• 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 .
cpwill said:
:) 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.
Click to expand...

Again sir, you seem to confuse two very different things: when I ask you to explain what you believe about something or where you got this information, I am not disagreeing with such things that they did not happen in any way. I am merely asking you to say where you got this information so that your source can be examined by me to see how they are interpreting something that my indeed be open to a wide variety of interpretations and conclusions. Such is the food issue being discussed here.

You also seem unaware that there are significant differences in historians and political scientists about the import and impact of all kinds of things in both fields. Knowledge of basic historical fact is pretty cut and dry. However it can be highly selective as well. Knowing what to select and then interpreting its importance to America and its people is a very different things and that is where people part company.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
phattonez

your response is so typical of libertarians. I give you the real world situation and you give me theory.
Click to expand...

Another typical haymarket response. Devoid of any real content. I'm done reading your posts.
 
A Christmas present comes early.

And if you bothered to think about it, the content is clear and unmistakable. I discuss real world events as they happened and your response is to tell me what the Econ 101 textbook says about the theory of the matter. That is real content. It is simply content that you do not like or approve of.

You see Ph. I think theory is crap. In fact, crap has a real pragmatic function as fertilizer for the garden. Theory and all that abstract philosophy that gussies it up is worth less than crap. Give me real world pragmatics every day of the week. My days of being a sophomore in college staying up half the night on too much caffeine discussing 'what is Truth' are long gone and I wish I had those wasted hours back to really put to use.
 
Henrin said:
Theft is theft, what that theft does to help or not help others is immaterial. You shouldn't support it because someone isn't homeless now, or someone doesn't lose a meal, its still fundamentally wrong to steal from others regardless.

Entitlements remind me of Robin Hood in so many ways. Was Robin Hood noble, or was he only changing up who plays what role? Was his theft noble because it helped people?

Answer, Robin Hood was a douche because the act of the theft made him the hero, it made him the leader, the man that all must depend on. It made him a douche because he didn't give people what they needed to get out, instead he gave himself a chance to have power over all those needy. He wasn't interested in helping them at all, he was interested in helping himself. If he was interested in them he wouldn't of stole from the rich, he would of fought for the poor, for their interests, for their cause. He would of taught them what they needed to know to fight, he would of taught them what they needed to make it on their own, but instead he stole from the rich and gave others their gold, which that gold that was given to the poor will run out and they have no way to replace it other than going through Robin Hood. Robin Hood was a douche, a lier, a deserver, and a thief. He was not noble at all and neither is entitlements.

The fact is I don't much care what the results without it would of been, I care for the correct means of fixing a problem, and not resorting to stealing from people.
Click to expand...

So, is most taxation theft to you?

You know each person, and party, and clique favors certain taxes and disfavors others. For instance, there is a libertarian on the radio who prettymuch wants most federal taxes repealed. But one day a listener called in and agreed with that sentiment and listed departments and services he would like discontinued. He mentioned the National Park Service, and the libertarian host said 'But I like the national parks.'

Anyway, I'm a capitalist, but I don't have a problem with the unemployment insurance setup. The general working public is not smart enough, or maybe not industrious enough to prepare for years of joblessness, or even for a few months of it. That's just the way it is. That's the reality, regardless of your ideals. But you honestly say that you don't care, and there's no arguing that. We just disagree.
 
haymarket said:
A Christmas present comes early.

And if you bothered to think about it, the content is clear and unmistakable. I discuss real world events as they happened and your response is to tell me what the Econ 101 textbook says about the theory of the matter. That is real content. It is simply content that you do not like or approve of.

You see Ph. I think theory is crap. In fact, crap has a real pragmatic function as fertilizer for the garden. Theory and all that abstract philosophy that gussies it up is worth less than crap. Give me real world pragmatics every day of the week. My days of being a sophomore in college staying up half the night on too much caffeine discussing 'what is Truth' are long gone and I wish I had those wasted hours back to really put to use.
Click to expand...

Stop NOW. Your posts are void of substance only because you have nothing to say. That could be for a few reasons, you're clueless, you're a jerk or you're a troll. Whichever it is I also have no interest in you any longer. Just think now two more people are ignoring you. Good times.
 
haymarket said:
Again sir, you seem to confuse two very different things: when I ask you to explain what you believe about something or where you got this information, I am not disagreeing with such things that they did not happen in any way. I am merely asking you to say where you got this information so that your source can be examined by me to see how they are interpreting something that my indeed be open to a wide variety of interpretations and conclusions. Such is the food issue being discussed here.[/quote

the facts of the matter (what i referenced) are that we had widespread hunger (for the first time in American history that i am aware of - assuming you discount the colonial period), and that FDR during this period deliberately raised food prices by destroying food that people could have eaten. this is hardly a deep plunging analysis of the agricultural aspects of the New Deal (though i would be most happy sitting down and discussing the collectives with you, if you wish); it's just simple reality.

YOU are the one who brings theory into it, by attempting to apply the facts of what Roosevelt did to a theoretical framework that would make them (in technical language) "not-unimaginably-stupid". then Phatz points out to you the huge gaping flaws in that theory and you pretend to a pragmaticism belied by your own arguments.

You also seem unaware that there are significant differences in historians and political scientists about the import and impact of all kinds of things in both fields.
Click to expand...

my undergraduate is in history and i am abooout 4/5th's done with my Masters in poli sci. the two are not nearly so seperate as you indicate. heck, i would argue that much of the second is simply a defined branch of the first.

Knowledge of basic historical fact is pretty cut and dry. However it can be highly selective as well. Knowing what to select and then interpreting its importance to America and its people is a very different things and that is where people part company.
Click to expand...

which is why it's funny you cite Schlesinger. i might as well cite you Jim Powell
51MYFP2542L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


but it remains irrelevant Because Schlesinger agreed that FDR had little interest in or understanding of economics! :lamo



mind you, it didn't stop him (the ole progressive) from claiming that the New Deal was some kind of great shining achievement (on that i'll take exception with him); but on this point, on this point he betrays you, haymarket ;)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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. 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. 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...
I think they do know these things...but they are sworn to destroy our President; spin, half truths, outright lies matter not.. About 3 minutes of reading convinced me that Cato is not to be trusted.
 
this would be the CATO institute that spent the previous 8 years criticizing George Bush, yes?
 
tryreading said:
Anyway, I'm a capitalist, but I don't have a problem with the unemployment insurance setup. The general working public is not smart enough, or maybe not industrious enough to prepare for years of joblessness, or even for a few months of it. That's just the way it is. That's the reality, regardless of your ideals. But you honestly say that you don't care, and there's no arguing that. We just disagree.
Click to expand...

The solution then isn't to subsidize their stupidity, but to make allow the market to take its course. People will learn very quickly. Subsidizing the stupidity only breeds a sense of entitlement.
 
Henrin said:
Stop NOW. Your posts are void of substance only because you have nothing to say. That could be for a few reasons, you're clueless, you're a jerk or you're a troll. Whichever it is I also have no interest in you any longer. Just think now two more people are ignoring you. Good times.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences.
 
phattonez said:
The solution then isn't to subsidize their stupidity, but to make allow the market to take its course. People will learn very quickly. Subsidizing the stupidity only breeds a sense of entitlement.
Click to expand...

We subsidized the banks, the automobile industry, the insurance industry, and you think its wrong to make insurance payments to individuals who actually paid into the system.
 
the insurance was for 26 weeks; or, a little over 6 months. frankly, i think even that's excessive, but there you are. what we are now discussing is whether or not we should extend it for more than two years; at which point i think we can safely label it the new welfare. and i think i can safely speak for Phatz and I both when i say that we were heavily against the government aiding any of those industries.
 
Last edited:
tryreading said:
We subsidized the banks, the automobile industry, the insurance industry, and you think its wrong to make insurance payments to individuals who actually paid into the system.
Click to expand...

We're extending them past what the people were due. That's what I think is wrong.

And yes, we also subsidize all those industries. I think that's wrong as well.
 
Well, the justification for bailing out large businesses was that we would have had a deep depression otherwise. I believe it worked, judging by the things said at the time by people I trust, like Warren Buffet. It wasn't the government's job to do this, but it was deemed necessary.

It also isn't the government's responsibility to over extend unemployment benefits, but necessary for a while longer since jobs are scarce. It is not an unprecedented thing.
 
tryreading said:
Well, the justification for bailing out large businesses was that we would have had a deep depression otherwise. I believe it worked, judging by the things said at the time by people I trust, like Warren Buffet. It wasn't the government's job to do this, but it was deemed necessary.
Click to expand...

It worked? How many years later is it and we're still at almost 10% unemployment?

It also isn't the government's responsibility to over extend unemployment benefits, but necessary for a while longer since jobs are scarce. It is not an unprecedented thing.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary as it's one of the main causes of high unemployment.
 
Kandahar said:
The Democratic position is correct in this case. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of fiscal stimulus out there, because it increases the purchasing power of people who otherwise wouldn't have any.
Click to expand...
You need to stop drinking the Progressive Kool-Aid
 
drz-400 said:
Extend them one last time, making sure to get the message out "This is the final extension." Maybe it will give an extra boost to those who are unemployed to get a new job.
Click to expand...

Good idea but most politicians don't have the stones to enforce it.
 
friday said:
Democrats say we should pass an extension of unemployment benefits through deficit spending.

Republicans say take some of the unspent stimulus/tarp funds and pay for an unemployment benefit extension.

Conservatives are saying we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits at all for people who have already been on them because it is becoming unregulated welfare.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

We have just extended the unemployment services an ADDITIONAL 13 months...that takes us to about 160 weeks. Bet me money that when the economy still hasnt rebounded in 13 months they wont extend it yet AGAIN. THIS is the liberal solution. More taxes...more deficit and debt spending. More social programs. And thats working SO well.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
These two wars protect your LIBERTY.
Click to expand...
How so? We can't go into an airport without risking an anal probe, how is that liberty?
There are better ways to protect our liberty than sending ground troops over to get shot up and killed.
 
phattonez said:
It worked? How many years later is it and we're still at almost 10% unemployment?
Click to expand...

But many experts say the downturn would have been a lot worse without the bail out, probably a deep depression. There is a big difference between a recession and a depression.

phattonez said:
It's not necessary as it's one of the main causes of high unemployment.
Click to expand...

High unemployment is caused by unemployment benefits rather than the current lack of jobs?!?
 
tryreading said:
But many experts say the downturn would have been a lot worse without the bail out, probably a deep depression. There is a big difference between a recession and a depression.
Click to expand...

And doing nothing the recession probably would have been over now, at least by looking at avereage lengths of recessions before intervention became standard policy.

High unemployment is caused by unemployment benefits rather than the current lack of jobs?!?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a lack of jobs. People's demands for what they see as reasonable expectations are too high and that is fueled by subsidizing non-production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom