60 minutes
-
You really aren't very good at this.
-
You really aren't very good at this.
You really aren't very good at this.
Nothing.
As always.
As usual.
But keep bragging by all means.
WSS
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
I predict it would be greatly in favor of
"Steve royally kicked your ass again"..
You start the poll. Well, you may not know how to
start your own thread, you "all-knowing jackwagon".
If you don't, ask John for official instructions.
If you're just too frightened, like a scared little bunny rabbit, I for one, will send you
a virtual tissue. @@
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
I predict it would be greatly in favor of
"Steve royally kicked your ass again"..
You start the poll. Well, you may not know how to
start your own thread, you "all-knowing jackwagon".
If you don't, ask John for official instructions.
If you're just too frightened, like a scared little bunny rabbit, I for one, will send you
a virtual tissue. @@
Heck, if we take a board vote,
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
-
It's pretty disappointing.
The one lib who has kept showing up once in a while,
is so dishonest about his belonging to the Dems, that he
won't learn anything, can't stay on subject, and his responses
are pitifully linear. Squiggly linear, avoiding the actual issues and subjects of threads.
I'm sure that when this election results are in, he'll disappear, rather than admit those results.
-
Heck, if we take a board vote,
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
Well it'd probably be along idealogical lines.
The thing is that I'd expect anybody with a speck of independent thinking to recognize Hecks adolescent debate tactics.
Honestly who in his right mind could so completely dismiss the potential disaster if the deficit keeps explodng?
I mean really, this guy at least pretends to think that the only reason anyone is concerned as the dfeficit and debt move toward eating up the entire GDP is spite.
What an idiotic response, though in line with his party's "enemise list" campaign.
And now he's painted himself into a corner.
The longer one refuses to address points the harder it is to admit reality.
Usually that ends in a huffy "well of course that's obvious!!" then change the subject to something else.
He just isn't very good at this.
But it might impress other political salespeople.
WSS
Steve, you've got to be kidding me. I can barely stomach typing as much as I do, and then as soon as I don't - because it's the weekend and I'd much rather spend the time with my son than explaining things to you - I'm somehow dodging this.
And now as the capper - and it's a beauty - you've now retreated once again, and are now claiming that what we're discussing is whether I'm concerned with the deficit enough, with you insisting I'm "completely dismissing it." Which wasn't what we were talking about, and is yet another example of you changing the subject, this time from a talk about the nature of the unemployment situation, to UI extension vs. high end tax cuts, to overall and vague concerns about the deficit.
All while you argue for a position that makes the deficit far, far worse than the program I'm talking about.
It's positively hysterical.
-
Heck, you've been around long enough to
grown the nads to man up and start your own thread.
Think of it, you have to risk being disagreed with, or taunted
by another liberal who might say "ha ha this is a stupid thread"...
OTH, you don't have the nads. Never mind, twiggy.
-
I still don't see how you equate starting a thread with being a man. Or why you bothering typing that to me four times a week.
You're a very silly person.
-
Steve, maybe we could try to get this back to the original point for a second, and then you can go back to accusing me of dismissing something we weren't even talking about.
There are currently 14.8 million unemployed Americans. You've stated here, and often times before, that your reason for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits is because they're lazy and too many of them would prefer the handout over work.
Okay, last month we lost another 95,000 jobs.
Which of these -95,000 jobs do you think the 14.8 million unemployed Americans should get off their ass and go find?
So if you accept the reality that the vast majority of these people aren't "lazy" - after all, if they were so lazy, why were they working before they were laid off? - but are stuck in a prolonged period of high unemployment, much like the people featured in the 60 Minutes piece, and then you add in the knowledge that temporarily extending UI benefits is the most stimulative measure the government can take to boost demand in the economy, please explain to me why you're for extending the Bush tax cuts on high earners and not extending UI benefits to workers?
I'll even give you how the CBO broke it down, too:
“Extending the $40 billion in high-income tax cuts would generate about $10 billion in GDP.
...Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire and providing $40 billion in continued unemployment benefits instead would generate about $52 billion in GDP.”
Your turn.
-
Steve, maybe we could try to get this back to the original point for a second, and then you can go back to accusing me of dismissing something we weren't even talking about.
There are currently 14.8 million unemployed Americans. You've stated here, and often times before, that your reason for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits is because they're lazy and too many of them would prefer the handout over work.
Okay, last month we lost another 95,000 jobs.
Which of these -95,000 jobs do you think the 14.8 million unemployed Americans should get off their ass and go find?
So if you accept the reality that the vast majority of these people aren't "lazy" - after all, if they were so lazy, why were they working before they were laid off? - but are stuck in a prolonged period of high unemployment, much like the people featured in the 60 Minutes piece, and then you add in the knowledge that temporarily extending UI benefits is the most stimulative measure the government can take to boost demand in the economy, please explain to me why you're for extending the Bush tax cuts on high earners and not extending UI benefits to workers?
I'll even give you how the CBO broke it down, too:
“Extending the $40 billion in high-income tax cuts would generate about $10 billion in GDP.
...Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire and providing $40 billion in continued unemployment benefits instead would generate about $52 billion in GDP.”
Your turn.
Steve, maybe we could try to get this back to the original point for a second, and then you can go back to accusing me of dismissing something we weren't even talking about.
There are currently 14.8 million unemployed Americans. You've stated here, and often times before, that your reason for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits is because they're lazy and too many of them would prefer the handout over work.
Look Heck I'm happy to start over without hypeobole.
First we'll need to drop the mischaracterization.
It isn't necessarily laziness that keeps people from taking a crappy job until the very last minute.
I think most people take pride in their jobs.
I do, and I assume most here do.
I've been a professional entertainer all my life.
I couldn't always support myself though those times were few and brief.
Once I took a job pumping gas and I remember how embarrassing it was when one of my high school teachers pulled up to the pump.
I have a friend who's the ex mayor of a city and ex business owner whop now works at WalMart.
Imagine that gig Heck.
Are there some who'd rather take welfare than work? Sure. But mostly it's a pride thing.
So if we can just frop the Steve hates people? bit it will save time. OK?
But I think even you'll agree that there is an element of the path of least resistance, right?
Not to mention the millions who don't even qualify for UI.
If we agreed to extend UI how about those guys?
Wouldn't it be as beneficial to offer them benefits as well?
Now lets look at the big picture.
WSS
-
Steve, maybe we could try to get this back to the original point for a second, and then you can go back to accusing me of dismissing something we weren't even talking about.
There are currently 14.8 million unemployed Americans. You've stated here, and often times before, that your reason for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits is because they're lazy and too many of them would prefer the handout over work.
Okay, last month we lost another 95,000 jobs.
Which of these -95,000 jobs do you think the 14.8 million unemployed Americans should get off their ass and go find?
So if you accept the reality that the vast majority of these people aren't "lazy" - after all, if they were so lazy, why were they working before they were laid off? - but are stuck in a prolonged period of high unemployment, much like the people featured in the 60 Minutes piece, and then you add in the knowledge that temporarily extending UI benefits is the most stimulative measure the government can take to boost demand in the economy, please explain to me why you're for extending the Bush tax cuts on high earners and not extending UI benefits to workers?
I'll even give you how the CBO broke it down, too:
“Extending the $40 billion in high-income tax cuts would generate about $10 billion in GDP.
...Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire and providing $40 billion in continued unemployment benefits instead would generate about $52 billion in GDP.”
Your turn.
Steve, maybe we could try to get this back to the original point for a second, and then you can go back to accusing me of dismissing something we weren't even talking about.
There are currently 14.8 million unemployed Americans. That are still being counted You've stated here, and often times before, that your reason for not wanting to extend unemployment benefits is because they're lazy and too many of them would prefer the handout over work.
Okay, last month we lost another 95,000 jobs. Because of Obama and the democrats
Which of these -95,000 jobs do you think the 14.8 million unemployed Americans should get off their ass and go find? Temporary government jobs stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000.00 per job temporarily created.
So if you accept the reality that the vast majority of these people aren't "lazy" - after all, if they were so lazy, why were they working before they were laid off? - but are stuck in a prolonged period of high unemployment, much like the people featured in the 60 Minutes piece, and then you add in the knowledge that temporarily extending UI benefits is the most stimulative measure the government can take to boost demand in the economy, please explain to me why you're for extending the Bush tax cuts on high earners and not extending UI benefits to workers?
I'll even give you how the CBO broke it down, too: Just like the CBO Lied about Obama's CommiCare?
“Extending the $40 billion in high-income tax cuts would generate about $10 billion in GDP.
...Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire and providing $40 billion in continued unemployment benefits instead would generate about $52 billion in GDP.”
Your turn.
How is taking away from individuals and small businesses create 40 Billion in GDP? Its like saying Give me $100 bucks and you will be $400 dollars richer
Heck you dont make any since at all, you do not stimulate the economy by taxing the hell out of everyone; it only places more of a burden on everyone to be able to perform. You will never have recovery and move out of this Obama Depression our nation faces today.
Government is to BIG allready.
-
I thought I was looking at the big picture, Steve. I was using figures drawn from the economy at large, of total unemployment, etc. You were the one looking at individuals and guessing their behavior, based on nothing concrete.
And I'm not saying you don't care about people. I'm saying you're extrapolating too much from your personal feelings and personal experience and not looking at the larger picture, and then accusing me of not looking at the larger picture.
Well, the larger picture is that there are 14.8 million Americans unemployed, plus the ones who have given up looking, plus the 10 million who are working part time and want to be working full time. And they're all fighting over jobs the 64,000 jobs that were created in the private sector last month. The government also shed 159,000 jobs, making it a net loss for the job market as a whole.
There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and there won't be for some time. Because nobody has any money to spend.
But I certainly understand the desire of hard-working people to keep the money they earn, and the frustration with people who don't work hard and are willing to take the assistance instead of trying to find work. When times are tough and people are scraping by as is, it's a much tougher sell.
However, that doesn't mean we should let our personal feelings about the small minority of Americans who are like this affect the economic well-being of the millions and millions who aren't.
-
I thought I was looking at the big picture, Steve. I was using figures drawn from the economy at large, of total unemployment, etc. You were the one looking at individuals and guessing their behavior, based on nothing concrete.
And I'm not saying you don't care about people. I'm saying you're extrapolating too much from your personal feelings and personal experience and not looking at the larger picture, and then accusing me of not looking at the larger picture.
Well, the larger picture is that there are 14.8 million Americans unemployed, plus the ones who have given up looking, plus the 10 million who are working part time and want to be working full time. And they're all fighting over jobs the 64,000 jobs that were created in the private sector last month. The government also shed 159,000 jobs, making it a net loss for the job market as a whole.
There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and there won't be for some time. Because nobody has any money to spend.
But I certainly understand the desire of hard-working people to keep the money they earn, and the frustration with people who don't work hard and are willing to take the assistance instead of trying to find work. When times are tough and people are scraping by as is, it's a much tougher sell.
However, that doesn't mean we should let our personal feelings about the small minority of Americans who are like this affect the economic well-being of the millions and millions who aren't.
I thought I was looking at the big picture, Steve. I was using figures drawn from the economy at large, of total unemployment, etc. You were the one looking at individuals and guessing their behavior, based on nothing concrete.
To me the big picture has little to do with whether you agree with me on human nature or not.
We can set that aside but I can't imagine you wouldn't agree that the US is going to need huigher taxes from somewhere along with cuts in entitlements.
That's just to stay even.
It seems top me that politicians overlook the shift in world economy over the last fifty or sixty years let alone well before.
For whatever reasons we choose the US isn't the worlds manufacturing superpower.
Soon enough every scumbag with a dozen acres of jungle or desert and a uniform will have a nuclear bomb.
Our position of power is on the decline wouldn't you agree?
We just never really had any competition.
We've been passing the ticking bomb of the economy from administration to administration for decades. Not just Bus, not just Obama hell not just Carter or Reagan.
We're conditioned to think that 4.5 is just about what you should expect for an unemployment rate.
Germany and some other post industrian Europeans have been around twice that traditionally, but then they have more benefits and easier work week.
If we're to emulate that system it's probably time to accept a higher chronic unemployment rate.
And as the society ages I think we will slowly become more that way.
But I don't see the US as the words manufacturing center anymore.
And remember that intellectual [properyt means jack shit to China and the rest of the world. They can pretty much hujack any new product the US Germany or Japan thinks up
There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, and there won't be for some time.
True but I think businesses realized that they didn't need as many warm bodies to do what they need to do.
And now there's competition.
Disagree?
Because nobody has any money to spend.
So to me the big picture is can we afford tax cuts and more entitlements and another 99 months?
Probably not.
And I really think spending in the short term could be disastrous down the road unless there's a new and bigger bubble.
Even then who has the will to readjust?
WSS
-
I think you've got the spending part entirely backwards. We should be spending lots of money now. It's the long term, defense, and entitlement spending that needs to be cut.
Don't have much time today. More later.
...And what are we talking about now? You've changed the subject again.
-
I think you've got the spending part entirely backwards. We should be spending lots of money now. It's the long term, defense, and entitlement spending that needs to be cut.
Don't have much time today. More later.
...And what are we talking about now? You've changed the subject again.
I think you've got the spending part entirely backwards. We should be spending lots of money now. It's the long term, defense, and entitlement spending that needs to be cut.
Don't have much time today. More later.
...And what are we talking about now? You've changed the subject again.
Actually I thought we were talking about the high unemployment rate.
Isn't speculating on the reasons and ways to address that fact relevant?
PS Thought of you at rehearsal last night as I checked the results in the Droid.
The Huff had a pretty good scoreboard.
(That wasn't an insult; I thought you'd think it was humorous I had the HuffPo up and running)
WSS
-
I can't tell what you're proposing we do about any of it. Seems like an argument for shrugging and saying, "Oh, well."
If the economy starts sliding back down into real negative territory, which is possible, all of those problems you mentioned suddenly get a lot worse. The budget becomes even more unbalanced. The debt rises even higher. Things get even harder to turn around. There are things we can do to help lower the chance that this happens. Do they have costs? Sure, they do. Everything does. (Unless you're a Republican, and then tax cuts are somehow free.)
Short-term spending, infrastructure projects, long-term entitlement reform, reductions in defense spending, and tax reform.
-
Here you go. He gets it:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Wednesday that Congress should reauthorize extended unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.
"I think it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance because there's still a lot of folks out there hurting," Obama said during a press conference following a Democratic wipeout in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
Federally-funded extended benefits, which in some states give the unemployed 73 weeks of aid on top of the 26 weeks traditionally provided by state governments, will expire at the end of November if Congress takes no action. That means the House and Senate will have less than two weeks from when they reconvene on Nov. 15 to reach an agreement that took nearly two months this summer.
Obama said extending the benefits would be among the things "that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we're sitting down and figuring out, okay, over the next several years, what kind of a budget cut can we make that are intelligent, smart, and won't be undermining our recovery and won't be encouraging job growth."
Congressional Republicans stood in near-unanimous opposition to reauthorizing the jobless aid this summer, citing the deficit impact of the benefits.
-
If we agreed to extend UI how about those guys?
Wouldn't it be as beneficial to offer them benefits as well?
Now lets look at the big picture.
Steve
******************************
Now that I have hopefully convinced you, Heck, that the self employed DO NOT GET UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,
CONSULTANTS (self-employed contract workers) DON'T EITHER, despite your smarting off that I was wrong....
at least in Ohio, I KNOW you're wrong...
nationally, that is a LOt of folks who don't get any help at all. Extended the unemployment payments
can't be continued past the amount of money taken in. You keep extending for what, years?
and it will also go so bankrupt, it can't be continued.
Enough with the corrupt buying of votes from the needy, dependent, and the college students who never paid taxes...
after the overwhelming success of Republicans being elected as a slapdown to Obamao's policies...
you're still here touting his policies? ROF,L !
Now, really. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
-
Here you go. He gets it:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Wednesday that Congress should reauthorize extended unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.
"I think it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance because there's still a lot of folks out there hurting," Obama said during a press conference following a Democratic wipeout in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
Federally-funded extended benefits, which in some states give the unemployed 73 weeks of aid on top of the 26 weeks traditionally provided by state governments, will expire at the end of November if Congress takes no action. That means the House and Senate will have less than two weeks from when they reconvene on Nov. 15 to reach an agreement that took nearly two months this summer.
Obama said extending the benefits would be among the things "that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we're sitting down and figuring out, okay, over the next several years, what kind of a budget cut can we make that are intelligent, smart, and won't be undermining our recovery and won't be encouraging job growth."
Congressional Republicans stood in near-unanimous opposition to reauthorizing the jobless aid this summer, citing the deficit impact of the benefits.
Here you go. He gets it:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama said Wednesday that Congress should reauthorize extended unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.
"I think it makes sense for us to extend unemployment insurance because there's still a lot of folks out there hurting," Obama said during a press conference following a Democratic wipeout in the midterm elections on Tuesday.
Federally-funded extended benefits, which in some states give the unemployed 73 weeks of aid on top of the 26 weeks traditionally provided by state governments, will expire at the end of November if Congress takes no action. That means the House and Senate will have less than two weeks from when they reconvene on Nov. 15 to reach an agreement that took nearly two months this summer.
Obama said extending the benefits would be among the things "that we can do right now that will help sustain the recovery and advance it, even as we're sitting down and figuring out, okay, over the next several years, what kind of a budget cut can we make that are intelligent, smart, and won't be undermining our recovery and won't be encouraging job growth."
You think he means "discouraging "or am I reading it wrong?
WSS
Congressional Republicans stood in near-unanimous opposition to reauthorizing the jobless aid this summer, citing the deficit impact of the benefits.
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