O/T: Another Winner - Not

[Lew Hodgett]

the voice of inexperience.

Lew

[GarageWoodworks]

I saw that too. Glad to see I'm not the only one in this ng that reads the Huffpo.

To those that think the unemployed are sitting on their hands and collecting checks I say this: Fire up your resume and start applying for jobs that you are qualified for (if you can find any). Wait and see how many interviews you receive and report back. There are very few jobs and it is very competitive.

[Steve]

He's saying he would't want to work if he were getting those magnificent benefits, and I do hope the voters will oblige him.

[GarageWoodworks]

Carlin said sums up everything here:

[Ed Pawlowski]

At one time he was partly correct. Some years ago when it was much easier to find a job, I knew a few guys that collected for the first five of six possible months before looking for a job. They always found one too. Today, it can take a year or more to find a decent job.

[Lew Hodgett]

-------------------------------------- Unfortunately he is the junior senator from AZ this time around.

Lew

[Lew Hodgett]

-------------------------------------

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

----------------------------------------

30 years ago I got caught in one of those RIF (Reduction In Force) programs.

Found a couple of short term, dead end deals after 6-9 months, but they were short lived.

My ultimate solution was to start a business.

Not sure I'd want to try it again.

Lew

[Han]

GarageWoodworks wrote in news:8c56d442-ff85- [e-mail]:

Yes, the sheeple elect their representation. And they deserve it.

[Rod & BJ Jacobson]

Did you actually read the link? What's with the "shorts in a knot" without actual comprehension of the spoken word?

If I may quote

"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive."

Are you claiming that many (human nature) wouldn't nearly exhaust unemployment benefits before actively looking for work especially if they have to settle for a serious career or wage downsize?

Now arguing that Gov. should borrow even more money to help the unemployed is a valid argument or maybe adopting the current Republican line that all new spending including unemployment extensions need to be a "pay as you go" (either new taxes or cuts elsewhere) has a decent ring as well...... But taking offence at some Senator stating the obvious is simply huffington minion mindless blather. Rod

[Lew Hodgett]

-----------------------------------------

------------------------------------------ Is there a question of substance in there or just a comment?

-------------------------------------

--------------------------------------- Truly the voice of inexperience.

An unemployment check is a means of survival not only for the unemployed, but also the community since it injects money into the unemployed's local community.

-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

Spoken like some one with his head stuck squarely where the moon doesn't shine.

Try taking an unemployment insurance check and face the choice of paying the mortgage or the Cobra health insurance or the copay on the prescription drugs or buy gas for the car to go on a job interview that will probably have at least 6 other applicants.

The operative conjunction in the above sentence is "OR".

"AND" is out of the question.

Faced with those choices, how long would you choose to sit on your backside and suck up those unemployment benefits, before you got up off your sorry ass and TRIED to do something about the situation.

-------------------------------------

------------------------------------ Senator Bunning had no problem voting for unfunded things like tax cuts for the high income folks or the war on Iraq during the Bush years.

George W Bush told Congress what he wanted, Bunning delivered his vote.

Wonder why he all of a sudden he is getting fiscal religion?

Just curious.

Lew

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Same old BS. EVERYBODY GOT A TAX CUT! What is it about percentage math don't you libs understand? Yeah, somebody making $150k and getting a 10% tax cut will get more absolute dollars, but he still only gets the same percentage cut as somebody making half that. The other fact, as demonstrated in the negative by the current administration, is that tax cuts actually raise revenue and help the economy recover from bad times because it frees up the ability of people to invest which then creates jobs that in turn fuel more taxable income. This has been demonstrated time and time again -- there is an initial drop in revenue, then revenue starts coming back at a larger amount than before as the economy grows.

Why were the other party so dead set against using stimulus funds instead of new borrowing to pay for this? You don't suppose it might have been that this would provide more money to buy desperately needed votes for the coming election cycle while leaving the "stimulus" payoff money available for even more vote purchasing? Why couldn't they take a paltry few billion out of the $500B that hasn't yet been spent?

No you're not, you are just regurgitating the talking points for those who are pushing a command economy.

[HeyBub]

Check the record. Tax revenues went UP after the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan, and Bush.

The difference between the previous and current administrations on fiscal policy is this: The Bush administration ran up an $800 billion deficit. This was offset by 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Most projections of the growth curve showed that the growth would overcome the deficit in a reasonable time.

The Obama administration beat eight years of the Bush deficit in their FIRST MONTH in office. Current projections are now in the $9 trillion range with NO prospect, reasonable or wishful, of ever catching it.

[smandel]

15% of 150k =3D 22.5k 15$ of 20 k =3D 3k

sounds fair ?

the balls of these people. People like the senator will also tell you that it's the unemployeds own fault they're unemployed.

shelly.

[Mark & Juanita]

Um, yes, everybody gets an equal cut in rate. What is it about decimal math that confuses people. Each of those two examples get an equal BENEFIT from the cut. The lesser of the two gets less ABSOLUTE return, but was also on the hook for less absolute input as well. Now, you realize that the 15% number you give above would be 15% of somebody paying $20k in taxes, right? Not someone who makes $20k in income -- A person filing jointly for $20k income is paying $0 in taxes (0% absolute tax rate) while a person making

150k income is paying $27,071.50 (or 18% absolute tax rate) filing jointly for that AGI.

Now, the funny thing about the Bush tax cuts, they actually increased the income at which people did not have to pay income tax. So, when Obama allows the tax cuts to expire, the "working poor" are going to be hit as well as the eeevil rich.

The following illustrates this (and the attitude you espouse) quite well: Let?s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that?s what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I?m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ?fair share??

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody?s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man?s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that?s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It?s unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That?s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn?t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn?t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn?t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

So I guess your solution is that someone with a low tax bill (say $1500) should get the same absolute $ benefit as someone with a high tax bill (say $30,000). Rather than give the person who paid $30k in taxes a $3000 deduction, you would do what? Set this up so both got the same dollar amount? So, let's split the amount the "rich" guy gets -- he now gets a $1500 reduction in his taxes and still has to pay $28,500 in taxes while the guy who paid $1500 gets a $1500 tax cut and now has to pay $0? You consider that fair? Yeah, the balls of some people.

The sad fact is that in some cases, that is a true statement, it is the fault of some people that they are unemployed. In other cases it is a sad fact of uncontrollable circumstances around them that they then (at least used to) need to overcome. In the former case, the inability to understand basic mathematical concepts might lead to making some folks less employable than others.