Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9369 Followers
Eduardo Cantoral
1732 Followers
Eduardo Cantoral
1732 Followers
Steve Elliott ~alapoet~
7865 Followers
Steve Elliott ~alapoet~
7865 Followers
aubreymaturin
100 Followers
aubreymaturin
100 Followers
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
This is the way I see it: There are just as many jobless republicans out there (if not more so) than democrats. (If you look at a map of unemployment statistics, other than CA, this seems to be the facts).
If the republicans are fine with their leaders cutting them off, then I can live with that.
I knew a lot of people who have never had any history of unemployment who constantly and consistently paid into unemployment and social security who didn't qualify for any kind of benefits. Those people toughed it out and did everything they could to make ends meet. If those people can do it, then so can those who've had the luxury of those benefits who were able to sit around all day doing things they loved instead of busting their ass to make enough money to have food on the table.
08sosoJul 5, 2010
I wonder how you get your information. Only in New Jersey, I believe, do employees pay for their unemployment compensation, in all other states it is an employer responsibility. Social Security is only available for dependents of dead people and the disabled before age 62. You only have to have paid into SS for 10 years before you qualify for retirement benefits - everyone who pays gets them if they live long enough. If you worked for almost any employer for the proper length of time, you receive unemployment if you are laid off. No subjective qualification there. So I don't know who those "a lot of people are who didn't qualify" for benefits. If you had ever been unemployed, with or without benefits, you would know that it is a very unpleasant experience [except possibly for some young kid who lives and home and has no financial obligations. The emotional toll on you of wondering when you might ever work again, or be able to save money, or buy your kids anything other than food and shelter is enormous. You are heartless and arrogant to believe that the unemployed are sitting around doing "things they love" on $15-20K a year which is an average unemployment check - which thanks to Reagan is also taxed if they ever get back to work and make enough income to "qualify".
batfishyJul 5, 2010
"You are heartless and arrogant to believe that the unemployed are sitting around doing "things they love""
Agreed. Worrying about money and work kind of take the fun out of things, you know? If my husband lost his job, the thing he loves is golf and it would be the first thing he'd have to stop playing.
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
08soso - I may not pay my unemployment premiums, but it does come out of the money I bring into the company. I am a contractor, so this doesn't apply to everyone though. Every cent paid out of the company coffers is brought in by me and my fellow contractors. All benefits too, which include the benefits for those on "overhead", aka office staff and management. All line items, salaries, etc.. take away from my companies profits. The less profits the company makes, the smaller my profit share is. In that light, I'd say I am paying for my unemployment, it just isn't a deduction from my paycheck.
vitriolandangstJul 5, 2010
If you have a small company YOU pay for your own Unemployment insurance. You also pay for the "self-employment tax" that goes to consultants that started during Reagan's term to DOUBLE tax workers -- yet you guys still think he lowered taxes on the middle class.
It doesn't matter that your company pays it -- it's still a cost on YOUR BEING EMPLOYED -- where do you think that money comes from? Everyone pays for the Insurance to cover their own joblessness.
Gawd -- this is like arguing with people about the cost of gas being high because of Taxes -- you fricken' morons never know what you are talking about (the average is about $.17 a gallon if you need a fact to ignore).
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
My wife and I are self-employed and we pay double FICA taxes. We do not get unemployment benefits yet we pay into it like other tax payers do. So where is the surplus of unemployment benefit money that the self-employed pay into but are not allowed to use?
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
Yes, I pay my own SS and for my own unemployment. Actually, in California, if you are a freelancer or self-employed, you don't really qualify for unemployment. If I don't work, I don't get any benefits. Period. Even disability is a mofo to get here, if one is self employed. So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.
epopliveJul 5, 2010
Yep, as a small business owner here in CA (providing IT work), you basically can't get unemployment. It's bulls**t, because there are plenty of people I know getting about 3k/month who haven't been doing s**t and aren't planning on doing anything. Extending the benefits is BS, most of these people have already been collecting unemployment for over a year while I have been working my ass off. There are plenty of jobs to be had, the problem is most people would rather collect an unemployment check than work at McDonald's. There needs to be more stringent checking on the claims of looking for work.
shadowklownJul 5, 2010
"You are heartless and arrogant to believe that the unemployed are sitting around doing "things they love""
Agreed. Worrying about money and work kind of take the fun out of things, you know?
Lmao, I don't think he's heartless or arrogant at all. I live in NorCal and yes, over half the people who are milking up the extended unemployment benefits are NOT looking for work at all. They're sitting on their bums watching cable tv while they collect cash aid too. Enough is enough, everyone wants something for nothing nowadays. Time to kick em in the ass and tell them to get back to work, or at least a whole hearted effort. McDonalds is always hiring.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
and what do you do for a living?
isifunded911Jul 5, 2010
McDonald's = work?
Slavery and poisoning clients = work?
Two crimes = work?
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@VitriolAndAngst -- If you are self-employed, you don't have the option of buying unemployment insurance (at least in Oregon). And neither do family members who work for you.
When a sole proprietor's business dries up, and if a spouse or child is a worker in that business, the whole family is screwed.
The government doesn't count them in the official unemployment numbers, which is one of many reasons that I believe the unemployment rate is much higher than reported. They don't count unemployed; they only count people who are receiving unemployment checks.
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@VitriolAndAngst -- If you are self-employed, you don't have the option of buying unemployment insurance (at least in Oregon). And neither do family members who work for you.
When a sole proprietor's business dries up, and if a spouse or child is a worker in that business, the whole family is totally screwed.
Next time you hear an official unemployment rate report, remember that they are only counting people eligible for unemployment checks. The government count doesn't include self-employed or their laid-off family employees.
08sosoJul 6, 2010
My point about not paying for unemployment insurance was in response to algaeturd's point that his friends had paid their unemployment premiums and and not been "eligible" to get unemployment. It wasn't that unemployment insurance is somehow free.
People who think the the unemployed could get a job if they wanted one flies in the face of 5 applicants for every job nationwide and in areas of distress probably much higher ratio. Furthermore, a lot of overqualified people can't get any job because if there is a low level job available, they often get turned away because they are over-qualified and/or too old.
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
Look, I paid into unemployment for 11 years and was unemployed many times due to my own choice, either quitting, or doing something worthy of getting fired over. I never got benefits for that, but luckily, the economy was good, it was easy to find a new job, which is probably why I didn't mind taking the risk of leaving a place of work.
Past couple years though, I've stay put, for obvious reasons. No jobs out there.
Well, turns out, just this last May, big ass rainstorm comes through, floods much of middle tennessee where I live, DESTROYS MY WORKPLACE, ...puts me out of a job. I spent a month on unemployment while my workplace went about the relocation process. And you know what? I don't feel bad about the fact that I got some help during this difficult circumstance. You know why? CUZ IT WASN'T MY FAULT.
My point is that any good thing is going to lead to people who abuse it, and I am so sick of hearing people criticize programs that help so many people by pointing out that a few of the people it helps are douchebags. What next, you wanna point out how some people prank call 911, so we should just get rid of 911 service completely?
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
You also paid into your unemployment insurance for many years without using it, you shouldn't feel guilty for using it.
epopliveJul 5, 2010
And he only used it for a month. He used to how it's supposed to be used, but his comment is basically worthless because the article is about extending benefits that have already been extended.
ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE, OUR COMPLAINT IS THIS:
Many of the people currently on unemployment have been on it for over a year at this point, and aren't TRULY looking for jobs. As has been stated already, places like McDonald's are always hiring.
shadowklownJul 5, 2010
Your situation is entirely different when compared to the people who are uproaring about their EXTENDED unemployment benefits being stopped. You were on it temporarily(as it's designed for) while your job rebuilt or you found another one. There is certainly a lack of excess jobs in each market, but for every lack of luxury jobs, there are 5 'not so great' jobs that people just think they're too high and mighty for. Fast food for example, always hiring, people just think that's below them. When it comes to putting food on the table for your family, who cares if you have to flip burgers?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bigtreyJul 5, 2010
My Dad is 56 years old, He was laid off from his job making 55k a year in April 2009, because Black and Decker saw it cheaper to hire a 22 year fresh out of college with no experience at less than half the rate. My dad puts in 5 or 6 applications a week, and has been to numerous interviews, hell he even went to a final interview at one place, and they hired, surprise, another younger guy. Nobody wants to hire someone who is experienced anymore, because it costs too much money for experience. So maybe, just maybe, those extended benefits should continue. They make a difference.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
99% of the time you don't get unemployment if you quit. Just saying.
radu79Jul 5, 2010
I don't think most people have a problem with people collecting unemployment for a few months (say, 6 months). But I do have a problem with people getting it for years. I am also self employed, and if my business fails, I get jack s**t.
epopliveJul 5, 2010
Exactly. The entire situation seems unfair. They need to work on extending unemployment to the self employed, or do something about the people just leeching off unemployment.
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
Right on! I'm sick and tired of the victimizing consciousness of the mainstream. Sick of the lack of humanity. Sick of the lack of compassion. Sick of the idiocy around such mean spiritedness. Sick of the ignorance that those who blame victims or the infirm regarding whose dirty work they are actually doing.
Truth be known, there are fewer people abusing such structures than there are good folks in need. ...good folks in need. (Needs repeating)
epopliveJul 5, 2010
I disagree. I would say there are more people abusing unemployment than actually looking for jobs. There's always jobs to be had at walmart, mcdonalds, etc...you just have to be willing to set aside your pride. If you can't get a job at one of those places, perhaps you should apply for disability.
absurdistJul 5, 2010
Oh yeah. The people who were making $75K and lost their jobs through no fault of their own when the economy tanked and are now trying to meet their commitments on $450 a week or a lt less are "able to sit around all day doing things they love." If you're 20 and unskilled, maybe. If you're 50 not so much so. To claim such is really f**king callous, algaeturd.
epopliveJul 5, 2010
Perhaps such people should have made commitments they could sustain if something happened. The problem here is people have abused credit and forgot about planning for the future. People need to take more responsibility for their own financial situations. Part of being a responsible adult is making sure you can truly afford your expenditures, including if (and when) something bad happens. Maybe these people shouldn't have been leasing $70k cars and should have been saving instead.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
"Ends meet"
elisevilleJul 6, 2010
I keep hearing stupid commercials saying that "now it's our turn for a bailout".
This lovely little downturn is the direct fault of the monopolistic banks making known bad bets and the government that decided that regulations were a bad idea. We taxpayers are paying up the wazoo for their gambling, cheating, and stealing.
So, suddenly there are no jobs to be had as the already saved banks take their 0% loans and invest in more of that easy money, just not in local businesses.
And now our sweet Congress doesn't want to even pay a measly unemployment extension as they throw even more wasted dollars at an unwinnable war!
WTF.
consterxnationJul 6, 2010
The way you see it is wrong.
johnnr2Jul 5, 2010
"sit around all day doing things they loved" - roflmqao
beratebirthersJul 5, 2010
What bulls**t. Those of us funemployed at being productive as well. It's called stimulating demand.
http://digg.com/business_finance/For_the_funemployed_unemployment_s_welcomed
georgeclymerJul 5, 2010
Any Conservatives/Republicans want to step up and offer their solutions? And don't just say that Mises was right. Or that Keynes was full of it. What are the solutions(besides burying comments and stories you disagree with)?
thecoolestguyJul 5, 2010
Start cutting spending to reduce the deficit, regardless of how high unemployment goes as a result.
It's either that, or Soviet style collapse 10 years from now.
cosmicsurferJul 5, 2010
9 hours later and not a word of response.....I believe you got your answer.
Just like the grand old pariah in the Senate and House, they got nothin'. Not an idea, not a solution, not a thought, only bury anything promoted by a Democrat and do only what their corporate handlers want them to do....Owned just like their followers.
Only their followers don't even get the benefit of a kiss, they just bend over - learned behavior, like Pavlov's dogs, they don't even think about it, they just salivate at the bell
heliumflashJul 5, 2010
This story has only been on the front page for 30 minutes moron.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Don't look now, but there have been options - you guys just don't seem to get that the only option is fiscal responsibility now - and that by definition is not what is being debated, or discussed.. because people still seem to think you can get something for nothing.
You can't, never could, never will. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richmomzJul 5, 2010
Well, here's the 'tough love' answer: it's not the government's job to ensure everyone is employed - this isn't the Soviet Union. Taking more taxpayer money out of the private economy to fund people that are staying home doing nothing long-term is only going to make the situation worse.
It's ok to help people out for a little bit so they can get back on the horse, but at some point you gotta cut the cord and say 'ok, you might have to take that minimum wage job to make ends meet until you find something better'.
rockcosmosJul 5, 2010
The story was posted 13 hours ago; the request was put out over 10..............try again
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Rock - There is only one solution - STOP SPENDING MONEY!, but the liberals don't want to accept it. The politicians, who derive their power based on what they can give people don't like it either - but it is the truth.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shadowklownJul 5, 2010
Agreed. Fiscal responsibility is our only option anymore. The rest of america who is still employed with reduced hours has tightened their budgets, it's time the government did too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
combatchuckJul 5, 2010
If you want to tighten the budget, how about ending that unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq? How many trillions of dollars have we spent do do that? I bet you could have paid off every foreclosed home in this country with all that money, and still had enough left over to extend the f**king unemployment benefits. Of course, that's something you can't blame on Obama and the Democratic party in general, so let's just ignore that part.
vdoogsJul 5, 2010
Oh hi military spending here. I am larger than 50% of the USA's total spending this year and I am so proud!
Wait... you want to cut my allowance ;'( No? YOU WANT TO GIVE ME MORE MONEY?!? Both democrats and republicans! Oh that makes me so happy!!!
Seriously, @ShadowKlown @Waiting2awake, if you think "STOP SPENDING MONEY!, but the liberals don't want to accept it..." means we should start at cutting unemployment benefits instead of cutting military spending, you are really not very bright.
hyperianJul 5, 2010
how bout some consistency republicans? it's fine if you want small government, but then why would you support such a large military and all the laws against illegal immigrants? And also why the moral laws against gays and minority?
all these laws takes money, a lot of money. That means more tax, more logistical personnel to enforce the laws.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jjason1985Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
That's why they put together unemployment benefits in the first place, am I right, too many employed people...
/facepalm.
pjhorrexJul 5, 2010
So that statistic of one job for every five job seekers in this country did nothing for you? You can't take a job that doesn't exist. Or is your solution for unemployment just to starve everyone without a job? That'll fix the problem real quick.
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jjason1985Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
cajungalJul 5, 2010
I am wondering how many unemployed people out there would take any job they could get as opposed to any job they want. The reason I ask this is that I have known people who have lost their jobs in the past but refused to take what they considered to be a job that was "beneath" them. Life sometimes throws us curveballs and we have to deal with it by doing things that we would rather not do. If the job market is as dire as they say, then why do we still have illegal immigrants coming here to work? Where are they working? Why can't all the unemployed Americans find those same jobs? I think this is why unemployment benefits shouldn't be extended anymore. The people who are unemployed need to learn how to take jobs that they under ordinary circumstances would refuse to do. If it requires changes, so be it! I speak from experience here. I have never been without a job if I was in the market for one, but I will tell you that I have done jobs that many, many people would absolutely refuse to do, but I had a family to feed and I refuse to take government handouts, so that left me with no other choice. But you know what? It makes you a better person. It causes you to really appreciate your waitress, fry cook, or gas station attendant all the more because you have been in their shoes. I smile a wider smile and give them a sincere thank you when they are giving me my change or bringing my food to the table or whatever because I really know how hard their jobs are. There is always a silver lining but you have to open your eyes or you will miss it…
epopliveJul 5, 2010
*hugs* for the statement about illegals still coming here to find jobs. I agree with you completely...as Americans we've become 'too good for' most of the jobs that actually run our society. This is what happens when you keep outsourcing. I'm not a republican or democrat, but I think the solution lies in taxing the living f**k out of companies who choose to move their production to other countries. There needs to be a benefit for companies to employ workers in the US, and our government has done exactly the opposite. Small business is the answer to our countries problems, but our country has been overtaken by large corporations.
krd1979Jul 5, 2010
Great post! I'm the same way, and every time I've been out of a job it was only for a week or two. I've never taken unemployment benefits even when I've had the option to do so. Losing your job sucks, and taking something for less (sometimes considerably less) pay equally sucks, but you have to take what you can get. The key is to not give up, and if you have a minimum wage job you're not happy with, you've got to do everything you can to move up in that company or use your free time to pursue education or certifications to help get something better. People in the US have gotten soft and have attitudes of entitlement and arrogance which leads to self pity and anger when things don't go their way.
My adivce (for what it's worth) is to stay positive and don't give up, take pride in what you do, whether you think it's beneth you or not and get creative. This may mean tightening already tight budgets, or working multilple menial jobs, giving plasma, selling possessions, moving to a more modest.home (all things I have done) but just keep priorities straight and you will make it, you might not be a millionaire but can still have a good life.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The rightwing is under the empression that unemployment insurance is just another entitlement program that adds to our countries deficit. They are too dumb to figure out that unemployment benefits are paid for by all workers.
They think its a bailout..
LOL!!
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
No jobs makes it easier to be unemployed. And by the way, unemployment benefits aren't all everyone makes them out to be. Most of us would rather be working, and if that's doing something we love --then f**k you all if you can't take the joke. Seriously.
combatchuckJul 5, 2010
The problem with this whole "not enough jobs on the market" situation is that there IS work there to be done, but employers haven't stopped "cutting" even when they are profitable. Instead of creating jobs, they are making their current employees work harder with less hours. They are firing people and adding those responsibilities to people without filling the position. Why? Because they can.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"The right-wing is under the impression that unemployment insurance is just another entitlement program that adds to our countries deficit. They are too dumb to figure out that unemployment benefits are paid for by all workers.
They think its a bailout..
LOL!!"
Correct me if I'm wrong here but wouldn't extending jobless benefits again be deficit spending by definition?
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
It would be if the government already spent the unemployment insurance surplus on trillion dollar wars.
I'd rather deficit spend temporarily on helping American people to help get the economy back on track than waste trillions on wars of no benefit to anyone but corporations.
atarioJul 8, 2010
"Subsidizing something encourages it. Make it easier to be unemployed, and you will have more unemployed."
This is stupid. By your logic, we should be fining people for being unemployed.
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
Well,.... HE WAS!
reddikilowattJul 5, 2010
OK, but it's too late now. When times were good and tax money could have been rolling in, the government could have been saving for a rainy day. Instead the congress spent more than it had on 2 more un-winable wars, tax cuts that no one asked for, and basically ruining the mortgage system (Fannie Mae, look it up).
Heck, instead of trying to get everyone to buy houses they couldn't afford, the government could have better spent it's time going after predatory credit card lenders, making sure pension funds were funded as well as they claimed and basically doing what they said they were doing.
As for the true libertarian view, stop living like the good times will never end. Save a percentage of your money in something that you can get to in the short term, instead of putting everything in a 401(k) and having to deal with penalties if you need to get the money. You'd be surprised how much you can save if you just put your mind to it. Right now I have a year's pay saved up (after tax), and if I continue to live the way I do now, even with no other income I could easily live more than a year on savings alone. I also put some money in stocks, but I watch 'em like a hawk and sell when they don't perform.
It doesn't take much, just a little discipline and work.
smemilyJul 5, 2010
How does "well you shoulda saved more money" solve the problem NOW?
Especially when many of us DID save, and have exhausted our savings?
epopliveJul 5, 2010
You obviously didn't save well enough. It doesn't solve the problem, but it teaches you a lesson for next time:
Keep your expenditures low enough that you can survive on your savings for a long time if things go bad. I'm guessing you've never watched Susie Orman? If you have 30k in the bank, but 50k in car loans and 500k in house loans, you don't actually have anything saved now do you? It's simple math, perhaps your lack of understanding is what put you in this position in the first place?
I'm guessing by the fact that you exhausted your savings, you were either in sales or the mortgage industry, and are too proud to go work at McDonald's.
jjason1985Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
reddikilowattJul 7, 2010
This thread seems to be continuing, so I'll just add one more thing: The great people of this country sent millions of dollars to Haiti to help out earthquake victims. After Katrina hundreds of people went to the golf region to assist in any way they could. Channel 9 in Denver holds caned food drives several time a year to help out local food banks. They have to bring in tractor trailers to hold all the donated food. I work for Comcast. Every April, I participate in Comcast cares day. I don't get paid for participating (although I get a t-shirt and lunch), and there's no pressure to participate other than several email reminders. I guess about 80% of our office participates. The local office decides what non-profit we help out, usually cleaning, painting, and minor repairs to the non-profit's facility. Comcast also donates money proportional to the number of employees who show up. We don't do it for the PR, but because it is the right thing to do. And the Roberts family (CEO and founders) participate as well as the upper management.
At one time, we had strong charities, mostly religious, some not, that would help out people in their time of need. Since the great society programs have been implemented, charities have whithered on the vine and the poor have been demonized by the right and held down by the left. The idea that the government is the first place to go when you have a problem, through applying for unemployment insurance, only strengthens the idea that people can't help out their fellow man, that the problems of the world are too big for anyone but central governments to solve, and there's nothing we can do, so don't even try. Even when Obama calls for volunteers, it is under the watchful eye of the central command in Washington, not local leaders or just people in the neighborhood who know what needs done.
dusanmalJul 5, 2010
Cut the Govt. severely. Constitution does not provide any basis for such things as (but not limited to) Dept. of Education (leave it to the States), Dept. of Agriculture (States again, bur.cr. doubled), Natl. End. for Arts,... Those would be 100% cuts. Tear a pieces other Govt. leaches : simplify and trivialize tax code with "everyone is sharing the same proportion of burden" be it via flat (no exemptions) income tax or flat (no exemptions) consumption tax - in the process cut IRS to 1/10th or less... Tie public employees pay to private sector average, no exemptions. Cut oversea military presence: why are there any troops in Germany, Japan,... Sell 90%+ land Feds own in may Western states and immediately pay down debt with proceeds). Open natural resources exploration on 99% of US territory and use Palin (yes Palin) Alaska model to get a lot of money from corporations for taxpayers from these resources. Disband existing Social Security and Medicare and offer those only to the people in the last 10% of measured average lifespan. Cut regulatory agencies
and amount of regulations. Ban anyone without long executive experience from operating any Govt. agency. If needed run wars 100% on Military chosen methods for quick victory as the top and only requirement. Afghanistan stalemate? - flatten the whole area with aging nukes. See who is next willing to create trouble,... Etc...........
Back to your mention of "Keynes" - fine theory with one flaw no one cares to mention. Same as in airplanes, your engine (economy) might stall for whatever reason and it is good practice to point nose down (spend as there is no end) for airplane to gain speed and help engine recover. It works on paper and in practice same as K-economy - with one big BUT: you must know where the ground is. You do this with ground close and airplane will crash and never recover. Level of existing debt is how close ground is analogue in K-economics. It is extremely high level of debt now (ie. ground is very close) and we better try anything else but diving down, or we'll be dead .Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
pjhorrexJul 5, 2010
"leave it to the states"
That's all well and good, but most states are terrible financial trouble as it is. Removing government funding from the schools does nothing but hurt kids. The states still have to go to the fed to ask for money since they can't borrow outside the US.
Cutting education just gives us kids unable to compete for jobs when they graduate after we eventually do get ourselves out of this mess.
I was going to respond to more if your post but then I got to the part about lobbing nukes at anyone and everyone; there's really no point in debate with you, is there?
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
So your solution to the lack of jobs is to cut more jobs, and lower wages. Because that wold be massive boost to the economy. The problem isn't a trickle down one, there are now more millionaires, and millionaires control a larger percentage of the worlds wealth, then before the recession. We need to stimulate things from the ground up. You can't stimulate through attrition, and the loss of unemployment benefits is only going to make things worse.
vdoogsJul 5, 2010
"If needed run wars 100% on Military chosen methods for quick victory as the top and only requirement. Afghanistan stalemate? - flatten the whole area with aging nukes"
Holy s**t you are completely f**king insane.
Also, it seems you can recite all of the crazy teabagger nonsense you've heard at rallies on cue. /golf clap
matthewdukeJul 6, 2010
We are still in Germany and Japan (and South Korea, etc.) to give Russia (or insert any other country) a huge incentive to NOT invade that country...because it means an automatic war with the United States if they do. Think about the costs involved to pay 2,000 service men and women to hang out on a base in Germany, vs the cost to wage full scale war with Russia to repel them from Germany after an invasion. That's money well spent.
richmomzJul 5, 2010
Well, here's the 'tough love' answer: it's not the government's job to ensure everyone is employed - this isn't the Soviet Union. Taking more taxpayer money out of the private economy to fund people that are staying home doing nothing long-term is only going to make the situation worse.
It's ok to help people out for a little bit so they can get back on the horse, but at some point you gotta cut the cord and say 'ok, you might have to take that minimum wage job to make ends meet until you find something better'.
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
Restate the talking points, claim trickle down economics work, then ignore the fact that the jobs aren't there to be taken, minimum wage or otherwise. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
epopliveJul 5, 2010
I'll just restate what someone else did earlier:
If there are no jobs to be had, why do we seem to have such a problem with illegal immigration? Those people are working.
Is the problem really that there are no jobs, or that there are no jobs big enough for your ego?
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Ninja - I have heard your cries, and others on here and I did what apparently was beyond you. Check the link below - 20 pages of retail jobs in Kansas city...
You're welcome, as I am sure those jobs that you thought weren't there, was merely because you weren't aware that the internet was available to help you actually find them..
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
If only the government would slash cut spending and slash morwe jobs we'd be fine guys.
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
@waiting
Hey considering that I'm paying over $50 a month for internet access to come on here and debate with you there is a very good chance that I'm not unemployed. There is also the off chance that by being socially aware, right before the economy fell apart I saw it coming and moved to more economically viable area. Kansas city has done much better through the recession then most parts of the country.
Also being socially aware I am aware of the fact that most people don't fall into the category of being able uproot and move so quickly. I'm a single mid twenties male with decent savings. The people being hurt the most by this economic downturn are working class families with mortgages or other debts that prevent them from easily reacting.
