Extending Unemployment Benefits

My wife is a much smarter woman than I am...well, since I am not a woman, I guess I should just say she is much smarter than I am....... and she was earning nearly 140K before she was laid off....and she was working on long island.

My best employee is a woman and she is actually in line to make more than I will this year. I am an s-corp so I take whatever is left over...and I not only gave her a raise this year, but I gave her a bonus in January as a thnk you for her dedication seeing as she was offered an opportunity elsewhwere and she refused to accept it even though it included a sign on bonus....

The one who offered her the job? My very first employee...He left me about 5 years ago with not only my blessing, but with my assistance to get him up and running....

And now he tired to steal my best employee!

Nah....he called me and diuscussed it with me as he knows I am nearing the end of the line (I am 52)...and I told him he had all the right to offer it to her and let her make her own decision.

So yes, I was being cute. Man or woman...does not matter....we are all equal.

Well, I am waiting 2 years for my pension to vest then I am leaving corporate America (Japan?) and starting an organic farm on my grandparents' land in the Appalachian mountains. I will kill myself if I have to sit in front of a pooter for the rest of my life...
 
The wealthier are not inherently getting wealthier and the poorer are not inherently getting poorer.. but nice try

Are you insane or just so blindly partisan that you are no longer paying attention?

How is looking at reality partisan or insane?

Partisan just means you ignore things you don't like.

Insane means you don't think partisan reality can hurt you. That, and everyone has Kangaroo pouches.
 
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.

Who exactly is doing that?

Who is stealing anyone's poll? It's not as though poles are the only way to fish or that they are impossible to make. Where do you think they come from?

Can you name one lake drained for a Wal-Mart Parking lot? That's the stupidest example I've ever heard.
 
Really?
Reagan's plan created 20 million jobs.
No it didn't.

The last time I challenged a CON$ervative who posted that crap they included Reagan's 8 years, Bush I's 4 years and the first year of Clinton's first term, 13 years total, to get to 20 million jobs. Even using that "Fuzzy Math," Clinton created more jobs in his remaining 7 years than St Ronnie's "13" years. :eusa_shhh:

what policies of clinton's do you credit for the creation of all those jobs?

how many of those policies has obama duplicated?

i've asked this a bunch of times and can never get an answer.

people like ehtdythic love to credit CLINTON for creating millions of jobs, and blame bush for not doing the same.

WHAT THE FUCK, EXACTLY, DID CLINTON DO TO CREATE THOSE JOBS? why does he deserve so much credit?

Simple answer...

He did not interfere with Reagans policies. He let them continue just as Bush 1 did.
 
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?

That's why you create more.

This isn't difficult to understand.
 
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...

Zero job creation? Well then Americans need to get up off their ass and create some jobs don't they? Stop relying on others.
 
I blame the consumer. It was consumer greed that prompted people to try to make money with a fancy re-fi.....be it an adjustable or a baloon....it was greed that prompted them to do it.

A consumer is what by nature? Someone who consumes. Can a consumer consume something that is not there? No. Can they consume something that doesn't exist? Uh uh. Who created these loan products? Why? Who asked them to "get creative" in their qualifications? You can't take what isn't offered, so who then advertised these loan products with complicated resets/strings/some just flat out illegal (forged, changed etc) and then gave them to people without explaining how the worked? Why would they do this?

Your answer is mortgage lenders and Wall Street derivatives traders respectively.
 
Last edited:
Really?
Reagan's plan created 20 million jobs.
No it didn't.

The last time I challenged a CON$ervative who posted that crap they included Reagan's 8 years, Bush I's 4 years and the first year of Clinton's first term, 13 years total, to get to 20 million jobs. Even using that "Fuzzy Math," Clinton created more jobs in his remaining 7 years than St Ronnie's "13" years. :eusa_shhh:

Yo...

Reagans POLICY is what created the jobs. Not Reagan.
Get with the program.
Presidents dont create jobs. Policies do.
No it didn't! Reagan's Voodoo economic policies gave us 10.8% UE and the Reagan Recession, at the time the worst recession since the Great Depression. He then abandoned Reaganomics and raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and spent like a Keynesian Democrat and THAT policy created jobs.
 
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.

Not everyone has to run a business. They've got marketable skills or they can develop them. But the smart ones will start a business.
 
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.

So what you're saying is you care, but not enough to actually do something about it. You want to start a business two years from now. Fine. If you cared so much about employing people youd be starting up now and hiring some people.
 
I blame the consumer. It was consumer greed that prompted people to try to make money with a fancy re-fi.....be it an adjustable or a baloon....it was greed that prompted them to do it.

A consumer is what by nature? Someone who consumes. Can a consumer consume something that is not there? No That doesn't exist? Uh uh. Who created these loan products? Why? Who asked them to "get creative" in their qualifications? You can't take what isn't offered, so who then advertised these loan products with complicated resets/string/some just flat out illegal (forged, changed etc) and then gave them to people without explaining how the worked? Why would they do this?

Your answer is mortgage lenders and Wall Street derivatives traders respectively.

Uh....exactly how many people went to jail?

NONE.

No laws were broken. Nothing was hidden. Nothing was forged.

The fact that you picked on the word "consumer" makes it clear you are out of your league when discussing economics.....but regardless......

so you understand....people took chances as they believed that when their mortgagedbalooned or when their adjustable went up, they could easily refiannce again.
Problem was, they had negative equity becuase the unthinkable happened. The value of their house went down.

They gambled for a profit and lost.

You really have fallen for the talking points.
 
So what you're saying is you care, but not enough to actually do something about it. You want to start a business two years from now. Fine. If you cared so much about employing people youd be starting up now and hiring some people.

I don't need anyone else at this point. I'm starting small. 2.5 acres of high yield.
 
no it didn't.

The last time i challenged a con$ervative who posted that crap they included reagan's 8 years, bush i's 4 years and the first year of clinton's first term, 13 years total, to get to 20 million jobs. Even using that "fuzzy math," clinton created more jobs in his remaining 7 years than st ronnie's "13" years. :eusa_shhh:

yo...

reagans policy is what created the jobs. Not reagan.
Get with the program.
Presidents dont create jobs. Policies do.
no it didn't! Reagan's voodoo economic policies gave us 10.8% ue and the reagan recession, at the time the worst recession since the great depression. He then abandoned reaganomics and raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and spent like a keynesian democrat and that policy created jobs.

what did clinton do to create millions of jobs?????
 
You ARE aware that the housing debacle/credit crisis began in earnest in 2006 as the first ARM's were starting to reset, right? You ARE aware how much the Iraq war has cost this country... and for no gain whatsoever - we could have done a lot with that money that went down the toilet - and much of that was borrowed money. And you ARE aware that Bush enacted tax cuts that almost exclusively went to the already wealthy. This was supposed to encourage expansion and job creation. It did not - They sat on that money and hid it offshore. You ARE aware that, in addition to China, jobs have disappeared to India, southeast Asia and to Mexico, right? I would not be surprised to hear that 10 million jobs and potential jobs have been lost from this country. You ARE aware that while wages are shrinking, the cost of living continues to go through the roof. This was a bi-partisan report. I for one, have been searching high and low for a number of exactly how many jobs we have lost. Interestingly, there is not one single source that has kept track. I do think that this is on purpose. The private sector does not want us to know that number.

The dot com bust was much akin to the housing bust. An artificially inflated business boom that couldn't hold water when looked at in the light of day, and it was just as dirty. Remember Worldcom? FAR fewer people lost their jobs during the dot com bust. There were not massive layoffs, as most of these companies were internet start-ups. They either disintigrated or were aquired by other companies.

So we spent way too much in Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so the logical solution to that is to spend even more money paying of Democrat contributors. Brilliant!
 
yo...

reagans policy is what created the jobs. Not reagan.
Get with the program.
Presidents dont create jobs. Policies do.
no it didn't! Reagan's voodoo economic policies gave us 10.8% ue and the reagan recession, at the time the worst recession since the great depression. He then abandoned reaganomics and raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and spent like a keynesian democrat and that policy created jobs.

what did clinton do to create millions of jobs?????

He did not repeeal any of the economic policies passed during the reagan administration.
 
Really?
Reagan's plan created 20 million jobs.
No it didn't.

The last time I challenged a CON$ervative who posted that crap they included Reagan's 8 years, Bush I's 4 years and the first year of Clinton's first term, 13 years total, to get to 20 million jobs. Even using that "Fuzzy Math," Clinton created more jobs in his remaining 7 years than St Ronnie's "13" years. :eusa_shhh:

what policies of clinton's do you credit for the creation of all those jobs?

how many of those policies has obama duplicated?

i've asked this a bunch of times and can never get an answer.

people like ehtdythic love to credit CLINTON for creating millions of jobs, and blame bush for not doing the same.

