The unemployment debate - Your thoughts?

[IBCoupe]

That wasn't one of your better rebuttals... Lots of semantics and clinging to to the fundamental belief that it's government's job to keep people from starving.

They can keep burying us in debt. The backlash from the silent majority will be swift, certain, and severe, and it'll extend beyond politicians to those supporting this "pissing away" of our future, and those milking the system.

Well, let me be clear, I'm only responding to the words you put in front of me. If it looks like my response is hollow, keep in mind what I've got to work with. You've asserted that private charity would work better, and I've responded with ideas as to why it's not necessarily the best policy. You've asserted that I'm too young and New Englandy to know how the world works, when I'm very clearly presenting you with logical and policy-based arguments, which should be taken on their face. You've pointed to political irrelevancies.

Some of your arguments are mildly stimulating; others range from annoying to insulting. If it looks like I'm not trying hard enough, ask yourself: what possible reason would I want to?

If 99 weeks wasn't enough, perhaps Darwin was right. If the Left is such a believer in his theory, why not let it play out?

Because maybe there's a difference between how the natural world develops and how we structure our society? Come on, Greg. Try harder. No more political distractions.

[stebo0728]

Working is never an end. We can work because we derive pleasure out of what we do, or because we like to have money with which to do what we derive pleasure out of. But working is just a way to get there.

You are 100% correct, on the individual level. But government goals are different than individual goals, thats my point. If people are working then taxes are being paid, less benefits are being dished out, life is good (or better anyway) therefore, employment is a goal or END for government.

Great, so we should extend unemployment benefits during a recession, right?

If we can cut the budget somewhere else, and NOT take this out of new money, as has been already suggested, then Im not so against extending benefits, but we all know that is NOT going to be how it goes down, and in that case, NO extension. If you feel bad enough about people not having jobs and not being able to eat, then give them the money you are paying people to study warf rat homosexuality, or the money you are paying for all this sh*tty so called art that keeps getting put outside all these federal buildings. If you want something in your personal budget, and it overextends you, you have to prioritize right? Either not get what your wanting or drop something else you dont want as much right? Why the hell doesnt the government get held to this same standard. Georgia here is having budget issues, but we have a law on the books here that requires a balanced budget before state reps get to leave for break. Do the same on the federal level, force a balanced budget, and if we decide paying people while they arent working is a priority so be it, find the money somewhere to do it, dont go borrow more.

[IBCoupe]

You are 100% correct, on the individual level. But government goals are different than individual goals, thats my point. If people are working then taxes are being paid, less benefits are being dished out, life is good (or better anyway) therefore, employment is a goal or END for government.

I see what you're saying, and it's a valid point, but I think that's a very limited view of what the government's goals are. From the perspective of taxation and employment benefits, you're absolutely right. If we focus only on the effects of those two priorities, then it makes sense.

But there's also considerations of growth, public satisfaction, international trade, and systemic costs which are all, arguablly, satisfied by people having money, without necessarily requiring them to work to get it. Working may be a good way to get there and, from a limited government perspective, the best way to get it, but it should be noted that it's not the only way, and not necessarily the "good" way (making all others "bad" ways).

If we can cut the budget somewhere else, and NOT take this out of new money, as has been already suggested, then Im not so against extending benefits, but we all know that is NOT going to be how it goes down, and in that case, NO extension. If you feel bad enough about people not having jobs and not being able to eat, then give them the money you are paying people to study warf rat homosexuality, or the money you are paying for all this sh*tty so called art that keeps getting put outside all these federal buildings. If you want something in your personal budget, and it overextends you, you have to prioritize right? Either not get what your wanting or drop something else you dont want as much right? Why the hell doesnt the government get held to this same standard. Georgia here is having budget issues, but we have a law on the books here that requires a balanced budget before state reps get to leave for break. Do the same on the federal level, force a balanced budget, and if we decide paying people while they arent working is a priority so be it, find the money somewhere to do it, dont go borrow more.

