• 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!

Unemployment benefits extension clears hurdle

ptif219 said:
They did not want to stop it. They wanted it paid for so it would increase the debt. Why will the dems not abide by the pay go law they passed?
Click to expand...

Like they gave a dam when the tax cuts increased the debt.. or like they still dogmatically insist on tax cuts for the ultra rich who don't even want it.. even in face of the growing debt. Just partisan idiocy. A reduced federal budget equals the libertarian utopian dream surely a delusional one considering your economy is in recession ... never mind that recession/depression was cause be deregulatory practices.. another libertarian tenet. You sure your conservative? or is that libertarian?
 
BDBoop said:
Aha. You don't have an answer. I see.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you could understand and you didn't. come back when you figure out what partisan politics mean
 
Gabriel said:
Like they gave a dam when the tax cuts increased the debt.. or like they still dogmatically insist on tax cuts for the ultra rich who don't even want it.. even in face of the growing debt. Just partisan idiocy. A reduced federal budget equals the libertarian utopian dream surely a delusional one considering your economy is in recession ... never mind that recession/depression was cause be deregulatory practices.. another libertarian tenet. You sure your conservative? or is that libertarian?
Click to expand...

You must be rather poorly compensated if you think 200K is ultra rich

because that is the starting point for the clinton tax hikes and for where Obama started his class warfare talk
 
I asked a direct question, expecting a direct answer. I got a sidestep. I really don't need to 'understand' any more than that.

TurtleDude said:
I didn't think you could understand and you didn't. come back when you figure out what partisan politics mean
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
I asked a direct question, expecting a direct answer. I got a sidestep. I really don't need to 'understand' any more than that.
Click to expand...

asking a student a question helps him learn on his own. Its called the socratic method. I am a master of it. Perhaps you have heard of it?
 
TurtleDude said:
You must be rather poorly compensated if you think 200K is ultra rich

because that is the starting point for the clinton tax hikes and for where Obama started his class warfare talk
Click to expand...

Compensated? Whatever are you talking about? No at my income would take years to produce 200k and if you consider the cost of living .. 200k is nearly impossible to save.
 
Do you not understand that banks give people loans to buy houses, start small businesses ect?
 
Gabriel said:
Compensated? Whatever are you talking about? No at my income would take years to produce 200k and if you consider the cost of living .. 200k is nearly impossible to save.
Click to expand...

Obama is targeting those earning (not saving, not accumulating) but merely earning 200K a year. His tax hikes aren't designed to hit the uber wealthy (someone making over say 10 Million a year) but just those who make a decent income. ie people who are about 100K above the level of paying as much in taxes as they receive in benefits (about 117 K a year now)
 
Gabriel said:
Like they gave a dam when the tax cuts increased the debt.. or like they still dogmatically insist on tax cuts for the ultra rich who don't even want it.. even in face of the growing debt. Just partisan idiocy. A reduced federal budget equals the libertarian utopian dream surely a delusional one considering your economy is in recession ... never mind that recession/depression was cause be deregulatory practices.. another libertarian tenet. You sure your conservative? or is that libertarian?
Click to expand...

Why do the dems refuse to honor the pay go law they passed? Why are the dems right raising the debt and the GOP wrong when they want to be responsible and pay for it? There is plenty of tarp money to pay for it.

How nice you want to avoid the issue and go back to Bush. History is not the issue here how we and when we pay for this is
 
Last edited:
STUPDID, !!!!

onBOTH parst.

KILLIET!!
 
It's funny now the republican/libertarians are blithering.. "oh we weren't against them getting money". So suddenly unemployment beneficiaries aren’t a bunch of lazy bums, parasites, lowest life forms on the planet .. on and on. Now it is all a matter of debt. But that didn't ever come into the equation when bush was spending money hand over fist and destroying the surplus he inherited from the democrats. Truly the republicans have become the party of opportunism and crony capitalism.
 
The_Patriot said:
It's the one you cited. I don't care why the government lies and cooks the books. I only care that it does. By using the real calculation for unemployment the rate goes up to 20-25% which is what I've said and used data to support this. You chose to disregard it and you choose to disregard the federal government admitting to cooking the books. Have a wonderful evening.
Click to expand...

