Bunning
- Thread starter Trancendental
- Start date
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Paygo, Paygo, Paygo. It's a great idea.
Does anybody remember their entry level macroeconomics class about how running (larger) deficits during periods of economic contraction can reduce severity and duration?
Does anybody understand that running massive deficits during times of economic expansion is stupid?
Does anybody understand that spending half of a deficit on elective expenses that contribute nothing to the welfare of our country during times of economic contraction is stupid?[/QUOTE]
A great and concise Keynesian view. I agree 100%. Which makes you a filthy, stupid communist.
When things are good, we should cut taxes. When things are bad, we should cut taxes.
[quote name='UncleBob']I freely admitted that I hadn't looked into this particular issue. In fact, when I did, I saw a quote where Bunning "dared" Ried to force a vote on the bill - which further leads to the confusion. If Reid could force a vote on the bill, I don't see how it was all Bunning holding up the bill.[/QUOTE]
It couldn't be forced for 4 days. In the mean time, people would lose income, health coverage, etc. Doctors would get their medicare income cut 21%. That's why the Dems held the session open until midnight but Bunning refused to let it go, hence his now epically lulzy "I missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game tonight" comments on the floor.
The only thing Bunning could have "hoped" for was that the people affected would be screwed for 4 days. What would that accomplish? The Democrats asked him why he was doing it and what he wanted. He came back later with excuses, but the night he did it he was essentially saying "
you". Seriously. CSPAN has it. Have a watch.
Does anybody remember their entry level macroeconomics class about how running (larger) deficits during periods of economic contraction can reduce severity and duration?
Does anybody understand that running massive deficits during times of economic expansion is stupid?
Does anybody understand that spending half of a deficit on elective expenses that contribute nothing to the welfare of our country during times of economic contraction is stupid?[/QUOTE]
A great and concise Keynesian view. I agree 100%. Which makes you a filthy, stupid communist.
When things are good, we should cut taxes. When things are bad, we should cut taxes.
[quote name='UncleBob']I freely admitted that I hadn't looked into this particular issue. In fact, when I did, I saw a quote where Bunning "dared" Ried to force a vote on the bill - which further leads to the confusion. If Reid could force a vote on the bill, I don't see how it was all Bunning holding up the bill.[/QUOTE]
It couldn't be forced for 4 days. In the mean time, people would lose income, health coverage, etc. Doctors would get their medicare income cut 21%. That's why the Dems held the session open until midnight but Bunning refused to let it go, hence his now epically lulzy "I missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game tonight" comments on the floor.
The only thing Bunning could have "hoped" for was that the people affected would be screwed for 4 days. What would that accomplish? The Democrats asked him why he was doing it and what he wanted. He came back later with excuses, but the night he did it he was essentially saying "
you". Seriously. CSPAN has it. Have a watch.
[quote name='speedracer']A great and concise Keynesian view. I agree 100%. Which makes you a filthy, stupid communist.
When things are good, we should cut taxes. When things are bad, we should cut taxes.
It couldn't be forced for 4 days. In the mean time, people would lose income, health coverage, etc. Doctors would get their medicare income cut 21%. That's why the Dems held the session open until midnight but Bunning refused to let it go, hence his now epically lulzy "I missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game tonight" comments on the floor.
The only thing Bunning could have "hoped" for was that the people affected would be screwed for 4 days. What would that accomplish? The Democrats asked him why he was doing it and what he wanted. He came back later with excuses, but the night he did it he was essentially saying " you". Seriously. CSPAN has it. Have a watch.[/QUOTE]
Was there any particular reason that this important bill wasn't set to pass until the night the benefits ran out?
When things are good, we should cut taxes. When things are bad, we should cut taxes.
It couldn't be forced for 4 days. In the mean time, people would lose income, health coverage, etc. Doctors would get their medicare income cut 21%. That's why the Dems held the session open until midnight but Bunning refused to let it go, hence his now epically lulzy "I missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game tonight" comments on the floor.
The only thing Bunning could have "hoped" for was that the people affected would be screwed for 4 days. What would that accomplish? The Democrats asked him why he was doing it and what he wanted. He came back later with excuses, but the night he did it he was essentially saying "
you". Seriously. CSPAN has it. Have a watch.[/QUOTE]Was there any particular reason that this important bill wasn't set to pass until the night the benefits ran out?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']Was there any particular reason that this important bill wasn't set to pass until the night the benefits ran out?[/QUOTE]
It's an extension while they hash out a long term bill. There is nothing special about that. It only became special when Bunning decided to go all pissy on it. Even then it wouldn't have been a big deal if he had chosen just about anything except this bill.
I can't see a reasonable viewpoint explaining why Bunning chose a bill that would so drastically affect so many people negatively. There are reasonable ways to make a point. This wasn't one of them. Then trying to pin it on PAYGO, something his party has fought forever, makes it that much less credible.
The cynic in me wonders why he didn't choose to a military based extension.
And what does the permanent bill do?
It's an extension while they hash out a long term bill. There is nothing special about that. It only became special when Bunning decided to go all pissy on it. Even then it wouldn't have been a big deal if he had chosen just about anything except this bill.
I can't see a reasonable viewpoint explaining why Bunning chose a bill that would so drastically affect so many people negatively. There are reasonable ways to make a point. This wasn't one of them. Then trying to pin it on PAYGO, something his party has fought forever, makes it that much less credible.
The cynic in me wonders why he didn't choose to
a military based extension.And what does the permanent bill do?
OMG KILL IT WITH FIRE
So, basically, the only reason the bill was put off was because no one though a problem might come up?
Sounds like pretty poor planning to me - haven't these people ever heard of Murphy's Law? Heck, what would have happened if DC had gotten another cold-blast that left them snowed in for days on end again?
But yes, you're right. Bunning was being an ass and the only reason I can think of is that he chose such a bill in order to get people talking. Unfortunately, people would rather talk about the party politics instead of talking about the actual issues at hand.
Sounds like pretty poor planning to me - haven't these people ever heard of Murphy's Law? Heck, what would have happened if DC had gotten another cold-blast that left them snowed in for days on end again?
But yes, you're right. Bunning was being an ass and the only reason I can think of is that he chose such a bill in order to get people talking. Unfortunately, people would rather talk about the party politics instead of talking about the actual issues at hand.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']So, basically, the only reason the bill was put off was because no one though a problem might come up?[/QUOTE]
Despite the bullshit we read, there is a level of mutual respect for the rules and business of legislating on both sides. Usually when someone is going to do something like this, theyING TELL PEOPLE so everyone can plan accordingly. The extension didn't pass 99-1, there were 13 votes against it. Hell, it could even be argued that at least the Republicans are being open about killing everything rather than remaining silent then swooping in with a filibuster. Bunning did it this way specifically to create the shitstorm that happened. That's why everyone of both stripes should be pissed off.
The Dems do shitty things all the time. They block nominations which pisses me off to no end. But the Republicans seem to be the ones that are pioneering things normally left off the table. Yea, it's happened before, but damn. This bill was important.
Despite the bullshit we read, there is a level of mutual respect for the rules and business of legislating on both sides. Usually when someone is going to do something like this, they
ING TELL PEOPLE so everyone can plan accordingly. The extension didn't pass 99-1, there were 13 votes against it. Hell, it could even be argued that at least the Republicans are being open about killing everything rather than remaining silent then swooping in with a filibuster. Bunning did it this way specifically to create the shitstorm that happened. That's why everyone of both stripes should be pissed off. The Dems do shitty things all the time. They block nominations which pisses me off to no end. But the Republicans seem to be the ones that are pioneering things normally left off the table. Yea, it's happened before, but damn. This bill was important.
[quote name='speedracer']Despite the bullshit we read, there is a level of mutual respect for the rules and business of legislating on both sides. Usually when someone is going to do something like this, they ING TELL PEOPLE so everyone can plan accordingly. The extension didn't pass 99-1, there were 13 votes against it. Hell, it could even be argued that at least the Republicans are being open about killing everything rather than remaining silent then swooping in with a filibuster. Bunning did it this way specifically to create the shitstorm that happened. That's why everyone of both stripes should be pissed off.
The Dems do shitty things all the time. They block nominations which pisses me off to no end. But the Republicans seem to be the ones that are pioneering things normally left off the table. Yea, it's happened before, but damn. This bill was important.[/QUOTE]
The bill *is* important. It seems to me it would have only made sense to get the wheels turning about a week sooner.
Let's say, eh... Two weeks ago yesterday, Feb 16th, 2010 at approx. 10:18 AM Eastern - Bunning had sent an e-mail to Reid saying something to the extent of "I'm planning on not letting this extension pass via consent unless it's paid for." - Then you'd be okay with it?
ING TELL PEOPLE so everyone can plan accordingly. The extension didn't pass 99-1, there were 13 votes against it. Hell, it could even be argued that at least the Republicans are being open about killing everything rather than remaining silent then swooping in with a filibuster. Bunning did it this way specifically to create the shitstorm that happened. That's why everyone of both stripes should be pissed off. The Dems do shitty things all the time. They block nominations which pisses me off to no end. But the Republicans seem to be the ones that are pioneering things normally left off the table. Yea, it's happened before, but damn. This bill was important.[/QUOTE]
The bill *is* important. It seems to me it would have only made sense to get the wheels turning about a week sooner.
Let's say, eh... Two weeks ago yesterday, Feb 16th, 2010 at approx. 10:18 AM Eastern - Bunning had sent an e-mail to Reid saying something to the extent of "I'm planning on not letting this extension pass via consent unless it's paid for." - Then you'd be okay with it?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']The bill *is* important. It seems to me it would have only made sense to get the wheels turning about a week sooner.
Let's say, eh... Two weeks ago yesterday, Feb 16th, 2010 at approx. 10:18 AM Eastern - Bunning had sent an e-mail to Reid saying something to the extent of "I'm planning on not letting this extension pass via consent unless it's paid for." - Then you'd be okay with it?[/QUOTE]
Yes. They would have rescheduled it for earlier to handle his block. Bunning wanted to make an overreaching national point. On that charge, good for him.
If we were talking about virtually anything that wasn't job based or military based, no one would give a shit. But you don't mess with jobs right now man. This isn't theoretical banter between you and I. People in the middle and lower classes lost money for no reason. That shit ain't right.
And an excellent representation of the scumbaggery on the right from my own Senator Cornyn.
Two days ago:
Let's say, eh... Two weeks ago yesterday, Feb 16th, 2010 at approx. 10:18 AM Eastern - Bunning had sent an e-mail to Reid saying something to the extent of "I'm planning on not letting this extension pass via consent unless it's paid for." - Then you'd be okay with it?[/QUOTE]
Yes. They would have rescheduled it for earlier to handle his block. Bunning wanted to make an overreaching national point. On that charge, good for him.
If we were talking about virtually anything that wasn't job based or military based, no one would give a shit. But you don't mess with jobs right now man. This isn't theoretical banter between you and I. People in the middle and lower classes lost money for no reason. That shit ain't right.
And an excellent representation of the scumbaggery on the right from my own Senator Cornyn.
Two days ago:
Today:
Rock out with your cock out Cornyn, you spineless douche.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Probably not. He hasn't shown much interest in listening to the people so far.[/QUOTE]
How about Congress? Don't they authorize spending?
How about Congress? Don't they authorize spending?
[quote name='speedracer']Yes. They would have rescheduled it for earlier to handle his block. Bunning wanted to make an overreaching national point. On that charge, good for him.[/quote]
I'm going into theoretical banter here, but let's say the Tuesday e-mail was the only thing that happened differently. Ried got the e-mail, scoffed at it thinking Bunning couldn't possibly be serious, then let things go as planned. You would then be okay with Bunning not voting with consent so long as he had made people aware of his intentions before hand?
To be fair, I can completely disagree with someone, but still admire them for standing up for what they believe in. For example, the huge droves of people who voted - many for the first time - for Obama, campaigned for him, etc... all getting involved with the political process instead of sitting back complaining about the status quo. I was impressed with that. I (obviously) disagreed with their choice in candidate, but I admired their spirit and efforts.
FoC: Good point. Wonder why Congress doesn't just slash military funding and force Obama to withdraw troops from Iraq/Afghanistan. Wonder why they didn't do it when Bush was in power.
I'm going into theoretical banter here, but let's say the Tuesday e-mail was the only thing that happened differently. Ried got the e-mail, scoffed at it thinking Bunning couldn't possibly be serious, then let things go as planned. You would then be okay with Bunning not voting with consent so long as he had made people aware of his intentions before hand?
To be fair, I can completely disagree with someone, but still admire them for standing up for what they believe in. For example, the huge droves of people who voted - many for the first time - for Obama, campaigned for him, etc... all getting involved with the political process instead of sitting back complaining about the status quo. I was impressed with that. I (obviously) disagreed with their choice in candidate, but I admired their spirit and efforts.
FoC: Good point. Wonder why Congress doesn't just slash military funding and force Obama to withdraw troops from Iraq/Afghanistan. Wonder why they didn't do it when Bush was in power.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']FoC: Good point. Wonder why Congress doesn't just slash military funding and force Obama to withdraw troops from Iraq/Afghanistan. Wonder why they didn't do it when Bush was in power.[/QUOTE]
Because they all want to get reelected, and they know that if they take any kind of stand they would be political roadkill long before the public wises up and comes around.
We're kind of stuck anyway - the wars have become an all-or-nothing scenario. Either keep the massive force over there needed to do the job right, or bring everyone home. The first option is messy, but the second option is alot messier.
Because they all want to get reelected, and they know that if they take any kind of stand they would be political roadkill long before the public wises up and comes around.
We're kind of stuck anyway - the wars have become an all-or-nothing scenario. Either keep the massive force over there needed to do the job right, or bring everyone home. The first option is messy, but the second option is alot messier.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Because they all want to get reelected, and they know that if they take any kind of stand they would be political roadkill long before the public wises up and comes around.
