You’re right. We should wallow in pity instead. Whaaaahhh!! The economy isn’t giving me a job. Hey, I feel better already!!
As for the facile argument that extending unemployment benefits is good for economy, well, we’ve been through that in the MW threads. We have a $16T economy. Please show us the math where the amount of money spent on unemployment benefits can have a measurable effect on that economy. You’d have to spend $160B to even hit 1%. And that would assume that 100% of the money used would not have been spent in the economy otherwise.
If you want to help people down on their luck, that’s fine. Just be honest about it and don’t try and con me into thinking we’re doing something that is going to have any kind of measurable effect on the economy.
No instead you should offer nonsense about hanging a shingle as a solution. Starting a business is chancy at the best of times, you might as well offer that he go to a casino and bet all his money on black.
So do you think all stay-at-home parents are unproductive and lazy, or just me? I don’t need to apologize or justify taking some time out of my day that starts before the crack of dawn cleaning; doing laundry; doing dishes; doing school with my kids; doing crafts with my kids; grocery shopping; cooking three meals (on the days my wife works); making sure these non-stop bundles of energy are entertained and safe at all times; working on a business plan; taking calls from potential customers; studying for my certifications; scouring the Internet for jobs; writing cover letters; customizing resumes; networking with old co-workers over the phone during nap time; and checking in with the unemployment people, to rant a bit about a dipshit politician that’s pissed me off.
So God bless you, Martin, I sense you’re an unhappier soul right now than I am, and that your unhappiness is rooted in a much deeper place than my current financial anxieties.
If I took a job that made even $8/hr, when combined with my wife’s shit-job income, we are ineligible for child care subsidies, because we’d make too much, but thanks for thinking of us. So again: if I take a shit job to appease you and to stop “being lazy,” the child care costs alone would bankrupt us. So, as a conservative, you should appreciate the ability of someone to do a cost-benefit analysis and act in a prudent fiscal manner. We’ve done that, and it is financial suicide for both my wife and I to hold low-paying jobs and put our kids into daycare. Maybe as a conservative, you can also appreciate our strong family values and putting the well-being of our children above all else. Anyway, if you think I’m lazy or a cry-baby, that’s your prerogative. If you also want to think you know what’s best for us, knock yourself out.
I don’t know- I’m glad you asked. I’d like to see those numbers vetted.
I don’t think the author assumes the Tea Party supports government subsidies to corporations. I think the author considers opposing that intellectually consistent with Tea Party doctrine, and is pointing out that the animus against the poor is the inconsistent factor. Unemployment insurance is not bankrupting us; corporate welfare is.
Aaaaaaand we come full circle. Yes, I want to help people who are down on their luck, in large part because throngs of desperate, unhappy people is bad for the country. I also believe that our country has a demand problem, and anything we can do to increase demand for goods and services is worth consideration. UI puts money directly in the hands of consumers, consumers who are on the brink of shutting down, and minimizing their involvement in the economy.
In the interest of honesty, can you all admit that you want to stop the checks because you think the unemployed are lazy bums, and stop trying to con us into thinking that you expect to turn them into entrepreneurs by putting them in financial peril?
First of all, “Head Start” is not adequate daycare. In most instances it only covers 3-4 hours a day, meaning other arrangements must be made for the rest of the time a parent is at work. Head Start is not daycare, it is preschool. People, please stop confusing the two.
Fact is there is very little subsidized day care out there, and so far as I know there is no free daycare provided by the government. If someone is aware of such a program please let us know but provide cites. The only free daycare I’m aware of is provided by religious organizations.
A quick google showed that Head Start programs that do have full time hours require the parents to already be working full time - a catch-22 for the unemployed looking for work, or for those working part time seeking full time work.
As for getting rid of it - back when I worked in corporate America among the well to do there was much bitterness expressed that poor kids were getting for free what the wealthy had to pay for: preschool and daycare, nevermind that, as I said, I am not aware of any free daycare from the government (there are some programs that reduce the price). I am certain there are many people out there in favor of abolishing such programs even if they don’t speak of it publicly, just as there are bigots who put on a tolerant face in public but happily use racial slurs in private.
The multiplier works because people that poor don’t save their money. They can’t. Every dime goes right back out to the landlord, the grocery store, the utilities, the gas station… and that drives other businesses.
Also - unemployment DOES NOT pay people “not to work”. It pays people to LOOK FOR work. You can not collect unemployment unless you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, actively looking for work. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never been on unemployment. If anything, the requirement has become more stringent over time.
The only exception is for certain seasonal workers who are laid-off but expected to be called back in a few months… but their employers pay into the system for that. Even then, not all of those people get to “coast” because the rules vary from state to state. A friend of mine who has done that sort of work for about a decade is required some years to look for work anyway, the requirements change almost yearly.
Again, we are paying them to look for work. While these days that can largely mean sitting at home in front of the computer until recently that actually meant getting off your ass, putting gas in the car, and getting out in the world. Actually, it still does when you get to the interview phase. The activities around looking for work - including new clothes for interviews, grooming like a trip to the barber for a haircut, and so forth do in fact stimulate the economy.
In other words, more bureaucracy in for the sake of ideology. How would that actually be more efficient? Sounds more like subsidized employment for lawyers and banks for me.
Here’s another idea - impose the tax on ALL a worker’s wages, not just the first $7,000. That would allow the same revenue in return for a lower tax rate and make it less regressive.
What? Make the rich pay in a similar manner to the poor! Heresy! The rich the deserve their money, the poor deserve only scorn and punishment! :rolleyes:
What, we have to wait until the house is actually burning down before we put out the candle flame? 7% is still high, and we very clearly have a serious problem with the long-term unemployed. Abruptly cutting them off will NOT magically create new jobs, it’s not going to provide any additional motivation (just desperation), and is just a feel-good measure for the greedy wealthy. It will hurt, not help, those who are looking for work because, as hard as it is to look for work when you still have a roof over your head it’s a hell of a lot harder when you’re homeless.
Yes, we are. At least, portions of the US are. There are some severely depressed areas of the nation. Sure, I suppose we can just sneer at the people living there and bark at them to move someplace where there is more opportunity, but we aren’t willing to help them do that - I suppose they should just abandon houses they can’t sell and can’t pay for (taking a hit to their credit rating that can mark them as undesirable - just as there are employers who won’t hire the unemployed there are those who won’t hire those with bad credit even if that is irrelevant to the job at hand) and live in a cardboard box in that new land of opportunity. Tell me, do you want a necklace of shanty-towns around the prosperous areas? Because that’s what happens in other countries under those circumstances.
The problem, my friend, is that there is an unacknowledged fiscal double-standard here. Wealthy people are allowed to make cost-benefit analysis based on their actual situation. Poor people are supposed to do exactly as ordered by people who have no clue about their actual situation. Because you haven’t absorbed this, and you haven’t absorbed that you are now part of the impoverished scum rather than still solidly middle-class and full citizen, you are now an uppity poor person. The usual tactic, as we have seen here, is to dismiss such people as whining cry-babies and lazy-ass defectives. You could work 20 hours a day, but the fact you’re poor makes you lazy in some peoples’ eyes.
Also, only the middle-class and higher are permitted family values, stay at home parents, or spending time with their children. Poor people are supposed to put their kids in warehouses with other poor kids and spend all their time working low-wage jobs to appease their socioeconomic betters.
Regrettably, the above is not entirely satire.
The problem is that he really does think he knows what best for you, and that it’s best you and your wife both work even if that leaves you fiscally worse off. Rich people are allowed to pass on things that cost them money, poor people are not.
There is also the problem of the ghetto tax, which many people are unaware of and is completely discounted/ignored in discussions about subsidies for the poor, the economy of poor households, and internet discussions on what to do about those people.
I know there are people who cannot find a job. Many lived over their income because of easy credit. Even a millionaire will go under if it lives over it’s income. One has to live under their income if they want to get ahead. I also believe Food Stamps are not really helping people to save, I was behind a woman in a grocery store that bought cuts of meat I wouldn’t buy,( because they were too expensive) then bought cigarettes and booze with the money she had on her… During the depression we didn’t get food stamps or the food we wanted, my father also had to dig ditches for the rent of a house to live in. My older brothers had to go to CC camps. We were very glad for the food we did get.
Well, the main advantage would be that it requires people to directly pay in the money they’re able to take out, making it utterly useless to those scummy people in most need of it- those who never manged much more than scraping by, and never had the chance to accumulate any savings.
I somehow can’t see the employer contribition being as high at a minimum wage job as for one paying $500,000 a year, but I’m sure it would be a nice little extra for those on high incomes, while allowing them to claim they just get the same break as the poor.
