"Since Unemployment is lower we should cut Unemployment Benefits"
Yes, Republicans say new cuts are needed so we can save money thanks to unemployment being lower... because, of course, there couldn't be any intrinsic mechanism by which decreased unemployment could lead organically to fewer unemployment insurance claims...
Geez! IF UNEMPLOYMENT GOES DOWN THERE WILL BE FEWER UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS. THAT IS THE MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT SAVES MONEY ON UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS... NOT CUTTING CLAIMS ACROSS THE BOARD BECAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT IS LOWER.
They really might as well be saying, "thanks to anti-lock brake technology there are fewer car crashes, so we should stop paying insurance clams related to car crashes."
Now, they might think that everyone unemployed is just lazy and won't take all the jobs that are out there, and the lower unemployment rate and higher job creation rate shows that all those jobs are out there for the unemployed to take, right???
PAYROLL INCREASE NUMBERS ARE JOBS, NOT JOB OPENINGS. ALL CREATED JOBS ARE ALREADY FILLED, BY FUCKING DEFINITION. NOBODY IS ADDING IMAGINARY PEOPLE TO PAYROLLS IN HOPES OF LURING THE LAZY UNEMPLOYED OFF THE SIDELINES. NEITHER THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE NOR PAYROLL JOBS TOTALS INDICATE AN INCREASE IN UNFILLED JOBS. THOSE SLOTS ARE ALREADY TAKEN, OR ELSE THEY WOULD NOT BE COUNTED AS JOBS. AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS A RATE... IF 0.3% OF PEOPLE STOPPED BEING UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY GOT A JOB THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW SOME OTHER UNEMPLOYED PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE THOSE SAME FREAKING JOBS THAT SOMEBODY ELSE JUST TOOK.
= new reply since forum marked as read