We're kind of stuck anyway - the wars have become an all-or-nothing scenario. Either keep the massive force over there needed to do the job right, or bring everyone home. The first option is messy, but the second option is alot messier.[/QUOTE]
I almost agree.
The job won't be done right regardless of troop levels or money spent.
The second option causes a lot of problems over there that may not reach here and is probably cheaper than the first option overall.
We're kind of stuck anyway - the wars have become an all-or-nothing scenario. Either keep the massive force over there needed to do the job right, or bring everyone home. The first option is messy, but the second option is alot messier.[/QUOTE]
I almost agree.
The job won't be done right regardless of troop levels or money spent.
The second option causes a lot of problems over there that may not reach here and is probably cheaper than the first option overall.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I almost agree.
The job won't be done right regardless of troop levels or money spent.
The second option causes a lot of problems over there that may not reach here and is probably cheaper than the first option overall.[/QUOTE]
I can almost agree with this.
I'd change it to "The job won't be done right by us regardless of troop levels or money spent."
Not because of my usual "The government can't do anything right." but simply because no one over there trusts us. As long as we're involved, no two groups are really going to be ready to sit down and discuss peace.
The job won't be done right regardless of troop levels or money spent.
The second option causes a lot of problems over there that may not reach here and is probably cheaper than the first option overall.[/QUOTE]
I can almost agree with this.
I'd change it to "The job won't be done right by us regardless of troop levels or money spent."
Not because of my usual "The government can't do anything right." but simply because no one over there trusts us. As long as we're involved, no two groups are really going to be ready to sit down and discuss peace.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']We had a $1.4 Trillion deficit last year and I'm sure at least half of that was due to Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
It's a decently big part of the deficit, but no, it's not half of it, unless you also count overall military spending.
It's a decently big part of the deficit, but no, it's not half of it, unless you also count overall military spending.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']i assume 9/10 on unemployment dont need to be on it[/QUOTE]
That's because you're a know-nothing kid.
That's because you're a know-nothing kid.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']knocking 400,000 off unemployment likely screws about 40,000 people over because i assume 9/10 on unemployment dont need to be on it[/QUOTE]
, but seriously ...
1. Those 400K people were paying into unemployment insurance beforehand by accepting lower wages.
2. The bills of those 400K people don't disappear because they aren't working.
3. Not everybody can strip down their life to a burger flipper's salary. Of course, that assumes there are burger flipper positions available.
, but seriously ...1. Those 400K people were paying into unemployment insurance beforehand by accepting lower wages.
2. The bills of those 400K people don't disappear because they aren't working.
3. Not everybody can strip down their life to a burger flipper's salary. Of course, that assumes there are burger flipper positions available.
when i've known about a dozen people to receive unemployment benefits and zero who have needed it, you're gonna have trouble convincing me any sort of majority on unemployment should rightfully be there
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment ised up
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment is
ed up
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='Koggit']when i've known about a dozen people to receive unemployment benefits and zero who have needed it, you're gonna have trouble convincing me any sort of majority on unemployment should rightfully be there
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment ised up[/QUOTE]
When you find a single program (government or otherwise) which is perfect, let us know. Human beings will take advantage of things, you can make it harder to do so, but it will happen, thats just the way it is.
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment is
ed up[/QUOTE]When you find a single program (government or otherwise) which is perfect, let us know. Human beings will take advantage of things, you can make it harder to do so, but it will happen, thats just the way it is.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']when i've known about a dozen people to receive unemployment benefits and zero who have needed it, you're gonna have trouble convincing me any sort of majority on unemployment should rightfully be there
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment ised up[/QUOTE]
Were the people denied unemployment working before they applied for unemployment?
Are they receiving unemployment benefits greater than the state arbitrarily calculates for them?
it's far too easy to get benefits... my roommate actually volunteers with a law firm that helps people who were denied unemployment get the benefits and her stories don't raise my opinion of the system any
bunning's still a dick but unemployment is
ed up[/QUOTE]Were the people denied unemployment working before they applied for unemployment?
Are they receiving unemployment benefits greater than the state arbitrarily calculates for them?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html
In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.
In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We should adopt the Danish system of unemployment.
Watch out, folks, that might mean your taxes would increase. Boo-to-the-hoo.
Watch out, folks, that might mean your taxes would increase. Boo-to-the-hoo.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
KRUGMAN BURNSZ!!!11
However, the Senator Kyl is completely right. Extending unemployment benefits removes a person's incentive to accept a lower paying job. If we weren't paying people a return on the unemployment insurance they may have been paying into for several years, we could be dropping more bombs.
Who knows? We might be able to afford a war with Iran if we stopped unemployment altogether.
However, the Senator Kyl is completely right. Extending unemployment benefits removes a person's incentive to accept a lower paying job. If we weren't paying people a return on the unemployment insurance they may have been paying into for several years, we could be dropping more bombs.
Who knows? We might be able to afford a war with Iran if we stopped unemployment altogether.
[quote name='Msut77']I would say with employment opportunities as shitty as they are now most people on unemployment are legit.[/QUOTE]
that's exactly the problem, shitty opportunities != no opportunities, too few self-entitleds realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or something
too many lazyers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.
that's exactly the problem, shitty opportunities != no opportunities, too few self-entitled
s realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or somethingtoo many lazy
ers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']that's exactly the problem, shitty opportunities != no opportunities, too few self-entitled s realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or something
too many lazyers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha apparently Koggit became a card-carrying Republican. Actually no, even Republicans aren't that far off base, the guy is in Bunning territory.
Let them eat cake, eh mon ami?
s realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or somethingtoo many lazy
ers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.[/QUOTE]Hahaha apparently Koggit became a card-carrying Republican. Actually no, even Republicans aren't that far off base, the guy is in Bunning territory.
Let them eat cake, eh mon ami?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']dont fret, i'm still a communist[/QUOTE]
Oh, in that case Krugman still loves ya
Oh, in that case Krugman still loves ya
[quote name='Koggit']that's exactly the problem, shitty opportunities != no opportunities, too few self-entitled s realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or something
too many lazyers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.[/QUOTE]
kogg, I love you man but if you think that shit like "you should be killing someone for their minimum wage burger flipping job" flies I don't know what to tell you.
s realize that, flip burgers or bag groceries or somethingtoo many lazy
ers think they deserve more than they do, only the best can get their ideal jobs, everyone else has to settle. americans are ed in the head and unemployment is just a cushion allowing them to hold out for positions they don't deserve. bitches need to learn to settle.[/QUOTE]kogg, I love you man but if you think that shit like "you should be killing someone for their minimum wage burger flipping job" flies I don't know what to tell you.
i dont get what you mean by killing someone
look i know i troll a lot but this is a case in which i honestly do not understand the objection to what i wrote. all i'm really saying is (a) i believe there is a large number of people on unemployment who could and would find work if unemployment benefits were not available to them and, as a result, (b) i believe claiming bunning is screwing over 400,000 is an exaggeration. that's the extent of everything i said, and i honestly find it surprising that many would disagree.
if i were in charge i wouldn't do away with unemployment, i'd just make it much more difficult to receive benefits. to go into detail, i'd immediately do away with "apply three places a week" -- i'd raise that number significantly, to perhaps 10, though i'd leave it up the welfare department reviewing the application to take location into consideration (10 would be unreasonable for people in tiny rural areas), and i'd have someone reviewing the person's applications to make sure the applications were reasonable. bitches reasonably have about 12 hours a day they could be putting into their job hunt. very very very few are. i'd go further and say those who can't find jobs should be developing skills. instead of watching How I Met Your Mother right now, my slacker unemployed roommate could be learning how to program and putting an ad in craigslist to do software or web development. mowing lawns. whatever.
i'm getting super off topic. but one last thing, with the amount of money saved (and the increase in tax revenue due to increased GDP from our workforce increasing 10% with no change to national expense) i'd fund workshops at libraries, like we have for foreigners to learn english, to help people craft their resumes/cover letters and find jobs that fit their qualifications.
in the very immediate future, yeah, it'd be bumpy path, wages would lower, but then opportunities would increase because people could afford more labor (more startups surviving, other businesses expanding, etc) which raises the number of jobs in line with the size of the workforce and wages level out again. and wage wouldnt even be important because the lack of the unemployment cushion would hopefully erase the self-entitled mindset of many americans, maybe if the dad flipped burgers at mcdonalds then the son wouldn't have such a low opinion of food service jobs. i guarantee you for every american that rolls their eyes at the thought of flipping burgers there are 100 people somewhere on this big rock that would love to live in america and get paid a few american dollars every hour just for standing around and moving food. there's nothing sad about people taking that job. i wouldn't feel guilty at all even if the millions currently on unemployment all ended up in jobs that are "shitty" by american standards, because they're still among the cushiest by world standards.
i ramble a lot, in the end, i dont really care what happens, but put motherers to work.
i'm kinda drunk so maybe i'll want to take not 100% responsibility for the stuff i'm writing right now, i reserve that right for now, but i'm actually pretty sure this is how i always feel sober too
look i know i troll a lot but this is a case in which i honestly do not understand the objection to what i wrote. all i'm really saying is (a) i believe there is a large number of people on unemployment who could and would find work if unemployment benefits were not available to them and, as a result, (b) i believe claiming bunning is screwing over 400,000 is an exaggeration. that's the extent of everything i said, and i honestly find it surprising that many would disagree.
if i were in charge i wouldn't do away with unemployment, i'd just make it much more difficult to receive benefits. to go into detail, i'd immediately do away with "apply three places a week" -- i'd raise that number significantly, to perhaps 10, though i'd leave it up the welfare department reviewing the application to take location into consideration (10 would be unreasonable for people in tiny rural areas), and i'd have someone reviewing the person's applications to make sure the applications were reasonable. bitches reasonably have about 12 hours a day they could be putting into their job hunt. very very very few are. i'd go further and say those who can't find jobs should be developing skills. instead of watching How I Met Your Mother right now, my slacker unemployed roommate could be learning how to program and putting an ad in craigslist to do software or web development. mowing lawns. whatever.
i'm getting super off topic. but one last thing, with the amount of money saved (and the increase in tax revenue due to increased GDP from our workforce increasing 10% with no change to national expense) i'd fund workshops at libraries, like we have for foreigners to learn english, to help people craft their resumes/cover letters and find jobs that fit their qualifications.
in the very immediate future, yeah, it'd be bumpy path, wages would lower, but then opportunities would increase because people could afford more labor (more startups surviving, other businesses expanding, etc) which raises the number of jobs in line with the size of the workforce and wages level out again. and wage wouldnt even be important because the lack of the unemployment cushion would hopefully erase the self-entitled mindset of many americans, maybe if the dad flipped burgers at mcdonalds then the son wouldn't have such a low opinion of food service jobs. i guarantee you for every american that rolls their eyes at the thought of flipping burgers there are 100 people somewhere on this big rock that would love to live in america and get paid a few american dollars every hour just for standing around and moving food. there's nothing sad about people taking that job. i wouldn't feel guilty at all even if the millions currently on unemployment all ended up in jobs that are "shitty" by american standards, because they're still among the cushiest by world standards.
i ramble a lot, in the end, i dont really care what happens, but put mother
ers to work.i'm kinda drunk so maybe i'll want to take not 100% responsibility for the stuff i'm writing right now, i reserve that right for now, but i'm actually pretty sure this is how i always feel sober too
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']i dont get what you mean by killing someone
look i know i troll a lot but this is a case in which i honestly do not understand the objection to what i wrote. all i'm really saying is (a) i believe there is a large number of people on unemployment who could and would find work if unemployment benefits were not available to them and, as a result, (b) i believe claiming bunning is screwing over 400,000 is an exaggeration. that's the extent of everything i said, and i honestly find it surprising that many would disagree.
if i were in charge i wouldn't do away with unemployment, i'd just make it much more difficult to receive benefits. to go into detail, i'd immediately do away with "apply three places a week" -- i'd raise that number significantly, to perhaps 10, though i'd leave it up the welfare department reviewing the application to take location into consideration (10 would be unreasonable for people in tiny rural areas), and i'd have someone reviewing the person's applications to make sure the applications were reasonable. bitches reasonably have about 12 hours a day they could be putting into their job hunt. very very very few are. i'd go further and say those who can't find jobs should be developing skills. instead of watching How I Met Your Mother right now, my slacker unemployed roommate could be learning how to program and putting an ad in craigslist to do software or web development. mowing lawns. whatever.
i'm getting super off topic. but one last thing, with the amount of money saved (and the increase in tax revenue due to increased GDP from our workforce increasing 10% with no change to national expense) i'd fund workshops at libraries, like we have for foreigners to learn english, to help people craft their resumes/cover letters and find jobs that fit their qualifications.
in the very immediate future, yeah, it'd be bumpy path, wages would lower, but then opportunities would increase because people could afford more labor (more startups surviving, other businesses expanding, etc) which raises the number of jobs in line with the size of the workforce and wages level out again. and wage wouldnt even be important because the lack of the unemployment cushion would hopefully erase the self-entitled mindset of many americans, maybe if the dad flipped burgers at mcdonalds then the son wouldn't have such a low opinion of food service jobs. i guarantee you for every american that rolls their eyes at the thought of flipping burgers there are 100 people somewhere on this big rock that would love to live in america and get paid a few american dollars every hour just for standing around and moving food. there's nothing sad about people taking that job. i wouldn't feel guilty at all even if the millions currently on unemployment all ended up in jobs that are "shitty" by american standards, because they're still among the cushiest by world standards.
i ramble a lot, in the end, i dont really care what happens, but put motherers to work.
i'm kinda drunk so maybe i'll want to take not 100% responsibility for the stuff i'm writing right now, i reserve that right for now, but i'm actually pretty sure this is how i always feel sober too[/QUOTE]
Nice little disclaimer at the end. Enjoy your drunken haze in your subsidized college dorm room as you opine on how grateful the working man should feel to be afforded the opportunity to compete with migrant workers for a job from a guy who might die from laughter if anyone suggested he read a book about the virtues of fair value and fair trade.
