It's possible that a person might collect more benefits if the person has own business instead of being an employee.

According to PR Tom, thinking logically means you're naive.

Well then, by the way the Republicans think, when these 1.2 million people get off unemployment the job numbers will bounce back because these people will simply be forced to get jobs they all could already get.

On that Note, I bet your right, it prob is more politicaly motivated then for the good of the country, BUT
What would you do, extend them or not? Honestly, there has to be something else done...

Well see thats the thing, GotGauge. It very well MAY be a FINE idea to revamp the entire structure. But to begin the process by blocking extensions when the whole talking point for the past 18 months has been that the economy sucks? I'm pretty sure that queers the entire argument.

What I would do is extend the benefits AND propose solid reforms. Open debate on reform proposals, GOP senators, democrat senators, any dang senators who has the plan. Just do it. But dont hold up benefits at the 11th hour AGAIN just because you have a burr on your ass about it.

I just read a story of some middle class guy trying to rob a pizza joint so he could prevent his home from going into foreclosure. He apparently apologized to the girl behind the counter and told her why he was doing it. She then encouraged him to hit up family and friends instead. Ultimately she ended up getting robbed anyway for approximately $600.

I expect we'll see a lot more crime like this from such people. :(

Nothing wrong with preventing people from using my money to but their recreational drugs. But post one link to ANY congressman that has said if there were no unemployment benefits there would be no unemployment.

Pretty sure you can not because you arrived at that conclusion on your own.

I do have one question for you though . . . where do you live?

Why are the democrats so scared to let these people off unemployment? This is the "summer of growth" isnt it? This is when the dems said all the jobs would be rolling in. When unemployment numbers would go down, people would have jobs and credit would be easy.......

That's a sad story.

Expect crime to soar.

Only criminals have to resort to crime to survive. :2 cents:

I also agree that pulling the benifits at the last minute is not good, but then remember these people have thier fingers crossed that they will get extended AGAIN. So setting a deadline seems pointless, if no one believes it will ever happen.

Just so you know, I am for Programs that are used for what they are intended for.
Abuse on all levels has to stop, from programs to government.

We are in an age of entitlement, the Me Me Me, What do I get.
We are our own enemies!

Okay, so if the jobs aren't rolling in, why would the Republicans want to kick people out of homes, not allow kids to have food, basically support follow Americans suffering when they have very little or no other choice?

Because life is not fair? Because why should you steal from one to give to another? Why should you take from my family to give to another and put my family at risk of losing my house, car, and food?

USA is where I live. Also, I said senate hopeful sharron angle said it the other day. You can google sharron angle unemployment and find a slew of them, or can read any number of peoples opinions on it. Here's one http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu...ld_cut_un.html

You can google orrin hatch unemployment to find his proposal on it too. That was a couple of weeks ago..

My shoe size is 10.5 extra wide.

Being that life isn't fair, why isn't you and your family on the front lines fighting battles for our Country? Should you be allowed to benefit off others lives that are willing to give it up for you and your family? Why should you be allowed to be in American and get American benfits and be proud to be an American if you aren't willing to sacrifice your life for every follow American, let alone a tiny bit of your money to help them?

If you were at risk of losing your stuff and people cared, you wouldn't be at risk, would you?

Whether you want to believe it or not, the Republicans want more people out of work and broke because they can regain power in November more easily if the country is in a bigger shithole. If you don't think the party establishment thinks like that, then you don't understand how politics really works.

But overall, America is becoming a very un-American place. There is this new attitude of "every man for himself" that has been rising. I don't know if it's misplaced racism, or people are scared of a changing world or whatever. But talk that unemployment makes people not work, and senators using metaphors about feeding stray animals to describe those receiving unemployment benefits just isn't America as far as I am concerned.

Deregulation and a corporate take over of government has led to our situation where there are virtually no middle class jobs left in this country. We are in a transitional period and to not lend people a hand during this time just makes no sense to me. If you want to live in a world where it's every man for himself, go live in Somalia and tell me how you like it because that's how they do things in third world countries.

A sensible answer. Less people spending money in local communities on essentials means less money circulating and less jobs. More unemployment.

Some of those posting in this thread have a "Fuck you I'm alright Jack" attitude. I hope they never have the experienced of being unemployed. The way Internet porn is going some might change their attitude soon.

