One in a series that takes a look at some the wild, zany and madcap things said by Sarah Palin.
Here's Palin on unemployment benefits and job creation:
"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."Palin added later that unemployment benefits were one of a...
"Every place that, that money is spent has added business and that creates growth and income for businesses that leads them to decisions about jobs, more hiring. So, there are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance,..."
"variety of things to grow the economy and create jobs."
Actually, that wasn't Sarah Palin but rather the White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney.
And that testament to economic cluelessness was preceded by this exchange between Carney and a Wall St. Journal reporter:
"I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does that create jobs," Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler asked Jay Carney Wednesday's WH briefing.(italics, ours)
Carney responded: "Oh, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam."
"There are few other ways that can directly put money into the economy than applying unemployment insurance," Carney said.
Whoa, dude... easy with the zingers, someone might get hurt.
So, not only does Carney prove himself an economic ignoramous, he employs snark to get that point across. Nice work on the two-fer.
If Carney's logic sounds familiar, it should as Nancy Pelosi, a Sarah sez regular said: "Unemployment insurance creates jobs and does not add to the deficit."
So, if what Pelosi and Carney are saying is correct, why not just extend unemployment benefits indefinitely? And instead of the benefits being at a certain amount why not double, triple... quadruple that amount as Carney says they are a 1 to 1 multiplier so we can just benefit our way to economic prosperity. And the sooner more people become unemployed then obviously the quicker this all can happen.
With people who hold these views on the economy at the levers of power in D.C., why should our slide back into a double-dip be so unexpected?