The unemployment debate - Your thoughts?

[AZhitman]

I'm interested in hearing some positions on this issue - I don't have a REAL STRONG opinion one way or the other, ASIDE FROM believing that IF benefits are extended, they should absolutely not come from "new money" and add to the deficit, but should be allocated out of the pathetically miguided and mismanaged "stimulus" money already committed.

I read this earlier:

President Obama on Monday pressed Republican senators to drop their opposition to a jobless benefits extension, accusing them of advancing the "misguided notion" that unemployment aid discourages people from looking for work.

"They're not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work," Obama said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... extension/

I guess I'm having a hard time with the POTUS's contention that he somehow professes to know the hearts and minds of the unemployed in America. I have known several people who are perfectly content to continue collecting unemployment, and are NOT "desperate to work".

I also know those who readily accept the $185 a week check rather than accepting a job that pays $210 a week, because they "USED TO MAKE" $330 a week.

Maybe I'm just a big meanie, but there's a McDonald's in my neighborhood that's had a Help Wanted sign up for months - they can't keep good employees.

[Eikon]

I've yet to meet a person on unemployment who was in any hurry to get off of it. They will milk the benefits of the unemployment as long as possible.

Here's the problem... The longer the unemployment benefits last, the lazier the recipient gets. They just put off the job search for as many more weeks as their unemployment benefits last. The longer they wait, the more they harm their chances to get a job. Employers don't think highly of people who've spent the last 20 weeks on their couch.

In my opinion, unemployment benefits are a great thing, but they have a lifespan.. They need to exist long enough to help honest, hard working people transition from one job to another without missing mortgage payments or letting their kids go hungry. But, any longer than that and they become self-defeating. They encourage laziness and allow people to actually harm their future.

[bigbadberry3]

In my opinion, unemployment benefits are a great thing, but they have a lifespan.. They need to exist long enough to help honest, hard working people transition from one job to another without missing mortgage payments or letting their kids go hungry. But, any longer than that and they become self-defeating. They encourage laziness and allow people to actually harm their future.

I would agree that a time limit is needed. Without a sense of urgency, people will continue slack off. The census was Obama's handout already, maybe he could offer something with some substance this time?

[AZhitman]

I guess I'm more irritated with his arrogance and "know-it-all" stance than I am with the concept of extending welfa... unemployment.

p.s. You want the GOP to support this 100% without thinking twice? Tack on mandatory drug testing for unemployment benefits.

[srellim234]

I don't believe unemployment payments should be based on how much you made on a job. It should be minimum wage minus 50 cents or one dollar an hour. Make it worth the effort of getting a new job.

I'm also a firm believer that you should have to put in your 8 hours a day to get your check. Take local auditoriums and stadiums and make the unemployed sit on benches. Let individuals and businesses pick them up as day laborers and temps, hopefully within their chosen fields. When you're selected the "employer" has to pay you a fair wage based on the job. I'm willing to let the accountants work out what that amount should be.

If you're worth hiring, the businesses can move you from a temp-to-perm position and get you off the unemployment rolls. Not worth hiring? I guarantee that after enough time "riding the pine" you're going to try a different profession, get some training, bust your buns applying for jobs.

If you don't get selected you still have to put in your time on the bench to get paid at the unemployment rate.

[wingFeather]

It should not be extended. When you get money for free, then why get a job? We all know that living off unemployment is kind of a party.

[AZhitman]

Damn fine plan, Steve. Wish more people thought that way.

[srellim234]

Thank you.

[IBCoupe]

In normal times, there's something to the argument that unemployment benefits dissuade job-seeking. But most economists agree that in times like these, which are far from economically normal, that disincentive is far outweighed by the fact that there are extremely few jobs available.

And while Greg can point to the help-wanted sign at McDonalds, there are two factors that prevent certain people from taking those jobs: the person seeking the job, and the person hiring. People don't want to take less than they think their skillset should afford them (which may be significantly higher than what's available in a recession). The people hiring don't want someone who's going to bail as soon as the economy turns around. There is such a thing as being "overqualified."

So, should we extend unemployment benefits? This is certainly a debate that needs to be had, but not today. Today, the answer is an emphatic "YES! OF COURSE! WHAT ARE YOU, NUTS?"

[AZhitman]

WHAT ARE YOU, NUTS?"

Why, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.

OK, so we should extend benefits because of "the way the economy is". Fair enough. Now, let's define "is".

We had a similar situation in the mid 90's. Jobs were scarce, layoffs left and right, housing prices plummeted... Yet there wasn't a debate over unelmployment benefits.

I guess my question to you (and it's certainly not a challenge but a simple clarification) is, "Where is the line?" When is the economy "bad enough" to suspend reason and just blindly dig deep into our grandchildrens' pockets? Is there a number we can use? Is that number relaible? There has to be a cutoff - otherwise, you're drafting policy based on perception, emotion, and rhetoric.

And, as a follow up to that: What if we don't extend benefits? How do we determine that The Great Omniscient One is right, that all unemployed people are "desperate for work"? How do we then handle the ones who ARE NOT? (Contrary to TGOO's opinion, there are many.) How do we ensure that people aren't just "holding out" for an unrealistic wage?

Side rant: I've got a REAL issue with morons who think that JUST because they made $75K in 2003, that they won't accept anything less than that NOW. News flash, boneheads: My house was worth TWICE in 2003 what it's worth today. What's that mean? Diddly-squat. The economy changed, and your MARKET VALUE (just like my house's market value) changed with it. Just because you can't get that through your thick skulls doesn't mean I should be paying you to sit on the couch and wait for some employer to recognize your overinflated sense of self-worth. Get a damn job.

[Eikon]

One thing I'd be curious to know is what percentage of the unemployment benefits are going to people who have mortgage payments to make. The reason I ask is that you could make a case that you have to spend the money anyway.. The gov't has already agreed to take on the banking industry and their foreclosure issues. So they either pay the unemployment that allows people to keep making their mortgage payment, or they stop unemployment and watch defaults go up and then have to take on the debt of the foreclosures.. Just a curiosity. I guess in theory, most of the people on unemployment should be "renters" and not homeowners, but you never know...

[IBCoupe]

Greg, that's a great conversation that needs to be had.

But I think it's like the Supreme Court test for obscenity, when they try to separate pornography from art. "I know it when I see it." We're in a recession. Regardless of when exactly it might be okay to not extend unemployment benefits, this isn't that time.

I guess in theory, most of the people on unemployment should be "renters" and not homeowners, but you never know...

The only fear I have is that this theory, if implemented would mean that, should you lose your job, not only would you lose what health insurance you had, but also the roof over your head.

I don't know... should people live their lives as if they'll lose their job tomorrow?

[AZhitman]

I don't know... should people live their lives as if they'll lose their job tomorrow?

I always have. It's called living within your means, saving for a rainy day, and making yourself invaluable in your profession.

Like I said, those people clamoring for continued benefits may indeed be well-meaning individuals, desperate for work, and lacking any other means of sustaining themselves. Sadly, many are not, hence my ever-increasing reluctance to automatically support a notion of our government overextending itself yet further to accomodate their plight.

In response to your statement - If not now, when?

[IBCoupe]

If not now, when?

Haha, careful, Greg. Your Jew is showing.

I don't know when. I'm not paid to figure it out, but, again, that's not a question that needs to be answered this week for Congress to figure out how to vote.

Maybe when unemployment gets to more normal levels. Maybe that's what the answer is, or maybe it's part of the answer.

And re: personal responsibility:
I'm not sure that having a mortgage isn't living within your means. I don't like that not renting could make you ineligible for unemployment. The law should give people an expectation of how they can live their life (not direction on how to do so, but should set out clear rules so that we can figure it out), and I think that theory of how unemployment should work is a step away from that kind of law.

[AZhitman]

that's not a question that needs to be answered this week for Congress to figure out how to vote.

I respectfully (and carefully, I might add) disagree. It sets a precedent for all future "whims" of political administrations to come. It lowers the bar, cheapens the process, and further dissolves the already tenuous system of checks and balances.

What if things get worse? What "carrot" is there remaining to hold out for?

I don't like that not renting could make you ineligible for unemployment.

Nor do I. That's an absurd requirement.

I do, however, support strengthening enforcement of the requirements (such as are in place in AZ) to REMAIN eligible for UE insurance payments. I also support mandatory drug testing for recipients.

[C-Kwik]

I'll start off first by saying UI is not need based in any way, shape, or form. That is, if you are making a salary and lose your job, but have a substantial sum of money put away, you are still entitled to benefits so long as you meet the criteria for benefits (primarily, you are seeking employment).

That said, UI benefits are not all that great and can be especially troublesome for those making a lot of money as the limit for weekly benefits is $450 (CA) before Federal Taxes are applied. A person making $100K a year will likely have a hard time even paying a mortgage that was proportionate to the level of income they had. There is plenty of motivation to find work. I know plenty of people in this exact scenario. Some were lucky enough to find work. Many who could not, lost their homes. And those making less will not be impacted as severely relative to their previous income, its still pretty substantial. I received nearly $1000 less per month net when I was on UI. People who make less may be barely making ends meet as it was and or need to pay for their own health insurance if they were receiving that benefit before. Any decrease in income can be substantial. While I don't have any statistical numbers to prove it, I found that most people I know that have used UI benefits were very actively seeking jobs.

This is not to say there aren't people out there that milk the system. This exists with or without the recession. We just have a lot of unemployed and not enough jobs. And one of the really big problems is the duration of the unemployment that's going on.

Working at McDonalds or any other place that pays less than your normal salary is certainly a viable option. But many people are overqualified. I'd probably have a hard time finding work at a McDonalds. I'm probably more qualified than the managers there. I doubt they want the competition coming from an underling. Not to mention, unless its understood that it will be a temporary thing (as your qualifications may have you seeking a better job after you are hired), then they may not want you.

I'm split on the mandatory drug testing thing. I understand where you come from in your support of it, but it doesn't necessarily change anything. Many people use recreational drugs and are quite motivated at work and in finding a new job. Even if such a person didn't purchase any drugs, if a friend decides to come over and offers some, such a person is suddenly inelegible, even if said person was very aggressively looking for work? On the other hand, a person who decides to take a puff off of a joint might become unhirable for a particular job if they fail a test. And then there is the argument that a person could just as easily sit at home and drink beers all day. I'd want to see statistical numbers though along with the cost of testing all UI beneficiaries before I choose a side on this aspect.

[AZhitman]

Fair enough - I'd go along with most all of that as well.

I learned something pretty interesting in discussing this issue with Bex: Different states have VERY different requirements for UI eligibility (and even more so, CONTINUING eligibility - i.e., the "hoops" one must jump through to keep getting benefits).

When I was let go from my well-paying job with the Courts, I considered applying for UI. But it was a LOT less work to just go get a job. I worked 2 gigs (Infiniti dealer and sold insurance) until my resume blasting efforts paid off about 8 months later. Still, I accepted a position that was almost $10K LESS than my prior gig.

[IBCoupe]

I like the way C-Kwik responded to most of what you wrote, so I'll just address this:

What if things get worse? What "carrot" is there remaining to hold out for?

Let that be our problem in the event that things get worse. We're not voting to extend benefits indefinitely; we're voting to extend them for another relatively short period of time. The guiding question we need to answer is this:

Given the current state of the US economy, what seems more likely: that unemployment is high because there aren't incentives to find a job, or that unemployment is high because there just aren't that many jobs?

Now, the answer appears to be very clear to me, especially being that I keep reading and hearing the phrase "jobless recovery" thrown around. However, I am open to a convincing argument that this is not the case.

[stebo0728]

How about instead of extending jobless benefits, we extend the "Bush" tax cuts, we kill the capital gains taxes, we look at serious tax reform and get corporations excited about doing business here instead of making them evacuate like fleas when a dog sits in a mud puddle. This nation is no longer business friendly, thats where our jobs are going. Get the revenue back here, make companies wanna be here, and you'll have to hind under a table to miss out on a job (and if you do hide under the table you dont get any benefits). Stop pushing the "buy american, be patriotic" nonsense, and make companies want to work here, then products made here will be worth a damn, and you wont have to beg people to buy american products.

[IBCoupe]

How about instead of extending jobless benefits, we extend the "Bush" tax cuts, we kill the capital gains taxes, we look at serious tax reform and get corporations excited about doing business here instead of making them evacuate like fleas when a dog sits in a mud puddle. This nation is no longer business friendly, thats where our jobs are going. Get the revenue back here, make companies wanna be here, and you'll have to hind under a table to miss out on a job (and if you do hide under the table you dont get any benefits). Stop pushing the "buy american, be patriotic" nonsense, and make companies want to work here, then products made here will be worth a damn, and you wont have to beg people to buy american products.

Well, the most obvious response is: if we're not convinced that the stimulus, a direct fund to states to create economic stimulation, was a good idea, why would an indirect, distant supply of cash to businesses be expected to do anything better? And are we proposing to directly fund these tax cuts from other portions of the budget in the way that Republicans demand of the unemployment benefits?

We have to ask: what is it exactly that we're trying to do with this government action? Get people working, or keep people from starving? Is having people work an end, or is it a means?

