I'm sorry,

[domtoni]

Sure it creates jobs the unemployed work for the government. These jobs actually don't do anything except tide people over, however the govt has an obligation to it's citizenry to create conditions which will allow for fuller employment. We don't see that.

Jim, two of my silicon valley friends report the economic conditions as far different from your experience.

See my post in the Tax Increase thread.

 

[Jim Craik]

domtoni,

Once again, you can make statistics say anything. In what area and over what time frame did your friends make their search?

Obviously all markets are down from their 2007-8 values and all markets are up since the 1980s', you can "prove" anything with numbers.

The market time I'm talking about are the areas I have investments, the lower SF Peninsula, and northern Santa Clara County and they are up over the last six months.

 

[Jim Craik]

Quote from Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele

“That’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. This was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” said Mr. Steele during a Republican convention.

Obama's choosing? What a lie!

Selfish Consevative pary leaders say very very stupid things all the time (see above), its just that we do not start threads with every one, give it a rest.

 

[domtoni]

Jim, I am pleased you are doing well. I'll copy and paste my friends comments tomorrow.

 

[Jim Craik]

<TABLE class=tborder id=post303192 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_303192 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid">(Quote)I don't think it is condescending to point that someone who rails against Democrats, leftists, communists, etc. and wants a divorce from them turned to a social program and "stole from us all" when it served his needs.
I've been through some of the older threads on this board and you say some inflammatory stuff. Yet, when you hit tough times, you line up and take the dole.

You don't see anything askew with that? Seriously?

I for one am glad that program helped you through a difficult time, and that you got back on your feet. (Quote) (Posted by Jeff about Al)

So Al, you say you saved the money, So you did not need to "STEAL FROM US ALL" yet you did.

But now after selfish Consevative policies have ruened many peoples lives, you blame it on others and then refuse to help (by not extending unemployment ins).

Your rants against liberal policies have lost all credibility.





</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid">

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Quote: Jim Craik
So Al, you say you saved the money, So you did not need to "STEAL FROM US ALL" yet you did.

How can you steal something you have contributed to for over 40 years?
Enough, you are boring!

 

[Jim Craik]

Al,

So after all the inflammatory things you have said about liberals, Democrats, our President, social programs...day after day, When the spotlight turns on you it becomes (BORING).

You can dish it out but you cant take it! Good day!

 

[Jack]

Boy's, boy's, can't we all just get along?????????????

 

[Doug S.]

I contributed to them all of my life, I don't have a problem with collecting them once.

How can you steal something you have contributed to for over 40 years?

I understand this philosophy, Al....was once on the same side as you except for had it not been for the unemployment I would have become homeless and would not have eaten.

You were entitled to those benefits, no doubt.

Did you "need" them? I would propose that you did not if you had adequate reserves to continue to pay your bills and still put the income into the savings account. Lucky you! I must admit, though....you are the very first person I've ever run across who was able to do that!

So, yes....you were entitled to those benefits. You did not "steal" at all.....now, however, whether accepting those benefits when you did not really need them was an "honorable" act is something that I would suggest is subject to debate :stunned: , but accepting what is due to you regarding an entitlement program was not wrong, nor would be accepting the Social Security benefits to which you are entitled once you become of an age to receive those. I'd suspect even Bill Gates might well accept what he has coming from Social Security :drunk: .

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug, I agree,

Additionally Al deserves to have all the aide he is intitled to, no problem there. Its just when he goes on and on and on.... about others.......

Something about the kettle calling the pot........

 

[chuck smith]

I am an educated person, and can understand the positive economic impact of unemployment benefits, as touted by NP. However, I do think that this philosophy assumes that there is money available in the coffers to pay for it, and as we all know, this is not the case. Whether you are liberal or conservative, you should be able to understand that the only way to acheive long lasting prosperity is to live within the confines of a sensible budget. Although a certain amount of debt is healthy for an economy, we have past that some time ago, and seem hell bent on making it far worse. And so, in this sense, Pelosi's statement is indeed stupid. There is no endless well of money available, and the Republicans, at least at this point in time, are not against extending unemployment benefits, they are simply wanting to balance them with cutting wastefull spending on some of these other failed programs (Tarp, stimulus ect..). As far as the debt goes, there is ample blame to go around for its causes, but even a child realizes that when you are in a hole you ask for a ladder and not a shovel.

