Sen. Bunning blocks unemployment benefits extension

reply to post by David9176


I agree with you David. When it comes to American citizens not having money to put a roof over their head, afford medical care, or put food on the table doing nothing in the short term is plain stupidity. Unless the plan is more crime, more instability, more forclosures, less jobs in the long run. Shouldn't they be laying off unemployment workers soon since the volume is going to drop? I bet they won't.

You are right that if he is trying to make a statement, this issue is the wrong issue to make the statement on.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Walkswithfish

 

n the Senate, Democrats are scheduled to begin consideration of $31 billion in corporate tax breaks and an extension of added benefits and health insurance for the unemployed through the end of the year

More GD corporate Tax cuts?

GEEZUS FLKJSAF:LKJSDF:LKJSDF:LKJSDF:LKJ.

What the hell for? TO create jobs? Give me a damn break.

This frickin ridiculous.

I know they didn't teach you this at your state school in mother Russia but corporations
create the jobs you all are biotching about. If they get taxs cuts they will spend that money on hiring more people and increasing wages for workers, thats how it works.
Notice how everytime they lower the corporate tax rate it increases everyones wages.
Its called a rising boat sinks all tides and it is the basis of liberty in America and it sure
works if you let it.

My question is why do you want people to make less money and stay unemployed?
I know why, cause you want to sit there drinking your diet coke watching Americas Top Model all day.

Well I got news for you, Freedom ain't free, we need to show courage, steadfast resolution, determination in the face of tyranny, born of fortitude in the ovens of liberty.
But what you are asking is to steal peoples money to give to other people.( who are usually lazy anyways I might add... )

If people want to survive they are going to have to be the innovators of tomorrow, get off the couch's and create the prosperity of tomorrow which will be the economic engine
of freedom in the future.

Sarah Palin is up in the polls
Fox news has 150,000 new viewers this week
Glenn Beck makes more than Olbermam according to Forbes
sucks to be liberal


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Southern Gaurdian you are absolutely correct in stating some companies simply will not hire a more educated worker for a less educated position. The employer isn't stupid they know that employee is not going to stick around as soon as a hirer paying job comes along. Besides when the employees have more management experience than the manager in charge it creates problems. This is why unemployment benefits are needed. Not everyone will be able to find jobs that suit the companies needs.

I was unemployed for 1 year and finally found work doing something at a very low standard. 3 weeks into the job they terminated me. One of the reasons they stated is I had way too much experience for their company. I asked questions about subjects they had no clue about, therefore they thought I didn't mesh with them.

So it's not a matter of simply finding a job or flipping burgers. While anyone can flip burgers not everyone can do it like the guy that has been flipping burgers his whole life.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


We're all losing man. Most Americans are losing everything...whether they see it yet or not.

I can't watch Fox News anymore. It used to be all I watched. Now when I watch it, all I see is the defense of the MEGA wealthy and corporations. They are not alone...the others do it as well....but Fox is BY FAR the worst.

Where all the stories of struggling Americans every night? I'm not seeing them. I see NOTHING.

They don't care man. They just don't care and it's about time people wake up to that fact.

They don't care if you can feed your family or not. They don't care if you can't pay your bills.

These mega corporations will let our entire economy collapse for the sake of profits because they don't want to be taxed...nor do they want to employ or increase wages.

The writing is on the wall. People just can't see it. I don't know why...I used to be on of those who didn't see it.

I had to question what I believed in. People won't do it. They hold stern in what they believe because they want to be right.

None of us want to be wrong...but we all are in some regards. I'm wrong...I've been wrong and I will be wrong in the future.

All of us will.

We've got to find away to come together or we are all going to be in the poor house.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by David9176

 

Im sorry corporate tax cuts for the wealth to get them hiring again?? Are you serious? Would it not be evident enough given the record amount of profit these corporations are making off the recession, off hiring less people, that corporate tax cuts do nothing more than to benefit them more?? How the heck is that going to get them to hire more people??

The Dems, Republicans, Im sorry, corporations own them. I mean really, there may be some good politicians among both parties but seriously overall both are in the pockets of corporations...

No offense but you don't know how corporate tax cuts work or how these specific tax cuts are structured. Corporate tax cuts have no impact on the pay an executive receives. That would be income tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts have strings attached to them. I.E. to receive these tax cuts they have to do certain things, or they only apply to certain things. This specific tax break bill relates to tax cuts specifically for hiring. In other words, they do not get the tax cut if they don't hire. Additionally, they are targeted to small and medium sized businesses, not mega-corporations.

I know you want to hate corporations and the wealthy, but this tax break bill does not impact them the way you infer it does.

Originally posted by johnny2127

At a bare minimum, what you are missing is the part where this is unemployment benefit and insurance EXTENSION. Basically the money that employers pay for unemployment in based on a calculation that will pay for a certain period of time for the unemployed person. The vast majority of the benefits are paid by the state,

Yes the vast majority is paid by the state...and the vast majority is collected by the state. The 40 billion number I qouted was for the federal gov.

Originally posted by johnny2127
while the extensions are basically a federal govt bailout for states to extend the benefits and insurance longer. The money that you are referring to has already been spent on unemployment claims, and every time you see an extension, it is money given not from the taxes employers pay for unemployment.

Not from employers? employers pay both state and federal unemployment tax.

Originally posted by johnny2127
Look at it this way, according to you, the govt collects $40billion a year in unemployment taxes. Well unemployment benefits and insurance cost govt between $10bill-15billion A MONTH.

FYI - Not "according to me" I provided a link to the government accounting office.

Your 10-15 Billion dollar number includes state benefits? When you say "government" you are including states.
Can you give me a link to that number?

What do the states collect and pay out in Unemployment Tax/benefits?
What does the Federal Gov. collect and pay-out in Unemployment taxes/benefits.

If you are saying that specific money is in a deficiet...State and Gov. combined, I would be interested in figures and links.

I would also like to know if those Unemployment Insurance tax revenues have been diverted over the years to other federal expenses.

Because frankly the math I have run just googling around...I don't see where our money has gone. Their should be a large surplus.

I am open to being wrong, please post some links so I can look up the numbers.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by johnny2127

At a bare minimum, what you are missing is the part where this is unemployment benefit and insurance EXTENSION. Basically the money that employers pay for unemployment in based on a calculation that will pay for a certain period of time for the unemployed person. The vast majority of the benefits are paid by the state,

Yes the vast majority is paid by the state...and the vast majority is collected by the state. The 40 billion number I qouted was for the federal gov.

Originally posted by johnny2127
while the extensions are basically a federal govt bailout for states to extend the benefits and insurance longer. The money that you are referring to has already been spent on unemployment claims, and every time you see an extension, it is money given not from the taxes employers pay for unemployment.

Not from employers? employers pay both state and federal unemployment tax.

Originally posted by johnny2127
Look at it this way, according to you, the govt collects $40billion a year in unemployment taxes. Well unemployment benefits and insurance cost govt between $10bill-15billion A MONTH.

FYI - Not "according to me" I provided a link to the government accounting office.

Your 10-15 Billion dollar number includes state benefits? When you say "government" you are including states.
Can you give me a link to that number?

What do the states collect and pay out in Unemployment Tax/benefits?
What does the Federal Gov. collect and pay-out in Unemployment taxes/benefits.

If you are saying that specific money is in a deficiet...State and Gov. combined, I would be interested in figures and links.

I would also like to know if those Unemployment Insurance tax revenues have been diverted over the years to other federal expenses.

Because frankly the math I have run just googling around...I don't see where our money has gone. Their should be a large surplus.

I am open to being wrong, please post some links so I can look up the numbers.

What I am saying is that these extensions specifically are amount going beyond the revenue used to pay them out in the first place.

And yes, you are correct, like nearly all forms of govt revenue, these funds are spent on other things first then are paid out of the general fund when needed. Govt doesn't have money for most of its projects, hence the borrowing. We are getting in a very dangerous place of having so many people dependent on govt while at the same time no enacting policies that help solve the unemployment.

Originally posted by johnny2127
No offense but you don't know how corporate tax cuts work or how these specific tax cuts are structured. Corporate tax cuts have no impact on the pay an executive receives. That would be income tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts have strings attached to them. I.E. to receive these tax cuts they have to do certain things,

For the last two years the government has been unloading these kinds of tax cuts to get these companies hiring again and thus far it has not curbed the job losses. Small businesses are barely scraping by the knee, and to give them a corporate tax cut over the basis they hire more people will in the end be more costly to them. There already is little work most of these companies can provide for the employees they already hold. So bringing on more will not only be a burden to them but the cost of keeping a new employee will outweigh these tax cuts after a short period of time. They are useless in times of economic gloom and the only way this problem will be fixed is if the market brings itself back up, demand increases, and the need for more employees becomes profitable and sustainable.

I know you want to hate corporations and the wealthy,.

I dont know why you hate the government and the politicians? Maybe because they have in part been the issue to this nation and why we are in this situation? Maybe you can turn around and figure the same for many of these corporations?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Since everyone is going on about the Unemployment Insurance.

Guess what? The gov has been raising the rates for insurance, not as a basis on the employers history, but based on the economy.

So, the gov SUPPOSEDLY is paying this, right? Wrong.

So, what is the gov doing during a depression? Raising costs on employers.

Wow, I wonder why we are in a depression.

I think we should have bigger government, it is doing such a nice job.

Who said to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is INSANITY.

So our government and the people wanting bigger government, ARE INSANE!

What is this admin's idea on how to create jobs? Oh, we will expand government employees. Does ANYONE not see the problem?

ANYONE?

reply to post by endisnighe


WTF are you talking about?

This isn't about big government. It's about GD unemployment benefits. You can piss and moan all you want...you can make your idea of how the world should fit to your perception of how it should work....but in the end it doesn't matter.

What you can say about unemployment money...well I can say the same for the war. I don't recall anyone screaming about going 10 trillion in debt during Bush administration. It's all good as long as it's war! Corporate welfare for anyone who wants in!!! Who cares if CHeney made millions through Halliburtion...with whom he owned stock...with corporate contracts with our government...IT'S OK!!! Oh...and who cares now if HALLIBURTON is based in FRACKING DUBAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

War is by far the biggest form of government....why don't you focus on your hate for it in your next post.

The largest re-distribution of wealth has happened the last 30 years....but has accelerated the last 10.

The middle class has been close to wiped out. YOU were one of them based on your posts. Now all the money sits at the top and we scream at each other like it's each other's fault.

Number 1: This does not affect the new layoffs, only long-term unemployed people.
He want's to use PAYGO, not just add it to the deficit.
Obama has close to a Trillion $$ slush fund to play with, take it from there.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Guess what? The gov has been raising the rates for insurance, not as a basis on the employers history, but based on the economy.

As much as the government has part in this economic situation, you cannot blame them for the decisions of these insurance firms:
www.politico.com...

They have been raising their rates and have been doing so long before this recession came into place, during times of deregulation. So I dont know why you blame the government for the actions of the corporations. Both sides are turning their backs on the people.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are now saying Unemployment Insurance is not controlled and regulated by GOVERNMENT!

C'mon, lately you have been seeing the problems, but this is going on a tangent. I am sorry, but the GOVERNMENT RUNS UNEMPLOYMENT!

If they don't why is the GOVERNMENT FUNDING IT!

Talk about obfuscation!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by johnny2127
No offense but you don't know how corporate tax cuts work or how these specific tax cuts are structured. Corporate tax cuts have no impact on the pay an executive receives. That would be income tax cuts. Corporate tax cuts have strings attached to them. I.E. to receive these tax cuts they have to do certain things,

For the last two years the government has been unloading these kinds of tax cuts to get these companies hiring again and thus far it has not curbed the job losses. Small businesses are barely scraping by the knee, and to give them a corporate tax cut over the basis they hire more people will in the end be more costly to them. There already is little work most of these companies can provide for the employees they already hold. So bringing on more will not only be a burden to them but the cost of keeping a new employee will outweigh these tax cuts after a short period of time. They are useless in times of economic gloom and the only way this problem will be fixed is if the market brings itself back up, demand increases, and the need for more employees becomes profitable and sustainable.

I know you want to hate corporations and the wealthy,.

I dont know why you hate the government and the politicians? Maybe because they have in part been the issue to this nation and why we are in this situation? Maybe you can turn around and figure the same for many of these corporations?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

I don't love corporation or the wealthy my friend. But I do not dislike them either. I do not criticize success or the wealthy as I know that even with the shortcomings, they are the largest employers. Many people here target the wealthy and corporation as the problem, but also forget they are the only solution to unemployment. They will be the ones hiring. Think logically here...... businesses are for profit, their primary purpose is to make a profit for the shareholders and employees. So they do what is best for their bottom line. So they hire when the business environment is good and prospects are expanding, and fire when business is contracting. If the govt and prospective employees turn anti-business and enact policies that are anti-business, they will contract further. You may not like it, but you have to have pro-business policies to encourage hiring.

77% of investors view Obama as anti-business. How do you think they are going to treat business with that in mind?
Link

reply to post by johnny2127

They will be the ones hiring.

Small businesses pull the country out of recessions...not international corporations...who have no boundaries...care for no nations laws...only what they can get away with.

The only way to increase jobs WITHOUT killing wages is to increase tariffs on imports.

What does this do:

1. Helps balance our trade deficit which is terrible to say the least. 2 percent tariffs...while China has 20 percent...is flat out stupid.

2. Protects American wages...creates new jobs and let's small businesses grow.

3. Cuts into the power of Transnational corporations who can find ways to keep from paying taxes. Now they will have to pay to sell.

4. Curbs the deficit.

5. YES, it will raise prices. Prices will go up anyway however. They have been since I've been alive....and if we don't stop the deficit it will explode.

Submitting to those who control everything and have brought this entire crisis upon us is not the way to go.

When Eisenhower was President, the top tax margin was 91 percent. Yet somehow...the country was fine. People were working. WHY? Because the money circulated within the country. We were self sufficient i most regards and our trade deficits were FAR better than they are now because of it.

Corporate tax cuts only hurt small businesses...decrease wages....and do nothing but make life harder for most every person in this country.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by johnny2127

 

They will be the ones hiring.

Small businesses pull the country out of recessions...not international corporations...who have no boundaries...care for no nations laws...only what they can get away with.

The only way to increase jobs WITHOUT killing wages is to increase tariffs on imports.

This is anti free trade and protectionism. It has been proven to be a job killer and cause huge price inflation. They did this during the beginning of the Great Depression and was one of the the biggest mistakes. It raises costs my friend, at a time when you can not cause cost increases to business and consumers. These business still have to buy their goods, and unfortunately the US doesn't produce an alternative..... and if it does it isn't near cost competitive. Even compared to products coming from an expensive country like Japan produces for less than the US. Why? Union costs here and taxes.

reply to post by johnny2127

This is anti free trade and protectionism.

BS.

This is not free trade. If it were free trade everyone would be equal in tariffs...so please...don't give me that crap. We need FAIR trade.

Tariffs is protectionism? YES...Protection of AMERICAN WAGES...JOBS....MANUFACTURING.

But I agree....F all that...let's send what's left to China so they can be payed a 1.50 an hour.

How do you expect our trade deficits to change? I know how!!!

We get payed the SAME AS CHINA....INDONESIA. Sounds good to me!!!

This is what they want...and they will soon get it....yet you advocate it...why?

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by johnny2127

 

They will be the ones hiring.

When Eisenhower was President, the top tax margin was 91 percent. Yet somehow...the country was fine. People were working. WHY? Because the money circulated within the country. We were self sufficient i most regards and our trade deficits were FAR better than they are now because of it.

Tax revenue from the top tax bracket went DOWN when they raised the top tax rate to that. And dramatically increased when it went down. Why? Because the wealthy and corporation move their money and earnings out of the US to avoid those tax policies.

Look up the Laffer Curve if you don't know about it.

reply to post by johnny2127

Look up the Laffer Curve if you don't know about it

Reaganomics.

You need to state no more.

That Laffer Curve sure is a laugh though!!! Especially the 3 trillion in deficits Reagan left with!!!

Which btw...was more than all former Presidents combined...just as Obama has done.



[edit on 1-3-2010 by David9176]

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by johnny2127

 

This is anti free trade and protectionism.

BS.

This is not free trade. If it were free trade everyone would be equal in tariffs...so please...don't give me that crap. We need FAIR trade.

Tariffs is protectionism? YES...Protection of AMERICAN WAGES...JOBS....MANUFACTURING.

But I agree....F all that...let's send what's left to China so they can be payed a 1.50 an hour.

How do you expect our trade deficits to change? I know how!!!

We get payed the SAME AS CHINA....INDONESIA. Sounds good to me!!!

This is what they want...and they will soon get it....yet you advocate it...why?

No offense buddy, but your view are soundly defeated by nearly every economist. Read Nouriel Roubini's views on this. Or even Obama's buddy Larry Summers.

Your views raise costs to businesses and consumers. Work it through mentally.... business reduce costs by importing products from overseas, your policies increase those prices and costs. It would work if the costs were close to parity AND we still have a manufacturing base in America, but alas we do not. We are a service nation now, not a manufacturing nation. The few things we do actually manufacture now are not products that we can get overseas and are not products we can cost effectively export.

If you don't agree, thats fine. I do encourage you to do some research though. Read this paper:
Research

The Great Depression of the 1930s was marked by a severe outbreak of protectionism. Many fear that, unless policymakers are on guard, protectionist pressures could once again spin out of control. What do we know about the spread of protectionism then, and what are the implications for today?

While many aspects of the Great Depression continue to be debated, there is all-but-universal agreement that the adoption of restrictive trade policies was destructive and counterproductive and that similarly succumbing to protectionism in our current slump should be avoided at all cost. Lacking other instruments with which to support economic activity, governments erected tariff and nontariff barriers to trade in a desperate effort to direct spending to merchandise produced at home rather than abroad. But with other governments responding in kind, the distribution of demand across countries remained unchanged at the end of this round of global tariff hikes. The main effect was to destroy trade which, despite the economic recovery in most countries after 1933, failed to reach its 1929 peak, as measured by volume, by the end of the decade (Figure 1). The benefits of comparative advantage were lost. Recrimination over beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies made it more difficult to agree on other measures to halt the slump.