If you were more socially aware you'd know that claiming the economy is fine because the kc metro is fine; is about the same as claiming the white house was never on fire because the painting of George Washington was rescued.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
It's not the government's responsibility to ensure that people are comfortable while unemployed.
jbmcbJul 6, 2010
Fine: Lower the minimum wage to zero. Make it cheaper to employ people. Earning $5/hour isn't as good as $7/hour, but it's better than $0/hour. I know a lot of business who would love to hire people to help out with basic tasks, but spending $8-9/hour (w/ taxes) on extra help to clean up or move stuff around a warehouse just isn't worth it.
jjason1985Jul 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
schmuckofniJul 6, 2010
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/32621/20100705/unemployment.htm theres your solution but your precious democratic senators aren't for it.
sassykathy464Jul 5, 2010
I just don't get why it's ONLY the Republicans fault. Aren't the blue dogs and neo-liberal centrists claiming to be just as concerned with the crying need for "deficit reduction", while they continue to fund the wars & its surges, protect tax shelters for the wealthy and transnational corporations, & continue to pass out more bailouts, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare? I keep hoping that President Obama's endorsement of candidates like Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln will waken voters to the way they are played by the 2 party shell game, but I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer.
thecoolestguyJul 5, 2010
What the f**k is wrong with deficit reduction!? Why put it in quotations, as if it's some sort of con?
The deficits are going to cause long term pain to America. Sacrificing short term comfort to avert far greater long term pain is what responsible politicians do.
---& continue to pass out more bailouts, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare?---
The majority of Republicans voted against the bank bailout.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
"I keep hoping that President Obama's endorsement of candidates like Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln will waken voters to the way they are played by the 2 party shell game, but I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer. "
I have been waiting a long time for people to notice the two party illusion...
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Because, as a whole, Republicans are against redistribution of wealth.
That is, unless it is being redistributed upwards.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Taking a look at the democrats, it seems the same claim can be leveled at them...
But what fun would that be right?
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"Taking a look at the democrats, it seems the same claim can be leveled at them... "
Partially. Democrats favor redistribution of wealth at all levels.
08sosoJul 5, 2010
True in the House, but in the Senate 59 Senators voted for extension [including two GOP Senators from Maine] and only one idiot Dem from NE voted against it. If the GOP just voted against the extension, that wouldn't be as bad, but they won't let it get voted on at all because unlike the last 225 years of voting in the Senate, ordinary business now takes, not a MAJORITY vote, but a super majority because the GOP is intent on stopping economic recovery so they can reclaim Congress. Talk about Country First!
therednewtJul 5, 2010
You point to a major problem with out system of governance which is the encouragement of extremism in the House stemming from the short, short term. Add in the fact that many represent very homogeneous districts, and you have a recipe for extremists of all sorts. In the Senate, they logically represent a much more diverse segment of the population, and they've got a longer term.
I'd imagine the GOP would be more than happy to stop unemployment benefits now, then blame the Dems in the coming election. It's really a shame.
hipmanJul 5, 2010
"unlike the last 225 years of voting in the Senate, ordinary business now takes, not a MAJORITY vote, but a super majority"
Um, no it doesn't, the rules haven't changed.What the hell are you talking about?.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
Hip, he's referring the filibuster, that the Republicans have used on everything...they've done as many filibusters, at this point, nearly 2 years into the Obama administration, as the previous 10 years...
ShovelbabyJul 5, 2010
What filibusters???
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
therednewtJul 5, 2010
@hipman Filibuster was added later. It is not in the original structure of the Senate. It's self-imposed.
@emailowndme
That link is pretty striking. Damn.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ShovelbabyJul 6, 2010
cloture is not the same as filibuster
therednewtJul 6, 2010
@Spindig
When do you think cloture is necessary?
cosmicsurferJul 5, 2010
it's a matter of reality vs fantasy...Those who continually bury their heads in their asses while people starve-The faux conservative rant based on anecdotal proof that doesn't exist - someone who had a girlfriend who had a cousin that knew someone who had a conversation in the elevator with a stranger that told them about ......Buis it because it fits in their self-absorbed preconception based on a fear and hate of anyone not like them and that might have the audacity to get in the way of their pampered exceptionalist little lives.
Can't possibly look at something unpleasant, it might get in the way of the buzz from the latest shopping trip or vacation or party..............
We are a nation built on class-ism and racism though we deny it.
The more we deny the more evident it becomes
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
win
dae3dae3Jul 5, 2010
I worked my way through college by delivering pizzas. It took me six years because I had to take some semesters off. My parents didn't pay anything for my college. My wife grew up sleeping on a mattress in a kitchen because there were so many people from her extended family living in the house. She shared a bed with here mother until she when to college. I grew up lower middle class and she grew up poor. I've been laid off and fired along the way but I just kept working through it all. We both have college degrees now and live in a 2600 Sq foot house in a nice neighborhood. If there is anyplace on Earth where you can raise yourself out of poverty and succeed it is the United States.
My last house I had a neighbor on one side that was from Laos and he was so nice that he made you feel bad about it. I would be out digging a hole for a tree and the next thing you know he would be out there with me doing most of the work and afterwards I ended up sitting in his garage drinking his soda he offered. On the other side there was a black family that we often had cookouts with and had over for movie nights. I guess I must secretly harbor a hatred for these friends of ours since they certainly look nothing like me. I never realized it. Thanks for cluing me into my hidden xenophobia and racism.
You say that our country is based on classicism and racism. Can you name another country that has more mobility between the classes? You can bust your ass in this country and make a name and a fortune for yourself. You can also piss away your wealth and end in poverty. To quote a t-shirt I saw a few weeks ago: "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Yes, s**t happens. How you respond to it is what will determine what your life will be like and what kind of person you will be.
holdemrulesJul 6, 2010
Get off the internet and get back to work. Your hard work is needed to support 10 welfare single-moms and their 50 kids.
atarioJul 8, 2010
"Can you name another country that has more mobility between the classes?"
The US is typical or worse than several other developed countries when it comes to economic mobility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Economic_mobility_worldwide
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
Um, Denmark. Sweden.
Wealth? What wealth? Oh... you mean the right to carry debt. s**t. That ain't wealth. That's consumption brought to you by capitalism. Opportunity my ass in overalls covered in paint and dirt. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bossm4nJul 5, 2010
And based on your philosophy and astute observations, everyone is a victim. Believe it or not, people can actually persevere and prosper if they aspire to work hard. Progressives however would prefer to just keep the playing surface level by dragging down the achievers. Keep those government handouts coming. Don't worry about who's going to pay for them.
absurdistJul 5, 2010
And believe it or not, bossm4n, people can work their asses off and still have obscenely bad luck, have their business fail, their baby eaten by dingoes, etc... Progressives want to see to it that those who do are able to maintain their dignity and humanity. Are there a small percentage who might abuse it? Yes. And if they are so pathetic let them. But I don't think as many people want to be parasites as you believe. If you're working and relatively comfortable right now consider yourself very lucky. You could very easily find yourself on the outs through no fault of your own and not a damned thing you could do about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
People are only homeless cause they are lazy.
/Conservative
zippy757Jul 5, 2010
That's not the conservative position and you know it. It sucks you create ill will for the sake of a DIGG post.
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
That was satirical humor, I'm pretty sure, not intended to be literal. However, I would love to hear the conservative position on the homeless, if you please.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
My daddy made billions from granddads inheritance, money he made growing food using slaves...
/Conservative
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
conservatives are the devil!!!
/stupid douche bag liberal
absurdistJul 5, 2010
Unemployment spoils people:
"...we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said you don't want the jobs that are available." - Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle
Unemployment makes people not want to work:
"...if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." - Republican Senator John Kyl
Unemployment makes people lazy:
"We shouldn't turn the 'safety net' into a hammock. It should actually be a 'safety net.'" - Republican Rep. Steve King
Unemployment will turn people into hobos:
Republican Rep. Dean Heller said the current economic downturn and policies may bring back the hobos of the Great Depression - people who wandered the country taking odd jobs... "I believe there should be a federal safety net," but he questioned the wisdom of extending unemployment benefits yet again to a total of 24 months, which Congress is doing. "Is the government now creating hobos?" he asked. -Elko Daily Free Press
People who collect unemployment are drug addicts:
"We should not be giving be giving cash to people who... who basically are just going to blow it on drugs." - Republican Senator Orrin Hatch
People who collect unemployment are like animals:
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better." -Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer South Carolina
*ahem* You apololgists were saying?
holdemrulesJul 6, 2010
best reply
thenorwegianJul 5, 2010
I live in California and have been trying very hard to get a job, and it's just not happening. I have a very good resume, but I'm assuming there are many others like me. I am not purposely trying to extort the unemployment benefits, but the narrow minded republicans assume I'm doing so maliciously. Put yourself in the same position and then argue. Many of the people who say we are extorting benefits simply have not been where we are now. They are ignorant.
solkreJul 5, 2010
Have you been applying for the jobs you want, or the jobs you need right now?
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
yes, we must lower unemployment, and raise underemployment, that way the people are even more miserable than they were when they were unemployed, and the government doesn't have to pay them anymore.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
define want and need...
Need might mean a job that means his family doesn't have to move in with his parents, or move out of state, but depending on the person looking at the situation, that may be considered just a need.
Technically, we're Americans, we could all stand to eat less, maybe we should factor that into the want/need equation as well....
Technically, he could move his family into the car, by the Y, so he could get cleaned up twice a week in their public showers, before going to his exciting new opportunity at McDonalds.
But, chances are, it's because, virtually no one is hiring in California, because, if you paid attention, most of the new jobs created in California over the last 10 years were connected to Real Estate
epopliveJul 5, 2010
And those real estate people deserve to be jobless right now without unemployment for the fraud the committed putting people into homes they couldn't afford.
P.S. I hear there's always spots opening up in the US Armed Forces.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
You have to get to the root of the problem if you want to fix the rotted fruit of the tree.
CA will continue to have an unemployment problem until they wake up and change their policies towards business. They have been chasing away businesses for years and now wonder why there are no jobs!!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solkreJul 5, 2010
Sounds like it's time to move away from California then.
shadowklownJul 5, 2010
McDonalds still cuts a paycheck right? Then it's a job. Budget better and accept a job that is 'beneath' you.
combatchuckJul 5, 2010
Cry my a river. Any income is better than no income, and an earned income is better than welfare. If you truly can't find a job, then I feel for you. If you can't find a job that you LIKE, well that's just tough s**t. 99 percent of the workforce is f**king miserable at their job. I consider myself a reasonably talented illustrator, but doing what I love doesn't pay the bills at the moment, so I'm also a janitor at Walmart. I'm not proud of the job I have, but I do earn my income and support my family.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
Well, I guess you all should be more careful about putting your dick into things.
At least I knew ahead of time that having kids before I had a decent career was a bad idea.
Keep it in your pants gentlemen.
combatchuckJul 5, 2010
Sorry, I don't have any kids. Nice try though.
cyberdactylJul 5, 2010
You're looking HARD for a job, but found the time to sit around and post on digg.
lormendiJul 5, 2010
Cyberidiot, how do you have time to post? Are you at work, stealing from your boss? He doesn't pay you to troll, assh**e. Stop being a leech and earn your keep.
ledzep19752000Jul 5, 2010
@Lormendi - Cyberdactyl probably has a paid holiday like myself today.
cyberdactylJul 5, 2010
Yes, today is a national holiday. Someone remind Lormendi.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Your resume shouldn't mean jack when it comes down to feeding yourself and your family.
What can you DO? I'm assuming you have two functioning arms and legs, that qualifies you for all sorts of things. Start looking there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
When there is no demand for one's set of job skills, or there is an over abundance of said job skills, then what?
What do you DO? What can you DO? What if that labor job you DO doesn't make the rent/mortgage insurance, grocery, utilities, public transportation, child care, etc? Then what do you DO?
Jesus Jumping Jehosephat! I'm so sick of this blaming the victim in the name of the capitalists s**t!
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Then you sell your house, your car, your blood. Whatever it takes. Be a f**king man and provide for yourself.
You might have to move to a different state. Oh the horror! Even worse, you might have to move in with family. If they can take the sniveling and not kill you after a week.
f**k you and your anti capitalist bulls**t. No one is here to hold your hand from cradle to grave. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enterenceJul 5, 2010
have you tried leaving California ??? or even looking for work outside California ???
There are many other states in the country you know ?
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
Like any of you morons would run to the nearest Del Taco or McD's for a job. don't bully this guy because he IS looking for a job. If I go out looking, i'm looking for a job that will support my family, not just any bulls**t job i can get my hands on. sorry but after being "whatever" for so long.... "fry cook" may not help the ol' resume out very well.
Cyberdactyl: you're a moron. The guys on digg.. big whoo, how do you know what he did for the day? You judgemental idiot. You're probably a conservative... a tea bagger I bet. Would explain a lot.
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
jedi - you bet I would. I'd probably go back into the military first as it would pay me better, but I would go back to working in restaurants if I had to. I have a kid who needs to eat. I will get food on the table by any means possible. I'll work to s**t jobs to make ends meet. I might have to learn how to cook squirrel as well, but I'll make do.
How seriously is someone looking when they artifically limit the search to exclude viable options. Moving to work is a viable option, though it may wreck your credit (foreclosure or shortsale). Enlisting is mostly a viable option (unless your over 42 is it, severely obese, or openly gay and refuse to keep it quiet in order to eat). Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
yeah, because I should have to join the military or move out of the state i live in, near my family and uproot everything i've known for a new job that probably won't pay as well. Great choice there... ruin my credit to find a job in a place i don't know.
do you people even think this stuff through?
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
What you should have to do and what you have to do in reality aren't always the same thing. Ideally, everyone would be making 100k+ a year 1 block from their house that is 10 minutes from their family. Realistically, if there aren't any jobs where you are at, then you need to move to get a job. A job that pays you is better than no job at all. Yeah, you wreck your credit which can be rebuilt. If you are jobless, you're not that far from foreclosure and homelessness. Foreclosures do more damage to your credit than a short sale does. The economy sucks right now, either you can do what is necessary to deal with it and ride it out or you can sit around bemoaning what you shouldn't have to do while being unemployed because you can't find a job locally. Your choice, but I'd rather have the 48k a year I'd be making in the military as an E-5 with 8 years in service and full benefits (health, dental, house paid for, etc.) than sitting at home making less than half of that on unemployment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
does everyone start at E5?
didn't think so. So they'd be making significantly less than an E5. Yeah the 100k...blah blah.. would be ideal. but i live in this world too, and i guessed you missed the statement in the article you didn't read about the 5 people for every 1 job. that's a national average and i have seen it quoted more than 1 place. Call me when you lose your job and leave everyone you've known behind to move. I'll come help you load the van.
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
jedi - I have already done it once. Your right, a private will make just about 2k a month. Oh, and you get job specialty training, your housing paid for (even if you're married and have dependents), a security clearance if you choose the right field and can score high enough on the GT part of the ASVAB (it's an easy test), dental, free meals or a food allowance, extra pay for your dependents, and health benefits. People make do on privates wages all the time. In 1 year, guess what... you're an E-3. If you already have a batchelors degree, you can apply for OCS (officer school). An 0-1 makes more than an E-6 does.
The irony is that there is something like 5 job openings per unemployed person out here in DC. Pick a job field and a location and I can probably find a job listing there.
Navicerts - I wouldn't relocate for a McD's job. I would relocate for a job in my specialty though. It would be idiotic to assume that someone would relocate for a minimum wage job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
I know how the military works. thanks though. I know it more than you I'd bet.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
"Like any of you morons would run to the nearest Del Taco or McD's for a job."
"yeah, because I should have to join the military or move out of the state i live in, near my family and uproot everything i've known for a new job that probably won't pay as well."
Comments like this make me confident that not extending unemployment benefits is the right thing to do. Some people (mostly Democrats) in this country have such an attitude of entitlement it's sick. "I'm of a certain class and expect a certain standard of living and as such will not work at McDonald's or join the military, and will instead sit on my ass posting on Digg."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
It's possible. It has changed a lot since I got out in 06. I never made it very far, only to SGT and as an acting section sgt. I could have had my 6 the year I got out, but I didn't want to extend for 2 more years. You can know everything about it, you could be in it, that still doesn't make my points any less valid. Those points being
1. A job that pays is better than one that doesn't.
2. A job that pays and takes care of your basic needs (food, water shelter) for free is even better
3. Only an idiot or a slacker would rather stay unemployed than move to get a job that will pay the bills.
4. s**t jobs are out there. If you aren't looking at them, you aren't desperate for a job yet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
Leaving requires something. Anyone know what that something is? Actually, two somethings. Anyone?
Money, and opportunity.
scythefwdJul 6, 2010
opportunity - start interviewing for jobs outside your area (most companies will do a teleconference for first interviews) and when they offer you a job you have your opportunity.
money - if the job is worth moving for, the money is there. Sometimes you just have to step out of your safety net before you can succeed. If you won't move until you already have the money to move... you won't ever move while you are jobless. You won't get a good paying job elsewhere either because you won't move.
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
thenorewegian - have you mentioned that you are willing to relocate? If not, you aren't looking that hard. Try looking nationally and you will find there are plenty of opportunities out there for you. Are you only looking in your career specialty, or you also trying to pick up clerk, sales, garbage man, port-a-let cleaner, census work type jobs as well?
I have to wonder how good your resume is. I haven't put one out in over 18 months and I still get recruitment emails for job openings. Yeah, I admit that there are certain requirements on jobs like security clearances that shrink the pool of applicants and keep the jobs open. I lucked out. I actually joined the military and did 8 years to get my clearance. That's another option, have you talked to a recruiter? I haven't heard of a freeze on recruiting soldiers yet. That is pretty much a gimme job. If you haven't considered viable job options like enlisting, how hard are you actually looking.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smemilyJul 5, 2010
The Census is over, stupid. They just terminated us all 2 weeks ago.
The military isn't an option for anyone with a history of mental illness, or anyone openly gay, or disabled, or etc etc etc.
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
The military isn't an option for people over a certain age either. f**king A. The lack of vision and compassion here is astounding.
scythefwdJul 5, 2010
smemily - examples... not all of them always apply. Would you prefer survey taker instead of a census worker? Same idea in the end. Openly gay - hmmm.... Either I can stress about having or job or I can not hit on my coworkers for 3-4 years. That's a tough call. I suspect that don't ask don't tell is about to end soon as well, so one less excuse. I doubt that the 4 people out of 5 unemployed out there are all barred from the service. This person may be, but they also haven't said it wasn't an option either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smemilyJul 6, 2010
*I* was the Census worker. My husband was laid off from oilfield work. Energy is 16% of the local jobs (with more in supporting industries) and over 3,000 oilfield workers have been laid off. Which is like 75% of the oilfield workforce. Which also means that if a job opens up in that industry, there are a thousand workers more qualified than you who also want the job.
And no, you can't get unemployment from Census work - because you weren't employed over 7 months, and the job was defined as temporary at the start.
scythefwdJul 6, 2010
If your husband isn't in a field that has available jobs... try a different field. Take multiple s**t jobs if you can get them till something opens up.
In situations where someone is laid off, you tend to see several distinct attitudes to the problem.
1. Oh woe is me, then the person becomes worthless while wallowing in self pity.
2. The indignant who won't sacrifice or change because they "shouldn't have to" - news break your situation has already changed... either change to handle it or fail
3. The person that sees it has a challenge
3a. - the eternal screwup usually sees this as a challenge and then does exactly the wrong thing
3b - the survivor mentality - they suck it up and do whatever they have to until things are better
Oil is a bad place to be, no doubt about it. Has your husband always worked in oil? If not, maybe another career path might be in order. Does he have any hobbies that can be used as a career (shade tree mechanic, computers, electronics, boating, etc..)? The jobs might not pay as well as oil work, but any paycheck is better than none.
scythefwdJul 12, 2010
smemily - Just to make note of this... I had a census working come to my house on Friday, July 9th, 2010. Guess you all weren't terminated 2 weeks ago.
What did your husband do on the oilfield? Was he a wrench jockey or other trade that translates to other career fields? It drives me nuts to hear people say "I work in oil and since that whole job sector is shot to s**t, I have to be unemployed" when many of those jobs had skills that translate to other careers. There are some jobs that wouldn't translate, but I'd bet 90% of the oil related jobs have skills that are transportable.
kasha34Jul 5, 2010
Has it occurred to you that maybe your state legislators have wrecked your economy and driven out business?
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
Nah, only George Bush ruins things.
It was all perfect before 2000...
When Mexico re-takes California, then we'll see what responsible fiscal management and great social services are all about...
beratebirthersJul 5, 2010
f**k right-wingers like you. The Governator is a Republican. He's the one at fault for all of this.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
Meant for this to be posted here"
Like any of you morons would run to the nearest Del Taco or McD's for a job. don't bully this guy because he IS looking for a job. If I go out looking, i'm looking for a job that will support my family, not just any bulls**t job i can get my hands on. sorry but after being "whatever" for so long.... "fry cook" may not help the ol' resume out very well.
Cyberdactyl: you're a moron. The guys on digg.. big whoo, how do you know what he did for the day? You judgemental idiot. You're probably a conservative... a tea bagger I bet. Would explain a lot.
richmomzJul 5, 2010
You might consider moving then - there are jobs in Texas, and the cost of living is MUCH lower too!
stillhateyouJul 5, 2010
Too bad they're both depressing s**tholes. The cost of living is cheap because demand is low.
richmomzJul 5, 2010
I used to live in Texas and it's great actually - Austin especially.
stillhateyouJul 5, 2010
I live in Texas right now(school) and wouldn't say especially Austin... but pretty much only Austin. That, and maybe about 5 square miles of Houston. The parts of Texas that are worthwhile are very much worthwhile, but they're just as expensive to live in as any other city with the same amount of stuff to do. Also, I will say that Texas has damned fine BBQ restaurants and the people are very polite. But that doesn't make up for the downsides of Texas.
Oklahoma, on the other hand, would appear to have 0 redeeming qualities.
jbmcbJul 6, 2010
Oh, so let's list our priorities, then:
1. Live somewhere that's "fun" - whatever your definition of fun is
2. Have a job
If that's the criteria, I'm not loosing any sleep over you loosing your unemployment benefits.
stillhateyouJul 6, 2010
I'm not on unemployment. Also, those 2 criteria aren't mutually exclusive.
richmomzJul 6, 2010
I spent a lot of time in DFW and loved it. Austin of course is good too, and even Houston has some bright spots if you don't mind the s**tty summer weather. In fact, I'd say east Texas in general is pretty damn nice - can't speak for the rest of it since I didn't spend much time out there but I have to say after having lived in the Midwest, deep south and New England, Texas is probably the nicest place I've ever lived in terms of economic viability and quality of living.
clvngodessJul 5, 2010
Again... "You might move"
Are you kidding me? Moving takes money and opportunity.
jbmcbJul 6, 2010
The people across the street from me are moving. They are completely broke immigrants who rent their current house. They'll be driving to their new house a thousand miles away in a small sedan.
Moving takes a modicum of resourcefulness and the will to move.
richmomzJul 6, 2010
It takes initiative - it doesn't hurt to at least look outside of your geographic area to find a good job.
locastusJul 5, 2010
If there's no work in California, then why are there loads of ads here in the UK asking people to move there?
perkoffJul 5, 2010
Yeah that seems like the best option to get a job, move to another country, all the corporations who own our government have set up shop in 3rd world countries.
Hershey's chocolate used to be made in Pennsylvania, now it's made in Mexico, I didn't notice the price go down when they laid off a bunch of Americans to save money.
It sucks that our government encourages this. Hey government/owned politicians if you don't want to pay people unemployment stop allowing corporations to lay off a bunch of Americans so they can set up shop in a third world country.
It's your fault, not ours.
theperkinsJul 5, 2010
I am all for preventing the downward spiral that comes with losing a job and not being able to pay for things. That being said, I know way too many people who don't even look for a job and file extension after extension on their unemployment. Many of these people are making more money than I do from actually working. While it's nice getting a check every week for two years, the money has to come from somewhere!
kolop1Jul 5, 2010
The government waste money on loads of other things. You're clueless if you think unemployment is the thing that's going to break America. Unemployment is a drop in the bucket.
fungowskiJul 5, 2010
You obviously haven't looked at your pay stub very carefully recently.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
Maybe you should follow the advice of the above posters and just bust your ass looking for a better job. If someone who isn't making minimum wage (because most people aren't paid even the same quality paycheck as minimum wage on unemployment), you aren't trying hard enough.
/conservative.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jgangstahippieJul 5, 2010
Are you Paul Krugman?
Yeah.
My dad loves your s**t.
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
For be people who buried this guy:
Paul Krugman has a cameo in Get Him to the Greek and the main character says this to him. He's not trolling.
noonsvilleJul 5, 2010
I will believe that the unemployed are slacking off when I see open jobs that are not being filled.
tecuervoJul 5, 2010
Yes, you are right.
15% of Americans are slacking off.
/s
richmomzJul 5, 2010
We've still got millions of illegal immigrants working jobs that could be filled by all those unemployed workers.
fungowskiJul 5, 2010
Yeah but everyone acts like
1) Posted job openings are the only means of employment
2) You either must get the exact job you lost or better, otherwise collect unemployment
If you can't get a job as a financial analyst or whatever the f**k you did, go do landscaping for the summer. Go manage a taco bell for a year. Once you've exhausted all possibilities, then I can support your extended unemployment benefits.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
www.monster.com
happyimbecileJul 5, 2010
So hardworking people who have paid into the system for years shouldn't get the benefits of that system simply because the economy sucks and our government can't handle money responsibly? Sorry, but that's not how it should be working.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
I agree, it shouldn't work that way - but it does. For example, lets say you loose your mind for a few days. Drink, smoke, drugs gambling, etc and you blow all your money, all your cash, all your credit.... then your kid needs some food... But you have no money, do you think if you go to the store and explain your behavior that the store owner will give you food for the kid? Of course not - it is your fault.
Same thing here. The politicians of both parties have blown all the money, all the savings, all the credit... You need food, but there is simply no money, and the true lesson to be taken away from this, isn't to go deeper in debt, it is to watch the politicians closer, and closer and stop buying into the two party illusion - as they, unchecked, spend like drunk, drug addled gamblers...
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
They are getting the benefits of the system. They are asking for EXTENDED unemployment benefits.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
Is it fair that a person laid off 2 years ago got 99 weeks of unemployment if necessary, but a person laid off today will only get 26 weeks?