WHAT THE FUCK, EXACTLY, DID CLINTON DO TO CREATE THOSE JOBS? why does he deserve so much credit?
He passed a tax bill in 1993, as you well know, that CON$ called the largest tax increase in history. It was actually the second largest, Reagan's was the largest.

So to recap, Reagan's largest tax increase in history created 20 million jobs and Clinton's second largest tax increase created another 20 million jobs.
 
I'd go with trickle down anyday.

Why? It's been proven that it doesn't work... twice.

Has it? Hmm.. well I remember Reagn used a trickle down system aka reaganomics or supply-side economics and it worked pretty darn well.

•Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

•Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

•Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

•The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record | William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.
 
Yes, there were fraudlent mortgages and the reason that no one went to jail is that the banks were deregulated to where it was legal for them issue these mortgages and for Wall Street to bundle them to make money.

Fannie and Freddie Start Returning Fraudulent Mortgages to Banks, But Crime Goes Unpunished | The Agonist

They gambled for a profit and lost.

You also forget that these same people were told over and over that the market would only go up forever and never come down. You can't tell me that those lenders offering a jumbo no-income 2 year ARM weren't aware of what could happen. Do you think they sat down and calculated with the consumer EXACTLY how much their low payment would go up? They did not. You go to experts to like a mortgage lender because they are experts. Anyone can push paper across a desk and ask you to blindly sign without looking at it. They were totally playing on Americans' romantic idea of owning their own home and they had a mortgage for you if the only thing you had going for you was breathing. Had they never relaxed lending requirements, the housing bubble would not have happened, nor the credit collapse, right?
 
Last edited:
capitalism is a trickle up process in the first place. for that reason, the expectation that cash will trickle down was silly and never panned out when it was applied.

it is simple: dillute wealth concentrates upwards through consumption of produce from those who own the means to make it.

capitalism. read a book.

Bullshit. I have read a book or two and you have no idea what your talking about.

stubborn as a longhorn!

perhaps you can inform from your reading or otherwise who aggregates more profits quantitatively from the sale of goods? is it the worker who gets $0.50 for every $10 widget they make or is it the owner who gets $.10 from every $10 widget, but takes his dime from every widget out the door?

is it the wealthy alone who hold the $10 to buy the goods in the first place, or is it the middle and lower class shopping at a bargain retailers who really constitute the demand that the owner set up shop to supply? would this system work if it were just the wealthy who had the money?

take the wealth from the owner... all of it... and give him a 60-day line of credit, he would be wealthy again at the end of the month.

in this same vacuum, if you take all of the wealth from the consumers, the whole system will fail, no matter how much money the owner has, or whether you extended the consumers 60 days credit or not.

that's my bullshit. your turn.

What's a widget?

Oh and longhorns are anything but stubborn.
 
No it didn't.

The last time I challenged a CON$ervative who posted that crap they included Reagan's 8 years, Bush I's 4 years and the first year of Clinton's first term, 13 years total, to get to 20 million jobs. Even using that "Fuzzy Math," Clinton created more jobs in his remaining 7 years than St Ronnie's "13" years. :eusa_shhh:

what policies of clinton's do you credit for the creation of all those jobs?

how many of those policies has obama duplicated?

i've asked this a bunch of times and can never get an answer.

people like ehtdythic love to credit CLINTON for creating millions of jobs, and blame bush for not doing the same.

WHAT THE FUCK, EXACTLY, DID CLINTON DO TO CREATE THOSE JOBS? why does he deserve so much credit?
He passed a tax bill in 1993, as you well know, that CON$ called the largest tax increase in history. It was actually the second largest, Reagan's was the largest.

So to recap, Reagan's largest tax increase in history created 20 million jobs and Clinton's second largest tax increase created another 20 million jobs.

can you find an article anywhere by any economist that will argue that clinton's tax increase led to the creation of 20 million jobs?

it wasn't his deregulation, it wasn't his free-trade stance, it wasn't the end of the cold war peace dividen, it wasn't the internet bubble, it was his tax increase?
 

Forum List

Back
Top