Scrooge is a Republican

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

39 weeks isn't enough? That is 3/4 of a YEAR!! Maybe we should just extend it indefinately? Would that pacify you?

CkG

Why not? In every other civilized county it's forever. Plus all the retraining and education you want is paid for too. It's not the workers fault he was down sized usually or else he won't recieve benefits. In fact I'd like to see at least 3/4 of salary insteed of the paltry sum they give which forces some to sell thier house.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Unemployment drops from 6.0% to 5.9% and everyone puts on the rose-colored glasses?

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said extending the benefits was unjustified when unemployment is going down in the country. "It's a question of whether we continue to be in an extraordinary unemployment environment, and we are not," Blunt said.

Especially when in fact we haven't lost one job since Bush came into Office:

12-8-2003 Rush: We Have not lost one job under the Bush Administration, it's all a Democrat Fabrication for votes

Our economy is booming at historic levels. Yet myths of a "jobless" recovery are being pushed by politicians hoping to reap votes from your misery. Before you buy into any of the dire job loss statistics reported by people running for president or their willing accomplices, check out the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

News Releases: Unemployment Figures Then and Now...
(DoL BLS: January 2001 Employment Situation)
(DoL BLS: November 2003 Employment Situation)

The employed civilian labor force had 135,999,000 workers during the early days of the recession in January 2001 when Bill Clinton left office. The employed civilian labor force at the end of last month, with the recession long over, was 138,603,000. Those raw numbers show 2.6 million MORE jobs now. So you can see why I distrust the figures of those Democrats with a political motive for painting job loss as awful as possible, who make wild claims of 2.3 to 3.7 to 475 billion jobs lost under Bush. Besides, common sense tells us that some people who "lose" jobs actually go out and get new ones - much to the DNC's dismay.

I would also remind you that it was the Clinton Commerce Department that inflated economic growth figures by 10-30%.
The Democrats and their TV lackeys know full well that unemployment is always a "lagging indicator," but hope you won't figure that out for yourselves. They want to keep you miserable, so you turn your anger towards Bush. The truth is, none of them can run a campaign saying, "Things are pretty good, but I can do better - and here's how." They can only win if things go badly for America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at that, looks like Rush writes in here on AT. So all the Factories that have closed, all the High Paying jobs that have shipped overseas is all in mind of those that have lost their jobs imagination.

The brainwashing continues...

 

[Corn]

Why not? In every other civilized county it's forever. Plus all the retraining and education you want is paid for too. It's not the workers fault he was down sized usually or else he won't recieve benefits. In fact I'd like to see at least 3/4 of salary insteed of the paltry sum they give which forces some to sell thier house.

I don't know how many times you complained that you were unfairly pigeonholed as a "liberal", yet it appears that nearly every post of yours lately is laced with liberal rhetoric. We already do have the equivalent of "forever" unemployment benefits: It's called welfare.

Someone who doesn't have a job might have to sell their house? Why should I feel sorry for someone who cannot live within their means or plan for their future? I've got a cushion to fall back on, but it won't last forever, but should I feel entitled to stay in my (what some might call it lavish, others call it simply typical suburban--it's all relative) home indefinately if I cannot earn the money to pay for it? My opinion is no, I'm not entitled to it if, simply because I bought it, but no cannot pay for it.

You say it's not the "workers" fault they were "downsized", however that isn't always the case. Some workers are downsized simply because they priced themselves right out of the market, or they were not competant enough in their jobs to help their employer remain competetive.

As much as you disdain our free and open markets, there never was a golden age of the US worker during our proctectionist era, quite the opposite. Only war (and the "cold" war) helped unemployment in the more recent protectionist era: By employing to keep the war machine turning and the unfortunate consequence of eliminating competition for jobs by the sheer number of casualities of war. Oh yeah, we "propsered" in the 50's on the backs of 2nd class citizens because their skin was darker than Ward and June Cleaver's. The "golden age" of America!!!!!

 

[Zebo]

I don't know much about welfare except it's not enough. You can't own any assets right? You can only be on it for 5 years right? You must have children? The benefit is almost nothing right, certainly not enough to hold on to a house and mount a succesful job search? You can't underemploy yourself with a McJob and still recieve benefit? Basically it sucks and is no real benefit.

As much as you disdain our free and open markets

Don't have a problem with free and open markets. In fact I wish they were MORE free and open for the individual. Reinsitute the homestead act giving it's citizens it's land. Loosen capital resitrictions so anyone can take out a business loan. If you mean I'm against huge corporations which kills of entrepreneurship and opportunity you're right. It's just another form of fuedalism going on benefiting the corporate lords to the detriment of most of society.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

39 weeks isn't enough? That is 3/4 of a YEAR!! Maybe we should just extend it indefinately? Would that pacify you?

CkG

<--waits for democrats heads to explode as they realize a touch of logic

The logic is in the fact that each employer pays into the fund for the benefit of his employees.. it is an Er expense just like Er share of FICA and Medicare and Workers Comp. The unemployed individual must look for work in his trade or profession to be eligible to receive benefits. One need not seek employment at McDonald's unless one was terminated (without cause) from McDonald's. During high employment cycles in a particular craft it may take six months to find a new job in the trade or profession one is trained to perform. During very hign cycles it can take a year or more. One is not expected to move to another local to secure employment in 'their field'. The touch of logic is in the rules pertaining and the history of the act as it has been applied. When the economy suffers folks off the roles and they still have not found 'replacement' employment, the analysis should consider this fully.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

39 weeks isn't enough? That is 3/4 of a YEAR!! Maybe we should just extend it indefinately? Would that pacify you?

