Originally Posted by trevesty (Post 17299070)

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.

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 17296583)

People should never have depended on government in the first place.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17296730)

Wouldn't it be better if they had jobs Mr President?

The problem with the bill is that they are sneaking in a bunch of other things as usual and calling it the unemployment bill, it's politics as usual

Some Republicans offered to support the unemployment bill if it was paid for with unspent money from last year's massive economic recovery package. Democrats rejected the offer, saying the money was needed for jobs programs. If the money is there for jobs programs, why aren't they spending it?

So don't go blaming the GOP, it's politics as usual

I think a plan that would work is hiring 50k out of work people to patrol the border, they can use their own guns, I would go for that! LMAO

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 17299404)

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.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17298755)

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

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 17299440)

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

Originally Posted by Kingfish (Post 17299471)

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.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17298621)

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:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim (Post 17299507)

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.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 17299553)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17299020)

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. :(

Originally Posted by Kingfish (Post 17299471)

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.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 17298960)

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.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17299613)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299539)

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.

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 17296490)

Been like that since Obama is in .... Gotta beat the black man , no matter what .:2 cents:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17299653)

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.

Originally Posted by Coup (Post 17299369)

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

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299683)

Federal taxes is about forced money movement.

Can you name a Country with a higher standard of living that does not have some form of income tax? It doesn't have to be income, it could be gross, it could be higher sales, but either way - they get the money out of your hands and keep it moving.

As well, why is it that the 1st world Countries with these high taxes also have the richest people in the world and the most amount of wealthy people, more now percentage wise than ever before in history? All the while providing living standards for the poor that make them look wealthy compared to average workers in any 3rd world nation.....

Them bad, bad, bad taxes...

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299642)

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.

Originally Posted by Coup (Post 17299369)

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

Originally Posted by Gouge (Post 17299442)

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."

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17299706)

We were a 1st world country with some of the richest people in the world long before the income tax. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299759)

You do know we started paying Federal income tax in 1862 right?

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17299710)

Please give examples of years this happened because everytime the Government injected money into our economy on this level(only a few times), it only got worse. Keynesian economics don't work, especially when you're running a deficit of each kind. If you ran ANY type of surplus, it COULD work, so there's no point in discussing this.

Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17299710)

Of course they do. We are leaders in technology still. We just choose to be cheap and outsource jobs, which we didn't do as much in the 1950's. The economics of the 50's not only work, but prove that the system brought widespread prosperity to this country.

Supply Side economics(Austrian and some Classical) will always trump Demand Side Economics(keynesian) in terms of principles that work for this country.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 17299786)

I am talking personal income tax. The first personal income tax was repealed, then they tried it again and it was ruled unconstitutional. Finally they got what they wanted in 1913.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hotto...s_history.html

And are we not using slave labor today?

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299836)

Great depression, it wasn't until they finally got of the pot and injected money like mad, stated injected for jobs, war jobs, etc... then it took off. It took a huge injection of money.

Before this the GD just slagged on, no stimulus, then a little, then a few big shots but nothing with any balls. Once they finally stood up and did it, it was over. Of course taxes have to go up to take that money back, can't bottle neck that flow.

Originally Posted by Axeman (Post 17299856)

The war was the biggest reason for the pullout from the depression. It took federal money to inject and get the war operations up and running, but it was the fact that Europe was destroyed and needed to buy things from America after the war to rebuild that gave a huge rise to the US and the economy.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 17298960)

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.

Originally Posted by SuzzyQ (Post 17300001)

Sky,
You just posted what I have been thinking for months. With our infrastructure falling apart, (there was a show on the History Channel about it), WHY don't we take that stimulus money and put it towards fixing the infrastructure?.That would solve some of this countries problems.

Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 17299038)

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.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17299859)

it took the Gov's money to do it, it always has. Then it's the people that stand up and do it.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 17300232)

But the government doesn't HAVE any money. It's OUR money (taxpayers)

Redistribution of wealth?

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks (Post 17296583)

People should never have depended on government in the first place.

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 17297683)

do you believe this is a democrat/republican problem or just a problem with a fucked up government in general?