Extending Unemployment Benefits

[Jarhead]

Give a man to fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

Kinda hard when you guys want to take away his pole and then drain the lake to install a Wal-Mart parking lot.

You're easy.

LMAO....what a lame way to divert.

Exactly who is saying we want to take away someones right to to for themselves?

and to the contrary, we are STILL a free market and no one can be denied the right to start any business they want.

SO why must you divert so lamely?

Better yet....please explain what you meant by what you said...taking his pole away and filling the lake.

Put that into real terms.

 

[Jarhead]

"Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime"

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.... teach a man to fish and he heats for a lifetime... beat a man half to death with a fish and he won't come asking you for any more, probably won't have a taste for it ever again, and will find another way to get something to eat rather than begging you for it

Give a man a fish and he will assume it is his right to get a fish from you daily. As he takes a fish from you daily he will wonder why he is spending all that money on bait to get his own fish, so he stops buying bait and stops fishing. The bait shop owner no longer has his income so he turns to the man taking your fish and he asks him for some.

He tells him to find his own sugar daddy.

 

[antagon]

Now that the issue of extending unemployment benefits is one which the Republicans have finally decided to definitively oppose, some of USMB's party-aligned pundits have solidly followed suit with criticism of the policy. I have always thought that this is the single most effective method of stimulus which we have employed in a recovery characterized by job losses and deflation. Am I missing something?

The Republicans do not oppose extending unemployment benefits they oppose adding to the deficit to acheive it, they want it paid for as it has been in the past. Get your facts right dumbass.

Congress has extended unemployment benefits five times since the beginning of 2008, including under President Bush. During past recessions—2003, 1992, 1983—Congress extended benefits, albeit not nearly as long as the new 99-week cap. The difference this time, Republicans say, is that the extension isn't paid for. (In reality, it's a mixed bag: Some past extensions have been paid for; some haven't.) "I don't know anybody who's not in favor of extending unemployment," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. He just wants it to be paid for—for example, by dipping into unspent stimulus funds. Democrats point out, however, that Republicans have not applied this pay-as-you-go standard to their own policies, particularly the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which added to the debt by a lot more than $34 billion.* Some Republicans also argue that extending unemployment benefits will make people less likely to look for jobs. But when there are five job seekers for every available job, that's a hard argument to support.

By opposing an extension of unemployment benefits, Republicans jockey to re-establish themselves as the party of fiscal sanity. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

i think that amounts to direct opposition to the policy with the intention to countermand other initiatives of the opposing party by undermining their funding. while i excuse the Rs who are paid and elected to conduct political song and dance in such a manner, i don't understand those who have taken up their torches to the policy itself. those here on the USMB who do ideologically oppose the extention have not voiced their arguments around the budget impact as much as some dynamic with people's intention to work.

for those folks, they've found ways to ignore the fact that far fewer jobs exist - at any pay scale - than do job seekers.

 

[Jarhead]

Give a man to fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

Kinda hard when you guys want to take away his pole and then drain the lake to install a Wal-Mart parking lot.

You're easy.

I can easily disprove a theory if I am immature as well.

I can disprove e=mc squared

no way does an elehant=mushroom x cucumber to the second power

 

[The Rabbi]

[Since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, 2.4 million jobs have been lost or displaced in the United States as a result of the burgeoning trade deficit with that nation

/QUOTE]

Lost, displaced WHATEVER. They would have been AMERICAN jobs.

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008 | The Economic Populist

No corporations were forced to outsource or move operations overseas... it was a choice.

First off, the credibility of a source called "Economic Populist" is suspect.
But even if true, that is not a net number. How many jobs were created by the increased efficiency created by moving jobs to more-efficient China?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Exactly who is saying we want to take away someones right to to for themselves?

Most people rely on a job to survive. Working that job IS fending for themselves. No one wants to be on the dole... Those jobs are disappearing and what jobs that are left pay so little that survival is becoming next to impossible. I'm sorry that you don't see it as a serious economic problem for this country, but I do. Don't you think if everyone prospers, so do your precious uber wealthy?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

and to the contrary, we are STILL a free market and no one can be denied the right to start any business they want.

Oh really? How many people are cut out to run a business... Isn't it half to 2/3 that fail? Where will they get lending to start said business? No one is lending. Is it wise to start any business in a climate where no one has any money (but the wealthy) and no one is spending? Really???

 

[Mr. Peepers]

First off, the credibility of a source called "Economic Populist" is suspect.
But even if true, that is not a net number. How many jobs were created by the increased efficiency created by moving jobs to more-efficient China?

There was zero job creation in the end when Bush's administration was studied. So none.

Increased efficiency? Oh, this ought to be good. Do tell, what "increased efficiency". And I work in import/export so...

 

[Jarhead]

Exactly who is saying we want to take away someones right to to for themselves?

Most people rely on a job to survive. Working that job IS fending for themselves. No one wants to be on the dole... Those jobs are disappearing and what jobs that are left pay so little that survival is becoming next to impossible. I'm sorry that you don't see it as a seruious economic problem for this country, but I do. Don't you think if everyone prospers, so do your precious uber wealthy?

I do not see GIVING people money as prosperous.
I see INNOVATION as creating a prosperous thing.
Are you aware of what causes innovation?
NEED!

Do you know why I started my fist company? I NEEDED to make money.

Do you know what my wife did in May after getting layed off? In between interviews she spent hours conducting research on different start up business ideas.
Do you know what she does every night when she comes home from her new job that is paying her 40% of what she was earning?
The grunt work of starting her own business.

Jeeze peepers.....I dont mind that you support a nanny state....it is WHY you support it that frustrates the hell out of me.

 

[Jarhead]

and to the contrary, we are STILL a free market and no one can be denied the right to start any business they want.

Oh really? How many people are cut out to run a business... Isn't it half to 2/3 that fail? Where will they get lending to start said business? No one is lending. Is it wise to start any business in a climate where no one has any money (but the wealthy) and no one is spending? Really???

See how naive you are?

Now is the IDEAL time to start a new business. A new business will be there to fill the void created by the companies that closed down.....there is no better time than now.

Few service businesses require start up costs now that we have the internet and email.

If only you would open your mind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, pal,

HOW THE FUCK is PAYING folks to NOT WORK

an effective stimulus?!?

You know what an Effective Stimulus is?

You don't have money for FOOD, so you WORK ~ at WHATEVER job is offered.

Obama should hire everyone as a Czar, you're Pithy Comback Czar

 

[antagon]

are you still ignorant?

You're an asshat.

Unemployment "wages" go for survival:

Food;

Rent or Mortgage;

Utility bills.

It puts NOTHING in anyone's hands.

It fucking pays bills.

Sort of like WORKING...

you are still a bleeting ignoramus, i see.

paying bills and maintaining essentials does put money into hands. a tenant of mine was unemployed for a spell, a long spell, and unemployment carried him over. because i have a multi-family property my rents are hedged against eachother, however, in single family homes, rents and mortgages getting paid, if just barely, does constitute real value to the economy. if they werent paid, the economy and the job market would slip even further.

that's just asshat logic. it doesn't rise to your brilliance in associating unemployment payments as survival akin to working, then deriding their value as stimulus when there is a dramatic shortage of jobs.

 

[Jarhead]

First off, the credibility of a source called "Economic Populist" is suspect.
But even if true, that is not a net number. How many jobs were created by the increased efficiency created by moving jobs to more-efficient China?

There was zero job creation in the end when Bush's administration was studied. So none.

Increased efficiency? Oh, this ought to be good. Do tell, what "increased efficiency". And I work in import/export so...

There was zero job creation at the beginning of a recession?

You needed to read a "study" to know this?

And you believe you are qualified to debate economics and business development with an economics major who own a business development and management firm?

I think your first step is to understand your limitations.

You are out of your league here.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Don't worry about me, I have a business plan, but it will only be me working it. I am concerned about the downward spiral of the average American worker. Very concerned. Not everyone can run a business - physically or mentally, and not everyone wants or can handle the risk. But let me tell you this, with the cost of living going up and wages declining as they are, do not expect the wage slaves to plod along placidly like cows to slaughter. They will eventually revolt.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

There was zero job creation at the beginning of a recession?

