Where there is a soup line, there will be a line for soup.

[spursncowboys]

#4 Where there is a soup line, there will be a line for soup.

When our Federal government moved to extend unemployment benefits from six months to twelve months, it put a burr in my blanket. Not that I have anything against the unemployed. I have been unemployed. When Emery Air Freight was bought out by Consolidated Freightways (CF), they fired all 2400 managers across the country. Our little CF hatchet party took us out to dinner the night before. I now lightly refer to it as the Last Supper. The next morning, they took my boss, Mike into his office, and met with him. When he came out of the office, I knew from the look on his face, that he was history. I felt so bad for him. He said that they wanted to talk to me in his office. I figured that they were going to justify Mike’s firing. When the little man closed the door, he said that he had been reviewing my records. I thought this was a good thing, my reviews had been exemplary. For a moment, I thought that they were going to move me into Mike’s position. What a moral dilemma? Needless to say, the situation was not something that I had to deal with for long. He said, “We are going to have to let you go.” It was a full hit below the belt. I was out of the office by 11:00 a.m. No severance, no expense account, no company car, no thanks for your five years of service. The new team was waiting in a nearby hotel, for the slaughter to be cleaned up.

So I have sympathy and empathy, for those that lose their job. But, I also know intuitively that if you extend benefits from six to twelve months, you will have a group that will go unemployed for six months longer. A safety net becomes a reason for less urgency. It was at this point that I came up with the soup adage. The idea that people will line up for benefits is nothing new. It is certainly not limited to people. In fact, there is a whole gaggle of groups that have learned the game very well. I would encourage you to read a book called, “Free Lunch” by David Cay Johnston. Wal-Mart has certainly learned to line up at the tax trough. George Bush and the Texas Rangers, and many other sports franchises figured out how to soak the system. But before you go blaming business, none of this could have even been in play, if it weren’t for the government sweet deals. For a government whose intent is to create a level playing field, it is not difficult to see how ineffective government is. I would argue that if income equality is one of the goals of the government (it should not be by the way), the U.S. Federal government has been instrumental in creating a U.S. distribution of income that is more representative of a third world nation. Lyndon Johnson’s 1967 War on poverty has turned out to the assault in the middle class. It has happened because smart people can take advantage of complicated laws. The rich get richer because the poor can’t afford lawyers to figure out all the profitable loopholes in rules. If you want to blame corporate America for our trouble, go ahead. The reality is that when you have more and more government, you enjoy less and less freedom. Furthermore, the more government passes laws to try to “fix” the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. Government begets more government. I encourage you to read the late Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. He spent three years researching the Global Warming issue, to come to the conclusion, that scientists do not agree and that the environmental movement has created a money machine that exists by promoting a problem that is just an theory with little proof. Check out Crichton’s addendum for an amazing characterization of the environmental efforts that have lead to crazy unintentional consequences.

Today’s society is clamoring for a government solution to the economic crisis. It is said we have to have education, health care, protection of the environment, social security, bank reform, job creation and more. If you want the government to come to the rescue, you have become numb to the fact that government has been passing laws for five decades to address these very issues. My response would be, “No thanks, I would prefer that you don’t help us any more.” If a thirteen trillion dollar debt is not a clue of the government’s inability to solve problems, I have no clue. To solve the crisis by asking government to help is like asking the man who just pushed you down the stairs for a hand at the edge of a mountain. It reminds me of Ken Follett’s book, World Without End. The priests would treat the sick by bleeding them or some other ridiculous treatment. When the patient got worse, the priests’ response was… more bleeding! Some of the priests blamed the patients for their own sickness. Sin was the reason for the sickness and the person needed to be purified. The first theorist that I remember that blamed the economy on lack of consumer spending was none other than, John Maynard Keynes. Paraphrasing in my best Yosemite Sam voice, “Too much saving goin’ on here. Gov’ment needs to jump in there, and give it some economic Viagra! Can’t get it up on its own, you see!” Keynes theorized, even if government has to go into debt, the economy will only recover if the government plays the role of healer. Folks, if you believe in Keynesian economics, which evidently Bush 43 (and most administrations since 1932, Kennedy and Reagan being the exceptions) did wholeheartedly, I must tell you that Bush 43 skipped class at Yale, the day the second half of Keynes’ book was covered. The second half said when things are going well government should shut down programs, get out of the economy, and pay off debt. Bush must have been at cheerleading camp or at the pub, or somewhere when they covered this little tidbit.

Back to the principle at hand, legislators should realize that whatever program is created, people will adjust their activities to take advantage of the program. That goes for individuals, groups, organizations or corporations as well.


¡°When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Ben Franklin


Not me, but i do not know the author yet, but will find out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

#4 Where there is a soup line, there will be a line for soup.

When our Federal government moved to extend unemployment benefits from six months to twelve months, it put a burr in my blanket. Not that I have anything against the unemployed. I have been unemployed. When Emery Air Freight was bought out by Consolidated Freightways (CF), they fired all 2400 managers across the country. Our little CF hatchet party took us out to dinner the night before. I now lightly refer to it as the Last Supper. The next morning, they took my boss, Mike into his office, and met with him. When he came out of the office, I knew from the look on his face, that he was history. I felt so bad for him. He said that they wanted to talk to me in his office. I figured that they were going to justify Mike’s firing. When the little man closed the door, he said that he had been reviewing my records. I thought this was a good thing, my reviews had been exemplary. For a moment, I thought that they were going to move me into Mike’s position. What a moral dilemma? Needless to say, the situation was not something that I had to deal with for long. He said, “We are going to have to let you go.” It was a full hit below the belt. I was out of the office by 11:00 a.m. No severance, no expense account, no company car, no thanks for your five years of service. The new team was waiting in a nearby hotel, for the slaughter to be cleaned up.

So I have sympathy and empathy, for those that lose their job. But, I also know intuitively that if you extend benefits from six to twelve months, you will have a group that will go unemployed for six months longer. A safety net becomes a reason for less urgency. It was at this point that I came up with the soup adage. The idea that people will line up for benefits is nothing new. It is certainly not limited to people. In fact, there is a whole gaggle of groups that have learned the game very well. I would encourage you to read a book called, “Free Lunch” by David Cay Johnston. Wal-Mart has certainly learned to line up at the tax trough. George Bush and the Texas Rangers, and many other sports franchises figured out how to soak the system. But before you go blaming business, none of this could have even been in play, if it weren’t for the government sweet deals. For a government whose intent is to create a level playing field, it is not difficult to see how ineffective government is. I would argue that if income equality is one of the goals of the government (it should not be by the way), the U.S. Federal government has been instrumental in creating a U.S. distribution of income that is more representative of a third world nation. Lyndon Johnson’s 1967 War on poverty has turned out to the assault in the middle class. It has happened because smart people can take advantage of complicated laws. The rich get richer because the poor can’t afford lawyers to figure out all the profitable loopholes in rules. If you want to blame corporate America for our trouble, go ahead. The reality is that when you have more and more government, you enjoy less and less freedom. Furthermore, the more government passes laws to try to “fix” the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. Government begets more government. I encourage you to read the late Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. He spent three years researching the Global Warming issue, to come to the conclusion, that scientists do not agree and that the environmental movement has created a money machine that exists by promoting a problem that is just an theory with little proof. Check out Crichton’s addendum for an amazing characterization of the environmental efforts that have lead to crazy unintentional consequences.

Today’s society is clamoring for a government solution to the economic crisis. It is said we have to have education, health care, protection of the environment, social security, bank reform, job creation and more. If you want the government to come to the rescue, you have become numb to the fact that government has been passing laws for five decades to address these very issues. My response would be, “No thanks, I would prefer that you don’t help us any more.” If a thirteen trillion dollar debt is not a clue of the government’s inability to solve problems, I have no clue. To solve the crisis by asking government to help is like asking the man who just pushed you down the stairs for a hand at the edge of a mountain. It reminds me of Ken Follett’s book, World Without End. The priests would treat the sick by bleeding them or some other ridiculous treatment. When the patient got worse, the priests’ response was… more bleeding! Some of the priests blamed the patients for their own sickness. Sin was the reason for the sickness and the person needed to be purified. The first theorist that I remember that blamed the economy on lack of consumer spending was none other than, John Maynard Keynes. Paraphrasing in my best Yosemite Sam voice, “Too much saving goin’ on here. Gov’ment needs to jump in there, and give it some economic Viagra! Can’t get it up on its own, you see!” Keynes theorized, even if government has to go into debt, the economy will only recover if the government plays the role of healer. Folks, if you believe in Keynesian economics, which evidently Bush 43 (and most administrations since 1932, Kennedy and Reagan being the exceptions) did wholeheartedly, I must tell you that Bush 43 skipped class at Yale, the day the second half of Keynes’ book was covered. The second half said when things are going well government should shut down programs, get out of the economy, and pay off debt. Bush must have been at cheerleading camp or at the pub, or somewhere when they covered this little tidbit.

Back to the principle at hand, legislators should realize that whatever program is created, people will adjust their activities to take advantage of the program. That goes for individuals, groups, organizations or corporations as well.


¡°When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Ben Franklin


Not me, but i do not know the author yet, but will find out.

So you think since someone has an extra 6 months of benefits they be less likely to look for a job? Have you ever received unemployment benefits? You do realize the benefits are usually much lower than what you were making before jobs were lost. Do you think those people who budgeted with their full pay in mind will now just sit around and rake the 25% of old compensation in benefits? Do you realize what little sense that makes?

[clambake]

i bet there's gay people on unemployment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

i bet there's gay people on unemployment.

you mean people who choose to like the same sex are on unemployment.

[DarkReign]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

-Anonymous

[MannyIsGod]

I got quotes too

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

-Plato

Democracy cannot flourish half rich and half poor, any more than it can flourish half free and half slave.

-Felix G. Rohaytn

[MannyIsGod]

But now that we're done with the anecdotal quotes can someone tell me whether or not unemployment benefits are good for the economy? With actual statistics, that is.

[DarkReign]

So you think since someone has an extra 6 months of benefits they be less likely to look for a job? Have you ever received unemployment benefits? You do realize the benefits are usually much lower than what you were making before jobs were lost. Do you think those people who budgeted with their full pay in mind will now just sit around and rake the 25% of old compensation in benefits? Do you realize what little sense that makes?

Boy, youd think, right?

I personally know 4 people who are unemployed who are not actively seeking employment.

I swear it, I hear this line most every time I have a conversation with one of them...and I loathe to repeat it it makes me so sick...

"Shit man, the only job I can get pays less than unemployment!"

BTW, unemployment compensation pays a maximum of $375 a week.

Basically, a $12 an hour job @ 40hrs pays the exact same (net) amount.

Apparently, unemployed people cant get two jobs, God forbid, I know.

I seriously had this conversation yesterday while standing in the rented house of a longterm unemployed person (she is going on 10 months) who just so happened to be hanging out with another unemployed person (4 months, according to him).

What were they doing? Smoking dope and watching youtube videos, complaining about the piss poor economy, celebrating the greatness of Obama mainly because of healthcare (paid for in taxes by employed people, unlike them) and the emerging state industry of medicinal marijuana.

This is an everyday occurence for me, literally.

[DarrinS]

From 1985 to present, I have been unemployed for a total of a two-week period in 1990, and that was by choice.


It would suck to get canned, but I would do whatever it took to support my family. Mow lawns, work fast-food, whatever. I doubt that it would ever come to that, but I would do it.

[DarrinS]

That said, I do think there is a certain type of person that would rather collect the free money than do something useful.

[DarrinS]

I know people that are like DarkReign describes, but they are usually under 30.

[DarkReign]

I got quotes too

An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

-Plato

Democracy cannot flourish half rich and half poor, any more than it can flourish half free and half slave.

-Felix G. Rohaytn



I certainly agree with your quotes, but none of them address the staggering imbalance between rich and poor in this country and the world over.

It would seem, IMO, there is no answer. You certainly cant take from the rich and give to the poor as this will only lead to revolution and squandering of wealth (poor people are usually poor for a reason).

Moreover, you cant re-educate people to become adequate enough to offset the imbalance over time. Not even a very, very long time. Because the rich get much richer than the poor become un-poor. Which moves the goalposts, which dictates market pricing, etc, etc.

What is the answer? I honestly dont believe there is an answer, outside a major breakthrough in technology. Something that dwarfs the internet by comparison.

[DarkReign]

I know people that are like DarkReign describes, but they are usually under 30.

The two individuals I spoke about are both 30, unmarried with no children (thats something to be thankful for).

[spursncowboys]

Any trolls on here who comment about how I feel, please read the entire post. It is not me. I am not that gifted at writing. I stated that at the end of the post. Good job being credible. Not calling all trolls, thanks for the actual posts from most, but they know who they are.
As for Manny, I don't have time to look up actual data to show that unemployment benefits help. I would love to see the result of that. I would like to include Schumpeter's idea of innovation being the driving force in our economy's growth. I think enslaving people with welfare takes away that for the most part. Like DarkReign, I agree and have dealings with those kinds of people. My friends mother in law has a house in SA and one in Converse, I think. She hasn't had a job in a while, besides selling meth, and seems to be a pro at milkin the system. Although it is just to get by. Another of my friend on unemployment does oddjobs under the table stuff to keep unemployment checks. I'm not sure about the pay. My mom got unemployment a few times when I was growing up and I thought it depended on your pay as to what they would give (I mean steal for) you.

[DarkReign]

??

No one questioned whether you were taking credit for that or not, as far as I can tell.

[DarkReign]

My mom got unemployment a few times when I was growing up and I thought it depended on your pay as to what they would give (I mean steal for) you.

It is. In Michigan, maximum compensation is $375 a week net. In order to qualify for the max, you must have earned greater than or equal to that amount while employed (not sure if the Gov goes by net or gross, though).

If your mother received unemployment benefits, she must have had a job of some sort. How much she received every week would determine her compensation.

BTW, unemployment is not "stealing" from the taxpayers. Unemployment is paid for by every business in the nation, not from Joe Blow taxpayer.

Every business has a FUTA tax and I am sure every state has a similar tax like here in Michigan (here its called MESC) to supplement the Federal program.

Its paid for by businesses as percentage of total wages paid up to a certain amount (it sits at $13k person right now, only to go up, thanks Obama).

[spursncowboys]

It is. In Michigan, maximum compensation is $375 a week net. In order to qualify for the max, you must have earned greater than or equal to that amount while employed (not sure if the Gov goes by net or gross, though).

If your mother received unemployment benefits, she must have had a job of some sort. How much she received every week would determine her compensation.

BTW, unemployment is not "stealing" from the taxpayers. Unemployment is paid for by every business in the nation, not from Joe Blow taxpayer.

Every business has a FUTA tax and I am sure every state has a similar tax like here in Michigan (here its called MESC) to supplement the Federal program.

Its paid for by businesses as percentage of total wages paid up to a certain amount (it sits at $13k person right now, only to go up, thanks Obama).

It was a provocative statement. I do understand what I wrote though and stand by it. Some of that money is the employee's, but not all.

[MannyIsGod]

I certainly agree with your quotes, but none of them address the staggering imbalance between rich and poor in this country and the world over.

It would seem, IMO, there is no answer. You certainly cant take from the rich and give to the poor as this will only lead to revolution and squandering of wealth (poor people are usually poor for a reason).

Moreover, you cant re-educate people to become adequate enough to offset the imbalance over time. Not even a very, very long time. Because the rich get much richer than the poor become un-poor. Which moves the goalposts, which dictates market pricing, etc, etc.

What is the answer? I honestly dont believe there is an answer, outside a major breakthrough in technology. Something that dwarfs the internet by comparison.


Yeah, they're born into it. The biggest factor on how much money a person will make? The amount of money their parents made.

[DarkReign]

Yeah, they're born into it. The biggest factor on how much money a person will make? The amount of money their parents made.

The sarcasm detector's needle just bounced a little.

[SpurNation]

It became too late after '68. Hand outs became a way of life for those willing to succumb to a lower standard of life more so than for those truly in need. And our government knew this would happen. Public schools began lowering mathmatical, reading and scientific expectations in order to pass through the increasing amount of children from these areas due to the fact they simply were not interested in learning nor had parents that participated in their children's educational and moral growth.

