More jobs in unemployment than with Keystone

[Katzndogz]

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

"However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

This is really round the bend.

 

[theHawk]

Yea, paying people to sit on their ass has created so many jobs in the last 3 years.

 

[koshergrl]

Applying for welfare and other assistance is now considered a "job". Great!

Soon they'll give degrees with the checks!

 

[Bern80]

Obama: More jobs in jobless benefits than Keystone | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

"However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

This is really round the bend.

Um.....what? Obama is lost on this one. He should know when there simply isn't a logical explanation for something and not even try. How is extending unemployment going to create jobs exactly? Or, for a micro second, why don't we assume the above inanity is true. Wouldn't be even better to add even more jobs by also passing the pipeline?

This one is pretty transparent that nearly anyone should be able to see what's going on here. Obama knows, because said environmentalists are on record as saying so, that he'll lose votes if he votes for the pipeline. The ONLY logical reason, albeit logical from a purely selfish self preservation aspect, to oppose the pipeline is if it betters his chances of getting re-elected. He could choose to serve the interests of the country or his own self interest, and don't say but the environment, that issue was cleared up long ago. He chose the later.

 

[konradv]

Yea, paying people to sit on their ass has created so many jobs in the last 3 years.

How does one "sit on their ass" and still pay payroll taxes? You must be thinking of Boehner and the House Republicans!

 

[theHawk]

Yea, paying people to sit on their ass has created so many jobs in the last 3 years.

How does one "sit on their ass" and still pay payroll taxes? You must be thinking of Boehner and the House Republicans!

Since it was too hard for you to figure out -I was referring to the unemployment benefits.

Carry on, dipshit.

 

[konradv]

Yea, paying people to sit on their ass has created so many jobs in the last 3 years.

How does one "sit on their ass" and still pay payroll taxes? You must be thinking of Boehner and the House Republicans!

Since it was too hard for you to figure out -I was referring to the unemployment benefits.

Carry on, dipshit.

People who collect unemployment are WORKERS. It's revealing how you hold them in contempt. If anyone's a "dipshit", it's those who fall for the "class warfare" charge the Republicans like to throw around. They're the ones waging it and their minions come to the boards to trash people who are down on their luck?!?!

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is a fact you people may not be thinking of.

The unemployment checks get spent in the local economy.

They keep people from losing their homes and causing more economic disaster for the country.

 

[Bern80]

Here is a fact you people may not be thinking of.

The unemployment checks get spent in the local economy.

They keep people from losing their homes and causing more economic disaster for the country.

You keep proving how pathetically dependent you liberals are on government. What do you think will happen if with the welfare checks stop? Every welfare recipent is just going to sit there and go 'well I guess that's it. Might as well just sit here and die now.'? No. Necessity is the mother of invention. When it gets to the point that you really have to do something different to survive, most people will. Continuing to pay people to not work is called enabling, not helping. Also, the notion that welfare money get's put into the economy is true. That is not job creation however. You aren't injecting MORE income into the economy to spur job growth. You're simply sustaining what's already there. Consutruction of the pipeline creates real jobs. Jobs that did not exist before. As I asked above why not just do both?

 

[KissMy]

Applying for welfare and other assistance is now considered a "job". Great!

Soon they'll give degrees with the checks!

Obama will give the unemployed a fancy title like when New York turned the garbage men into "Sanitation Engineers".

Obama will call the people sucking the unemployment & food stamp tit "Job Creators".

 

[Skull Pilot]

How does one "sit on their ass" and still pay payroll taxes? You must be thinking of Boehner and the House Republicans!

Since it was too hard for you to figure out -I was referring to the unemployment benefits.

Carry on, dipshit.

People who collect unemployment are WORKERS. It's revealing how you hold them in contempt. If anyone's a "dipshit", it's those who fall for the "class warfare" charge the Republicans like to throw around. They're the ones waging it and their minions come to the boards to trash people who are down on their luck?!?!

If people aren't working you can't call them workers.

Can you cogently explain Obama's statement that extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than the Keystone project?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here is a fact you people may not be thinking of.

The unemployment checks get spent in the local economy.

They keep people from losing their homes and causing more economic disaster for the country.

And the money earned from the workers on the pipeline would not get spent in the local economy?

 

[Bern80]

down on their luck?!?!

I'm quoting this single phrase of yours for a simple illustration. It hilights a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. That is this; People don't just wind up 'down on their luck'. You libs think everyone is a victim of circumstance. That's how you justify your social program spending. That the condition people find themselves in can't possibly be their own fault. Everything libs believe is a fundmantal contradiction to human nature. Giving people something out of some perceivd compassion does not always help them. It hurts them because it enables them to continue the decisions that got them there in the first place. People learn from experiencing bad things. Not by being protected from them. Luck implies that something is a random event. Losing a job is not a random event. It isn't a cloud that arbitraliy picks people to land on. It happens because either a person is not good at their job or because their skills are no longer in demand. Two conditions that are both preventable, predictable and correctable.

 

[Katzndogz]

If we had NO one working, we would have full employment.

 

[konradv]

down on their luck?!?!

I'm quoting this single phrase of yours for a simple illustration. It hilights a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. That is this; People don't just wind up 'down on their luck'. You libs think everyone is a victim of circumstance. That's how you justify your social program spending. That the condition people find themselves in can't possibly be their own fault. Everything libs believe is a fundmantal contradiction to human nature. Giving people something out of some perceivd compassion does not always help them. It hurts them because it enables them to continue the decisions that got them there in the first place. People learn from experiencing bad things. Not by being protected from them. Luck implies that something is a random event. Losing a job is not a random event. It isn't a cloud that arbitraliy picks people to land on. It happens because either a person is not good at their job or because their skills are no longer in demand. Two conditions that are both preventable, predictable and correctable.

You're assholes because you equate unemployment with welfare. You can't get unemployment, if you haven't worked and many times it is through no fault of the worker. Your analysis is Mitt all over again, TONE DEAF!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

down on their luck?!?!

I'm quoting this single phrase of yours for a simple illustration. It hilights a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. That is this; People don't just wind up 'down on their luck'. You libs think everyone is a victim of circumstance. That's how you justify your social program spending. That the condition people find themselves in can't possibly be their own fault. Everything libs believe is a fundmantal contradiction to human nature. Giving people something out of some perceivd compassion does not always help them. It hurts them because it enables them to continue the decisions that got them there in the first place. People learn from experiencing bad things. Not by being protected from them. Luck implies that something is a random event. Losing a job is not a random event. It isn't a cloud that arbitraliy picks people to land on. It happens because either a person is not good at their job or because their skills are no longer in demand. Two conditions that are both preventable, predictable and correctable.

You're assholes because you equate unemployment with welfare. You can't get unemployment, if you haven't worked and many times it is through no fault of the worker. Your analysis is Mitt all over again, TONE DEAF!!!

Then why pray tell would anyone say that keeping people on unemployment creates more jobs than putting them to work would?

Seems to me that people won't be working through the fault of the government that would rather have them collecting tax dollars than actually earning money and paying taxes

 

[Bern80]

down on their luck?!?!

I'm quoting this single phrase of yours for a simple illustration. It hilights a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. That is this; People don't just wind up 'down on their luck'. You libs think everyone is a victim of circumstance. That's how you justify your social program spending. That the condition people find themselves in can't possibly be their own fault. Everything libs believe is a fundmantal contradiction to human nature. Giving people something out of some perceivd compassion does not always help them. It hurts them because it enables them to continue the decisions that got them there in the first place. People learn from experiencing bad things. Not by being protected from them. Luck implies that something is a random event. Losing a job is not a random event. It isn't a cloud that arbitraliy picks people to land on. It happens because either a person is not good at their job or because their skills are no longer in demand. Two conditions that are both preventable, predictable and correctable.

You're assholes because you equate unemployment with welfare. You can't get unemployment, if you haven't worked and many times it is through no fault of the worker. Your analysis is Mitt all over again, TONE DEAF!!!

You're clearly out of arguments as the above does not counter argue anything I've said. The fact remains libs don't hold people accountable for their actions. They give these people hand outs thinking it helps them when it really just enables the behaviors that got them where they are. Then you have the nerve to wonder why things don't get better. It is the flaw of acting on guilt. It's like the mother giving her drug addict kid $100 because she thinks they'll starve or tells herself they have to eat. When really the mother is just funding the drug habit. You aren't giving the money to help anyone. You're giving it to make YOU feel better. So you can tell yourslf at night you tried to help somone. Well you're not helping them. I'm not opposed to helping people that deserve help, but it needs to come with expectations of the person I'm helping and some strings attached. And the worst part about libs is it isnt' even your money you're willing to part with to help people. You insist it's everyone else that needs to pony up. Again no personal accountability.

Human behavior is a fairly universal concept konrad. It doesn't matter if we're talking about helping drug addicts or people on welfare. Actions that allow a person to continue detrimental behavior is called enabling. Actions that allow someone to change a behavior is behavior modifying. The later is the goal. You can not simply blindly give the less fortunate hand outs without aaddressing why they are less fortunate in the first place. I simply don't believe what you believe as far as how the less fortunate got where they are. It isn't something that just happens to people.

 

[koshergrl]

Besides which, the idea that someone who sits on his ass 12 months, drawing $800 a month, then works a few months, then sits on his ass again for 12 months, has somehow "paid" what he is drawing out of uc is pure bullshit.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Besides which, the idea that someone who sits on his ass 12 months, drawing $800 a month, then works a few months, then sits on his ass again for 12 months, has somehow "paid" what he is drawing out of uc is pure bullshit.

you have to work longer than a few months. and I doubt many if any gets 800 a month.

 

[Bern80]

Besides which, the idea that someone who sits on his ass 12 months, drawing $800 a month, then works a few months, then sits on his ass again for 12 months, has somehow "paid" what he is drawing out of uc is pure bullshit.

you have to work longer than a few months. and I doubt many if any gets 800 a month.

You don't think people get more than $800/mo. on welfare? You're a tad removed from reality.