The Republican Saviors

[Guest]

The Republicans in Congress blocked extensions of unemployment payments so that payments will end just before Christmas and right after Christmas.:coolsmiley:

They further said they will continue to block all social welfare programs until the "Bush Era" taxcuts are made permanent to all persons making more than $250,000 a year.:a040:

The Salvation Army of Leesburg/Wildwood says there are 250 families a day are in need of hot breakfasts from Salvation Army and the schools just outside The Villages have around 73% of the students qualifiying for free or reduced lunches. These school lunches are due to be cut if Congress does not give extensions by Dec. 31.

[Guest]

The Republicans in Congress blocked extensions of unemployment payments so that payments will end just before Christmas and right after Christmas.:coolsmiley:

They further said they will continue to block all social welfare programs until the "Bush Era" taxcuts are made permanent to all persons making more than $250,000 a year.:a040:

The Salvation Army of Leesburg/Wildwood says there are 250 families a day are in need of hot breakfasts from Salvation Army and the schools just outside The Villages have around 73% of the students qualifiying for free or reduced lunches. These school lunches are due to be cut if Congress does not give extensions by Dec. 31.

Another liberal misrepresentation?

Yoda

[Guest]

Nancy Pelosi "Unemployment benefits creates jobs, tax cuts do not"

[Guest]

I'm glad the voices of the majority of the American people aren't falling on deaf ears.


Good for you Tbugs for seeking out charities and causes that you can help!!

[Guest]

The Republicans in Congress blocked extensions of unemployment payments so that payments will end just before Christmas and right after Christmas.:coolsmiley:

They further said they will continue to block all social welfare programs until the "Bush Era" taxcuts are made permanent to all persons making more than $250,000 a year.:a040:

The Salvation Army of Leesburg/Wildwood says there are 250 families a day are in need of hot breakfasts from Salvation Army and the schools just outside The Villages have around 73% of the students qualifiying for free or reduced lunches. These school lunches are due to be cut if Congress does not give extensions by Dec. 31.


I did notice that you choked on the "Bush era" taxcuts....just to clarify,they are the tax cuts that President Obama mocked during the campaign and now, while he differs on the higher income cuts, he now agrees that tax cuts might be good....go figure huh ?

HOWEVER, my point is this part of those terrible tax cuts...

"Failure by Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts
, especially locking in the 15 percent capital gains tax rate, will spark a stock market sell off starting December 15 as investors move to lock in gains at a lower rate than the 20 percent it would jump to next year, warn analysts. "

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/12/2/delaying-tax-vote-could-crash-stock-market.html

I realize that everything is about party with you, but dont you sometimes worry about our countries economy.

Your point about the Salvation Army is well taken however....you use the tactic that so many use to try and make everyone feel guilty when they do the right thing because they dont publicly talk about what is done for these organizations.

I am a nasty person from the right who opposes far left policies and I did volunteer my time and money on a regular basis to the Salvation Army and still do when time allows, so your little barb did not penetrate here,and it WAS a barb. You see, in my younger days, I was one of you, although I doubt if ever that as far left.

Using the guilt argument does not work....people of BOTH parties give money and time...people of BOTH parties care...it is not just you and not just those who support your political theories

[Guest]

No where in my original posting did I criticize either political party. I did not even mention Democrats. I merely stated that Republicans in Congress cut off unemployment benefits to millions of Americans and will continue to cut social welfare programs until the "Bush Era" tax cuts are extended permanently to all people - even the very rich Americans. I did not say this was wrong. I did not say it was the right thing to do, either. Just gave the facts.

I also reported that one of the programs that will be cut is the reduced/free school lunch program - which serves about 73% of the students in the immediate areas around The Villages.

Salvation Army is one of the best charities around. They still have need of bell ringers for their Red Kettles. Call the Leesburg office to volunteer. I am one of the bell ringers at Wal-Mart on 466.

Follow you own conscience for whatever program you champion. Hunger does not have a political party.

[Guest]

Regardless of opinion on the whole of the subject, it's unbelievable that the Democrats haven't been able to 'make hay' out of the Republican stonewalling. Obama was always in favor of keeping the tax cuts for the middle and lower class - it's the "rich" (and I use that term loosely as it means different things in different places) that he always opposed.

Of course, there's another possibility - that the Democrats are purposely allowing this to happen so that they can blame the GOP for everything when the 2012 election rolls around *and* get the "benefit" of the higher tax receipts that the non-partisan CBO say will result if *all* the tax cuts expire. The Dems are quick to point out how much the tax cuts for the wealthy will "cost" to the deficit but aren't as quick to point out how much the REST of the tax cuts would "cost" if extended.

[Guest]

What a lot of people don`t know is that this will kill small business, hundreds are going out of business every day, my small business does about 500,000 a year, and the last couple of years we managed to stay in business, by laying off people and doing away with health insurance. Our health insurance company informed us that they were going to hit us with a 50% increase, and I do beleave is was because or the new health insurance laws. I was lucky, I managed to sell my business in November and will be living full time in the Villages December 6th. I do feel sorry for anyone trying to run a small business in this economy. Small business is the largest employer in this country, where was their `bailout` and don`t say they can go to the banks (that where bailed out with our tax dollars) for a loan, the banks are NOT lending. I feel that if anything, they should some how raise the amount a small business makes before they are hit with more taxes.

[Guest]

Unemployment benefits now extend for 99 weeks or nearly two years. At some point the taxpayer needs to say 'enough'. Tbugs, I admire you for being a volunteer for the Salvation Army. There is no other charity that does so much for so little. However, I must ask if you worked steadily at it for two years, couldn't get a job working inside Wal-Mart in addition to your work as a bell ringer outside?

This is neither a Democrat or Republican issue. No one wants children to go hungry, heat to be cut off, etc. Rather, it is a question of how much can we afford and what we are doing to people by eliminating the incentive to go get a job and fend for themselves.

If you disagree, then can you tell me how long unemployment benefits should extend. They are already two years, should they extend for four years, eight years or perhaps for a lifetime?

[Guest]

Barbeque Man - I volunteer as a Salvation Army bell ringer during the Christmas holiday season. I do other volunteer work during some of my free time as a Villager. I retired from the Federal government after 36 years of work (helping veterans) at the Department of Veterans Affairs - and a few years in the Army. I do not work for money anymore. This is not bragging about myself at all. I feel very blessed by God to have done this and to be able to help others now - as well as to play golf.

How long should someone get unemployment benefits? I don't have an answer.

Is it right to punish children by cutting off their free lunches or hot breakfast programs by stalling votes in Congress? My answer is a resounding NO.

Maybe benefits should be linked to training programs as in the axiom, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him a lifetime."

[Guest]

This is a program that once upon a time was a 26 week benefit. Something to tide one over while LOOKING for a new job.
In today's entitlement environment it is now out to 2 years. So where is the logic? Once unemployed a person becomes an income "ward" of the government?
What is the incentive for these people to go out and LOOK for a job? None!! Zero!!
And I don't need to be reminded of the state of the economy and the level of unemployment (which went up again)....all I know is the people who HAVE to work, those who are not entitled to the weekly freebie wages, find some kind of work to put bread on the table.

As for Pelosi and anybody else who is drinking her koolaid, I await with baited breath for an explanation how extending unemployment benefits will create 600,000 new jobs. I believe they are using the letter of the law to have the bills they promote contains words that say increases new jobs....whether it means anything or not...as long as the words are present they feel they have done their job.

Go back to 26 unemployment and let the chips fall where they may. As afar as these other worthy programs being caught up in the usual multi purpose, cloud the issue, ram it and jam it ear mark type legislation. That is unfortunate, but certainly NOT justification to pass the bill. Quite the contrary. Maybe they will start writing stated purpose legislation....yeah right.

Ending the unemployment extension of benefits will add necessity to the equation which does not exist today. It will also cause the unemployment number to increase as these folks do start to LOOK for a job and the real unemployment number will eventually come to pass.....some where above 14%.

