DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 26, 2010, 02:34:52 PM
-
In case there was any doubt about the Dems ?job agenda,? the AP clears it up
June 25th, 2010, posted by Mark Landsbaum
The Associated Press reported today that the Democrats suffered a set-back on their ?jobs agenda.?
Here?s what the story was about: In the Senate, Democrats didn?t get enough votes to invoke cloture on the American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010. So, a bunch of jobs won?t be created? Subsidized? Added to?
Not exactly.
Says AP: ?The demise of Democrats? job-agenda legislation means that unemployment benefits will phase out for more than 200,000 people a week.?
Yep. As the Wall Street Journal?s James Taranto put it: ?Paying people not to work is a ?jobs agenda? in the same sense as, per Orwell, ignorance is strength or war is peace.?
And if that?s not Orwellian enough for you, Taranto adds ?The failed bill also would have pumped federal money into state governments??
Which Taranto notes would have been ?a subsidy for their irresponsible spending.?
About as Orwellian as you can get. Failure is success.
What do you Think?
A little AP Jobs Agenda clarity (http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2010/06/25/in-case-there-was-any-doubt-about-the-dems-job-agenda-the-ap-clears-it-up/29215/)
-
I think that unemployment insurance extensions is a cheaper policy than building prisons to house the felons that end up robbing and killing out of desperation to feed their families.
As a precaution, i recommend that those who have weapons make sure they have sufficient ammo to protect their families, because the cops probably won't be able to be everywhere all the time.
-
OR.....folks may take the initiative to go find a job, vs just sitting around and waiting for more of our tax payer dollars to be extended beyond that which is already in place
-
OR.....folks may take the initiative to go find a job, vs just sitting around and waitinf for more of our tax payer dollars to be extended beyond that which is already in place
What makes you think the majority aren't looking? Lumping those down on their luck all together is no better than what mikey does when he slurs all the members of the armed services as knuckle dragging low fruit torturers because a few crossed the line at Abu Ghraib.
They call unemployment insurance a safety net. I don't think it only provides that net to the jobless. I think it protects those who still have something worth stealing.
Just a theory.
-
OR.....folks may take the initiative to go find a job, vs just sitting around and waitinf for more of our tax payer dollars to be extended beyond that which is already in place
What makes you think the majority aren't looking? Lumping those down on their luck all together is no better than what mikey does when he slurs all the members of the armed services as knuckle dragging low fruit torturers because a few crossed the line at Abu Ghraib.
They call unemployment insurance a safety net. I don't think it only provides that net to the jobless. I think it protects those who still have something worth stealing.
Just a theory.
stop with naive act. a good amount of people collecting unemployment could find a job or even a couple part time jobs but the incentive isn't there. Remove the free paycheck and they will go out and find work.
-
OR.....folks may take the initiative to go find a job, vs just sitting around and waitinf for more of our tax payer dollars to be extended beyond that which is already in place
What makes you think the majority aren't looking? Lumping those down on their luck all together is no better than what mikey does when he slurs all the members of the armed services as knuckle dragging low fruit torturers because a few crossed the line at Abu Ghraib. They call unemployment insurance a safety net. I don't think it only provides that net to the jobless. I think it protects those who still have something worth stealing.
Just a theory.
My theory is that we already have a safety net, for the majority who are looking. Extending it more, and more and more, simply enables those who DON'T seek gainful employment to continue to live off of yours and mine's dimes
-
stop with naive act. a good amount of people collecting unemployment could find a job or even a couple part time jobs but the incentive isn't there.
What's the unemployment level among teens and those with little to no experience? 40%? aren't those the type of jobs available?
How many openings at your company? How about your competitors?
Sometimes rhetoric needs to meet reality. You think the high number of foreclosures is because people bought more house than they could afford during the bubble, or do you think that it is possible than one maybe two wage-earners in the family got laid off or hours cut back?
