Jobless Benefits debacle

Here's what Rush had to say about the ridiculouness of the Jobless Benefis debacle.

Story #2: WH: Failure to Extend Jobless Benefits Will Cost Jobs

RUSH: Get a load of this. While we were away a White House economics advisor, Austan Goolsbee (not to be confused with Julian Assange) just said that it is better for the economy if the costs of unemployment benefits are not paid for and instead added to the deficit. That was reported by Mark Knoller of CBS News. Stop and think of this. The regime's economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, has just said it's better for the economy to rack up more debt, better for the economy if the costs of unemployment benefits are not paid for. So unemployment's even better for the economy if it adds to the deficit. It grows the economy by virtue of the unemployed getting the check, and then we don't pay for that, why, that boosts the economy by adding to the deficit. Which makes sense, you know, these guys believe in Keynesian economics, giant deficits equal growing economy.

Also, Mark Knoller at CBS: "WH report says a failure to pay extended unemployment benefits would cost the economy 600,000 jobs over the course of a year." Yeah, that's what he said. "WH report says a failure to pay extended unemployment benefits would cost the economy 600,000 jobs." I'm forced here, as a resident of Literalville, to take this logically. White House says a failure to pay extended unemployment benefits -- that means a refusal to pay people to not work. In other words, we must continue to pay people to not work. If we don't pay people to not work it will cost the economy 600,000 jobs over the course of a year. I don't care what drug you're on, there's no way this makes sense. This is stupefying. A failure to pay extended unemployment benefits. A failure to pay people not to work. In other words, a continuation of support for unemployment will cost the economy 600,000 jobs. In other words, we pay people not to work, we make sure they do not work, and somehow we're losing 600,000 jobs. So wouldn't it make sense to not pay them not to work?

I don't know anymore how to describe the people running this country. I mean they're Marxist, yeah, socialist, yeah, leftists, liberals, but they're also just plain stupid. Maybe what we ought to do is just double unemployment benefits, both the amount and the time. We'd create and save millions of jobs that way. Just like I said yesterday, get everybody out of work, pay everybody not to work, whoa, look at what the economic recovery would look like then. This is starting to sound like paying farmers not to grow crops. We're paying people not to work, and at the same time claiming a failure to do that will cost us jobs. You literally have to be insane to understand that.