Evil Congressional Bastards!

[Verto]

Thank you, Che.

[Felch]

I'm just heading you off, because I know where you were headed with it.

[Verto]

Just seems that 20 bucks a month(assuming it's a dial-up) would seem an unecessary expenditure. The Internet is not the only place to find job listings.

However, as I do not know all the details of Che's work and what not, I will let it go.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

*shakes head at the degree of insensitivity in this thread*

[Capt Dizle]

I don't mind Che using an internet connection if it's related to finding work but I demand he compensate by having less sex...unless he is using those free condoms passed out at the health department.

(and then he by God better be walking, barefoot, to pick them up)

[Felch]

Sex is free fun for the poor, jimmy. And he does Web Design, Verto, it was mentioned earlier in the thread. I didn't mean to pick a fight or anything, I know where you're coming from with your question, but twenty dollars a month is his livelihood, not a luxury.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Felch X
Sex is free fun for the poor, jimmy.

But Che is a Communist...Good God, they're not breeding are they?

[chequita guevara]

I notice that Congress didn't forget to pass themselves a $4,000 a year pay raise before they left, though.

Verto, Felch X is correct, having an internet connection is vital for me. I'm a web designer, and I do free stuff in my down time to keep busy. Also, I look for work all around the country, which just isn't possible with the Florida Times-Union. It would cost three bucks a day to take the bus over to the unemployment office to use the computers there to look for work, which adds up to about $60 a month, provided I look every day, which I do.

[Capt Dizle]

And besides who would trust a Communist enough to have unprotected sex with them?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
But Che is a Communist...Good God, they're not breeding are they?

Sex and breeding aren't necessarily the same thing, you know.

[Capt Dizle]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not to change the subject, but...

Chegitz - do you do mostly graphics work, layout & design, or web programming?

I won't have anything until January (between funding and getting design specs and blurbage), but I should have some web work I need done then if you're still looking.

[Ned]

God the economy is ugly. Everywhere there is still talk of deflation. Prices continue to decline and corporations make money only by cutting costs. Even home prices in California are plunging big time.

Just prior to the current half point drop in the Fed Funds rate, I saw a chart showing a large drop in corporate debt over the last two years - even as interest rates have fallen. This is not supposed to happen.

Hopefully this latest round of interest rates cuts will get the economy going again. But the cut is certainly indicative of the fact that the economy is not in good shape. Thus the statements by Greenspan that the economy is growing are puzzling.

[David Floyd]

Uh, Davy-wavy, you might want to get out and see how da big ol' world works before you spout your knee-jerk ideological pablum.

Oooh you used a big word

[quote]The simple answer to your rhetorical question is the vast majority of voters don't give a dead rat's ass about your philosophy of government, and they elect officials who are more responsive to what they want.[/quoted]

Granted.

(a) Employers pay both federal and state unemployment taxes. Nobody else pays them.

The person or entity who pays the taxes is not important. The fact that they are forced to pay them (to me) is.

(b) The amounts they pay are trivial. (typically $252.80 per employee per year for state unemployment insurance, and $56.00 per employee per year for FUTA.) I'm an employer. I pay it, and it's nothing compared to the rest of my costs of doing business.

Again, not the point. It's the issue of coercion.

(c) The money from both state and Federal unemployment taxes is deposited in trust funds to be used solely for unemployment benefits.

OK, but rather than pay it out in unemployment I'd rather see it returned to the companies who were forced to pay it.

(d) Despite the low level of funding per employee per year, these trust funds are rolling in dough. The feds have $25 billion, last I heard, the state of California has about 5 billion.

See above.

(e) In just about every year, both Federal and state trust funds run positive balances, so they are in no danger of running low of money.

See above.

(f) Even from an employer's perspective, I'd rather pay the trivial amount of tax and have people between jobs be at least semi-liquid (i.e. spending money and circulating it in the economy, not with their head in a bottle.)

Great. I'm glad you take that position. You should then be able to voluntarily elect to contribute whatever amount you like.

Oh, and Floyd: If you wonder why people don't "debate" points or bother in depth with your posts, look in the mirror.

Really? I generally respond point for point.

Far more often than not, you're more concerned with spouting your ideology than with understanding the factual basis underlying any issue - just like this "if your gonna argue blah blah blah entitles you to any of my money, when you've never paid a dime of ****ing unemployment tax anywhere, at any time.

Great, but the point is - and everyone knows that this is the point - that I don't really care who is being taxed. I only care about the existence of the tax itself. In that context, facts such as who pays it are irrelevant.

JT's point wasn't condescending at all.

Oh sure it was, in that it implied his ideological position had more merit because of "real world experience". That's bull**** - an ideological position can be right or wrong, but "real world experience" has nothing to do with that basic rightness or wrongness (at least, experience in the context he meant).

There's this real live thing in the world called "experience." The fact that you can type and rant doesn't mean your point of view has any relevance or credibility, any more than if you were an eight year old.

See above.

In general (with the rare exception of the 30 year old ****up trust fund kid still living off daddy's estate), people who've been adults for a while know more about how that world works than people who haven't. Don't like it? TFB, that's the way things are.

See above. The way the world works has little relevance to what is right and wrong, in many cases.

In light of that, the only way one is going to refute my position is by attacking the basis of that position. To date, loinburger is the only one who has done so, and he presented many good arguments. In the end, though, it's a pointless debate because he and I fundamentally disagree on what a state of nature is.

Point being, don't try to use "real world experience" to attack my position - "real world experience" has nothing to do with right and wrong.

[Felch]

He's like the Energizer bunny.