This increase has prompted even larger government in order to provide for the increasing population of the illiterate and morally repute. Lack of respect all the while demading more in assistance and handouts. Something now happening with not only the less fortunate but with children of many of the well to do.

Some run away from their insecure surroundings to become members of the government through military service. Others through drug addiction and crime. All of which excelerates the need of government control.

It's simple really. The government has forced (still forcing) a nation to become soley dependant upon it's services through attrition of education, deprevation of freedoms, phsycological control of it's less fortunate, and the power to stop via fiscal or physical containment of those who could seriously stop its self serving manipulation to even greater power.

And we continue to vote for these abominations regardless of which party affiliation or koolaid one selects to consume and support. Because they, our elected officials, don't run this country through constituency more so than fiscal opportunity for themselves provided by an even worse hidden enemy to our lives...the cartels.

We are a nation of greed and excess reduced by addiction and demoralization becoming increasingly numb and subservant to our political gods for purpose and shallow survival.

We have only ourselves to blame. But it feels good (if not pointless) to project our hatred for what's going on via public officials who by all accounts only say what you want to hear in order to get elected to the office of greed all the while knowing we can be forced to adapt whether we like it or not.

[mogrovejo]

When or where have socialist policies lead to a sustained improvement of the living condition of the poor? I'm opposed to the idea that politicians should be allowed to use the power of the state to force other people to share their honestly acquired, developed or inherited wealth in moral grounds; but in any case there's no empirical evidence that it works. It's a counter-incentive to the creation of wealth and therefore there's less wealth to share. You end up by distributing wealth that nobody is creating, leading to a global impoverishment.


But now that we're done with the anecdotal quotes can someone tell me whether or not unemployment benefits are good for the economy? With actual statistics, that is.



The article surveys theoretical and empirical knowledge on the determinants
of equilibrium unemployment. It is viewed as the outcome
of the interaction between wage-setting and price-setting behaviour.
The evidence suggests that generous unemployment insurance (...) contribute to high unemployment.

There is considerable support for the hypotheses that lower benefit
levels and shorter benefit periods in unemployment insurance
reduce unemployment.

Abstract:
Many empirical studies have confirmed the theoretical prediction that longer-term Unemployment Insurance (UI) entitlement leads to longer unemployment duration. Most of those studies have examined special programs that provide extra weeks of unemployment benefits when unemployment rates in the region are higher. Hence, they must distinguish if the longer unemployment duration among UI claimants observed in these cases is due to the extended benefits or to the adverse labor market conditions that trigger those extensions. In contrast, this paper measures the effect of identical entitlement extensions across two labor markets facing very different demand conditions-Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, over the years 1980-85. The results confirm findings of the existing literature and indicate that the adverse effect of longer entitlement changes relatively little in response to variation in demand conditions. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=384060

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/images/wm1777-figure1.gif




Extended Benefits and the Duration of UI Spells: Evidence from the New Jersey Extended Benefit Program


David Card (http://www.nber.org/authors/david_card), Phillip B. Levine (http://www.nber.org/authors/phillip_levine)

NBER Working Paper No. 6714*
Issued in August 1998
NBER Program(s): LS (http://www.nber.org/papersbyprog/LS.html) PE (http://www.nber.org/papersbyprog/PE.html)

In 1996 a political trade-off in the New Jersey legislature led to a six-month program that provided up to 13 additional weeks of exhausted their regular benefit entitlement. We use this unique episode to provide new evidence on the effect of changes in the duration of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits on the behavior of UI claimants. Unlike most benefit extensions, the New Jersey Extended Benefit (NJEB) program arose during a period of stable economic conditions, allowing us to sidestep the important issue of endogenous policy adoption. We use aggregate state-level data and administrative records for individual UI claimants from before, during, and after the NJEB program to estimate its impact on unemployment spell lengths. Overall, we find that the NJEB program raised the fraction of UI claimants who exhausted their regular benefits by 1-3 percentage points. More importantly, however, we find that the short-term nature of the benefit extension substantially moderated its effect. For individuals who were receiving UI when the benefit extension was passed, we estimate that the rate of leaving UI fell by about 15 percent. Simulations suggest that if the program had run long enough to affect UI claimants from the first day of their spell, the fraction of recipients exhausting regular benefits would have risen by 7 percentage points, and the average recipient would have collected about one extra week or regular benefits. http://www.nber.org/papers/w6714



This paper studies a program that extends the maximum duration of unemployment benefits from 30 weeks to 209 weeks. Interestingly, this program is targeted to individuals aged 50 years or older, living in certain eligible regions in Austria. In the evaluation, I use sharp discontinuities in treatment assignment at age 50 and at the border between eligible regions and control regions to identify the effect of extended benefits on unemployment duration. Results indicate that the duration of job search is prolonged by at least .09 weeks per additional week of benefits among men, whereas unemployment duration increases by at least .32 weeks per additional week of benefits among women. The salient differences between men and women are consistent with the lower minimum age for early retirement applying to women.http://ideas.repec.org/p/lau/crdeep/06.06.html



This paper studies how changes in the two key parameters of unemployment insurance-the benefit replacement rate (RR) and the potential benefit duration (PBD)-affect the duration of unemployment. To identify such an effect we exploit a policy change introduced in 1989 by the Austrian government, which affected various unemployed workers differently: a first group experienced an increase in RR; a second group experienced an extension of PBD; a third group experienced both a higher RR and a longer PBD; and a fourth group experienced no change in the policy parameters. We find that unemployed workers react to the disincentives by an increase in unemployment duration, and our empirical results are consistent with the predictions of job search theory. We use our parameter estimates to split up the total costs to unemployment insurance funds into costs due to changes in the unemployment insurance system with unchanged behaviour and costs due to behavioural responses of unemployed workers. Our results indicate that costs due to behavioural responses are substantial. Copyright 2006 The Review of Economic Studies Limited.http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/restud/v73y2006i4p1009-1038.html

This issue was pretty much settled with a famous paper published more than 20 years ago by Prof. Furstenberg:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2521585

[Trainwreck2100]

Apparently, unemployed people cant get two jobs, God forbid, I know.

Why get two jobs when you are working your ass off, and barely making more than a guy sitting on his ass making unemployment/food stamps.

[DarkReign]

Why get two jobs when you are working your ass off, and barely making more than a guy sitting on his ass making unemployment/food stamps.

Because you might have some shred of pride left. That you might not want something for nothing. Who knew?

[101A]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

-Anonymous

- De Toqueville, I'm pretty sure.

And, Manny, Plato thought the idea of a Republic was insane (stupid people should NOT be allowed to vote) - Utopia was run by benevolent philosophers (go figure) - so quoting him regarding them is not productive to make your point (unless you are finally admitting that you think we should just do away with democracy altogether and let our enlightened rulers at it - you've been evolving that direction for several years now).

As for extending unemployment benefits increasing unemployment?

Duh.

You get what you pay for.

[spursncowboys]

But now that we're done with the anecdotal quotes can someone tell me whether or not unemployment benefits are good for the economy? With actual statistics, that is.

Is unemployment made to benefit the economy? I have read papers about how welfare stimulates the economy because welfare recipients don't save. I don't agree and like the unemployment I thiink the economy will correct itself to account for that money. I have a good pdf file that I will try and get to maybe later.

[Ignignokt]

- De Toqueville, I'm pretty sure.

And, Manny, Plato thought the idea of a Republic was insane (stupid people should NOT be allowed to vote) - Utopia was run by benevolent philosophers (go figure) - so quoting him regarding them is not productive to make your point (unless you are finally admitting that you think we should just do away with democracy altogether and let our enlightened rulers at it - you've been evolving that direction for several years now).

As for extending unemployment benefits increasing unemployment?

Duh.

You get what you pay for.



I think Manny was just being facetious.

He wasn't actually trying to win an argument by using Plato.

[SAGambler]

Yeah, they're born into it. The biggest factor on how much money a person will make? The amount of money their parents made.

I am living proof that that statement is a fucking lie. My brother and sister are also living proof that it is a fucking lie. And I would guess that also goes for at least 50% or better of the class I graduated with.

