The W
Views: 95761233
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.4.14 1214
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Jim Bunning crisis
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.23
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
(156 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (45 total)
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 4 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.26
A lot of people out there are set to lose unemployment benefits this month, thanks to Senate inaction.

I'm one of them.

It's apparently because of this guy


    Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) stood firm Tuesday in single-handedly blocking the Senate from extending unemployment benefits, highway funds and other programs in the face of mounting criticism from Democrats and pleas from his own party.

    Bunning objected to a request from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to pass a 30-day extension of the measures, then defended his stand in a debate with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Other Republicans sought to use the Senate's morning business period to change the subject, but several Democrats hammered away at Bunning's use of Senate rules to prevent approval of the stopgap legislation since Thursday.


1.2 million people (including myself) stand to lose unemployment benefits throughout the month of March because of this clown. I live in California. This place isn't exactly overflowing with jobs right now. I can't even find retailers that are hiring, so if people are still unemployed, it isn't out of laziness or any other such nonsensical argument that'll inevitably spring up. It's because of the lack of available jobs and large companies that decide to outsource (like my old company) to other countries and lay off workers to begin with.

For Jim Bunning to take away the only lifeline available to these people is unconscionable. At this point, I really don't care if someone manages to twist this so that it somehow magically winds up being the Democrats' fault. I don't care whose fault it is. This situation must be fixed for those unemployed, for the Medicare doctors, and for the highway workers that were sent home this week.

(edited by It's False on 2.3.10 1037)



Hello...you've reached Alan Rickman...
Promote this thread!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 49 min.
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.69
Apparently the benefits are retroactive, so once this thing finally passes and/or Bunning gets a clue, you'll make up that money.



Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut

Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.33
Yeah, I can't see any way he gets re-elected after th--wait, what? He's not? Because the party won't back him up and raise money? Sweet merciful crap. No consequences and no reason to act in anyone's self-interest? (Well, unless the Baseball Hall of Fame gets involved, but that ain't happening.)

It's not even like he feels any need to explain himself, either. Ducking into an elevator and blowing off questions? Yeah, I'll just be billing him for my unemployment benefits. I get them on Tuesdays, just for the record, Senator, so if we could just keep that schedule going, it'd be the best for everyone.

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Apparently the benefits are retroactive, so once this thing finally passes and/or Bunning gets a clue, you'll make up that money.


(phew) Now where's the clue-by-four? (INSERT JOKE ABOUT CONGRESS HERE)

(edited by drjayphd on 2.3.10 1351)




You wanted the best, you got... the Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"That's really depressing. Look at those titties jiggle. Gross. Glad I don't have to touch that." (rv581)

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.35
Can't someone just trick him?

Isn't there a way to wait until he goes to the bathroom and then call for a vote?




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
The old West Wing hide in Jimmy Smits' office trick. I am actually surprised they haven't called for the vote yet, but with this and how badly the GOP looked in the Health Care Summit, I can't see why they are being called the Grand Obstructionist Party. I think a special vote to remove maybe needed in KY. They will elect a Republican anyway, so there is no point.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
The curious thing to me is where was he during Ws presidency. Why don't two unfunded wars bother him more.

And Big Bad your point is of little consolation for those needing this as they attempt to get by.



Perception is reality
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 268 days
Last activity: 229 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.41
If he is literally the one person opposed to this, then it is ridiculous that one man has that much power. In truth, I'm sure there's a good percentage of Republicans who (privately, at least) support him. The only other Republican mentioned in the article is Senator Collins of Maine, who regularly votes with the Democrats.

Got to give the guy some measure of props. Since he's not seeking reelection, he doesn't have to fear the consequences. Presumably he actually believes in this, because I can't see any other reason for him to be so vehement.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 45 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
The essence of the argument = when do "unemployment benefits" become higher percentage welfare. and why should we distribute wealth from one set of americans to others? There are jobs - just maybe not the ones you want or where you are currently living. A friend of mine just got an engineering job yesterday. My department has three positions open if you have strong heating and air conditioning controls skills. Another friend just got a job as a plan administrator and another as a surveyor, contracted, with the Census. My kid just picked up a part time with a textbook distributor.

I hate to be the bad guy conservative, but why am I expected to give more and more of my money to people who, in at least some cases, aren't looking hard enough for jobs?

and wars? When have we ever "funded" a war? Doc? at least the constitution actually covers spending money for that purpose, as opposed to this money being spent, which is not covered in any way.