I cite U6 when people talk about "real" unemployment rate, as that is usually referring to U6. The series of unemployment numbers are to provide economists with different types of data. There is a reason U6 is considered "real" unemployment, since it is the one that gives the number closest to the actual number if people where to count all people out of work or underemployed.
 
TurtleDude said:
asking a student a question helps him learn on his own. Its called the socratic method. I am a master of it. Perhaps you have heard of it?
Click to expand...

Umm, boy you sure have a high opinion of yourself. Actually I think you are a terrible debater I am nauseated by your posts generally, they are pathetic. I’m sure I am not alone in that sentiment. I know this is OT but sense you brough up your ineptitude I figured it was fair game to contribute.

EDIT: You don't ingage in critical thinking your completely partisan. Blabbing about the socratic method.. dear lord.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
Many of the unemployed simply won't do the jobs that are available to them. There are jobs out there, but they're "beneath" them.
Click to expand...

10% unemployment; 20% unemployed/underemployed..... yes, tons and tons of jobs available for the unemployed, why won't they work? The problem with the regressives... they just never can reconcile themselves with reality.
 
Gabriel said:
It's funny now the republican/libertarians are blithering.. "oh we weren't against them getting money". So suddenly unemployment beneficiaries aren’t a bunch of lazy bums, parasites, lowest life forms on the planet .. on and on. Now it is all a matter of debt. But that didn't ever come into the equation when bush was spending money hand over fist and destroying the surplus he inherited from the democrats. Truly the republicans have become the party of opportunism and crony capitalism.
Click to expand...

Nice spin but there was no surplus there was always debt. Problem is the debt is now at levels never imagined. The GOP wants to do what is right and the dems want more debt. Why is it that paygo is of no effect to the dems?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
ptif219 said:
Nice spin but there was no surplus there was always debt. Problem is the debt is now at levels never imagined. The GOP wants to do what is right and the dems want more debt. Why is it that paygo is of no effect to the dems?
Click to expand...

Bleh.. George Bush inherited a budget surplus and if he had continued on that track I large portion of the debt could have been paid off. The Democrats were not in deficit spending it's called a budget surplus. When the republicans gained power under Bush.. Then he went on to double the nations debt in the course of 8 years. No spin needed when you have the facts.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Nice spin but there was no surplus there was always debt. Problem is the debt is now at levels never imagined. The GOP wants to do what is right and the dems want more debt. Why is it that paygo is of no effect to the dems?
Click to expand...

It was a straw man argument. Dems (and many principaled republicans) howled about Bush's reckless spending. Dems did so because that spending did little to create more dependent dem voters (the main reason for dem spending) while many Republicans didn't like the expanding debt or the socialist-lite prescription drug benefits nonsense etc. Now that Obama is in charge, these same dems are making nary a peep about the far far worse spending because its mostly being used to create more dem pawns addicted to handouts.
 
Redress said:
Easy to say. If there are always jobs, why is unemployment 250 % of what it was 10 years ago?
Click to expand...

Not sure why. Everything inflates over time in this country - unemployment probably does too. Bottom line is - if there's no jobs ... not one single job found by someone in a YEAR of dilligently looking every day; calling, emailing, driving, interviews, giving up pay, title, position, etc... time to pack up and move. My mother tells stories of my Grandfather leaving Yugoslavia for Canada for work. I think that's still possible. A husband or wife can pick up and go where the jobs are and send the money home during tough times. We make it sound like there's soup lines in every large town - there's not. Shelves are stocked full of food. Only in the most downtrodden depressed ghetto's and urban nightmare area's like parts of Camden NJ, or Detroit Michigan do we see the ghost towns, the depressed bombed out façades and hollow eyed people. Most of the country is still doing fine - some say because of "welfare" like this extension of unemployment. I say it's just a band-aid on gangrene. Sure, we're feeling okay now, but sooner or later this ****'s going to kill us, and there won't be enough band-aid's to cover the rotting stench.
 
Hey all you deficit hawks, care to explain why the market disagrees with your "we can't afford it" sentiment? See interest rates (both short and long term).
 
IMO, it seems that there is some misunderstanding as to the gravity of adverse employment situation. For May 2010 (latest date for which job openings data is available), there were:

- 3.206 million job openings nationwide
- 14.973 million unemployed persons

That's just under 4.7 unemployed persons for every job opening. Even if there were a perfect skills match and every unemployed person could fill every job opening (not possible), the vast majority would remain unemployed, as there are too few job openings. Not surprisingly, 45.5% of unemployed persons have been out of work for 27 weeks or more and the mean duration of unemployment has risen to 35.2 weeks.

