Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

Then, of course YOU agree that we should stop sending millions and millions and millions of jobs out of the country?

We need to recognize that placing more and more burdens on employers pressures the employer to more jobs oversees and often compels the move. The democrats pride themselves in being in favor of workers and against industry, and impose burdens with no thought to the effect on the employer. Obamacare for example requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25. That raises labor costs with no benefit to the employer. Just a gift to the worker.
But, not every job can be outsourced and I think that most of the jobs which can be outsourced have been so.

 

[Benvolio]

No, I don't, because banning illegals isn't going to bring back jobs college-educated Americans lost in the last 10 years, and it's another topic even though you bring it up in every single thread.

You cannot logically discuss unemployment without discussing immigration, which clearly causes some unemployment. Here, liberals say we need to extend unemployment benefits again and again, because the people cannot find jobs BUT they say, we need immigration, because Americans don't want any work that an immigrant could possibly do: taxi drivers, truck drivers, waiters, construction, etc. Liberals are very wrong on both counts. We need to end immigration and give the jobs to Americans.

 

[Jack Springer]

Not extending unemployment benefits was passed by both houses of Congress before Christmas by both democrats and republicans in the budget deal.

The budget deal also reduced benefits to wounded veterans and other veterans.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like last year when the National Parks were shuttered because of the republican government shut down. They went to the parks and blamed everyone else for it.



Scumbags.

The bullshit is so deep.

 

[Benvolio]

I realize liberals are not supposed to think for themselves or to read non-liberal sources, but here is an economist explaining how extending unemployment benefits actually extends unemployment:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703959704575454431457720188

- - - Updated - - -

 

[CowboyBob]

The bullshit is so deep.

So the video isn't real?

 

[opinterph]

Obamacare … requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.

I don’t think so.

We need to end immigration and give the jobs to Americans.

Why give the jobs? Why not let each group compete for the jobs in accordance with our great American tradition?

 

[xbuzzerx]

We need to recognize that placing more and more burdens on employers pressures the employer to more jobs oversees and often compels the move. The democrats pride themselves in being in favor of workers and against industry, and impose burdens with no thought to the effect on the employer. Obamacare for example requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25. That raises labor costs with no benefit to the employer. Just a gift to the worker.
But, not every job can be outsourced and I think that most of the jobs which can be outsourced have been so.

Yet you support this position of end all immigration and force domestic wages to rise. Which places pressure on employers, which by your own admission in this post, pushes them to outsource whatever jobs they can out of the country.

When holes are pointed out in your position (there are many), it doesn't matter, you simply go on persisting with the same position in every thread, even when it has almost nothing to do with immigration.

 

[HenryReardon]

. Every tax cut they give to the rich is a government handout.

That is bovine excreta in its most virulent form.

Allowing someone to keep more of that which is his or hers, is NOT a handout.

 

[HenryReardon]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

 

[HenryReardon]

The bullshit is so deep.

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

Oh really?



Also this chart doesn't show 2011 where effective corporate tax collection fell to the lowest level since WWI.

Of course, it's entirely coincidence I'm sure that many corporations had gut-busting profit margins in the last decade or so, often even while claiming that the economic downturn forced them to lay off employees or cut their benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

All the right does on this topic is make unsubstantiated claims that are in the complete inverse of reality. Your posts being no exception.

 

[HenryReardon]

Oh really?

[]

Also this chart doesn't show 2011 where effective corporate tax collection fell to the lowest level since WWI.



.

You need to actually READ a post before your knee-jerk, or is that just plain jerk, reaction kicks in.

My post referred to county tax rolls at the local level, ie, property taxes. It had nothing at all to do with income taxes, corporate or otherwise.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You need to actually READ a post before your knee-jerk, or is that just plain jerk, reaction kicks in.

My post referred to county tax rolls at the local level, ie, property taxes. It had nothing at all to do with income taxes, corporate or otherwise.

Then in a world where property taxes are the only tax, your response would have made the least bit of sense in a discussion about overall tax burden.

 

[CowboyBob]

That is bovine excreta in its most virulent form.

Allowing someone to keep more of that which is his or hers, is NOT a handout.

Look who stopped in for a cheery visit! Please explain why is is bullshit.

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

Oh? Just how pathetic are liberals?

Is everyone who isn't an extremist right wing tea party right a liberal?

 

[HenryReardon]

Then in a world where property taxes are the only tax, your response would have made the least bit of sense in a discussion about overall tax burden.

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

A side-step of what? The discussion is corporations benefitting more than an individual taxpayer from tax-funded services, while often paying less (a huge amount of U.S. corporations file 0-returns, or funnel profits overseas, or issue out benefits to executives and shareholders in tax-deferred formats to absorb profits, or receive and use tax subsidies) per cap for those benefits.

These same corporations also generally paid the lowest wages they could get away with and as few benefits as they could get away with to people who are now on unemployment due to not being able to find work. Many corporations were busy hiding profits in the last 10 years while people were losing their jobs due to "the economic downturn."

So yes, the notion that they are somehow unduly burdened compared to their benefit is ridiculous. But, by all means, continue on with irrational rants about liberals to persuade anyone otherwise.

 

[CowboyBob]

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

So you don't have anything to add to the topic other than insults. Not very good Henry.

 

[Benvolio]

I don’t think so.



Why give the jobs? Why not let each group compete for the jobs in accordance with our great American tradition?

p

The law requires employers of over 50 to provide coverage and the law requires policies providing dependent coverage to continue the coverage until age 26.http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

If we import immigrants to compete with Americans, the losers become dependent on welfare, including unemployment benefits, but also food stamps etc. Our law should benefit Americans. How does massive immigration of poor and unemployed benefit Americans--other than Democrat politicians.

 

[Benvolio]

Yet you support this position of end all immigration and force domestic wages to rise. Which places pressure on employers, which by your own admission in this post, pushes them to outsource whatever jobs they can out of the country.

When holes are pointed out in your position (there are many), it doesn't matter, you simply go on persisting with the same position in every thread, even when it has almost nothing to do with immigration.

The difference in wages is only a small portion of the burdens which are forcing emoployers to outsource, plus they end up paying part of the support of the people kept out of work by immigration, e.g. Unemployment insurance taxes.
Do you seriously believe immigration has nothing to do with unemployment? Doesn't the sand get in you eyes with your head buried down there?

 

[opinterph]

Obamacare … requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.

I don’t think so.

The law requires employers of over 50 [employees] to provide coverage and the law requires policies providing dependent coverage to continue the coverage until age 26.http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

Though the word “employer” appears 19 times on the web page you linked, I don’t see where it “requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.”

If the employer offers a group plan, adding younger members to its participant pool is likely to reduce the cost of coverage for all other persons in the plan. Adding younger members also creates other benefits for both employers and employees.

While the ACA forces employers to offer health insurance to dependent children until age 26, it doesn't require them to pay for any part of that coverage. (WSJ; Sept. 18, 2013)