You needed to read a "study" to know this?

And you believe you are qualified to debate economics and business development with an economics major who own a business development and management firm?

I think your first step is to understand your limitations.

You are out of your league here.

There was zero job growth during the Bush admin, not just the recession. The China article tracks jobs lost or displaced during... the Bush Administration 2001-2008. I think your first step is to attend a reading comprehension class.

Here is YOUR post I replied to:

How many jobs were created by the increased efficiency created by moving jobs to more-efficient China?

Here is the article containing the study.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers - washingtonpost.com

 

[DiamondDave]

and to the contrary, we are STILL a free market and no one can be denied the right to start any business they want.

Oh really? How many people are cut out to run a business... Isn't it half to 2/3 that fail? Where will they get lending to start said business? No one is lending. Is it wise to start any business in a climate where no one has any money (but the wealthy) and no one is spending? Really???

Not everyone is cut out to be an actor or a baseball player either... and that is of no concern of yours or the government's

You are not entitled to a loan.. .you may have the privilege of one if you so qualify because of your finances, choices, business plan, decisions, etc... but you certainly are not owed one...

And it is indeed wise to start business during downturns... many types of businesses thrive even in the bad times.. many are better in the bad times... that is what your research would find, if you would do such a thing when thinking of opening a business

 

[Jarhead]

are you still ignorant?

You're an asshat.

Unemployment "wages" go for survival:

Food;

Rent or Mortgage;

Utility bills.

It puts NOTHING in anyone's hands.

It fucking pays bills.

Sort of like WORKING...

you are still a bleeting ignoramus, i see.

paying bills and maintaining essentials does put money into hands. a tenant of mine was unemployed for a spell, a long spell, and unemployment carried him over. because i have a multi-family property my rents are hedged against eachother, however, in single family homes, rents and mortgages getting paid, if just barely, does constitute real value to the economy. if they werent paid, the economy and the job market would slip even further.

that's just asshat logic. it doesn't rise to your brilliance in associating unemployment payments as survival akin to working, then deriding their value as stimulus when there is a dramatic shortage of jobs.

Why do you leave out the fact that the money that went to you actually came from you to begin with?

On the outside, you are correct. However, on the inside, you are condoning the idea of "imaginary prosperity" at the cost of "real prosperity".

All it is really doing is slowing the recovery.....and when we recover, we will be in such debt that interest rates will skyrocket and it will creaste another issue for our economy.

So yes, extending unemployment does allow for circulation of money, but by no means does it lead into prosperity.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And it is indeed wise to start business during downturns... many types of businesses thrive even in the bad times.. many are better in the bad times... that is what your research would find, if you would do such a thing when thinking of opening a business

I am starting a business in two years, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of my fellow American workers. I just can't believe anyone would think taking away unemployment is anywhere close to a good idea. It would be disastrous.

 

[DiamondDave]

And it is indeed wise to start business during downturns... many types of businesses thrive even in the bad times.. many are better in the bad times... that is what your research would find, if you would do such a thing when thinking of opening a business

I am starting a business in two years, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of my fellow American workers. I just can't believe anyone would think taking away unemployment is anywhere close to a good idea. It would be disastrous.

Yep... you have the right to care and do lots of things to support them.. .it still does not make it the responsibility of you or government to take care of the responsibilities of others.... if you wish to freely donate to help a cause, including the cause of the unemployed, knock yourself out... and you'll receive nothing but praise from me... but when you force it upon others, nope, I will condemn support of any such action

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Yep... you have the right to care and do lots of things to support them.. .it still does not make it the responsibility of you or government to take care of the responsibilities of others.... if you wish to freely donate to help a cause, including the cause of the unemployed, knock yourself out... and you'll receive nothing but praise from me... but when you force it upon others, nope, I will condemn support of any such action

Even if it's at the cost of the production and economy of the whole country??? Are you that blind? A prosperous, stable populace makes for a prosperous stable economy. If anything, it's trickle up, NOT trickle down - when people have extra money, they SPEND it, causing a ripple all the way to the top. We can now see that trickle down was a farce and a half... Every time it's been tried, it has failed, from Reagan to Bush part deux.