offense to east africans) one.

      Report Post »  
  • JP4JOY
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:12am

    What a twit!

    Report Post » JP4JOY  
    • doomytram
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:09pm

      The Price of Chicken McNuggets, 62 inch big screens, and Icee’s just went up…. and that is stimulating the economy.

      Also, the defense dept has agreed to pay every Afghani citizen a cool million Amero‘s for us burning a few dozen Korans’ – We are at war with the Afghans‘ but we have stooped so low as to turn into Flamingo’s – None of the Leftist’s cares if anyone burns millions of Bibles, but the American Banana Republic of the USA is going to Pay the Afghani’s for there pain.

      Report Post » doomytram  
  • PimpleJuice
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:10am

    Drug test her

    Report Post » PimpleJuice  
    • Darla_K
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:55am

      lol, good idea. We need to start drug testing all these loons in Washinton and see what we can find. I cannot believe that people actually buy this BS that they are selling. I am hoping come election time that more and more people crawl out from under the rocks where they have been hiding and do the right thing. We need our country back and the sooner the better. Let’s weed this garbage out and get some trust worthy people in who can do the job and has our best interest in order.

      Report Post » Darla_K  
  • hempstead1944
    Posted on February 22, 2012 at 9:10am

    What is frightening about this? She actually believes it ! God help us !

    Report Post »  
    • Plan B
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:30am

      I am not sure she really believes it. I think they believe the Americans are too stupid think beyond thier talking points.

      Report Post »  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:34am

      And why shouldn’t she believe it? I hear a lot of skepticism, but no one is actually saying why she is wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:41am

      What is frightening is that BEckerheads are so brainwashed that they can follow the simple logic. Person A lis unemployed, no money = no spending, local businesses suffers. Person A receives some money, spends money, money is infused back into the community, increase in demand new jobs and Perosn A is hired. Unlike the GOP/********* model were Person A is unable to pay for fire proctection and gets to watch his house burn to the ground, while being mocked by his good Christian neighbors for being homeless and out of work.

      Report Post »  
    • eld88
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 12:56pm

      Publius

      You do understand that you now have about 50% of the money that you had prior to being unemployed. This means that you cut way back in your spending to make ends meet. Yes you are able to make ends meet hopefully but this still has a net negative effect on the economy. You make the case that it is better than not having any money at all, and that is true, but that is not the case here. People did not go from having nothing to now having something. They went from having more to having less. This is why is makes no logical sense that it is good for the economy because any way you look at it, there is still less money going into the economy than there was.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 1:09pm

      She‘s wrong PUBLIUSPENCILNECK because people on unemployment don’t stimulate any economies. They buy the “bare essentials” to subsist. This doesn’t allow business to grow and hire. At best it treads water, more likely it shuts it’s doors and leaves creating an evironment of even less jobs available. What I find particularly vulgar is your self-approving defense of Jarrett, Obama, Pelosi’s idiocy that unemployment benefits “stimulate” economies”. Tax payer money in/ tax payer money out (with less tax payers to begin with) is a recipe for stagnation and disaster, not “stimulating” economies.

      Report Post »  
    • RedSoloCup
      Posted on February 23, 2012 at 11:06pm

      encinom
      Posted on February 22, 2012 at 10:41am

      What is frightening is that BEckerheads are so brainwashed that they can follow the simple logic. Person A lis unemployed, no money = no spending, local businesses suffers. Person A receives some money, spends money, money is infused back into the community, increase in demand new jobs and Perosn A is hired. Unlike the GOP/********* model were Person A is unable to pay for fire proctection and gets to watch his house burn to the ground, while being mocked by his good Christian neighbors for being homeless and out of work.

      __________________
      Uh oh, you upset one of Val’s #1 fans…

      Report Post » RedSoloCup  
1 2 3 ... 7

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love