-
I have no problem with unemployment benefits. Everybody has hard times once in a while and their families shouldn't have to suffer for it.
I also think welfare was a good idea that was abused horribly. We need stricter regulations on who can have these benefits and definite time barriers of I'd say no more than 6 months to a year.
I also think government health insurance should only be elligible to the employed, retired or legitimately disabled (slightly off topic).
-
I also think government health insurance should only be elligible to the employed, retired or legitimately disabled (slightly off topic).
I think if the govt is going to get into the health care business it needs to be universal and paid for with a sales tax. Everybody pays, from the kid buying bubblegum, to the illegal alien buying work boots to the crack dealer buying bling. Everybody pays and everybody is covered.
-
Looks good on paper, but politically, especially from the classwarfare left, that'll never fly
-
Looks good on paper, but politically, especially from the classwarfare left, that'll never fly
The left needs to be painted as the obstructionists to a universal healthcare plan that treats people equally regardless of race, creed, ethnicity and class.
-
No paint necessary. Actions are all that's needed
-
stop with naive act. a good amount of people collecting unemployment could find a job or even a couple part time jobs but the incentive isn't there.
What's the unemployment level among teens and those with little to no experience? 40%? aren't those the type of jobs available?
How many openings at your company? How about your competitors?
Sometimes rhetoric needs to meet reality. You think the high number of foreclosures is because people bought more house than they could afford during the bubble, or do you think that it is possible than one maybe two wage-earners in the family got laid off or hours cut back?
So the other day I was talking with a manager of a Fastenal Store and he says he had a sales position open up so he got 25 applicants and only 5 could pass the assessment test. He said he had a lot of people with higher education levels and a lot of over age 50 applicants. I asked did a lot of the highly educated people fail the assessment test, he said YES.
-
So we know for sure 25 people aren't sitting on their butts collecting the dole. They are out their applying for jobs, even if they don't qualify for them.
-
No paint necessary. Actions are all that's needed
Amen to that.
-
So we know for sure 25 people aren't sitting on their butts collecting the dole. They are out their applying for jobs, even if they don't qualify for them.
correct but
how many of these people were let go from their jobs for being dumb, fat and lazy, having poor attitude, therefore they had become dead weight in a highly competitive economy?
It isn't societies responsibility to shelter, clothe, and support these people. 6 Months of unemployment seems about right, not a year or more.
If the unemployment bennies were cut back to reasonable levels then more people would feel the pain sooner rather than later. Then the politicians would feel the pain too sooner and maybe get pushed towards better results. Right now politicians are looking for the easy way out, to ride this storm out and suffer the least of losses. I want the wrath of the people upon them. The politicians created this mess and they are trying to buy their way out by redistribution of wealth so less people are effected over all. What is happening right now is a magic show, smoke & mirrors, and the politicians are trying to protect their best interests, not ours. There are far to many people collecting unemployment yet working under the table for cash. There are far too many people not looking for work and going to the beach and casinos. There are far too many people that aren't trying to improve or change their profession. And there is no accountability, all they do is go online, and the checks roll in. No weekly forms to fill out or tracking of these peoples activities.
Life is tough, and when the going gets tough the tough get going. NONE of these people would survive if we were living back 100 years ago. The cream of the crop created this great nation not the worst of the worst. Losers need to be weeded out because they are stifling prosperity. Carrying these people isn't good for them or the rest of us. Harsh but true. Sorry.
-
Do you think life insurance policy payouts should be means tested?
-
Do you think life insurance policy payouts should be means tested?
Who is buying the policy?
I would say no.
Employees don't pay for unemployment insurance the employer does.
Why should you get unemployment and not me? I can't get it because I'm self-employed.
-
Why should you get unemployment and not me? I can't get it because I'm self-employed.
I don't get it either . I have been self employed for 20 years.
But if i incorporated and had the corporation pay my salary, and paid the UI premiums, I could collect.
In the long run, it is cheaper to just save for the lean times.