I await your hate mail.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.36
I believe that our society learned in the past that a "Do it yourself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach was not the best way to achieve the world that we live in today.

I like society as it is today. In general, I don't worry about being mugged when I walk out the door. I don't see poor people wandering the street. I don't see a vast underground of criminal activities at every turn.

Part of this is because of the social programs that you wish didn't exist.

I'm sure that life could be better for some if we didn't have these programs, but your overall quality of life is higher by everyone doing better, than it would be with you doing a little better, and many doing a lot worse.

We are not better served with more poor, more homeless, and more disillusioned folks. America is great because of everything, not because of the ideas of Republicans or the ideas of Democrats. You can't just get rid of one half of the discussion and have a great America.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 16 days
#10 Posted on
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    The essence of the argument = when do "unemployment benefits" become higher percentage welfare. and why should we distribute wealth from one set of americans to others? There are jobs - just maybe not the ones you want or where you are currently living. A friend of mine just got an engineering job yesterday. My department has three positions open if you have strong heating and air conditioning controls skills. Another friend just got a job as a plan administrator and another as a surveyor, contracted, with the Census. My kid just picked up a part time with a textbook distributor.

    I hate to be the bad guy conservative, but why am I expected to give more and more of my money to people who, in at least some cases, aren't looking hard enough for jobs?

    and wars? When have we ever "funded" a war? Doc? at least the constitution actually covers spending money for that purpose, as opposed to this money being spent, which is not covered in any way.

    I await your hate mail.


You live in a state that spends more federal money than it gives back in taxes. California would be one of the states where the opposite is true. Does this directly account for the job openings that you speak of? I have no idea.

But it is the first thing that comes to mind when people start complaining about the "redistribution of weatlh". The wealthy of America don't live in Kentucky.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
About a decade ago, I pretty solidly voted Republican. More in the fiscal conservative/social libertarian sense. Growing up in the shadow of the Daley machine will tend to give you a jaded view of Democrats.

I think my disdain for local (Democratic) politicians left me mostly in the Republican column by default, because as time went by, I had to make difficult political arguments. Difficult (speaking only for myself) because while I was using the talking points and selective evidence that the politicians and conservative pundits were, deep-down, I knew these were not fair arguments. Eventually I just said to myself "a pox on both their houses".

When I got back into participating in politics a couple of years ago, I was philosophically on the other side, but the arguments rang true for me. Thoughts like "Oh shit, you mean I'm on the same side as Teddy Kennedy???" ensued. But the effects of 30 years of trickle-down economics, tax cuts and deregulation - and the evisceration of the middle class, and here I am.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jim Bunning had a chance a week or two ago to vote for Senate "pay-as-you-go" rules. It was proposed by the Democrats, Bunning voted nay (along with every Republican in the Senate). Bunning recently had a chance to vote for a bi-partisan debt reduction commission. It was proposed by President Obama, Bunning voted nay. Whatever his actual reason for this stunt, it's not that Bunning is remotely serious about deficit spending.

Of course, as of this hour the crisis is over and the benefits have been extended. But the three men vying for the Republican nomination for Bunning's seat all supported him on this, and I hear that the local tea party people were big boosters of Bunning's efforts. (http://louisvilleteaparty.org/2010/03/02/bunning-under-attack-for-trong-tand/)

I guess I *used to be the bad guy conservative.



AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 45 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
Without quoting a bunch of stuff, PAYGO if a nice idea, if you:

A: Stop spending
or
B: Raise Taxes (on everyone)

The problem is, anytime you feel like it, if you're in charge (dems or Reps) is declare the thing an emergency and that it doesn't apply to those rules. This entitlement bill was declared as an emergency and not subject to the PAYGO bill that was signed a few weeks before. I believe that was at least part of Bunning's issue.

our deficit (not our debt, our deficit) is now over a trillion a year. That seems a little too high.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
AWA, my point re war funding is the lack of consistency of thought by people like Bunning. Bunning has the balls to do this now because he is not running.

There are jobs here in Kansas but nothing like what you stated except in Wichita, Topeka, and KCK. There is an element not trying but with the severity of the recession I don't think its a fair assumption that they are being picky.

I like pay as you go as long as it isn't an excuse to dismantle all social programs. Guru is right IMO re social programs and their value. Where we fall short is in taking them successfully the next step so most can get off the rolls.



