Yet Republicans seem to think extending unemployment insurance is unnecessary......so everything must be going great then. Right?
Could Rand Paul possibly look more stupid? [video=youtube;bmqUI3o492o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqUI3o492o[/video]
its not that republicans have asked for all other extra government spending to be paid for so your arguing over a false premise
Please link to proof that the poor does..."spend most of their discretionary income on consumable items."
It should be self-evident. How much money would a homeless person panhandling spend, as a percent of their disposable income versus the wealthiest who may choose to defer spending until a profit can be realized. - - - Updated - - - I would agree with him; but, our federal Congress cannot seem to distinguish between the common Defense and the common Offense; only one Term is specifically enumerated.
Your not entitled to respond to anything I say unless I give you permission. - - - Updated - - - But for those who cannot work, whatever the reason, why withhold benefits from them?
You are not a true Klingon! Er -- sorry about that -- um . . . what posting game are we playing again?
For these who cannot work, there's a disability benefits. For these who's out of work, there's an employment agencies, a burger flipping jobs and a lawn mowing jobs and as a last resort, a Government handout. And after the handout runs out, there's a Salvation Army and soup kitchens. We're a humane society, but we should not have to support a habitually unemployable people forever. Hey, here's an idea - how about we extend unemployment benefits but make people to perform community service in exchange? Picking up dog's poo, swiping the streets, washing public buildings windows? Would that be OK with you?
Sounds good except that then you need a new beauracracy to track those people, supervise and oversee them etc. Then of course someone will take it to court stating that it violates the fifth amendment due process clause. ( probably true ). Would never work
The OPs point is that the people who say the economy is improving are still asking for help for the economy, and the people who claim the economy is a disaster say no help is required.
Other Things, such as investing in technologies that may enable better products at lower cost than competing Firms, if they are part of corporate management, hopefully. Here is something to consider:
It was only for simplification, but you get the analogy at any given income level at any point in any given scale.
That brings up the issue of insurance; if they get hurt on the job, you could end up paying them benefits for life; furthermore, if they work more then 40 hours per week, you have to pay them time and one half. I take it your in favor of increased government?
It is merely one more reason why I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
Yep, because sometimes you gotta laugh as a poster. Being angry or crying all the time about things that we haven't got the power or influence to change anyway, gets darn old.