That old "my parents were poor, therefore I have to be poor" mantra is just so much liberal bullshit that people like Obama preys on.

[101A]

I think Manny was just being facetious.

He wasn't actually trying to win an argument by using Plato.


I get that.

Seriously, just trying to get some run out of a very expensive, 20 year old, liberal arts education.

[101A]

I get that.

Seriously, just trying to get some run out of a very expensive, 20 year old, liberal arts education.

My bride also runs counter to the premise (and she isn't just along for the ride; very successful in her own right.) Comes from a family on the dirt road side of a poor town.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The two individuals I spoke about are both 30, unmarried with no children (thats something to be thankful for).

I know one that is almost 40. He got laid off maybe 4 months ago and hasn't done a damn thing since then. He's actually bragged about "staying on welfare as long as I can". All over having some beers at a bar ............a couple of months into his unemployment. I want to thank everyone here for buying him his beers and food On his behalf. I have very little sympathy for him and for everyone like him.

[boutons_deux]

""my parents were poor, therefore I have to be poor" mantra is just so much liberal bullshit"

your anecdotal "proof" is bullshit.

Upward mobility in America has greatly diminished since the 1970s. You could look it up, but you won't.

Breaking out off the lower classes, the manual labor/uneducated classes, is extremely difficult for the vast majority, not that you give a fuck.

[spursncowboys]

My neighbor used to come over and sell us bread and milk from wic for money for cigarrettes. i know, not the same thing as unemployment but wanted to say it. I personally don't have a problem with people using the resources given to them. It is only natural for them to try and find security. I have a problem with elitists using it to get elected and then if you are against it, you are heartless.

[SpurNation]

My neighbor used to come over and sell us bread and milk from wic for money for cigarrettes. i know, not the same thing as unemployment but wanted to say it. I personally don't have a problem with people using the resources given to them. It is only natural for them to try and find security. I have a problem with elitists using it to get elected and then if you are against it, you are heartless.

You shouldn't feel bad. It happens all the time. The government knows this. Again the choice to live substandard is a choice made by many (not all) receiving these (ahem) "benefits". But these programs have helped to cause the effect. Politicians living off the effect are the one's who keep it going. And of course you will be labeled as heartless. You are somebody who threatens their existence via the programs they continue to expand even though you try to help in your own way.

What should be done is allow people to keep receipts of charitable contributions and actions (time is money) and allow those contributions to be counted against what the government decides what should be our allotment of giving through their programs.

As it stands now...it's difficult for some to give extra to whom they would like to help because of what is already taken to give to who the government deems appropriate to receive.

[101A]

""my parents were poor, therefore I have to be poor" mantra is just so much liberal bullshit"

your anecdotal "proof" is bullshit.

Upward mobility in America has greatly diminished since the 1970s. You could look it up, but you won't.

Breaking out off the lower classes, the manual labor/uneducated classes, is extremely difficult for the vast majority, not that you give a fuck.


70's huh?

Took just a little while for "The great society" to get up and running, I guess. Thanks for bolstering the OP.

[Yonivore]

BTW, unemployment is not "stealing" from the taxpayers. Unemployment is paid for by every business in the nation, not from Joe Blow taxpayer.
Of course, those businesses wouldn't dream of passing on the cost to consumers...you know, Joe Blow taxpayer.

[mogrovejo]

- De Toqueville, I'm pretty sure.

And, Manny, Plato thought the idea of a Republic was insane (stupid people should NOT be allowed to vote) - Utopia was run by benevolent philosophers (go figure) - so quoting him regarding them is not productive to make your point (unless you are finally admitting that you think we should just do away with democracy altogether and let our enlightened rulers at it - you've been evolving that direction for several years now).

As for extending unemployment benefits increasing unemployment?

Duh.

You get what you pay for.

Hmm, as far as I remember Tocqueville isn't the author of that quote (although I've never read Tocqueville in English, so maybe he wrote something that could be translated more or less that way). He wrote similar things with the same meaning, but never phrased it that way.

[DarkReign]

Of course, those businesses wouldn't dream of passing on the cost to consumers...you know, Joe Blow taxpayer.

Right, well, that is true.