Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relie

[cutter]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

So much for bipartisanship and working with the other side.
Not that anyone realistically expected this poseur of a president to do otherwise. He is politically inept, economically illiterate, and socially flawed.

Extending unemployment benefits beyond the already 99 weeks is not "taking care" of anyone. It is making a permanent entitlement not to work. With 9.8% unemployment, unprecedented at this stage of any recovery, one would think Obama would be looking for a game changer rather than more of the same.

Actually studies show you're incorrect. Unemployment benefits do far more good than not.

Five myths about unemployment

If they do so much good maybe we should make them permanent even if you never had a job and aren't looking. Wait, I think that's what obama wants.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

damn this is dumb

big 0 just said that I will keep taxes low if the gop promises to let him increase spending.

Liberals

are

the

dumbest

people

on

earth

 

[The T]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

Your CINC is playing GAMES with other people's Lives for SPORT.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let him increase the taxes on everyone then. It's his career.

Shame people will have to be put out of work because of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can prove that extending UE causes more UE?

Evidently not since I asked him the same thing.

And what did he do? Ask me to look up the facts to prove him right.

Here ya go. I saved your lazy stupid ass 10 seconds doing a google search. Actually I saved your ass about an hour since that's how long it would take you to figure out how to do this. Now let's see you carp, whine, complain about bias etc etc because you've been proven WRONG-O.
The Effect of Unemployment Insurance on Unemployment, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Buehler? Buehler?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Evidently not since I asked him the same thing.

And what did he do? Ask me to look up the facts to prove him right.

Here ya go. I saved your lazy stupid ass 10 seconds doing a google search. Actually I saved your ass about an hour since that's how long it would take you to figure out how to do this. Now let's see you carp, whine, complain about bias etc etc because you've been proven WRONG-O.
The Effect of Unemployment Insurance on Unemployment, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Buehler? Buehler?

It's always the easiest argument to refute when the arguer's link itself argues against the arguer:

This is FROM your supporting evidence:

What's limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That's why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded -- anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let him increase the taxes on everyone then. It's his career.

Shame people will have to be put out of work because of it.

So you (and anyone else here) will agree that balancing the budget would necessitate putting tens of thousands of people out work?

 

[The Rabbi]

Here ya go. I saved your lazy stupid ass 10 seconds doing a google search. Actually I saved your ass about an hour since that's how long it would take you to figure out how to do this. Now let's see you carp, whine, complain about bias etc etc because you've been proven WRONG-O.
The Effect of Unemployment Insurance on Unemployment, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Buehler? Buehler?

It's always the easiest argument to refute when the arguer's link itself argues against the arguer:

This is FROM your supporting evidence:

What's limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That's why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded -- anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

Unfortunately that doesn't refute my contention that extending unemployment benefits causes unemployment.
But I guess it's easier to change the subject when you're wrong than admit it.
Buehler?

 

[Sallow]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

What a load.

This was bullshit from the get go.

The rich are getting their cut..and benefits are getting extended.

This is a done deal. Bad for the country..but a done deal.

 

[Sallow]

Buehler? Buehler?

It's always the easiest argument to refute when the arguer's link itself argues against the arguer:

This is FROM your supporting evidence:

What's limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That's why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded -- anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

Unfortunately that doesn't refute my contention that extending unemployment benefits causes unemployment.
But I guess it's easier to change the subject when you're wrong than admit it.
Buehler?

No it doesn't.

Obscenely wealthy "Synergy" types creating de-facto monopolies and automation causes unemployment.

And they thank you for the huge bonuses they are getting this year..thanks to TARP.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obama Tells Dems He'll Oppose Tax Cut Deal Without Unemployment Benefits, Other Relief


My CINC putting his foot down and making the Repugs work and fulfill their end of the bargain to take care of all Americans and not just the wealthy, this is why I voted for him.

What a load.

This was bullshit from the get go.

The rich are getting their cut..and benefits are getting extended.

This is a done deal. Bad for the country..but a done deal.

I couldn't agree more.

Now if you will excuse me, I must scub myself down with bleach to get the liberal cooties off of me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Buehler? Buehler?

It's always the easiest argument to refute when the arguer's link itself argues against the arguer:

This is FROM your supporting evidence:

What's limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That's why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded -- anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

Unfortunately that doesn't refute my contention that extending unemployment benefits causes unemployment.
But I guess it's easier to change the subject when you're wrong than admit it.
Buehler?

Great, quoting relevant material from your link is changing the subject. OK, I'll stipulate to that. Your link was off - topic and therefore useless.

Now, how about you try again, for real this time. PROVE that extending UE causes UE.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's always the easiest argument to refute when the arguer's link itself argues against the arguer:

This is FROM your supporting evidence:

What's limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant. That's why comments by the likes of Sen. Kyl are so boneheaded -- anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

Unfortunately that doesn't refute my contention that extending unemployment benefits causes unemployment.
But I guess it's easier to change the subject when you're wrong than admit it.
Buehler?

Great, quoting relevant material from your link is changing the subject. OK, I'll stipulate to that. Your link was off - topic and therefore useless.

Now, how about you try again, for real this time. PROVE that extending UE causes UE.

The link did just that.
Sorry you have trouble reading and responding appropriately. Maybe Ritalin would help?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let him increase the taxes on everyone then. It's his career.

Shame people will have to be put out of work because of it.

So you (and anyone else here) will agree that balancing the budget would necessitate putting tens of thousands of people out work?

No one wants to disagree with this?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unfortunately that doesn't refute my contention that extending unemployment benefits causes unemployment.
But I guess it's easier to change the subject when you're wrong than admit it.
Buehler?

Great, quoting relevant material from your link is changing the subject. OK, I'll stipulate to that. Your link was off - topic and therefore useless.

Now, how about you try again, for real this time. PROVE that extending UE causes UE.

The link did just that.
Sorry you have trouble reading and responding appropriately. Maybe Ritalin would help?

Sorry, no, it was some weak opinion piece that couldn't even avoid refuting its own contentions.

Stop insulting our intelligence. This is an adult forum.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great, quoting relevant material from your link is changing the subject. OK, I'll stipulate to that. Your link was off - topic and therefore useless.

Now, how about you try again, for real this time. PROVE that extending UE causes UE.

The link did just that.
Sorry you have trouble reading and responding appropriately. Maybe Ritalin would help?

Sorry, no, it was some weak opinion piece that couldn't even avoid refuting its own contentions.

Stop insulting our intelligence. This is an adult forum.

Told ya.
You can't counter the message so you attack the messenger.
The piece in fact substantiated, and made clear the issue is well known, my contention that UE insurance actually causes UE.
When you couldn't refute that, you took some unrelated piece and pretended it was the issue under discussion.
When that didnt work you tried to impugn the source.
You are truly a worthless and ugly troll. Now go back under the bridge.

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi, you DO realize that there are conservatives on unemployment...not just liberals.

So by your own logic, you're calling conservatives lazy bastards for taking the benefits.

I really wish conservatives would get angry when one of their own spews shit like this...and realized that it doesnt comport with R~E~A~L~!~T~Y

 

[Sallow]

Let him increase the taxes on everyone then. It's his career.

Shame people will have to be put out of work because of it.

So you (and anyone else here) will agree that balancing the budget would necessitate putting tens of thousands of people out work?

No one wants to disagree with this?

Why would they?

It's the truth. But then they will bitch that their mail is coming to slow...or the lines at the DMV are to long..

Two and two never equals four in the minds of conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The link did just that.
Sorry you have trouble reading and responding appropriately. Maybe Ritalin would help?

Sorry, no, it was some weak opinion piece that couldn't even avoid refuting its own contentions.

Stop insulting our intelligence. This is an adult forum.

Told ya.
You can't counter the message so you attack the messenger.
The piece in fact substantiated, and made clear the issue is well known, my contention that UE insurance actually causes UE.
When you couldn't refute that, you took some unrelated piece and pretended it was the issue under discussion.
When that didnt work you tried to impugn the source.
You are truly a worthless and ugly troll. Now go back under the bridge.

In order to prove that extending UE causes UE:

1. You have to show that a period of unemployment where UE extension was passed was LONGER than a comparable period of UE where UE extension was not passed,

and you then have to

2. show that the UE extension itself, and no other extraneous factors of any kind,

CAUSED the relatively longer period of unemployment, in order to prove that the comparisons were comparable.

That would be proof of cause and effect. Your link did nothing of the sort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you (and anyone else here) will agree that balancing the budget would necessitate putting tens of thousands of people out work?

No one wants to disagree with this?

Why would they?

It's the truth. But then they will bitch that their mail is coming to slow...or the lines at the DMV are to long..

Two and two never equals four in the minds of conservatives.

But they also claim the conservative economic agenda is the right formula for creating jobs.