• 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

extensions would be nothing more than additional income redistribution. Is your solution-as a "conservative" to keep paying unemployment benefits as long as you think that there are not enough jobs? Just curious
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?

Further, as far as I can tell the CBO maintains that when it comes to spurring our economy back to where it should be, extending the unemployment benefits offers good bang for the buck. On this point I am open to having my mind changed. If you have anything that runs contrary to this, I am willing to look at it. Please provide at your convenience.
 
Your idea raises taxes on the poor, and almost exclusively so given the market for these cheaper goods. In fact, as these terms go, this is about as regressive a tax as you can get. Why do you hate the poor?

And then our exports get slaughtered in the ensuing trade war, causing more jobs to be lost.

Brilliant strategy.


Is that not the same result that a "Fair Tax" would give?
 
You're looking at all wrong if you're looking for a job. There are 10 job openings (that's what's important)and they will be hiring 10 people. Maybe only 10 will apply or maybe 100 will. Gee... maybe you could be one of the 10 who gets hired.
Now, if there were 0 job openings, I'd say we should extend benefits as long as needed.
So all 10 jobs get filled and that leaves how many people still looking? Almost 3 times as many.

This isn't a regular economy that we're used to.
 
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?

Further, as far as I can tell the CBO maintains that when it comes to spurring our economy back to where it should be, extending the unemployment benefits offers good bang for the buck. On this point I am open to having my mind changed. If you have anything that runs contrary to this, I am willing to look at it. Please provide at your convenience.


I asked a simple question.
 
It's not about what I think. The BLS numbers are facts. The economy we're used to has a ratio of closer to 1 to 1 job seekers to jobs. This is not the case today. We can address them as facts or we can plug our ears and spout partisan platitudes. Which is more conservative, addressing facts such as they are or as we wish they were?

Further, as far as I can tell the CBO maintains that when it comes to spurring our economy back to where it should be, extending the unemployment benefits offers good bang for the buck. On this point I am open to having my mind changed. If you have anything that runs contrary to this, I am willing to look at it. Please provide at your convenience.

Why do you buy CBO data when the CBO website talks about the accuracy of their data? What does CBO stand for and who directs their activity? That is all you really need to know. Stick to the non partisan sites not those that make rosey predictions based upon false assumptions.
 
BLS does indeed provide facts, it shows what has happened, are you telling me there aren't any jobs at all out there?
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.

BLS doesn't predict it reports. Just because there are 4 million more unemployed today than when Obama took office doesn't mean there are 4 million less jobs available. They are just jobs that some people don't have an incentive to take. It may be A job not THE job but it sure beats unemployment. Doesn't look to me like you understand the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?
 
Is that not the same result that a "Fair Tax" would give?

1) Depends what you mean by a fair tax -- it wouldn't be the same at all as a flat rate income tax, by any means, and if it's a consumption tax, it

2) Depends on the level of the tariff compared that tax (the tariff would have to be pretty freakin' steep to do what haymarket wants it to do)

3) A "Fair Tax" would be offset at least in part by the elimination of current income taxes

and

4) Even if it does the same thing, I never argued in favor of a "Fair Tax," so it's irrelevant -- and it would be even if I had.

This, of course, is assuming that the trade war wouldn't result in a trade embargo, which would open an entirely different can of miserable worms.


Further, it would be far more regressive than a "fair tax," even a consumption tax, because again, these goods would be bought almost exclusively by the lower income levels. The tariff -- the tax -- would be borne almost entirely by the poor. Not so with a "fair tax" of any scheme I've seen.
 
Last edited:
I asked a simple question.

My bet is that those in the 47% that don't pay any net Federal Income taxes couldn't care less what the taxes are on those that do pay taxes. Hell, raise them as much as Obama wants since it doesn't affect them. Class warfare is all liberals do.
 
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.

They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?

No, what BLS shows you is how many people are working, how many people are unemployed, it doesn't show you how many jobs are available. Where do you get the numbers from BLS that shows jobs available? Link it
 
you are a fine one to speak about diversions....i asked you, you conservative, to give me the numbers....you can't do it....you don't posess the knowledge, you never did, but tried to pass it off that you did, and threw up a link to the corporate wallyworld to try and take the heat off...there are terms to describe what you tried to pass off...but i wont go into them here.

I'm not conservative...well yea, I am conservative.
this what you couldn't find? they also have HC, 401(K),profit sharing and stock purchases.
In the United States, our compensation package is competitive with others in the industry, totaling over $5.2 billion last year. In addition to what the market requires, we base wages on experience, skills, problem-solving and job accountability. The average hourly, full-time wage for Associates in our U.S. stores is $10.76.
These wages, while competitive with industry, are in many cases entry level jobs. We realize that many stakeholders expect us to pay more, while others are concerned about our ability to remain competitive in serving our customers. We see ways to address both concerns. An example of this was our recent advocacy for an increase in the federal minimum wage.
Wal-Mart - Sustainability Progress to Date 2007-2008 - Wages and Benefits
 
Why do you buy CBO data when the CBO website talks about the accuracy of their data? What does CBO stand for and who directs their activity? That is all you really need to know. Stick to the non partisan sites not those that make rosey predictions based upon false assumptions.
Please describe which assumptions are false.
 
I'm not conservative...well yea, I am conservative.
this what you couldn't find? they also have HC, 401(K),profit sharing and stock purchases.
In the United States, our compensation package is competitive with others in the industry, totaling over $5.2 billion last year. In addition to what the market requires, we base wages on experience, skills, problem-solving and job accountability. The average hourly, full-time wage for Associates in our U.S. stores is $10.76.
These wages, while competitive with industry, are in many cases entry level jobs. We realize that many stakeholders expect us to pay more, while others are concerned about our ability to remain competitive in serving our customers. We see ways to address both concerns. An example of this was our recent advocacy for an increase in the federal minimum wage.
Wal-Mart - Sustainability Progress to Date 2007-2008 - Wages and Benefits

There are also corporate jobs at Wal-Mart with many of them coming from people who have worked their way up through the stores. Wal-Mart also has an education reimbursement program which encourages people to further their education. As you pointed out Wal-Mart is a good corporate citizen giving millions to local charities but there are a number of wage structures at Wal-Mart, store level pay scale and a corporate pay structure. What I learned from Wal-Mart is what I did in my business, promote from within and that provided incentive for people to work hard and produce results. It paid great dividends.
 
Please describe which assumptions are false.

Link the CBO report you claim in your post and then I will comment on it, I won't comment without seeing the resport. I am also waiting for BLS.gov data that shows the jobs available.
 
As I stated earlier--as long as it benefits the country.

Here is what CBO says which of course you ignored.

The CBO therefore claims, in addition to "dampen[ing] people's efforts to look for work," that taking money out of the economy and putting it back into unemployment benefits might increase economic output, or it might decrease it?

Now tell me why you would buy CBO predictions. It might increase or it might decrease economic output! Brilliant analysis
 
If you will look at what I posted you will see what I am telling you. It's that there are more job seekers than jobs. This is different than there not being any jobs. It's that there aren't enough jobs.

They provide a ratio of the number of job seekers to the number of jobs. Have you looked at that ratio? What does it tell you?

It tells me that there are still jobs that aren't filled. Doesn't matter how many are jobless until those jobs are filled. What if there was 50 million jobs available and 100 million unemployed?
Should the hundred million receive unemployment for 2 yrs or would you say 26 wks is a bit more reasonable?
 
It tells me that there are still jobs that aren't filled. Doesn't matter how many are jobless until those jobs are filled. What if there was 50 million jobs available and 100 million unemployed?
Should the hundred million receive unemployment for 2 yrs or would you say 26 wks is a bit more reasonable?

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
 
from Harshaw

Why do you hate the poor?

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?
 
It tells me that there are still jobs that aren't filled. Doesn't matter how many are jobless until those jobs are filled. What if there was 50 million jobs available and 100 million unemployed?Should the hundred million receive unemployment for 2 yrs or would you say 26 wks is a bit more reasonable?
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.
 

This is a survey done by BLS that surveys the U.S. economy as it is now, 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. Since there is lack of incentive to create a new business today due to the increasing costs of employees and the debt that Obama is creating bls only measures the known but it also doesn't match geography to the numbers. There may be extremely large numbers of unemployed in a particular area with jobs available in other areas. 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.
 
Here is what CBO says which of course you ignored.

The CBO therefore claims, in addition to "dampen[ing] people's efforts to look for work," ...
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.

...that taking money out of the economy and putting it back into unemployment benefits might increase economic output, or it might decrease it?
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.

Now tell me why you would buy CBO predictions. It might increase or it might decrease economic output! Brilliant analysis
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom