Compromise On Unemployment Extension Refused By Dem's

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA



Once again Congress is proving politics and gamesmanship is most important to them. Particularly the Democrats who have an ever growing propensity to pander to the emotions of the nation. Thereby pushing the envelope on the never ending growth of their beloved Leviathan.

Congress is about to adjourn for the The Fourth of July recess without having passed a bill to extend underemployment benefits. While the Dem's have claimed the Republicans as unsympathetic to the plight of the long term unemployed they have rejected several compromise offers by the GOP that would gain it's support. Namely that at least a part of bill be paid for. Democrats are going to hold out and will use this as a political lie in a sad attempt to gain political ca;ital.

The plight of the long term unemployed is a concern of course. It is also reasonable to be concerned with passing a bill that will add 33 billion more to our federal debt of 1.3 trillion. Conservatives want to stop the hemorrhaging. Obama Democrats are unconcerned about the sea of red ink apparently just as Republicans were unconcerned about the GWB sea of red. Our politicians have all became disciples of Keynesian economics in a way that would likely make Keynes blink.

The unemployed are already entitled to 99 weeks with the existing federal extensions already in place. The house passed a six month extension on Thursday of this week, which should the Senate eventually follow suit benefits would be extended to 125 weeks or 2.4 years. With evidence of a slowing (artificial) recovery it is not hard to envision even further extensions.

Perhaps Congress and the American people ought to be asking the question at what point in time is it reasonable to stop the subsidy of unemployment. It may sound cruel Ms. Pelosi but it is a reality that the longer a person remains out of work the less likely it is they will want to return to work. I know some actually believe unemployment  benefits actually stimulate economic growth (Madame Pelosi again). With this belief it makes it easy for the progressive collectivists to support unemployment for... Who knows how long.  Apparently the cost, and how it will be paid for is irrelevant to some. 

Someday before this counties economy collapses under the weight of Leviathan our politicians, and the people they are supposed to represent had better learn it's time to restructure our entitlement programs and rethink our foreign policy and the defense budget because the combination of the two will be our undoing if we don't.

But that's a subject for a different day.

For more on the failed attempt at extending benefits read The Examiner.

Comments

  1. Which has a better chance of surviving without help; a corporation, or an individual.
    At least Dems will tax to pay for their spending, Republicans have refused for 30 years, which is why we are 12 trillion dollars in debt.
    I would rather see the unnecessary excesses of government go to the people rather than corporations.
    If your response is to simply cut it all off, fine, ask the Republicans why they did not even with a President in the White House for 21 of the last 30 years, and a majority in the Congress that did not end until 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom's math skills aren't the greatest. The confiscatory level of taxation it would take to cover all of this spending would kill all economic activity and drive it to other countries.

    It's the spending. Looks at the states. The most taxed states are also in the worse fiscal shape, and vice-versa.

    The Demagogic party in congress have made a conscious decision to use this to score political points rather than make cuts elsewhere to pay for it.

    BTW, Tom, what ever happened to Pay as You Go?

    Vote Democrat: Empty Promises, Empty Coffers

    ReplyDelete
  3. How 'bout this for a compromise, folks? We extend the benefits, but we also beef up the auditing. Make sure that these folks are at least trying to find a job. And, no, no more of this you don't have to take a job that pays less nonsense. No, you shouldn't necessarily have to take a job that pays 60-70% less. But a job that pays only 20-30% less, that I think a person should be mandated to takes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, you're right Mr. Hart. I'm making 50% less than I made on my last job, and it sucks, but I still show up for work every day. Whatever happened to trying to work your way up again?

    ReplyDelete
  5. >at what point in time is it reasonable to stop the subsidy of unemployment

    How about Day One?

    Every single cent that is doled out to recipients reduces both the ability and the incentive of companies to hire employees, and of entrepreneurs to start new business. The idea that government can provide a "safety net" is a destructive fallacy. Government involvement in the economy ALWAYS reduced the ability of the economy to improve.

    Churches and other private organizations have always been far more effective at helping people in the short term and aiding them in becoming self-reliant in the long term. In addition, their efforts are truly moral, since they do not force individuals to provide donations, etc., under threat of imprisonment or violence, as is the practice of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So much for the party of the little guy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You crack me up Bastiatarian. Scrooge would be most proud of you.


    Let me explain: If an "entrepreneur" is truly an entrepreneur he will be dedicated to whatever he is entrepreneuring. Entrepreneurs don't quit because of a regulation. If they do it's because they are just pipe dreamers and have no right to call themselves entrepreneurs. You insult true entrepreneurs with your ridiculous blanket assessment of government. It is governent that provides the police, fire and infrastructure to help them be successful. It is government that regulates so honset entrepreneurs can compete with the dishonest.


    On this 4th of July you should be thanking our Founding Fathers for creating a GOVERNMENT that enables all of us to enjoy security and opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again LIES 101 displays complete ignorance of economic issues, human psychology, and even literary classics.

    Entrepreneurs may not quit because of a minor regulation, but they do quit when government thuggery makes it impossible for them to make a sufficient profit.

    On this INDEPENDENCE DAY (not "4th of July), I thank God for inspiring the Founding Fathers to establish a government that was designed specifically to stay out of the way of individuals as much as possible, and I curse "liberals," the enemies of liberty who try (always in vain) to justify stealing from successful individuals to subsidize the failures of others.

    Also, you would benefit from actually reading "A Christmas Carol." As literate individuals know (and even many who have seen the movies), Scrooge specifically rejected the efforts of the PRIVATE organization that came to him for donations. In response to them, Scrooge recommended governmental programs as the solution to the problem. He saw government as the answer, regardless of how damaging it was to the needy. In other words, he was just like a modern American "liberal."

    Congratulations on another in a long string of what should be humiliating displays of both ignorance of reality and complete incompetence in argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You still crack me up bassman. And you impress me with your devotion to long quips that offer nothing of substance o entertainment value. I respect the work you must put in at being both deluded and boring.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, LIES 101, have you gotten Scrooge's story straight yet? No response when you're caught once more in your illiteracy? Just resorting to poorly executed (very poorly executed) ad hominem again?

    > nothing of substance o entertainment value

    Miss, you're projecting again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Poor deluded and predictable Bassman. You and your partners in blind devotion to the right have never been able to defend yourt views from being exposed as the folly they are from TAO and myself. So of course you pick at Scrooges' conversion at the end of A Christmas Carol as some kind of right wing wonderousness. No doubt your love affair with Leona Helmsley clouded your mind to the true greed and hatred of real America the wealthy hates.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bastiarian, Well, you do cover your stupidty quite well with the stench of BS...

    But while before you were just crude and rude now we can add stupid too!

    So, where are the numbers that prove that religious charities can solve all that ails our social safety net? Right now the government gives a dollar for dollar deduction for all charitable contributions and yet that has not in one way or another alleviated the economic and or social ills of this country.

    With a dollar for dollar write off and if your logic was factual there would be no poverty in this country.

    If our charities were doing the impecable job that you so much want to claim they are doing then there would be no need for the government to do anything because there would be no problem.

    So, get factual or shut up.

    Now, we can move on to the stupid hubris of this comment:

    "Every single cent that is doled out to recipients reduces both the ability and the incentive of companies to hire employees, and of entrepreneurs to start new business. The idea that government can provide a "safety net" is a destructive fallacy. Government involvement in the economy ALWAYS reduced the ability of the economy to improve."

    If companies were creating jobs then there would be no unemployment 'doled' out. The only time unemployment is 'doled out' is when companies are not creating but rather destroying jobs.

    A companies unemployment rate is determined by their hisory of laying people off or downsizing. If a company never has anyone draw unemployment insurance then they pay next to nothing. Besides it a percentage of payroll with a cap on the first 7,000/8,000 of payroll. So, it is not an expense that is even worth considering when making business decisions. Its kind of like workers comp: run a safe workplace and it costs you next to nothing.

    But what would you know? Your job is just to stir up anger and feed the flames of stupidity...

    You do that well don't you?

    Its obvious that YOU know nothing about facts, whether they are economic based or not...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay, first for DOOF 101

    >Poor deluded and predictable

    Poor? I’ve got enough for my needs. Deluded? About the relative appeal of my physical appearance maybe, but about reality, no. Predictable? I hope so. I value consistency.
    So, you get half a point.

    >Bassman.

    Actually, I usually play lead, but I can play bass guitar as well, so I'll give you that one.

    Or maybe you’re talking about fish. (Personally, I prefer trout.)

    >You and your partners in blind devotion to the right

    Yes, I am completely devoted to doing and saying what’s right.

    > have never been able to defend yourt views from being exposed as the folly they are from TAO and myself.

    Ordinarily, you would actually have to win—or at least address the issues that are brought up—before you can claim victory, whether for yourself or for your life partner.

    Or maybe “yourt” is a misspelling of “yogurt.” I will admit that I have never even attempted to defend my yogurt views, so maybe you have exposed their folly. I like raspberry yogurt. Is that so wrong?

    >So of course you pick at Scrooges' conversion at the end of A Christmas Carol as some kind of right wing wonderousness.

    I really am worried about your reading comprehension. What I wrote was “Scrooge specifically rejected the efforts of the PRIVATE organization that came to him for donations. In response to them, Scrooge recommended governmental programs as the solution to the problem. He saw government as the answer, regardless of how damaging it was to the needy.” Where in there did I address Scrooge’s conversion? I merely pointed out that he was against private charity and for governmental welfare systems.

    Now that you mention it, though, a Christian story of repentance that highlights the importance of the traditional family, the virtues of voluntary, private charity, and the evils of government welfare IS rather conservative. Thank you for pointing that out.

    >No doubt your love affair with Leona Helmsley clouded your mind to the true greed and hatred of real America the wealthy hates.

    The incoherence of that sentence (both the grammatical chaos and the irrelevance of the content), while amusing at a certain level, gives cause to worry that you have had a stroke. I suggest that you seek medical attention immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Next for T-T-T-Tao

    > you do cover your stupidty quite well with the stench of BS...

    The correct spelling is “stupidity.”
    I would say something about irony, but that would probably be unnecessary.

    >But while before you were just crude and rude now we can add stupid too!

    Ah, the trifecta! Or, in the spirit of the current international kickball tournament, a hat trick!

    >So, where are the numbers that prove that religious charities can solve all that ails our social safety net?

    Your reading comprehension appears to be as bad as your life partner’s. What I wrote was “Churches and other private organizations.”

    Anyway, I'll let you do a little of your own work. (I hate to encourage laziness.)
    Here are a few places to start.

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/From-Mutual-Aid-to-Welfare-State
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/10/Where-Government-Fails-Room-for-Private-Charities-to-Thrive
    http://mises.org/store/Out-of-Work-Unemployment-and-Government-in-Twentieth-Century-America-P295.aspx
    http://mises.org/conquest

    I would also recommend the complete works of Frederic Bastiat, and a bit of Adam Smith.

    Also, I suggest that you read Thomas Sowell’s book Basic Economics, an excellent primer for the complete beginner.

    >With a dollar for dollar write off and if your logic was factual there would be no poverty in this country.

    You continue to amaze me with your ignorance of economics. Companies and individuals are plundered for billions of dollars every year by the government. (Even in the midst of this, American churches, companies, and individuals still give billions of dollars in private charity each year, and alleviate much suffering, whether it be from poverty, disease, or disasters. The complete failure of governmental relief efforts in Haiti and the extraordinary success of private relief efforts is one of many examples.) This, of course, makes it much more difficult to create lasting employment for people. This in turn means that it becomes impossible for those people to become self-reliant. The government dole then adds the problem of creating disincentives for self-reliance, and poverty increases. Private charities are not perfect, of course (no human effort ever is), but they always have been and always will be more efficient and effective than government welfare, which has only INCREASED poverty in the United States.

    >So, get factual

    You really do love to project, don’t you?

    >Now, we can move on to the stupid hubris of this comment:

    I’m not sure how “hubris” is an issue here, but it’s likely that it’s just one of many words that don't mean what you think they mean.

    >If companies were creating jobs then there would be no unemployment 'doled' out. The only time unemployment is 'doled out' is when companies are not creating but rather destroying jobs.

    You’re going in circles again. The very nature of business means that companies want to expand. Expansion means increased employment. A company with more capital will invest more in expansion. The amount of capital companies have is decreased significantly by the billions of dollars paid in taxes. Companies don't destroy jobs. Government destroys jobs.

    Your incoherent paragraph on worker’s comp is irrelevant and void of sophisticated thought, so I’ll skip it.

    >Its obvious that YOU know nothing about facts, whether they are economic based or not...

    It’s interesting (in a sad way) that you still have the gall to make such an assertion. You bring nothing to the debate, you provide no real argument, you misread and misinterpret simple, straightforward statements, you produce only a long string of non sequiturs, and your grammar and spelling are horrendous. But it’s clear that you have no interest in the truth. You’re nothing but a troll, and I am confident that you will not read the selections that I have suggested above. Read them and understand them, and if you still have questions, I will be glad to answer them for you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. T-T-T-Tao, here's a bonus track for you. (Of course, since you're such an expert in economics, I'm sure that you are already aware of this study.) It's one more example of the stellar track record of government intervention in promoting the relief of economic hardship.

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stuttering are we? I do attempt to be respectful but you are pushing the limits

    So,This is a test, if you go to your UCLA link, tell me, how did they project the conclusion that they did?

    By using the data from 1929 as their base, how did they determine where we would have been in 1934?

    By the way, FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933...

    Now, point out what data they used to determine that doing nothing would have been better...

    Of course that data would be hypothetical for the last year...

    But go ahead....

    ReplyDelete
  17. I haven't heard a "Good day, sir!" in this thread yet. I'm starting to go through withdrawl. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  18. BASTA...BASTAR....BASTIATARIAN......

    Lets see, the economists started with 1929 and then determined that if FDR had done nothing that everything would have been fine by 1934.

    Hmmm...lets see, FDR took office on March 4, 1933.

    Then of course they never discuss what information they used to determine what they "prove"

    What 'actual' data do you use to prove a hypothetical?

    When you subtract government investment (stimulus) from the numbers you come up with a continually contracting GDP...

    If you can prove that GDP continually contracts then you have negative growth which means further unemployment.

    So, what did they prove?

    If you go here: http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

    You will see the actual GDP and it didn't start going up until the election of FDR.

    Hypotheically you could argue that it would have gone up without the election of FDR BUT hypotheically it could just as convincingly argue that it would have continued downward...

    The reality is that actually GDP improved with the election of FDR....

    You can 'what if' all you want...but what ifs don't involve actual data because actual data can only be derived from reality and the data for 1933 onward involves the stimulus of FDR and you cannot 'remove' that reality from the data.

    So...what was your point once again?

    Oh, and by the way, I am reading your other information and will comment on it shortly. But its obvious that you frustrate easily and are talking business from a textbook...

    Yes, companies want to expand but part of the business cycle is recessions or contractions....because companies over expand. Expansion is just a fancy word for increased sales which cannot happen when consumers are not spending. Unemployed consumers do not spend.

    Its obvious that you do not think but rather have a canned response to everything.

    No company will expand if there is no demand. It makes no difference if taxes are 100% or zero.

    Companies also do not expand in deflationary periods.

    No grow up and get yourself a real life education....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chairman TAO, just shot himself in the face:

    "So, where are the numbers that prove that religious charities can solve all that ails our social safety net? Right now the government gives a dollar for dollar deduction for all charitable contributions and yet that has not in one way or another alleviated the economic and or social ills of this country."

    Astute observation, grasshopper. Government spends MORE than charity and we still have poverty and crime. So I use your same argument: Government spending on this is futile.

    Thanks. You just proved a conservative point.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

Another Republican Accused Of Sexual Misconduct...

As the Obama Administration and a Compliant Lame Stream Media Continue the Benghazi Spin...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

How A Nation Can and Does Change...

And The Carnage Continues...

Democrats Bought By Special Interest Money, and They Say It's All Republicans...