[stebo0728]

My goal is a more long term fix, a more robust fix, and a fix more in line with the capitalist views we were founded upon. Faith in the unseen hand of supply in demand is required I suppose, but this love affair with socialism we have been involved in for the past couple decades, when will we realize it is getting us nowhere. Corporations dont PAY taxes, they may cut tax checks, but the increasing level of corporate taxation makes us increasingly uncompetitive in the global market, plus tax compliance costs, which companies dont pay either, they pass them on, have the same effect. The goal of this nation should not be government regulation, but rather technology and industy, make this nation industry friendly and you wont have to worry about jobs. Currently we are an environment that is punitive toward industry, punitive toward entrepreneurship, and punitive toward technological advancement, and until that changes for the better, we will just continue to think we need more and more entitlements.

[AZhitman]

Well, the most obvious response is: if we're not convinced that the stimulus, a direct fund to states to create economic stimulation, was a good idea, why would an indirect, distant supply of cash to businesses be expected to do anything better? And are we proposing to directly fund these tax cuts from other portions of the budget in the way that Republicans demand of the unemployment benefits?

Ummm, because it has worked?

Economists on BOTH sides of the aisle agree - Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. There's no arguing that.

Continuing unemployment benefits = Keeping the soup kitchen open all night.

Encouraging and improving the climate for small businesses creates a sustainable condition.

To turn your example of the likelihood of success BACK around on you ( ), at least each new hire by a small business has a CHANCE of continuing into a 20-year career. How long can unemployment benefits last? One HAS to have an end (we'd hope). One can continue indefinitely.

Worrying about where the money will come from is irrelevant - A crapton of money is going to come from SOMEWHERE. Why not have it come from stimulus funds as well?

This one is a no-brainer. Read the stimulus bill, read what it's being spent on, and it should be MUCH clearer that many of the "projects" outlined therein have an end date. Contrast that with the historically solid assumption that investing in small businesses eventually leads to growth, expansion, and prosperity - I think those funds could be put to MUCH better use for long-term results.

Maybe the problem is, we've got an Administration whose concerned about poll numbers in the short term, rather than doing what's right for the US in the long term. Looking at his approval ratings, I can see why.

EDIT: Oh, and look what's on the front page of the paper - How convenient for me: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2 ... 2_ST_N.htm

I couldn't have planned that any better.

[AZhitman]

We have to ask: what is it exactly that we're trying to do with this government action? Get people working, or keep people from starving? Is having people work an end, or is it a means?

Perhaps another facet of this is the misguided notion (mostly held by people under 40) that it's the government's responsibility to "keep people from starving". It is not. No matter how much you want it to be, it's not. No. Bad dog. Stop.

People will starve. It sucks, but it's true. Some will choose to, some will starve by no fault of their own. Yes, people will starve. If you're THAT intent on saving every last one of them, then load up your Alty with some PB&J's and get to gettin'.

In all seriousness, I could go into a long diatribe about how the community, and churches, and other civic organizations, independent of the government, USED to take care of the "starving". They've been crushed, crowded out, harangued, hamstrung and hogtied (BY the same government) to the point that they're ineffectual (or have simply given up). So it's only logical that you, as a "young person", who's really not seen this in action, would automatically see that responsibility as that of the gov't - It's all you've ever been exposed to. I certainly can't hold you at fault for that.

The answer is, we need to get people working.

That's sustainable, pays for itself, AND weeds out those who have no intention of ever helping themselves (and they can starve - sorry, I don't care).

[stebo0728]

We have to ask: what is it exactly that we're trying to do with this government action? Get people working, or keep people from starving? Is having people work an end, or is it a means?

I know you are asking this for sake of argument, so I am going to say, I think the problem here is that the current administration, and probably most of the left, considers working a "means", and for good reason. Consider the fact that your net income in referred to as a "tax expenditure", in other words, the money you are "allowed" to keep is and "expenditure" of the state, in other words all the revenue in the nation belongs to the state and allowing you to keep any is an expense of the state. Sounding like marxism yet? And people working is mearly a "means" to producing this revenue. That is where the major dysfunction lies. People working, taking care of their own needs, that is most definitely and END in a capitalist society.

[AZhitman]

A couple parting shots (and so no one can accuse me of criticizing without offering alternative solutions):

Dr. Christina Romer, chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, found that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that there's "a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment." Her analysis showed that $1 in tax cuts results in a $3 increase in GDP, demonstrating why lower taxes are key to investment and an economic recovery.

On Jan. 1, Democrats will raise taxes. By not extending tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003, our nation would face the largest tax increase in history. According to the Congressional Budget Office, our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would take a 1.4% hit — potentially enough to trigger another recession, the last thing out-of-work Americans need.

How's THAT for arrogance? Your OWN council of advisors points out the problem with the POTUS's thinking, and yet he continues on.

Extend tax cuts. Put that stimulus money towards incentives for small businesses to hire. Provide some relief to over-their-head homeowners who choose to honor their commitment. Maybe even subsidize banks to loan money to small businesses.

Or, you can just issue everyone a check (and a ballot preprinted with your name on it, Mr. President).

[IBCoupe]

People working, taking care of their own needs, that is most definitely and END in a capitalist society.

You answered my question in exactly the opposite way you intended, I think. "Taking care of their own needs" was the end. The working was a means to it.

I wasn't at all thinking about taxation as the "end." I was thinking about being able to buy goods and services that one needs. And if the problem isn't that people don't want to work, then we don't need to entice them to do so. If the problem is simply that there aren't enough jobs for everyone to work at this moment in time, but there may be if we wait long enough for the economy to recover, then unemployment benefits are certainly a feasible way of doing things.

Greg, while tax cuts do help, and will eventually get these people into jobs, providing tax cuts won't help unemployed workers at the supermarket tomorrow. Being able to feed your family six months from now won't matter if you can't do it one month from now.

And if it's your position that it's okay for people to die in our streets, then that's your position. It sounds absolutely horrid to me, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from the perspective of public health and safety. But if you honestly believe that's perfectly acceptable scenario, that's fine, but I don't think we have anything left to talk about on this subject.

And while I've heard the diatribe about how churches and community groups wouldn't let it happen, there's something particularly perverse about basing that kind of public policy on nothing more than a hope.

And there's some serious mind-games going on when failing to extend a tax break = a tax increase. That's patently absurd.

[AZhitman]

Greg, while tax cuts do help, and will eventually get these people into jobs, providing tax cuts won't help unemployed workers at the supermarket tomorrow. Being able to feed your family six months from now won't matter if you can't do it one month from now..

You're right.

How long have unemployment benefits been in place already?

TOMORROW came and went already. Repeatedly. What do we do if we're in the exact same boat this time next year? Keep extending it?

And if it's your position that it's okay for people to die in our streets, then that's your position. It sounds absolutely horrid to me, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from the perspective of public health and safety. But if you honestly believe that's perfectly acceptable scenario, that's fine, but I don't think we have anything left to talk about on this subject.

I didn't say it was OK, I said it's going to happen. They'll also die from any number of other causes. If you're wrapping yourself in a cape of super-heroism by thinking extending unemployment benefits is keeping people from starving to death a la some bad Sally Struthers commercial, then friend, you're deluded.

there's something particularly perverse about basing that kind of public policy on nothing more than a hope.

What an appropriate word choice. Throw in a handful of "change" and you have an entire Presidential campaign.

Just because you haven't seen it in action doesn't mean it doesn't work. You're blinded to that probablility by age and geographic area (neither of which is your fault). It worked for decades. You just didn't witness it. So don't dismiss it as "hope" when it's got a track record (unlike this current nonsense of issuing checks willy-nilly).

It's no less "hopeful" than hoping an extension of UI will somehow remedy the situation.

And there's some serious mind-games going on when failing to extend a tax break = a tax increase. That's patently absurd.

If gas is $3.89 a gallon for three straight years, dips to $3.49 for the following four years, then goes back up to $3.89 today, that's a price increase. If you doubt me, let gas go back to $1.79 a gallon tomorrow and see if people don't call it a "price drop" - Even though it's simply a return to 1990 pricing.

Spin it, massage it, reword it, put it in a dunce cap and call it "derp", it's still an increase.

[stebo0728]

"Taking care of their own needs" was the end. The working was a means to it.

Your confusing the issue here. Yes working is a means to an end on the individual level, but getting people working should be the END for any government actions taken.

And if it's your position that it's okay for people to die in our streets, then that's your position. It sounds absolutely horrid to me, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also from the perspective of public health and safety. But if you honestly believe that's perfectly acceptable scenario, that's fine, but I don't think we have anything left to talk about on this subject.

I cant speak for AZ here, but for me, we definitely want to help people who have fallen on TEMPORARY hard times, and help them pick their lives back up, but if they succumb to a life of milking the system, its time to cut them off. And they wont die in the street, they will get up of their lazy a** eventually and do something about it.

And while I've heard the diatribe about how churches and community groups wouldn't let it happen, there's something particularly perverse about basing that kind of public policy on nothing more than a hope.

Regardless of what the religious and private sector WILL do, it is not the governments place to force me at gunpoint to pay taxation for charitable endeavors.

If you fail to extend a tax break that was saving you money, then you experience an increase. These companies passed the cuts on to their customers, they did not absorb the cuts. Now they have to face the fact that their taxes will be going up. Play semantics if you like, but its an increase none the less.

[IBCoupe]

You're right.

How long have unemployment benefits been in place already?

TOMORROW came and went already. Repeatedly. What do we do if we're in the exact same boat this time next year? Keep extending it?

If unemployment is still where it is this time this year, sure.

I didn't say it was OK, I said it's going to happen. They'll also die from any number of other causes. If you're wrapping yourself in a cape of super-heroism by thinking extending unemployment benefits is keeping people from starving to death a la some bad Sally Struthers commercial, then friend, you're deluded.

I'm not. I'm just saying: "money now" beats "maybe money later" if your concern is that people continue to make ends meet.

What an appropriate word choice. Throw in a handful of "change" and you have an entire Presidential campaign.

The difference being one's an empty slogan, and one's an absurd policy. See if you can tell which is which.

Just because you haven't seen it in action doesn't mean it doesn't work. You're blinded to that probablility by age and geographic area (neither of which is your fault). It worked for decades. You just didn't witness it. So don't dismiss it as "hope" when it's got a track record (unlike this current nonsense of issuing checks willy-nilly).

I certainly do believe that it can work, and that it has worked in the past. I don't believe that things like that beat out a mandated, accountable program.

It's no less "hopeful" than hoping an extension of UI will somehow remedy the situation.

Extending UI isn't a remedy, it's an aspirin. Yeah, we still have a broken leg, but until we get it splinted, this will numb it a bit.

If gas is $3.89 a gallon for three straight years, dips to $3.49 for the following four years, then goes back up to $3.89 today, that's a price increase. If you doubt me, let gas go back to $1.79 a gallon tomorrow and see if people don't call it a "price drop" - Even though it's simply a return to 1990 pricing.

Spin it, massage it, reword it, put it in a dunce cap and call it "derp", it's still an increase.

The difference being one's a market fluctuation, and one's a policy. At best, you could get away with calling it a tax-reinstatement. An increase it might appear to be, but the phrase carries the implication of action, when in reality, it's just the end of a temporary benefit.

Your confusing the issue here. Yes working is a means to an end on the individual level, but getting people working should be the END for any government actions taken.

I think you may have overstated your case by saying "any" government actions, but I think I know what you were trying to say, and I still disagree. 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.

On a governmental level, working is still never an end. We want people to work so that productivity continues and the country grows; also so that the higher societal costs that accompany poverty are kept as a minimum.

I cant speak for AZ here, but for me, we definitely want to help people who have fallen on TEMPORARY hard times, and help them pick their lives back up, but if they succumb to a life of milking the system, its time to cut them off. And they wont die in the street, they will get up of their lazy a** eventually and do something about it.

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

Regardless of what the religious and private sector WILL do, it is not the governments place to force me at gunpoint to pay taxation for charitable endeavors.

It's not necessarily about charity. There are systemic interests in having fed children and healthy adults.

If you fail to extend a tax break that was saving you money, then you experience an increase. These companies passed the cuts on to their customers, they did not absorb the cuts. Now they have to face the fact that their taxes will be going up. Play semantics if you like, but its an increase none the less.

Out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that suggests the savings were actually passed along?

I know it's Paul Krugman, but:

There were two main Bush tax cuts — EGTRRA, enacted in mid-2001, and JGTRRA, enacted in 2003.

...

EGTRRA arrived in the middle of a recession, but that was an accident. It was devised in 1999, when the economy was booming, to defend Bush’s right flank against Steve Forbes. During the 2000 campaign, Bush sold it as a way of returning budget surpluses to the people, with not a hint that it had something to do with fighting recession. The recession story was an after-the-fact reinvention.

And EGTRRA didn’t seem to help all that much. Formally, the recession ended in late 2001, but most labor-market indicators continued to worsen into mid-2003.

JGTRRA, which mainly cut tax rates on capital gains and dividends, was followed by a real recovery. And the Bushies naturally claimed the credit. But the real source of the expansion was the housing boom, which had very little to do with the tax cut.

[AZhitman]

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.

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?