I guess the people getting laid off now should have hoped to have been laid off at the right time.
Even though more people keep losing their jobs maybe now is the time to cut those benefits down. I mean more and more people keep getting laid off, so their must be a job out their a person can get in 26 weeks.
Yup.
bigterguyJul 5, 2010
Yeah, I want my 99 weeks of unemployment. I f-ing earned it by working for almost a year. I want to sit around on my ass and play video games and hit the beach. I don't want ot be responsible for my own life. Waaaah! Waaah!
perkoffJul 5, 2010
You only worked for a year? What about those that put 15 or 20 years into a company only to be given a few hours notice that they're being laid off?
I like how workers are expected to give their employer two weeks notice if they find a better job but the employer has no problem laying a worker off at the end of the work day on Friday.
I guess if you tell the person in advance they're not gonna have a job they might break something or steal something, or not work so hard that day.
happyimbecileJul 5, 2010
Yeah, I doubt many of these people are using their lack of a job as an opportunity to jack off and play video games all day. Maybe once you grow the f**k up and have a family to take care of you'd be more understanding. I don't know how people deal with it, I'd be freaked the f**k out if I lost my job and I'd certainly not be too proud to get unemployment benefits if it means my family will have electricity and food.
yacksJul 5, 2010
They already got the money that they indirectly paid into the system, considering that their employers in most cases paid for the unemployment system... Now with all these extensions, the US Taxpayers that are left are footing the bill..
tecuervoJul 5, 2010
It is so easy to complain about the deficit and national debt when you have a job.
atarioJul 8, 2010
"The GOP are NOT republicans as far as I am concerned."
Wait, what?
tecuervoJul 8, 2010
My statement my opinion, that's all.
There are many well known and respected republicans that have left the GOP.
I, being a moderate republican, feel that I no longer fit there.
:)
bloodwineJul 5, 2010
When does it stop being unemployment and start being welfare? Some people are on their 99th month of unemployment. They either need to relocate, look at another job sector, or if neither is doable or undesirable for them then they need to face the facts and go on welfare instead.
meatball402Jul 5, 2010
Whn there's 2 jobs for every one applicant, it starts being welfare
5 people for one job means even if every job was filled, there'd still be 1/5 less of unemployed than what we have now. And they'd still need to eat.
smemilyJul 5, 2010
There are still 5 applicants per 1 job opening. If everyone relocated that would STILL mean 80% couldn't get a job.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
Relocate to China if you want a job.
faskippyJul 5, 2010
Huh? Yeah, that's a solution.
locastusJul 5, 2010
Yeah because unemployed people can just move to a new area, right?
bloodwineJul 5, 2010
How realistic would it be to stay at a location that has zero or low job prospects for nearly 2 years?
I'd have no problems with the government providing some sort of relocation financial assistance. It would be better than to keep paying someone indefinitely with no job prospects whatsoever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
What you should be worried about is when the Jobless decide to push back.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
When the moochers mooch too much and the looters loot too much, the people with the money LEAVE!
There oughta be a law against leaving! Hoe dare they take the money they earned! They owe it to YOU &ME!
peppermintpigJul 5, 2010
There is a law to tax you if you decide to leave.
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@BWIII -- And when the people with money leave, most of the population will still be here and angrier than ever at people who call them moochers for being unemployed in an economy with few jobs.
People with money SHOULD fear people who used to be in the middle class as long as the rich continue to steal from us. The rich are running out of places to hide now that they've spread economic ruin across the world.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Now worries mate. The unemployed (because they're too lazy to work) are too lazy to do anything. The unemployed (because they're too ignorant to work) are too ignorant to do anything about it. The unemployed (because they prefer the handouts) don't want to do anything about it. And the very very few remaining unemployed people represent such a small block that there isn't anything they can do about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
Dummy.
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@diggbigwig -- So, are you saying that the fact that more than 150,000 teachers were laid off this year has no bearing on the fact that a teacher is unemployed (and that's on top of the tens of thousands laid off last year)?
Do you really believe that those laid-off teachers are lazy and ignorant? Haven't you heard that the same damn thing has happened in other industries lately?
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
No need to yell. I'm talking about the erosion of the middle class as jobs and industry leave the US. People who just want to make a living, send their kids to school, etc... The majority of the population...
stillhateyouJul 5, 2010
Something happened in October of 1917. I recommend you look it up.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
ooooohh scary
joculatorJul 5, 2010
WTF has the GOP become? They weren't always this heartless.
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
They got hijacked by Religious nut cases back in the late 70's, and have been a weird mix of business worship and faux religion ever since. I am old enough to remember moderate Republicans...now the party is nothing but hard-right wing hacks.
joculatorJul 5, 2010
Where have the paleo-Conservatives gone...?
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
theyre punishing us for voting in that colored boy
spinningheadJul 5, 2010
Even after the Civil War, the party was full of chicken hawks that wanted to abandon reconstruction and punish the south. Eventually the party reversed reconstruction in order to win back southern white voters.
magus_melchiorJul 6, 2010
After 2008, they learned the worst lesson possible from Stalin: Purge those who disagree.
hipmanJul 5, 2010
"There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do."
Let's see, how many extensions have there been already?.What is it now, 99 weeks?.I guess we wanna go beyond 2 years now huh?.Stupid hack.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
If it gets him people telling him how nice he is, for giving people someone elses money - sure...
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Socialists don't want any limitations on it.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
You don't understand, it is 99 weeks for someone who was laid off 2 weeks ago, if you get laid off today it's only 26 weeks. Even though more and more people keep losing their jobs they want to give the newly unemployed only 26 weeks of benefits.
jetboyterpJul 5, 2010
What misleading BS...Nancy Pelosi said that the best way to get people back to work is to extend unemployment benefits. Of course, how is THAT supposed to work? Republicans would be all for this tho, but they require that the govt cut spending to pay for it. Makes sense.
But as usual, the diggerals don't want to blame Obama and the Democrats...it's "Bush's fault!" and Obama is "really trying"....Waaah.
Hey, Obama did say that thanks to him and his policies, unemployment is only 9.5% instead of, say, 13,14, or 15%. In other words, the economy is crap, but it could have been crappier. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
heliumflashJul 5, 2010
Obama said that if the stimulus was passed then unemployment wouldn't go above 8%
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Ya, about that... It was Bush's fault...
No?
Republicans?
Beck's?
Palin's?
Well, if it isn't their fault, then whose fault could it be?
enki25Jul 5, 2010
No he didn't.
heliumflashJul 5, 2010
enki25:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/
Yeah, he did
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
Link please. I don't recall him saying that.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
The bast way to fill the pool is to go to the deep end and grab buckets and dump 'em into the part of the pool that needs more water!
lormendiJul 5, 2010
Yeah, because swimming pools are as complex as global and national economic systems.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
Although fluid dynamics may, indeed, be as complicated as the global financial system(s), a dollar is easy to understand.
You can't take it from me, give it (actually, only a portion of it after the govt takes their tithe) to somebody else, and expect it to become more than a dollar.
You also can't expect me, the one taken-from, to be better off financially because you took my dollar and granted it to someone more 'needing' than I.
Not complicated. Not at all.
I know, I know... I've already been called an ass because I just don't understand. My only hope is that all those who believe in the endless unemployment dollar-shift also utilize their own hard-earned dollars in that same fashion.
"Here's the dollar I took, it's in your hands now. But since you need it more, not only can you have the dollar, but it's now got more buying power than it used to have..."
Denial of reality.
You may have earned it, but maybe I need it more, so really, it should be mine.
If you were sensitive and benevolent as me, you'd see it my way...
Who needs Keynes, we have Nancy. And she knows the WORD!
absurdistJul 5, 2010
Does it hurt to be that stupid? Because it should. Every goddamned day.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
Absurdist, since you can denigrate so easily, please try and explain to me in dummy terms what I'm missing?!?
Why is my money yours?
Why does my money buy more if YOU take it than if I keep it?
I wish I was so smart as you - you make so, so much sense. That's what really hurts - your infallible logic.
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@BWIII - If we want a vibrant economy, we need to find ways to make money circulate more often and faster. Instead of hating on someone who needs a few bucks to survive in an economy ruined by Wall Street and investment banks, take a look at what's happened to our country's wealth.
Right now, billions of dollars are being hoarded by a small number of people or are being sucked out of our country altogether. We need to find ways to bring this money back in circulation here -- and that includes taxation and incentives to create jobs in our country. We also need to use a higher percentage of tax dollars within our borders instead of spending it where it disappears from our economy. If we did that, we'd have more dollars bouncing around the economy, and the private sector would benefit.
No one is going to spend their money faster than an unemployed person who gets barely enough unemployment income to buy food. That money will help our entire economy as it circulates.
Taxes and people on unemployment are not the biggest threat to you financially. Wealthy thugs controlling Wall Street, banks, unnecessary wars and our corporate-bought politicians are a much bigger economic threat than people who can't land nonexistent jobs.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
Food Stamps and Unemployment are the best forms of stimulus, because every dollar spent on food stamps and unemployment gives around 1.86 to the local economy.
It turns out, helping out the downtrodden, typically is the best, most targeted way, to get stimulus into the areas that need it most...
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
So, let me get this economics straight...
The big, helpful government takes $1 of my money - earned at a private sector job.
Then, the government gives this $1 to a person who is earning $0.
Am I on the same page so far?
Then, that $1 I earned and had taken from me and given to somebody else...
Magically turns into $1.86 worth of buying power in the 'local economy'????
An 86% return on my investment simply by having my $1 taken from me?!?
This is fabulous! Whay are more people not willing to have hundreds, nay, THOUSANDS of dollars taken from them for the purposes of economic investment?
It's so simple! I love your economics! Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
You could be something other than a selfish ass, especially if you want to understand.
jetboyterpJul 5, 2010
@BWIII...
There's only one mistake there...the government takes a dollar of yours and my hard-earned money, but I doubt that whole dollar is given to the unemployed. Probably about 37 cents of that dollar makes it. The rest pays for the vast govt. beurocracy and liberal pork projects stuffed into unemployment bils.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeJul 5, 2010
Citation Jet?
I have mine if you wanna see it...
absurdistJul 5, 2010
heliumflash, you might want to read beyond the title. FTFA:
There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart that states: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."
That sure doesn't sound like a full-fledged promise to us.
cyberdactylJul 5, 2010
I'm not surprised Krugman made the front page of digg.
But the article is another tired and worn out mantra of 'blame the republicans'.
However, I do realize it's going to be a tough job for the NY Times to defend Obama's socialistic pursuit and not fall back on the thread worn excuse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
perkoffJul 5, 2010
Socialist, who did you hear that word from a fat junkie named Rush or Fox News?
My impression of you, "I like to repeat words talk show hosts say."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigJul 5, 2010
Well that's alright. Just gives people fair warning that you're not interested in comprehending the meaning of words into sentences.
hblaskJul 5, 2010
Why does anyone continue to publish this clown? We may as well have random people from the street writing articles on brain surgery. At least they'd get something correct once in a while, just by random chance.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
The diggberals love his socialism.
formerbabbyJul 5, 2010
I wish they would realize that cancelling benefits only hurt the economy more. These people will go from tight budget to no budget.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
And some will raid your budget, get caught and then the government will ask for more prisons using your tax money...
eh123Jul 5, 2010
It's supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
When it happens to you I hope you starve for months on end eating rice to survive and letting the lights and heat go out in winter because you have nothing. When you turn up to a job I hope you do so in a hand washed suit and shoes that are 4 years old, ripped and torn.
Then, maybe then you will get a taste of reality and the wold will crash down on you like a freight train.
Will you give up or will you somehow, through wits and sheer luck survive it?
jareddennisJul 5, 2010
That's a nice bumper sticker you've got there.
eh123Jul 6, 2010
It cost less than a trillion dollars, too.
happyimbecileJul 5, 2010
Hammock? These aren't exactly fat checks people are getting. If it's a hammock, it's made out of razor wire.
diggadiggaJul 5, 2010
I get the rationale, we're broke, we don't have the money etc. But what I don't get is why those same people are supporting billions given away via corporatism. Not to mention the billions given away to maintaining our military empire.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Republicans = Dicks = Democrats.... All are corporatist. None of them care about the citizens.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
Not in the Plutocracy, no they don't! Only corporations get ample amounts of useful welfare.
landtax96Jul 5, 2010
This is getting ridiculous. The Democrats have a controlling majority in the legislative branch. Stop blaming the Republicans for not supporting your legislation because if the Democratic party was unified it would not matter.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
It is their battle cry.... The reason they have failed on promises, timetables and the people isn't because they themselves are either incompetent or don't wish to do what the public wants them too.. NOPE, it is Bushs fault, or the republicans, or Beck, or Palin, or Palin's hand... anything, but accept that the voters got conned, yet again.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chuckdeesJul 5, 2010
I guess neither one of keep up on current events. The Republicans filibuster every thing that comes through Congress forcing a super majority vote. Which if you guys understand civics, the Democrats do not have.
hipmanJul 5, 2010
Name one time they have actually filibustered.
chuckdeesJul 5, 2010
They filibustered every step of the health insurance reform law.
Here's a time when a Republican had to help the Democrats break a filibuster.
Scott Brown Helps Break GOP Filibuster of Jobs Bill
So much for Scott Brown the Republican savior. In his third vote as a Senator, Brown vote against Republicans, helping break a filibuster on a jobs promotion bill crafted by Democrats.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/02/scott-brown-helps-break-gop-filibuster-of-jobs-bill.html
landtax96Jul 5, 2010
They have a filibuster proof congress from what I have heard. Last time I checked the health care bill that got passed included the health insurance reform. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Was that the HCR that had to be passed before people could see the final product? The HCR that people seemed to be against? The HCR that was promised wasn't going to cost people more, and now appears that it will hugely(Not that that was a surprise). The HCR that has taken more money away so that now extending anything is now almost impossible...
Seems to me, that they were doing the peoples work there. Heck, if they had managed to stop the entire HCR, there would be more money to do what you guys want now...but like children, they wanted the toy car, then the toy truck, then the lego set, and then something else, but now there is no money, yet they refuse to see that they themselves have caused this.
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
Do you know what filibuster proof means landtax96? The would need 60 seats in the senate, and they don't have that, not to mention the democaracts don't seem to operate in lockstep like republicans do anyway (not to say they don't work together, mind you - the republicans just don't have a blue dog equivalent).
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
If you understood politics, you would have known that there was a Republican Senator offering to vote yes should the benefits be funded without adding to the deficit.
Didn't Obama declare a spending freeze?
stormcommanderJul 5, 2010
Paul Krugman is always wrong.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
He is, but he tells people things they want to hear. When it fails, as it always has, and always will, they will blame someone else.. Maybe Bush, maybe Republicans, maybe Libertarians, maybe Beck or Palin.... But it will not be because their initial premise was wrong...
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
He's always wrong, but he FEELS for you. He won a Nobel prize, you know!
Next: a special seat for him at the United Nations!!!
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
99% =/= always
Every once in a great while he gets something almost correct.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I digg you merely for the fact it has to be true and even an idiot as big as Krugman can f**k up at some point and get the opposite of what he meant that it in the end is what occurs and not his fantasy land.
drmangrumJul 5, 2010
I guess someone did ask him what time it was at some point in his life. There's a high probability he was wearing a watch that was set to the correct time.
zippy757Jul 5, 2010
Based on current subscription trends for NYT, I believe Paul is worried about his personal future, i.e. being unemployed. Writing a very simplistic article that basically takes a 'we/they' position over a very complex subject is divisive for the US, not helpful.
He's an idiot, but then again, he's a writer and so that should be understood.
They are just as many republications out of work as democrats, so it's not a 'we/they' thing. It's about the republicans, as the minority, using the only lever they have to apply pressure to the Obama administration to pursue any/all/other job creation methods, other than simply handing out stimulus dollars.
A balance of stimulus, tax incentives, and enthusiasm for businesses (by Obama ) is needed.
In the end, job creation is about faith in the future. At this point, most companies have little faith, and so, no jobs will be created. As a former senior F-10 executive, I can tell you that virtually no senior executive is going to hire in this business hostile environment. They are simply going to shift jobs to other countries.
Obama doesn't seem to have taken Business-101 in college. He believes he can beat the crap out of the business leadership in the US, tax them into submission. It will fail, at our expense.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enki25Jul 5, 2010
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
lormendiJul 5, 2010
He's a millionaire. I doubt he's worried about himself.
chuckdeesJul 5, 2010
To all the libertarians who do not think there is a difference between a Republican and a Democrat.
Here is the perfect example of a Republican. Willing to give billions in subsides, bailouts, money to corporations, but unwilling to actually help citizens in need. The corporation isn't a welfare queen on the dole, but the citizen is. Willing to force taxpayers to financially cover corporations mistakes, yet if you make a mistake there is no taxpayer money for you.
stormcommanderJul 5, 2010
It's much more simple than that:
Republicans support bailouts under a Republican President.
Republicans don't support bailouts under a Democrat President.
And for team-D:
Democrats don't support war under a Republican President.
Democrats support war under a Democrat President.
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
Sad but true.
mgraves81Jul 5, 2010
Actually if you were paying attention you would know that a majority of Republicans did not support the bail-out under Bush.
But carry on, I understand that your misinformation is a matter of mere convenience to your talking points.
stormcommanderJul 5, 2010
It's true that my misinformation is a matter of mere convenience to my talking points. But you make it sound so bad.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Storm - It is the two party illusion...
hipmanJul 5, 2010
You are clueless sheep.There is no difference.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"Republicans are willing to give billions in subsides, bailouts, money to corporations, but unwilling to actually help citizens in need. The corporation isn't a welfare queen on the dole, but the citizen is. Willing to force taxpayers to financially cover corporations mistakes, yet if you make a mistake there is no taxpayer money for you."
Democrats sponsored and majority favored the banker bailout. Further, Democrats support bailing out massive corporations (e.g. GM). The only reason Republicans aren't supporting extending the jobless benefits is because they are trying to make Obama and the Democrats look bad.
So no Chuck, this is not a good example of how they are different. In fact, it's a terrible example.
chuckdeesJul 5, 2010
You have poor reading comprehension. My example shows how Republicans on one hand financially support corporations then with the other ignore and actively try to remove financial support for the citizen.
No where in my post did I say that Democrats do not also support corporations they do at times, yet they also try and help the citizen when they are in need.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
faskippyJul 5, 2010
Wow. It's different, but the same.
mgraves81Jul 5, 2010
The problem is ChuckDees is that it is "your example." Democrats are just as large of corporate welfare contributors as the Republicans if not greater. Just look at the roll call for Bush's TARP.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Also, Republicans did try to extend unemployment benefits but they wanted to do so without adding to the deficit. The debt slap happy Dems didn't like that idea and left for recess instead.
http://digg.com/politics/Dems_refuse_compromise_to_extend_unemployment_benefits
FTA:
Democrats have been painting Republicans as unsympathetic to the long-term unemployed who will be unable to collect benefits, but Democratic leaders have rejected several offers by the GOP to vote for the bill if at least some of it is paid for.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"You have poor reading comprehension. My example shows how Republicans on one hand financially support corporations then with the other ignore and actively try to remove financial support for the citizen."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005483.html
"Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he was prepared to provide that vote, but that Democrats had rejected his request to pay for at least half of the $34 billion measure with unspent funds from last year's stimulus package."
Both parties are filled with individuals who are essentially sock puppets for large corporate interests.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
didn't the money to corporations, bailouts and subsidies save jobs???
wasn't the latest stimulus supposed to keep unemployment under 8.5%???
ohhhh, i get it.
when republicans bailout out companies it's because their elitists that or on the payroll of the rich corporations.
when democrats bail out companies it's to save jobs.....
wake up douche bag, you're falling for the two party bulls**t.
rogorJul 5, 2010
The whole benefits concept is what got America into the trouble its in, here in Asia weve never had benefits and our economies are booming, if you dropped your minimum wage entitlement mindset you migth still have some factories left.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kolop1Jul 5, 2010
You're not from Asia. 35 Cents an hour is not what I call a booming economy. Also, there are jobs in Asia because they left America and went there for lower wages.
rogorJul 5, 2010
The only person getting f**ked in this story is people like you. :) youll end up working for far less than $2 now your infrastructure is gone and then well i wont say what youll have to sell then but it will be real cheap i promise you.
SaladProblemsJul 5, 2010
Here in Asia? What does that mean? They sure as s**t aren't paying a meager 2 bucks an hour in Japan and South Korea. Have fun trying to get married with your s**tty 35 cents an hour wage when women outnumber men, and then have fun a few years down the road when everyone gets old and there's no young people to keep the economy going.
locastusJul 5, 2010
Hi Rogor,
Looks like the Chinese arent so fond of working for slave wages either...
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-chinas-new-generation-of-workers-wont-accept-slave-labor-2010-7
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
yeah, because child labor sweatshops, or living in horrid conditions having to work 12hrs a day in a s**thole factory are the answer. idiot.
rogorJul 5, 2010
come out of your fantasy land, the Asian approach has given far more wealth to far more people than you could possibly imagine. Anyway keep doing what your doing, everyone can see its working out real well for you and it makes great entertainment tv.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
How do you know what the answer is, when you have no idea of the question?
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
is that even supposed to mean something Waiting?
and thanks Rogor, my life is fine i'll keep doing what i'm doing. I think you're the one in the fantasy land if you think the Asian model is the way to go. Suicides in factories, mass murders of children by stressed out people.... seems to be working great. Jackass.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Jedi - Merely pointing out that you have a disconnect in the cause-effect of what is happening to you. I would suggest you take a look back, and you will see all these "heartless" stuff was told to everyone that it would happen. It had to happen with the government spending like a drunken sailor, there is always a limit - and now it has been reached. If maybe the bailouts never happened - there would be cash - but those workers, those jobs, they had to be saved right? Maybe if the HCR didn't go through - but it had to the people, the jobs, the poor right?
So in short, you have no right to call anyone an idiot for offering a possible solution, when you are still oblivious of the reasons you require a solution in the first place.
br00tusJul 5, 2010
Yaa, Asia is great, that's why so many of the top world students go to Tsinghua University...
Face it, the elite of all countries come to the US for a college education. Some of them go to the Sorbonne, Oxford and other European universities. The top students by and large do not go to Asia for an education. They do not go to Asia for a job.
I have about as much interest working in a factory as I do in a farm. I'm quite happy sitting at a desk typing or sitting in meetings as opposed to soldering joints on an assembly line, thank you. We'll design the stuff, the Chinese can assemble it.
rogorJul 5, 2010
seriously 1400 million in China alone, we could fill every Western university place and noone here would notice. In fact most Western universities are Asian dominated now anyway. But so what? you just keep having meetings about why you dont have an economy left and leave the real business to us, il give you a tip.. the money is only going one way and its in our direction.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
@br00tus
That is a very shortsighted view in my opinion. We have people of all stripes in this country. Many of our citizens would love to have a job "soldering joints on an assembly line" as you put it because they like working with their hands building things and could never in a million years envision themselves working 9 to 5 behind a desk. The problem is that there are very few such jobs left in America and still plenty of people looking for that type of hands on job. The unions have made it so expensive to operate here that companies have by-and-large just packed up and moved to countries where the unions aren't so powerful and the government won't strangle them. You can’t really blame them—it’s just business, but the people that live in the USA that could have been their employees will suffer for it and because of that all of the rest of us will suffer as well.
locastusJul 5, 2010
"In fact most Western universities are Asian dominated now anyway."
That's not a fact. That's a frivolous assertion that you just pulled out your arse.
If you were really a Chinese worker you wouldnt even be able to post here, since Digg is on the Chinese block-list. The fact that you are, coupled with your pro-Chinese policy stance, makes me think that you work for the Chinese government.
leftofthecenterJul 5, 2010
your economies are booming because so much of your countries are still developing and have super duper cheap labor. America sends millions of jobs to Asia and we also buy the products you make in your manufacturing plants all the time. You're economies are booming because of us, so in a way, we pretty much pay a good percentage of your paychecks.
Tell you what, since you Asians know so much about economics, how about we take back our jobs, and stop buying your products, and we can sit back and let YOU show US how an economy should be run.
skyyoJul 5, 2010
whoa i like my Japanese electronics.
rogorJul 5, 2010
need to check your facts american imports are less than 20%, thats right if America sank tomorrow the Chinese economy would barely notice because every other supermarket in the world is full of made-in-china too.
And no you can have your jobs back you lost the infrastruture to support them, theres no turning back. So what are you gonna do? there are no competiting products, you buy China or your out freezing your ass off wandering the streets naked. Were not stupid weve been to your shops, everything is made in China, there is no American alternative to any products anymore those days are long gone, your our whores now.
spinningheadJul 5, 2010
And yet we were most competitive in the 50s when union membership was highest. You failed history didn't you?
nicko68Jul 5, 2010
Meh, go paint some children's toys with lead-based paint to save a few cents.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I'd vote to extend benefits is I could guarantee Krugman would be collecting them. f**king guy needs to be out of a job...
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
There is no money left. It is gone, not only is the money you had gone, but you have borrowed and borrowed and borrowed that now not only do you guys have no money, but have made sure that your kids, grandkids and great grandkids will not have money....
kolop1Jul 5, 2010
Yeah, unemployment is why we are broke. Not this needless war or the Bailouts or any other wasteful government spending.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
There is no one single item, it is all of them. Including what you mention, but also including the unfunded liabilities, and these benefit programs.
br00tusJul 5, 2010
Last month the US spent $750 billion on the military. Aside from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is building a new class of aircraft carrier (the US is the only country which has more than one aircraft carrier), new bases all over Colombia etc. They can find money for all of this, for the Wall Street bailout etc., but with 10% unemployment someone who has worked for decades and paid into the system and is going on their 25th week of unemployment now gets nothing?
Keynesians say the worst time to cut spending is when the economy has high unemployment like it is now. You don't wait until you have the longest period of post-WWII high unemployment to decide you're finally going to do something about debt. It is bogus.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"Keynesians say the worst time to cut spending is when the economy has high unemployment like it is now. You don't wait until you have the longest period of post-WWII high unemployment to decide you're finally going to do something about debt. It is bogus."
Given the bailout, stimulus, and massive spending on our foreign empire during this recession I'd say this theory has YET AGAIN been proven wrong.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Keynesian-ism is a form of dementia.
asus3000Jul 5, 2010
Keynesians like to be lied to (it's easier): 1=3.. In all other forms of economics 1=1.
yacksJul 5, 2010
"Keynesians say the worst time to cut spending is when the economy has high unemployment like it is now. You don't wait until you have the longest period of post-WWII high unemployment to decide you're finally going to do something about debt. It is bogus."
On the flip side, keynesian also says that you cut spending when the economy is booming and save up for when the times are bad.. which did not happen, so now if you want to go Keynesian on this issue, you are screwing the pooch.
kiwimonkJul 5, 2010
Our politicians need to stop playing politics with peoples lives.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
You know the world has gone bats**t insane when economists with Nobel prizes actually want to reward unemployment. Rewarding non-production is a recipe for chaos.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
faskippyJul 5, 2010
Rewarding politicians for f**king up the jobs market is even worse.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
DUDE, you're gonna get dugg way, way down...
Shut up with the common sense and personal responsibility stuff. Remember, you earn for others, not for yourself!
gmstoneJul 6, 2010
@KingOfAwesome - "Rewarding non-production" is what caused the massive job loss in the first place. Because our country did that, it is the morally responsible thing to help displaced workers damaged by that policy.
Wealthy investors make billions of dollars without providing any service or creating any product. In recent years they've destroyed many more American jobs than they've created.
Having a system that transfers our currency to people who kill jobs and devalue assets of middle class workers is worse than rewarding non-production -- it's rewarding destruction. We really need to pay more attention to the underlying cause of our problems (and it's not people who can't find jobs; it's the people who did things that eliminated jobs).
2612Jul 5, 2010
So economically ignorant. If you pay people to not work, that becomes their job. We have to stop spending what we don't have.
kolop1Jul 5, 2010
Oh you mean like bail outs and giving money to companies to leave America?
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
yes - just like that.
kasha34Jul 5, 2010
Yes.
And like bailing out auto companies. And subsidizing solar panel companies.
And forcing auto companies to build cars Americans don't want so the government has to subsidize them to the tune of $10,000 per car to get Americans to buy them.
And like Cash 4 Clunker moronic schemes.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
Don't forget the cash for appliances scheme.
They will never look in the mirror and realize that they are the very reason that there is an unemployment problem in the first place.
kasha34Jul 5, 2010
Thanks. I forgot that one. And probably host of others that operate under the radar.
christpissedJul 5, 2010
Yes, we should end the billion/trillions in handouts, bailouts, subsidies, and inflated no bid contracts to corporate,banking, and dual-citizenship welfare queens.
2612Jul 5, 2010
Absolutely. Stop bailing out failing companies, you're just delaying the inevitable; stop subsidizing farms not to grow crops - stop spending money like a drunken sailor. People will lose their jobs, companies will fail - there is nothing that you can do to stop that. And the good ones, the strong ones, will find a way to pick themselves up and start over.
skews13Jul 5, 2010
Hey everybody, here's the latest narrative; The working poor are bankrupting the country because they need a place to live, and something to eat. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in. I s**t you not.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
No it isn't. The narrative is that after the wars, the bailouts and the HCR there is no more money for this generation, the next, and probably even the one after that...
America could do anything it needs, it just can't do EVERYTHING everyone wants.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
so the working rich should have to pay for the working poors:
health care
housing
food
unemployment
public transportation
education
social security
which should be run by the government that runs everything else so efficiently....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skews13Jul 5, 2010
The working rich? There's an oxymoron if there ever was one. We should take the tax payers bailout money back from those "working rich", and return it to it's rightful owners. Of course those "working rich" you speak of don't suffer in times of depression so it's easy for them to rob the treasury, and then point fingers. The working poor were doing just fine with what little they had before the "working rich" convinced politicians to redistribute the working poors meager earnings to them. You got that exactly backwards. It's the working poor who have been paying for the rich whores. If those whores have airplanes they may want to consider using them. If things get bad enough, they just may start getting shot in the head. Now that's what you call a return on investment.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
so basically you're just a poor douche bag jealous of those that make money......
you want the rich to redistriubte their money but don't want the "poor" to have to do anything but sit back and collect.....
just what dumbf**k, that's not how a stable society and economy works.
jjason1985Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
and always with someone else' money.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
And they also demonize anyone that shows slivers of common sense as if they are the devil incarnate because they just can't have common sense become common again, now can they!?!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
Oh, you're just a racist from the south who hates all non-white, non-rich people!
In fact, anybody who disagrees with this president or democrats or progressives is just a racist-brown-poor-person-hater.
Stereotyping done.
Argument over!
See how easy it is to show you're smart?
usarugulaJul 5, 2010
Are you an idiot?
armageddon2012Jul 5, 2010
I know two people who have told me personally they're going to have to start looking for a job as soon as the checks run out.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
If you do something for someone that they could and should do for themselves, they will eventually lose the ability and desire to do it for themselves.
Thus it has always been.
It isn't nice, but reality seldom is.
bwiiiJul 5, 2010
Denial of reality is the hallmark of a 'Progressive' mind...
navicertsJul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
theplJul 5, 2010
yes trust the statistics, because anyone receiving a check is going to tell the truth to the gov. MORON!
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Only two? I have a lot of friends in the construction industry and I know a LOT more than two people. One of them relishes the fact that for almost 2 years he's been sitting at home playing Xbox. And if you put on your liberal thinking cap, you really can't blame them. Sure it's a pay cut but you get to stay at home and not work. How much of a pay cut would you take to be able to stay at home and not work?
lormendiJul 5, 2010
Ah well, as you have provided 2 instances of anecdotal evidence, you must be right.
ninjaofpatienceJul 5, 2010
Don't know about other states, but in ny you are required to search for jobs every week in order to receive your unemployment check.
theplJul 5, 2010
too right! My friend's wife skipped work so she would be fired so she could stay at home with her kids and is waiting until the checks run out to get a job again. This is about securing votes, not providing for the needy.
kolop1Jul 5, 2010
Yeah, living large off $320 a week. Considering my rent and utilities are about $900 a month, that leaves me with roughly $300 for food and other expenses.
If anyone thinks I choose being unemployed over having a job, you're an idiot.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Then why don't you get a paper route to subsidize yourself? Mc'd is usually hiring, as are many donut shops. There are jobs out there, there just probably not the jobs you want.
swarrior216Jul 5, 2010
the thing is, most of these jobs are not even hiring either.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
because once you have a job... whatever it is... you lose unemployment. Paper route? are you f'ing kidding me?
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
swarrior - most? Maybe no all, but the turnover rate for all of those is pretty high so even if they aren't hiring this week, maybe next - certainly sometime within a month. Papers are also always looking for people to deliver their products, etc...
There are jobs, they just happen to be pretty s**tty ones. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
I keep hearing that crap from people...I am on unemployment and am working a part-time minimum wage job to subsidize it...add to my income and make sure that I can let my INSURANCE payments last until I'm able to find a job. Never mind the facts that for every open job there at over 5 unemployed people.
Unemployment isn't welfare. It's insurance that I paid for in case I got laid off through no fault of my own.
inactiveuserJul 5, 2010
"Cus I live in a sheltered padded room with picture windows of grassy fields"...
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Jedi - No I am not. I guess it depends on how badly you want to eat. If you can't bring yourself to do whatever is required to live, how can you expect others to pay for you? Seriously.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
yacksJul 5, 2010
@SolitaireRose:
You didn't pay directly for you unemployment insurance.. your employer did... and only paid for 26 weeks of unemployment.. not 99+ weeks... Now it's the gov't providing money into the system to keep giving you money.
Stop filling so entitled to something.. eventually they will need to cut you off and you just need to face the facts whether it was your fault or not..
yacksJul 5, 2010
@myself:
filling = feeling.. doh!
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
You can still make money while being on unemployment.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
Been there, done that. I had a day job and a night job at the same time. Both low paying jobs. Was it hard? Yes. Was it fun? No. Did it pay the bills? Yes.
Don't get me wrong, I believe unemployment benefits are helpful and it's a good program but it should last about 2 months instead of 2 years.
theplJul 5, 2010
You could get a job at $10.50 an hour and pay taxes and still make more than you do on unemployment and there are lots of jobs like that available, you and your kind are just too good/lazy to go do the work. GROW UP and stop leeching off the rest of us.
btw, that's what I had to do when I lost my job so I am practicing what I'm preaching.
holdemrulesJul 6, 2010
Why is your rent 900/month? Are you living alone or have roommates? Can you move back in with family. Yes you are living large if you are living alone given that you're unemployed.
cmostJul 5, 2010
How many times are we going to extend the jobless benefits? It's been done too many times already. It's not "punishing" the jobless to say enough is enough, now get out there and find some work. Some people, like my Aunt for example, have no interest in going back to work and has been milking the system for every penny it's worth. She's also polished up her hard luck story so that several church and charity groups are giving her food, clothing, free maintenance for her house and car, etc. People like this are what's draining our country and making a lot of people angry. If I were out of work, I would wait tables, tend bar, freelance, or do whatever it took to get food on my family's table. I wouldn't sit around like a leech on the taxpayer. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
which part of there are 5 applicants for 1 job that opens, that you don't understand??? If jobs were so easy to run out and get, unemployment wouldn't be at almost 10%.
And if you lost your job you'd be out there looking for one like it. Don't even try to claim otherwise. You'd look for the closest job in pay and skill, not some craptastic frycook or dishwasher job.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Depends on how hungry he is... If you are hungry, and aren't willing to work a "craptastic" job, then you aren't hungry. If you want to hold out and weight for the job of your choice, that is great - but it is your choice, and not someone elses obligation to pay for you to wait for it.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jediwilsonJul 5, 2010
call me when you lose your job. I'll run my Wendy's and order some nuggets from you to keep you employed.
and it's WAIT not weight. weight is a unit of measure.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Jedi - I did lose my job jagoff. You know what I did? I got another one - it was one of those, what did you call it, "craptastic"?. But it paid me enough to keep shelter and food(bad, cheap, lower than college food). Then I started a bit of a business doing small IT stuff for the elderly people in the area with any free time I had. From that, I networked enough to get an "in" at a company where I got paid straight commission, which while bad, was better than what I was doing....
Now tell me, what have you done, other than sit online blaming others for your lack of action? So please, with all due respect, stop replying, and go out there and do something - anything, you never know what turns up.
P.S - I noticed the typo, and corrected prior to the editing process timing out. Thanks for your concern though.
asus3000Jul 5, 2010
Did you say "10%." LOL
Try 22% bud.
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
That's the thing, Unemployment payments are NOT coming from "the taxpayer". They are paid into by YOU when you work and paid out to YOU when you are laid off.
For every story about your aunt, I could tell you 40 - 50 stories of people who go to retraining groups, networking groups, resume classes, etc...and have applied for 400 - 600 jobs in their field only to get a nice form letter that "your skills and background are impressive, but we have chosen not to fill the position."
People who don't know anything are the ones draining this country.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Maybe they should start looking outside their field?
Once again, the true debate is why are there no good jobs out there, as opposed to that there are no jobs. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
solitaireroseJul 5, 2010
I don't think you grasp just how bad the job market is. For example: 2 years ago, nurses were in short supply and there were 3 opening for every job seeker and now supply FAR outstrips demand. Anecdotally, a friend who is a nurse said they posted two opening at their hospital and over 170 QUALIFIED nurses applied.
There simply aren't enough jobs in ANY field.
My experience is in HR processing, and I'm applying for anything I am qualified for...there are just too many job seekers and not enough jobs. Anyone who doesn't grasp that simply doesn't understand the economic issues going on and the basics of supply and demand.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
@SolitaireRose - I completely disagree with that. I have heard from many people in this thread saying exactly as you did. A quick check on their profile, gave me their city, a within 5 minutes I was on a site that listed 426 retail jobs. There were engineering jobs, manufacturing jobs, and, and, and...Once again there ARE jobs out there - what you are saying is that there are job "good" jobs out there, and I would completely agree with that, but there are jobs.
Are you telling me, that if you told me the city you live in, I wouldn't be able to find you a job, albeit a s**tty one, within a few hours?
I understand economics fairly well, I also understand that sometimes you have to do things that you feel "are beneath you", to survive. Sadly, people have been conditioned to think they will never have to do that, so they don't - instead they just complain about how it is someone elses fault, someone elses problem, and should be paid by someone elses wage, from someone probably doing something they feel "is beneath them" as well. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chuckdeesJul 5, 2010
Ever heard the phrase the "blame America first crowd" or heard right wingers say liberals hate America. It seems in same vein of generalization. If you observe the actions of right wingers over many decades. They love the idea and concept of America ( American exceptionalism etc..) Yet they seem to hate Americans, the actual citizen and prove so repeatedly in their actions.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
What you say can be leveled at Republican politicians for sure, you do seem to ignore that it can equally be laid at Democrat politicians as well. This mean spiritness, and disdain towards the citizens, are demonstrated by both parties, and why wouldn't they? They have the masses fighting with themselves, blindly defending one side or the other...
nysusJul 5, 2010
I can only conclude, after reading these comments, people are becoming more and more heartless. Those with money and jobs simply don't give a flying f**k about other people. It's pretty sad and disheartening. We've become a country full of greedy, self absorbed money grubbers.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Giving people handouts don't help. They never have helped. Sometimes, for the short term it is needed. We all need help from time to time - but after a year, or even 6 months, if you can't find some job, or create one yourself, then why should someone else, pay for you, on top of paying for themselves?
Serious question.
smemilyJul 5, 2010
THERE ARE 5 APPLICANTS FOR EVERY ONE JOB. THERE ARE NO JOBS FOR 80% OF THE ACTIVELY SEEKING UNEMPLOYED.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
Smemily - I don't think you understand stat's. But even letting that go, there are jobs - just not good ones. Heck, even if where you are, and this present moment, there are no jobs - why haven't you(If you are unemployed, or underemployed) created one for yourself?
Basic yard care? Chores for elderly people? Small IT work? Nope, you want someone to give you the job, give you the money, give you permission to take caps lock off.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
I think this country is about greedy, money grubbers. It has been for a long time. It has gotten worse in the last decade. Just my personal view. But I don't think extending unemployment benefits indefinitely is the answer. Two years is a long time to look for a job. It is even longer when you are looking but can't find a job. I guess it is after a year or two that you have to come up with an alternate plan. Start your own business. Work 3 or 4 part time gigs. Become homeless and live in a shelter. Plan criminal activities. Feed off of relatives. Go back to school on the taxpayer dime. I don't know what the answer is. But the attitude that all those seeking unemployment benefits for almost two years are lazy, is insane. It is also a cruel attitude. I am guessing its fueled by anger. I just don't understand how some many people make so much money (pop stars, professional atheletes, corporate ceo's, business owners) while the rest of us are getting angrier and working harder. Something is wrong. And I do believe it is greed. Cutting people off of unemployment may work for a few, but for the rest its not going to help them. I guess giving them notice of about 6 months, like yeah, its going to end, make some sort of plan, may be the only way for them to get themselves together. May a year notice. So may be when you start receiving unemployment you should be told, this will not be extended past 1 year. No ifs, or, ands, or buts about it. ONE year. Plan ahead.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
I can only conclude, after reading these comments, people are becoming more and more whiny. Since when was it taxpayers' responsibility to pay for 2 years of unemployment benefits?
theplJul 5, 2010
Your own mother and father would tell you to go get a job if you lost the one you have instead of sitting around the house. That is not heartless, it is life. grow up!
holdemrulesJul 6, 2010
it's kind of hard to give a crap when lazy people keep asking for more handouts, making the rest of the legitimately unemployed but looking for work people look bad.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
They seem to have things upside down in this article. Who’s really getting punished? Is it the person who the money is given to or the person from whom it was taken? If they really want to create jobs that would solve the unemployment check extension problem, then they will remove the uncertainty from Washington so that employers will know that they will be able to afford to hire and keep new workers. But there is no way on God's green earth that they are going to hire any but the absolutely most essential new employees because they will most assuredly get punished for hiring by the new healthcare regulations, the cap and tax plan, the expiring Bush tax cuts, and anything else this madness in Washington decides to throw their way!!! Employers may be forced to hire people under the table for cash just as the people that hire illegal immigrants do just to escape the expensive red tape laden government. No wonder so many companies are closing up shop here and heading to greener pastures in other, more business friendly, countries. It’s a real shame, we really used to know what freedom meant—but it has gotten lost somewhere under all the heavy chains of bureaucratic red tape and taken absolutely all the wind out of our sails. It is as though we are living in a sieve that is removing hope from our country as a whole. The people in Washington are only pretending to want to help plug the holes but are in reality only making things worse with each and every destructive thing they do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wavengerJul 5, 2010
Let me tell you a story.
There's this guy I know. He's the biggest Republican I've ever seen. He's smart, fends for himself, stays late at his job for no other reason than because he loves his work, and doesn't owe anyone a dime.
But he's also a diabetic, with huge medical costs unless he has health insurance. And a year and a half ago, he was laid off from his job as an engineer at a company he'd worked at for ten years so some guy from China could do the same thing for slightly less. Not because of the economic downturn, not because of the stimulus package, not because of the healthcare bill, not because of the taxes that most US corporations DO NOT PAY, but just because a pound of rice costs a dollar here and sixteen cents there. He was unable to find work for the entire time until just now, when he was hired at a lower pay grade to do work that doesn't challenge him.
The difference between this economic climate and the fantasy one that some people like to talk about is that the people hurting - the people who need that extension - are hard-working, proud, salt-of-the-earth folks, not fictional welfare queens driving Cadillacs. We need to keep them from falling into the pit.
cajungalJul 5, 2010
I am glad your friend finally found a job; but, if he hadn’t, that is why we do have welfare. If he cannot find work he can get on government assistance and they will actually retrain him for another line of work and they will pay for his re-education. That is why it is important to not extend unemployment benefits—after all, there isn't anything on that road to help them retrain. I went to college with many people who were taking advantage of that government aid. That was part of the welfare reform of the 90’s. I thought it was a good thing for helping build self respect among welfare recipients. It gave them a road out of the welfare trap.
The unemployed might have to work at something they don't like just to put food on the table, but people have been doing that for time immemorial. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Sometimes being out-of-work can be a door to a life a person never considered and they might find they enjoy the new one even better than the old.
It is very nice if you can work doing what you want to do, but life quite often doesn't allow for that luxury.
It isn’t cruel to expect people to accept jobs that are available even if they aren’t ideal.
This is a legitimate question: Do you think it is selfish for a person to get on the government dole when they have abilities that would allow them to work in alternate fields and yet they refuse to do so because it is work that they consider to be beneath them?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scamper22Jul 5, 2010
Give all public sector workers a 10% pay cut. Then I'll support extending unemployment benefits.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
That isn't a bad idea. There isn't any extra cash, so maybe the extension could be offset by dropping the public sector's pay.
Would anyone that wishes for these extensions be OK with that?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elsimerJul 5, 2010
speaking as a public sector worker (i work as a programmer for the state) I'd say I would NOT support it. I'm already paid less than an equivalent private sector employee, I haven't seen a raise in years, the last raise I did see was a 3% "cost of living" raise that was accompanied by a 4% raise in insurance premiums, and last year I was on furlough for two days (which roughly translates to being unemployed but unable to collect unemployment). All while the state legislature voted their annual raises. In a Republican state.
randyzaiaJul 5, 2010
You also can't be fired and have a pension that starts at age 50.
Both of my uncles worked for the federal government and retired at 50-55 so I've seen this up close and personal. They're both great guys, just taking advantage of a breathtakingly stupid system.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
"speaking as a public sector worker (i work as a programmer for the state) I'd say I would NOT support it. I'm already paid less than an equivalent private sector employee, I haven't seen a raise in years, the last raise I did see was a 3% "cost of living" raise that was accompanied by a 4% raise in insurance premiums, and last year I was on furlough for two days (which roughly translates to being unemployed but unable to collect unemployment)."
And how much (percentage wise) do you contribute to your 401k? Oh wait, that's right, you get a retirement paid in full by John Q. Taxpayer.
kolinkoolface2Jul 5, 2010
paul krugman is a worthless piece of s**t. The only thing I credit him for is economies of scales.
Austrain Economics > Neo-Keynsian for everything. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
"Austrain Economics > Neo-Keynsian for everything. "
And it is becoming more and more obvious by the week.
peppermintpigJul 5, 2010
Economics is consistent at all scales, else it's not economics. If our understanding of economics is limited, we do not therefore conclude that 1+1=3 as Keynesianism would do.
Advocacy of a centrally planned economy is not economics. Markets don't work when you limit the ability of individual market actors to make value judgments. Value judgments are how the market WORKS.
faskippyJul 5, 2010
Unemployment INSURANCE is an entirely different animal than welfare. Our unemployment rate is a DIRECT result of government doing. Pfft. Cut help for the citizen, bail out corporations. Wow. I'm wondering who's in charge here.
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
the corporations, we have been telling people that for a long, long time now.
sangjmoonJul 5, 2010
The question that isn't being asked by those who want the benefits extended is where is the money going to come from to pay for it. Like many of those people who get into credit card debt, it is easier to spend money when you ignore the ability to pay it back and then to rationalize it by blaming others.
bigj480Jul 5, 2010
Any topic that can be is turned into an "us vs them" argument. You people ate doing the politicians jobs for them, you are helping to divide America so they can continue to screw us. Neither party does what their constituents want and this issue is NOT a partisan issue.
Believe me, I'm all for a small government but unemployment benefits are one of the LAST things we should cut. The program is paid for BY workers FOR workers and even if we are running into a temporary spike in claims, the system will level out and probably end up with a surplus in a couple years. Do the bureaucrats push for an increase in benefits if here is a temporary surplus? Of course not, as long as money is flowing in away from workers all is well. The best solution is to give the money take from a worker, through their employer, back to them. This could be done through the tax system and employers would still pay the government or, preferably, it could be left up to the the employer and employee to work out.
I used unemployment benefits in the last year and I'm not ashamed at all. It is paid for on my behalf in return for my labor and I have earned it. We can give banks sweetheart deals and bailouts amounting to trillions of dollars but we can't extend unemployment benefits a few months for those struggling to eat? Come on...
sangjmoonJul 5, 2010
The federal extended benefits are not coming from the workers like the normal unemployment benefits. They are coming from the debt that the federal government is selling. It just adds to the growing wall of financial disaster that will crash down on us like an avalanche just like our current economic crisis. Congress has to be stopped from spending money it doesn't have.
bigj480Jul 5, 2010
I see, my mistake. I agree that we have to get our spending in order and our fiscal policy needs to change. I still find it amazing that people put up with deficit spending, but I guess that's where keeping the country divided and trying to buy votes with government programs comes in. You could blame anybody, but congress deserves the majority of the blame. They have the power of the purse. I still think that federal extended benefits should not be top priority when it comes to cutting cost. Thank you for the clarification.
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
This isn't about cutting benefits, this is about extending them. RTFA.
fungowskiJul 5, 2010
Ok, I understand that some people legitimately need unemployment pay. But most of the assh**es I know on unemployment are sitting at home playing WOW, smoking pot, and not even bothering to look for a job. To these guys, permanent disability pay is the only dream greater than extended unemployment.
I wholeheartedly agree with heavy restraints on unemployment benefits until the system can be worked out to the point where the fat lazy f**ks I'm describing are weeded out. I have a lazy wife and three kids to support here and I didn't apply for unemployment when the company I worked for went under, even after two months of fruitless job hunting. Instead, I started my own ridiculous business which pays the bills at least. This is America, it's hard to believe these people can't find anything to do after a year. Even if nobody will hire you in your gay profession, there's still ways to make money you lazy f**kers. College grads especially should have no excuse for this wimpy bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 5, 2010
college grads are probably the most hard hit. They probably have student loans, They may even have families, cars, and homes that they need to pay for. If they apply for a low paying labor job, it usually doesn't go to them it goes to a high school student or someone who has no college or experience.
allisonv12Jul 5, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
illinestJul 5, 2010
well lets keep extending unemployment benefits -there's no way anyone will ever abuse a system that allows them to get paid for not working right?
right?
as usual krugman is a shilling for his political party. He's a f**king turd.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rockcosmosJul 5, 2010
Try looking at the biggest waste IN government spending, the Defense Budget. Cut it in half and we still spend over 5 times what China does and what 1/4 of the entire planet spends but nope...gotta keep slaughter...Can't feed people just kill 'em
waiting2awakeJul 5, 2010
That is a false choice, but you are right. That has to be cut, and badly, not sure there is any political will for that though... Sad.
joe8packJul 5, 2010
guns versus butter, has never been a false choice. It is one of the eternal struggles of the state.
asus3000Jul 5, 2010
How about taking away the nanny government and restoring the free market?
buckwyldJul 5, 2010
Actually, Krugman fails to explain that a Republican stepped forward to give the vote needed to pass the extension. The Democrats didn't take it. This is because the Republican wanted the half of the "unspent stimulus funds" to go into unemployment insurance. Instead the Democrats decided to play politics so Krugman can write a piece for the New York Times Op-Ed department. You can read about it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063005483.html.
Maybe finger pointing should go to the side that "could have" passed it. Especially since unspent stimulus money is already available because it was part of last years funding.
mgraves81Jul 5, 2010
Shhhhh we don't want to interfere with the Democrats agenda.
2010 Democrat Campaign Slogan:
"Who needs jobs? We'll pay you!"
linuxpersonJul 5, 2010
...and the truth comes out.
realcoolguy9022Jul 5, 2010
It's not time to buy votes yet with the slush fund.
holdemrulesJul 6, 2010
Be careful, the Obama punch drinkers are going to digg you down.
magus_melchiorJul 6, 2010
@Buckwyld: It probably came with an amendment like "raise the Social Security retirement age", which the Democrats will never accept. It's called "poisoning the well".
fredfredricksonJul 6, 2010
And if the Democrats had gone lock-step into it, steamrolled Republicans, and passed it anyway, then you'd be saying that the balance of power is broken, blah, blah, blah.
The Republicans refusing to pass an extension to the jobless is just a play to fuel the idea that Obama isn't fixing the problem. Don't even try to convince yourself that they actually care about fiscal responsibility because there are too many examples from the last decade to prove you wrong.