Originally Posted by Tbugs

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

Originally Posted by BBQMan

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.

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

Originally Posted by BBQMan

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

Originally Posted by jebartle

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?

Originally Posted by Bucco

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.