Proof positive that politics solves absolutely nothing and blind partisan allegiance is the lubricant that makes sure nothing changes.

btk

[Guest]

No where in my original posting did I criticize either political party. I did not even mention Democrats. I merely stated that Republicans in Congress cut off unemployment benefits to millions of Americans and will continue to cut social welfare programs until the "Bush Era" tax cuts are extended permanently to all people - even the very rich Americans. I did not say this was wrong. I did not say it was the right thing to do, either. Just gave the facts.

I also reported that one of the programs that will be cut is the reduced/free school lunch program - which serves about 73% of the students in the immediate areas around The Villages.

Salvation Army is one of the best charities around. They still have need of bell ringers for their Red Kettles. Call the Leesburg office to volunteer. I am one of the bell ringers at Wal-Mart on 466.

Follow you own conscience for whatever program you champion. Hunger does not have a political party.

I laud you as I am a great champion of the Salvation Army, however to say that your post was not political is a bit of a reach. Somewhere somehow, the line must be drawn and no matter when it is drawn, it will create angst among some groups for sure. It is inevitable or we will succumb and as Zuckerman said....it will be over !

[Guest]

Seriously??

Do some of you who like to use the term rich especially politicians on left seriously consider a small business making 250k a year rich?

Check the new Democratic playbook. The left doesn't refer to them as rich anymore. It's Millionaires and Billionaires. Guess they lump a 250k small business owner into the Millionaires and Billionaires club now.

Why is it that the government always considers our money theirs to waste as they see fit?

Doesn't matter how much money a person has earned, the government shouldn't have to right to just confiscate whatever part of their income they want whenever they want.

What's the matter with people these days anyway? Why so quick to give away other peoples money they themselves didn't earn?

Oh but they are rich so they really don't need that much anyway, let's just take a little more... and more... and more... and more.

Where has all the common sense gone?

[Guest]

I taught in a school, for years, that had free breakfast, free lunch and free afternoon milk. It was a walk-in school. The kids stopped at the local 7 - 11 and bought candy soda etc., on their way to school. They had money for all sorts of things, just not their lunch. I remember a fellow teacher saying, "Pretty soon we'll be sending doggie bags home for their dinner." Not very long ago I read that a school district was sending home food, with the students. When is enough enough?

[Guest]

I don't buy the 'tax hikes will kill small business' line FOR A MINUTE.

Why? Because taxes are on your PROFITS. If you are "breaking even", hiking your tax rate to 100% means you STILL won't pay any taxes.

Now, your EMPLOYEES will feel a pinch if you have to start deducting more from their paychecks, this is true.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

The health insurance hike? That's because of rising costs and rising demands for profits from shareholders. 50% hikes in premiums are nothing new - they pre-date "Obamacare" by some 25 years. It's just that *now* an insurance company can hit you with it and claim it's due to anticipated hikes in cost - yet inflation is still VERY low and it's not like they're covering many more people - AND they still get to kick you off when you're no longer a profit center (they just can't SAY it was because you suddenly got leukemia or some other expensive disease).

I mean, what were the excuses for the 15-40% hikes in the years prior to Obama's election? I seem to recall the same thing happened when we were threatened with "Hillarycare" (and I was working for a hospital at that time). The insurance companies hiked costs AGAIN in anticipation of the law - funny how they didn't lower rates when Hillarycare crashed and burned.

[Guest]

Yeah, I remember Al Gore's famous quote "We'll, if you make $250K per year for 4 years, you're a millionaire"

It just boggles the mind....

[Guest]

statistics:

http://www.liberoti.com/2010/02/percentage-of-past-presidents-who-worked-private-sector/

btk

[Guest]

I don't buy the 'tax hikes will kill small business' line FOR A MINUTE.

Why? Because taxes are on your PROFITS. If you are "breaking even", hiking your tax rate to 100% means you STILL won't pay any taxes.

Now, your EMPLOYEES will feel a pinch if you have to start deducting more from their paychecks, this is true.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

The health insurance hike? That's because of rising costs and rising demands for profits from shareholders. 50% hikes in premiums are nothing new - they pre-date "Obamacare" by some 25 years. It's just that *now* an insurance company can hit you with it and claim it's due to anticipated hikes in cost - yet inflation is still VERY low and it's not like they're covering many more people - AND they still get to kick you off when you're no longer a profit center (they just can't SAY it was because you suddenly got leukemia or some other expensive disease).

I mean, what were the excuses for the 15-40% hikes in the years prior to Obama's election? I seem to recall the same thing happened when we were threatened with "Hillarycare" (and I was working for a hospital at that time). The insurance companies hiked costs AGAIN in anticipation of the law - funny how they didn't lower rates when Hillarycare crashed and burned.

You can defend this health bill all you want and the President who formulated it behind closed doors and had it passed using blackmail and political tricks, but you will NEVER EVER convince me that a bill that will not lower costs and leaves that for someone else, and was unwanted by the majority of americans (why else do it behind closed doors and payoff folks for votes), that most in congress never ever read is good for this country.

Not sure what what happened prior to this fiasco called a health bill has to do with anything, but if you must.......

It sounds as if you support the continuing of what is clearly class warfare by this WH...just keep blaming the rich and passing spending bills...that will surely help.

This from Mark Halperin in Time....

"Is it hyperbolic to say the Democratic Party is in the midst of a nervous breakdown? I have been covering national politics since 1988, and I don't remember a situation quite like this. The signs of a crack-up are everywhere. Democrats still think they can somehow win a news cycle by demonizing John Boehner. Chuck Schumer goes on the Senate floor and suggests Democrats are getting the same political mileage out of "millionaires tax" that Republicans have gotten over the years from using "death tax." Politico has a story with blind quotes from Hill Democrats who are furious that the White House isn't using some sort of mythical leverage over Republicans to extract concessions in exchange for extending all the Bush tax cuts -- including continuing to try to trade for DADT and the Dream Act (rather than things dealing with jobs). Two members in good standing of the Professional Left -- moveon and the PCCC -- are spending its members' money on TV ads demanding that the president exercise this same mythical leverage to stand up to the GOP."

http://thepage.time.com/2010/12/02/donkey-doozy/

For those who may not know, the DADT that is referred to is an bill that was originally introduced early in the 2000's and re introduced and the purpose is on the surface a sound moral thing...a way to make alien's legal citizens once they do certain things...ANOTHER BILL FROM THIS WH that is purely and simply a ploy for votes ....it is again a furtherance of the blackmail they play. Now, let me make this clear...BOTH parties are guilty of doing the same kind of things over the years, but in my opinion, nowhere on the scale this WH has taken this political insertion in bills and negotiations. Check the stimulus bill, unread by anyone that was to deal with the economy and is basically a bill which is built up pork from one party (passed immediately by the WH and signed by a President who just a few weeks previously was repeating his campaign language about never signing such a bill)...of course maybe that health bill would have some teeth and address the problems if that same President has kept his promise on how this would be done.

You can defend him and the bill all you want...you can criticize people who are trying to do what needs to be done....STOP passing spending bills under some kind of disguise and I could care less what party is doing it...we cannot do it any longer.

When someone has the #$%%$ to stand up and stop it, there will the usual crying and gnashing of teeth about not caring about the poor..it is inevitable and makes for good POLITICAL theater but is just a ploy to keep spending on social programs that promise votes.

PS: I would like to add this PS to address BTK's link to those stats on Presidents and how many of the administration ever worked in private enterprise (which of course this current President is at the bottom). This man, and this is not something I have not said on this board BEFORE he was the nominee is the single MOST political candidate (I do realize how that reads, but the meaning is that this man is a career politician and that is all he knows) we have ever had and now is the single most political President we have ever had. He knows nothing but theory...it totally out of his element in leading...KNOWS NOTHING except theory about the economy and has surrounded himself with the same kind of folks.

[Guest]

I don't buy the 'tax hikes will kill small business' line FOR A MINUTE.

Why? Because taxes are on your PROFITS. If you are "breaking even", hiking your tax rate to 100% means you STILL won't pay any taxes.

Now, your EMPLOYEES will feel a pinch if you have to start deducting more from their paychecks, this is true.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

The health insurance hike? That's because of rising costs and rising demands for profits from shareholders. 50% hikes in premiums are nothing new - they pre-date "Obamacare" by some 25 years. It's just that *now* an insurance company can hit you with it and claim it's due to anticipated hikes in cost - yet inflation is still VERY low and it's not like they're covering many more people - AND they still get to kick you off when you're no longer a profit center (they just can't SAY it was because you suddenly got leukemia or some other expensive disease).

I mean, what were the excuses for the 15-40% hikes in the years prior to Obama's election? I seem to recall the same thing happened when we were threatened with "Hillarycare" (and I was working for a hospital at that time). The insurance companies hiked costs AGAIN in anticipation of the law - funny how they didn't lower rates when Hillarycare crashed and burned.

Yeah, I remember Al Gore's famous quote "We'll, if you make $250K per year for 4 years, you're a millionaire"

It just boggles the mind....

Not all small businesses are corporations, if all you do is break even, how is a business owner suppose to pay his personal bills, like food, mort., clothes, education and raise a family, that is why so many are going out of business, and in the last 5 years our health insurance cost stayed the same or went down, than they past a new health insurance bill and we get hit with a 50% increase, go figure.

[Guest]

Here are the guidelines for the USDA school lunch program. It doesn't address the USDA reimbursement for daycares or food pantries, to name a few others who receive funds to feed people.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

[Guest]

Just to clarify - I said I don't buy the "tax hikes" putting small businesses out.

The health care bill is a separate issue. My belief is that the bill is so damn complicated, and some parts don't take effect for years, the result is health insurance companies putting on ever more increases and giving whatever reason they like.

A 50% increase, on it's own, doesn't say anything. For example, when was the last premium review? If you haven't had an increase in 10 years (unlikely), then 50% isn't out of the question. If your last increase was last year, it's ludicrous.

[Guest]

medical care coverages every single year. To hypothesize that if there were none in the past X years is just that...a hypothesis to facilitate a position. However, not reflective of reality.
We the people can see absolutely nothing on the horizon to change the current trend in medical care expenses.
There is absolutely nothing in Obamacare that describes how to realistically offest any cost increases. And just verbalizing reducing medicare expense by $500 billion is a facilitating comment with NO SUBSTANCE.

Take the simple area of wheel chair and motorized chair provision by medicare which was just written up this week. Medicare pays 2 and 3 times the cost of a wheel chair to provide one....a $300 chair they pay $600. For a motorized chair costing $800-$1200 they pay $2400. This is a known practice. Acknowledged it is and has been known. What has been done about it? There has been DISCUSSION about how to "phase" into more realistic pricing over a couple of years to not upset those charging the higher prices. Just how stupid and ridiculous is this? Any AVERAGE businesman knows to stop what is being done wrong...right then and there when discovered.

The key premise is "any average businessman"....since there are non in this administration how could they possibly do anything other than political. Like take two years to phase out of gouging to allow the gouger to adjust (barf....sorry for the crudeness but there is no other appropriate icon for public mixed company!!!).

Now extrapolate this formula/modus operrndi for the real problems this WH and administration faces and understand why absolutely nothing ever gets done.

There can be no progress/improvement where there is no leadership....no accountability...no responsibility. Politicians need none of the above to survive....just ask Charlie Rangel.

btk

[Guest]

Here are some interesting thoughts to ponder this weekend and act on if you are so inclined.

Members of Congress from both parties are willing to put politics over people, no matter what the cost.

I am talking about legislation that will help all Americans, in every state. Failure of the policymakers in Washington to act for The American People will hurt the economy, the middle class and the unemployed.

Unemployment benefits should be extended for Americans “now” when they need it most. These people did not create this problem, yet those that did continue to reap huge financial rewards ignoring the needs of the middle class and those less fortunate.