look i know i troll a lot but this is a case in which i honestly do not understand the objection to what i wrote. all i'm really saying is (a) i believe there is a large number of people on unemployment who could and would find work if unemployment benefits were not available to them and, as a result, (b) i believe claiming bunning is screwing over 400,000 is an exaggeration. that's the extent of everything i said, and i honestly find it surprising that many would disagree.
if i were in charge i wouldn't do away with unemployment, i'd just make it much more difficult to receive benefits. to go into detail, i'd immediately do away with "apply three places a week" -- i'd raise that number significantly, to perhaps 10, though i'd leave it up the welfare department reviewing the application to take location into consideration (10 would be unreasonable for people in tiny rural areas), and i'd have someone reviewing the person's applications to make sure the applications were reasonable. bitches reasonably have about 12 hours a day they could be putting into their job hunt. very very very few are. i'd go further and say those who can't find jobs should be developing skills. instead of watching How I Met Your Mother right now, my slacker unemployed roommate could be learning how to program and putting an ad in craigslist to do software or web development. mowing lawns. whatever.
i'm getting super off topic. but one last thing, with the amount of money saved (and the increase in tax revenue due to increased GDP from our workforce increasing 10% with no change to national expense) i'd fund workshops at libraries, like we have for foreigners to learn english, to help people craft their resumes/cover letters and find jobs that fit their qualifications.
in the very immediate future, yeah, it'd be bumpy path, wages would lower, but then opportunities would increase because people could afford more labor (more startups surviving, other businesses expanding, etc) which raises the number of jobs in line with the size of the workforce and wages level out again. and wage wouldnt even be important because the lack of the unemployment cushion would hopefully erase the self-entitled mindset of many americans, maybe if the dad flipped burgers at mcdonalds then the son wouldn't have such a low opinion of food service jobs. i guarantee you for every american that rolls their eyes at the thought of flipping burgers there are 100 people somewhere on this big rock that would love to live in america and get paid a few american dollars every hour just for standing around and moving food. there's nothing sad about people taking that job. i wouldn't feel guilty at all even if the millions currently on unemployment all ended up in jobs that are "shitty" by american standards, because they're still among the cushiest by world standards.
i ramble a lot, in the end, i dont really care what happens, but put mother
ers to work.i'm kinda drunk so maybe i'll want to take not 100% responsibility for the stuff i'm writing right now, i reserve that right for now, but i'm actually pretty sure this is how i always feel sober too[/QUOTE]
Nice little disclaimer at the end. Enjoy your drunken haze in your subsidized college dorm room as you opine on how grateful the working man should feel to be afforded the opportunity to compete with migrant workers for a job from a guy who might die from laughter if anyone suggested he read a book about the virtues of fair value and fair trade.
One time I went to a Wendy's and this white bald dude preparing food was making fun of this other mexican dude who worked there. Clearly the mexican dude didn't understand what he was saying because white dude was staying stuff like 'dont you dare try to take my job jose, i do mah job better than anyone else here, ya ain't takin my job'
I went back there a few times later that month, white dude was gone. mexican dude still there.
I went back there a few times later that month, white dude was gone. mexican dude still there.
Instead of State mandated, employer paid premiums, employees should be forced to pay for their own unemployment insurance - out of pocket. Not only does this relax the burden on the employer to begin with and allow him to pay a higher wage, but it makes the employee responsible for his own choice of action or inaction. There is no reason the government needs to be in the business of funding unemployment insurance in the first place.
Those of you who think that a majority of unemployed are deserving of it and not gaming the system are self-deluded. You probably know a few individuals, at most, who are in the program. I know far many more people who are exactly as described - people who are above bagging groceries and waiting for something else to come along that will support their lifestyle.
In a free society, we do what must be done in order to eat and feed our family. In a free society, we can't rely on someone else to take care of us and pay our cable bill while we wait for another job to come along. Sometimes we even need to - GASP - work more than 40 hours to do that. Sometimes 50. Sometimes 60. I know, I know, that's just un-American, slave laborous, cruel and unusual, out-of-touch, tortuous expectation of a man. But, fish gotta swim, bird gotta eat.
Those of you who think that a majority of unemployed are deserving of it and not gaming the system are self-deluded. You probably know a few individuals, at most, who are in the program. I know far many more people who are exactly as described - people who are above bagging groceries and waiting for something else to come along that will support their lifestyle.
In a free society, we do what must be done in order to eat and feed our family. In a free society, we can't rely on someone else to take care of us and pay our cable bill while we wait for another job to come along. Sometimes we even need to - GASP - work more than 40 hours to do that. Sometimes 50. Sometimes 60. I know, I know, that's just un-American, slave laborous, cruel and unusual, out-of-touch, tortuous expectation of a man. But, fish gotta swim, bird gotta eat.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Nice little disclaimer at the end. Enjoy your drunken haze in your subsidized college dorm room as you opine on how grateful the working man should feel to be afforded the opportunity to compete with migrant workers for a job from a guy who might die from laughter if anyone suggested he read a book about the virtues of fair value and fair trade.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if he is still smoking pot.
Back when I was in college, I had an idea that prisoners should be given a dollar value for their crimes: an actual value to the adage of "debt to society".
If you murdered somebody, you had to pay the remainder of that person's earnings or sit in prison with certain amount of money being paid every day you were incarcerated. If you stole somebody, the value of the car. Etc, etc.
I wasn't drinking or smoking pot, but I guess I can still use my youth as an excuse.
Let's examine the merits of Koggit's idea.
OK.
Ten applications a week? Let's have the unemployment office link directly through careerbuilder or any other jobs website. I apply for a job. It gets CCed to my case worker. I'm done in a hour. Give me mying check. Why stop at 10 applications? Let's make it 400. 40 hours, right? Of course, we have to hire three case workers for every unemployed person.
Learning new skills? Once a person leaves college, an employer looks at experience more than education or skills. Nobody tells students this in college because students may not want to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on skills they can't turn into a job. I could pick up a plethora of programming skills. Let's pretend the tools and equipment to practice and to master a skill are free. However, any worthwhile skill will have some sort certification behind it to verify skill level. Those cost money. Money the person learning the skill doesn't have.
Let's run through this example. I'm unemployed and I'm going to learn PHP. I've never had a job using PHP before.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/Jobsee...known;SS=NO;TITL=0;JQT=RAD;JDV=False&IPath=PL
Here are the results for PHP within 30 miles of my zip code.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8F5PK6B0YLZ9X0VX9P
"Advanced knowledge of PhotoShop and HTML required. Training in using Flash or similar programs preferred."
Oh, wait. I only learned PHP. Now, I have to train in Photoshop and Flash.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3H7JC6P16GX9770RF0
"
Experience with MVC Framework
Experience developing, designing and maintaining test processes
BS in computer science or relevant experience a plus
Excellent communication skills"
Now, I have to train in MVC Framework and get experience in it and somehow get experience as being a software tester.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3I8HF6KTB9Z7GNQQZF
Oh, it has nothing to do with PHP. PHP was in the application form's address.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3F2ZQ68BX54BVCPPKX
Back on track, right?
"4-5 years developing web-based and/or windows applications" and lots of other stuff I won't have just by learning PHP.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8A2CQ61RB9GF5R8PMD
"At least two years PHP/MySQL development, including object-oriented PHP programming, 3+ years web development experience preferred"
Well, I didn't learn MySQL and I certainly didn't gain 2-3 years of experience during the learning process.
So, I'm no better off.
Putting skills up on craigslist? The people on craigslist aren't looking for web development. If there is an ad on craigslist looking for a web developer, they don't know what web development is, they won't pay for what they want and they probably wouldn't recognize a completed product. If I saw an ad on craigslist, I wouldn't use at it because I know the person offering the product would be bottom rung.
Mowing lawns? Great idea. We just got the snow off of the ground last week. Highs are starting to reach the 50s with overnight lows still below freezing. Come back in a month for $10 assuming I'm too lazy to use the lawnmower I bought on clearance last month.
Tapping into some reservoir of unfilled labor? Yeah, we got 11 million Mexicans for that and it's usually illegal in some way or another.
Let's see if somebody will polish this "I'll fix unemployment real good" idea.
I wonder if he is still smoking pot.
Back when I was in college, I had an idea that prisoners should be given a dollar value for their crimes: an actual value to the adage of "debt to society".
If you murdered somebody, you had to pay the remainder of that person's earnings or sit in prison with certain amount of money being paid every day you were incarcerated. If you stole somebody, the value of the car. Etc, etc.
I wasn't drinking or smoking pot, but I guess I can still use my youth as an excuse.
Let's examine the merits of Koggit's idea.
OK.
Ten applications a week? Let's have the unemployment office link directly through careerbuilder or any other jobs website. I apply for a job. It gets CCed to my case worker. I'm done in a hour. Give me my
ing check. Why stop at 10 applications? Let's make it 400. 40 hours, right? Of course, we have to hire three case workers for every unemployed person.Learning new skills? Once a person leaves college, an employer looks at experience more than education or skills. Nobody tells students this in college because students may not want to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on skills they can't turn into a job. I could pick up a plethora of programming skills. Let's pretend the tools and equipment to practice and to master a skill are free. However, any worthwhile skill will have some sort certification behind it to verify skill level. Those cost money. Money the person learning the skill doesn't have.
Let's run through this example. I'm unemployed and I'm going to learn PHP. I've never had a job using PHP before.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/Jobsee...known;SS=NO;TITL=0;JQT=RAD;JDV=False&IPath=PL
Here are the results for PHP within 30 miles of my zip code.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8F5PK6B0YLZ9X0VX9P
"Advanced knowledge of PhotoShop and HTML required. Training in using Flash or similar programs preferred."
Oh, wait. I only learned PHP. Now, I have to train in Photoshop and Flash.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3H7JC6P16GX9770RF0
"
Experience with MVC Framework
Experience developing, designing and maintaining test processes
BS in computer science or relevant experience a plus
Excellent communication skills"
Now, I have to train in MVC Framework and get experience in it and somehow get experience as being a software tester.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3I8HF6KTB9Z7GNQQZF
Oh, it has nothing to do with PHP. PHP was in the application form's address.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3F2ZQ68BX54BVCPPKX
Back on track, right?
"4-5 years developing web-based and/or windows applications" and lots of other stuff I won't have just by learning PHP.
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8A2CQ61RB9GF5R8PMD
"At least two years PHP/MySQL development, including object-oriented PHP programming, 3+ years web development experience preferred"
Well, I didn't learn MySQL and I certainly didn't gain 2-3 years of experience during the learning process.
So, I'm no better off.
Putting skills up on craigslist? The people on craigslist aren't looking for web development. If there is an ad on craigslist looking for a web developer, they don't know what web development is, they won't pay for what they want and they probably wouldn't recognize a completed product. If I saw an ad on craigslist, I wouldn't use at it because I know the person offering the product would be bottom rung.
Mowing lawns? Great idea. We just got the snow off of the ground last week. Highs are starting to reach the 50s with overnight lows still below freezing. Come back in a month for $10 assuming I'm too lazy to use the lawnmower I bought on clearance last month.
Tapping into some reservoir of unfilled labor? Yeah, we got 11 million Mexicans for that and it's usually illegal in some way or another.
Let's see if somebody will polish this "I'll fix unemployment real good" idea.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Instead of State mandated, employer paid premiums, employees should be forced to pay for their own unemployment insurance - out of pocket. Not only does this relax the burden on the employer to begin with and allow him to pay a higher wage, but it makes the employee responsible for his own choice of action or inaction. There is no reason the government needs to be in the business of funding unemployment insurance in the first place. [/QUOTE]
So, we need to have a free market of unemployment insurance?
Exactly how will State Farm do a better job providing unemployment insurance than Big Brother?
What are your thoughts on bankruptcy?
So, we need to have a free market of unemployment insurance?
Exactly how will State Farm do a better job providing unemployment insurance than Big Brother?
What are your thoughts on bankruptcy?
As of right now, I know of several people with Bachelor degrees working jobs where the only requirement is a green card (not even high school), I know people with Masters working at jobs only requiring a high school diploma and paid accordingly.
God help those with only high school or GED or not even that.
God help those with only high school or GED or not even that.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']One time I went to a Wendy's and this white bald dude preparing food was making fun of this other mexican dude who worked there. Clearly the mexican dude didn't understand what he was saying because white dude was staying stuff like 'dont you dare try to take my job jose, i do mah job better than anyone else here, ya ain't takin my job'
I went back there a few times later that month, white dude was gone. mexican dude still there.[/QUOTE]
I don't want my post to come off as some kind of ugly 'Mercan way of thinking. Everyone deserves a fair wage for the work they do, whether they live in Peoria, IL or a sub-saharan African nation.
The real moral crime in hiring illegals is that they are not protected by even the pitiful US labor legislation, consequently they are treated poorly and their employers do not pay due taxes.
Also LOL at all the "I know someone gaming the system" responses. So because koggit and bmuls hang out with crooks the system is broken? Give me a break, given their posts I'd expect them to hang out with a morally dubious crowd, doesn't mean the majority of people think or act that way.
FOC as far as I'm concerned you stated it beautifully.
I went back there a few times later that month, white dude was gone. mexican dude still there.[/QUOTE]
I don't want my post to come off as some kind of ugly 'Mercan way of thinking. Everyone deserves a fair wage for the work they do, whether they live in Peoria, IL or a sub-saharan African nation.
The real moral crime in hiring illegals is that they are not protected by even the pitiful US labor legislation, consequently they are treated poorly and their employers do not pay due taxes.
Also LOL at all the "I know someone gaming the system" responses. So because koggit and bmuls hang out with crooks the system is broken? Give me a break, given their posts I'd expect them to hang out with a morally dubious crowd, doesn't mean the majority of people think or act that way.
FOC as far as I'm concerned you stated it beautifully.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'](1) I wonder if he is still smoking pot.
(1) I wasn't drinking or smoking pot, but I guess I can still use my youth as an excuse.
