Paying People Not To Work Saved Millions Of Jobs

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
via Zip

Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis: “Millions Of Jobs Were Saved” By Extending Unemployment Benefits…

Only in Obamaland does paying people not to work = Jobs.


Via Zero Hedge:
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis made her ubiquitous post-NFP appearance on CNBC this morning and spouted the usual propaganda. However, while discussing how wonderful the ATRA was, the seemingly slap-happy Solis noted how great the fact that emergency unemployment benefits were extended for millions of people was – and that thanks to that (and the magic of the Keynesian multiplier), millions of jobs were saved. So, to sum up, paying people not to work, saved millions and millions of jobs? Indeed America, indeed.


Keep reading…


Hilda Solis: Paying People Not To Work Saved Millions Of Jobs | ZeroHedge


Give me a break. :lol:
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
via Zip

Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis: “Millions Of Jobs Were Saved” By Extending Unemployment Benefits…

Only in Obamaland does paying people not to work = Jobs.


Via Zero Hedge:
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis made her ubiquitous post-NFP appearance on CNBC this morning and spouted the usual propaganda. However, while discussing how wonderful the ATRA was, the seemingly slap-happy Solis noted how great the fact that emergency unemployment benefits were extended for millions of people was – and that thanks to that (and the magic of the Keynesian multiplier), millions of jobs were saved. So, to sum up, paying people not to work, saved millions and millions of jobs? Indeed America, indeed.


Keep reading…


Hilda Solis: Paying People Not To Work Saved Millions Of Jobs | ZeroHedge


Give me a break. :lol:
Not too sure about millions of jobs saved but it did save the jobs of all the thousands of bureaucraps that look after the welfare system. with no clients they would be redundant and we can't have a redundant government employee since that would mean the managers are not doing their worthless job properly.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
hahahaha....The Spastics fans can't figure this out?

If you run a company and have 10 employees, hard times come you cut 5 and keep operating.

Now if you lay off 10 you have no employees earning you money, if you kept all 10 working you'd have employees but no money and no company because you'd go broke and close your doors

Keeping 5 working and a company running means there is still a company to hire the other 5 back.

One word.......................................Unions
One word for you...Spastics!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's the name of your sport. You DaSleeper are a Spastics fan.

And this is the Spastics Cup



Flo-Trol Convalescent Vacuum Feeding Dribble Proof Cup
 
Last edited:

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
First of all, there were unions during the FDR era, and they actually became popular
as a result of the conditions that were born out of the Great Depression.
As for paying people to do nothing this might not be as strange as one thinks.

There are all kinds of people out ther who, for what ever reason. are not employable.
There are those who abused drugs, or have special needs and so on, they take up
space in training programs that will not lead to employment on a long term bases.
Perhaps we should consider assisting them while investing in people who will be
productive. The reason I say this is we see people take training for something only
to be retrained for something else which means we wasted the money on those who
won't do what they were first trained to do.
If we just cut the problem people off we will pay for them in prisons and other social
programs like assistance so we get to pay even more. I am not talking guaranteed
annual income either, but sustainable is better than wasting training spots on
people who cannot measure up. Should we do it? Don't know, but we should as a
society discuss it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,179
113
Low Earth Orbit
grumpy said:
There are all kinds of people out ther who, for what ever reason. are not employable.
There are those who abused drugs, or have special needs and so on, they take up
space in training programs that will not lead to employment on a long term bases.
Perhaps we should consider assisting them while investing in people who will be
productive
. ...in order to get on pogey and have your bennys extended you'd had to have worked first.
OPIE said:
the seemingly slap-happy Solis noted how great the fact that emergency unemployment benefits were extended for millions of people was – and that thanks to that (and the magic of the Keynesian multiplier), millions of jobs were saved.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I was referring more to social assistance I guess. If we don't put up a minimum amount
of social assistance we will have these same people in the prison system before long and
that would cost even more money in the long run. Of course those who are not productive
we could just shoot them. ah, but them we have to bury them and the cost of bullets will
rise.