They also are oblivious to the fact that this economic problem did not start in January, 2009. We were already neck deep in it.
I love how this is all about Obama trying to steal from the producers and give to the useless.
You guys ARE THE FUCKING problem, one day you'll get it.
So you want to raise taxes to fund unemployment... Some people have been on unemployment for 99 weeks. How long should we continue to support them?
So you want to raise taxes to fund unemployment... Some people have been on unemployment for 99 weeks. How long should we continue to support them?
This is very troubling.
Why is IT always the first area institutions look to cut when times are tough?
Imagine if every manager walked out of the company you work for right now. Things could continue for months before there were problems.
Imagine if every IT person walked out. The company would be done within a week.
Dave, you're always right and 'you guys' are always wrong....everybody knows this. It's really quite amazing. :awe:Why? Because I was right and you guys were wrong?
IT doesn't produce revenue. It's seen as a cost center most of the time.
However long it takes until there are jobs to employ them. It's supporting the economy as a whole. Cutting unemployment checks is going to result in more people unemployed as businesses lay more people off due to less money being spent by the unemployed. Is that what Republicans want?
Basis for that claim? Unemployed spending their unemployment checks is consumer spending too. Our economy depends on consumer spending.1.) Unemployment checks do not support the economy. You have to of swallowed the Pelosi cool aid to believe that bullshit.
2.) Creating a huge long term welfare class dependent on government "for however long it takes" would further the digging of our nation's economic grave. Business would cease to hire people or expand and tax payers would further hold onto their wallets as government levies more taxes on those who still pay taxes to support long term unemployed individuals. To support an idea is just beyond stupid and some would say out right criminal if stupidity is removed the equation of reasons to push such an agenda.
I seriously would not mind it if we kept paying the unemployed a stipend. My problem is that they then sit there and do nothing.
If we're going to pay them, they need to be getting out, picking up garbage, painting houses, landscaping, mowing lawns, taking care of old folks and disabled, digging ditches, rebuilding roads, etc. etc. etc.
Paying them to sit on their @ss past a certain point is just unacceptable.
Chuck
However long it takes until there are jobs to employ them. It's supporting the economy as a whole. Cutting unemployment checks is going to result in more people unemployed as businesses lay more people off due to less money being spent by the unemployed. Is that what Republicans want?
Ahh yes, because when you give people money, and they know you will for "however long it takes", it really stimulates incentive to become a producer again, LOL, the left is funny.
Fine, create more stimulus programs to pay people to do something. Then you'll have less unemployment, and what you want will happen.
BTW, GOP wants to do the exact opposite, take money out of stimulus that would employ people to pay for unemployment instead.
No, I don't want to create anymore "stimulus" programs, we couldn't really afford the ones we've already done.
My point is that if we're going to pay people unemployment, then past a certain number of weeks, these people need to be reporting to their local unemployment checkin station - or whatever you want to call it - and we'll be finding something for them to do.
Too far to travel? No problem. Erect tents, portapotties, and they can sleep there.
Paying them to sit at home and collect money we send them is F'ing retarded.
That's my point.
Chuck
OK, have you found something for them to do? How are you going to pay for them to do that without stimulus?
The problem is not that there are not incentives for people to become a producer, there are no jobs for them to do so. Unemployed going broke is only going to make things worse by not only destroying their ability to buy things, but forcing them to sell things like their houses at a time when there is already a big supply-demand imbalance. This is going to undermine an already weak economy and take us from recession to a depression.
Also, GOP wants to pay these people exact same money by raiding stimulus funds that would otherwise be used to pay people to work.
The problem is not that there are not incentives for people to become a producer, there are no jobs for them to do so.
The stimulus money would be much better spent as a tax break to employers to hire unemployed.
Bahahahahah you're funny, I needed a laugh today
The stimulus money would be much better spent as a tax break to employers to hire unemployed.
How was this figure arrived at? According to the article below, 83,000 jobs were added:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/07/june_unemployment_rate_drops_t.html
I've got sh1t tons for them to do. The bridges around here need scraping and painting. The parking lots have sh1tloads of glass all in them. The landscaping in town could definitely need redoing. Lots of seniors homes in town could use scraping/fresh coat of paint or staining.
As for how to pay them?!?!?!
I'm/We're paying them now, it's called: Up to 99 weeks of Unemployment.
My way we get something for that money say past 30 weeks of unemployment. Your way we get nothing.
I think I'll pick my way.
Alternatively, they could go off unemployment and not have to work at whatever we come up for them to do. But then, they'd not be collecting any unemployment. They can chose what they want to do.
Chuck
The stimulus money would be much better spent as a tax break to employers to hire unemployed.