What does it matter? Were I asked, I would love to give another "nickel" on my property taxe so we could replace the 1953 building in our school district, with one that is actually capable of handling the technology that is needed today to teach our struggling at-risk students. But my nickel by itself WILL NOT cover that cost. It is a about a group effort to get something done. Everyone paying that nickel would allow us to move toward that goal. Me paying an extra nickel will not do much. So, ask that question all you want, but it is silly and you know it is, because you also know that my personal action does not have an impact.

It does matter, and I know why you won't answer my simple question.

The whole timeframe of this most recent extension leaps out in vibrant flashing neon lights for any willing to see it for what it is.

 

This latest extension expires in October... just in time for Democrats to hit the campaign trail and point out how those mean old rich old stingy Republicans won't grant yet another extension for all those poor unfortunates who need to pay the rent.

 

They will not be honest and also point out that the problem the Republicans have is not the idea of assisting those in need, but that the President and Democrats are violating the letter and intent of the "PayGo" legislation they passed to gain votes. PayGo essentially dictates that new spending is acceptable only as long as the money appropriated for it is deducted from somewhere else in the budget ensuring no net increase in spending. The republicans have only been trying to hold the dems to their own legislation while trying to prevent futher runaway spending and a certain cratering of the economy.

 

This is a mess, and the sooner se get greedy, power hungry politicians out of the way and work together, the sooner (and more likely) we will pull out of this.

 

Exactly.

 

Something tells me that if only 10,000 were unemployed, Obama nor any other politician would even think of their plight.

What does it matter? Were I asked, I would love to give another "nickel" on my property taxe so we could replace the 1953 building in our school district, with one that is actually capable of handling the technology that is needed today to teach our struggling at-risk students. But my nickel by itself WILL NOT cover that cost. It is a about a group effort to get something done. Everyone paying that nickel would allow us to move toward that goal. Me paying an extra nickel will not do much. So, ask that question all you want, but it is silly and you know it is, because you also know that my personal action does not have an impact.

 

Another nickle, another dime, another dollar. Maybe if you paid several dollars every check and several dollars at the end of the year you would better understand Fastbreak's question.

Then why imply (or back up those that imply) that those that are on unemployment are lazy and are not doing what they can to find a job that works for their situation?

Are you implying that none of them are? Of course not, nor are we implying that all or most of them are. Still, far too many are.

It does matter, and I know why you won't answer my simple question.

:thumb:

Where are they going to work. The are 5 applicants for every job, where do you want them to work?

 

They're there. My daughter took a job about a year and a half ago. P/T at a local restaurant. Right before summer started she comes to me and asks if I think it's a good idea to get a 2nd job during the summer? I tell her yep, good idea, however not do able when school starts. She will be a senior in high school. So now she's working two jobs. She tells me yesterday she has an interview at another restaurant, that will pay 2 dollars more on the hour than the other jobs. So let's see. 17 year old high schoool student witj absolutely no skills or (last year) no experince, has jobs coming out of her ears. Don't give me "fortunate", "lucky" whatever. She is willing to work hard, crappy hours, and for not much pay. She goes to work every day, does what is asked of her, and maintains a great attitiude. I'm just not buying this woe is us mentality out there. Quite a few are on the dole and are just fine with remaining there.

The time frame only exists because the republicans drug their feet.

I understand his question completely. He wants me to say that I am so morally about helping others that I will voluntarily give extra money to the government to help them. My charity in that sense goes out locally and to the kids at my school and all of the money that I contribute there. However, to suggestion that the owners of houses and businesses in this community couldn't pay a once a year fee of 150.00 or thereabouts to replace an aging diplapidated school . . .

 

Or that we should not let the tax cut expire on the top 2% of the people in this country because of its potential impact on the creation of jobs is crazy. Deficits stink but we should decrease the revenue of the government. What kind of argument is that?

The economy is cyclical, there are going to be dives and climbs. Encouraging those who lose their jobs to sell all they own, take a low-level job and scrape by only ensures the longevity of the dives and multiplies their severity. The more people who do this, the less people there are to buy goods and services, the more employers need to shrink, and, most importantly, the more people scrapping for resources at the bottom. In essence, it's a prescription for misery. It's not very hard to look back at other countries who have experienced market liberalization without social safety nets such as unemployment insurance to bear this out. Thailand, for instance, experienced high growth in the 90s then a massive and prolonged economic drought very much fueled by the hypothetical scenarios described here, i.e. there should be no benefits. Essentially, after their real estate market collapsed an entire workforce went unemployed and were forced to move to rural areas and return to subsistence agriculture, which not only amplified the effects of the downturn, but removed the workers from the work they were trained to do causing any recovery to stall. Therefore, advocating the end of unemployment insurance, or even refusing its extension while the economy has yet to recover, is nothing more than feel-good myopia. Now, if you advocate the abolition of unemployment because you wish for a minuscule government or anarchic society, then I can't argue with your personal preferences, but as far as something that will benefit the most people, including non-recipients, I think you're wrong. Unemployment insurance in this country is temporary, designed to tide people over until they are employed again and I think it works fairly well at helping people weather the storm until recover. Furthermore, the benefits require that you first have been legitimately employed and are not substantial enough that anyone would have to be absolutely silly to choose them over an actual job. Certainly there are those who milk it, but they are sure to be far outnumbered by the legitimate recipients, and the benefits of that far outweigh the opposing scenarios presented here.

 

Obama’s popularity and election prospects are far more enhanced by a growing economy and low-unemployment, to suggest that unemployment benefits are crafted to improve his election prospects is counter to reason. Far more voters will turn on him for a sagging economy than he could ever possibly gain through the extension of benefits. I would also like to see the benefits funded and hope Democrats are held accountable for not funding them if they fail to, but I also wish to see Republicans extend their fiscal austerity to policies that they typically endorse.

And you are suggestion that should could raise a family on that income. I didn't realize we lived at Late Wobegon.

 

Quite a few are on the dole. You or anybody else got any kind of facts to back this up.

 

Because you don't buy it, doesn't make it not true.

The ba

And you are suggestion that should could raise a family on that income. I didn't realize we lived at Late Wobegon.

 

Quite a few are on the dole. You or anybody else got any kind of facts to back this up.

 

Because you don't buy it, doesn't make it not true.

 

You really don't get it. People such as my daughter have enough drive and pride to go out there and do what it takes. I have no doubt that if she was raising a family, she would do what it takes to do so. Those that don't, well I guess you and I Ace will continue to carry them. They're getting heavy though. And Id just as soon get them off of my back and let them either swim or sink. I really think, if challenged, more would swim than sink.

The ba

 

Sorry, the basic fact is if they don't lower the maximum unemployment check to say $150 dollars a week, millions aren't going to take a job that doesn't pay close to double what they are making in unemployment. have more to say,but typing is slow. Anyone having same problem?

Sorry, the basic fact is if they don't lower the maximum unemployment check to say $150 dollars a week, millions aren't going to take a job that doesn't pay close to double what they are making in unemployment. have more to say,but typing is slow. Anyone having same problem?

Yes in "Quick Reply" if you go to "Go Advanced" it seems to be smoother... :thumb:

I understand his question completely. He wants me to say that I am so morally about helping others that I will voluntarily give extra money to the government to help them. My charity in that sense goes out locally and to the kids at my school and all of the money that I contribute there. However, to suggestion that the owners of houses and businesses in this community couldn't pay a once a year fee of 150.00 or thereabouts to replace an aging diplapidated school . . .

 

Or that we should not let the tax cut expire on the top 2% of the people in this country because of its potential impact on the creation of jobs is crazy. Deficits stink but we should decrease the revenue of the government. What kind of argument is that?

Just more liberal hypocrisy Ace.

 

It's acceptable for you to "give" as you deem appropriate, but when you say, "we are not TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY" you just mean the rest of us are not taxed enough already. If you really belived the "WE" in that statement, you would gladly let the Feds keep your return. BUT since you happily receive it from them to "give" as you see fit... your words ring hollow to me.

 

I'm far from the top 2% and my family will be hit by allowing the Bush cuts to expire.

 

Put your money where your mouth is Ace... until then, your noble lectures on paying more are nothing more than windchimes... :thumb: