• 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: who's right?

What should be done about unemployment benefits?

  • Extend them through deficit spending

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Extend them, but pay for them with unpaid stimulus/tarp funds

    Votes: 14 26.4%

  • Don't extend them, it is unregulated welfare

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Other, Explain:

    Votes: 8 15.1%

  • Don't you touch my unemployment benefits!!

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Nice denial, you got there. Look up the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, hmm? If you really care you can also look up its 1933 counter part. For a teacher you sure are uneducated. Just saying...

The resulting damage, the way it was done, its purpose, does not open it up to justification.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
and it also was necessary to save the entire agricultural industry and get them on the road to profitability so that they could feed Americans for year after year after year.
Click to expand...

:lamo okay. you tell me. how did destroying crops and cattle save the entire agricultural industry? farmers spent alot of time profitably producing food after that? :)

oh wait, no they didn't; we went through a decade and more of privation and lack.

but i like the switch from "that did not happen!" to "it was necessary!" :) anything to defend that moron FDR.

Again. FDR knew that. Farmers knew that. Economists knew that.
Click to expand...

actually even Keynes thought FDR was an idiot here.

Agrucultural experts knew that.
Click to expand...

agribusiness knows that subsidies are free money.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Nice denial, you got there. Look up the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, hmm? If you really care you can also look up its 1933 counter part. For a teacher you sure are uneducated. Just saying...

The resulting damage, the way it was done, its purpose, does not open it up to justification.
Click to expand...

So you can read but it seems to fail to comprehend.

Where in my post do I deny such things happened. I asked to see the proof of the allegation so I could better understand how it was being interpreted and used. I clearly stated that there were reasons for this program. Reasons that FDT understood. Reasons that farmers understood. Reasons that economists understood. And reasons that agricultural experts understood. The reason was simple: farmers could not stay in business when the price for their products were lower than their costs of production. And if farmers went out of business then Americans could not be fed. So we get a cheap burger, chicken or eggs today and eat well for a day or ten, but then we all starve down the road when there is nobody around to produce our food supply.

I wonder why the Cato Insitutue does not know this?
 
Last edited:
from cpwill

but i like the switch from "that did not happen!" to "it was necessary!" anything to defend that moron FDR.
Click to expand...

You seem also to have a simple comprehension problem. I asked you to prove what you said so that I could see your evidence and where it came from and how you were interpreting it. The selected destruction of sectors of the agricultural industry is a bit different that the idea that mean old FDR went around gathering up all the nations food and destroying it so people would starve no matter what ideological conclusions the Cato Institute would have us make based on a less than honest presentation of the entire story.
 
cpwill said:
the answer to your question is that charity tends to rise and fall in inverse proportion to government giving. the only time i am aware of in American history where feeding ourselves was a true difficulty was in the 1930's; when the Government gathered up and destroyed the food.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
That is most interesting. Could you please provide some factual documentation to support your claim about charity and government "giving" (and what exactly is that?) And what is this about the government gathering up the food and destroying it in the 1930's?
Click to expand...

pretty blatantly questioning it.

:) but whatever.

FDR caused mass hunger with a hairbrained scheme that helped farmers not at all (helped some big agribusinesses) because the man was unable to grasp even the basics of supply and demand.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Good people that have done the best they can in thier life are losing thier HOME because of the lack of extended unemplyment benefitss. Unemplyment is at 9.8% in Illinois. Are you saying SCREW THEM?????????????
Click to expand...

You're looking at this the wrong way. They have no right to that money. On top of that, it creates an incentive to not look for work. It's a negative on top of a negative, and it needs to be ended. If they were living off of their savings I would have no problem with it, but the fact is that they have no right to this money and we need to stop extending these benefits. It's not screwing them over, it's putting an end to the moral hazard.
 
haymarket said:
from cpwill



You seem also to have a simple comprehension problem. I asked you to prove what you said so that I could see your evidence and where it came from and how you were interpreting it. The selected destruction of sectors of the agricultural industry is a bit different that the idea that mean old FDR went around gathering up all the nations food and destroying it so people would starve no matter what ideological conclusions the Cato Institute would have us make based on a less than honest presentation of the entire story.
Click to expand...

Pigs were slaughtered as people were starving! What other proof do you need?
 
he needs it to defend FDR.
 
samsmart said:
But what you're forgetting is the costs involved in for that lawyer to train as a lawyer. Which means they've likely gone into debt to get that training, but won't be able to pay that debt back working a $10 an hour wage.
Click to expand...

Investments fail all the time.

On one hand, I agree with you about the changes in demand. But despite changes in demand of different job markets, the costs of that person's education is still retained.
Click to expand...

He made a poor investment.

So the question I have is how can changing and fluctuating job markets, and the wages and salaries of someone in that job market makes, get in tune with the costs of educating and training someone for that job market?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't be if the demand isn't there. If education is expensive and the benefit is low, then obviously that market is saturated with labor. Those people obviously should be educated elsewhere. If you were to change the system then you'd have too many lawyers and not enough specialists in other fields.
 
cpwill said:
hmmm you don't think an argument can be made for those not working full time who seek to be? it seems to toss that out tosses out unemployment alltogether.
Click to expand...

It's a very subjective idea. I want to work full time, but I want to get paid $15 an hour with health benefits and blah blah blah. See the problem? Maybe that person can't find that full time job, so they'll take the part time job. Just because you supposedly "want to work full time" doesn't mean that your demands line up with the reality of the job market.
 
haymarket said:
ahhh - the Cato Institute!!!

The ridiculous idea that consumers would have benefitted from farmers selling them food at prices far below what it costs to produce it fails to take in the long distance effects of such a thing.
Click to expand...

Less production of food eventually. The market does know how to decrease production when it needs to. :) However, does it justify destroying crops when people are starving?

Everyone should well know that if farmers as a whole cannot produce goods and make a profit at them, there will simply be no goods in that field of production in the future.
Click to expand...

Umm, no. No goods is wrong. You'd get less goods, but not no goods. Are you sure that you understand the law diminishing returns?

Sure, you get a cheap burger today but no beef at all in the future. FDR knew that and his economists knew that and his agricultural advisors knew that.

I wonder why the geniuses at the Cato Insititute do not know that.
Click to expand...

Because they understand economics and understand that overproduction today will only lead to less, not no production in the future. Supply will continue on that that extent at which it is profitable.
 
pbrauer said:
Agreed, the money is much more well spent than funding two wars...
Click to expand...

Right, support millions of dead-beat loosers instead of securing actual assets and interests with real intrinsic value.

Here's an idea: get a job, be an adult and take care of your own house.
 
haymarket said:
So you can read but it seems to fail to comprehend.

Where in my post do I deny such things happened. I asked to see the proof of the allegation so I could better understand how it was being interpreted and used. I clearly stated that there were reasons for this program. Reasons that FDT understood. Reasons that farmers understood. Reasons that economists understood. And reasons that agricultural experts understood. The reason was simple: farmers could not stay in business when the price for their products were lower than their costs of production. And if farmers went out of business then Americans could not be fed. So we get a cheap burger, chicken or eggs today and eat well for a day or ten, but then we all starve down the road when there is nobody around to produce our food supply.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what it actually did? It said what? It said here is how much you can produce. Then it went out and punished those that went over what the government said. The food was BURNED, cattle was KILLED and rotted in piles all this ORDERED by the government. Not even to mention people starving that could use that food. People that made food actually lost their way of living. The act says the government gets to decide on how much is to much. How could they get it so wrong? Stupidity or on purpose? You pick which one.

I don't really care all that much on what it was said to be about, what I care about is it results. Why are you so caught up in what it was for? What it did wasn't what they said, so what is the point exactly?
 
Last edited:
phattonez

your response is so typical of libertarians. I give you the real world situation and you give me theory.
 
Henrin said:
Do you have any idea what it actually did? It said what? It said here is how much you can produce. Then it went out and punished those that went over what the government said. The food was BURNED, cattle was KILLED and rotted in piles all this ORDERED by the government. Not even to mention people starving that could use that food. People that made food actually lost their way of living. The act says the government gets to decide on how much is to much. How could they get it so wrong? Stupidity or on purpose? You pick which one.

I don't really care all that much on what it was said to be about, what I care about is it results. Why are you so caught up in what it was for? What it did wasn't what they said, so what is the point exactly?
Click to expand...

I have already picked one. And the one I picked was that this was done because it was believed it was the best way possible to get the market price of farm goods up so that farmers could make a profit, stay in business and provide a food supply for the nation for the coming years. What is so difficult about that to understand?
 
haymarket said:
I have already picked one. And the one I picked was that this was done because it was believed it was the best way possible to get the market price of farm goods up so that farmers could make a profit, stay in business and provide a food supply for the nation for the coming years. What is so difficult about that to understand?
Click to expand...

That people lost their way of living because of it for starters. It's obviously a lie or a really ****ty plan made out of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
It's a very subjective idea. I want to work full time, but I want to get paid $15 an hour with health benefits and blah blah blah. See the problem? Maybe that person can't find that full time job, so they'll take the part time job. Just because you supposedly "want to work full time" doesn't mean that your demands line up with the reality of the job market.
Click to expand...

then you might as well declare that there is no unemployment either; the job market simply doesn't line up with your skill set (or lack thereof), location, and legal need to be compensated above minimum wage.
 
Henrin said:
That people lost their way of living because of it for starters. It's obviously a lie or a really ****ty plan made out of stupidity.
Click to expand...

the second.
 
cpwill said:
the second.
Click to expand...

and you know this because?????

Let me take a wild guess at the answer ... because the Cato Institiute says so? Or is it Lew Rockwell?
 
haymarket said:
and you know this because?????
Click to expand...

because FDR wasn't evil; he didn't want to hurt people. he was just kind of a bumbling fool when it came to economic matters. he had no real 'plan' inasmuch as anyone has ever been able to discover (he himself described the New Deal as just a series of experiments about which he had no idea if they would work or not). hell, this is the man who would alter the official price of gold based on what numbers were lucky.

he didn't want people to go hungry. that was just the unfortunate result of him messing around with things he didn't understand.

Let me take a wild guess at the answer ... because the Cato Institiute says so? Or is it Lew Rockwell?
Click to expand...

no, his biographers generally say so. no one accuses FDR of being possessed of a particularly keen and understanding intellect. even Keynes thought his understanding and policies to be foolish.
 
Last edited:
incidentally; what did you teach?
 
High school Government and US History.
 
And what do you do for a living cpwill?

And I have read at least three biographies of FDR including the massive work by Schlesinger and a recent one by Goodwin. They do not agree with your assessment or the ones you say you have read - whatever they may be.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And what do you do for a living cpwill?
Click to expand...

:) heck, I'm just a dumb Marine.


which is so odd; you should be the master of this subject. you should have the relevant authoritative sources at your fingertips, the New Deal was huge in both American history and the development of American governance (cooperative federalism, hello?). you should know this inside and out backwards and forwards and yet you seem ignorant of some of the basics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom