The ..2012.... Political thread
-
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Wondered why Obama didn't approve all the potential pipeline jobs last week? How did he fare on his State of the Union address tonight? Mitt R. released his tax records for last year. He paid three million bucks in taxes but he made either 12 or 21 million last year, can't recall but it was a very large amount
Shame on Mitt for making money. And Obama didn't approve the pipeline thing because it would conflict with his plan to create jobs with unemployment benefits (which still none of you libs have explain Obama's rationale with that ...LOL)
I think it's common knowledge -- even by most rabid conservatives -- that the pipeline is an environmental issue to the president, not a jobs issue. You can argue that its a jobs issue insomuch that it will contribute to a healthier future, but for all intents and purposes it's an environmental issue. I'm pretty sure the "libs" don't explain it because most all proponents and opponents of this issue know where each side stands. It's sort of ironic, isn't it? Conservatives willing to dump on the environment in favor of short-term job relief (as if it's the only way; hence the "unemployment benefits for jobs" angle). What's funny, is I can already sort of see how this will play out. Arguing with conservatives is like reading one of those 90s kids novels with alternate storylines and endings; for this issue, if a liberal says eschewing the pipeline preserves the environment, conservatives respond with 'Doctored science; e-mail conspiracy theory; global warming is a myth; etc.' If liberals say that the president is seeking out more viable long-term job growth, conservatives jump in with 'Socialism!; stealing from rich; welfare for all.' The third option is that they'll devolve to personal attacks on you, your information or someone else (usually the president), avoiding the issue and enlisting other conservatives to help redirect the message -- read through various debates on just this forum, the regularity of this occurrence is alarming (the odds on favorite for this topic: How 'bout Obama's vacation to Hawaii?!). The predictability would be amusing if it weren't so frustrating.
-
Conservation to protect the earth, I knew that was a big part of O's reason and it's a great one. (Especially now that we know the planet is singing!) Seems like Romney should pay even more in taxes, considering his immense earnings. Him and all those money bags like him
-
Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year 1/25/2012 Warren Buffet?s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama?s State of the Union speech. She was the President?s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system ? a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss. ... At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
-
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Wondered why Obama didn't approve all the potential pipeline jobs last week? How did he fare on his State of the Union address tonight? Mitt R. released his tax records for last year. He paid three million bucks in taxes but he made either 12 or 21 million last year, can't recall but it was a very large amount
Shame on Mitt for making money. And Obama didn't approve the pipeline thing because it would conflict with his plan to create jobs with unemployment benefits (which still none of you libs have explain Obama's rationale with that ...LOL)
I think it's common knowledge -- even by most rabid conservatives -- that the pipeline is an environmental issue to the president, not a jobs issue. You can argue that its a jobs issue insomuch that it will contribute to a healthier future, but for all intents and purposes it's an environmental issue. I'm pretty sure the "libs" don't explain it because most all proponents and opponents of this issue know where each side stands. It's sort of ironic, isn't it? Conservatives willing to dump on the environment in favor of short-term job relief (as if it's the only way; hence the "unemployment benefits for jobs" angle). What's funny, is I can already sort of see how this will play out. Arguing with conservatives is like reading one of those 90s kids novels with alternate storylines and endings; for this issue, if a liberal says eschewing the pipeline preserves the environment, conservatives respond with 'Doctored science; e-mail conspiracy theory; global warming is a myth; etc.' If liberals say that the president is seeking out more viable long-term job growth, conservatives jump in with 'Socialism!; stealing from rich; welfare for all.' The third option is that they'll devolve to personal attacks on you, your information or someone else (usually the president), avoiding the issue and enlisting other conservatives to help redirect the message -- read through various debates on just this forum, the regularity of this occurrence is alarming (the odds on favorite for this topic: How 'bout Obama's vacation to Hawaii?!). The predictability would be amusing if it weren't so frustrating.
The predictability of their automated responses is due to their being brain washed lemmings, who don't really know why they support the republicans and who vote against their own interests.
-
mustangsally10:
service_gamer:
rich n:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Wondered why Obama didn't approve all the potential pipeline jobs last week? How did he fare on his State of the Union address tonight? Mitt R. released his tax records for last year. He paid three million bucks in taxes but he made either 12 or 21 million last year, can't recall but it was a very large amount
Shame on Mitt for making money. And Obama didn't approve the pipeline thing because it would conflict with his plan to create jobs with unemployment benefits (which still none of you libs have explain Obama's rationale with that ...LOL)
I think it's common knowledge -- even by most rabid conservatives -- that the pipeline is an environmental issue to the president, not a jobs issue. You can argue that its a jobs issue insomuch that it will contribute to a healthier future, but for all intents and purposes it's an environmental issue. I'm pretty sure the "libs" don't explain it because most all proponents and opponents of this issue know where each side stands. It's sort of ironic, isn't it? Conservatives willing to dump on the environment in favor of short-term job relief (as if it's the only way; hence the "unemployment benefits for jobs" angle). What's funny, is I can already sort of see how this will play out. Arguing with conservatives is like reading one of those 90s kids novels with alternate storylines and endings; for this issue, if a liberal says eschewing the pipeline preserves the environment, conservatives respond with 'Doctored science; e-mail conspiracy theory; global warming is a myth; etc.' If liberals say that the president is seeking out more viable long-term job growth, conservatives jump in with 'Socialism!; stealing from rich; welfare for all.' The third option is that they'll devolve to personal attacks on you, your information or someone else (usually the president), avoiding the issue and enlisting other conservatives to help redirect the message -- read through various debates on just this forum, the regularity of this occurrence is alarming (the odds on favorite for this topic: How 'bout Obama's vacation to Hawaii?!). The predictability would be amusing if it weren't so frustrating.
The predictability of their automated responses is due to their being brain washed lemmings, who don't really know why they support the republicans and who vote against their own interests.
^^^The most ironic of ironic comments yet...LOL...you never answered a simple question. I understand that asking what the logic was behind Obama's comment doesn't come with an easy - if any -answer...but still...you're a dedicated 'Obama-head'...I'm shocked you didn't make something up
-
Obama looks like Jesus compared to Newt and Mint I mean Mitt (freudian slip, he mints money). Obama keeps a cool head to make good judgement calls without getting into a weird crazy conservative right frenzy. That's another major bonus you get with O. Don't be too shocked when O. wins a second term, consider the GOP alternatives Americans were presented with and you'll know why
-
Well if Obama is the newest messiah Who is cool & a cool head It also must mean that he has made disciples Like himself that are also cool & cool heads However, to refer to anyone that might not agree with his or your line of thinking stupid, ignorant, and/or brain washed lemmings can hardly from anyones thought system Who is truly cool or cool headed. Best not to "insult" anyone sitting on the fence ... lots of people read this thread who have chosen not to post or participate
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Obama looks like Jesus compared to Newt and Mint I mean Mitt (freudian slip, he mints money). Obama keeps a cool head to make good judgement calls without getting into a weird crazy conservative right frenzy. That's another major bonus you get with O. Don't be too shocked when O. wins a second term, consider the GOP alternatives Americans were presented with and you'll know why
.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Obama looks like Jesus compared to Newt and Mint I mean Mitt (freudian slip, he mints money). Obama keeps a cool head to make good judgement calls without getting into a weird crazy conservative right frenzy. That's another major bonus you get with O. Don't be too shocked when O. wins a second term, consider the GOP alternatives Americans were presented with and you'll know why
I thought you meant Oprah when you said O ..... j/k Good thing Oprah is not running for President (At least right now) .... she made around 290 million dollars for her year. Compare that to Mitt making around 21.7 million. (Mitt is estimated to have $190 million and $250 million) . Oprah beat him in one year ha ha ha.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Obama looks like Jesus compared to Newt and Mint I mean Mitt (freudian slip, he mints money). Obama keeps a cool head to make good judgement calls without getting into a weird crazy conservative right frenzy. That's another major bonus you get with O. Don't be too shocked when O. wins a second term, consider the GOP alternatives Americans were presented with and you'll know why
First - I guess you don't know anything about Freud and his theories on development...and how they are largely 'poo poo'd' these days by today's child development researchers... And you still haven't offered a good explanation as to why Obama thinks unemployment benefits will make for good job opportunities... Lastly, you stick to personal insults and digs (both towards me as well as the Republican field of candidates without remotely approaching the issues of how to fix this country...LOL) Obama is trying to turn this country into Europe and it doesn't work here.
-
This worked out pretty well for the pres....LOL
-
As a matter of fact for those who don't understand economics.. This might be hard for you to follow but...unemployment benefits inject demand into the economy because the people who receive it need the money and spend it right away..so it's a direct, fast stimulus. Economists agree with the statement above....
In Fact, Economists Agree That Unemployment Benefits Have A Strong Effect On Job Creation And Growth EPI: Extending Unemployment Benefits Through 2012 Will Create Roughly 560,000 Jobs. In a November 4 report, Economic Policy Institute (EPI) President Lawrence Mishel and EPI researcher Heidi Shierholz wrote: While it would cost an estimated $45 billion to continue the extensions, the economic boost would be much greater because this spending would have a large "multiplier" effect. Long-term unemployed workers are almost by definition cash-strapped and have very little choice but to immediately spend their unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits spent on rent, groceries, and other necessities increase economic activity, and that increased economic activity saves and creates jobs throughout the economy. For this reason, economists, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, widely recognize government spending on unemployment insurance benefits as one of the most effective things that can be done in a recession to generate jobs. Spending $45 billion on unemployment insurance extensions in 2012 would increase GDP by an estimated $72 billion, raising our $15.2 trillion GDP by roughly 0.5 percent. This increase in economic activity translates into roughly 560,000 payroll jobs. In other words, extending the federally funded unemployment insurance extensions through 2012 would not only extend a lifeline to the families of millions of long-term unemployed workers, it would also generate spending that supports well over half a million jobs. If this program is discontinued, the economy will lose these jobs. [...] Of the $72 billion increase in GDP related to continuing the unemployment insurance benefit extensions through 2012, some 37.4 percent, or $26.9 billion, would be recouped in higher revenues, as more people and firms pay taxes, and in lower expenditures. Consequently, the effective cost to the budget of continuing the UI benefits extension for a year is $18.1 billion instead of $45 billion. This means that the continuation of unemployment insurance benefit extensions through 2012 would save 560,000 jobs at an effective cost of around $32,000 per position. That alone is a good deal, but when we remember that these expenditures would assist millions of families of the long-term unemployed during the worst downturn in seven decades, the case for continuing the extensions could not be more clear. [EPI, 11/4/11] Dean Baker: Unemployment Insurance "Stimulates The Economy" By "Put[ting] Money In ... [The] Pockets" Of People Who Are "Very Likely To Spend" It. In an email to Media Matters, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated: UI stimulates the economy for the same reason that tax cuts provide stimulus to the economy, they put money in people's pockets. However, UI benefits will provide more stimulus per dollar because they are going to people who we know are very likely to spend the money. A large portion of money paid out in tax cuts are likely to be saved, especially if they go to the wealthy. [Email to Media Matters, 8/30/11] CBO Scored "Increasing Aid To The Unemployed" As The Highest-Scoring Policy Proposal To Efficiently Stimulate Economy. In a November 2011 report on "Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2012 and 2013," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated: Policies that would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2012 and 2013 are ones that would reduce the marginal cost to businesses of adding employees or that would be targeted toward people who would be most likely to spend the additional income. Such policies include reducing employers' payroll taxes (especially if limited to firms that increase their payroll), increasing aid to the unemployed, and providing additional refundable tax credits in 2012 for lower- and middle-income households. [CBO, 11/15/11] According to a table in the report, the CBO estimated that increasing aid to the unemployed would have the greatest effect on GDP per dollar of budgetary cost and the highest cumulative effect on employment of the policy options considered. cbo Mark Zandi Estimated That Extending Unemployment Benefits Provides Significant Stimulus. In 2008 congressional testimony, Mark Zandi, Moody's Economy.com chief economist and a former adviser to John McCain, ranked extended unemployment benefits behind only food stamps in terms of economic "bang for the buck." The Economic Policy Institute created the following graphic based on Zandi's figures: zandi [Mark Zandi testimony via Economy.com, 11/19/08; Economic Policy Institute, 10/22/08] Economists Also Say That A Payroll Tax Cut Leads To Jobs And Economic Growth Frank: "Perhaps The Most Promising" Policy To Reduce Unemployment "Is A Payroll Tax Holiday." In a June 25 New York Times op-ed, Robert Frank, economics professor at Cornell University, wrote: If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire. We ought to be tackling both problems at once. But in today's fractious political climate, many promising dual-purpose remedies -- like infrastructure investments that would generate large and rapid returns -- are called unthinkable, in the false belief that they would impoverish our grandchildren. Yet there are other ways to attack unemployment that could garner bipartisan support. Perhaps the most promising is a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax was originally meant to pay for Social Security, and in recent years, employees and employers have each contributed 6.2 percent of total salary -- with no additional levies on salaries beyond $106,800. Congress should both declare an immediate payroll tax holiday for employees and exempt employers from making contributions for newly hired workers -- and keep both provisions in effect until the end of next year. [The New York Times, 6/25/11] Seidman: "To Boost Private Sector Spending And Jobs," Congress Should Implement An "Immediate Suspension Of The Entire Employee Payroll Tax." In a July 17 op-ed in Delaware's News Journal, University of Delaware economics professor Laurence Seidman wrote: To boost private sector spending and jobs, any budget deal negotiated by the president and Congress should contain an immediate suspension of the entire employee payroll tax through 2012. Why? Because leaving more money in people's paychecks will cause them to spend more, and in response to their spending, private sector employers will expand production and create private sector jobs. Without this stimulus to the private sector, the economy is likely to fall back into a deep recession. [...] According to the simulations, if the suspension begins promptly, then in the fourth quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate would be 1 percentage point lower than it would have been without the temporary employee payroll tax suspension. [News Journal, 7/17/11, accessed via Nexis] Tyson: Jobs Plan Should Include "At The Very Least" An Extension Of "The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut For Employees." In a September 6 post on the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, University of California, Berkeley professor and former Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Laura Tyson wrote: The labor market is suffering from two problems: first, an immediate jobs gap, primarily the result of the collapse in demand after the 2008 financial crisis, and second, a long-term gap in rewarding jobs for American workers, primarily the result of skill-biased technological change and global competition. The jobs gap requires additional fiscal measures to increase private spending and promote job creation. At the very least, the temporary payroll tax cut for employees enacted at the end of 2010 should be extended and a temporary payroll tax cut for employers that increase their payrolls or a tax credit for new hires should be introduced. [The New York Times, 9/6/11] CBPP: "Failure ... To Extend The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut" Would Remove "Needed Support From The Still-Weak Economy." In a September 7 post, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted: "Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy." From CBPP: Failure by Congress to extend the temporary payroll tax cut enacted last December would reduce all paychecks starting on January 1, withdrawing needed support from the still-weak economy. The measure, part of the tax cut-unemployment insurance deal between President Obama and Republican leaders, reduces the employee share of the Social Security payroll tax, boosting workers' take-home pay by an estimated $120 billion in 2011. The tax cut is worth $934 to the average worker. [...] By extending the payroll tax cut -- and the provision of additional weeks of unemployment benefits to workers who have exhausted their 26 weeks of state-funded UI benefits without finding a job -- policymakers can avoid increasing the risk of renewed recession. But they should do more to reduce the probability of a double-dip recession and increase the probability of a sustainable recovery that generates sufficient jobs to shrink the massive jobs deficit. While a discussion of various steps needed to shore up the economy is beyond the scope of this paper, in the payroll tax arena, policymakers should consider strengthening the payroll tax reduction as part of a larger set of economic measures. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/7/11] Roubini: "What America Needs Is A Payroll Tax Cut." In a September 17, 2010, Washington Post op-ed, Nouriel Roubini, professor at the New York University's Stern School of Business, wrote: A much better option is for the administration to reduce the payroll tax for two years. The reduced labor costs would lead employers to hire more; for employees, the increased take-home pay would boost much-needed economic consumption and advance the still-crucial process of deleveraging households (paying down credit card debt and other legacies of the easy-credit years). [...] Low-income workers have historically shown a much higher propensity to consume when given extra money, so the payroll tax cut should be designed to provide a larger-percentage break to those on the low end of the income scale compared with the upper middle class. [The Washington Post, 9/17/10] Krugman: Payroll Tax Cut Would Give Money To People "Who Might Very Well Spend It." An August 30, 2010, CNBC.com article quoted Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman as saying: "If you give a temporary tax cut to wealthy people who are likely to be highly liquid, they are not going to spend very much of it at all," Krugam [sic] said. "Give a temporary tax cut to corporations, who are sitting on piles of cash, they are not going to spend any of it." A payroll tax cut would be better, since it would put money in the hands of people "who might very well spend it," he added. "But basically, I would take whatever we can, except that those high end tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, are going where the problem isn't; it's just a waste of money," Krugman said. [CNBC.com, 8/30/10] Reich: Eliminating Payroll Tax Would "Get The Economy Moving Again." In an August 25, 2010, interview on America Public Media's Marketplace, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted that eliminating payroll taxes would "get the economy moving again." From Marketplace: But here's an idea that might command everyone's support: Eliminate payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income. Payroll taxes, you recall, include Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Make up the revenue loss by applying the payroll tax to incomes above $250,000. This would immediately stimulate spending by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. Right now, 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And lower-income workers, who would receive the largest proportion of the benefits, are more likely to spend the extra cash than are people with high incomes. [...] So how to get the economy moving again? Eliminate the payroll tax on the first $20,000 of income and apply it to income over $250,000 for two years. How to keep the economy moving? Do this permanently. [American Public Media, Marketplace, 8/25/10] Orszag: "To Mitigate The Harm To The Labor Market From ... Fiscal Drag, Policy Makers Should" Extend "The Existing Payroll Tax Holiday." In a June 30 Bloomberg column, former Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag wrote: Given our feeble labor market, it is particularly important that policy makers avoid overly hasty deficit reduction. Official projections for the federal budget show fiscal tightening in excess of 2 percent of GDP from fiscal year 2011 to 2012. To put that percentage in context, consider that the fiscal tightening in the U.K. from 2010 to 2011 -- which has received so much attention in the news media -- amounted to less than 1.5 percent of GDP. To mitigate the harm to the labor market from this fiscal drag, policy makers should provide additional macroeconomic support in 2012 by extending the existing payroll tax holiday. But more than that, Congress should link the payroll tax to the unemployment rate. This would allow the tax holiday to automatically calibrate itself to existing conditions, providing support only when the economy is weak. If necessary, the underlying payroll tax rate could be raised to make this mechanism budget-neutral. [Bloomberg, 6/30/11] By Contrast, Keystone XL Pipeline Would Have A Limited Or Negative Impact On Job Creation TransCanada Said In 2010 That Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create Over ... 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers." [TransCanada, 9/14/10] Wash. Post: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Number Of People Employed" Would Actually Be 6,500. [The Washington Post, 11/5/11] Cornell University Global Labor Institute: "The Effects Of KXL Construction Could Very Well Lead To More Jobs Being Lost Than Are Created." An independent study of the effects of the Keystone XL pipeline by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute found: The industry-generated jobs data are highly questionable and ultimately misleading. But this is only part of the problem. These industry-generated data attempt only to tell the positive side of the KXL jobs story. There is evidence to suggest that the effects of KXL construction could very well lead to more jobs being lost than are created. In this section, we show four ways that jobs can be destroyed or prevented by KXL -- higher petroleum prices, environmental damage such as spills, the impact of emissions on health and climate instability, and the chilling effect KXL approval could have on the emerging green economy. [...] Put simply, KXL's job creation potential is relatively small, and could be completely outweighed by the project's potential to destroy jobs through rising fuel costs, spill damage and clean up operations, air pollution and increased GHG emissions. [Cornell University Global Labor Institute, September 2011] For more information about Keystone XL pipeline's potential impact on job creation, click here.
The reason the republican politicians usually don't support extension of unemployment benefits unless forced is because they know (but their followers don't) that it benefits the economy and right now they don't want the economy to get better because they think it will hurt Obama's reelection chances. So they manipulate their ignorant supporters into believing this crap. And you guys fall for it like a bunch of lemmings.
-
^^^in a crisis situation, such as being unemployed and receiving those benefits, people are not out at Macy's spending money or living it up at the Ritz Carlton...LOL...unless of course you count the people cheating the gov't and working under the table while collecting. With that, people on unemployment are spending less money than if they had a job...or should be if they have any semblence of responsibility. Are they spending more than if they got zero benefits? I'm sure they are...but unemployment is not a new thing that Obama can take credit for and extending benefits is almost a necessity due to Obama choking this country of it's jobs That was such a sorry attempt to justify 'stupid'...shame on you Something is blinding you of common sense and I'm interested in knowing what that 'something' is
-
Thus - so trying to justify 'stupid' with a theoritical model which doesn't consider people or their emotions or their living situations is basically pointless
-
You don't seem to have any common sense..you seem unashamed of showing your ignorance. When it's said that people who don't have any money spend their unemployment as soon as they get it's meant that they spend it on much needed necessities so it's an immediate stimulus. Either you didn't read what I posted or you didn't understand it...I think you didn't understand it
-
mustangsally10:
You don't seem to have any common sense..you seem unashamed of showing your ignorance. When it's said that people who don't have any money spend their unemployment as soon as they get it's meant that they spend it on much needed necessities so it's an immediate stimulus. Either you didn't read what I posted or you didn't understand it...I think you didn't understand it
Ah, I get it....they were never 'injecting' cashflow into the economy until they became unemployed and had to start collecting...thanks for the clarification...I guess I never knew people didn't buy milk, toothpaste, toilet paper or whatever until they lost their job (I would think the latter two would lead to job loss and thus, be considered essentials of sorts) Speaking of toilet paper, the article was destined for a trip to the sewage plant the second the last letter was typed...Liberal garbage...but entertaining in that tragic, dark kind of way...I'm sure Michael Moore would love to make a movie out of that nonsense
-
obama has done a lot of things for liberals and republicans ...if you truly understand democracy
-
Summary of tonight's GOP/Florida debate...LOL
All kidding aside - I thought Mitt made a good account of himself. And why are people offended that he makes a lot of money? But regardless, I can't wait until it becomes a two dog race... -
rich n:
^^^in a crisis situation, such as being unemployed and receiving those benefits, people are not out at Macy's spending money or living it up at the Ritz Carlton...LOL...unless of course you count the people cheating the gov't and working under the table while collecting. With that, people on unemployment are spending less money than if they had a job...or should be if they have any semblence of responsibility. Are they spending more than if they got zero benefits? I'm sure they are...but unemployment is not a new thing that Obama can take credit for and extending benefits is almost a necessity due to Obama choking this country of it's jobs That was such a sorry attempt to justify 'stupid'...shame on you Something is blinding you of common sense and I'm interested in knowing what that 'something' is
I really like having these little discussions with you richn because when pushed just a little you reveal yourself and in turn reveal the republican mindset. You reveal your disdain for humanity and your callous and mean spirited view of your fellow human. Any vulnerability receives your scorn. You're a great example for republicans and set a real contrast to the democrats and Obama. Obama ended his SOTU speech stating we are all in this together. The election will place these differences in value in full view...I can't wait. Mittens will do the republicans proud with his values just as you do
-
mustangsally10:
As a matter of fact for those who don't understand economics.. This might be hard for you to follow but...unemployment benefits inject demand into the economy because the people who receive it need the money and spend it right away..so it's a direct, fast stimulus.
-mustangsally10, I have to admit .... this was one of those WTF type of things that I have seen in a long long time. I don't have a favorite party between the Democrats or Republicans ..... this was just way out there. I give rich n a lot of credit for having this easy of a reply .... even if he was thinking that your quote above is strange.
rich n:
^^^in a crisis situation, such as being unemployed and receiving those benefits, people are not out at Macy's spending money or living it up at the Ritz Carlton...LOL...unless of course you count the people cheating the gov't and working under the table while collecting. With that, people on unemployment are spending less money than if they had a job...or should be if they have any semblence of responsibility. Are they spending more than if they got zero benefits? I'm sure they are...but unemployment is not a new thing that Obama can take credit for and extending benefits is almost a necessity due to Obama choking this country of it's jobs That was such a sorry attempt to justify 'stupid'...shame on you Something is blinding you of common sense and I'm interested in knowing what that 'something' is