Support our military and our national security. A nuclear arms agreement is critical to national security and has been supported or renewed by every U.S. president since President Reagan.

Repeal “Don't Ask, Don't Tell," legislation that prevents brave Americans from serving openly alongside their fellow troops. A repeal endorsed by top military leaders that a Pentagon study just confirmed will have no impact on readiness or morale.

Extend tax benefits for the middle class. At least for those individuals who are fortunate to earn $500,000.00 or less?
Make sure these middle-class Americans don't wake up on January 1st with higher taxes. Those making more than $500,000.00 will always find a way to pay less taxes, they always have they always will.

The middle class in this country have always paid the price, the ultimate in price in the time of war defending our freedom, financially when things get tough, when taxes go up, their pensions are taken way, benefits and their investments are reduced home values go down.

These elected officials were elected to serve all the people not just those that benefit the most by avoiding these issues. It is time for these elected officials to act on behalf of all of the American People. It is time to STOP obstructing
the fixes and start implementing something. It always easier to say NO............

[Guest]

JFLYN1:

I agree with your statement about the very rich finding more ways not to pay taxes! I worked for one of the big five accounting firms in their tax department and saw many, many tax write offs going thru for the rich. It boggled my mind!

[Guest]

Tell me what the problem is with somebody that earns their own money and wants to hang on to their own money. Please, explain what is wrong with that?

[Guest]

Just to clarify - I said I don't buy the "tax hikes" putting small businesses out.

The health care bill is a separate issue. My belief is that the bill is so damn complicated, and some parts don't take effect for years, the result is health insurance companies putting on ever more increases and giving whatever reason they like.

A 50% increase, on it's own, doesn't say anything. For example, when was the last premium review? If you haven't had an increase in 10 years (unlikely), then 50% isn't out of the question. If your last increase was last year, it's ludicrous.


You always seem to like this health care bill yet it is a travesty that has very little mechanism within it to cut costs at any time. It simply says you now must buy it...it is a bonanza for health care insurers.

[Guest]

It seems to me that the American voter left a very loud message this past election. It seems our representatives are actually listening to that message. This is the way it's supposed to work.

The Democrats are making a very loud noise now. They're fuming; but they lost that argument this past election. It's a very big case of denial.

They will get their new bearings in January.

[Guest]

RichieLion - Our representatives got the message? The message to cut off unemployment benefits along with the hot breakfast/free lunch program for schools until tax breaks for families earning over $250,000 are granted?

How long should someone get unemployment benefits? I don't have an answer.

Is it right to punish children by cutting off their free lunches or hot breakfast programs by stalling votes in Congress? My answer is a resounding NO.

Does this sound humanitarian to you, Richie? You sound like a conservative - and there is nothing wrong with that - but one of the conservative platforms is focus on the family. Would you personally tell a child that he or she will not get a breakfast or lunch because another family earning over $250,000 did not get a tax break? Well, if so, Merry Christmas to you.

[Guest]

RichieLion - Our representatives got the message? The message to cut off unemployment benefits along with the hot breakfast/free lunch program for schools until tax breaks for families earning over $250,000 are granted?

How long should someone get unemployment benefits? I don't have an answer.

Is it right to punish children by cutting off their free lunches or hot breakfast programs by stalling votes in Congress? My answer is a resounding NO.

Does this sound humanitarian to you, Richie? You sound like a conservative - and there is nothing wrong with that - but one of the conservative platforms is focus on the family. Would you personally tell a child that he or she will not get a breakfast or lunch because another family earning over $250,000 did not get a tax break? Well, if so, Merry Christmas to you.

Is there something wrong with me? I've heard this liberal BS for so long it doesn't even make me flinch. Follow me folks we are about to enter into the cold, hard world of reality.

[Guest]

RichieLion - Our representatives got the message? The message to cut off unemployment benefits along with the hot breakfast/free lunch program for schools until tax breaks for families earning over $250,000 are granted?