But the point remains that no matter who pays the premiums, they were paid and workers who qualify are entitled to the claims.
If the fed thinks it is the country's best interest to extend the benefits period, that's on them, but it certainly happens during Republican as well as Democrat administrations and or congresses. And probably much cheaper than deploying the national guard to protect gated communities.
-
Why should you get unemployment and not me? I can't get it because I'm self-employed.
I don't get it either . I have been self employed for 20 years.
But if i incorporated and had the corporation pay my salary, and paid the UI premiums, I could collect.
In the long run, it is cheaper to just save for the lean times.
But the point remains that no matter who pays the premiums, they were paid and workers who qualify are entitled to the claims.
If the fed thinks it is the country's best interest to extend the benefits period, that's on them, but it certainly happens during Republican as well as Democrat administrations and or congresses. And probably much cheaper than deploying the national guard to protect gated communities.
I'm asking for more accountability i.e. check on these people and see if indeed they are actively looking for work and not working for cash and collecting unemployment simultaneously. Have them spend weekends pulling weeds, picking up trash, or other labor for local and state government. Hey it sucks these days but there are too many people out there that just don't get it that life isn't a bowl of cherries. You see pictures of the Great Depression and boy oh boy I would not want to be there, compared to today where people are children of the state.
-
I'm asking for more accountability i.e. check on these people and see if indeed they are actively looking for work and not working for cash and collecting unemployment simultaneously. Have them spend weekends pulling weeds, picking up trash, or other labor for local and state government.
I don't have a problem with seeking more accountability, but that will cost the taxpayers more than a self imposed honor system.
And forcing people to work for the state in order to receive benefits their previous employer already paid for seems wrongheaded and probably illegal. This isn't welfare, it is an insurance benefit, no different than a disability payment.
-
I'm asking for more accountability i.e. check on these people and see if indeed they are actively looking for work and not working for cash and collecting unemployment simultaneously. Have them spend weekends pulling weeds, picking up trash, or other labor for local and state government.
I don't have a problem with seeking more accountability, but that will cost the taxpayers more than a self imposed honor system.
And forcing people to work for the state in order to receive benefits their previous employer already paid for seems wrongheaded and probably illegal. This isn't welfare, it is an insurance benefit, no different than a disability payment.
now you bring up disability. That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
-
That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
I'm certain it is. But that shouldn't disallow honest people from collecting on policies they faithfully paid premiums upon, and yes that includes Social Security.
-
That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
I'm certain it is. But that shouldn't disallow honest people from collecting on policies they faithfully paid premiums upon, and yes that includes Social Security.
I actually know a woman who faked a back injury and has been collecting welfare for years. She's a fraud and there is no way to prove it because back injuries are one of the easiest to fake (hardest for doctors to prove).
But I agree with BT. Just because dishonest people exist doesn't mean we should hold out on those who honestly need help.
-
That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
I'm certain it is. But that shouldn't disallow honest people from collecting on policies they faithfully paid premiums upon, and yes that includes Social Security.
now you bring up SS. Do they put that money away in a lock-box or just co-mingle it with the general fund?
-
That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
I'm certain it is. But that shouldn't disallow honest people from collecting on policies they faithfully paid premiums upon, and yes that includes Social Security.
I actually know a woman who faked a back injury and has been collecting welfare for years. She's a fraud and there is no way to prove it because back injuries are one of the easiest to fake (hardest for doctors to prove).
But I agree with BT. Just because dishonest people exist doesn't mean we should hold out on those who honestly need help.
Agreed....BUT.....this isn't an issue of NOT providing a safety net of unemployment benefits. This is an issue of extending benefits currently in place.
So, what shall we extend them to?......3 years? How about 10years? Someone should have a job by then, right? What's 9+ years of we the tax payers paying for someone's unemployment benefits, right?
-
That is another thing that is abused to the hilt.
I'm certain it is. But that shouldn't disallow honest people from collecting on policies they faithfully paid premiums upon, and yes that includes Social Security.
I actually know a woman who faked a back injury and has been collecting welfare for years. She's a fraud and there is no way to prove it because back injuries are one of the easiest to fake (hardest for doctors to prove).
But I agree with BT. Just because dishonest people exist doesn't mean we should hold out on those who honestly need help.
Agreed....BUT.....this isn't an issue of NOT providing a safety net of unemployment benefits. This is an issue of extending benefits currently in place.
So, what shall we extend them to?......3 years? How about 10years? Someone should have a job by then, right? What's 9+ years of we the tax payers paying for someone's unemployment benefits, right?
The Yugo is totaled, don't expect a BMW in it's place!
-
This is an issue of extending benefits currently in place.
Yes it is, otherwise the fed would not be involved. And i think you extend the benefits until the economy shows real signs of recovery, which believe it or not, these benefits help towards reaching that goal.
-
This is an issue of extending benefits currently in place.
Yes it is, otherwise the fed would not be involved. And i think you extend the benefits until the economy shows real signs of recovery, which believe it or not, these benefits help towards reaching that goal.
kinda like spending your way out of a recession.
-
This is an issue of extending benefits currently in place.
Yes it is, otherwise the fed would not be involved. And i think you extend the benefits until the economy shows real signs of recovery, which believe it or not, these benefits help towards reaching that goal.
Extending literally exacebates the current condition of the economy, spending money we don't have. So no, you don't extend them, as we already have benefits in place
-
Extending literally exacebates the current condition of the economy, spending money we don't have.
Really? How so? If you take that money out of circulation, what happens?
-
Extending literally exacebates the current condition of the economy, spending money we don't have.
Really? How so? If you take that money out of circulation, what happens?
give working people a tax break.
-
Extending literally exacebates the current condition of the economy, spending money we don't have.
Really? How so? If you take that money out of circulation, what happens?
The debt we are in under this President, believe it or not, is greater than every other president...COMBINED. We already provide unemployment benefits. One needs to start saying "no"
-
Extending literally exacebates the current condition of the economy, spending money we don't have.
Really? How so? If you take that money out of circulation, what happens?
The debt we are in under this President, believe it or not, is greater than every other president...COMBINED. We already provide unemployment benefits. One needs to start saying "no"
suspend ObamaCare forever. pay no taxes for 2 years. declare economy fixed!
-
The debt we are in under this President, believe it or not, is greater than every other president...COMBINED. We already provide unemployment benefits. One needs to start saying "no"
How doctrinaire. What happens if you take the extended benefit money out of circulation, without replacing it with anything else.
Buehler? Anyone?
Now I agree that extending benefits is in no way shape or form a jobs program or a recovery plan, but i don't think you just leave these families hanging.
I also agree that now is not the time to offer new programs like the sham of Obamacare, without a clear demonstratable way that it will be a pay as you go program, but i disagree that we leave these working families without at least a minimum safety net that the extended unemployment benefits brings.
And I agree that debt is troublesome, but i disagree that the American people are unworthy of that credit risk. And that is what we are really saying when we complain about the deficit and national debt.
-
The debt we are in under this President, believe it or not, is greater than every other president...COMBINED. We already provide unemployment benefits. One needs to start saying "no"
Now I agree that extending benefits is in no way shape or form a jobs program or a recovery plan, but i don't think you just leave these families hanging.
They're NOT hanging BT. They are receiving unemployment benefits, and no one here is advocating they be pulled completely. Please don't try to infer that folks are getting the shaft, and being left hanging, when they're getting a substantial amount of tax payer assistance already.
-
Please don't try to infer that folks are getting the shaft, and being left hanging, when they're getting a substantial amount of tax payer assistance already.
So your position is that after 26 weeks, which is what state coverage normally is, that's it, too bad, so sad.