Perception is reality
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.50
Pay as you go is a stupid idea. Every government is going to carry debt, we care a higher debt then most due to the large population as well as being the world's police. Be worried when a government makes money. People need to realize that debt has been a problem in this country since the beginning. You are always going run in the red when a good chunk of your people are government employees. And yes, we need those jobs since they are good jobs and not the McJobs that people have now. The economy is not going to get better by relaying on a private that has been eaten away by the Walmarts, Hyundias and Country Wides of the world.

This is money that is going back into the economy via the Department of Transportation to pay for mortgages, utilities, food and other goods. This is what you get when you have a Senator with nothing to lose with an archaic rules system. Another perfect example of the filibuster. Also if China or other countries decided to say "Hey we want that trillion, they are far worse then we would be." They also realize if they tried that we would elect the next President for the express purpose to declare war which no one would survive. People just get scared due to the Ron Pauls of the world that think one day, we will Chinese slaves. Not going to happen.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 45 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    There are jobs here in Kansas but nothing like what you stated except in Wichita, Topeka, and KCK.



You mean Google, Kansas, of course, not Topeka

http://www.computerworld.com/​s/​article/​9164338/​Topeka_​renames_​itself_​..._​Google_​Kansas_​

Sometimes, when things aren't as good as they were in other times, you have to move where the jobs are. After WW2, my old man came back from the far east and the only job he could find in South Georgia - where he was from - was spraying outhouses for bugs. He felt like that wasn't the career for him so he moved to Gary Indiana, where there were jobs. That one lasted about 40 years. And, fortunately, my Mom lived there too.

My job was looking shaky about 16 years ago, so I moved from Chicago with my Family to Louisville, where I had found what I considered to be a strong, stable job, which I still have.

But I know a guy, great commercial electrician, best 4160 man I know. He's in Chicago and can't get hired because he's low on the Union seniority list. I have a gig for him if he wants it, but it's in houston. He won't move. But his union pays him like 60% of his wages to stay home. Of course, he still has to pay his dues, which is like 8% of his regular wages

I don't get why someone who could be working, albeit in another location, is getting unemployment insurance benefits. To me, in that case, they are just not working.



(edited by AWArulz on 3.3.10 1557)


We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      There are jobs here in Kansas but nothing like what you stated except in Wichita, Topeka, and KCK.



    You mean Google, Kansas, of course, not Topeka

    http://www.computerworld.com/​​s/​​article/​​9164338/​​Topeka_​​renames_​​itself_​​..._​​Google_​​Kansas_​​

    Sometimes, when things aren't as good as they were in other times, you have to move where the jobs are. After WW2, my old man came back from the far east and the only job he could find in South Georgia - where he was from - was spraying outhouses for bugs. He felt like that wasn't the career for him so he moved to Gary Indiana, where there were jobs. That one lasted about 40 years. And, fortunately, my Mom lived there too.

    My job was looking shaky about 16 years ago, so I moved from Chicago with my Family to Louisville, where I had found what I considered to be a strong, stable job, which I still have.

    But I know a guy, great commercial electrician, best 4160 man I know. He's in Chicago and can't get hired because he's low on the Union seniority list. I have a gig for him if he wants it, but it's in houston. He won't move. But his union pays him like 60% of his wages to stay home. Of course, he still has to pay his dues, which is like 8% of his regular wages

    I don't get why someone who could be working, albeit in another location, is getting unemployment insurance benefits. To me, in that case, they are just not working.



    (edited by AWArulz on 3.3.10 1557)


When I took the position I have, we moved 1000 miles to a place where we knew no one and had an 11 month old baby. It was hard but it worked, mostly because of who we are as people. I understand you analogy but why should someone have to move from Chicago to Houston just to find decent work? Most people aren't skilled like he is and wont find a position like that. Yes they could retrain and should but unfortunately many were never trained in the first place.

The trouble with anectodes is they aren't data. For every person like your friend, I can cite people out here killing themselves with three jobs to not be on the dole. It doesn't prove my point either.

The reality is most Americans thrown out of work during this mess want to work and will get off the dole ASAP. Holding families hostage to play who has the biggest dick is just wrong.



Perception is reality
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.85
    Originally posted by DrDirt

    When I took the position I have, we moved 1000 miles to a place where we knew no one and had an 11 month old baby. It was hard but it worked, mostly because of who we are as people. I understand you analogy but why should someone have to move from Chicago to Houston just to find decent work? Most people aren't skilled like he is and wont find a position like that. Yes they could retrain and should but unfortunately many were never trained in the first place.

