• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says GOP making life harder for the jobless

Golden Boy, I don't see an answer to the question, since we are in a recession and Obama is doing nothing really to get us out of it, how long should people be entitled to unemployment benefits and after their initial benefits run out where does the money come from that pays those benefits?

If you are a Libertarian then you would know the answer to the question you asked. Since apparently you really aren't, let me help you

Platform | Libertarian Party


Seems to me you have an entitlement mentality, not I. I started by career in business in 1970. How many recessions did I experience and work through? I was looking for a job when I found the one I got and held for 35 years. You aren't entitled to your pay, you are entitled tot he opportunity to keep your pay. A lot of people got layed off during my 35 year business career and I wasn't one of them. I did my job to keep myself valuable to the company. That kept me employed for over three decades. When people make themselves valuable to a company the company will reward them by keeping them on payroll. It is my personal responsibility to stay employed and make myself valuable to the company.

Getting an MBA entitles you to what? People investing money take risk. Apparently that risk doesn't mean employing an MBA in some areas.
 
Gabriel, what a distorted view of reality. Facts always get in the way of an ideologue. This isn't about Reagan or even Bush, this is about the re-write of history. You buy what you are being told and ignore actual results. Go to BEA.gov and check economic growth and govt. revenue creation and both refute the Forbes article.

My belief is liberals and supporters of Obama need to grow up. Personal responsibility is something everyone as to accept. The only entitlement people have is they are entitled to equal opportunity to get and keep a job. Reagan understood that the role of the govt. was to promote that opportunity and did so by giving people tax cuts so they can spend their money. The tax increases he generated were in payroll taxes which is Social Security which comes back to people at retirement. Now it is easy to blame tax cuts for the debt but I will take the 1.7 trillion Reagan and Congress generated to the trillion dollar debt Obama is creating each year and has already exceeded the Reagan 8 year debt in less than 2 years.

Now you can spin the debt any way you want but the war is the least of the problems. It is an easy target for people incapable of doing research. Go to the U.S. Treasury website to see where money is going and you will find that entitlement spending takes up over 60% of the budget and that has nothing to do with the war. Taxing the rich or those evil corporations seems to be an easy way out for people who refuse to accept personal responsibility and have that entitlement mentality.

You are right, the GOP didn't cut spending but Congress was controlled by Democrats from 2007 on and haven't either, in fact Obama has put the Bush spending on steroids generating nothing but a larger govt.
 
Underemployment will always be a problem until the private sector grows and is given the incentive to grow. Promoting govt. growth never has been the answer. Our economy was built on the private sector, 80% of which is small business not those evil corporations that liberals want to attack and thus divert from
 
Golden Boy, I don't see an answer to the question,

I answered the question, i just refrained from giving you something to spin. The "rule of thumb" is 26 weeks, where extensions are plausible based on both the velocity of job loss and the status of job creation following a major shift in labor markets. I can agree with this....

since we are in a recession and Obama is doing nothing really to get us out of it, how long should people be entitled to unemployment benefits and after their initial benefits run out where does the money come from that pays those benefits?

What the **** does "obama doing nothing really" have to do with unemployment insurance generosity? You have been given an explanation twice.

If you are a Libertarian then you would know the answer to the question you asked. Since apparently you really aren't, let me help you

Platform | Libertarian Party

Shifting focus to me will not shield the fact that you are arguing from an ideological delusion. The "liquidationist" approach was an utter failure.


Seems to me you have an entitlement mentality, not I. I started by career in business in 1970. How many recessions did I experience and work through? I was looking for a job when I found the one I got and held for 35 years. You aren't entitled to your pay, you are entitled tot he opportunity to keep your pay. A lot of people got layed off during my 35 year business career and I wasn't one of them. I did my job to keep myself valuable to the company. That kept me employed for over three decades. When people make themselves valuable to a company the company will reward them by keeping them on payroll. It is my personal responsibility to stay employed and make myself valuable to the company.

Anecdotes mean nothing on the internet.

Getting an MBA entitles you to what? People investing money take risk. Apparently that risk doesn't mean employing an MBA in some areas.

No comment yet on underemployment?
 
Gabriel, what a distorted view of reality. Facts always get in the way of an ideologue. This isn't about Reagan or even Bush, this is about the re-write of history. You buy what you are being told and ignore actual results. Go to BEA.gov and check economic growth and govt. revenue creation and both refute the Forbes article.

My belief is liberals and supporters of Obama need to grow up. Personal responsibility is something everyone as to accept. The only entitlement people have is they are entitled to equal opportunity to get and keep a job. Reagan understood that the role of the govt. was to promote that opportunity and did so by giving people tax cuts so they can spend their money. The tax increases he generated were in payroll taxes which is Social Security which comes back to people at retirement. Now it is easy to blame tax cuts for the debt but I will take the 1.7 trillion Reagan and Congress generated to the trillion dollar debt Obama is creating each year and has already exceeded the Reagan 8 year debt in less than 2 years.