CkG

<--waits for democrats heads to explode as they realize a touch of logic

The logic is in the fact that each employer pays into the fund for the benefit of his employees.. it is an Er expense just like Er share of FICA and Medicare and Workers Comp. The unemployed individual must look for work in his trade or profession to be eligible to receive benefits. One need not seek employment at McDonald's unless one was terminated (without cause) from McDonald's. During high employment cycles in a particular craft it may take six months to find a new job in the trade or profession one is trained to perform. During very hign cycles it can take a year or more. One is not expected to move to another local to secure employment in 'their field'. The touch of logic is in the rules pertaining and the history of the act as it has been applied. When the economy suffers folks off the roles and they still have not found 'replacement' employment, the analysis should consider this fully.

You make things all rather complicated. I just want somebody to hate and people without jobs will do. Sure;y you know down deep, there has to be something wrong with them. Job loss isn't something that really happens to the elite.

 

[LunarRay]

The elite are above the noise way down low. They ride in "personal" jets and figure out how to best increase wealth.. not the wealth of the employees who had brought that wealth to them but the wealth of the folks who keep them in jets and golf memberships.. cuz they have the fine art of personnel management down to a tee.. so to speak..
The unemployed don't hate they just don't know the right people is all..

 

[ReiAyanami]

our government ran out of money a long time ago, that is why they came out with a new $20 bill, they just keep printing the stuff and ppl keep using it. -right wing sacajawea conspiracy $1 coins to use in $1 tax-free indian casino slot machines. even dell shipped its jobs to india

 

[EXman]

So soon we forget. George W already signed a law extending benefits once! I know it happened 1st quarter of 2002 My source? I know I recieved Benefits March 2002 after a few months of getting nothing!

ha cannot keep extending and extending this forever. It is not his Fault you cannot get a Jobby Job. I'm underemployed now and it is also my own fault a helluva lot more than his.

 

[heartsurgeon]

come on, this is all rank politics..
the dems will try to introduce bills that they have no intention or expectation of passing, just so they can say
the republicans are "against" it.

it would be like introducing a bill that guarantees free food, free housing for everyone, and when it is not passed,
claiming the republicans don't care about hunger and homelessness..

wake up.

 

[Ferocious]

I still say help Americans first with unemployment aid and medical coverage for Americans who are trying......before sending billions in aid to foreign countries.

Republicans used to favor Americans at one time....perhaps they still do.

But Neocons are another story apparantly.

Perhaps Scrooge is a Neocon.

 

[EXman]

I still say help Americans first with unemployment aid and medical coverage for Americans who are trying......before sending billions in aid to foreign countries.

I agree. I am conservative. I'm a republican.

has nothing to do with With Neocon's that is a red herring. Neocon is the new buzzword silly it is just a label

Once again GW has already extended benefits once ... you do recognize this right?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

...reminds me of Murray's 'Law of Uninteded Rewards," in which the undesired behavior is made more desirable by giving social transfers that reward that behavior.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...reminds me of Murray's 'Law of Uninteded Rewards," in which the undesired behavior is made more desirable by giving social transfers that reward that behavior.

Galt is right. Everybody should be guaranteed a job. No unemployment allowed unless optional and uncompensated. No involuntary unemployment either.

 

[LunarRay]

Maynard G. Krebbs would not cotton to all this notion of actually wanting to work. Seems so Capitalistic..

 

[Moonbeam]

Nobody worked for millions of years till man chained himself with illusions.

 

[LunarRay]

I thought it was evil parents looking for something for the kids to do so they invented chores. Then allowance caught on and then they linked the two and then the parents had to go next door to earn the allowance to pay the kids for the chores and so it started..

 

[ReiAyanami]

Everybody should be guaranteed a job. No unemployment allowed unless optional and uncompensated. No involuntary unemployment either.

they tried that back in the 1700's, it was called slavery!!
but them be fed an' hous'ed yessum.

Al Sharpton <best SNL host of last week EVAR>

 

[Moonbeam]

Nonsense, there's no dignity in slavery. Everybody by right should be entitled to a job. Everybody for millions of years was a a vital part of a whole. We are insane, so we make wholes that don't need people. We do so because we have no soul. We died as children. What you call human is machine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

It is done by surveys, not checks written. Might want to checkout the methodology at www.bls.gov.

 

[DealMonkey]

If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're right charrison, my error. The net effect is much the same, however, as skilled workers are forced to take whatever they can get, quit holding out for something that matches their training and abilities.

Much is made of the macro numbers at election time, but the devil is in the details...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

Same old strawman argument. The same could always be said for any thing that got funding by those that think the money could/should be spent elsewhere.

I'll ask again - How long should we extend benefits? another 12 months? another 18months?
At what unemployment level do we end the extensions? 6%? 5%? 4%?
Or do we just extend it permenantly?

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

It is done by surveys, not checks written. Might want to checkout the methodology at www.bls.gov.

Oh please, you bring these charts up of numbers like crazy and then when convenient you turn around and say it's an arbitrary survey.
Everyone sees right throught the crap now.

Good job everyone exposing these Modern Day Voodo Witch Doctors posing as Economicists.