60 minutes
-
My point is the same as it was before, and what I said it was above.
For the vast majority of Americans, unemployment isn't caused by laziness or an unwillingness to find work. It's caused by a lack of available employment. And that's particularly true today. In fact, it's so right in front of your face it should be obvious. No matter where you go, you see hundreds of people applying for a single job, even if the salary is far below what they're used to earning. You see it all over the country. Because there are far more people who want to work than there are jobs.
Focusing on the idea that some people are lazy and just won't work is a right-wing idea that completely misses the point, not to mention the math, and is just resentful and dumb. And from that you then get the dumb policy idea that's based on it - we need to cut people's unemployment benefits because they're just too lazy to work, and if we give them a kick in the ass they'll be employed as soon as they get hungry. You know, by that business that not only isn't hiring, but just laid off half its work force.
Not understanding what is actually going on leads to bad policy. And you continually refuse to understand what is actually going on because it's far more important to you to make the same old "point" about how some people might take a check over a low wage job.
It's called "missing the forest for the trees."
My point is the same as it was before, and what I said it was above.
For the vast majority of Americans, unemployment isn't caused by laziness or an unwillingness to find work. It's caused by a lack of available employment. And that's particularly true today. In fact, it's so right in front of your face it should be obvious. No matter where you go, you see hundreds of people applying for a single job, even if the salary is far below what they're used to earning. You see it all over the country. Because there are far more people who want to work than there are jobs.
Focusing on the idea that some people are lazy and just won't work is a right-wing idea that completely misses the point, not to mention the math, and is just resentful and dumb. And from that you then get the dumb policy idea that's based on it - we need to cut people's unemployment benefits because they're just too lazy to work, and if we give them a kick in the ass they'll be employed as soon as they get hungry. You know, by that business that not only isn't hiring, but just laid off half its work force.
Not understanding what is actually going on leads to bad policy. And you continually refuse to understand what is actually going on because it's far more important to you to make the same old "point" about how some people might take a check over a low wage job.
It's called "missing the forest for the trees."
Just one reason you aren't as bright as you keep telling us you are is the fact that you aren't able to see any side but your (or the administration or the lefts) own.
Nowyou may actually think we buy it when you switch thye subject but even that's not too realistic.
And you can't and won't answer a simple question.
When you're cornered "it's more complicated than that."
Lets try again just for laughs.
With 99 weeks of unemployment benefits who in their right mind would take a demeaning job for less than that benefit?
You?
Me?
VT?
Cal?
That doesn't even make you lazy.
Just smart enough not to cut your own throat in hope the good will will be rewarded.
Come on Heck who?
Man up for one second!!
So why not just keep the benefits going for another 99?
Really Heck just until the 55 year old guy can finnd another 200K job?
Do you have anything to offer but blather about how unfeeling everybody but you is?
Ya want sainthood call the Pope.
(btw bright boy re read your remark about "the right" not complaining that Obama doesn't give enough to cash strapped states and try to understand it a second time.)
WSS
-
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
Why are we having this discussion?
You live on the margins of real issues.
-
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
Why are we having this discussion?
You live on the margins of real issues.
Oh my lord.
What comes after the part where some people prefer the check to the low-wage job? What's the genius point that you're leading to?
That you can't respond to with any honesty at all?
I'd say most or almost everybody waits until the last minute to take a shitty job.
So just tell me you think that's a tiny fraction.
Tell me that we need another 99 weeks.
Take a stand.
Why are we having this discussion?
I don't know.
Tell me. You posted the video.
You're angry that I don't commit suicide over the fact that some middle aged people are on the bad side of the tech bubble?
That one of the most expensive areas in the world is having trouble?
Yes Heck it's too bad.
It's the same as it has been for decades.
It was too bad when the rubber shops went down south.
What's your point?
That there's not a huge need for a marketing degree?
You want me to blame somebody? Dop you want to blame somebody? You have a solution or what?
You live on the margins of real issues.
You have no idea what a real issue is beyond your political affiliation.
WSS
-
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
-
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
Steve, there aren't nearly enough of these "shitty" jobs either. Even if the point you were making is relevant, which it isn't. You're not even close to being in this discussion.
Shoot me now.
You still won't answer?
What a shocker.
C'mon Heck go for it.
99 more weeks?
BTW discussion?
What discussion?
Sorry did you have a solution?
Or an explaination?
Or anything but grumbling?
WSS
-
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
-
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
How long will you press me on a question that answers itself, but doesn't matter to the discussion we're having?
Yes, Steve, some people will opt to take the check instead of working at Target, and someone else, probably on unemployment themselves, will take the job instead. What's your point? I can't possibly imagine why you think that was worth typing, never mind 10 times.
Then could you imagine why you've refused to put an end to it with an answer even yet?
(Now for a harrumph and nothing else.)
WSS
-
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
-
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
You were pointing out that people prefer the idea of more money and leisure time to less money and leisure time, and then challenging me to admit it that it's true.
Yes, I stand in awe of you.
What was your point?
I think sour milk smells worse than fresh. Why won't you admit that it's true?
Yes I would.
See how easy that was?
Now why do you suppose you can't do it?
WSS
-
Because it's self-evident and a waste of time and irrelevant.
What was your point?
-
Heck is inept and has no nads.
He can't justify his anti-everything quips.
He can't admit the truth.
He can't bring himself to create his own thread. (they have depends for that affliction, Heck)
He can't and won't criticize Obamao for anything. (see above in quotes)
He can't win with anybody on the board in any argument.
he can't ever stay on topic.
Heck is now the board's would-be George Soros, the "Spooky Dude".
-
Because it's self-evident and a waste of time and irrelevant.
What was your point?
Because it's self-evident and a waste of time and irrelevant.
What was your point?
The point is that beyond your constant bragging about how smart you are, you refuse to answer the simplest question or offer the slightest insight on any subject you bray about.
That makes it such a joke when you use the word discussion.
WSS
-
And to your little tear jerker clip.
Yes it's too bad.
That has happened to workers for centuries.
There will always be a younger group with more current skills and more energy who will work for a lot less money no matter what the industry.
It's a pain in the ass for those in their fifties.
Just wait Heck in 20 years Rahm will find a 22 year old to fetch his coffee.
And now that international communication is commonplace a lot of them live overseas.
So, discussion boy, tell me how you stop that.
Or (as I expect) just give me another pointless barrage of bragging and petty insults.
I mean I already asked you (since only a tiny few abuse the benefit) why shouldn't we add more weeks to the unemployment benefits?
Hell even that was too much of a challenge to you.
WSS
-
My God.
Do you even know what discussion we're having? You seem to think I'm claiming I can stop job losses after an economic meltdown.
"So, discussion boy, tell me how you stop that."
Jesus. I'm going to do my work now.
In the meantime, you can try to tell me what your point was again. Why were you pointing out that some people might opt to stay on unemployment instead of taking a job that's worth less than the check, and why does that matter to the larger discussion we've been having about unemployment insurance and what it's for?
-
Here we go again.
Heck goes off the wagon with claiming the discussion must be different
than the discussion he cowardly is avoiding.
It's an elite liberal/progressive thing.
Sad. I believe I saw on Drudge, where liberals are genetically
pre-disposed to change subjects all the time, ignore reality and facts all the time,
and pick their nose all the time instead of discussing things intelligently.
-
My God.
Do you even know what discussion we're having? You seem to think I'm claiming I can stop job losses after an economic meltdown.
"So, discussion boy, tell me how you stop that."
Jesus. I'm going to do my work now.
In the meantime, you can try to tell me what your point was again. Why were you pointing out that some people might opt to stay on unemployment instead of taking a job that's worth less than the check, and why does that matter to the larger discussion we've been having about unemployment insurance and what it's for?
My God.
Do you even know what discussion we're having?
No Heck.
Because we arent having a discussion.
You're railing.
Who knows against what.
You posted a typical 60 minutes and bitched that somebody fell short of what you consider to be Christian values.
You get outraged when asked what might be done in your opinion.
If there's something else maybe we missed it.
Maybe you have an alternate universe definition of discussion.
Help us out Heck.
Just where's the discussion goping?
Pick a side.
WSS
-
My God.
Do you even know what discussion we're having? You seem to think I'm claiming I can stop job losses after an economic meltdown.
"So, discussion boy, tell me how you stop that."
Jesus. I'm going to do my work now.
In the meantime, you can try to tell me what your point was again. Why were you pointing out that some people might opt to stay on unemployment instead of taking a job that's worth less than the check, and why does that matter to the larger discussion we've been having about unemployment insurance and what it's for?
Why were you pointing out that some people might opt to stay on unemployment instead of taking a job that's worth less than the check, and why does that matter to the larger discussion we've been having about unemployment insurance and what it's for?
Actually I say almost everybody.
You can make an estimate if you grow a ball.
And we aren't having a larger diuscussion about unemployment or what it's for.
Even if we were you shit your pants when I asked if we should extend benefits or not.
You don't know don't care or just being a dipshit about any answer at all?
Now go do your work.
Black, two sugars.
WSS
-
I love that you imagine that what you type makes me shit my pants. Why would you think that asking me about whether I think we should extend unemployment benefits again makes me shit my pants? Yes, I do. I think there should be another temporary extension until the job market picks up, not only to help people who are struggling, but to use it as additional stimulus, which the economy needs. ...Honestly, I don't get you. You think that was hard for me to do, rather than the easier explanation - that it never matters what I type because you don't want to talk about issues. You only want to talk about me.
So again, what larger point are you getting to?
-
I love that you imagine that what you type makes me shit my pants. Why would you think that asking me about whether I think we should extend unemployment benefits again makes me shit my pants? Yes, I do. I think there should be another temporary extension until the job market picks up, not only to help people who are struggling, but to use it as additional stimulus, which the economy needs. ...Honestly, I don't get you. You think that was hard for me to do, rather than the easier explanation - that it never matters what I type because you don't want to talk about issues. You only want to talk about me.
So again, what larger point are you getting to?
I love that you imagine that what you type makes me shit my pants. Why would you think that asking me about whether I think we should extend unemployment benefits again makes me shit my pants?
You think that was hard for me to do, rather than the easier explanation - that it never matters what I type because you don't want to talk about issues
No idea why Heck.
If it wasn't that hard why waste so many posts childishly refusing to answer?
I'm not getting to any larger point.
I was merely trying to get you to say something of substance.
So good.
You took a stand.
The stimulous was too small in your opinion.
And you seem to be of the Krugman mindset that the deficit isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be.
WSS
-
I'm of the opinion that there's a difference between temporary spending and long term spending, and that we should do what we need to do to stay out of another recession.
If you got over your animus, and stopped imagining that you've stumped or stunned me with the points you make, these conversations would take a lot less time.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login