In all reality, extending it now without funding it now does not mean that it will be funded from new sources. As far as Congress is concerned, money is money. They can shift things around later. So we can vote for the thing and come up with funding from other cuts later.

[stebo0728]

Working may be a good way to get there and, from a limited government perspective, the best way to get it, but it should be noted that it's not the only way, and not necessarily the "good" way (making all others "bad" ways).

You said it best right there, and its my contention that we were designed, and should remain a limited government entity. And as far as "good, bad", its more like "best, worst". Look at history, study economic trends, and you will see what the best answer is, history tends to repeat itself.

In all reality, extending it now without funding it now does not mean that it will be funded from new sources. As far as Congress is concerned, money is money. They can shift things around later. So we can vote for the thing and come up with funding from other cuts later.

Your such a hopeless romantic, thats so cute. They will shift it around later, thats precious. Reminds me of what my 8 year old said this morning when the radio said someone had been shot and killed "Daddy, i wish there were no guns or weapons ever anywhere in the world" just adorable. (No insult intended there either, just precious you still think congress will perform its functions correctly)

And you'll forgive me I hope if I say that is starting to sound like Pelosi-ism, "we have to pass it to see whats in it". You dont wait and figure it out later, thats what got us in the trouble were in, stop being lazy and sit down and figure it all out at the onset. Lay the budget out, and thats how you roll.

[audtatious]

If 99 weeks wasn't enough, perhaps Darwin was right. If the Left is such a believer in his theory, why not let it play out?

Because those who lose first are a main contributor to Dem power. Dems must protect their voting base while trying to make the GOP constantly the "party of no".

[wingFeather]

in times like these

Heard this excuse for the past 8 years...

So we can vote for the thing and come up with funding from other cuts later.

We are talking about the government here. Spending will only go up (as evidenced by Obama's wasteful spending), cuts will be minimal (for good press only).

[IBCoupe]

We are talking about the government here. Spending will only go up, cuts will be minimal.

So this is the only thing you three came up with that was worth responding to.

If you, and Congressional Republicans, are willing to fight this hard to prevent unemployment benefits from being extended in a recession, it shouldn't be that hard to find cuts elsewhere next week or next month, say, from the half of our budget that goes to defense spending.

It's entirely proper to have a fight about how to pay for it, but this is something that's pretty time-sensitive, and it's not necessary to have that fight while we fight about whether to do the thing at all.

[stebo0728]

I fully understand what your saying, and I fully disagree with it, and its indicative of the mess we are in now. We are expected on the individual level to live within our means. We dont always do it, but there are consequences to not doing it. Then we go about building a system of government that we allow to function diametrically opposite from how we expect ourselves to live. This is ludicrous. I understand the time sensitive nature of the issue, and if discretionary funding had not been totally raped over the past 20 years, then a system would be in place to take care of this time sensitive kinda stuff without having to argue about budgeting issues.

[IBCoupe]

I fully understand what your saying, and I fully disagree with it, and its indicative of the mess we are in now. We are expected on the individual level to live within our means. We dont always do it, but there are consequences to not doing it. Then we go about building a system of government that we allow to function diametrically opposite from how we expect ourselves to live. This is ludicrous. I understand the time sensitive nature of the issue, and if discretionary funding had not been totally raped over the past 20 years, then a system would be in place to take care of this time sensitive kinda stuff without having to argue about budgeting issues.

But the system is in such a state that we can take care of this without having to argue about budgeting issues while we decide to take care of it.

For the most part, we do have a system that expects people to live within their individual means. We also have a system that provides for the most basic of needs in the event that someone is unable to do so. The incentive not to live on the back of the taxpayers is to live a better life.

[audtatious]

The incentive not to live on the back of the taxpayers is to live a better life.

Uhm, what? How is receiving infinite monetary payment an incentive? Welfare is supposed to be a hand up but has turned into a hole that generations of families have fallen into with no real initiative to get out of. How will continually extending unemployment benefits be any different?

[wingFeather]

It's entirely proper to have a fight about how to pay for it, but this is something that's pretty time-sensitive, and it's not necessary to have that fight while we fight about whether to do the thing at all.

So why doesn't Obama cut wasteful spending, instead of increase it to levels we've never seen before? He is in charge now.

[IBCoupe]

Uhm, what? How is receiving infinite monetary payment an incentive? Welfare is supposed to be a hand up but has turned into a hole that generations of families have fallen into with no real initiative to get out of. How will continually extending unemployment benefits be any different?

Who said anything about infinite? We're talking about unemployment, not welfare.

So why doesn't Obama cut wasteful spending, instead of increase it to levels we've never seen before? He is in charge now.

Couldn't tell you, but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand.

[wingFeather]

So why doesn't Obama cut wasteful spending, instead of increase it to levels we've never seen before? He is in charge now.

Couldn't tell you, but I don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand.

I don't see how you don't see, unless you are a die hard Democrat & give a free pass to anyone on "your side". Otherwise, it is totally relevant. He is in charge NOW, promised to make things better... yet is currently doing exactly the opposite. How do you not see this?

[IBCoupe]

I don't see how you don't see, unless you are a die hard Democrat & give a free pass to anyone on "your side". Otherwise, it is totally relevant. He is in charge NOW, promised to make things better... yet is currently doing exactly the opposite. How do you not see this?

I want to be clear: I don't have a side, except "not yours."

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I don't see how that's relevant to the the arguments it's apparently intended to respond to:

It's entirely proper to have a fight about how to pay for it, but this is something that's pretty time-sensitive, and it's not necessary to have that fight while we fight about whether to do the thing at all.

[wingFeather]

I don't see how you don't see, unless you are a die hard Democrat & give a free pass to anyone on "your side". Otherwise, it is totally relevant. He is in charge NOW, promised to make things better... yet is currently doing exactly the opposite. How do you not see this?

I want to be clear: I don't have a side, except "not yours."

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I don't see how that's relevant to the the arguments it's apparently intended to respond to:

It's entirely proper to have a fight about how to pay for it, but this is something that's pretty time-sensitive, and it's not necessary to have that fight while we fight about whether to do the thing at all.

Obama would be proud of your double speak & confusion

[heliochrome85]

where exactly do you want to see him cut funding? for the love of god, would someone who harps on cutting spending please answer that?

[audtatious]

Uhm, what? How is receiving infinite monetary payment an incentive? Welfare is supposed to be a hand up but has turned into a hole that generations of families have fallen into with no real initiative to get out of. How will continually extending unemployment benefits be any different?

Who said anything about infinite? We're talking about unemployment, not welfare.

So, 1.9 years getting UB should be extended to what? Then, when that don't work, extended to what? Why not just make UB an entitlement since that's pretty much what it's becoming.

Yeah, die in the streets, I'm that heartless so you don't have to bring it up.

[audtatious]

where exactly do you want to see him cut funding? for the love of god, would someone who harps on cutting spending please answer that?

Welfare

[stebo0728]

where exactly do you want to see him cut funding? for the love of god, would someone who harps on cutting spending please answer that?

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2010/07/yo ... -work.html -- cutting sh*t like this out is a good start

Stop paying people to be poor, and start helping them be NOT POOR, and if they dont avail themselves of the help, then they suffer for it, but the help is to be TEMPORARY RELIEF

Stop paying for "art" PERIOD, government building should be cinder blocks and wood panelling when times are tough

Stop paying for studies about stupid bullsh*t, such as homosexual tendencies of animals, and other cockeyed crap like that

Stop "passing bills to see whats in them" thats the most ludicrous asinine belligerent thing I have ever heard of

Stop cramming every last little thing into bills that you can fit it.

Line item veto (if presbo would even use it) has become a necessity. Remember the "scalpel" we were promised, well thats your scalpel

Stop passing amounts of money with votes, then going into secret rooms to decide where the money goes

This list could go on and on. I realize that not all of this is new to Obama sorta stuff, and I b*tched about the same stuff when "Dubya" was there. No he did nothing about it and thats one thing I detest about him, he waited till democrats had congress to even veto a bill, not ONE bill did he veto from the republican congress. I know I harp alot on Obama, but I harped on Bush too, just wasnt on this forum at the time for you to see it. But for all the things Bush did wrong, Obama has come back in spades.

Ok so putting the rhetoric aside, I am starting to tire of the whole "blame the prez" thing anyway, because really ever since Clinton, the prez has just been a footstool, a fixture in the white house so that we can say we have one. Congress holds the purse strings, and congress is where our vote works, or should work. Congress really holds the blame, and what little blame the prez actually carries, is in that he sits aside and asserts no authority or guidance upon congress.

[Crazyirish]

I can't comment on people receiving unemployment benefits as a whole. However, of the people I know receiving them, I would say 100 percent would have found a job by now had they NOT continued to receive benefits. Humans are survivors, and tend to do what is needed to survive. But we also tend to do only what we have to, unless spurred on by desires for success, or sex, stability or whatever else it is that drives the go-getters out there.

As far as I'm concerned they should roll unemployment back to six months maximum. Everyone draws a crap hand once in awhile and needs a little help. I don't mind paying a little of my tax dollar to help out unfortunate Americans. I do mind funding crappy work ethics and morons who think they deserve a couple years off. Being unfortunate should not be a viable career path.

[AZhitman]

I can't comment on people receiving unemployment benefits as a whole. However, of the people I know receiving them, I would say 100 percent would have found a job by now had they NOT continued to receive benefits. Humans are survivors, and tend to do what is needed to survive. But we also tend to do only what we have to, unless spurred on by desires for success, or sex, stability or whatever else it is that drives the go-getters out there.

As far as I'm concerned they should roll unemployment back to six months maximum. Everyone draws a crap hand once in awhile and needs a little help. I don't mind paying a little of my tax dollar to help out unfortunate Americans. I do mind funding crappy work ethics and morons who think they deserve a couple years off. Being unfortunate should not be a viable career path.

^ THIS ^

Well-said, Sir.

I think I mentioned it earlier, but the Sally Struthers's in this thread didn't take note: A lot of states have unemployment criteria that states if you receive a job offer with a pay rate that's a certain percent BELOW what you were making before, you don't have to accept it, and you can just keep on collecting checks.

That's BULLCRAP.

Getting a $185/week check and passing on a $215/week job offer because you USED TO MAKE $260 a week is pure entitlement bullcrap.

TAKE the job, get off the damn dole, contribute something to society, and STFU about your damn check that you've gotten for TWO years.

Go ahead and piss away my kids' future because you're concerned about votes. I'm done trying to explain why it's a BAD idea.

I wonder how many of you send money to starving kids in other countrie? Better yet, how many have you done something for in THIS country? Oh yeah - it's all well and good when it's not YOUR money (or you're too blind to figure out that it is, in effect, YOUR money. And mine).

[AZhitman]

Come on, Greg. Try harder. No more political distractions.

I expected better from you, but I'll leave out the political distractions if you'll leave emotion out of this decision-making process. Let's not fool ourselves, neither of us is some hard-core, extreme humanitarian.

I've clobbered this issue to death with facts, figures, real-world examples, historical context, and experience.

You're responding with emotion - Pure emotion. Your ONLY motivator is to "keep people from starving". None other. None.

Yet how many will be sacrificed 30 years from now because of today's poor decisions?

I pointed out solutions that have worked in the past. For DECADES, even CENTURIES. You don't want to base policy on those? GOOD. That's the idea. Get government the HELL out of the equation!!! Quit trying to make yesterday's functionality fit your limited worldview.