:upsidedow :upsidedow

They become criminals to protect and feed their families.

Really people that care? Like the IRS? :1orglaugh

People on the front lines VOLUNTEER TO BE THERE. Taxation is not voluntary.

Would I GIVE money to help people out yes and I have given 1000s of dollars to people who use to subcontract from me but I have no work for them, to get by. As a matter of fact I just paid one guys rent of $850.

But I would l would like to CHOOSE who I give my money to, not forced to give to people I dont know at gun point. :2 cents:

She did not say eliminating unemployment benefits will eliminate unemployment. She said eliminating extended benefits will cause people to take jobs that they feel are beneath them.


Your opinion is irrelevant, so I won't bother commenting on the idiocy of it.

And 3 years of democratic control in the house and senate got us where?

You're blaming the GOP for 2 votes, I just wanted you to know that and they have only had those 2 votes for 6 months. What happened the rest of the time?

Pretty much. All these people who "Bush this.... Clinton this... Obama 9 months ago that.." are just crying about the problem.

Find a solution. Who gives a shit whose fault it is. The problem exists - fix it.

The problem is government can not fix it. Government only destroys wealth it can not create it.

I'm in the camp of people that think most unemployed people either don't try at all, don't try for jobs they feel are beneath them, or don't learn other skills necessary to get jobs they can't currently get (I realize not all cities are alike but here at least, there are 100% FREE adult education classes on all sorts of things, libraries, the internet with many free information sources, etc.).

My brother who has probably been fired from more than a dozen jobs over the years always finds work, ALWAYS. Sometimes it's temp/contract work vs. permanent jobs (I wonder how many people flat-out ignore temp work), sometimes it's doing odd jobs for people directly, seeking them out on Craigslist, etc., but I don't think he's gone a month without work in several years except when he was in rehab (and yea, he was getting jobs even while he had a pretty bad drug problem).

Yes, he knows computer stuff and not everyone does, but I bet a sliver of unemployed people do anything constructive besides submitting applications. They could be using the time to learn skills to get jobs they wouldn't be able to get. Hell, even if they don't have a computer/net connection, LIBRARY. When times are tough, you have to get tougher and work harder and use different angles if necessary to get what you need.

I don't believe there would be no unemployment if there were no unemployment benefits, but you would see much much more motivation out of the unemployed if their unemployment wasn't lasting a ridiculous amount of time.

I know someone recently who drew unemployment for at least a year if not longer. Happily took it in, didn't do shit except go to the casino and gamble all but the bare essential money away. Kept doing that until unemployment ran out. Then...well whaddya know, he went out and looked for a job, and got one in a week or two. I refuse to believe that it's only a tiny percentage of people that have that exact same path.

This thread is full of the rhetoric that politicians feed on. The rhetoric that lines their pockets and keeps them in power for 50 years. Oh how they would hate it if the common man realized that a guy with a red or blue shirt is not the enemy, but actually a friend that is passionate about making our country a better place now and in the future.

It's frustrating and downright sad watching the Minority Leader trash the President and the President trash the Minority Leader. It seems the only time red and blue can agree is when there is a 9/11. Heh, maybe it was the government.

Serious question.

Instead of paying construction workers unemployment, why can't we pay them unemployment wage and have them out fixing some of the infrastructure problems that we have today? I read an article just this morning that said the Capitol Hill area needs over $250 million in repairs. That is pathetic. Our Capitol Hill should be in tip top shape at all times.

Instead of paying teachers unemployment, why can't we pay them an unemployment wage and put them in a scenario where they can continue teaching children? Our kids don't suddenly disappear. They still need to be taught.

Instead of paying healthcare workers unemployment, why can't we attach them to people that need health care workers but can't fully afford healthcare wages? There are many, many people like this.

Not only would this keep our nonworking people, working, but it would also help society as a whole. Get these people out contributing to the areas we need it most. I think it would also help slash some of the fraud issue. Hey, if I'm working the same job and only making half of the wages, I'm going to be pretty determined to get out there and find a regular full-time job.

Now a counter argument to this is "if they are working 40 hours a week, how are they going to apply for new better jobs?" Frankly, that's a pretty weak argument but I'll give it some merit anyway. We'll have these people work 25 hours a week instead of 40.

I would like to hear a good, concrete argument against this proposition. I've thought about it many times. I can't think of a concrete argument that isn't just whining.

Unfortunately we have some family members who are exactly like that. They refuse to even try to get jobs because they don't want to take a chance of losing that check. One of them works a flea market for cash under the table so that they can keep collecting. :(

There is no argument against that. What you said is EXACTLY what should be happening.

Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Leaving hard working people to fend for themselves when no jobs exist which are suitable to their skill sets is not the answer.

Extending benefits is half the solution. Requiring verifiable job training class attendance, weeding out people who abuse the system and enforcing the rules already in place to promote temporary use of unemployment is the other half.

Doing either is silly. Doing neither is silly. The country, can... should... and eventually will do both.

Because they can get the same thing for doing nothing.

That's apart of the problem.

No term limits, people viewing politics as sports(oh lol I'm a dem, we won the primaries in 42 states!11!! lol lol omg u suck), people being ignorant as fuck and believing the bs rhetoric politicans feed them to further the divide..... list goes on and on and on and... on.

LOL. I like the sports analogy. That's hilarious. Never thought of it that way before.

unfortunately because of human nature a country can't be a 'little socialist' - meaning we provide a safety net for those who really need it. once the governement starts handing out money and services there's no going backwards.

Sly's post is good - make social assistance work for everybody, make people work for it, contribute until they don't need it anymore - unless you can produce a medical certificate that says you can't do anything you are going to do something.

there is no way out of the economic mess the US is in, millions of people are going to hurt for a long time simply because the standard of living that millions became accustomed to was based on credit and the well has run dry.

I was reading an article about young people, they are ready for this. this generation doesn't leave home or want to that badly, they don't care about material things that much other than technology, they need internet and a cellphone but they don't have the same dreams previous generations had for their own McMansion and 2 late model cars in the driveway.

It is about time the Republicans stood up and agreed to stop runaway deficit spending........... it is a shame that it took the catastrophe of an Obama presidency to finally get them to show some backbone and fiscal restraint.

I wish you right-wing idiots would go post on free republic or something

Of course a country can be a little socialist. But the term socialism has been abused so it's not even an appropriate term to use anyway.

The same way a country can be a little capitalist. Look at China.

But having people work for unemployment sounds good, but it's completely impossible to implement on a huge scale. First of all there is the cost, people bitch about the costs of unemployment benefits yet now they want to administer some huge work program placing people in jobs, managing them, dealing with human resource issues, etc. They can't just be slaves, so you will have to deal with all those issues a normal employer deals with. People say they don't want socialism but now they want the government to place you in a government job before you can get money...what the hell is that?

I would like to see some sort of volunteer system set up, but forcing people to work for a government check is more socialist and more "big government" than just giving them a free check outright. I don't get the logic.

Forcing people to work for money they did not earn is socialist and big government? Hmm. Interesting.

Nancy Pelosi is suffering from Alzheimer's, dementia or both.

Nancy Pelosi: "Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs."

Nancy Pelosi: "It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name."

Amen. :thumbsup

A lot of people here don?t understand basic economics politics aside. There simply aren?t enough jobs to for the unemployed to fill. Eliminating unemployment benefits will lead to less money in the economy, and even fewer jobs. Given the current disaster in the gulf we could easily be looking at 14-15% unemployment in 6 -8 months. Any mainstream economist will tell you the only surefire way out of a recession is government spending, but the republicans have suddenly developed a sense of fiscal responsibility after eight years of never seeing a spending bill they didn?t like. Two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts, and an unfunded prescription drug benefit they said yes to all of it. 90% of the current deficit is the result of Bush era programs. When anybody asked them how we were going to pay for the spending the Republicans responded with don?t worry about it go shopping. The Republicans have figured out the only way they will get back into power after such an awful track record is to sabotage the economy and try and make Obama look worse than they did. They know if the economy actually turns around during Obama?s tenure they are likely to be out of power for the next 10-15 years.

I like the idea you proposed and if there was a way to do it, that would be great. I just feel it might be impractical.