How long should someone get unemployment benefits? I don't have an answer.

Is it right to punish children by cutting off their free lunches or hot breakfast programs by stalling votes in Congress? My answer is a resounding NO.

Does this sound humanitarian to you, Richie? You sound like a conservative - and there is nothing wrong with that - but one of the conservative platforms is focus on the family. Would you personally tell a child that he or she will not get a breakfast or lunch because another family earning over $250,000 did not get a tax break? Well, if so, Merry Christmas to you.


As BK points out above, we've heard this same old song and dance from liberals it seems since I was a little rug rat and it never changes, and the wanting are still wanting.

People need jobs and self respect, not long term charity. People can get accustomed to being on the dole after a while, and lose their initiative to strive for something better. Huge tax increases retard business growth and job creation rather than invigorate either.

It's the Democrats, in my opinion, who are standing in the way of the people you are concerned about. If the Democrats, who lost the argument with the American voter in the last election, got the message and voted to retain the tax cuts; your concerns would be a moot point.

I see this as the losers holding up the legislation until the winners see it their way. Does this make any sense to you?

All the Democrats have to do is extend the tax cuts for everybody; the unemployed get another years grace at everyone else's expense and we all go home happy.

Merry Christmas!!!

[Guest]

How long should someone get unemployment benefits? I don't have an answer.

Is it right to punish children by cutting off their free lunches or hot breakfast programs by stalling votes in Congress? My answer is a resounding NO.
.

Tbugs, you have dodged the most important issue by saying, 'I don't know how long someone get unemployment benefits.' This is the question that MUST be answered going forward. Should my ideas suddenly count, I would recommend that the 99 weeks be continued through December and the number of weeks be cut by one week per week starting in 2011. This would pull it down to under one year by January 2012. You may disagree and say that unemployment benefits be made available to an 18 year old and continued until that person qualifies for Social Security. Since 99 weeks is not enough, is eligibility until Social Security too long?

You also use the very tired and very old liberal mantra, 'we must to it for the children'. The guilt trips have resulted in us doing some surprisingly damaging things. Chief among these these is the LBJ program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It was very well intended, but turned into a nightmare. In 1960 the illegitimate birth rate in the United States was 5.6 percent of total births- today it is more than 40 percent. We have matriarchal households that produce children who wanted a 'real family with a real father. They found this in the gangs, Black males are more than six times as likely to wind up in prison than their white counterparts. Why, gangs? They provide a 'real family with a real masculine leader.'


There is another simple truth that we must understand: "If you subsidize something, you will get more of it." This has been borne out time and time again. We subsidized mortgages and got urban sprawl and MacMansions far beyond the reach of any mass transport system: we created a subsidy for single mothers and got more single mothers - then why are we surprised when we create benefits for being unemployed and have more people unemployed?

Perhaps it is time to do less social engineering with the tax codes and government programs and greater encouragement of individual responsibility.

Just some thoughts

[Guest]

Tbugs, you have dodged the most important issue by saying, 'I don't know how long someone get unemployment benefits.' This is the question that MUST be answered going forward. Should my ideas suddenly count, I would recommend that the 99 weeks be continued through December and the number of weeks be cut by one week per week starting in 2011. This would pull it down to under one year by January 2012. You may disagree and say that unemployment benefits be made available to an 18 year old and continued until that person qualifies for Social Security. Since 99 weeks is not enough, is eligibility until Social Security too long?

You also use the very tired and very old liberal mantra, 'we must to it for the children'. The guilt trips have resulted in us doing some surprisingly damaging things. Chief among these these is the LBJ program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It was very well intended, but turned into a nightmare. In 1960 the illegitimate birth rate in the United States was 5.6 percent of total births- today it is more than 40 percent. We have matriarchal households that produce children who wanted a 'real family with a real father. They found this in the gangs, Black males are more than six times as likely to wind up in prison than their white counterparts. Why, gangs? They provide a 'real family with a real masculine leader.'