I never said you were lazy, I was talking a bout a hypothetical stay-at-home parent. But I don’t feel there is any real argument: most two parent families have both parents working. We can argue about what that means and the specifics, but the reality is most two parent families do not have a stay at home parent. Most people get it to work, if you can’t that’s tough shit. But not at all an argument you should be able to keep your hand in my pocket for as long as you want. I’m fine with you taking some out of my pocket, but there needs to be a limit lest you become a dependency.
Then you’re living beyond your means, simple as that. You either have a house that’s too expensive or some other thing. Sell your house, go onto Section 8 housing, rent etc. The services are there. How can you expect pity if you’re too well off or have too many assets to qualify for them? Especially when there are many people in worse situations who do not have the assets that you are not putting into the equation because you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Hey moronic bitch, maybe you should actually read the thread. I didn’t bring up Head Start, monstro did. She asked “do you think Rand Paul is looking to strengthen Head Start” and I said “no, I doubt it.” I never said another word about Head Start.
Maybe you should spend more time on your low income waste of a life if you can’t get your facts straight. I never said “free” daycare, I said subsidized daycare. There is absolutely subsidized daycare. If you’re not aware of that, you need to read the laws of this country a bit more before you come to the table against someone like me that actually understands the legal framework of our welfare state. As a poor person I would have assumed you’d be more familiar with it than I, but I guess not.
Here is just one example of what I am talking about. I’ve known people who received the benefit for Virginia, while working their way through trade schools and etc and they paid little to nothing out of pocket.
I didn’t see anyone in this thread talking about abolishing child care subsidies, I didn’t say no one in the entire world had ever talked about it. Nor had Rand Paul said that in the speech that prompted the OP.
The Keynesian multiplier doesn’t work, period. It’s false that a $1.00 spent in unemployment checks generates $1.80 in economic activity. Especially since that analysis ignores what a $1.00 spent instead by a consumer not paying ramped-up unemployment taxes would generate and fails to deduct it from the false $1.80.
It pays people who are unemployed. The work search requirements are part of what keeps you eligible for payments, but you are not paid to “look for work.” You’re paid because you aren’t working.
That money doesn’t come from nowhere to stimulate the economy. It’s coming out of the pockets of other workers, most of whom will use it on consumer discretionary purchases versus people like the OP who will probably use it to keep paying a mortgage he can’t afford.
Private savings accounts, with private banks as trustees running the system would be more bureaucracy? Come back when understand words, thanks.
Yes, we can indeed just tax our way to prosperity.
I’ve got no problem with the rich paying more money in taxes, both in absolute and relative amounts. But I’m talking about the current reality, where unemployment taxes are generated from payroll taxes in a regressive manner. They hit poor people where they live, and they go up automatically under current law when States do what Rand Paul is saying we shouldn’t let them do–essentially borrow from the Feds.
There is no imminent crisis. The economy is getting better, not worse.
I actually said it should be a mandatory payment to private savings account, based on the same rates as the unemployment tax. Since those rates are based typically (it varies slightly by State) on the first $7,000-8,000 of income in fact it would be the same for an employee making $10,000/yr as it would be for one making $500,000/yr.
To fully explain what I mean, is each employer would have to maintain their own private trust fund. Any unemployed employees would be able to draw from the trust fund at some statutory minimum rate sufficient to equal current employment payments and for a statutory minimum time similar to the current eligibility weeks. Employers could be more generous if they wished to bulk up their own fund, but could not be less generous.
When an employee retired they would be eligible for some lump sum payout (rolled over into an IRA for example) based on their lifetime contributions to the fund. It would not be a huge amount.
If an employer had an insolvent fund they would be required to both increase their contribution rate to the fund in the future and take some responsibility (shared with government) to pay for ongoing unemployment costs of unemployed employees out of their revenue.
I would stipulate severance payments could be a straight-line deduction from the requirement to pay an employee out of the fund.
So someone who got laid off is living beyond their means? Does this count for rocket science amongst the conservative set? The idea is that unemployment is supposed to be a temporary condition. Your solution here turns it into a permanent trap of underemployment.
Also – you know what the waiting lists are like for section 8 housing?
Meanwhile, Rand Paul’s little scheme is just a petty distraction from the fact that our Congress, which promised to have a laser-like focus on job creation, has instead done absolutely nothing but dick around and whine about the ACA. This seems to be in line with current conservative philosophy is that if they just keep screwing the poor and middle class then somehow morale (and the economy) will improve.
Pay attention, Martin, this thread has never been, from my perspective, about getting unlimited benefits. I’m pissed because a wealthy douche doesn’t want to extend unemployment benefits at a time when unemployment, especially in some states, remains higher than it should be, and justifying it by telling me this is actually a service to me and the rest of the unemployed. It’s not, that’s bullshit. It may be libertarian ideology or protecting corporations and the wealthy or it may be a service to business owners, and that’s his (and your) prerogative to believe, but it’s not a service to the unemployed. It’s shitting on people and telling them it’s for their own good.
Again, your astonishing level of pig ignorance of anything beyond your own narrow experience is shining through.
Up until six months ago, we were living 56% below our means. We’ve always made it a point to have a parent (heretofore my wife) be at home because we value that highly. Through frugal living and money management, we were able to save and live well below our means, but now, through no fault of our own, we need some assistance. But your brilliant suggestion to right now sell our house, which would be for a loss that we would still owe the bank, and enter section 8 or rent?
Of *course *we’re living beyond our income right now, I lost my job, but that shouldn’t have to be an automatic ticket to section 8 or losing your modest home, for us or anyone else. I pray nightly that it doesn’t come to that, and that’s where increased frugality and the unemployment benefits are helping us slow that train; and I pray that the business we’re starting will provide for us, even though I understand that likely won’t be for a long, long time. We haven’t missed a payment on anything yet and God-willing, we won’t.
For you to just tell me to go get subsidized child care and just get a job, is pure unadulterated ignorance of how things are. And for Rand Paul to say that not extending these benefits is a service to me is utter bullshit, which was the point of this thread. The point was not to justify my life to a deeply unhappy person such as yourself. And your belief that I expect or want pity is simply your own projection of how people below *your *means should feel, but not based in any sort of reality.
Martin, you truly are a sad soul, and I say that with no consideration of your politics or ideology. You’re just angry/bitter/sad. If you think I expect or want pity because I posted this thread, you’re absolutely positively wrong. In fact, I pity you. I hope you can find some inner peace. Because in addition to the extreme anxiety I feel due to finances currently, I have a deep joy that comes from being with my wife and kids every single day now, as opposed to being in a hotel room most nights for work. We’ll get through this economic set-back, one way or another, but no matter what I’ll still have the source of my joy.
I hope you can find joy and peace someday too. I’m not talking financial security or comfort or material success or cocksureness-- I’m talking deep peace and joy. You lack that.
And with that, I’m bowing out of my own thread. I got the anger off my chest. Feel free to continue telling me how I should live, but, for better or worse, I won’t be here to listen.
Some people believe that if something bad is happening to you, it must somehow be your fault because the system worked for them so it should work for everyone.
People like that are obviously narrow minded. Luckily I see no one here doing such a thing. But what I do know is that whether it’s luck or not, unemployment and other benefits don’t exist to put a poor person in a middle class person’s home indefinitely. Unemployment is and must be a finite benefit, and whatever other benefits we may or may not offer to the permanent under class should not be available to people with large assets like houses that they do not need.
It’s stupid to try and assign “fault” as to why someone needs a government hand out, instead we need to look at the desirability of the hand out and other factors relating to that individual. Unlimited uninsurance benefits just indebt States and hurt future earnings for all workers, and disproportionately low income workers because of the way the tax works.
The OP lives in a dream world where he thinks it’s 1950 and his precious little kid shouldn’t be subjected to having two working parents. Because of that they have poor income security. They stupidly put all their eggs in one parent’s income basket, and now that he is out of work obviously they’re paying the price for that. So in this particular situation they are much worse off because historically they have chosen to do something stupid and unsustainable, which was be a single income family. I’m assuming the low wage job his wife is working is something she just picked up to help them make ends meet while OP collects unemployment. What should have instead been going on is his wife should have skills and education sufficient to get a decent job in addition to his own decent job prior to all of this. This would have meant a much more stable two income family so that when he had lost his job, things would not be nearly so dire as they are now.
Wow, Martin Hyde is quite an asshole. I was surprised at John Mace’s level of pricksmanship in this thread, but then Grand Admiral Hyde sailed out of the sunrise on a prickcraft carrier, launched wave after wave of Tomahawk Pricks, and his battleships rained smug douchebaggery with their fearsome sixteen inch pricks.