60 minutes
-
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.
-
Yeah, he either misspoke or they quoted him wrong.
-
Better job numbers than I expected today, but still not nearly enough.
And Steve, your last long post about some of the causes of the current problem is fine in places, but nobody is really talking about using the government to prop up jobs that have disappeared because of productivity improvements, or outsourcing, etc. So that's a separate point.
Yes, those jobs aren't coming back.
-
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'll jump in here.
Yeah, right- spending lots of money THAT WE DON'T HAVE. (short of a massive tax increase) Excuse me Heck, you've been defending UI to the death in this thread- which incidentally see above- most definitely falls into the "entitlement" class.
So why do you ask are there no good jobs for the jobless here in America? Well, it seems that they all got shipped overseas. Now before you go blaming Big, Bad Corporate America, let's take an objective look at things. What ISN'T made in America anymore? Um, Steel, garments, and a few other industries heavily dominated by unions who coerced wages that had absolutely no relation to the value of the labor being performed. Exhibit A would be guys sweeping floors at GM making more than the guys next door, (I was saying for 30 years the pigeons would come home to roost, and they finally did) or a crane operator at the defunct Republic Steel making more than my non-union plant manager @ Reilly Chemical. Yup, there's a 1\2 billion Chinese willing to work cheap, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Ya see, we got this caring minimum wage policy over here, plus a bunch of EPA and CFR mandated BS (which happens to cost a ton of money) that developing countries don't have to deal with.
I'll put you on the clock- which entitlements you in favor of cutting? Defense? Hell, we can't even beat a terrorist organization in Afghanistan as it is. Social Security is dead in the water- us Grey Panthers that are retired, or near retirement who spent our whole lives paying into that Ponzi Scheme can damn well out-vote the kiddies- or kick out of office any clown that dares suggest cutting our benefits.
Gawd, you Disciples of Krugman who think we can "spend our way to prosperity" ought to buy a freaking clue already. you know what's already one of the top 10 economies in the world? Financing the interest on the United States debt is what. Love that the treasury is printing another $800 billion in phony money to finance the "recovery". NOT. (them Arabs ain't stupid- the price of gas jumped in lockstep with that little gambit) Tell me Heck, how much in T-Bills do the Chinese hold? (hint: it's a few trillion) So what happens when the IOUs come due? Weimar Republic sound familiar? Nah- could never happen here. I'll say this- those that don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. And history says nations with a debt load that the good old USA has accumulated have never gotten out of it except by hyper-inflating the currency.
-
God Bless you, Mr. Hoorta !
-
Hoorta, I don't even know where to start with your post. For the most part, I don't even know how it's supposed to be addressing what I've been saying. It's just a rant about ...I don't know what.
Let me see if I get your points:
1. We're currently borrowing money to finance our budget. (No shit.)
2. Unemployment Insurance is an entitlement program. (No, it isn't.)
3. Unions are bad for competitiveness. (They can be. But unionized industries aren't the only ones who have lost out to overseas competition.)
4. Environmental regulations are bad. (Really? Have you seen the Yalu River lately?)
5. Regulations are bad. (Oh boy.)
6. Since we haven't won in Afghanistan, there's nothing we could cut out of the defense budget. (Obviously not true.)
7. Social Security can't be fixed. (Not even close to being true. It could be fixed with minor adjustments.)
8. Krugman disciples think they can spend their way to prosperity. (This is a ridiculous statement, and not what they believe at all.)
9. I know that lots of our debt is being financed by China. (Good for you.)
10. Have you heard of the Weimar Republic? (Yes, I have.)
11. We're headed towards hyper-inflation. (No, we're not.)
Needless to say, I didn't think much of your screed.
-
Heck, I believe you are completely wrong about most of those.
Care to back up, and try to have an "intelligent discussion" on any one of those topics?
-
I'll let you take the lead in the intelligent discussion department, Cal, as you so often do.
-
You guys are wonderful, caring, Christian people.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
Buy up all the fish and sell for a profit!
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