But i am curious why you keep insisting it is taxpayer assistance when if you keep benefits to what the state offers, then that is covered by employer premiums.
-
Please don't try to infer that folks are getting the shaft, and being left hanging, when they're getting a substantial amount of tax payer assistance already.
So your position is that after 26 weeks, which is what state coverage normally is, that's it, too bad, so sad.
Yes. 26 weeks is better than 25, and far better than zero. Why not make it 3 years, if one is still unemployed for over 2? How about 10 years?
But i am curious why you keep insisting it is taxpayer assistance when if you keep benefits to what the state offers, then that is covered by employer premiums.
Because its being propped thru added Government assistance. Government makes no money, it can only take in taxes. It ueses those taxes as it decides. If it uses $X for unemployment benefits, but now wants to add $X+$y, that's using more tax dollars, when we're already in exponential debt
-
The debt we are in under this President, believe it or not, is greater than every other president...COMBINED. We already provide unemployment benefits. One needs to start saying "no"
How doctrinaire. What happens if you take the extended benefit money out of circulation, without replacing it with anything else.
Buehler? Anyone?
Imagine that all benefits and entitlements were reduced 10% and all taxpayers given a tax break of the same size.
Voilla! Stimuated economy.
-
so the people who receive the benefits, in this case unemployment, see a reduction in their safety net and are unable to reap the benefits of the tax cut.
Let's say they are your tenant. Does the reduction in benefits help you? Does the tax cut offset the negative flow of property payments?
-
There yago.....there is no reduction. There is a planned extension. How can an extension be a reduction in unemployment benefits??
-
There yago.....there is no reduction.
Plane recommended a reduction. Along with a tax cut.
You are recommending not extending.
I am questioning the wisdom of that.
My reasoning is that the beneficiaries of an unemployment compensation extension are not limited to just the recipients of that largesse and that a reduction in the circulation of the proceeds from that extension could have a negative ripple effect throughout the communities hardest hit by the economic downturn.
-
I understand your reasoning......I would hope you'd understand and consider mine, which does NOT reduce anything, so I'd appreicate if you refrain from using that tactic when responding to my POV on this
-
..I would hope you'd understand and consider mine, which does NOT reduce anything, so I'd appreicate if you refrain from using that tactic when responding to my POV on this
Perhaps you can show me where i did this.
-
In your frequent inferrences that my POV amounts to a reduction/abolishment of unemployment benefits. Unless of course, you're trying to be specific to someone else, but keep getting me lumped in somehow.
-
In your frequent inferrences that my POV amounts to a reduction/abolishment of unemployment benefits. Unless of course, you're trying to be specific to someone else, but keep getting me lumped in somehow.
I don't believe i lumped you into my reply to Plane.
My tangent with you specifically states that not extending the benefits is a bad idea and i gave my reasons why.
-
In that vein, I've given you my reasons for maintaining the status quo, and extending both makes worse our already frankenstein-like national debt AND enables a perpetuation of those who seek to remain living off our tax dime
I guess will have to agree to disagree on this
-
enables a perpetuation of those who seek to remain living off our tax dime
Do you personally know anyone collecting unemployment?
-
Yea
-
Yea
Are they deadbeat mooches?
-
Gonna have to plead the 5th, on that
-
Taxpayers still outnumber people on relief.
A reduction of dole , if only a reduction, would harm the minority less than it would help the economy.
More money in circulation is supposed to be stimulating to the economy, circulating that money should happen better and faster with less middleman.
Get the government out of the picture gradually and it should be possible to replace the dole with jobs.
At the point that people on unemployment benefits outnumber taxpayers, no plan is going to work.
There ought to be a real effort to open the job market and another effort to encorage job seeking.
My renters are all employed at present , thank God. If one of them becomes unemployed I will do everything I can to provide coushion, short of allowing the bank to reposesses.
If I were paying less tax would I be able to wait longer for the rent?
-
Do you equate unemployment compensation with welfare?