Rep. Giffords of Arizona shot

[KB5252]

sorry to hear it bro. Let us know how we might help.

I'll be allright. Just have to find a comparable job quickly or find a stop gap job while I look for a better long term option. Not too hard to find jobs that will beat unemployment though I've filed to help cover the two week or so gap until you get your first pay check.

 

[CountVolcula]

Me and my wife give what we can to charity, our main one being St. Jude.

The government has no place distributing my/our money to whomever they see fit, just to gain political cred in the world.

I am like IP. We have funded too many tyrants over the years in the name of charity. A large percentage of aid sent to Somalia never made it to its intended targets. The ones who controlled the aid, once it got to Somalia, then had a bargaining tool for power. They controlled the food and the people who were starving would do anything to survive, even Genocide.

We must be careful how and who we distribute aid to.

 

[utgibbs]

List of most charitable countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki, but the source is there at the bottom of the page and it seems legit to me.

Your link just supported my points with more data than I actually believed. Actually, even I'm stunned looking at the data. I knew it was bad, but even I'm doing a little :jawdrop looking at it.

Did I miss something?

 

[VOLatile]

 

[lawgator1]

short term is 2 years of unemployment that you were in favor of?

Different question. If you are asking whether I think that extension of unemployment benefits is generally good policy under the circumstances of this economy, the answer is yes.

But, if you ask me whether the extension of benefits to a particular person is a good idea, the answer depends. I happen to think that the vast majority of people currently taking unemployment benefits need them and, for lack of a better term, are entitled to them under our current system.

Are there nonetheless a significant number that don't and that are abusing the system? Of course.

The circumstances are so divergent that I really dislike the form of your question since some people either have no option or cannot realistically use whatever options they have.

Conservatives love to say, hey, go get a job at Burger King. But someone who made $50,000 a year is not going to go make $14,000. You can argue until the cows come home that they should, and you may be right, but it isn't going to happen and I'm not sure that we want it to.

 

[lawgator1]

Obv photo shop, but I admit i had to do a double take.

 

[utvolpj]

I'm guessing it was created by a member of the TP?

 

[droski]

Conservatives love to say, hey, go get a job at Burger King. But someone who made $50,000 a year is not going to go make $14,000. You can argue until the cows come home that they should, and you may be right, but it isn't going to happen and I'm not sure that we want it to.

no but they might take a job that makes say $35k a year if it's either that or living on the street. or hell might even take your burger flipping job too.

 

[VOLatile]

I'm guessing it was created by a member of the TP?

Is it for sure a photoshop?

 

[tigervol9802]

Your link just supported my points with more data than I actually believed. Actually, even I'm stunned looking at the data. I knew it was bad, but even I'm doing a little :jawdrop looking at it.

Did I miss something?

It only includes government "donations" which still doesnt' take into affect private contributions.

 

[utvolpj]

Is it for sure a photoshop?

you're probably right, they're exactly the same person.

Selling seeds = political assassination

well done by the classy left

 

[joevol320]

Assuming you identify me as a liberal, I can speak for myself and tell you that is absolutely not true. I think that the most generous institutions by an enormous amount in this country are churches. Remember Bush's 1,000 points of light theory? I agree with a lot of that.

I think government should be involved in and interested in relatively short term stop gap measures that save a person from a tragedy, their fault or not. Reason being that if you are homeless or have no food or whatever, you are going to have to be taken care of, anyway, in a compassionate society.

But I also believe in the adage about teaching a man to fish. And I think the conservative movement makes its very best argument when it says that government ought to encourage and motivate people to improve their own situations.

Where I get off the train, is when people assume that ignoring others in need is the best way to encourage them to do better. I think we have to face the fact that some people don't respond well to necessity as the mother of invention.

We're better off spending up front on education and similar programs than we are in dealing with the aftermath of an entire class of millions of people who rely on crime and day to day survival to drift through life, imo.

i'm not saying you necessarily believe that, but most of the politicians you support believe that.

If American companies, small and large, had more money to spend, they could hire more people, give more to charity and it would be much more efficient than what the government does.

the problem with the government's 'charity' is that is has no accountability so the waist is everywhere.

conservatives do have the correct message, but you have dem politicians accuse them of killing old people and starving kids and the media doesn't call those dems out on it. instead, they ask the conservatives why are they killing old people and starving kids.

 

[VOLatile]

you're probably right, they're exactly the same person.

Selling seeds = political assassination

well done by the classy left

Not what I meant. I posed an actual question. I just thought it was funny they look the same. They're obviously not the same person.

 

[BeecherVol]

Different question. If you are asking whether I think that extension of unemployment benefits is generally good policy under the circumstances of this economy, the answer is yes.

But, if you ask me whether the extension of benefits to a particular person is a good idea, the answer depends. I happen to think that the vast majority of people currently taking unemployment benefits need them and, for lack of a better term, are entitled to them under our current system.

Are there nonetheless a significant number that don't and that are abusing the system? Of course.

The circumstances are so divergent that I really dislike the form of your question since some people either have no option or cannot realistically use whatever options they have.

Conservatives love to say, hey, go get a job at Burger King. But someone who made $50,000 a year is not going to go make $14,000. You can argue until the cows come home that they should, and you may be right, but it isn't going to happen and I'm not sure that we want it to.

This sums up the "entitled" idea well. If you turn down work when your on hard times (be it your fault or not) its hard for me to feel compassion. Nothing says you can't work wherever for whatever til you find something better. I know people on both sides of the issue. Hard to want to help those that don't want it, easier with the other side.

 

[utvolpj]

Not what I meant. I posed an actual question. I just thought it was funny they look the same. They're obviously not the same person.

of course it's shopped. Same as the Billary pics or the obama/Hillary pics. It's the tolerant left trying to connect the 2

 

[lawgator1]

If American companies, small and large, had more money to spend, they could hire more people, give more to charity and it would be much more efficient than what the government does.

In prior economies, there was some empirical support for your argument. But in this economy, the opposite has occurred.

After slashing millions of jobs, many corporations are posting record profits. But, they and their managers are sitting on that money, pumping up stock prices and their own bonuses as a result, but not re-hiring layoffs or hiring new workers.

If you ask why, they will tell you its because of the uncertainty moving forward and they want to see more demand before they start hiring again. I am skeptical about many of them when they say that is their motive.

 

[sjt18]

Thank you for making very clear the received wisdom of the last forty years. :hi:

It's great to know I can always count on those who rail against me the most to support my stance.

Was this an answer to my post or did you confuse it with someone else?

You wrote a bunch of words but they really do not say anything cogent.

 

[IPorange]

Your link just supported my points with more data than I actually believed. Actually, even I'm stunned looking at the data. I knew it was bad, but even I'm doing a little :jawdrop looking at it.

Did I miss something?

Aside from the first list on the site, private citizen's donations were not factored in. Only government spending.

 

[sjt18]

In prior economies, there was some empirical support for your argument. But in this economy, the opposite has occurred.

After slashing millions of jobs, many corporations are posting record profits. But, they and their managers are sitting on that money, pumping up stock prices and their own bonuses as a result, but not re-hiring layoffs or hiring new workers.

One, that is an expected result of demand focused economic policy. Two, companies and investors were troubled by Obama's agenda. That is much less the case now. The potential that Obamacare will either be repealed or changed significantly is also soothing to the market.

You can look for the economy to improve faster than the experts are currently projecting to include employment. In the absence of favorable tax and regulatory policies... the markets like gridlock.

My opinion isn't just speculation. It is based on solid activity in recovery leading industries and sectors.

If you ask why, they will tell you its because of the uncertainty moving forward and they want to see more demand before they start hiring again. I am skeptical about many of them when they say that is their motive.

That's your problem... not theirs. Investors don't take risks when there's that much uncertainty. Put yourself in their place. If you had $100K in reserve, would you invest it if changing tax and business law could result in you losing on it?

Most investors do not like sitting on money. Money doesn't make them money sitting on the sideline. They WANT TO INVEST but could not afford the risks with the direction Obama and the Dems were going.

 

[droski]

In prior economies, there was some empirical support for your argument. But in this economy, the opposite has occurred.

After slashing millions of jobs, many corporations are posting record profits. But, they and their managers are sitting on that money, pumping up stock prices and their own bonuses as a result, but not re-hiring layoffs or hiring new workers.

If you ask why, they will tell you its because of the uncertainty moving forward and they want to see more demand before they start hiring again. I am skeptical about many of them when they say that is their motive.

So their real motive is GASP making more money? riddle me this. If the demand exists and they are making more money than before doesn't that mean the old jobs were useless?

 

[lawgator1]

So their real motive is GASP making more money? riddle me this. If the demand exists and they are making more money than before doesn't that mean the old jobs were useless?

Yes. Or at least inefficient. What we are seeing now in unemployment is not JUST a function of economic slowdown. Its also, I believe, a function of technology replacing the need for a lot of employees. Now that they are gone, employers are figuring out how to do more with less people, more tech and computer-driven solutions.

Which is one reason why service in this country blows.

 

[sjt18]

Different question. If you are asking whether I think that extension of unemployment benefits is generally good policy under the circumstances of this economy, the answer is yes.

I agreed with most of your other post... that was a very nice job.

On this however you are simply wrong. The same money in the form of a tax cut for businesses/investors for the last 1.5 years would result in a job for the recipient rather than continuing to consume without contributing. Further, there is more and more evidence coming in that some people are not going back to work even when they can get work because the job isn't "good enough". That is COMPLETELY counterproductive to recovering from a recession.

Conservatives love to say, hey, go get a job at Burger King. But someone who made $50,000 a year is not going to go make $14,000. You can argue until the cows come home that they should, and you may be right, but it isn't going to happen and I'm not sure that we want it to.

2 Thess 3:10, 1 Timothy 5:8

Once again, I have walked in these shoes. It isn't fun. I was blessed that it wasn't for very long. But sometimes you do what you have to do and deal with it until you can do better.

FWIW, it is seldom that dramatic. There are $30K to $40K jobs to be had by that form $50K earner.

I would remind you that economists and most of them from the left said that many of the jobs lost in this recession would NEVER return. The implicit message is that many are going to have to take a step or two back and then resume climbing... that or vote some TP'ers into office with a bit more of a protectionist perspective on trade.

 

[sjt18]

If the demand exists and they are making more money than before doesn't that mean the old jobs were useless?

Not necessarily. Many companies go to OT/longer production hours before hiring if there is too much uncertainty to make permanent hires. I'm seeing some of this.

 

[sjt18]

Yes. Or at least inefficient. What we are seeing now in unemployment is not JUST a function of economic slowdown. Its also, I believe, a function of technology replacing the need for a lot of employees. Now that they are gone, employers are figuring out how to do more with less people, more tech and computer-driven solutions.

Which is one reason why service in this country blows.

It is more a function of the export of industrial jobs due to high taxes, high employment costs, and unnecessarily costly regulations. You need to build things in order to create wealth.

Technology is a factor... but that should actually make labor costs lower enabling more businesses to stay in the US.

 

[IPorange]

I agreed with most of your other post... that was a very nice job.

On this however you are simply wrong. The same money in the form of a tax cut for businesses/investors for the last 1.5 years would result in a job for the recipient rather than continuing to consume without contributing. Further, there is more and more evidence coming in that some people are not going back to work even when they can get work because the job isn't "good enough". That is COMPLETELY counterproductive to recovering from a recession.



2 Thess 3:10, 1 Timothy 5:8

Once again, I have walked in these shoes. It isn't fun. I was blessed that it wasn't for very long. But sometimes you do what you have to do and deal with it until you can do better.

FWIW, it is seldom that dramatic. There are $30K to $40K jobs to be had by that form $50K earner.

I would remind you that economists and most of them from the left said that many of the jobs lost in this recession would NEVER return. The implicit message is that many are going to have to take a step or two back and then resume climbing... that or vote some TP'ers into office with a bit more of a protectionist perspective on trade.

If you want to see an epic global economic meltdown, do that.