PDA

View Full Version : we're subsidizing unemployment.........



Qtec
06-29-2010, 01:23 AM
link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38020)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TAPPER: 1.2 million Americans are going to lose their unemployment benefit extensions -- or unemployment benefits this week.

SANGER: That's right. So there's a fundamental stimulus action and the president had to go up and tell the Europeans they weren't doing enough for stimulus.

TAPPER: George, why can't they pass this unemployment extension? I don't understand. The Republicans say spending cuts should pay for this, the Democrats know it's emergency spending. It seems like this is something where there could be a compromise.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>WILL: Well, partly because they believe that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we're subsidizing unemployment,</span> that is the long-term unemployment, those unemployed more than six months, is it at an all-time high and they do not think it's stimulative because what stimulates is the consumer and savers' sense of permanent income. And everyone knows that unemployment benefits are not permanent income. </div></div>






Talking subsidies.......





<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.

Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.

Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.

"I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."

The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers.

Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.

The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, <u>almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.</u> </span> </div></div>
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html)




Q

LWW
06-29-2010, 02:39 AM
Why doesn't congress cut that then to pay for the UE extension?

LWW

Qtec
06-29-2010, 03:45 AM
Either you missed the point or you don't want to face it. The GOP are hypocrites.

For your convenience, I bolded the two relative statements. I guess you missed them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WILL: Well, partly because they believe that <u>when you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we're subsidizing unemployment </u></div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid,[<span style='font-size: 17pt'>ie SUBSIDIES </span>] almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare. </div></div>

Giving taxpayer money to the better off is OK with the GOP. Giving money to those who REALLY ned it is a big No-No.

Just a few GOPers could have passed this bill but like the sheep they are, they followed their instructions from the Dearest Leadership. They have faithfully marched in step, Jackboots come to mind, to deny the will of the majority of Americans who voted for the opposition and REAL CHANGE.

By all rights, Obama should declare them all enemies of the USA and make them non-persons. As Jon would say, "they are hurting America.



Problem solved.


Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
06-29-2010, 03:50 AM
I'm in agreement that farm subsidies are wrong and should be stopped.

I'm in agreement that subsidizing the wealthy while ignoring the unemployed is hypocrisy.

Where we differ is that it is also hypocrisy to claim that passing "PAYGO" is a noteworthy achievement and then ignoring it's rules ... as is lamenting farm subsidies to the wealthy while continuing farm subsidies to the wealthy.

But then again I can look at both sides and see them for what they are ... a trait that not everyone possesses.

How's that list coming ... the one where you are going to show me specific instances where you/G/W/S publicly denounced any policy of the Obama regime at any time for any reason?

I would help you with it ... but I honestly can't remember a single instance?

LWW

eg8r
06-29-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Giving taxpayer money to the better off is OK with the GOP. Giving money to those who REALLY ned it is a big No-No.</div></div>I believe that was the point lww was trying to make. Cut the subsidies for these fake "farmers" and give it to unemployment extension. Why would you be against that?

eg8r

pooltchr
06-29-2010, 07:16 AM
I think the GOP would be more than happy to vote for the extention if the Dems would just agree to pay for it without borrowing or printing more money. Cutting out the fake farm subsidies, or even using some of that trillion dollar stimulus slush fund they voted for would be quite satisfactory. That way, we help the people who are unemployed without adding to the burden of the taxpayers.

There simply aren't enough jobs available to get everyone back to work at the moment. Companies are getting hundreds of applications for every job opening the post.

Before the economy tanked, the rule of thumb for job seekers was to expect about a month of job searching for every $10k in salary. So it might take someone 5 months to find a 50k job. Now, that is out the window. It might take 4 times that long to find a job. So it's not unreasonable to think someone might be looking for work for a year and a half to two years.

I won't even try to explain what the government could be doing to address that problem, but cutting off the lifeline of UE benefits is not doing anything to help.

Steve

wolfdancer
06-29-2010, 12:39 PM
There was the classic story of a city dwelling Doctor, who was being paid not to grow cotton, also to plant trees, on his country property....I don't think he would even be able to recognize the official Alabama state animal symbol,
the Boll Weevil.