Given that there is no magic policy that could dramatically increase the number of job openings, it makes good policy sense to extend the unemployment benefits. Preferably cost offsets would be found, but there are much bigger programs (tax and spending) up for consideration in coming months and at the end of the year. If one wants to make an aggressive stand for fiscal responsibility, it would make far more sense to fight the budget battles over those programs. My guess is that the political courage will be lacking when those programs are under consideration. Indeed, almost all of those who filibustered against the extension voted to discard extremely modest Medicare cost-savings measures to increase reimbursements to physicians.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, it seems that there is some misunderstanding as to the gravity of adverse employment situation. For May 2010 (latest date for which job openings data is available), there were:

- 3.206 million job openings nationwide
- 14.973 million unemployed persons

That's just under 4.7 unemployed persons for every job opening. Even if there were a perfect skills match and every unemployed person could fill every job opening (not possible), the vast majority would remain unemployed, as there are too few job openings. Not surprisingly, 45.5% of unemployed persons have been out of work for 27 weeks or more and the mean duration of unemployment has risen to 35.2 weeks.

Given that there is no magic policy that could dramatically increase the number of job openings, it makes good policy sense to extend the unemployment benefits. Preferably cost offsets would be found, but there are much bigger programs (tax and spending) up for consideration in coming months and at the end of the year. If one wants to make an aggressive stand for fiscal responsibility, it would make far more sense to fight the budget battles over those programs. My guess is that the political courage will be lacking when those programs are under consideration. Indeed, almost all of those who filibustered against the extension voted to discard extremely modest Medicare cost-savings measures to increase reimbursements to physicians.
Click to expand...

The bolded area's of donsutherlands post are extremely important to understand.

Are there jobs out there, yes, but no where near the number of people looking for jobs. Meaning if every job opening was filled tommorow, there would still be a massive amount of people unemployed
 
Gabriel said:
Bleh.. George Bush inherited a budget surplus and if he had continued on that track I large portion of the debt could have been paid off. The Democrats were not in deficit spending it's called a budget surplus. When the republicans gained power under Bush.. Then he went on to double the nations debt in the course of 8 years. No spin needed when you have the facts.
Click to expand...


A projected surplus. This changed with 911.It was the GOP majority that caused this budget projected surplus. Since the dems took control in 2007 they have helped cause a recession and increased the debt by historic proportions

Obama has increased the debt more than any president in this time period.

Answer why the dems and Obama are aginst paying for this and demanding it increase the debt. What happened to pay go?
 
ptif219 said:
A projected surplus. This changed with 911.It was the GOP majority that caused this budget projected surplus. Since the dems took control in 2007 they have helped cause a recession and increased the debt by historic proportions
Obama has increased the debt more than any president in this time period.

Answer why the dems and Obama are aginst paying for this and demanding it increase the debt. What happened to pay go?
Click to expand...

Ok What caused the recession?

What did the democrats do in 2007 caused the recession?
 
ptif219 said:
A projected surplus. This changed with 911.It was the GOP majority that caused this budget projected surplus. Since the dems took control in 2007 they have helped cause a recession and increased the debt by historic proportions

Obama has increased the debt more than any president in this time period.

Answer why the dems and Obama are aginst paying for this and demanding it increase the debt. What happened to pay go?
Click to expand...

I don't believe any president controls the economy. But Clinton was part of the governance that led to a surplus. Yes, so was the republican congress. Both were there. And it was Gore who suggested that we didn't know the future, (like a 9/11) and that it would be responsible to keep the surplus for hard times (like we sometimes do in our personal finanaces). However, Bush played candy giver and spent millions to return money to us. I don't know anyone who doesn't like a little money, but then there was 9/11. Was Gore right?

Even with that, Bush and the republicans decided to fight two wars and cut taxes. There was no asking for us to pay for these reckless endevors. No esponsible effort to pay for them.

So, while I accept that both parties lack fiscal restraint, I don't accept that you can only blame one party. Perhaps the best answer is a divided government. While the push and pull may not make radical change possible, it may well keep both sides more in check. Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom