28 thoughts on “They’ll just use it as a crutch!”

    1. While it may not be the party platform, many Republicans I know have a very egocentric view that anyone that suffers any hardship is lazy. After all, if they personally could fulfill their dreams anyone suffering just needs to try harder! I’ve even seen someone say that the people in Haiti living in tents should stop being so lazy and get jobs! How could anyone be that out of touch?

      1. While I have witnessed many a lazy American, I haven’t seen any evidence of lazy Haitians. I don’t think they have that luxury.

        I don’t think all poor people are lazy. There is a difference between someone who struggles and works hard and the ones who sit and whine about how hard everything is and that life is unfair. There are plenty of rich lazy people too, but they are usually rich kids or grandkids. The self-made sucess stories had to work hard. Thank God in America you have the opportunity to work hard and succeed!

  2. Squidknuckle you do bring up a good point. And this is the same reason that there was an issue over this before. But All of a sudden the Republicans want something paid for when for years they borrowed from foreign countries and spent. Isn’t it convenient to have such a nice chance to do things the right way all of a sudden?

    There’s little doubt in my mind if they were in the Democrat shoes they would be taking the same tack as the Democrats are. They would be blaming the Democrats for holding up the bill.

    which leaves you several options, one of them being that neither party is responsible, that neither party really represents us, and that neither party really cares if you get those benefits are not unless it’s an issue that can get them points in an election

  3. Zach,its not the republcans sitting on stimulas money refusing to help.Obama has 400 billion in his stash and he can’t give 1.4 billion to the people who need it most.

    1. Exactly. What’s more, it would likely take an act of Congress for that money to be spent to bolster unemployment benefits, putting the whole thing back at square one.

    1. It’s the unspent dollars in the stimulus funds from 2009 that apparently sitting at $380 billion at the moment. But it would still take an act of congress to re-allocate them to unemployment and cobra benefits since they weren’t allocated to them initially.

      1. Zach and Ed, won’t it take an act of Congress to extend benefits too? Don’t make “Act of Congress” sound so ominous.

        1. Yes certainly. But some of the earlier posts made it sound like all we had to do was transfer a couple of bucks from one account to another. I really don’t see anyone getting behind that proposal either.

  6. Why not just extend them indefinitely? Or maybe just until unemployment gets under 5%. Put it on the tab.

    1. Several days ago we were chastised for not thinking about the people who worked for BP when holding them accountable for the economic and ecological destruction in our gulf states. They are just people who are being negatively depicted because they are simply working for BP. And yes the common employee at BP is probably blameless and powerless in the problems in the gulf.

      But OTOH, certainly all of our fellow Americans who are unemployed are lazy malingerers undeserving of our concern or support? These are our friends and neighbors and relatives and our fellow Americans. I really don’t think very many of them are seduced by the high life of living on unemployment. In most cases it probably comes no where near the earnings they enjoyed while employed. We aren’t supposed to help them?

      Ah, but it’ll balloon the deficit. But what will be the economic and human cost if we don’t?

      1. I think the problem is that we have reached a tipping point. After all the bailouts and stimulus and aid, now here’s another proposal that will add billions to the deficit. Is it fair? No. Do we wish we could help everybody? Sure. Can the government help everybody forever? No!

        Are we to believe that a few months of extended benefits will be enough and the economy will magically turn around by then? What then? I don’t get no one would get behind redirectly stiumulus dollars into this more important effort of unemployment? That’s already borrowed money, let’s use that instead of borrowing MORE. What’s so hard about that? Might it jeopardize another choo choo train vanity project?

        1. Why isn’t it fair to support unemployed Americans? And you are correct that another 3 months or another 6 months might not be enough? Probably not but I’d rather do that than end up with hopeless jobless people putting additional strains on the other social services in our country or end up with the aimless migrations of the 1930s.

          And why do I think no one will get behind transferring the funds? Because unless someone from the Republican side of the aisle suggests it (which they won’t), it will be stonewalled just like the current extension.

          1. They won’t suggest it? “Senate Democrats rejected GOP counter-proposals to reauthorize the benefits and pay for them by cutting spending elsewhere. ‘Congress could easily extend unemployment benefits that are paid for by eliminating a tiny portion of the $350 billion Congress wastes every year,’ said John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/unemployment-extension-st_n_639333.html)

            Sounds like Republicans did suggest it. Are you telling me Democrats don’t think unemployment benefits are important enough to reprioritize the federal budget and cut or merely temporarily suspend funding for something else? It’s about PRIORITIES. Oh that’s right, Democrats aren’t even going to do a budget before the elections.

  7. @Ed Heinzelman
    thank you for the explanation. And basically the two things kill us. Unemployment along with paying unemployment that hasn’t been paid for through taxes. And a stimulus set aside to give to companies that hire, that are only hiring temporary employees.

    This is a vicious deadly cycle

  8. Here is an “Act of Congress” that could help relieve the unemployment problem: 1st Repeal the latest minimum wage hike; second postpone any enacting of Obama-Care by 4 years; Cut-off unemployment benefits after 6 months. 4th extend the Bush tax cuts permanently.

    I personally know many people who are not taking jobs because it doesn’t pay as well as their last job, or is less than or equal to the amount they are getting on unemployment. Until these people are faced with a a Zero check, is when they will finally accept the true market value for their worth. It will also artificially extend this problem and the recession/ depression by 99 weeks or longer. The fact is the market has changed just like housing was overpriced 4 years ago and has been corrected, the same is true for payroll. Jobs are worth far less today than 4 years ago when unemployment was at 4.6%. The only reason we are not having out of control inflation right now is because we are actually experiencing “Deflation” in the wholesale market. It’s another reason why additional jobs are not being created in this middle sector, because those companies are reducing positions and costs where they can improve productivity, and keep prices competitive. The next place that will demand this change is in Govt services. Reduce, eliminate, waste and fraud and bloat in Govt.

    The fact is I personally know people using it as a crutch, we are all crippled by this bad policy. When G W Bush first came into office he refused to extend benefits and it moved people into the work force in record numbers, and kept unemployment low. When the Dems took control of the House and Senate in Jan 2007 is when the current slide began, and the housing bubble burst.

    1. I disagree. People need the health care now, not later.
      The minimum wage has an added benefit. It allows the masses of lower paid people to buy stuff. That’s why company’s exist. Not to pay nothing and sell nothing. Our trade imbalance with China is vast, we are allowing our country to be sold

      You seem to forget that we cannot push people into the job market. No one is hiring in terms of the numbers you relate to. GWB also got people into homes they couldnt afford with his own Ownership society. Which of course helped put us where we are. You forget that housing foreclosures had reached a pace well back in 2005-2007 prior to the dem congress even having any time to start such a problem. Sorry, you cant blame all this on the dems.

      I have been without a check for over a year. I lost my job when my company folded and was making almost 30.00 per hour. This xmas I worked at Sams Club wrapping meat for 8.00 an hour. Fortunately I am now 60 years old and am draining my retirement. No health care and no job prospects. I think you are making a somewhat large exaggeration there. Living on unemployment is no fun. Neither is having no jobs to go to even when you want one or some republican is telling you to get off your couch and work.

      As long as no one is hiring, the people not being paid some type of compensation will be a drain on the government. This is a fact you cant get around. And now some want to add millions more into that system.

      I say we cut out foreign aid, and cut the defense budget in half. Close our bases overseas, tack tariffs on the Chinese while they play with their currency. Cut congressional Salary’s in half
      ———— not my quotes.
      “Bubbles can be definitively identified only in hindsight after a market correction, which in the U.S. housing market began in 2005–2006. Former U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said “We had a bubble in housing”, and also said in the wake of the subprime mortgage and credit crisis in 2007, “I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.”

      “Increased foreclosure rates in 2006–2007 among U.S. homeowners led to a crisis in August 2008 for the subprime, Alt-A, collateralized debt obligation (CDO), mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign bank markets. In October 2007, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury called the bursting housing bubble “the most significant risk to our economy.”

      1. Wow Shiva, don’t any liberals study economics 101? I don’t have time to respond to it all, but your statement — “The minimum wage has an added benefit. It allows the masses of lower paid people to buy stuff.” Do you not realize that when the minimum wage goes up, prices of goods and services go up too? You see if the cost of labor rises, companies have to raise prices and/or lay people off. So your “masses of lower paid people” aren’t going to get ahead that way, not that most of them are making minimum wage anyway.

        As for GWB and the housing bust, for years the Bush administration warned about the imminent failure of government-sponsored enterprises and offered plans to reduce the risk of Fannie and Freedie failure. Frank & Dodd did not heed those repeated warnings.

        1. Only to a point. But if not that many are making minimum wage, I would assume you are saying far more are over that wage. So its not an issue. Minimum wage is fine.

          The lower paid people make up a great deal of the buying in the US. Not to bright to take away their ability to buy, as we have now done with this fonacial problem.

          Bush caused much of the problem far before Franks did. The home ownership society from Bush put a great many people in the homes that were later lost. Franks only had partial control of the problem. If you want to say its Franks fault for saying everything was ok with FM etc, then you prove the republicans are useless.

  9. Shiva sorry to learn of your personal story, and I wish you good luck in the very next job that comes along. My general economic and Govt. attitude is never about a specific person. But an overall theory. So if I should ever sound “personal” it’s not.

    First response it must be never forgot the that Housing problems was Carter and Clinton and Dodd and Frank..and others who were using Freddie and Fannie and thus the Govt. to manipulate the Housing numbers. It in fact was the Govt. artificially inflating the market. Creating a false economy a secondary and tertiary mortgage market and ultimately a collapse, just like happened with the Dot-Com bubble that led to the Market crash during Clinton’s presidency, which G W Bush “inherited”.

    I never said unemployment was fun..but I can attest to several people who are “milking” it right now. If we want to improve our country’s economy fast.. we need tax cuts, Dramatically decreased spending at every level of Govt. and a repeal of Minimum wage act of 2007. Your suggestion for cut’s unfortunately won’t do very much. Adjusting all Govt workers salaries down by 35% would be a huge difference.

    1. Quite frankly dropping everyone’s salarys from the tops down in the US would be a great help.

      But even if that happens the corporations will not drop their prices

      Its true that I didnt get into many cuts. There are far more. We just dont agree on the minimum wage part. As long as CEO’s are making 350% more than the workers when it used to be 40%, dont take it out on the workers.

      1. Yeah Obama will get his salary czar right on dropping everyone’s salaries ?!?! Are you kidding me? As long as there is competition, prices will be competitive. I could care less what a CEO of a corporation makes unless I’m a shareholder.

        1. I only said that becuase it would help everyone. I didnt put the burden on Obama or the next president. As long as things stay the same as they are, jobs will continue to disappear. I would start caring real soon.

          1. By “I don’t care” I meant it’s none of my (or the government’s) business. And I don’t see how it would “help everyone” anyway. Unless you mean that the result would be equally shared misery among everyone.

            Raising the minimum wage is a good think to somehow increase buying power but then you want to lower everyone else’s salaries? You provide a clear case why government should NOT be tinkering more with the economy!

            1. For some reason you keep interjecting the government into this.

              I wouldnt have any problem with everyone taking a wage drop in order to help companies out. But that would also mean that services would have to drop costs etc and it is not feasible. I never said the wages should be government mandated.

              I pay the CEO’s wages when I buy products. That makes it my business. While we have some who would bash people on unemployment, many are there because of the CEO’s. People complain about workers wages yet turn a blind eye to how deeply the management gouges companys.

              As for government tinkering, I think we have all seen what the corporations left to themselves have done. Wall street, the banking system, and many corporations are about as corrupt as they can get. If you wish to see them continue on the way they have acted in the last 5 years that’s fine. Personally I dont think they can play in the sandbox without government scrutiny.

  10. Shiva you keep missing the point, intentionally or not. That point made here is that Government IS involved by it’s creation and enforcement of a minimum wage. If it was eliminated many people who are waiting for the “first” job will get one. Maybe they will make 2 or 3 dollars an hour, but it moves them into the work force. Perhaps it’s young people teens or early 20 year olds. Occasionally it’ll be that person who is out of prison in their 30’s to 40’s. But as a small business person I’m more likely to take a chance on someone at a lower rate than a higher rate of pay. (This is the same thing as a Business Investment). You take the chance based on the idea that you will get a return for that investment. Personnel are not really different than “equipment” or any other essential need of a business. New computers, improved delivery system, etc. All of those “investment’s” are made by a business based on expected return on investment. The employee is not the owner of the business, simply because they have been hired. They are worth “X” based on the expected ROI, if the cost of initially hiring them is too great..the job will simply not be filled or even created, and thus the chronic unemployment we are experiencing right now. Every small and big business knows right now that any new employee will come with added tax, and insurance obligations, as well as potential 99 week long drain on the unemployment account of each of those businesses, thus companies are either sitting on cash, or finding alternatives to new hires.

    Last year a 100,000 new software system might have seemed too expensive, but now with new rules, and obligations, and who knows what else may be coming..it might make more sense to buy the software, rather than hire 1-5 employees, that would’ve made the software less an immediate need. Another option is perhaps shipping will now be outsourced rather hiring a driver. Each of these choices are made because business exist to make a profit for the owners and investors..business DO NOT EXIST to provide jobs for people who feel they are entitled to a job. CEO’s make big money based on expected results, when they fail to achieve those results they are dismissed. If they get a huge pile of money when they leave that is the responsibility of the ownership/ stockholders and is none of the Governments business!

    Shiva there will be no easy painless fix available, the market will have to correct itself, but the best way is to get the Govt. out of the way. BTW Jimmy Carter was tremendous failure..and we still have to pay his pension…that is my business, the last CEO of Ford is only my concern when I’m a stockholder.

    I am a small business person and I have made decisions just like this. I could hire a window washer or a cleaning person..instead I do it myself. I could hire an electrician or a plumber, but when I can I fix it myself. It’s the money I don’t spend for these tasks or even to cover a short vacation for myself..it’s the money I don’t spend socializing around the town. Because I want to make sure I weather this recession. I have invested in product, software, and even a new computer system, and I’m paying down my debt. But I’m avoiding hiring a new worker as long as possible. I am one of millions of real people making these decisions, that’s why the unemployment problem won’t change anytime soon..and millions of young people will wait for the first job that would start their careers. The future loss in income taxes, Soc Sec. Taxes will be worsened because of these decisions made right now by the current leadership. These are the future workers we need to support our retirement’s and they are suffering unnecessarily. It proves the point: Academics have their place..and it’s NOT running a Govt.!

Comments are closed.