    The trouble with anectodes is they aren't data. For every person like your friend, I can cite people out here killing themselves with three jobs to not be on the dole. It doesn't prove my point either.

    The reality is most Americans thrown out of work during this mess want to work and will get off the dole ASAP. Holding families hostage to play who has the biggest dick is just wrong.


Why don't these people who are complaining about their benefits being 'withheld' from them just write people checks for their every day living expenses?

If it's good for the government, and you support it, it should be good enough for the individual.

The constant 'we can't eliminate this' or 'we can't eliminate that' is bullshit.

Clinton did away with welfare. Did anybody really think THAT was possible?

We live in one of the best nations in the world, and even our poor still have phones, cable TV, and cars.

If businesses have to pay as they go, you and me have to pay as we go, shouldn't we expect our government to do the same?

Obama made a big point during the health care 'summit' to mention again and again how the Medicare prescription plan was spending that wasn't paid for, yet all of his plans do just that.

Just because something will be unpleasant, doesn't mean we should avoid it at all costs. We need to reel in the spending.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    our deficit (not our debt, our deficit) is now over a trillion a year. That seems a little too high.


Bush Tax Cuts of 2001
Bush Tax Cuts of 2003
Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003
Years of Supplemental Defense Appropriations that were kept off the actual budget because.. well.. who knew we'd need money for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Year after year after year.

"Seems" a little unseemly for Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits to suddenly get fiscal 'religion' on January 20, 2009. And the 2009 budget (the first trillion dollar deficit budget) was submitted by outgoing President Bush.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The stimulus bill, that's on Obama. (Maybe someone wants to argue that the Herbert Hoover response would have worked this time?) Perhaps you can assign him some responsibility for TARP as well, since the economy fell apart during the campaign. Nothing was getting passed without bi-partisan support at that moment.

And that's going to be the key to actual fiscal responsibility, bi-partisanship. Because no way are the Democrats going to be able to balance the budget by just raising taxes, or are the Republicans going to be able to just cut spending enough.

(In the FY 2009 Federal budget, 12% of the budget was 'discretionary spending'. another 4% was the TARP program. I suppose some of the 23% of the budget that is defense spending could be cut back, but I don't think the Republicans would go for it.)

The CBO projected a $1.410 trillion budget deficit for 2009 (again, Bush's 2009 budget). Between discretionary spending and the TARP - if you zeroed them both out entirely - there was nearly $600 billion that could have been cut before you get to choosing between cuts to (basically) Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

To get back to a balanced budget, it's going to take a combination of new tax revenues and spending cuts (and the economy/employment needs to improve). Each party will need the other to give political cover for the unpopular half of the equation.

Health care reforms can save on some of the Medicare spending, that's why the CBO scores the Senate bill as reducing the deficit over 10 years, and by more in the 10 after that. Even while covering 30 million uninsured people. Social Security will need to be means-tested, and the eligible age raised to reflect longer life spans. For new revenues, in addition to raising the top income tax bracket nominally, you might also introduce a VAT as a flatter, consumption-based tax.

It's tough medicine all around, but the Clinton-era surpluses were squandered. So the Presidential Debt Commission will likely recommend some form of the above to seriously address our long-term budget issues. (Not that it will get to a vote in Congress.)

Of course if the Republicans in the Senate were actually serious on the issue, they would have voted for the original proposal where Congress would appoint the commission, and vote on the recommendation in an "all or nothing" fashion. But not one of them voted for it.

I find the current Republican Party entirely disingenuous on fiscal responsibility.



Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.39
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    We live in one of the best nations in the world, and even our poor still have phones, cable TV, and cars.


This has got to be the most blinkered thing I've ever heard.

AWA, you make it all sound so easy. Where do these jobless people get the cash to move their families halfway across the country to take a job that may well disappear in a puff of smoke within three months anyway? I'm continually astonished by the lack of empathy shown by the far right. It astonishes me that you're happy for people's tax money to be funnelled into wars they don't agree with, but when it comes time for you to let some of that cash go into helping people less fortunate than you it's like some kind of crime. The majority of people don't choose to be unemployed. Please realise that.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 45 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    Where do these jobless people get the cash to move their families halfway across the country to take a job that may well disappear in a puff of smoke within three months anyway?