But you can't sit up there with 25 years' experience in an area of the country that's not historically known for faith-based and community-based cooperative and assistance organizations and pooh-pooh an option that's PROVEN to work.

Here's a question: Why hasn't the homeless population in Phoenix increased commensurate with the dip in the economy? If unemployment went from 7% to 12%, why aren't there 5% more homeless people? Why aren't there 3% more? WHY?

Because people are survivors. If they get hungry, they'll FIND a way. Keep handing them freebies, and behavior remains static.

Feed them out of YOUR paycheck, not off my childrens' table.

[heliochrome85]

where exactly do you want to see him cut funding? for the love of god, would someone who harps on cutting spending please answer that?

Welfare

alright. if welfare was cut. how would the stores that are foodstamp friendly survive? unfortunately, its tough to cut spending and not see someone go hungry. this is part of the reason why our defense sepdning is out of control. remember the fight earlier this year over Sen Shelby (R-AL) and his blanket hold over all Obama appointees? Yeah, it was because he wanted the DoD to buy tankers from Northrup Grumman which had a factory in his state over boeing which didnt. Mind you this was irrespective of who had the lower bid. What about the fight over the f-22 fighter program, where Secretary of Defense Bob Gates demanded that they be cancelled, but the senate decided to amend the defense bill to add f-22 funding for unwanted fighters.

cutting spending isnt nearly as easy as the tea party movement would like us to believe.

[heliochrome85]

I can't comment on people receiving unemployment benefits as a whole. However, of the people I know receiving them, I would say 100 percent would have found a job by now had they NOT continued to receive benefits. Humans are survivors, and tend to do what is needed to survive. But we also tend to do only what we have to, unless spurred on by desires for success, or sex, stability or whatever else it is that drives the go-getters out there.

As far as I'm concerned they should roll unemployment back to six months maximum. Everyone draws a crap hand once in awhile and needs a little help. I don't mind paying a little of my tax dollar to help out unfortunate Americans. I do mind funding crappy work ethics and morons who think they deserve a couple years off. Being unfortunate should not be a viable career path.

^ THIS ^

Well-said, Sir.

I think I mentioned it earlier, but the Sally Struthers's in this thread didn't take note: A lot of states have unemployment criteria that states if you receive a job offer with a pay rate that's a certain percent BELOW what you were making before, you don't have to accept it, and you can just keep on collecting checks.

That's BULLCRAP.

Getting a $185/week check and passing on a $215/week job offer because you USED TO MAKE $260 a week is pure entitlement bullcrap.

TAKE the job, get off the damn dole, contribute something to society, and STFU about your damn check that you've gotten for TWO years.

Go ahead and piss away my kids' future because you're concerned about votes. I'm done trying to explain why it's a BAD idea.

I wonder how many of you send money to starving kids in other countrie? Better yet, how many have you done something for in THIS country? Oh yeah - it's all well and good when it's not YOUR money (or you're too blind to figure out that it is, in effect, YOUR money. And mine).

side note

i was on the treadmill the other day, and ALL in the Family was on. Man oh man has sally struthers let herself go:

i think i know who has been eating Kristi Alleys crumbs..


vs.

[stebo0728]

Sally Struthers ... reminds me of the Starvin Marvin episode of South Park ... LOL/ROFL/LMAO ... HAHAHA

[AZhitman]

Yeah, it was because he wanted the DoD to buy tankers from Northrup Grumman which had a factory in his state over boeing which didnt.

Not that it's "right", but that's what we expect our Senators to do. Doesn't make it proper, but it's what the constituency expects (jussayin').

[AZhitman]

i was on the treadmill the other day, and ALL in the Family was on. Man oh man has sally struthers let herself go:

i think i know who has been eating Kristi Alleys crumbs.

Toss her fatass in for 3 hours on high and we could hook up Ethiopia for 3 years.

[audtatious]

Welfare

alright. if welfare was cut. how would the stores that are foodstamp friendly survive?

