60 minutes
-
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.
-
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.
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.
Had you made your point right off the bat rather than waste my time with playing the mule....
Actually curious, you claim there was a CBO top ten list of ways to stimulate the economy and that an exrtension of the tax cuts wasn't the forst on the list.
Was extending the unemployment benefits on that list? If so where?
WSS
-
Yes, it was on the list.
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point. It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember? You just didn't get it, and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
-
Yes, it was on the list.
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point. It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember? You just didn't get it, and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
Yes, it was on the list.
Where?
And I did make my point. It was about the reality of the unemployment situation, and the reality of the inability of the unemployed to find jobs, and why they can't find them. That was my point.
No, Heck, you didn't.
You gave us some examples of middle agers making huge sums of money for jobs that aren't needed.
Most people aren't losing 200K jobs.
They're losing 35 to 50 k jobs.
It's why 60 Minutes was brought up in the first place, remember?
No. It has little to do with the reality of the unemployment numbers.
You just didn't get it,
Wrong. It was a bad example. You just aren't bright enough to see it. and then took us down a rabbit hole, which even you admitted wasn't really related to what we were talking about.
Actually we were tqalking about that.
You just spent mnost of the time whining.
Here's one for you to dodge.
If another extension would be a boost why won't the administration do it?
It's a budgetary matter not needing more than 51%?
Spite?
WSS
WSS[/b]
-
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
Have a nice weekend.
-
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
Have a nice weekend.
It's #1, Steve.
"In brief, CBO found the following: A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have the largest effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost."
You can find this stuff out too, you know. You just have to pay attention. Maybe you could even do a little research and tell us why, in terms of stimulus, UI benefit extension is preferable to high end tax cuts. Seriously. Could you do that?
Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?
And I don't doubt spending huge sums of money we don't have will keep the economy rolling.
But unless things come roaring back on a big way and soon we're in deep shit.
It's much like those shoddy furniture companies that sell you a room full of shit with no payments for a year or two.
Imagine how much it will suck paying for the run down stuff by the time the bill comes.
I really think the debt and deficit are a potential disaster.
And the reason they (probably) won't do it is because we're about to enter into a lame duck session and the support for another extension is not there politically, mostly because of people like you.
I think you're wrong.
I think everybody knows someone on UI.
While most know it could be a disaster in the long run it's easy to take the freebie.
I would if my job paid UI.
I think you guys could have pushed that through in the last week.
If you were serious, which I don't think you are.
Economic theory doesn't matter for you. What makes good policy doesn't matter to you. You can "challenge" me to answer some question, and I can then produce what you're looking for, and even spoon feed the answer back to you. But it doesn't matter. Only your feelings do. And your feeling is that lazy people take advantage of it and collect the check instead of taking a low-wage job, which means ...well, you never explained. You have no point. Except that you don't like lazy people. Which isn't a point. It's a feeling.
No Heck it's an observation.
And "not liking" isn't part of it, that's just your way of attacking the messenger.
Average wage earners can usually get by on 475 a week. (not a guy who made 200K with a 500K mortgage but he's not the base)
And serious job hunting doesn't start til that runs out. I think the Dems decided that the benefit may keep the rate higher than would look good in 2012. If they weren't betting on that they'd have done it.
Hell you're losing seats anyway right?
If in fact your wayu is the best way things will look rosy in two years and Obama's a shoo in and likely brings back the house.
Voila.
So we'll get something less effective, like the Republican plan/religion of tax cuts for wealthy people. Because often times Republican Party policy, in large part, is based on - and you picked the perfect word - spite. Spite of "lazy" people. Spite of "elites." Spite of non-Christians, Mexicans, gays, Muslims, etc., etc. And they're about to take control of the House, and possibly the Senate.
And scene.
And we're back to the Dem platform of class warfare faux populism and next up, race baiting.
Thanks
Have a nice weekend.
You too.
WSS
-
Heck, you're like a painter who insists that people look like cubes, so you
are a cubist.
Your lib politicians have failed miserably. You have failed to support solutions.
Your college "Imagine" dreamings don't work, never have, never will.
Dream on, but the rest of us are looking to get rid of the bums, and want to elect REAL
American folks. And trying to attach racial bigot tags to anybody who disagrees with you doesn't work.
You support a racially divisive, smart-ass, arrogant, immature street thug for pres.
Most of Americans are admitting they were fooled. You won't admit it... or you are happy with that...
Doesn't mean anything about reality, but you are happy painting people as cubes.
I still think the only reason you're here, is to figure out how to do you job.
(are you getting a tiny little bit of courage to start your own thread yet, or not?)
-
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38702
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CBO-chief-Ta...2168294630.html
" "The problem is that if those tax cuts are not accompanied by other changes in the government budget, and are simply funded through borrowing, that borrowing crowds out other private investment in productive capital ... the computers, the machinery, the buildings, that are the source of long-term economic growth," Elmendorf said.
"
-
Steve, that quote is taken from the CBO website, written by CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, to accompany his testimony to Congress. Those are the words of the CBO Director, not some mysterious liberal news site I'm supposedly ashamed of.
You could have checked that too. Then you wouldn't look so ridiculous accusing me of ...whatever that was.
The rest of your post is equally clueless, and makes me ashamed I looked at this on a Saturday.
-
You could have checked that too. Then you wouldn't look so ridiculous accusing me of ...whatever that was.
Go ahead Heck.
Tell me what I accused you of.
BTW yes if that's your response you wasted part of a Saturday.
Now back to putting razor blades in apples?
WSS
-
"Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?"
It's from the mouth of director of the CBO. From last month. He testified before Congress about it.
You seem to think I'm pulling this out of left field. All you had to do is Google the quote and you could have found out where it was from - the CBO website.
And no, the American economy isn't like a shoddy furniture store running a sale. That would be another one of your oversimplifications.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
-
"Seriously why?
Is is such a chore for you to post your story?
Is it because it's from a source that somebody will chastise you for?
Why wouldn't I want to see it?"
It's from the mouth of director of the CBO. From last month. He testified before Congress about it.
You seem to think I'm pulling this out of left field. All you had to do is Google the quote and you could have found out where it was from - the CBO website.
And no, the American economy isn't like a shoddy furniture store running a sale. That would be another one of your oversimplifications.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
So again, explain why the CBO says that UI extension is the most effective stimulus measure the government can take, and why it's better than cutting taxes for the wealthy. It's not that long answer. It could be summed up in a sentence.
Because it is.
But good in the short term.
Not you not I can see the future.
And renewing the tax cuts are good too.
But the bill is going to come due.
Right?
While you whine about black and whiite Heck, try to get your mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good.
If we turn things around great.
Then MAYBE we can start to pay off the debt.
If we don't it will be worse than if we let the whole thing fall apart now.
That shuldn't be so hard to understand.
Also:
Since evil Republicans will have a say in it after Tuesday won't things be lots worse in the shrt and long run?
WSS
And then you can tell me why it's a bad idea because it's like a used car dealership, something, something, government freebies.
And you'll start slobbering that you don't understand or some other nonsense.
-
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
What a day that would be.
-
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
What a day that would be.
When you don't understand something, which you clearly don't, how would you like me to convey that you don't understand something?
I think the best way is to say, "You don't understand." Maybe you have some other ideas.
Actually the best way is to tell me what there is to understand about the benefits of increasing long term debt.
But you can't so you don't/
When you're clueless a simple harrumph is all you can come up with.
Look, this has been a particularly embarrassing thread for you. So try to figure out why UI is a better stimulative measure than high end tax cuts. Find out what the reasoning is behind that. Then maybe you'll understand why you don't understand.
As for your other nonsense, no one is suggesting there is only one thing to do, so this is another retreat by you into logical fallacy land. (Welcome home.) What we're talking about is that the CBO laid 11 different options for policy makers on the table to find out what is the best use of government money. And they found that UI extension is the best option. The worst of the 11 options was extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
And I say the extensions will be popular in the short term and potentially disatrous in the long. Simple as that.
You were against an UI extension then and you're against it now. Something about how lazy people take the freebie instead of taking all those jobs that aren't there. And you were for the Bush high end tax cut extension. So basically you're against the #1 option and you're for the one that came in last. Also, you're a truth-teller who wants to do what's best and I'm a partisan hack. Okay...
Actua;;y I have to agree with ya on that. See ther is some common ground.
But let's recap some more: then you dared me to find out if UI extension was on that list. So I told you it was. Then you wanted to know where it was on the list. I told you it was #1. Then you questioned how I got that information, suggesting it was from a left-wing source I'd be embarrassed to quote. I told you it was from the CBO director's own statement, and from the CBO website.
Oops.
Idiot.
I asked you to post it.
So f*cking what?
(and uh you didn't)
...And now you say you're for an extension of unemployment benefits, and have the balls to question whether or I can "get [my] mind around the idea that a combination of things might be good." Comical.
If I were king I wouildn't. If I were a politician looking to get my party back on the A list I would.
Honestly, Steve. You lost this one. You're embarrassing yourself to anyone who can read and isn't Cal. Stop digging.
Anyone who can read can see you've said nothing.
Nothing Heck.
Just bitched.
Or explain to me why UI extension is more stimulative that high end Bush tax cut extension. And "because it is" isn't the answer.
Gets dough into peoples hands ASAP. They buy shit. They aren't investors.
Hell I hope they come out tonight and buy beer with it.
But only and idiot overlooks the fact that it will have to come from somewhere down the road.
But that's you, right?
Or you could just say, "I don't understand this stuff as well as I thought. Maybe I should revisit my opinions about what steps should be taken to get the economy moving again instead of just parroting what I'm told, all while pretending I'm above all of that."
Maybe the Robin Hood plan of yours will work.
For the first time in world history.
What a day that would be.
Maybe that'll happen if you ever address any issue beyond yelping.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of mys ass.
Now I gotta go to work.
WSS
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