They don't. They move themselves, see if it works and then move their families. That has been the model, more or less, throughout history. My Great-Grandfather left his family and took a boat to the States because there was no work in Ireland. His wife and three kids(including my Grandmother) stayed there. He got a job as an iron worker and sent money and they saved for passage then came over. Three years later. It's called Sacrifice.

I spent three years away from the woman I was engaged to in Military service - why? I needed to go to college, but refused to take out a loan to pay for it and my parents wouldn't pay unless I did what they wanted me to. So I sacrificed. I could, of course, have either said the hell with college and took a crap job or put myself into debt, but I chose to sacrifice, rather than please myself.

My children were fortunate enough to have two parents at home and a wage earner that has been lucky enough to keep a good job willing to pay for their college. But both of them finished high school at a school that has a graduation rate (from the Freshman class) of only about 75%. Neither were what I would call gifted students, but got As and Bs because they worked hard. They also didn't hang out with people who were potential drop outs. While they are not yet successful in any business sense, since they wre still in college, I feel like they'll do alright. But many of the people who started their Freshman year are now not working and staying with their Moms and/or Dads and expecting extra help to get employed, which they received when they were 14-15-16 years old, but they rejected. And their parents allowed them to reject it and then they wonder why they don't have jobs. This not a culture thing, it's a self thing. My daughter's friend, a young girl (well, now 22) came from a much poorer household (although, as Stagger said, she always had a cellphone (my kids did not have them in highschool) and an ipod and the rest. and she was in a home site where only her Mom was there and she had several sisters and brothers, all with different last names. But this kid worked hard,and today, she is a medical records transcriptionist. She had no money either, but went to a trade school.

Which I can relate to - that's what I did as well.


    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    I'm continually astonished by the lack of empathy shown by the far right.


I think you're wrong about that. I have plenty of empathy and am more than willing to help. It's just that I have no will in the matter, when it is done by the government. I serve at a homeless person's breakfast weekly. I am astonished at how many of these "homeless people" have plenty of Ciggies at 5 bucks a pack, cell phones and, in many cases, nice cars. But that doesn't stop what I am doing. I give my share of the money to buy the food too. Many studies have shown (you can look it up) than charitable donations of all types are significantly higher by the "far right" than people who believe that the federal government should redistribute money.

    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    It astonishes me that you're happy for people's tax money to be funnelled into wars they don't agree with, but when it comes time for you to let some of that cash go into helping people less fortunate than you it's like some kind of crime.


There's perhaps a difference of opinion on whether people agree or disagree with various wars and that is why we have elections and representative government. At least, maintaining a defense and waging war is a constitutional thing (ie: it is covered in the constitution of the United states). For better or worse, giving a person who does have money someone elses' money is not a function of the federal government as covered in the US Constitution.

    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    The majority of people don't choose to be unemployed. Please realise that.


I think your statement is unclear. The majority of people who are unemployed chose to be unemployed by their actions. When my role was coming to an end, 16 or so years ago, I saw the writing on the wall. Most people do. I knew that, within 4-5 years or so, my job would be eliminated. So I started looking. I retrained when I could, learning new things. When the chance came to prove myself, I chose to spend a few weeks away from my family in order to see if I liked the new role and to see if it liked me. and I moved about 300 miles away when I took the new job.

I could have sat on my ass, waited until the string played and then taken the severance and unemployment and hoped that maybe I would find something similar, since I really only knew how to do the one thing well. but I chose to be in charge of my own life.

My Brother in law is a good example of a guy who isn't in charge. He got in debt young. For no reason either. His role is highly technical and he has much more education than I do. But the role he is in is changing rapidly and unless you get into a partnership, your pay isn't too high. And he's not really retrained, not reinvented himself. He's unemployed right now. The area he is in has a down commercial and school real estate market, which drives his job type. He needs to go somewhere where it is more vibrant - Houston, Phoenix, Toronto, Dallas, Atlanta - Chicago isn't building. But he sits at home. He surfs facebook - see him on there most days. And wonders what he's going to do. I found him a job, but he'd have to: a: Move and B: learn to do new stuff. He doesn't want to. I'm supposed to have empathy for that?



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.23
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Third time's the charm for the DWI recliner?
Next thread: Olbermann vs Simmons
Previous thread: 8.8 Earthquake in Chile, Tsunami Warnings for Hawai'i, Pacific Rim
(156 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I think the fact that the young gentleman has what looks to be a full trash bag of goodies may have played a part in the captioning.
- BigSteve, How can Yahoo justify this? (2005)
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Jim Bunning crisisRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.138 seconds.