I laughed when she said that. She doesn’t address that folks on unemployment are not getting as much as when they were employed; therefore their checks go to pay bills rather than discretionary spending that truly stimulates the economy; and how many of those on unemployment refuse to take a lower paying job even if it is at Walmart so that they can at least have some non-government funded income.

A significant amount of those on unemployment get more from those checks than they would taking an undesireable job. Too many folks are holding out for a job that pays at least as much as they were making before, and this is the wrong attitude.

An unemployement check mostly covers food and housing. These are forms of consumer spending. Also, they are necessities for a basic standard of living. If that’s not justification enough, read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-minimum/

Its an idiotic argument anyway. The government does not produce anything and therefore cannot generate revenue to be distributed out. All they can do is tax people or entities for money. Taking money from one person who would have put it back into the economy and giving it to another person to put back into the economy does not generate wealth.

Those check provide for basic needs. Technically, this is consumer spending; however, this does not lead to prosperity.

DTG

One merely needs to think outside the box to see her point and I am in no way a fan of this woman.

Something is better than nothing. The job market is weak right now, without money families cannot spend, taxes do not get earned, and bills cannot be paid. What little money unemployment checks provide allows for unemployed workers to provide some food for their families, keep electricity on, pay rent, and whatever else is needed.

The point is that without unemployment many would have nothing to spend, thus the government would fail to bring in tax revenue from the sell of necessities.

In tough financial times no one should worry about vacations, eating out, going out, our buying a vehicle. It would be nice but these are not live or die things, food, water, and a home are. We have legs so we can walk, most areas have some form of public transit that is very cost effective, and clothing along with school supplies can be purchased at discount retailers or second hand stores.

Either way, without unemployment checks there is no money to make any purchases. Americans will always want more as it is in our nature but its better to have 10 bucks than nothing. Resourceful people find ways to cope and make adjustments, those who aren’t complain and expect someone to do it for them. Which are you?

The government needs to focus on jobs, business need to lower profits for the time being and focus on volume, workers need to spend, lenders need to lend, all of which will create jobs and demand.

This is the personification of liberal arrogance. To call unemployment a stimulus is of course just stupid. Most of the time, when evaluations of communities are measured they use a tax base employment as a measurement. You cannot buy a home on unemployment. (Unless you live in Detroit, liberal train wreck) You cannot update a home on unemployment. At best it is a stopgap or a break even. It stimulates nothing. I guess since I found a dime in a parking lot that is a stimulus by the brain dead Pelosi standard.

Stimulus relates to wealth creation, and unemployment is a net sum loss. A retarded statement by the most stupid woman west of Milwaukee.