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

[The T]

What's the big deal of extending unemployment? It's simply a case of circumstances demanding more than we anticipated. That happens all the time and conservatives don't throw a fit. It happens in cost overruns for weapons systems all the time and you certainly don't hear the right crying about that.

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

Yeah we do care since we are paying for thier greed of control.

 

[Full-Auto]

Like everything, employees ultimately pay for it. If you didnt pay it as a cost of employing them you might offer them more money.

When I started my business my rate was 35 cents an hour I managed to get it reduced to 15, now with the recent economic developments I am at 65 cents an hour.

It would not have affected what I pay at all.

The employees do not pay for it. If you want to prove the argument produce a pay stub showing they paid it. Other wise it is nothing more then an expense just like the phone bill.

But an expense you must endure none the less is the point.

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

 

[The T]

When I started my business my rate was 35 cents an hour I managed to get it reduced to 15, now with the recent economic developments I am at 65 cents an hour.

It would not have affected what I pay at all.

The employees do not pay for it. If you want to prove the argument produce a pay stub showing they paid it. Other wise it is nothing more then an expense just like the phone bill.

But an expense you must endure none the less is the point.

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

 

[Full-Auto]

But an expense you must endure none the less is the point.

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

Yes it must be considered as it is an expense. I have not argued against that. I have only argued the employees do not pay for it as claimed by some here.

 

[The T]

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

Yes it must be considered as it is an expense. I have not argued against that. I have only argued the employees do not pay for it as claimed by some here.

Fair enough. Thanks much for the answer. We're on the same page here.

 

[DaGoose]

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

Yes it must be considered as it is an expense. I have not argued against that. I have only argued the employees do not pay for it as claimed by some here.

Whatever happened to "it's my money"?

Everybody who's working pays into it because it's our money whether you do it directly or indirectly, right?

 

[DaGoose]

What's the big deal of extending unemployment? It's simply a case of circumstances demanding more than we anticipated. That happens all the time and conservatives don't throw a fit. It happens in cost overruns for weapons systems all the time and you certainly don't hear the right crying about that.

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

Whether or not you want to believe it Democrats pay into it too.

And can you back up or show that "extending UE causes more UE"?

 

[The Rabbi]

No the point was that employees pay for thier own unemployment, which is false.

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

Yes it must be considered as it is an expense. I have not argued against that. I have only argued the employees do not pay for it as claimed by some here.

Of course they pay for it, regardless of who writes the check. IN the same way that consumers pay for taxes on business. Technically the business writes the check but the actual cost gets passed on.
It is not like the telephone bill because the cost is directly attributable to the employee. i.e. if the employee weren't there you would still pay for the telephone but you would not pay unemployment insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

What's the big deal of extending unemployment? It's simply a case of circumstances demanding more than we anticipated. That happens all the time and conservatives don't throw a fit. It happens in cost overruns for weapons systems all the time and you certainly don't hear the right crying about that.

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

Whether or not you want to believe it Democrats pay into it too.

And can you back up or show that "extending UE causes more UE"?

How much has Charlie Rangel or Maxine Waters paid into unemployment insurance?
The economics on this issue is well known and much published. Google is your friend.

 

[The T]

I agree to that. And I said that it is factored in when an employer considers hiring someone as part of the package in the hiring process. And it is an expense you must endure when hiring some one.

True or not?

Yes it must be considered as it is an expense. I have not argued against that. I have only argued the employees do not pay for it as claimed by some here.

Whatever happened to "it's my money"?

Everybody who's working pays into it because it's our money whether you do it directly or indirectly, right?

'Our Money' Gracie? This is where you Statists FAIL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the big deal of extending unemployment? It's simply a case of circumstances demanding more than we anticipated. That happens all the time and conservatives don't throw a fit. It happens in cost overruns for weapons systems all the time and you certainly don't hear the right crying about that.

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

You can prove that extending UE causes more UE?

 

[DaGoose]

What's the big deal of extending unemployment? It's simply a case of circumstances demanding more than we anticipated. That happens all the time and conservatives don't throw a fit. It happens in cost overruns for weapons systems all the time and you certainly don't hear the right crying about that.

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

Whether or not you want to believe it Democrats pay into it too.

And can you back up or show that "extending UE causes more UE"?

How much has Charlie Rangel or Maxine Waters paid into unemployment insurance?
The economics on this issue is well known and much published. Google is your friend.

Which merely underlines your inability to back up what you claim is an easily backed up fact.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

How long should unemployment checks flow?

 

[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.

How long should unemployment checks flow?

Indefinite. it's the Socialist way.

 

[The T]

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

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.

And that shit always confuses the HELL out of you fucking Statists.

Good. I'm glad you got fucked in whatever thought you had.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

How long should unemployment checks flow?

Indefinite. it's the Socialist way.

Wrong. They only flow as long as we can borrow when we can't borrow the checks stop. The billionaires meanwhile are still billionaires.

 

[boedicca]

If Obama wants to extend UE benefits he can do it now with the unspent portion of the Stimulus pork.

It's rather disgusting that he is holding people hostage over the holidays while he plays these games.

 

[The T]

How long should unemployment checks flow?

Indefinite. it's the Socialist way.

Wrong. They only flow as long as we can borrow when we can't borrow the checks stop. The billionaires meanwhile are still billionaires.

I was being faceteous...errant...tongue-in-cheek.

 

[The Rabbi]

Um, extending UE causes more UE. That's the basic problem. It also is spending money we don't have for something we don't need. I realize Democrats don't care since it's someone else's money. But some of us do.
As for cost over runs, who says no one is upset about it?

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