Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[xbuzzerx]

Here is an article refuting the myth of Sweden's alleged success. http://www.paoracle.com/SocialismWORKS!/?sw=Sweden
Here is one paragraph:[The claim that Sweden] ranks far higher than the United States in most measurements:
The Swedish Institute of Trade reported in 2002 that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households". If Sweden were introduced to the U.S. as a new state, it would rank as the poorest according to these standards. This is in light of the fact that these numbers are gross values - before taxes - and Sweden has the highest taxes in the world. The same report also shows that Swedes fare lower than the lowest American socio-economic class, working-class black males

That information is twenty-four years old.

GDP (PPP) 2013 estimate
- Total $393.774 billion[2] (34th)
- Per capita $40,870[2] (14th)
GDP (nominal) 2013 estimate
- Total $552.042 billion[2] (21st)
- Per capita $57,297[2] (7th)

 

[xbuzzerx]

Become a Democrat and enjoy life on the dole? No man with an ounce of self-respect would ever do that.

The only parasites in this world are the fools and ideologues who think the world owes them a living, and are content to suckle at the government teat for everything.

I think that you fail to acknowledge that if you create a system in which someone cannot take care of themselves working full time, you have reduced their incentive to work.

Then you sit around bitching about social services.

 

[HenryReardon]

You mean like the Oil companies who suck out millions of taxpayer's dollars? Farm subsidies too.

.

I've never approved of farm subsidies.
As for oil companies, what $$ do they get in direct payments from the government? And don't start blathering about
tax breaks.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that you fail to acknowledge that if you create a system in which someone cannot take care of themselves working full time, you have reduced their incentive to work.

.

If you lack the skills to obtain a full time job that pays a living wage, it's your fault.

 

[Benvolio]

This is a claim for which you have offered no substantiation. And they are not merely consumers. They are also producers.

Many join the ranks of the unemployed or push others into unemployment. Others work for those low wages democrats claim that Americans will not work form, which is the justification for their entry. With such low wages The rest of them have to give them food, health care, housing subsidies and the entire cornucopia of freebies.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I've never approved of farm subsidies.
As for oil companies, what $$ do they get in direct payments from the government? And don't start blathering about
tax breaks.

- - - Updated - - -



If you lack the skills to obtain a full time job that pays a living wage, it's your fault.

That's rather convenient from someone who worked minimum wage for 1 year at some obscure year in their past. (It was probably worth more then than it is now, btw.)

- - - Updated - - -

Many join the ranks of the unemployed or push others into unemployment. Others work for those low wages democrats claim that Americans will not work form, which is the justification for their entry. With such low wages The rest of them have to give them food, health care, housing subsidies and the entire cornucopia of freebies.

I'm not interested in this circular logic you've been spouting for months if it's based on claims you aren't substantiating.

 

[Benvolio]

That information is twenty-four years old.

GDP (PPP) 2013 estimate
- Total $393.774 billion[2] (34th)
- Per capita $40,870[2] (14th)
GDP (nominal) 2013 estimate
- Total $552.042 billion[2] (21st)
- Per capita $57,297[2] (7th)

For 2010, the US median disposable family income was $29, 056. For Sweden, the same, adjusted for differences in purchasing power was $24, 278. See Wikipedia, median family income. Only 3 small countries are better than US, including Norway with its oil production.
Gross Domestic Product, your figures, tell you nothing about what individuals are recieving, but the US would compare favorably with Sweden. Per Wikipedia, 2012, US $51,704, Sweden $40,304

 

[xbuzzerx]

For 2010, the US median disposable family income was $29, 056. For Sweden, the same, adjusted for differences in purchasing power was $24, 278. See Wikipedia, median famil income. Only 3 small countries are better than US, including Norway with its oil production.
Gross Domestic Product, your figures, tell you nothing about what individuals are recieving, but the US would compare favorably with Sweden.

This of course, ignores the greater equality of income, as well as the superior healthcare system--- the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is our private healthcare system, not sloth or individual irresponsibility or being a system-abusing immigrant or the litany of other things you and Henry blame all economic woes on.

 

[EastMed]

Well, of course, it belongs to them. It's their money, and they earned it.

Succinctly put as usual, Henry.
So how will this episode of class warfare pan out? Will Republicans stand their ground or will they buckle under pressure? Perhaps they will come to some ‘grand bargain’: an extension of unemployment benefits for a few months in exchange for something else they can deny to the precariat.


http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/01/07/1734722/the-us-should-extend-emergency-unemployment-benefits/

 

[Benvolio]

This of course, ignores the greater equality of income, as well as the superior healthcare system--- the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is our private healthcare system, not sloth or individual irresponsibility or being a system-abusing immigrant or the litany of other things you and Henry blame all economic woes on.

The top half of the US earns almost $5000 more than those in the top half in Sweden. Their much vaunted equality is at a much lower level. If we focused less on pulling down and more on pulling up, our equality would be even better. But liberals want more poverty, not less.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The top half of the US earns almost $5000 more than those in the top half in Sweden. Their much vaunted equality is at a much lower level. If we focused less on pulling down and more on pulling up, our equality would be even better. But liberals want more poverty, not less.

Because the brand of "pulling up" espoused by you and like-thinkers is essentially trickle down economics. We've watched the top get richer and better compensated for 30 years straight while we've watched working wages of most families stagnate or, once adjusted for cost of living and inflation, decrease. No real increase in the past 30 years.

Trickle down economics has failed to work. When we point out any specifics of this, you abandon that argument and simply resort to an ideological stance that you oppose regulatory measures of any kind, you oppose organized labor "pulling up", and you regard the decisions and wealth of corporations to be sacrosanct, out of the jurisdiction of any considerations for the effect on quality of life within the U.S. or the ability of full time workers to exist independently of services, which you also oppose.

At this point we almost need to return to what I thought most of us learned at 5 years old: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you oppose states of dependency on social services, then there is no room for this completely inflexible position you hold on minimum wage or against any form of unionized or organized collective bargaining. Nor is there room for regarding any wages privately decided upon by the greediest shareholder to be above the scrutiny of anyone or anything. You're trying to have both, so what you've done is create this mythical solution whereby the problems go away once you get rid of immigrants.

 

[chrisrobin]

Succinctly put as usual, Henry.
So how will this episode of class warfare pan out? Will Republicans stand their ground or will they buckle under pressure? Perhaps they will come to some ‘grand bargain’: an extension of unemployment benefits for a few months in exchange for something else they can deny to the precariat.


http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/01/07/1734722/the-us-should-extend-emergency-unemployment-benefits/

an extension of unemployment benefits for a few months in exchange for something else.

A pound Democratic flesh? I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Benvolio]

Because the brand of "pulling up" espoused by you and like-thinkers is essentially trickle down economics. We've watched the top get richer and better compensated for 30 years straight while we've watched working wages of most families stagnate or, once adjusted for cost of living and inflation, decrease. No real increase in the past 30 years.

Trickle down economics has failed to work. When we point out any specifics of this, you abandon that argument and simply resort to an ideological stance that you oppose regulatory measures of any kind, you oppose organized labor "pulling up", and you regard the decisions and wealth of corporations to be sacrosanct, out of the jurisdiction of any considerations for the effect on quality of life within the U.S. or the ability of full time workers to exist independently of services, which you also oppose.

At this point we almost need to return to what I thought most of us learned at 5 years old: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you oppose states of dependency on social services, then there is no room for this completely inflexible position you hold on minimum wage or against any form of unionized or organized collective bargaining. Nor is there room for regarding any wages privately decided upon by the greediest shareholder to be above the scrutiny of anyone or anything. You're trying to have both, so what you've done is create this mythical solution whereby the problems go away once you get rid of immigrants.

No it is you who want to have your cake and eat it too. With untold millions of poor and poorly paid you already, want to import millions and millions and millions of new poor in a perpetual stream of million more each year. But you expect them all to be magically catapulted into prosperity, often without working. You want to destroy the greatest economic system in the history of the world because it cannot grant instant wealth to everyone stepping into the country.
Trickle down was never our word or or our theory. It is you nasty epithet for the system which is responsible for the standard of living we enjoy. Our words are free enterprise, economic freedom or capitalism, but for which you would be living in desparate poverty in a one room hovel as our ancestors did.
But even communism/ socialism is a trickle down system. You have to build the factory to creat the jobs in it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No it is you who want to have your cake and eat it too. With untold millions of poor and poorly paid you already, want to import millions and millions and millions of new poor in a perpetual stream of million more each year.

That's right Benvolio, I need a couple thousand more to fill out the cleaning, cooking and distribution staff needs of my personal empire. I'm on the phone with Obama right now lobbying for the right to bring them across the border without checks.

But you expect them all to be magically catapulted into prosperity, often without working.

The myth that immigrants come over, plop down, don't work and live for free off services is entirely your myth. It doesn't happen in reality on any scale remotely within the same fabric of reality as you claim, certainly not compared to how many native born people of European descent are doing it.

You want to destroy the greatest economic system in the history of the world because it cannot grant instant wealth to everyone stepping into the country.

This is your slippery slope. Let me remind you that you and Henry are the ones that claim that by simply making the right decisions everyone will get a great job with great pay. I return to my question about how does a corporate structure work when every employee in it is a CEO making $25 million dollars a year. Nothing you're saying here remotely reflects anything I've said. Reducing massive inequality is not equal to enforced uniform equality. Do you still have nightmares at night about the trustbusting period of American history? Because it was exactly the same thing, aimed at reducing massive inequality which had begun to border on destructive. It also precluded a free market, much like the widespread corporate collusion that goes on in many industries today.

Trickle down was never our word or or our theory. It is you nasty epithet for the system which is responsible for the standard of living we enjoy. Our words are free enterprise, economic freedom or capitalism, but for which you would be living in desparate poverty in a one room hovel as our ancestors did.
But even communism/ socialism is a trickle down system. You have to build the factory to creat the jobs in it.

Your position is that no burden of any sort-- taxation, collective bargaining, minimum wage or anything else-- should be placed upon employers because that is bad for the market. That is trickle down economics. Let the people making all the money make and keep even more of it and that will benefit everyone. That's the utter core of trickle down economics. That's the philosophy that has guided three decades now of deregulation and privatization and it has not worked. This whining that I'm using an "epithet" is typical Republican thinking: let's never address when our ideologies don't work, let's simply rename them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which is precisely what Unions do - set wages by coercion. Wait a minute, you believe in coercion, don't you? Just as long as the 'right' sort of people are doing it.

No, unions don't set waqes by coercion, they bargain. Corporations just dictate.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, unions don't set waqes by coercion, they bargain. Corporations just dictate.

They've made it pretty clear that they think the only just reason for any change in compensation, no matter how poor that compensation is, are greater market forces (which are largely manipulated by corporations, easy example being the oil industry.) Human beings should have utterly no say in the value of their time and work, even if what they are being paid is not enough to live on. If they're ever in that situation, it's their own fault apparently--- even though they feel they should have no real say at all vs. what corporations feel like paying.

 

[Kulindahr]

That one or one and a half dollar extra cost of the food hits hardest the poor and unemployed, and that difference runs through the economy making almost every thing more expensive as companies raise prices to compensate, negating the benefit of the raise.Then workers want bigger raises, and so it goes.

Bullshit. This has been shown to be bullshit, but you repeat it.

The poor are the ones who gain -- their wages are the ones that go up many times the amount of the increase in cost. The unemployed aren't so well off, because it takes months for the government to figure out that food stamp allowances need to rise.

Your economic model is simplistic, the sort of version presented to sixth graders to give them their first glimpse at a very complex process. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you, but there's a difference between you and I: you only see your ideology, while I look at evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you actually know any people from Japan, Sweden or Canada? Somehow none of them envy our healthcare system or our wage structure. Nor have their economies collapsed into this swirling vortex of domino effect wheelbarrow of bucks for a loaf of bread you're saying it would lead to.

Basically, nothing you're saying plays out in reality.

Also merely talking about the negative effects of some goods costing marginally more overlooks the benefit of people earning good wages and going out and being able to spend it, and not winding up needing assistance from the taxpayer.

He doesn't even really understand supply and demand. Increasing minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, providing food stamps all pump up demand. Higher demand means supply has to go up, which means more workers are needed, which means fewer unemployed and fewer needing food stamps.

 

[EastMed]

A pound Democratic flesh? I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists.

The issue is non-negotiable, in my view.
The President and Democrats should stand firm.

- - - Updated - - -

A pound Democratic flesh? I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists.

The issue is non-negotiable, in my view.
The President and Democrats should stand firm.

 

[Benvolio]

He doesn't even really understand supply and demand. Increasing minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, providing food stamps all pump up demand. Higher demand means supply has to go up, which means more workers are needed, which means fewer unemployed and fewer needing food stamps.

Nope. We will bring in more new people than the jobs created. No fewer employed, no fewer food stamps. People stay on welfare because they can. And they don't want any job an immigrant would do. Employers hire fewer at the higher wage, putting people out of work. And we borrow from China to do it all-- until they wise up.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Nope. We will bring in more new people than the jobs created. No fewer employed, no fewer food stamps. People stay on welfare because they can. And they don't want any job an immigrant would do. Employers hire fewer at the higher wage, putting people out of work. And we borrow from China to do it all-- until they wise up.

Weren't you just arguing a bit back that we've moved beyond feudal zero-sum economics?