Bobbyrx
06-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Actually the Monarch Butterfly is the state insect, but the Tiger Swallowtail is the state butterfly.....go figure......the boll weevil went out with George Wallace

Qtec
06-30-2010, 12:45 AM
No. Would the GOP?

Q

Qtec
06-30-2010, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>I'm in agreement</u> that farm subsidies are wrong and should be stopped.

<u>I'm in agreement</u> that subsidizing the wealthy while ignoring the unemployed is hypocrisy. </div></div>

Almost fell of my chair there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Get back to you on the other points /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif.

Q

LWW
06-30-2010, 03:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Almost fell of my chair there. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

</div></div>

It should come as no surprise to you ... kudos however for finally paying attention.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-01-2010, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. Would the GOP?

Q </div></div>

Funny how none of these righties cared about paying for a dman thing under Bush, and The blank Check spendoholic Republican Majority, while they were writing on here that Bush's debts didn't matter, but now, in a true emergency situation, unlike the fake WMD's, a situation created by Republicans policies, one in which only spending can help us recover from Bush's deep recession, and continue to ward off Bush's Great Depression, NOW they want to demand paygo!

Paygo was intended to apply to EARMARKS! Remember REAMARKS? Those little things that the Republican Majority broke all previous records for, while Bush was breaking all borrowing records, and spending records, under "Emergency" provisions?

We have to spend money, to rebuild the economy, and we have to provide unemployment coverage, which has been proven to stimulate the economy. Bush left us no choice but to spend....after his unchecked spending by CHOICE!

Republicans are all about deepening this recession, for political purposes.

Since they and their policies, caused the Recession, why should anyone listen to any of them?

No country could survive the massive debt build-up, under Bush, with all the accumulating interest, combined with huge job losses, under BUSH, all of it already created by the end of 2006, under anti-regulatory sentiment, which Republicans created, while cutting taxes, launching two wars, and fueling a Real Estate Bubble, with unjustifiably low interest rates, and expect to dig out of all of it without spending more money in order to re-build a failed economy. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

eg8r
07-01-2010, 09:36 AM
They might be, I have not been paying attention. I am for it.

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2010, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny how none of these righties cared about paying for a dman thing under Bush</div></div>Do you think if you keep spreading this stupid lie it will some day become true? If you were not ignorant and actually read what people posted you might have learned something over the years. You know the saying about old dogs right?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-01-2010, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny how none of these righties cared about paying for a dman thing under Bush</div></div>Do you think if you keep spreading this stupid lie it will some day become true? If you were not ignorant and actually read what people posted you might have learned something over the years. You know the saying about old dogs right?

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">LOL, Ed, there's another failed attempt at irritating me. The question is, why do you work so hard at it, after you were so mad about my being banned?

Here's a little clue for you....

After one survives cancer, one isn't at all bothered about getting older.

In my case, having burried my very best friend, when she was only twenety-nine, and I was twenty-seven, and also having burried my son, for all intents and purposes, when he was only forty-seven, I can assure you, I count myself very lucky to be growing older, and lucky to be old.

Now go play with your new I-Phone.....You're wasting your time trying to insult me. I'm a Buddhist, you can't insult Buddhists.</span> - /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
07-01-2010, 11:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Funny how none of these righties cared about paying for a dman thing under Bush, and The blank Check spendoholic Republican Majority, while they were writing on here that Bush's debts didn't matter, but now, in a true emergency situation, unlike the fake WMD's, a situation created by Republicans policies, one in which only spending can help us recover from Bush's deep recession, and continue to ward off Bush's Great Depression, NOW they want to demand paygo!


G. </div></div>

Not half as funny as how you complained for 6 years about spending, but now, all of a sudden, with the Dems in control, you think it's great!

And, for the record, the Dems were the ones who passed PAYGO. If they didn't want it to apply to all spending, they should have done a better job of writing it. The GOP are just holding the Dems to their own standards.

Steve