• 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!

House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits

Lord Tammerlain said:
Jobs open up, jobs are lost, it is a constand flux. What does not change is that currently their are 4 times as many people looking for jobs, then jobs avaliable
Click to expand...

And there's no excuse that the majority of unemployed can't find work within a reasonable amount of time if they are looking.
I know I live in the great state of Tx where times aren't as hard as in the rest of the world. But anyway, I know someone who just couldn't seem to find the right job. He's had 4 different jobs and turned down several others in the last 8 months. Finally, I think he found one to his liking this time.
The states just can't afford to keep paying people for doing nothing. Taxes are going to go up on employers because of it. Is that good for the economy?
 
Conservative said:
This is a survey done by BLS that surveys the U.S. economy as it is now
Click to expand...
Yes, fact as we established earlier.

Conservative said:
It doesn't show the businesses that went out of business that could come back with the right incentive. It doesn't survey the potential to create new businesses or the liklihood of that happening.
Click to expand...
You are seeking "worthless" projections now?

Conservative said:
There have been a large number of businesses go out of business because of the economy that given the right incentive could start up again. Cutting tax rates, lowering the costs of hiring, and expanding lending options would be a good step forward.
Click to expand...
Yes. Why is that neither party is advocating the CBO measures that involve just this, like the payroll tax holiday?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I didn't ignore it. if you look at my original post, these things are addressed in the quote I posted from the CBO.
Which I will post here yet again.
A temporary increase in aid to the unemployed would have a significant positive short-term effect on the economy per dollar of budgetary cost. Such an increase would slightly raise unemployment among the affected individuals, but it would also raise people’s spending and thereby increase output and employment in the economy overall.​

Unless I am mistaken, this part is not actually in the CBO report. This is your addition.

If I am mistaken, please provide the exact quote so that I may find it for myself.


Unless I am mistaken, this part is not actually in the CBO report. This is your addition.

If I am mistaken, please provide the exact quote so that I may find it for myself.
Click to expand...

Define temporary relief and then post the link to the CBO report. How long should temporary be and what are the assumptions given the CBO to make their projections?
 
Barbbtx said:
And there's no excuse that the majority of unemployed can't find work within a reasonable amount of time if they are looking.
Click to expand...
A lack of jobs is no excuse. It's just a sad fact. A hard one to deal with I know. It's hard for me to understand taht what has been the economic reality for most of my life and all of my adult life has drastically changed.
If you look at the BLS statistics, you'll see that in "normal" times the ration of jobs to job seekers is closer to 1:1. But today it's not that way. Times have changed.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
AFAICT, in that scenario, only 50mil would be getting benefits. It's not the same jobs nor all the same people all the time. People get jobs and people lose jobs just because the number stays close to the same does't mean it all the same people and the same jobs.
Click to expand...

no, the 50 million are only job openings like your 10 job openings were. The 100 million represents your 49 or 46 job seekers.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Yes, fact as we established earlier.

You are seeking "worthless" projections now?

Yes. Why is that neither party is advocating the CBO measures that involve just this, like the payroll tax holiday?
Click to expand...

First of all the Republicans don't take control of Congress until the first of January. For the past 4 years Democrats have been in total control. As I have posted over and over again the Obama economic policy has been a disaster. If you give a payroll tax holiday what taxes are you cutting?
 
Barbbtx said:
no, the 50 million are only job openings like your 10 job openings were. The 100 million represents your 49 or 46 job seekers.
Click to expand...
And 50 million people go and get jobs and that leaves 50mil w/o jobs.
 
Conservative said:
First of all the Republicans don't take control of Congress until the first of January.
Click to expand...
And the minority party cannot suggest a course of action? Or what are you trying to say? The GOP makes no plans or suggestions until they are a majority in the House?
It seems irrelevant to the parties lack of advocacy for a sensible idea.

Conservative said:
If you give a payroll tax holiday what taxes are you cutting?
Click to expand...
I expect the ones that come out of people's paychecks. Employers pay a portion of these. Cutting them would put more money in employees pockets and would also make hiring someone cheaper.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
And the minority party cannot suggest a course of action? Or what are you trying to say? The GOP makes no plans or suggestions until they are a majority in the House?
It seems irrelevant to the parties lack of advocacy for a sensible idea.

I expect the ones that come out of people's paychecks. Employers pay a portion of these. Cutting them would put more money in employees pockets and would also make hiring someone cheaper.
Click to expand...

You mean FICA taxes that fund SS and Medicare? Hmmm, then my bet is you will be complaining when SS and Medicare is broke and not able to fund individuals in their retirement years. As for the CBO report, read the entire report and stop cherry picking the data. Further I am still waiting for what is temporary in your world? Where is the incentive to take a job when that temporary number today is over two years?

The majority party can and has made recommendations. Doubt seriously that you read the Paul Ryan Roadmap or anything from the minority party as Reid and Pelosi controlled the agenda.
 
Want to make these easy jobs for idiots to lazy to actually find a good job? Quit giving China and India business. It's that easy. **** them both.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
As I stated earlier--as long as it benefits the country.
Click to expand...

That is a rather vacuous answer but I guess its probably a fair one under the circumstances. some would say no benefits is most beneficial while those who want as many people addicted to government dependency would say forever.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Want to make these easy jobs for idiots to lazy to actually find a good job? Quit giving China and India business. It's that easy. **** them both.
Click to expand...

that is rather simple minded in terms of a solution. If someone can say get a casting for an industrial valve made in Korea for 250 dollars using a certain grade of brass and a certain grade of labor and getting the exact same quality in the USA is going to cost 475 what will happen to the company that tries to sell American made valves when they compete against those selling equally good Korean made valves?
 
Conservative said:
You mean FICA taxes that fund SS and Medicare? Hmmm, then my bet is you will be complaining when SS and Medicare is broke and not able to fund individuals in their retirement years.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep trying to make this about me? Why can't this be about the issues?
If it boosts the economy, it provides more income over the long term. So, that means that it increases the net contributions.
Conservative said:
As for the CBO report, read the entire report and stop cherry picking the data.
Click to expand...
So that means you can't find the part where you said it says, "that taking money out of the economy and putting it back into unemployment benefits might increase economic output, or it might decrease it"
Conservative said:
Further I am still waiting for what is temporary in your world?
Click to expand...
Why is this about me? Did I write that report? WTF, dude?

Conservative said:
Where is the incentive to take a job when that temporary number today is over two years?
Click to expand...
While we're being so personal, let me ask you, would you have any incentive to find a job if you did not have one? Well, isn't it conceivable that not every other American besides yourself is a lazy ass who would rather sponge for a fraction of what hey could make if they had a job?
Americans weren't turned into a horde of lazy folks over night. Please stop defaming our fellow countrymen.

Conservative said:
Doubt seriously that you read the Paul Ryan Roadmap or anything from the minority party as Reid and Pelosi controlled the agenda.
Click to expand...
So, am I wrong? Is there a proposal for a payroll tax holiday that I don't know about? If there is, why not just list it and show that I am wrong?
Why try to make it about what you think about me?

I promise that I am not worthy of discussion.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is a rather vacuous answer but I guess its probably a fair one under the circumstances. some would say no benefits is most beneficial while those who want as many people addicted to government dependency would say forever.
Click to expand...
That's quite a wide and weird dichotomy.

What would people who recognize that we're in an unusual circumstance say?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Why do you keep trying to make this about me? Why can't this be about the issues?
If it boosts the economy, it provides more income over the long term. So, that means that it increases the net contributions.
So that means you can't find the part where you said it says, "that taking money out of the economy and putting it back into unemployment benefits might increase economic output, or it might decrease it"
Why is this about me? Did I write that report? WTF, dude?

While we're being so personal, let me ask you, would you have any incentive to find a job if you did not have one? Well, isn't it conceivable that not every other American besides yourself is a lazy ass who would rather sponge for a fraction of what hey could make if they had a job?
Americans weren't turned into a horde of lazy folks over night. Please stop defaming our fellow countrymen.

So, am I wrong? Is there a proposal for a payroll tax holiday that I don't know about? If there is, why not just list it and show that I am wrong?
Why try to make it about what you think about me?

I promise that I am not worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...

Have at it,

The Roadmap Plan | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Tax reform not a tax holiday. A tax holiday is short term relief whereas tax reform is long term and focuses on economic growth. You cannot handle a debt this size by tax increases or a simple tax holiday. Democrats have to stop using the static approach to tax revenue as they continue to ignore how economic growth affects taxes and job creation.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
That's quite a wide and weird dichotomy.

What would people who recognize that we're in an unusual circumstance say?
Click to expand...

I'd say right now they no longer benefit America since t hey are purely redistributive. I oppose almost all income redistribution save for cases where a person is truly unable to work.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd say right now they no longer benefit America since t hey are purely redistributive. I oppose almost all income redistribution save for cases where a person is truly unable to work.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the assessment that increased demand will help our economy?
To me it's about practical measures to improve things, not about ideological purity.

I am open to counter evidence.
 
TurtleDude said:
I oppose almost all income redistribution save for cases where a person is truly unable to work.
Click to expand...
According to the BLS, about 10mil people fall into that category simply because there just aren't jobs for that exist them.
 
haymarket said:
from Harshaw



The utter disingenuousness of such a 'question' is simply astounding. Do they teach this at the von Mises Institute or does such appeal to over the top absurdity come naturally?
Click to expand...

Fine. You have a careless indifference as to what your proposals will do to the poor. Which is the point you're dodging by singling this out.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
So you disagree with the assessment that increased demand will help our economy?
To me it's about practical measures to improve things, not about ideological purity.

I am open to counter evidence.
Click to expand...

I generally operate under the concept that the government has a high burden of proof to meet when engaging in what is redistributive actions that are most likely not properly authorized by the United States Constitution.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd say right now they no longer benefit America since t hey are purely redistributive. I oppose almost all income redistribution save for cases where a person is truly unable to work.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by work? My hearts ejection fraction is 10% as well as a cardiomyopathy.
 
winston53660 said:
What do you mean by work? My hearts ejection fraction is 10% as well as a cardiomyopathy.
Click to expand...

sorry man I am a trial attorney not a doctor: I don't even play on on TV or the internet. Sounds like you have some serious problems that are beyond my training
 
winston53660 said:
What do you mean by work? My hearts ejection fraction is 10% as well as a cardiomyopathy.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like your personal health problems are affecting your judgment when it comes to the massive expansion of govt. and its involvment in almost all aspects of individual life. I have sympathy for your personal situation but none for how you are letting that health affect any research ability that you used to have for if it wasn't for your health problems you would find that all govt. social programs are failures and only expand dependency on the govt.
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry man I am a trial attorney not a doctor: I don't even play on on TV or the internet. Sounds like you have some serious problems that are beyond my training
Click to expand...

What happened to your gun store?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom