It looks as though the unemployed will continue to suffer at the hands of the GOP...GOPers such as Senator Kyl...
Kyl: Unemployment Insurance A 'Necessary Evil'
07-12-10
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said Monday that tax cuts for the wealthy shouldn't be offset by revenue increases elsewhere because their purpose is to shrink the size of government, fleshing out an argument he made on Sunday. The White House has seized on Kyl's assertion that unemployment benefits should be paid for but tax cuts shouldn't, hoping to portray the GOP as staunch defenders of the rich. But Kyl stood by his statement, calling jobless benefits a "necessary evil."
Viewing Kyl's argument through the prism of the deficit makes for a confusing philosophical landscape. But it's not about the deficit, it's about the size of government: Kyl and the GOP in general want to slash government spending -- on the domestic front, at least. Borrowing to pay for unemployment insurance cuts against that goal; borrowing to pay for tax cuts reduces revenues available to government and moves the nation closer to a crisis point at which cuts to social programs may become palatable. That strategy has long been known as "starve the beast."
"My view, and I think most of the people in my party, don't believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut," said Kyl, speaking to reporters off the Senate floor. "The money belongs to the taxpayer, to the people. The money does not belong to the government. And yet that's what this kind of a rigid pay-go rule would assume, that the money belongs to the government and, therefore, if you're going to deny the government some of that revenue through a tax cut, you have to make the government whole because the government can never lose any money. That would mean that you could never reduce the size of government. Each year when it gets bigger, it stays at that level or gets bigger yet, but you can never reduce it. The money doesn't belong to the government. The money belongs to the people, so you shouldn't have to make the government whole every time you do something to reduce the revenue to the government."
Most economists, including Mark Zandi, a former adviser to Kyl's homestate GOP colleague John McCain, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, say that spending on unemployment insurance stimulates the economy because the jobless spend nearly the entire check. The wealthy, meanwhile, save most of the money they receive from tax cuts, spend it on luxury goods or send it offshore.
Kyl disagreed forcefully with that economic analysis and urged lower taxes and less regulation. "First of all, no economist will say that you should have to spend money on people who are unemployed because that stimulates the economy. If you didn't have high unemployment or a recession, nobody would be suggesting unemployment benefits. Stimulus, by just giving people money, is not the most efficient way to generate jobs and growth. The best way to generate growth in the economy -- jobs, income for governments who need to tax -- is by a growing economy. And there is no better way to stimulate a growing economy than through reforming tax and regulatory policy," he said.
Kyl said that the government would prefer not to have to pay unemployment benefits. "It's a necessary evil in a sense. You'd like not to have raise revenue in order to pay people for not working - or not to pay them for not working, but because they can't get work. You want them to get work so you don't have to pay them. It's something the government would just as soon not have to do if it could avoid it," he said. "To me, you shouldn't look at it as an economic matter. It's a humanitarian matter. You've got people who are out of work who can't find work, you want to help them out. Families need help. That's why you provide it. You don't do it because it's going to stimulate the economy."
In March, Kyl suggested on the Senate floor that unemployment benefits dissuade folks from seeking jobs. He was the first -- but far from the last -- member of Congress to make such an argument. At the time, an incredulous Max Baucus (D-Mont.) asked him if he wanted to soften the statement and he did. On Monday, HuffPost asked if he still felt that way. "Yes. Most economists do. Look at the textbooks written by economists who work for President Obama, Larry Summers for example," he said.
HuffPost noted that the research for those studies applies to good economic times, when a job seeker can juggle multiple offers, but not to recessionary periods, where jobs are harder to come by. Summers made the point recently in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
"Oh, baloney. They don't qualify it in the textbooks," replied Kyl.
Personally, I think that all tax cuts should be off-set by spending cuts.
Bureaucracy and social program spending should be the first areas cut.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I can agree with some military spending. (within reason)
I would love to see better accountability for what we spend each year for the military.
Just to add to my comments .... I don't think that we can have any sacred cows. Everything has to be on the table as far as cutting the budget is concerned.
Everything.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: LOast time I checked it's the democrats failed policies that are prolonging the recession and causing the unemployed to continue to suffer.
Last time I checked, the problems we faced aren't the fault or any one political party, but rather an economic system that encourages taking on debt that you cannot afford.
Nice article. Kyl actually makes some very valid points, but he stops short of the next step in the logic which is that you CAN and MUST offset the tax cuts, but not by increasing revenue elsewhere, but by reducing expenditures.
There are two halves to the equation: Expenditures and Revenue. The two should always equal each other, idealistically.
His argument is suggesting that a cut in in Revenue shouldn't be offset by an increase in Revenue... and that is completely correct. What they fail to assert is that the cut in revenue needs to be associated with an equal cut in expenditures... the tax cut itself is NOT an expenditure (e.g. it is NOT classified as "spending"), it is a reduction in revenue.
However, on the topic of debating whether to give tax cuts or keep feeding the unemployment machine... you cannot do both without massively increasing the debt load.
Which is best for recovery? I'm not sure that either is. The merits of both are debatable, and you can't do both. With the one, you see the effects sooner, but they don't last. With the other, it takes a long time before the effects become apparent, but it is generally a more lasting impact.
Probably the best answer? Do neither. Rather than muck with things, have the patience to let the economic engine sort itself out. A LOT of excess capital and jobs were removed from the economy, there is no quick fix to getting it all back, certainly nothing sustainable.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: Bureaucracy and social program spending should be the first areas cut.
Sooo ... the military?
You forget the BRAC program that is closing and realigning bases to save a ton of money?
I want two things when it comes to the military. I want soldiers, current and former, taken care of in a responsible way.. I want their service honored with decent pay, good medical care, retirment benefits, etc.. second I want the current soldiers to have what they need to do their job. They should have the best most up to date equipment, they should have the training to use that equipment and the parts to fix it if it breaks.. You want to save money in the military, do that by making it more efficient without adversely impacting the soldiers themselves.
Jon Kyl: Extend Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Even If They Add To Deficit
07-12-10
Top Senate Republican Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) insisted on Sunday that Congress should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans regardless of their impact on the deficit, even as he and other Republicans are blocking unemployment insurance extensions over deficit concerns.
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," said the Arizona Senator during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."
White House aides immediately seized on the comments. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wrote on Twitter, "Kyl says wealthy need big Bush tax cuts while middle class families are on their own to fend for themselves as a result of Bush economy."
In private, administration officials say that the framing of the argument couldn't be more advantageous: "It's cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting the unemployed to fend for themselves," said one White House ally.
"If all of this has a familiar ring to it, it's because unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again," added Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.
Asked to expand on his tweets, Gibbs declined comment, save to clarify that "the question [host Chris] Wallace specifically asked Kyl was [about] the upper end of the Bush tax cuts (above $250,000)."
But the politics already are fairly obvious. For the past few months, congressional Republicans have demanded that any additional spending be offset by budget cuts or revenue increases elsewhere. Also on Sunday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod blamed deficit concerns for the difficulty in finding a 60th vote in the Senate for unemployment benefits even though, as of Friday, 2.1 million people have not received checks that they were expecting in June.
And yet, Kyl is now suggesting that the same budget rules shouldn't apply with respect to tax cuts for the wealthy, which are set to expire unless Congress acts to renew them. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly notes:
It's quite a message to Americans: Republicans believe $30 billion for unemployment benefits don't even deserve a vote because the money would be added to the deficit, but Republicans also believe that adding the cost of $678 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy to the deficit is just fine. Kyl is one of the most prominent members of Congress to advance the argument that jobless benefits make people not want to look for work, a position disputed by economists across the political spectrum. Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said last March on the Senate floor.
The chart below shows the deficit impact of the Bush tax cuts over the next decade.
Got to love Republican values...deficit spending for tax cuts for the "wealthiest" Americans is just with the GOP..
But, deficit spending to extend unemployment benefits for Americans who are most in need...Republicans tell laid off Americans...GO TO HELL, as the GOP pushes laid off workers under with their "righteous" foot.
Something that needs to be pointed out...when states deplete their unemployment benefit funds during extended periods of poor economic times...those funds are replenished during good economic times.
What is becoming clearer, this recession has lasted longer and laid off more workers than another time in American history and these funds were not designed to handle a recession as "bad" as the GREAT RECESSION.
Once recover takes place, the funding levels of these trust funds will be raised to handle the possibility of such economic downturns.
mac it's been proven many times on this board to you the tax cuts actually increased revenue to the government. The problem was the republicans that were in control of the Congress and the White House increased spending. However, I didn't hear any democrats at the time complaining.
Making the tax cuts permanent (btw I'm not rich and I received a tax cut as well as everyone else that pays tax did, the rich got a larger % cut but they still pay more % and $$ than we do) would help go a long way in stabilizing the market. Right now there isn't much stability because businesses are uncertain if the tax cuts will be kept or not. They will have different business plans based off each outcome.
But we have to cut spending. Period. Domestic, Foreign, Social and Military. Find cuts everywhere and start paying down our vast debt.
Quote: mac it's been proven many times on this board to you the tax cuts actually increased revenue to the government. The problem was the republicans that were in control of the Congress and the White House increased spending. However, I didn't hear any democrats at the time complaining.
Making the tax cuts permanent (btw I'm not rich and I received a tax cut as well as everyone else that pays tax did, the rich got a larger % cut but they still pay more % and $$ than we do) would help go a long way in stabilizing the market. Right now there isn't much stability because businesses are uncertain if the tax cuts will be kept or not. They will have different business plans based off each outcome.
But we have to cut spending. Period. Domestic, Foreign, Social and Military. Find cuts everywhere and start paying down our vast debt.
Great post! Too bad mac - and others (nearly) like him - won't understand it.
Rubio releases economic plan heavy on tax cuts Posted: Jul 13, 2010 11:41 AM EDT Updated: July 13, 2010 11:41 AM EDT
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio's economic platform is heavy on tax cuts and calls for repealing President Barack Obama's health care package.
Rubio announced his plan Tuesday in Tampa. It calls for permanently extending President George W. Bush's income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which are scheduled to expire this year. Obama has called for extending them only for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000.
Rubio also called for permanently repealing the inheritance tax. It has been reduced to zero this year but is set to jump back to 55% on estates worth more than $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples. Smaller estates are exempt. LINK
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Republicans hate Obama so much that they won't let him do anything.
They would rather sit in Congress and collect their checks while NOT representing you.
You forgot to say that the R's are against Obama because they are racist.
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
I could go on all day.
You have convinced yourself that the R's are racist because they disagree with the King's horrible policies...policies that the MAJORITY of people do not want.
I am so thankful for this forum as it allows people like you and mac to show their true colors.
Quote: What is becoming clearer, this recession has lasted longer and laid off more workers than another time in American history and these funds were not designed to handle a recession as "bad" as the GREAT RECESSION.
Once recover takes place, the funding levels of these trust funds will be raised to handle the possibility of such economic downturns.
Really? Like the way the social security trust fund was raised back in the 70s when people first noticed this baby boomer bubble that would be hitting about now? Is that the same kind of forward thinking that they are going to apply to unemployment going forward? You actually think our federal government is going to LEARN FROM A MISTAKE so that it won't happen again?
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
What the people want has ceased to be the function of government a long time ago. Financial interests dictate policy.
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
What the people want has ceased to be the function of government a long time ago. Financial interests dictate policy.
I think most people would agree.
The difference in THIS thread is that posters like mac and Charlie insist on making everything a 'D' vs 'R' thing rather than debating the issue(s).
mac refuses to look at the entire picture and won't answer a question...and Charlie thinks the R's are racist.
Guys like them are light years away from understanding your point...maybe that's why you responded to me unstead of Charlie.
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
What the people want has ceased to be the function of government a long time ago. Financial interests dictate policy.
I think most people would agree.
The difference in THIS thread is that posters like mac and Charlie insist on making everything a 'D' vs 'R' thing rather than debating the issue(s).
mac refuses to look at the entire picture and won't answer a question...and Charlie thinks the R's are racist.
Guys like them are light years away from understanding your point...maybe that's why you responded to me unstead of Charlie.
I agree with you completely as well.
It's a cyclical thing. You may differ in my opinion that Bush and Obama are from the same mold, but the arguing and the discourse are exactly the same. The guys who used to crack on the guys who used the insulting nicknames are now the guys using the insulting nicknames. The posters who would make a lot of dissenting posts were jeered; and now those who jeered are making the dissenting posts.
I called Bush King Ralph, and now you call this idiot King.
I think it goes even beyond D and R, though. The discourse has been shaped so that buzzwords dictate the debate. For instances, if I say the word 'taxes', everyone automatically has their opinions lined up in a sense, right? Same with 'guns'. 'Religion'. Etc.
And I happen to think Charlie is a pretty bright guy.
Quote: It isn't deficit spending, it can't be because a tax cut is NOT spending, it is reducing REVENUE.
I'm completely Ok with them extending, and even making permanent, the tax cuts... BUT, they've got to offset it with reductions in actual spending.
The Bush tax cuts were deficit financed, thus the GOP has no problem with deficit funding that benefits the wealthiest. When it comes to deficit spending to extend unemployment benefits to those Americans suffering due to 8 years of Bush/GOP "supply side" economic policies...THE GOP SAYS NO.
Bush/GOP supply side economics helped to create THE WORST RECESSON IN AMERICAN HISTORY...
The deficit funded Bush/GOP tax cuts and deficit spending to pay unemployment benefits to Americans most in need....have the same effect on the Government balance sheet...it reduces our Governments checkbook balance.
For 8 years this country lived under Bush/GOP "supply side economics" and today, we live with the results of those 8 years of Bush/GOP economic policies...THE WORSTE RECESSION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
Senator Kyle reflects the values of the GOP...take of the rich at any cost...screw the working class.
You mistakenly assume that anyone that earns income owes it all to the gov'.t - aside from the pittance they let us keep after paying taxes.
Here's the real scoop. Any money we send to them in the form of taxes should be appreciated, spent wisely, and not counted on in the future.
I love how one of the articles in this thread said something about "the recession is hurting gov't."..............screw that - the recession is hurting America - and American workers.
Quote: It isn't deficit spending, it can't be because a tax cut is NOT spending, it is reducing REVENUE.
I'm completely Ok with them extending, and even making permanent, the tax cuts... BUT, they've got to offset it with reductions in actual spending.
The Bush tax cuts were deficit financed, thus the GOP has no problem with deficit funding that benefits the wealthiest. When it comes to deficit spending to extend unemployment benefits to those Americans suffering due to 8 years of Bush/GOP "supply side" economic policies...THE GOP SAYS NO.
Bush/GOP supply side economics helped to create THE WORST RECESSON IN AMERICAN HISTORY...
The deficit funded Bush/GOP tax cuts and deficit spending to pay unemployment benefits to Americans most in need....have the same effect on the Government balance sheet...it reduces our Governments checkbook balance.
For 8 years this country lived under Bush/GOP "supply side economics" and today, we live with the results of those 8 years of Bush/GOP economic policies...THE WORSTE RECESSION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
Senator Kyle reflects the values of the GOP...take of the rich at any cost...screw the working class.
From the article: An Ohio program that offers companies tax breaks to create jobs has a 91 percent success rate, according to data compiled by the state.
From the article: The money has gone toward 955 projects of which 875 have made it beyond the three-year period during which companies promise to meet certain job and investment goals
from the article: Overall, 91 percent of promised jobs have materialized; of the 875 projects past the three-year point, 92 percent of promised jobs have been created.
Now, in all fairness, there were, according to the article, about 100 cases where the businesses did not create the jobs they said they would - and they had their tax break taken away - in other words, they were penalized.
Now, contradict the "cut taxes, get jobs" proof, here in ohio, with the "raise taxes, eliminate jobs" proof of the economy.
It's a no win for you mac - you either agree that cutting taxes creates jobs, or you look stupid.
Yet all we hear from you is "raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes".......we never hear, "cut spending". We never hear "businesses create jobs"............it's just "raise taxes - extend unemployment, and screw the republicans". Each and every one of your thoughts is stupid on it's own, but when combined - it's ludicrous.
You are "for" the working american? Hey pal, I AM working America. What's good for me is good for everyone. Yet you prefer to see people wallow in unemployment.
I bet the people on unemployment despise people like you - most of them would like jobs, and all you come up with is "let's penalize the few workers even more", when all the unemployed want is a job.
You - "for" the American worker------------what a joke.
Quote: It isn't deficit spending, it can't be because a tax cut is NOT spending, it is reducing REVENUE.
I'm completely Ok with them extending, and even making permanent, the tax cuts... BUT, they've got to offset it with reductions in actual spending.
The Bush tax cuts were deficit financed, thus the GOP has no problem with deficit funding that benefits the wealthiest. When it comes to deficit spending to extend unemployment benefits to those Americans suffering due to 8 years of Bush/GOP "supply side" economic policies...THE GOP SAYS NO.
Bush/GOP supply side economics helped to create THE WORST RECESSON IN AMERICAN HISTORY...
The deficit funded Bush/GOP tax cuts and deficit spending to pay unemployment benefits to Americans most in need....have the same effect on the Government balance sheet...it reduces our Governments checkbook balance.
For 8 years this country lived under Bush/GOP "supply side economics" and today, we live with the results of those 8 years of Bush/GOP economic policies...THE WORSTE RECESSION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
Senator Kyle reflects the values of the GOP...take of the rich at any cost...screw the working class.
What part of "A tax break is NOT spending" confuses you? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a tax break, and I openly welcome them... but they MUST be associated with an equal cut in spending.... which, of course, is where this government fails miserably.
And for the record, those tax cuts benefited EVERYONE. I'm quite pleased with the extra money that I got in my checks, and I'm not happy about the government taking my money back away from me to pay for crap that the majority of Americans do not want.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: You forgot to say that the R's are against Obama because they are racist.
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
I could go on all day.
You have convinced yourself that the R's are racist because they disagree with the King's horrible policies...policies that the MAJORITY of people do not want.
I am so thankful for this forum as it allows people like you and mac to show their true colors.
Those numbers from a poll at a TEA Party rally.
Health Care is a basic human right. When a person is sick or in need of medical care, profit should be the last thing on the mind of anybody. When somebody is in need of help it is inhumane to turn them away. Obama made a good step in reforming healthcare. The only issue I have with it, is that it is not Universal. Arizona is overstepping its bounds with it's law and as I stated earlier, your "poll" was likely conducted at a TEA party meeting.
Forcing people to prove where they were born by papers is a step in the wrong direction. Arizona is well on its way to becoming a gestapo state.
Says who? You? The hospital I work at never turns anyone away, but it's not because they are obligated to honor someone's right.
It's not about profit, it's about spending money we do not have.
What kills me about about most liberals I know is that they donate far less to charity than I do, yet they try to tell me how righteous they are by voting for other people to give their money to the government to dole out to whoever they decide should get it. That makes one stupid, not righteous.
Explain to me how Arizona is overstepping it's bounds. You have to show a driver's license and proof of insurance when you're stopped anyway. Anybody's an idiot if they don't carry ID with them. Because AZ wants to enforce a federal law that's already in the books, they're a "gestapo state"? That's laughable.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: Forcing people to prove where they were born by papers is a step in the wrong direction. Arizona is well on its way to becoming a gestapo state.
May be you should allow people from Arizona to decide that one Charlie.......... They are the ones who actually live in the state
As for health care, this world is not as beautiful a place as you make it out to be. Who is going to pay for this health care bill? The costs will be brutal and everyone will end up paying big time. Is this health care bill important enough that we should drive our economy into the ground? I've worked very hard to get where I am (and I'm not rich by any means, but I do plan on being successful) and I will be damned if that is ruined by a moronic government who over-regulates and continues to spend, spend, spend
Says who? You? The hospital I work at never turns anyone away, but it's not because they are obligated to honor someone's right.
So, let me guess. Your idea of how to make things better.
The only people that can get medical help are those that are wealthy. If you don't have a lot of money, just go die on the street. Where I live hospitals turn people away. The city I live in has a hospital where they have the up to date equipment and the best doctors, what do they do to the poor? They refuse to admit them. They send them across town to a hospital run (in part) by the Catholic Church.
Quote: It's not about profit, it's about spending money we do not have.
Yes it is. It is for profit. If an HMO has to actually pay money out for treatment they refuse the treatment. They force their patients to take placebos or non-effective drugs because they save money for the HMO's.
Quote: What kills me about about most liberals I know is that they donate far less to charity than I do
Probably because they are ... poor? Like me, I teach (when I can). I have just enough money to get by. Am I angry about that? No. I'm happy just getting by. I don't want to live in a mansion with gold plated bathroom toilets.
Quote: yet they try to tell me how righteous they are by voting for other people to give their money to the government to dole out to whoever they decide should get it. That makes one stupid, not righteous.
No, that does not make one stupid. That means one devotes their time to helping others. I provide a public service to society. Whereas, the rich, they get their money and lock it up. They let it sit there in banks so their great-great-great grandchildren have life made. All the Paris Hilton's of the world make me sick. They haven't worked a day in their life, yet, they sit there acting like people like me are worse than dirt.
Quote: Explain to me how Arizona is overstepping it's bounds. You have to show a driver's license and proof of insurance when you're stopped anyway. Anybody's an idiot if they don't carry ID with them. Because AZ wants to enforce a federal law that's already in the books, they're a "gestapo state"? That's laughable.
Immigration is a national issue and as such it is to be decided on by the Federal Government. Arizona is purposely overstepping its legal powers by regulating international commerce. Not state-to state commerce, but international. Only the national government can deal with international affairs. Arizona is overstepping its bounds by trying to dictate to the federal government on how to deal with Mexican citizens. Yes, they are illegal immigrants but there are millions of them.
Quote: The only people that can get medical help are those that are wealthy. If you don't have a lot of money, just go die on the street.
I don't have a lot of money and I get medical care just fine. Enlighten me Charlie, just how does Obamacare fix this? Even with Obamacare, healthcare is still not free. It costs exactly the same as it does now. The only difference is who foots the bill. What happens when people stop paying taxes because they are sick of paying for half the country that do not pay taxes?
Quote: Immigration is a national issue and as such it is to be decided on by the Federal Government. Arizona is purposely overstepping its legal powers by regulating international commerce. Not state-to state commerce, but international.
What?! This makes absolutely no sense and proves you have no clue what is going on in Arizona. This law has NOTHING to do with international commerce. Arizona is not overstepping any boundary. Rhode Island has the same law in their state and it was already upheld by the Supreme Court. Try again.
Quote: You forgot to say that the R's are against Obama because they are racist.
60% of the population was against Obama-care...the D's jammed it down our throats anyway...the R's were the ONLY ONES representing the people..you know...the MAJORITY
60% or better of the population is in favor of the AZ immigration law...the King is suing them over that law. Who is representing the people? Not the King.
I could go on all day.
You have convinced yourself that the R's are racist because they disagree with the King's horrible policies...policies that the MAJORITY of people do not want.
I am so thankful for this forum as it allows people like you and mac to show their true colors.
Those numbers from a poll at a TEA Party rally.
Health Care is a basic human right. When a person is sick or in need of medical care, profit should be the last thing on the mind of anybody. When somebody is in need of help it is inhumane to turn them away. Obama made a good step in reforming healthcare. The only issue I have with it, is that it is not Universal. Arizona is overstepping its bounds with it's law and as I stated earlier, your "poll" was likely conducted at a TEA party meeting.
Forcing people to prove where they were born by papers is a step in the wrong direction. Arizona is well on its way to becoming a gestapo state.
Obama's health care plan isn't even a health care plan.. it's law that demands people to purchase a healthcare plan.. Obama's idea of universal healthcare is a boondongle.. It's a complete and utter farse. If you want to give universal healthcare, then just give us universal healthcare and not some mandate for us to purchase it.
And Arizona's law does not force anyone to prove where they were born.... It does not matter where they were born.. it's a matter of whether they are here legally or illegally.. and that can only be done if said person is already committing another crime and proof can be readily determined by a driver's license or state issued Id.. But of course when you say gestapo.. I know exactly who is giving you the false information to begin with.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Quote: Probably because they are ... poor? Like me, I teach (when I can). I have just enough money to get by. Am I angry about that? No. I'm happy just getting by. I don't want to live in a mansion with gold plated bathroom toilets.
NOW I see where you're coming from. You're happy just getting by, but you want other hard working Americans to pay for your health care? GMAFB. So, you're hiding behind the BS facade that the selfish rich people are too greedy to share? Now read this very closely:
I'm not rich by any means, but I'll be paying your health care bills. Why? Because I'm willing to work to make enough money to meet my needs...and now I'm being told I have to meet your needs. When times were tough, I got a second job to meet my basic needs. I've been working full time almost my entire adult life.....when I was 22, I lost my job at a factory. Then I worked at a 7-11, a fast food restaraunt and a gas station and went back to school for an associates degree on student loans. I never felt like someone OWED me a living or that I was ENTITLED to food, shelter and healthcare. I was taught that if you want something you work for it. I choose to live a middle class lifestyle, because that's what I can afford. And you have the gall to call us selfish and uncaring when you aren't willing to contribute your share? Typical liberal.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Garment company seeks 1,000 employees.... web page DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- A Los Angeles apparel company blames a federal crackdown on undocumented workers for a work force shortage.
According to American Apparel, around 3,500 employees produce just over 1 million garments per week, but it's short 1,000 employees.
According to the company, an immigration raid earlier this year caused the company to lose about 2,500 employees, many of who didn't have proper immigration documentation.
The challenge for American Apparel now is to find U.S. citizens or legal immigrants with garment industry experience to fill the jobs.
Peter Schey is American Apparel's lawyer.
"What American Apparel is finding is that the vast majority of applicants for open positions are members of the immigrant community," Schey said. "There has simply not been the training that U.S. citizens need to enter these industries."
According to two University of California studies, the Los Angeles garment industry employs approximately 120,000 workers. About 67 percent are immigrants, many of which are here illegally and work for minimum wage.
"Immigrants who are known to the federal government still do not have the documentation that is required in order for the employer to fill a position with that job applicant," Schey said.
Jobs at American Apparel pay between $11 to $18 an hour, depending on experience and ability.
Those interested in applying to a job will have to apply in person. After filling out the application, a candidate will be given a test to operate a machine. If done successfully, the candidate would start immediately.
______
Here are some jobs... though you need to have experience in the garment industry.. Perhaps they should just start looking for trainable employees and train them and pay them min wage until they become skilled where they can get raises.. But of course, AA wants to take the easy way out and just find more illegals to replace the illegals they got busted with before..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Quote: Perhaps they should just start looking for trainable employees and train them and pay them min wage until they become skilled where they can get raises.
Absolutely. They made their money off the backs of illegals. It's time to quit whining and start playing by the rules.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Health Care is not a basic human right. I know it's hard, but try to think of all the costs that go into your hospital visit (the doctor's time, all of the medical supplies consumed during your visit, etc.). It's expensive (I know, I've released some of those IV sets and other disposable stuff). Then you have the cost of the doctor (dude/dudette has to pay off his med school loans and his insurance).
It's a huge cost no matter how you decide to pay for it (taxes, insurance premiums, whatever).
Do you really think it will be cheaper when the government has its hands in it?
government's incompetence > private company greed
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