Now you can spin the debt any way you want but the war is the least of the problems. It is an easy target for people incapable of doing research. Go to the U.S. Treasury website to see where money is going and you will find that entitlement spending takes up over 60% of the budget and that has nothing to do with the war. Taxing the rich or those evil corporations seems to be an easy way out for people who refuse to accept personal responsibility and have that entitlement mentality.

You are right, the GOP didn't cut spending but Congress was controlled by Democrats from 2007 on and haven't either, in fact Obama has put the Bush spending on steroids generating nothing but a larger govt.

Libertarianism needs to be reined in. Thats all I'm gonna say. I won't argue with an idiolog about their faith. You stand corrected.

Even Reagan Raised Taxes - Forbes.com
 
Underemployment will always be a problem until the private sector grows and is given the incentive to grow. Promoting govt. growth never has been the answer. Our economy was built on the private sector, 80% of which is small business not those evil corporations that liberals want to attack and thus divert from

One of the main reasons behind unemployment insurance is to reduce the frequency of underemployment. My comment regarding MBA's at starbucks is a hyperbole, as such an epidemic would reflect ultra high levels of unemployment (>20%). You know little about unemployment insurance (judging from your responses).....
 
Golden Boy, I suggest learning to read, under employment will improve with a strong growing private sector, something Obama has yet to do.

As for the anecdotes, they mean everything, showing that I did exactly what you say cannot be done. I made myself valuable and survived many recessions during my 35 year business career. I never considered my pay as a guarantee for life thus I worked hard to keep it and did, growing pay each year over those 35 years, including recession years, something apparently you do not understand.

Notice that your profile claims to be a Libertarian an ideology that yo udo not understand thus I posted the platform. Notice the personal responsibilty plank in there? Didn't think so.
 
Libertarianism needs to be reined in. Thats all I'm gonna say.

Libertarianism has been bastardized; thats all im gonna say.
 
Notice that your profile claims to be a Libertarian an ideology that yo udo not understand thus I posted the platform. Notice the personal responsibilty plank in there? Didn't think so.

Libertarians are sometimes very socially liberal. Just because someone has issues with policies being implemented in the wrong time/place doesn't mean they aren't said ideology. ei "mostly libertarian" Why do you bother anyhow many conservatives are not libertarians and so on why nit pick? It isn't as though libertarians have a lot to brag about lately.
 
If you are 40 you were 20-28 during the Reagan years and because Forbes put out an article that you buy you ignore all the others that define the Reagan economy. Suggest that you do a better job of research. I never did better personally than I did during the Reagan years because Reagan understood the role of the govt, provide incentive and then get out of the way. By the way I am 63. If your father was truly a conservative politician then your father understood the conservative philosophy and thus shuns any comparison between what Obama is doing and what Reagan did. The results are there for all to see, bea.gov, Reagan doubled GDP growth, promoted the creation of over 20 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and created an atmosphere for all workers to grow their own individual wealth.
 
Golden Boy, I suggest learning to read, under employment will improve with a strong growing private sector, something Obama has yet to do.

Obama does not control the private sector.:doh

As for the anecdotes, they mean everything, showing that I did exactly what you say cannot be done. I made myself valuable and survived many recessions during my 35 year business career. I never considered my pay as a guarantee for life thus I worked hard to keep it and did, growing pay each year over those 35 years, including recession years, something apparently you do not understand.

Using it as an argument is a fallacy, and quite a lazy one i might add.

Notice that your profile claims to be a Libertarian an ideology that yo udo not understand thus I posted the platform. Notice the personal responsibility plank in there? Didn't think so.

I notice you constantly resort to arguing about your opposition, and not their points.
 
Libertarianism has been bastardized; thats all im gonna say.

I agree but go one step further with it. I think libertarianism is more appropriate sometimes then others. I don't see these days a good time to move towards individualism/anarchy.
 
Obama policies affect the private sector and you know it. Why would any business hire new employees not understanding the cost of healthcare or the propsed cap and trade, possibility of a VAT tax, etc? Why would anyone invest in growing their business with this Administration in power?

LOL, so using anecdotes is a fallacy? Why because you cannot refute them and the logic presented?

Your argument flies in the face of your profile and that is the point and destroys your position on the issues. You cannot even admit that you are a liberal not a libertarian.
 
Golden Boy, define Libertarian for us then

I posted the platform which you ignore. What part of that platform do you believe has been bastardized?
 
If you are 40 you were 20-28 during the Reagan years and because Forbes put out an article that you buy you ignore all the others that define the Reagan economy. Suggest that you do a better job of research. I never did better personally than I did during the Reagan years because Reagan understood the role of the govt, provide incentive and then get out of the way. By the way I am 63. If your father was truly a conservative politician then your father understood the conservative philosophy and thus shuns any comparison between what Obama is doing and what Reagan did. The results are there for all to see, bea.gov, Reagan doubled GDP growth, promoted the creation of over 20 million jobs, doubled govt. revenue, and created an atmosphere for all workers to grow their own individual wealth.


conservative is not libertarian. I expect I'm more familiar with the philosophical aspects and roots on these things then you may understand. These are not tantamount with one another however since the 1990's libertarianism has really started taking hold of the GOP and has fingers in the democratic party as well.
 