Those on food stamps don't have to eat if they are not receiving free s***?

unfortunately, its tough to cut spending and not see someone go hungry.

Dude, I'm getting choked up.

this is part of the reason why our defense sepdning is out of control. remember the fight earlier this year over Sen Shelby (R-AL) and his blanket hold over all Obama appointees? Yeah, it was because he wanted the DoD to buy tankers from Northrup Grumman which had a factory in his state over boeing which didnt. Mind you this was irrespective of who had the lower bid. What about the fight over the f-22 fighter program, where Secretary of Defense Bob Gates demanded that they be cancelled, but the senate decided to amend the defense bill to add f-22 funding for unwanted fighters.

Damn Republicans. That sum-bich should be strung up. The GOP needs to learn that they can't get away with that kinda crap and should simply follow the Democrat way........wait, they would probably be even more corrupt.

cutting spending isnt nearly as easy as the tea party movement would like us to believe.

Right, so instead we keep increasing the numbers of those who reply on the Gov for their existence. Bravo, well done.

[audtatious]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,"

How long are the current, new and future policies of the Obama Administration going to impact us?

[smockers83]

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,"

How long are the current, new and future policies of the Obama Administration going to impact us?

Although great research, I have to say that this doesn't help out the argument against current policies that have been enacted thus far. It's apples to oranges. We haven't seen inflationary measures nor major wage measures. However, there are some similarities in that the current administration and Democrats are very pro-labor but have shelved that for later (thankfully).

So, for unemployment. People by the thousands stop looking for work each month as this is accounting for some decrease in the unemployment rate. However, these people aren't necessarily not looking for work because they're getting unemployment benefits but because they've been looking for jobs for greater than 6 months and have given up. The problem isn't exactly the benefits, but the lack of work available. When an economy goes into a recession and work and jobs are lost, it doesn't just come back one day at the flip of a switch. When we have a deep recession like the one we just went through, it can take years to get to the employment levels we were at prior to the recession. Output of an economy can't increase fast enough to absorb the workforce out there after going through a recession like we did.

If I could, I'd like to redirect the efforts of this debate as the context of it is misled in the greater argument that's trying to be made (I believe). I will put out an argument that the unemployment debate has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment benefits and it's a waste of time and effort. The argument should be focused elsewhere if you want something real. Continue to read.

We are seeing an increase in overtime and temporary work, which is an indicator that businesses are entertaining the idea of hiring again. The problem again isn't the benefits or welfare. It's the uncertainty of the business environment that the administration has created. Businesses don't know what, if any, tax increases they will see. They don't know health care costs today. They don't know and when they don't know, businesses will not make the necessary investments to grow. The uncertainty that the government creates greatly dampens business activity. If the government came out with a business-friendly plan, they would begin hiring and the economy would grow much faster than what it already has. In this recovery, we have seen this long trend of increased overtime and temporary work because there is too much bureaucracy going on with taxes. Businesses don't want to actually hire anybody unless the position is really needed because they are unsure of the costs of hiring an employee. With that said, the work just isn't out there for the millions upon millions to begin working again.

If the administration and Congress could come out and say we will be accommodating to businesses and lay out what they'll do, then come up with the legislation with said promises, this economy would start to take off. There are trillions of dollars in private capital sitting on the sidelines waiting to be invested into the US economy, but again, the uncertainty created by the government is keeping that capital out of play. Once that capital is released, I think we would see something we haven't seen for quite some time.

If this was hard to read/follow, I apologize, I did this pretty quickly and don't have the time to wordsmith it.

I'd also like to add that people in this country, if they aren't willing to take a pay cut from when they lost their jobs, they're in for a world of hurt. They would be nuts if they believed they could get the same pay starting a new job. I'd ask them to think about where they started with that company and how/why they got to where they were and the pay that went with it. A business isn't willing to make a high dollar investment on a brand new employee that they haven't seen perform yet. It just won't happen.