My thinking is that the unemployment benefit system has served a valuable purpose and for the most part it works, not sure why suddenly everybody thinks it's some sort of welfare system and causing people to not to work.

Mainstream = Keynesian?

More economists are starting to question and doubt Keynesian principles.

I haven't ever had an issue with the IRS that they didn't help with, without flack. Don't screw them over and be honest, people don't have problems then. You can live the life style to pay very little or no taxes, it's not an uncommon thing. We both selected a different life style though.

It's nice that you helped someone... unfortunately so many people need help that enough people won't and can't freely give up money to help out millions of others. Without those taxes, people aren't just going to give money to those that got hurt, or all the sudden 1,000's or 1.2 million people instantly don't have money or jobs - a volunteer system, isn't helping them. It didn't work before, it's why it was setup, it isn't going to work if it's taken away.

I want to live in a nice America, drive on nice roads, feel some what safe, enjoy a life style other nations dream of and know my fellow Americans can too. To get that, I have to pay for it, it's not free and it shouldn't be. What you have, what we all have, wasn't free - freedom isn't free.

If I wanted to live in a shit hole, drive on shit roads, half less than half the selection of everything, no rest stops, not near as good as softy, crap parks, just live a basic life of blah, then I would pick one of many places that I can live and not pay taxes at.

If you want that, you have plenty of options... that's what you get if you want to quit paying taxes and totally fail on the people.

Pretty soon the federal government is going to create an advisory board on how to teach your cat to shit properly. I'm sure they could find some bureaucratic red tape hellhole to funnel unemployed workers into areas of need, LOL. Most of the institutions that need workers are already set up.

In the basement of my building is a free health/dental clinic for the poor, they could definitely use some health-care workers. Etc. etc. I admit that it would require some serious thinking and infrastructure in itself... but shit, if we can create an infrastructure (even though it was a major fuck up) to practically give away new cars, I would think we could put forth the effort to develop an infrastructure that would actually help our society out a little bit while creating a nice little incentive for people to go out and try something new PLUS I guarantee you the unemployment naysayers would have a much easier time swallowing this pill.

It could be used as a compromise I suppose. I just think the unemployment benefits program isn't really that broken. Why are we focusing on it so much.

There is this huge national strawman that makes it look like everyone on unemployment is gaming the system and living like a king on your dime. But that's not the case. A majority of people on unemployment right now have always had a job, paid their taxes, lived by the rules, and now are asking for help for THE FIRST TIME.

Now, it's the toughest economic times in nearly a century and people want to get tough on unemployment benefits. It doesn't seem to be the right time and it doesn't seem ethical or in line with American values.

Some people abuse the system, for sure not all of them.

If the flea market puts some cash in the pocket and can pay for a few expenses, then I'm fine with that - it's an example of a person needing help and doing something about it.

However if that person is milking the system, maybe earns enough or spouse has it covered, then you should report them so it stops and they have to pay the money back.

That's when we should be pushing for stiffer regulations and checks in place, because we know it can be abused. Much like I agree with the drug testing of those that get benefits.

I think you either don't understand economics or have been spoonfed the mainstream keynesian bullshit. The way you create jobs is by increasing the manufacturing sector while decreasing the public sector as well as outsourcing. More manufacturing=more demand=more jobs to fill the demand. Basic economics. Great left wing argument though, no common sense and completely full of holes.

Exactly Pay the People to WORK!
33.3 BILLION is a Lot of Fixing things!

THIS JUST IN HOUSE PASSES BILL
Senate chamber, however, closed up shop Wednesday evening for the summer recess after failing to pass its own version of the bill, which would raise the deficit by $33.3 billion.

As a result, more than 2.1 million people are expected to have lost their unemployment benefits by the time legislators reconvene on July 12


FULL STORY HERE

Pelosi, once again proving she's the dumbest politician in over 100 years.

It's actually very simple... money flow is the only thing that keeps the economy going or growing, period! Every time the Gov didn't half ass it and actually injected the hell out of money into the Eco, it took back off again.

Manufacturing might help, if we had something to manufacture. To do that we have to be a leader in a technology, so really technology = more demand = more jobs. Truly, the economic ideas of the 1950's just don't work today.

You do not need the income tax to do any of that. My beef is not with taxes, my beef is with the income tax.