There is another simple truth that we must understand: "If you subsidize something, you will get more of it." This has been borne out time and time again. We subsidized mortgages and got urban sprawl and MacMansions far beyond the reach of any mass transport system: we created a subsidy for single mothers and got more single mothers - then why are we surprised when we create benefits for being unemployed and have more people unemployed?

Perhaps it is time to do less social engineering with the tax codes and government programs and greater encouragement of individual responsibility.

Just some thoughts

What a sensible, eloquent read. Thanks for giving me thought provoking common sense logic based on truths, facts and history. Refreshing.

[Guest]

scary, I'm starting to agree with you guys, BUT How do you change this tide!?


Tbugs, you have dodged the most important issue by saying, 'I don't know how long someone get unemployment benefits.' This is the question that MUST be answered going forward. Should my ideas suddenly count, I would recommend that the 99 weeks be continued through December and the number of weeks be cut by one week per week starting in 2011. This would pull it down to under one year by January 2012. You may disagree and say that unemployment benefits be made available to an 18 year old and continued until that person qualifies for Social Security. Since 99 weeks is not enough, is eligibility until Social Security too long?

You also use the very tired and very old liberal mantra, 'we must to it for the children'. The guilt trips have resulted in us doing some surprisingly damaging things. Chief among these these is the LBJ program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It was very well intended, but turned into a nightmare. In 1960 the illegitimate birth rate in the United States was 5.6 percent of total births- today it is more than 40 percent. We have matriarchal households that produce children who wanted a 'real family with a real father. They found this in the gangs, Black males are more than six times as likely to wind up in prison than their white counterparts. Why, gangs? They provide a 'real family with a real masculine leader.'


There is another simple truth that we must understand: "If you subsidize something, you will get more of it." This has been borne out time and time again. We subsidized mortgages and got urban sprawl and MacMansions far beyond the reach of any mass transport system: we created a subsidy for single mothers and got more single mothers - then why are we surprised when we create benefits for being unemployed and have more people unemployed?

Perhaps it is time to do less social engineering with the tax codes and government programs and greater encouragement of individual responsibility.

Just some thoughts

[Guest]

scary, I'm starting to agree with you guys, BUT How do you change this tide!?

There's the rub, isn't it. Things started to change in the minds of people and in the actions of the government a little bit resulting in the 1994 Republican takeover of the Houses with Welfare Reform signed by President Clinton.

Like everything else, even though this started to scale back and decrease the numbers on welfare, it was eventually forgotten and many more bills diluting that reform and more bills escalating entitlements were passed and enacted when the Democrats gained back their legislative control coupled with the short attention span of the American voter.

People say "When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging", but we never seem to learn when the liberals, and their accomplices in the media, inundate us with stories of the "less fortunate" and images of people sleeping in the street, and pregnant women on lines at food pantries. Many take these stories and images at face value and ignore what is the underlying cause of these individuals distress. Some people are victims of circumstance and some are products of their own demons and/or indolence.

We've been throwing money at this problem for 60 years or more with little effect. Isn't it about time for another idea?

[Guest]

You always seem to like this health care bill yet it is a travesty that has very little mechanism within it to cut costs at any time. It simply says you now must buy it...it is a bonanza for health care insurers.

To be honest, I can't "like" this health care bill because we haven't seen the "law of unintended consequences" take effect yet.

There are aspects that I *loathe*, to be honest. In my opinion, from what I've read, this is MASSIVE welfare for health insurance companies and I think I've made my opinion of them (the companies) clear.

I'm man enough to admit I have mixed feelings on this *issue*. The capitalist in me leans one way while the part of me that is revolted at the idea that sick people should NOT be a growth industry (a feeling I started developing while working in a hospital) leans the other.

Make no mistake - I'm all in facor of doctors, nurses, researchers, et al making a decent living. My primary bone of contention has been with those who add no value who are simply sucking the system for all it can deliver to them. Part of me says health care's first priority need to be to the patient and NOT the shareholder. But health care IS a business - I just haven't seen any justification for the ALWAYS-higher-than-inflation increases in cost.