 

[Jeff Young]

I fully agree spending needs to be brought under control, but unemployment benefits are a fairly small piece of the pie (although an important one as they keep people off the streets AND immediately increase the speed at which money cycles through the economy).

The hard choices for cuts are defense, social security and medicare. They make up 70% or so of the budget. All are political hot potatoes and nearly impossible to cut.

That is where we need the ladder, and someone brave enough to climb it.

 

[chuck smith]

since it is a small piece of the pie, then cuts in other smaller wastefull programs to fund it seems a no brainer. You are correct in that cuts in those areas you mentioned will be tough. I see no way to cut the military in these scary times, other than trimming waste. But then again, who defines waste? Social security cuts will be especially difficult, since this is money that the government took from us as a tax, so they could better invest it for our future, and promptly squandered. Medicare is an obvious one, but how can you cut medicare while you propose essentially to broaden it with the new helath care initiative. (makes no sense). You are again correct in that it will take a brave person to climb this shaky ladder. Now, if we can just extract the shovel from this administrations hands long enough to find someone.

 

[Doug S.]

Social security cuts will be especially difficult, since this is money that the government took from us as a tax, so they could better invest it for our future, and promptly squandered.

SO correct! Governments led by both Republicans and Democrats have routinely steered the $$ deducted from our earnings to the "general fund" for generations and now that the "baby-boomer" generation is coming of age and expecting what was promised, we're finding out that it's not there.

Seems that the entire burden of our nation's debt/spending failures will not be born by our children, it looks like those of us who are reaching an age where we could collect our "entitlement", and were powerless to stem the flood of our $$ out of the government's coffers, will be the FIRST to suffer for our inaction.

Doug

 

[Ron Earp]

social security and medicare. They make up 70% or so of the budget. All are political hot potatoes and nearly impossible to cut.

And maybe harder than your realize as the SS and Medicare system is more heavily loaded with longer lived folks.

A recent Science Friday featured a segment on genetic markers for centenarians. Not only can these markers be used to predict long lived humans, but, we'll be seeing more centenarians, and more 85+ old folks, in the coming decades. Why? Well, a significant segment of the population, as much as 15-20%, has the genetic makeup to help them get past 85 years old. But, in the last 85 years many sociological happenings have prevented these folks from reaching their full lifespan - disease, poor health care, wars, ignorance of health risks, etc. Nowadays a lot of these items are addressed and we'll see more 85+ year old folks, eclipsing the current US life expectancy of 78 years. And, we'll see more 100+ year old for the same reason, although their population segment is very small.

With respect to the title of this thread there is one thing I learned early on - the first thing someone says or writes when launching into a story is rarely truthful. For example, "I don't want to seem like a bitch, but....." is translated into "I'm going to be a bitch and call you out...." I submit Al really isn't sorry he started this thread.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

With respect to the title of this thread there is one thing I learned early on - the first thing someone says or writes when launching into a story is rarely truthful. For example, "I don't want to seem like a bitch, but....." is translated into "I'm going to be a bitch and call you out...." I submit Al really isn't sorry he started this thread.

And neither he should be, it has resulted in an interesting and in most instances a healthy debate.

 

[chuck smith]

one other tid bit on social security. One way the government is planning to reduce our debt is by inflating our way out of it, and it has been done with some success by other countries. However, social security payments are tied to inflation and therefore that tactic will backfire. A sticky wicket for sure.

 

[Rod]

FYI Economist Paul Krugman spoke about extending unemployment benefits on The Colbert Report last night.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...-05-2010/unemployment-benefits---paul-krugman

 

[Pat]

Jeff, your answer while simplistic, misses the point. The administration's efforts are neither scalable nor sustainable.
The government doesn't create wealth, it only redistributes it. Unfortunately they are funding their efforts by simply printing more money. Look at where your economic theories are applied on a grand scale Greece??? California??? New York?? Your solutions suggest that the national economy can somehow prosper with spending and no cost cutting. Let's just print money, hand it out and the " multiplier effect" will allow everyone to prosper. You forget one BIG THING... THERE IS NO VALUE ADDED!!!!!!
The value add is what creates the multiplier.

A friend named Tom White recently wrote this:
"The fatal flaw in Pelosi’s reasoning is the incorrect belief that unemployment checks stimulate. While she is correct that the money is quickly spent, which is the basic and necessary requirement of any government effort to stimulate the economy with free money, she also states the money “is needed for families to survive, and it is spent”. That much is true, however, a stimulus must be over and above the minimum spending required for survival. Otherwise it is merely basic sustenance, not stimulus.

A stimulus, by definition, creates spending above the baseline. An economy in decline, as we now have, requires stimulation over and above the baseline.

Any family surviving on unemployment is spending less than when employed. There is no discretionary spending, only basic survival. There are no visits to restaurants, no home beautification projects to keep jobs at Home Depot, no extras. Period.

Unemployment Insurance is Insurance

Unemployment insurance is insurance. The purpose of insurance is to indemnify, or make whole. The objective of any type of insurance is never to leave you “better off”, but to leave you the same. Unemployment Insurance fails miserably at indemnification. It will not even come close to replacing your income, let alone benefits. You will always be far worse off. (And this is a prime example of why government “single payer” health care is a BAD idea.)

If your auto insurance company decided to replace your brand new BMW, which you totaled, with a 1995 BMW, you are not indemnified. You are screwed.

But this is exactly how government provided unemployment insurance works. Except in most cases the BMW is replaced with an old bicycle.

The net effect of unemployment spending when compared to “employed” spending is a vast decrease in money flowing out.

What we see with so many people trying to make ends meet on unemployment is a sharp upswing in foreclosures, more people living without insurance (of any kind), and businesses are seeing a drop in sales.

No one is actually seeing a recovery where it counts – in their pocketbooks."

And yes, she's an idiot...

 

[Keith]

And neither he should be, it has resulted in an interesting and in most instances a healthy debate.

I agree and I'll tell you what, if I went out in my home town tonight, with a bunch of folding money and offered everybody I met a cash bonus if they would debate important political 'issues' with me that affect our daily lives, I'd be chucked out of every pub, where discussion about religion and politics are banned. Not just here but probably in every pub in United Kingdom, with the possible exception of Northern Ireland where you would be killed (and then thrown out). No one here really engages in politics but are very quick to moan if they don't like something, but where & how they moan, I really have no idea. Facebook?

Personally, I have learned much about US politics on this Board that I could never have got from anywhere else, because I do not subscribe to the view that 'journalists' of any media are any more than sensation seeking,ratings concious, self promoting useless bastards and I can say that because I was one (useless and a journalist )

However, an automatically contrary position based upon rhetoric, dogma and retrenched partisan politics does NOT consitute a debate IMO. You can nay say your opponents viewpoint until you are blue in the face, he ain't listening and nor are you, so what's the point in banging on about it all?

I would echo another posters view that we should, as much as possible respect anothers viewpoint - unless they are wrong of course! :laugh:

Otherwise, it's a waste of bandwidth, but I do think it's quite interesting as a 'foreigner' to learn this stuff from the horses mouth so to speak...

In the UK, it's a tradition at Election Time, to vote for the best looking guy, doesn't matter what he stands for, and if you're a woman, you will definitely get elected if you go around like your most fearsome granny, act like you're the Queen of England drive battle tanks and handbag every male in sight.