Obviously you believe someone 40 with probably 15 years of experience is more knowledgeable than someone 63 who worked 35 years in the business world. The Libertarian views are closer to the Conservative point of view than they are to the liberal point of view. Today's Democrat Party is a disaster due to the fact it is being run by the left wing advocates who believe in redistribution of wealth and entitlements. There is nothing in the libertarian platform that supports what is going on right now in the Democrat Party and with this Administration.
 
Obviously you believe someone 40 with probably 15 years of experience is more knowledgeable than someone 63 who worked 35 years in the business world. The Libertarian views are closer to the Conservative point of view than they are to the liberal point of view. Today's Democrat Party is a disaster due to the fact it is being run by the left wing advocates who believe in redistribution of wealth and entitlements. There is nothing in the libertarian platform that supports what is going on right now in the Democrat Party and with this Administration.

Libertarians don't like big government, taxation etc.. but that doesn't mean centrist cannot implement libertarian policies. The thing is there is nothing to brag about in terms of libertarian policy as of late. You can be collectivist and realise that some individualistic policies are appropriate.. but you should realise/admit you can be individualistic and realise that collective measures have positive benefits as well.
 
It all boils down the vision as to the role of the Govt. and no Libertarian can support what Obama is doing. No Libertarian can support providing indefinite unemployment payments. There is nothing in the Constitution that promotes individualistic policies other than promote the general welfare and govt. does that by creating incentive for individual wealth creation, i.e. tax rate cuts. That puts more money into the hands of the individual taxpayer and that promotes job creation.
 
It all boils down the vision as to the role of the Govt. and no Libertarian can support what Obama is doing. No Libertarian can support providing indefinite unemployment payments. There is nothing in the Constitution that promotes individualistic policies other than promote the general welfare and govt. does that by creating incentive for individual wealth creation, i.e. tax rate cuts. That puts more money into the hands of the individual taxpayer and that promotes job creation.

They didn't do a very good job at reining in the religious right, controlling government spending under bush.. and despite all the tax cuts Bush Jr has a very very poor job creation record. I have firm belief that when the market is doing well government should bugger off.. when it is doing bad it needs to intervene. Spending to help the people in bad times cutting spending in good times.

Taxation putting more money in the hands of people who are already billionaires does not help the people and trickle down economics hasn't been the boon to the middle class it was touted it would. Where the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing, the middle class disappearing some redistributive policy would likely have a greater effect then letting billionaires who invest in foreign markets get off without paying any taxes.
 
The last few responses exemplify why it is a waste of time to have a discussion with you. You go from "UI undermines incentive" to " your not a true libertarian". Pathetic:2wave:
 
Sounds like a typical redistribution of wealth advocate! I suggest going to BEA.gov and use all the tools there to determine economic results and then go to BLS.gov to check out job creation. Those sites are non partisan and present a different picture than you are receiving from the media.

There is no justification to redistribute wealth as it takes aways personal responsibility and ignores the reality that rich people with their spending, savings, and investments help grow the job markets. If the gap is growing between the rich and the poor then the question is why? Rich people take advantage of incentives whereas poor people continue to wait on help from others. You don't seem to understand our economy and judge everyone else by your own standards. Not all poor people have the incentive, drive, or willingness to work hard and get out of their position. I once was poor and worked hard, if I can do it, so can others. This is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome which liberals want to try an legislate. Trickle down economics is the only economic policy that makes any sense and works. The results are there even you to see. Go to the sites and then get back to me. Until then your words are just that, liberal talking points that distort reality.
 
Pointing out your inconsistencies is relevant to the discussion. You ignore actual results to focus on theory again and your opinions. You claim to be a Libertarian then support liberal policies. Makes no sense to anyone paying attention. The fact remains the Libertarian platform does not support anything Obama is doing and you know it thus your diversion from that reality. Show me where Libertarians support indefinite unemployment insurance payout as that is what Obama is trying to do and what this whole thread is all about.
 
Sounds like a typical redistribution of wealth advocate! I suggest going to BEA.gov and use all the tools there to determine economic results and then go to BLS.gov to check out job creation. Those sites are non partisan and present a different picture than you are receiving from the media.

There is no justification to redistribute wealth as it takes aways personal responsibility and ignores the reality that rich people with their spending, savings, and investments help grow the job markets. If the gap is growing between the rich and the poor then the question is why? Rich people take advantage of incentives whereas poor people continue to wait on help from others. You don't seem to understand our economy and judge everyone else by your own standards. Not all poor people have the incentive, drive, or willingness to work hard and get out of their position. I once was poor and worked hard, if I can do it, so can others. This is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome which liberals want to try an legislate. Trickle down economics is the only economic policy that makes any sense and works. The results are there even you to see. Go to the sites and then get back to me. Until then your words are just that, liberal talking points that distort reality.

Are you seriously accusing me of this?:lamo :lamo :lamo I have yet to make any personal statements regarding my beliefs. I'm out; its like having a discussion with a blowfish.
 
Back
Top Bottom