So, jobless claims are up again. Now what?

[Henry]

ummm...nope. it is people like you who...however wll intentioned...want to raise minimum wages or increase healthcare costs (i.e., Obamacare) to the point that corporations like MickeyD's don't hire and need waivers.

Didn't Sarge JUST mock Obama's policies based on the fact that McDonalds is hiring?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Ax]

Good for McDonalds.

Obama should apply. Not sure he's qualified, though. You have to actually do something there.

 

[Sarge]

Fair warning, you caught me on a bad day...

Your statement encapsulates what I detest about the Republican Party. So one the one hand, you all want to withhold help from people who might work at McDonalds, and on the other hand you mock them for their job. Have you ever considered that some folks might not be qualified in life for anything more? Isn't it better to be trying, to be working somewhere, even McDonalds than sitting at home collecting unemployment and everything else? Because the feeling I've gotten is that you all would take most if not all help away from these people, and then tax them more to cover up from the tax breaks you are apparently willing to extend to the rich.

At least they're trying. Sheesh.

Yes, I would rather have someone working, as long as the libs don't push for them to make $50.00 an hour to flip burgers, ala Detroit automakers. Maybe working a really ****ty job will light a fire to better themselves, or try to find a better paying job. What a concept, huh?

My crack on the Mikey D's hiring is this is the kind of jobs the Obama economy is producing. I'm sure he'll be touting next month how the unemploymnet rolls dropped by 50, 000, somethig he had nothing to do with

Go read the thread on Obamacare. My entire point in that thread was to cut costs. I think we can do that while providing health care to people who need it and don't currently have it. As I have said before, I am not a fan of Obamacare, but again, figure it is better than what we had. Another example of me asking you conservatives to give me a better alternative, and getting absolutely, positively nothing in response.

As for minimum wage, I don't believe I have ever stated my position on that one. Thanks for assuming though.

Here's a response to Obamacare. Get a job that has benefits. i mean honestly, how did Americans ever make it in the world before the nanny state took care of them?

 

[Sarge]

Good for McDonalds.

Obama should apply. Not sure he's qualified, though. You have to actually do something there.

And show your birth certificate

 

[fansince62]

Didn't Sarge JUST mock Obama's policies based on the fact that McDonalds is hiring?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

yea...so?

the point he's really making is that Obama is not creating high paying jobs...kinda like the census nonsense a year or so ago when his admin was touting unemployment reductions - though the jobs were all temporary.

where are the policies that attract businesses to the US? where are the policies that promote growth? where is the restraint on burdensome/unnecessary regulations? why aren't the vast piles of capital sitting on the sidelines being invested? why does a guy whose Federal Union/employees do not enjoy collective bargaining rights and contribute more to their benefit programs advocate just the opposite for State/Union workers in WI? do these people know what they are doing? for a while I bought into the notion that while I may disagree with their social agenda...these were at least smart people who understood how the system works. I no longer think that way. they're dragging us all down.

 

[Ax]

And show your birth certificate

Oh no you d'int!

 

[Goaldeje]

1) your post sounds like a rip from the moveon homepage.

I don't know what that means. So..., thanks?

2) I don't begrudge someone where they wprk. It's in my interest to support full employment.

Great.

3) I don't care whether someone makes 500/wk or 500,000/wk. It's their income....not the GD government's. income envy is not something to be terribly proud of either in the grand scheme of things. that's where we part company. moreover, since we apparently want to be virtuous about everything...it never escapes my notice that the Dems/Libs in power pushing hardest on these class warfare issues...always...always...take care of themselves first with their own sweetheart deals. evryone of those rectal orifices has cut deals (some suspiciously like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Rangel, Franks) to amass considerable wealth along the way. others lack that sort of mischievous talent...so they just marry weatlth (e.g., Kerry, Pelosi). you live near DC...you must hear the whispers about how connections are used by all these people to get in on the groundfloor for countless good deals. it torks me off to no end to be lectured about right and wrong by these blow-hards....one hears "what's ok for me isn't ok for you." well.......blank them. they don't have the moral authority to lead. they're just another group of power hungry frauds.

So because the leaders are corrupt, the people who could and do benefit from the help should suffer?

And I am not a politician, though I could be a blowhard. And yes, I am lecturing you damn it. I think it is scary as hell how often you and others talk about these cuts in generalities, in the abstract, to stop from thinking about how your cuts are going to affect people. Then confronted with those damages, your response is, essentially, not my problem.

Scary.

Goaldie...you're a good person who sometimes leads with his chin and who wears his heart on his sleeve. but you keep resorting to extremes when the message doesn't square with your preconceptions. no one is advocating for eliminating all these programs. many, however, are drawing the line when it comes to purposes and costs. for a number of reasons, if things play out like I expect over the next several years, I am in danger of a drastic decrease in my standard-of-living. when that happens...I am going to be very pissed. I won't be as philosophic as Extreme as I will be pointing a finger directly at the people on whose watch this all collapsed. there will be many others like me - and we will destroy many of these programs you support. so the knuckleheads leading things right now better right this economic ship....or the costs are going to be dear FOR EVERYONE.

I find it frightening, disheartening, scary, whatever, that seem willing to tear the entire system of support down to the ground because of corruption at various levels, rather than be willing to get involved or at least share some solutions. You're picking the easy way out. Not the right way out.

The scary thing is that people of your ilk control the House right now. That scares the hell out of me far more than Scream 4 will.

 

[fansince62]

I don't know what that means. So..., thanks?



Great.




So because the leaders are corrupt, the people who could and do benefit from the help should suffer?

And I am not a politician, though I could be a blowhard. And yes, I am lecturing you damn it. I think it is scary as hell how often you and others talk about these cuts in generalities, in the abstract, to stop from thinking about how your cuts are going to affect people. Then confronted with those damages, your response is, essentially, not my problem.

Scary.





I find it frightening, disheartening, scary, whatever, that seem willing to tear the entire system of support down to the ground because of corruption at various levels, rather than be willing to get involved or at least share some solutions. You're picking the easy way out. Not the right way out.

The scary thing is that people of your ilk control the House right now. That scares the hell out of me far more than Scream 4 will.

I have been quite consistent for mos on end. it's not about corruption. it's about the purposes of government and individual liberty. you want status quo ante...just with more efficiency.

hope you are scared. your idology and political will put the people in power who mucked things up to the point that others are now approaching a point that they can dismantle major portions of the superstructure. you are the one who fouled up by lining up behind true incompetents. you are the one who bought into Hope and Change, Transformation, etc., without asking for the blueprint. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PUT EVERYTHING YOU VALUE AT RISK....not me.

votes do..apparently...have consequences.

but..if we must...I grow weary of your hysterical predictions of Black Plague proportions should the budgetary ship of state suffer some course corrections. own up to the truth...the "goodness" police screwed up. they screwed up and promised more than they/we could deliver. the mess now has to be cleaned up.

also...own up to this truth: you want to use the coercive force of the government to make me pony up for your feel good issues. not everything in Goaldie world is sweetness and light.

 

[Goaldeje]

Not sure how many times I have to tell you this. I voted for McCain. Wasn't thrilled about it, but did it. When Obama won, I decided he was now my president and I would support him.

So if supporting our sitting president means I have aligned myself with incompetents and all the other vitriol you just spewed, then I suppose, yes, I did.

And the reason I get "hysterical" is because of the notion that is floated and perpetuated by YOU that all entitlement programs must cease! Again, talk with me. Tell me how to improve things.

Oh, right. You're not interested in improvement. Only in your financial well-being.

Bully for you.

 

[fansince62]

Not sure how many times I have to tell you this. I voted for McCain. Wasn't thrilled about it, but did it. When Obama won, I decided he was now my president and I would support him.

So if supporting our sitting president means I have aligned myself with incompetents and all the other vitriol you just spewed, then I suppose, yes, I did.

And the reason I get "hysterical" is because of the notion that is floated and perpetuated by YOU that all entitlement programs must cease! Again, talk with me. Tell me how to improve things.

Oh, right. You're not interested in improvement. Only in your financial well-being.

Bully for you.

moving in circles.

but yea.....we're not going to get past the word "entitlement". that is just one core philosophic difference between you and I.

and pls...don't highlight your uninformed preconceptions...you have no idea what sort of charitable contributions I and my family make. you have no idea what voluntary services we have engaged in in the past. all you know is that I don't support the suck the wind out of the sails programs you favor.

be virtuous at someone else's expense. I will merrily do what I think is right and proportion it to what I can afford, where I think the soicla investment ought to be made (not some government bureaucrat), and the impact on the life I want to live (you know.....like my own/family's healthcare, insurance, retirement, schools, etc.). your presumptuous arrogance on how people should live their lives is truly breathtaking.

it's amazing how all of you believe that these programs just fall like mana from heaven from the government goody tree.

 

[Nobody]

moving in circles.

but yea.....we're not going to get past the word "entitlement". that is just one core philosophic difference between you and I.

and pls...don't highlight your uninformed preconceptions...you have no idea what sort of charitable contributions I and my family make. you have no idea what voluntary services we have engaged in in the past. all you know is that I don't support the suck the wind out of the sails programs you favor.

be virtuous at someone else's expense. I will merrily do what I think is right and proportion it to what I can afford, where I think the soicla investment ought to be made (not some government bureaucrat), and the impact on the life I want to live (you know.....like my own/family's healthcare, insurance, retirement, schools, etc.). your presumptuous arrogance on how people should live their lives is truly breathtaking.

it's amazing how all of you believe that these programs just fall like mana from heaven from the government goody tree.

Let me give you a small sample of my life for a minute...

I have been dirt poor before, and I have brought home over $3k a week before, so I have been on both sides. I have been able to throw down $500 on dinner for 12 without batting an eyelash, and I have had to go to church food closets and get on food stamps to make it day to day. I have about as much perspective as you can have on the subject, because I have lived both sides.

I haven't lived the ultra rich lifestyle, but my family is full of millionaires who built the City of Virginia Beach from the ground up. (My Uncle is John Aragona, it should be relatively easy to find info on him) My great-great grandfather was Collis P. Huntington, who anyone who knows anything about the railroad can tell you that's a big deal. In other words, there is a ton of money in pockets of the family, so I have seen things from their perspective too.

When I have money to give, or items to donate, I always have. One time I had $5 to my name and gave it to my daughter who was 5 at the time, because I knew it would bring her more joy than me. I took her to the store to spend it, and there was a CHKD fundraiser going on. She asked me what it was, I told her, and without any prompting, she gave all of that $5 to CHKD. Obviously, this was a proud moment for me as a father. 2 months later, my son was diagnosed with Pyloric Stenosis. He needed surgery to correct it, or he would die. CHKD did the surgery absolutely free. I don't know if that was a sign, but it gave me chills nonetheless.

My whole life, whether it was financially or otherwise, I have always lent a hand to help everybody around me. Friends, family, neighbors, strangers, etc. It is my philosophy that if someone needs help and I am in a position to help, I do whatever I can to make the situation better. Not everything is about money. It never has been, and never will be. I help more people being dirt poor than my multimillionaire relatives ever thought of doing. maybe money just makes people heartless, I don't know. I'm not saying to give money to a homeless guy that tucked away his bottle of Boone's Farm as you walked up, but if you knew for a fact someone was starving and not a drug addict or drunk, would you really just ignore them?

This is a small sample to give you a general idea of where I'm coming from. Not all situations are the same, and everything deserves to be scrutinized differently.

I voted for McCain, and Bush twice before him. I hate the healthcare overhaul, I hate tax increases, I hate section 8 housing, I hate the new unemployment laws and I hate tax dollars being used for abortions. However, people do need the help, especially now. No matter how overhauled these programs are, there is no way to prevent people from working the system. That doesn't mean the rest of the people in the program could be screwed.

I hope for your sake that you're never in a position to have to use these programs, and I sincerely mean that. I hate to see anyone suffer, even if it's a result of their own doing. For you though, I think the moral dilemma might drive you to the brink of insanity. Then again, I suspect you'd be quick to have your hand out, since obviously you wouldn't be like the rest of the lowlife people on it.

 

[fansince62]

Let me give you a small sample of my life for a minute...

I have been dirt poor before, and I have brought home over $3k a week before, so I have been on both sides. I have been able to throw down $500 on dinner for 12 without batting an eyelash, and I have had to go to church food closets and get on food stamps to make it day to day. I have about as much perspective as you can have on the subject, because I have lived both sides.

I haven't lived the ultra rich lifestyle, but my family is full of millionaires who built the City of Virginia Beach from the ground up. (My Uncle is John Aragona, it should be relatively easy to find info on him) My great-great grandfather was Collis P. Huntington, who anyone who knows anything about the railroad can tell you that's a big deal. In other words, there is a ton of money in pockets of the family, so I have seen things from their perspective too.

When I have money to give, or items to donate, I always have. One time I had $5 to my name and gave it to my daughter who was 5 at the time, because I knew it would bring her more joy than me. I took her to the store to spend it, and there was a CHKD fundraiser going on. She asked me what it was, I told her, and without any prompting, she gave all of that $5 to CHKD. Obviously, this was a proud moment for me as a father. 2 months later, my son was diagnosed with Pyloric Stenosis. He needed surgery to correct it, or he would die. CHKD did the surgery absolutely free. I don't know if that was a sign, but it gave me chills nonetheless.

My whole life, whether it was financially or otherwise, I have always lent a hand to help everybody around me. Friends, family, neighbors, strangers, etc. It is my philosophy that if someone needs help and I am in a position to help, I do whatever I can to make the situation better. Not everything is about money. It never has been, and never will be. I help more people being dirt poor than my multimillionaire relatives ever thought of doing. maybe money just makes people heartless, I don't know. I'm not saying to give money to a homeless guy that tucked away his bottle of Boone's Farm as you walked up, but if you knew for a fact someone was starving and not a drug addict or drunk, would you really just ignore them?

This is a small sample to give you a general idea of where I'm coming from. Not all situations are the same, and everything deserves to be scrutinized differently.

I voted for McCain, and Bush twice before him. I hate the healthcare overhaul, I hate tax increases, I hate section 8 housing, I hate the new unemployment laws and I hate tax dollars being used for abortions. However, people do need the help, especially now. No matter how overhauled these programs are, there is no way to prevent people from working the system. That doesn't mean the rest of the people in the program could be screwed.

I hope for your sake that you're never in a position to have to use these programs, and I sincerely mean that. I hate to see anyone suffer, even if it's a result of their own doing. For you though, I think the moral dilemma might drive you to the brink of insanity. Then again, I suspect you'd be quick to have your hand out, since obviously you wouldn't be like the rest of the lowlife people on it.

and you practice exactly what someone like me applauds: voluntary, free decision-making on how your disposable income will be spent. you buy charity rather than speedboats - more power to you! I won't make the desired value judgment cuz while the Venn diagrams for these actions will likely overlap...they won't elsewhere. you live your life according to what you think is right.

you and Goaldie have to quit resorting to extremes (pun intended!). we're too far down the road to eliminate any of these programs. if you listen to what is being said by such as the Tea Party...the demand is to step back and reassess what is affordable. all of these programs have moved away from their initial beginnings. they are no longer about helping people in need - they have become vehicles for securing permanent benefits. is that what you are argguiing for? seems to me you and Goaldie need to get your stories straight: either you are about helping people in need...or you are about permanent assistance to sustain some standard-of-living. the former enjoys common ground with wide swaths of the working electorate (i.e., the people who pay the bills). the latter is driving the current crisis and is assailable on philosophic and economic grounds.

which are you arguiing for?

 

[fansince62]

btw....let's explore another hypothetical:

let's imagine a deep recession; let's further imagine wide unemployment; let's imagine a government whose policies retard the growth needed to address the unemployment problem; let's further imagine a Congress that..on the basis of presumably humanitarian reasons elects to fund unemployment benefits in successive years for long-term unemployable impacted by the mismanaged recovery; let's even imagine that this Congress violated it own approved legislation in funding this compensation without any corresponding offset.

what is the right attitude/decision for the people paying the bills?

- continue paying for unemployment compensation without limit?

- continue paying for unemployment compensation or demand first that the government change the policies that are retarding growth in the first place? (i.e., favor the short-run or the long-run?)

- demand that those receiving recurring unemployment compensation perform some public service?

- terminate unemployment compensation after some period of years?

in other words...it's not just an open-ended "do the right thing" obligation. there are many variables involved. what did the regime under Pelosi chose to do?

 

[Nobody]

all of these programs have moved away from their initial beginnings. they are no longer about helping people in need - they have become vehicles for securing permanent benefits. is that what you are argguiing for? seems to me you and Goaldie need to get your stories straight: either you are about helping people in need...or you are about permanent assistance to sustain some standard-of-living.

I can honestly appreciate where you are coming from with this argument, because I once ignorantly had the exact same view in the respect I assumed everyone screwed the system and stayed in it permanently on purpose. The reality is, as I can tell you from living it, is it isn't that cut and dry.

In March of 2008, I was healthy. I had a wife who was healthy. Our children were healthy. Fast forward three years. My daughter has been diagnosed with Aspergers and needs counseling periodically and is part of a program at her school that helps low income families with children like her. As a result, she is now an honor roll student.

In those same three years, my wife and I's health went downhill. My knees fell apart, I was diagnosed with hypertension, heart arrhythmia, arthritis, GERD, diverticulitis, insomnia and a hernia (I was healthy before I quit drinking, maybe tequila has magical powers ). My wife was diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, diabetes, macular degeneration, a herniated disk in her spine and PCOS.

As a result of having no income, we were all given Medicaid, and pay nothing for our medical expenses. Treatment which we need, that we would not be receiving if we had income. We also receive food stamps so we can eat.

Now let me explain to you what happens if one of us were to get a part time job. We would lose all of the health care, and most of the food stamps. So we would have serious health conditions that absolutely need to be treated so we can survive. As a result, my wife isn't applying for part time jobs that she knows she could get. Luckily for us, she has finally secured a full time teaching position starting this August. No more government assistance for us at that point, because we will have coverage through her job and more than enough income to support ourselves thanks to her full time permanent job.

Now think of someone else being in our position, but not having college education. Their only options would be to work part time and lose everything and be worse off, or stay on the program. It isn't hard to guess which route anyone in that position would take. Most of these people permanently on these programs aren't there by choice, they are there permanently because they can't afford not be.

 

[fansince62]

I can honestly appreciate where you are coming from with this argument, because I once ignorantly had the exact same view in the respect I assumed everyone screwed the system and stayed in it permanently on purpose. The reality is, as I can tell you from living it, is it isn't that cut and dry.

In March of 2008, I was healthy. I had a wife who was healthy. Our children were healthy. Fast forward three years. My daughter has been diagnosed with Aspergers and needs counseling periodically and is part of a program at her school that helps low income families with children like her. As a result, she is now an honor roll student.

In those same three years, my wife and I's health went downhill. My knees fell apart, I was diagnosed with hypertension, heart arrhythmia, arthritis, GERD, diverticulitis, insomnia and a hernia (I was healthy before I quit drinking, maybe tequila has magical powers ). My wife was diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, diabetes, macular degeneration, a herniated disk in her spine and PCOS.

As a result of having no income, we were all given Medicaid, and pay nothing for our medical expenses. Treatment which we need, that we would not be receiving if we had income. We also receive food stamps so we can eat.

Now let me explain to you what happens if one of us were to get a part time job. We would lose all of the health care, and most of the food stamps. So we would have serious health conditions that absolutely need to be treated so we can survive. As a result, my wife isn't applying for part time jobs that she knows she could get. Luckily for us, she has finally secured a full time teaching position starting this August. No more government assistance for us at that point, because we will have coverage through her job and more than enough income to support ourselves thanks to her full time permanent job.

Now think of someone else being in our position, but not having college education. Their only options would be to work part time and lose everything and be worse off, or stay on the program. It isn't hard to guess which route anyone in that position would take. Most of these people permanently on these programs aren't there by choice, they are there permanently because they can't afford not be.

got it. you brought home your point.

while it may seem truculent.....it is not unreasonable to ask if the rest of society should permanently be on the hook for those born into less fortunate circumstances or misfortune. I am reluctant to go down this road...especially since a large percentage of the people who advocate for this do not believe they have a responsibility to participate in national defense matters that impact the entire society and where many of my friends have died.

 

[Nobody]

got it. you brought home your point.

while it may seem truculent.....it is not unreasonable to ask if the rest of society should permanently be on the hook for those born into less fortunate circumstances or misfortune. I am reluctant to go down this road...especially since a large percentage of the people who advocate for this do not believe they have a responsibility to participate in national defense matters that impact the entire society and where many of my friends have died.

Now here's something we agree on. I did my military service, and I believe that anyone who is able bodied and in a bad situation should do the same. Even if it is just their way out.

 

[Henry]

Well, if we're going to make a practice of ending debates with 'you didn't serve so you're not entitled to an opinion' I'll leave you guys to it.

 

[redskins26]

Over half the people in this country do not pay taxes

45% of AMericans are not working but are still being supported by people like me that pay taxes

Why?

thats the way they want it more people poor and dependant on others.

Also msdonalds is hiring 50,000 people over thenext 3 years it is touted as job growth but those were jobs that people once held so its not really growth

 

[fansince62]

Well, if we're going to make a practice of ending debates with 'you didn't serve so you're not entitled to an opinion' I'll leave you guys to it.

what's with all of you? is it a congenital for thing to permute thoughts into statements that were never expressed?

had you followed the train of thought...the notion in play is that there is a very selective process involved when it comes to determining social obligations and righteousness.

 

[Nobody]

what's with all of you? is it a congenital for thing to permute thoughts into statements that were never expressed?

had you followed the train of thought...the notion in play is that there is a very selective process involved when it comes to determining social obligations and righteousness.

I have to agree with you on this one - Henry buddy, you complete misunderstood the last part of our exchange. All we expressed was a shared view on military service, and neither of us stated that military service is or should be tied to an opinion or to entitlements.