(2) Ten applications a week? I'm done in a hour. Give me mying check.
(3) Learning new skills? an employer looks at...
(4)
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8F5PK6B0YLZ9X0VX9P
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3H7JC6P16GX9770RF0
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3I8HF6KTB9Z7GNQQZF
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3F2ZQ68BX54BVCPPKX
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8A2CQ61RB9GF5R8PMD
(5) Putting skills up on craigslist? they don't know what web development is, they won't pay for what they want and they probably wouldn't recognize a completed product
(6) Mowing lawns? We just got the snow off of the ground last week. Come back in a month for $10 assuming I'm too lazy to use the lawnmower I bought on clearance last month.[/QUOTE]
(1) You're not the only one guilty of this, but you're the only one i'm bothering to quote so this will seem directed to you: it'sed up that people go ad hominem based on what substances i choose to put in my body in my free time. the only way that would be in any way relevant is if it were evidence of hypocrisy, but it's not, it says nothing of my work ethic, just how i spend my free time. i spend about twice as much time per week on my academics as most people do on their job, and as a result, am in the top 10% of one of the top ten CSE programs in the world. pretty sure i'm a productive member of society. i don't understand how "lol, drunk" or "oh no he gets high sometimes" dismisses any of the valid points i made. if anything the fact that you have to fall back to attacking the drugs i choose to use just shows how valid my points are and how unpleasant it is to address them. can't defeat the argument? attack the person presenting it, even if irrelevant, eh. classy. if kyl admitted to smoking pot would that, too, somehow detract from his point that unemployment is disincentive to find work?
(2) i said a case worker would be reviewing the apps and using their judgment to determine whether or not they're legit, i just threw out 10 as an example of an acceptable number because "more than 3" is pretty vague. the apps should be CC'd to the case worker, and it would be left to the case worker's discretion to determine whether or not it was a reasonable application for a job they were suited for. i dont see the problem with this.
(3) i dont give a shit what employers look at, when i mentioned learning a skill it was in the context of "if you can't find an employer, employ yourself". my point was everyone can do something -- for programming, write an iphone app, build a website and throw adsense on it, do freelance database work, or even work on an open source project just to strengthen your resume (and the resume doesn't even have to be tech oriented -- it'll strengthen any resume). i'll come back to this in #5.
(4) it's telling that you're still discussing cushy indoor desk jobs that pay $40k+ a year and have benefits. justed up, actually. proves you've understood nothing of how i believe things should be. you get $40k a year when you contribute to society something worth $40k a year. people like my unemployed roommate are not worth $40k a year, that's just the fact of the situation. it's tough to accept for people like him. it's hard for many people to accept. he doesn't wanna hear "you, with your work ethic, skill set, and intelligence, are worth about $7/hr" people just dont wanna hear that, they dont wanna accept it, so they hold out for shit like you're posting when they should just be sucking it up and taking what they can get. unemployment needs to be for people who cant get anything and everyone else needs to settle. not everyone can have cushy indoor $40k/yr jobs. like i said, choosing your job is only for the best, everyone else needs to settle. other countries (without such cushy unemployment programs) seem to have less of a problem understanding this.
(5) i guarantee if you put an ad on craigslist for database work you'll get some hits. everyone needs database work done. but, again, you dont need someone else to pay you, whatever it is they wanna pay you for you can likely do yourself for more profit. someone has a game idea and they wanna pay you to develop it as an iphone app? well the middle man, come up with your own game idea and get to coding. etc. even if you're just applying to bag groceries at safeway, i guarantee two identical resumes on which one lists a big gap in employment and another lists self-employed software developer, the one who spent their free time coding is gonna get the job because it shows, if nothing else, they spend their time productively instead of sitting on their ass.
(6) seriously pathetic excuse. wash cars, clean gutters, clean fish tanks, go fishing, go hunting, paint buildings, walk dogs. knit a sweater and sell it on ebay. even mying grandma makes rosaries and sells them on ebay, and it's developed into a nice stream of income for her. again this is for the downtime while NOT job hunting. spending 40 hours a week on the job hunt? i ing doubt it, but if that's the case then spend the other 30-40 extra hours you have conscious doing something, ANYTHING, productive. it's not my job to create a list of productive shit for slackers to do, sorry.
summary: almost everyone can get something, people need to take what they can get. even the worst jobs in america are pretty damn cushy. the problem is people think they need 40k/yr and their own cubicle. they think they need to make enough money so that they're the only one in their family who has to work. it's alled up. that's not how shit should be. people should be working. people should be taking what they could get. the worth of a person is defined by what you can get. can't get $40k a year? if that person were worth 40k/yr they'd be able to find someone who'd pay it, so they're obviously worth less. if you can only get a job flipping burgers, guess what, you're worth $7/hr to society. suck it up. it's not that bad, most people outside of america would love to switch places with that person, yet the american refuses to accept such a job and instead claims they can't find work. it's just ed up.
(1) I wasn't drinking or smoking pot, but I guess I can still use my youth as an excuse.
(2) Ten applications a week? I'm done in a hour. Give me my
ing check.(3) Learning new skills? an employer looks at...
(4)
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8F5PK6B0YLZ9X0VX9P
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3H7JC6P16GX9770RF0
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3I8HF6KTB9Z7GNQQZF
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J3F2ZQ68BX54BVCPPKX
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSee...&APath=2.21.0.0.0&job_did=J8A2CQ61RB9GF5R8PMD
(5) Putting skills up on craigslist? they don't know what web development is, they won't pay for what they want and they probably wouldn't recognize a completed product
(6) Mowing lawns? We just got the snow off of the ground last week. Come back in a month for $10 assuming I'm too lazy to use the lawnmower I bought on clearance last month.[/QUOTE]
(1) You're not the only one guilty of this, but you're the only one i'm bothering to quote so this will seem directed to you: it's
ed up that people go ad hominem based on what substances i choose to put in my body in my free time. the only way that would be in any way relevant is if it were evidence of hypocrisy, but it's not, it says nothing of my work ethic, just how i spend my free time. i spend about twice as much time per week on my academics as most people do on their job, and as a result, am in the top 10% of one of the top ten CSE programs in the world. pretty sure i'm a productive member of society. i don't understand how "lol, drunk" or "oh no he gets high sometimes" dismisses any of the valid points i made. if anything the fact that you have to fall back to attacking the drugs i choose to use just shows how valid my points are and how unpleasant it is to address them. can't defeat the argument? attack the person presenting it, even if irrelevant, eh. classy. if kyl admitted to smoking pot would that, too, somehow detract from his point that unemployment is disincentive to find work?(2) i said a case worker would be reviewing the apps and using their judgment to determine whether or not they're legit, i just threw out 10 as an example of an acceptable number because "more than 3" is pretty vague. the apps should be CC'd to the case worker, and it would be left to the case worker's discretion to determine whether or not it was a reasonable application for a job they were suited for. i dont see the problem with this.
(3) i dont give a shit what employers look at, when i mentioned learning a skill it was in the context of "if you can't find an employer, employ yourself". my point was everyone can do something -- for programming, write an iphone app, build a website and throw adsense on it, do freelance database work, or even work on an open source project just to strengthen your resume (and the resume doesn't even have to be tech oriented -- it'll strengthen any resume). i'll come back to this in #5.
(4) it's telling that you're still discussing cushy indoor desk jobs that pay $40k+ a year and have benefits. just
ed up, actually. proves you've understood nothing of how i believe things should be. you get $40k a year when you contribute to society something worth $40k a year. people like my unemployed roommate are not worth $40k a year, that's just the fact of the situation. it's tough to accept for people like him. it's hard for many people to accept. he doesn't wanna hear "you, with your work ethic, skill set, and intelligence, are worth about $7/hr" people just dont wanna hear that, they dont wanna accept it, so they hold out for shit like you're posting when they should just be sucking it up and taking what they can get. unemployment needs to be for people who cant get anything and everyone else needs to settle. not everyone can have cushy indoor $40k/yr jobs. like i said, choosing your job is only for the best, everyone else needs to settle. other countries (without such cushy unemployment programs) seem to have less of a problem understanding this.(5) i guarantee if you put an ad on craigslist for database work you'll get some hits. everyone needs database work done. but, again, you dont need someone else to pay you, whatever it is they wanna pay you for you can likely do yourself for more profit. someone has a game idea and they wanna pay you to develop it as an iphone app? well
the middle man, come up with your own game idea and get to coding. etc. even if you're just applying to bag groceries at safeway, i guarantee two identical resumes on which one lists a big gap in employment and another lists self-employed software developer, the one who spent their free time coding is gonna get the job because it shows, if nothing else, they spend their time productively instead of sitting on their ass.(6) seriously pathetic excuse. wash cars, clean gutters, clean fish tanks, go fishing, go hunting, paint buildings, walk dogs. knit a sweater and sell it on ebay. even my
ing grandma makes rosaries and sells them on ebay, and it's developed into a nice stream of income for her. again this is for the downtime while NOT job hunting. spending 40 hours a week on the job hunt? i ing doubt it, but if that's the case then spend the other 30-40 extra hours you have conscious doing something, ANYTHING, productive. it's not my job to create a list of productive shit for slackers to do, sorry.summary: almost everyone can get something, people need to take what they can get. even the worst jobs in america are pretty damn cushy. the problem is people think they need 40k/yr and their own cubicle. they think they need to make enough money so that they're the only one in their family who has to work. it's all
ed up. that's not how shit should be. people should be working. people should be taking what they could get. the worth of a person is defined by what you can get. can't get $40k a year? if that person were worth 40k/yr they'd be able to find someone who'd pay it, so they're obviously worth less. if you can only get a job flipping burgers, guess what, you're worth $7/hr to society. suck it up. it's not that bad, most people outside of america would love to switch places with that person, yet the american refuses to accept such a job and instead claims they can't find work. it's just ed up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']i all i'm really saying is (a) i believe there is a large number of people on unemployment who could and would find work if unemployment benefits were not available to them[/QUOTE]
I'm sure we all know people that fit into that and there are probably some among us right now.
I'm sure we all know people that fit into that and there are probably some among us right now.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']summary: almost everyone can get something, people need to take what they can get. even the worst jobs in america are pretty damn cushy. the problem is people think they need 40k/yr and their own cubicle. they think they need to make enough money so that they're the only one in their family who has to work. it's all ed up. that's not how shit should be. people should be working. people should be taking what they could get. the worth of a person is defined by what you can get. can't get $40k a year? if that person were worth 40k/yr they'd be able to find someone who'd pay it, so they're obviously worth less. if you can only get a job flipping burgers, guess what, you're worth $7/hr to society. suck it up. it's not that bad, most people outside of america would love to switch places with that person, yet the american refuses to accept such a job and instead claims they can't find work. it's just ed up.[/QUOTE]
You talk alot of shit for someone who's never actually been out in the real world, let alone understanding what it's like for a blue-collar worker in modern day America.
You think a boss is going to pay an employee a certain salary because that's actually what he's worth? You believe the Republican mythology that we still live in a pure capitalistic society and not a corporatocracy? You think industry leaders don't collude with each other to keep wages low? Just because today your school makes you feel like a programming superstar, don't think it can't happen to you.
To me, people like you and Bmulligan are worse then the vast majority of tea baggers and Sarah Palin supporters because you have a brain you just choose not to think. At least you have the excuse that you are young, naive, and busier killing brain cells then using them.
ed up. that's not how shit should be. people should be working. people should be taking what they could get. the worth of a person is defined by what you can get. can't get $40k a year? if that person were worth 40k/yr they'd be able to find someone who'd pay it, so they're obviously worth less. if you can only get a job flipping burgers, guess what, you're worth $7/hr to society. suck it up. it's not that bad, most people outside of america would love to switch places with that person, yet the american refuses to accept such a job and instead claims they can't find work. it's just ed up.[/QUOTE]You talk alot of shit for someone who's never actually been out in the real world, let alone understanding what it's like for a blue-collar worker in modern day America.
You think a boss is going to pay an employee a certain salary because that's actually what he's worth? You believe the Republican mythology that we still live in a pure capitalistic society and not a corporatocracy? You think industry leaders don't collude with each other to keep wages low? Just because today your school makes you feel like a programming superstar, don't think it can't happen to you.
To me, people like you and Bmulligan are worse then the vast majority of tea baggers and Sarah Palin supporters because you have a brain you just choose not to think. At least you have the excuse that you are young, naive, and busier killing brain cells then using them.
more cordially, i'll clarify: your assumptions about me are baseless and inaccurate. i would go into greater detail about myself and specify how your assumptions are inaccurate, but that would just shift more focus onto me when the argument isn't about me. besides, i've posted my story on CAG several times before, look at my past posts if you really think my background matters. or PM me if you want it re-told -- so long as it's kept separate from the argument.
now, in considering that you have no reasonable cause to make those assumptions, i can only assume that you're creating this straw-man in your mind to discredit an argument that you have difficulty considering. since you dont like my stance but can't discredit it with facts and reason, you tell yourself the author of the argument is uninformed and inexperienced, thereby convincing yourself the argument is one constructed from ignorance and therefore not worth serious consideration. if this is not the case, then instead of attacking the character of the author, refute the argument itself.
now, in considering that you have no reasonable cause to make those assumptions, i can only assume that you're creating this straw-man in your mind to discredit an argument that you have difficulty considering. since you dont like my stance but can't discredit it with facts and reason, you tell yourself the author of the argument is uninformed and inexperienced, thereby convincing yourself the argument is one constructed from ignorance and therefore not worth serious consideration. if this is not the case, then instead of attacking the character of the author, refute the argument itself.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
i'd rather see more numbers and fewer words.
the crux of the issue isn't quantifiable, it's a matter of theory and belief, i'm just frustrated that people (the left) keep dismissing the argument without addressing it (read the comments). if it's such an irrational stance it should be easy to explain why, yet noone has. let's say there's an industrial engineer who loses his job and can't find work as industrial engineer. i would just like for someone to explain to me why that person shouldn't be applying to mcdonald's.
bread's done