Oh well, when we are sugjugated in about 75 years it'll be pretty obvious where our downfall came. Letting in a bunch of lower performing immigrants when millions of high performing immigrants are available seems to be a laughably idiotic policy.
You can't make someone smart. Yet we continue to import illiterate peasants by the thousands. The immigrant waves of 1980+ are not in any way similar to the waves of the past (ie: Ireland/Italy are first world economies). Mexico isn't (and will never be).
The Irish and Italians weren't illiterate peasants also? Illiterate peasants from the land of drunks and gangsters?
-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Wednesday 8th of December 2010 06:18:18 AM
why do dems keep stating "tax cuts" for the wealthy...There are no cuts, tax rates are just staying the same.
I can't stand this class warfare game they play. The "wealthy" pay their share, any more is just income redistribution which is dead wrong. Anyone can make it in this country.I know this for a fact and see it all around me.
Clinton never did triangluation over taxes, and the fervor from the left to raise them as an act of class warfare makes a successful triangulation strategy really quite difficult.
BigG wrote:Note the Chinese and Russians are actually fascists;oligarchial, hypernationalistic, free enterprise but with strong state direction, elements of racism.
-- Edited by BigG on Monday 6th of December 2010 10:10:41 AM
Liberals don't get it. I actually find it funny.
Oh well, when we are sugjugated in about 75 years it'll be pretty obvious where our downfall came. Letting in a bunch of lower performing immigrants when millions of high performing immigrants are available seems to be a laughably idiotic policy.
You can't make someone smart. Yet we continue to import illiterate peasants by the thousands. The immigrant waves of 1980+ are not in any way similar to the waves of the past (ie: Ireland/Italy are first world economies). Mexico isn't (and will never be).
No one has to ever take a job below their educational level. It's just that most people like to eat. No one owes anyone a job at their educational level. Heck I have had one for 10 years. Heck, if you were guaranteed 1/2 your salary mostly tax free for 99 weeks would you look for a job? didn't think so.
Why should Congress force someone to work at a job far below their educational level? That is a form of corporate welfare. If corporations get good help for peanuts that drives down wages and makes society poorer.
Just awaiting for old Microsoft or GE to appeal to the standing committee of the Chinese Communist Party to protect their property rights. LOL
Companys are degrading and destroying the society that made their prosperity possible.
The old Communists said capitalism would "devour itself". They just didn't think they would pre-decease it.
Note the Chinese and Russians are actually fascists;oligarchial, hypernationalistic, free enterprise but with strong state direction, elements of racism.
-- Edited by BigG on Monday 6th of December 2010 10:10:41 AM
The unemployment system should not discourage taking a job. This guy was counseling his friend to NOT take a job and keep riding on the unemployment benefits like he was. He was counting on Congress to just keep extending the payments and he was right. They are going to do just this.
-- Edited by Tatin on Monday 6th of December 2010 09:20:35 AM
Laws concerning unemployment benefits vary from state to state - but this would not be true in PA.
I think PA has some of the most liberal. Right now in PA you get 99 weeks. You don't have to look for work. You can earn (from working) up to half of your benefit before it is reduced. Once you apply and are granted benefits you just call in every other week, or file on your computer. No one cares if you look for work or not. If you get a severance package then you can decide if you collect during your severance (double dip) or wait until it's over to collect.
Unemployment benefits prevent a lot of people from going back to work. You don't need 99 weeks to figure out if you can get a job in your field. Long before then people need to either find another line of work or move.
I think long term unemployment benefits stifles the economy.
"I don't know if this is typical, but it is interesting."
I think it is highly logical that almost anybody would keep their unemployment benefits going if the choice was to get a low paid/undesireable job. Unless you could find what you considered a "decent" job, either in upward mobility, health care benefits, pay or enjoyment, why would anyone go off unemployment for a crummy job? I wouldn't. I'm pretty ethical, but if it's a choice of me leaving my family (maybe even having to pay someone to take care of kids if they were young) to earn less money than I could make staying home taking care of the family....it just doesn't make sense to do so. Not unless the money stops, or the jobs get better.
Anecdotally, I overheard a conversation in the post office. One guy said he has been unemployed for two years, former engineer. The other guy was also unemployed. The first guy said "I had been offered a job at Home Depot, but I would have lost my unemployment benefits. They are going to extend the unemployment benefits in January, so I turned Home Depot down". He said he was nearing Social Security age and he was just going to live on unemployment until then.
I don't know if this is typical, but it is interesting.
What if the problems of the US economy are not cyclical but systemic?
What if "job creation" never returns to "normal levels"?
What if the "job creation" and "capital formation, accumulation, and retention" functions of the US economy are subject to predation by soverign foreign entities?
We are in a WAR not a "free market" circumstance.
Isolationism and protectionism are the only hope for the average American citizen.
-- Edited by BigG on Monday 6th of December 2010 04:25:54 AM
Samurai, your husband should definitely take unemployment benefits. They are meant for people in his situation, who are actively looking for jobs. Not for those who are spending years not looking or trying. His employers (or him, when he was self employed) have paid many years for those benefits. He is using it as an insurance benefit, not a welfare benefit.
I feel your pain, as the rememberance of dual unemployment, particularly with two small kids is something I will never forget. It crushes your spirit.
There is a price, as Anarchist so eloquently put. The issue is whether it is worth it in the current economic environemnt. When there is so little job creation and a society has certain living standards, as ours does, and perhaps a Asian or African one does not, it makes sense to extend them at a cost of future benefit.
The problem is where you draw the line - the Danish example is illustrative. The graph of when people getting unemployment eventually find a job under their old 5-yr plan is very little until about year 4.5, then goes vertical. That's not what you want, so the long-term benefit term should be brought back as soon as job creation is normalized to some extent.
Its also pretty foolish to deny unemployment benefits to millions who are out of work.
How so? You have yet to make an argument so there is not much to respond to, but keep in mind that wealth is not some homogeneous blob you can draw from and distribute in any way you like. Wealth is coordinated by the market in a very specific manner, and interfering with its allocation is to cause dis-coordination.
Unemployment benefits prevent necessary wage corrections. When the money supply falls, as it did after the number of defaults that accompanied the housing collapse, both prices and wages need to re-adjust to the new aggregate money supply. In practical terms, both prices and wages needed to fall to re-adjust after the bust. Paying out benefits to those who are unemployed only dampens this process, as individuals tend to increase their expectations in terms of wages. This creates sustained, involuntary unemployment
Furthermore, because the government cannot create wealth, but only redistribute it, the funds for unemployment need to be extracted from somewhere. Taxes on producers tend to diminish capital investment. Receivers of unemployment tend to consume lower order goods (non-durable consumption goods that have very limited lifespans) rather than invest, and rationally so in their unique situation. However, this is detrimental to the economy as a whole. Capital investment increases productivity, which increases real wages. Simply put, when we as a country can create more stuff, the ratio of dollars to goods decreases, meaning more stuff can be purchased with less dollars. Consumption, on the other hand, is a destructive process. When you buy goods with limited lifespans, you're destroying wealth.
Obviously, certain levels of consumption are necessary, and it is ultimately up to market participants in deciding the ratio of consumption to investment. This is called time preference; the degree to which an individual prefers current satisfaction to future satisfaction. The market coordinates this with production, and to interfere with this process is to create market turmoil.
Its also pretty foolish to talk about cutting the deficit and out of the other side of your mouth, talk about tax breaks for the rich.
Not at all. The mistake in your reasoning is to assume that increased revenues go to discharged debts. They don't. They go on to create new debts, and so I have no confidence that raising taxes would decrease the deficit in the long run. The only way is sweeping budget cuts, most of which are highly unlikely.
I think extended unemployment benefits is double edged sword.
The longer you are out of the workplace, the harder it is to get a job. The longer you take these benefits, the less inclined you are to want to look for a job.
I know people who used them for a brief amount of time before starting something else - a new job, a new career field, starting their own businesses (like my husband), but I also know some who are letting their benefits run out before even trying to find anything. Or double dipping - a cash under the table job and claiming unemployment.
Its really tough - for some families that is the only money coming in and times are getting desperate. But employers look at your resume and even hold it against you if you have large gaps - even in these uncertain economic times. Getting a lesser paying job during the gap is still better than not working.
It's really discouraging to be looking for employment. After several months when I was looking at the start of the year (with a job and a side business, mind you), I actually felt sick to my stomach opening up job boards and sending in cover letters and resumes. After nearly four months of looking each day, I got one interview and DIDN'T get the job. I can't tell you how many resumes I sent out. A large number.
My husband was doing this at the same time. The time I was looking in force coincided with the time he was collecting unemployment benefits - about four months. I actually stopped because I figured I would devote more time to my business and hope that something came through for him. A short term contract came through - no benefits. He took it. Thank goodness. It would be hell to pay the bills and also just watch him slip into the rabbit hole of unemployed despair.
Believe me, it was much tougher on him to look for a job, than me. After a while, his enthusiasm waned and even though he was still networking and looking and applying for jobs, he just couldn't do it each day. It was depressing. He would be called by headhunters who heard his previous salary and even though he was "overqualifed", was told that they were looking for someone with a smaller salary base. He told them he would take less...but employers suspect you will leave after getting employed if you take much less than your previous job if something better comes along.
Theoretically, he could go back on unemployment because he is still eligible, but I don't think he will. He will deliver pizzas before doing that. It's just so degrading and unfullfilling.
I don't dispute extended unemployment benefits, particularly in areas that are hard hit, or particularly difficult times. But with a caveat. Just like the good old days, you have to prove that you are looking for a job. And after a year, you must do some sort of public service for your benefits. Maintaining parks that would otherwise be shut down, whatever.
Because honestly, though there are some people out there, trying hard to find a job....after 2 years, and now they want a 3rd? That is undisputably welfare. With companies that are still in business seeing their unemployment taxes hiked. While we would like to think everybody is out there, spending 8 hours a day beating the pavement because they want a job, I doubt it. After a certain amount of time, people just give up. And if I could get a check for over $2200 a month for years, I would keep waiting for that very good job or for the economy to pick up. Who would work for lower wages than unemployment pays? What incentive is there?
Long ago, when my husband's unemployment check ran out, he worked for $7 an hour, parking cars. And it did help pay the bills. Who would do that now (unless it was under the table, of course) if they could collect unemployment?
Its also pretty foolish to deny unemployment benefits to millions who are out of work. Its also pretty foolish to talk about cutting the deficit and out of the other side of your mouth, talk about tax breaks for the rich.
Well, he did community organize. He does great things.
Lol.
Concerning the topic, I think this is very good news. Raising taxes in this type of an economic environment would have been absolutely foolish. In fact, raising tax rates is everywhere and always absolutely foolish. You sacrifice economic productivity, and tend to increase expenditures and debts overall. It's always better for the politicians to have less revenue than more.
I find it astonishing that the president couldn't keep his own party in tow in passing the tax cut for those making 250k and under and extending the unemployment compensation. Its remarkable how spineless he is.
Funny that they even would want to maintain the current rate for those making under 250K. Here, all these years, I always thought those tax cuts were only for the wealthy. I mean, they were never "tax cuts for everyone", they were always, "Bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich."
And if they do expire, yep, that is a tax increase no matter what they like to call it.
An excellent read in 538 about why the Democrats are losing in their clumsy attempts to split tax treatments on the citizenry and looking stupid trying:
Much as the Republicans 'won' the midterms and took over the House, the Democrats are still the incumbents in the two higher houses- Presidency and the Senate, where they have 2/3 of the seats up for reelection in 2012.
They (the Democrats) will be blamed if rates go up, even temporarily, in January on anyone. They played this game badly in the last couple of weeks, led again by the rabid dog liberals who knew they couldn't win but thought they could score some points by having votes only for platitudes.
This is a tremendous win for fair tax treatment as it appears that a permanent setting of the lower tax rates and only a temporary extension for the two highest ones won't happen either.
and let's be clear with the semantics - these aren't tax cuts anymore. They were tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. In 2010-2011, they are keeping the rates the same.
