Pelosi: UE Checks Fastest Way to CREATE Jobs (cost, leader, economy)

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by OrlandoRE_Miracle

Actually, she is right -- if more money circulates inot the economy, it will stimulate spending and create some new jobs and hiring.

That is the most backassward statement I've read all day. How about creating JOBS so that people have actual paychecks to spend? Wasn't that what all this stimulus was supposed to do? UE is barely enough to live on, and certainly not enough to go out on spending sprees stimulating the economy. Good grief, the stupidity never ceases.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by OrlandoRE_Miracle

Actually, she is right -- if more money circulates inot the economy, it will stimulate spending and create some new jobs and hiring.

Sorry...very few businesses will open or expand with Obama in office.

[marcopolo]

If Congress wants to stimulate itself, I say go ahead, it is none of my business, but leave me alone.

[summers73]

Originally Posted by OrlandoRE_Miracle

And your solution is more money for the wars?

What the heck does war have to do with this?

[stars99]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

That is the most backassward statement I've read all day. How about creating JOBS so that people have actual paychecks to spend? Wasn't that what all this stimulus was supposed to do? UE is barely enough to live on, and certainly not enough to go out on spending sprees stimulating the economy. Good grief, the stupidity never ceases.

Do you mean like government Green jobs?

[stars99]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Not when UE is only 1/3 of your salary. With that you can barely make ends meet. People are using up their 401K's and other savings and skipping bills and mortgage payments.

They will still spend more than if they didn't have it at all.

[stars99]

Originally Posted by summers73

What the heck does war have to do with this?

an example of money that's being diverted

[jambini]

Originally Posted by OrlandoRE_Miracle

Actually, she is right -- if more money circulates inot the economy, it will stimulate spending and create some new jobs and hiring.

Unemployment will maybe only pay the immediate bills. The economy will only be stimulated with the spending of discretionary income.

[stars99]

Originally Posted by jambini

Unemployment will maybe only pay the immediate bills. The economy will only be stimulated with the spending of discretionary income.

then end war in Afghan (we all know we will lose anyway), then divert that money to higher UE checks (or other form of stimulus)

[ambient]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Any liberals care to defend this? Pelosi is your leader, so surely you agree with her, right?

I don't feel particularly inclined to defend her statement. She's not my "leader", and I have a brain; I can agree and disagree with her and others based on my own opinion. But I will make this observation about public spending and economic recovery:

There is lots of widely accepted evidence that public spending helps soften the depth of a recession. Consider the housing incentives that just expired - more houses sold because of that. That means that more people in real estate made a buck who were involved in that transaction. That means that they can in turn spend more money. That means that the people who move into the houses will maybe hire movers to help them move in...they'll buy furniture at furniture stores...they'll maybe hire some contractors to do some fixing up and renovating of certain things. None of that happens if no one buys a house. That's just one example...so incentives to help people spend and keep people employed to help.

BUT...they come at a cost: they add to the deficit. And it makes a big difference as to where you are in your deficit capacity. If you're 95% maxed out on your credit card, so to speak, you really can't bear the cost of extra deficit spending now in the hopes of paying it back later. And so belt tightening - austerity - is your only choice. And that necessarily means being worse off and spending even less in the short term.

So...there is a dynamic here that leads to a heated debate about how long to keep the foot on the fiscal gas pedal and when exactly to start hitting the brakes. I could elaborate on that in another thread. But here's the salient point:

Maybe now is the time to hit the brakes and pull back all or most public spending. Maybe we should cut everything. But don't expect that to create jobs or make things better in the short term - it will cost even more jobs and harm the economy in the short term. It has to. Now, maybe that short term harm is worth it in order to be on a better long-term track...but Republicans should sell that to their constituents as such. And I don't see that happening. There is this general sense of "oh, if we just do the opposite of what we've done, then the jobs will come back and we'd have a robust recovery by now." What hogwash. It's not that easy when you're in the makings of the Third Great Depression, and it just shows the foolish fantasy thinking that is so typical of human nature.

Finally, consider that even the strategy of pulling back now entails risk; what if you pull back and deepen the recession..and then it takes that much longer to exit it? Now your deficit equation will be hurt from another angle: depressed future tax revenues.

There is no free lunch, people. Everything comes with a price. Spending more now has a price; pulling back now has a price, too. And it's not so clear to see which one will result in a quicker recovery, because it's very tough to tell where we are in the cycle until it's already in the past.