Evil Congressional Bastards!

[David Floyd]

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Japher
The reason so many ppl are on unemployment right now, and the reason they are demanding extensions, is because they (the unemployed) all feel (a generalization) that they are too good to take those jobs that we (those who would clean a toilet) have been forced to take in order to support our families, pay our bills, and hopefully have enough money to buy a Swanson's T.V. Dinner for the whole gang at Christmas.

The harsh reality of it is, there are jobs to be had, and they do not pay enough so that the new Mercades won't get repo'd. Oh well!! Sucks for you, that's my attitude. You lived above your means for way too long, and now you must pay.

I personally, live below my means so much, that if I was fired today I would not have to make a change in my life style for at least 1 year, and I wouldn't even have to go on unemployment. And, so you know I don't get paid a whole lot.

You reap what you sew. I am sorry that all the pseudo-rich yuppies with ties in Washington didn't get what they want. Wha! Sell your damn house for what's worth, trade in your mercades for a Honda, and I guess the day at Spago's with have to be cancled.

I am sure this is a generalization, but I live in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and I see it. Heck, my negihbor is on unemployment, hasn't looked for a job in 6 months, just bought a Harley, and has the nerves to complain that he can't get unemployment until his Compensation Package runs out. What a schmuk.

It is ppl like this that really give the ppl who need a job, and need unemployment to help them, a bad name.

The underlining point is that unemployment insurance is just way too easy to exploit, and is therefore a bad system that should be eliminated all together.

PREACH ON Brutha JAPHER!!!

I have said this in another thread, but I live in the State with the highest unemeployment. Getting a job is easy, easy. Getting a $16 an hour job (WA average) is not.

I am sorry all your cheap expensive University degrees aren't getting you all squat, but, this is the real world, and economic times are tough for corporations, and they cannot afford to hire on a bunch of people to see who works best.... that's what the nineties were for, an economic summer.

Now is an economic winter. The superfluous must be let go. The strong will survive.

The company I am working for is booming. 15% growth per annum. Of course we are but lowly carpet cleaners.

A web graphics designer?
Time to get yourself a job at Safeway. The Chevron Station was a fun job too. There are way too many web graphics designers out there.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Again, not the point. It's the issue of coercion.

Nobody is coerced into being an employer, or to do business in any particular state or the United States. If one wants the opportunity to do business in certain markets, there are associated costs. If was doesn't want to pay those, then one doesn't have to.

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

Companies actually don't mind. It's a very cheap way of stabilizing employment in uncertain times, because if employees knew they were SOL the moment a company dropped the axe, they'd be spending far more of their time sending out resumes and posting on monster.com than they would working.

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.

There's your context, and then there's the relevant context of how the world actually operates and what it's effects are.

Oh sure it was, in that it implied his ideological position had more merit because of "real world experience".

Ideology without interest in "real world experience" is the sort of blind fanatacism of folks like the Taleban, Stalin, the Hitler Jugend, Earth First!, etc. You get my drift: "**** how the world actually works, all we care about is the little philosophical fantasy world inside our minds."

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).

Ideology with no basis in external reality and experience is neither right nor wrong - it is irrelevant. Just a form of mental masturbation for the ideologues, who generally live in their fantasy world because they'd be powerless otherwise.

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

The way the world works is the only thing which is relevant.

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.

That's like CivNation saying "the only way you can refute my arguments is from my interpretation of the Bible."

Your position is "refuted" by the simple fact that it's a meaningless exercise in fantasy. The world doesn't funtion on six billion individual sets of "it should be this way"

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.

Right and wrong are personal abstract concepts. Next thing you know, you'll be talking about some creative fictional exercise like "natural rights" or "sovereignty"

Thanks for reminding me of a new line for my signature, though.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I have said this in another thread, but I live in the State with the highest unemeployment. Getting a job is easy, easy. Getting a $16 an hour job (WA average) is not.

I am sorry all your cheap expensive University degrees aren't getting you all squat, but, this is the real world, and economic times are tough for corporations, and they cannot afford to hire on a bunch of people to see who works best.... that's what the nineties were for, an economic summer.

Now is an economic winter. The superfluous must be let go. The strong will survive.

The company I am working for is booming. 15% growth per annum. Of course we are but lowly carpet cleaners.

So what are you going to be when you run out of people to pay to have their carpets cleaned?

[David Floyd]

MtG, it's a pointless debate, but if you really want to I'm sure we can continue on a thread that is more appropriate to the topic

[MichaeltheGreat]

Let's wait for another Iraq attack thread, then get into the notion of "sovereignty."

[David Floyd]

Actually I'm not gonna argue sovereignty so much as I am questions about the Constitutionality of going to war without a declaration, and the fact that we shouldn't go around killing people

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So what are you going to be when you run out of people to pay to have their carpets cleaned?

Not gonna happen. If it does, we gonna be in a hole way too big for unemployment to fish us out of.

I don't hate the rich mind you, I hate the whiners who complain about not being able to get a job. Plenty of rich people I have talked to started out with nothing, including no college education, and worked with their hands to where they are now.

To survive in this society you need more than a degree or a union, you need humility, you need strength, and most of all you need self-respect.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually I'm not gonna argue sovereignty so much as I am questions about the Constitutionality of going to war without a declaration, and the fact that we shouldn't go around killing people

Nothing in the Constitution specifies the form of a declaration, or defines what one is. There's nothing about using the words "war" or "declaration" either. As long as Congress authorizes the action, that's all it takes.

[David Floyd]

Nothing in the Constitution specifies the form of a declaration, or defines what one is. There's nothing about using the words "war" or "declaration" either. As long as Congress authorizes the action, that's all it takes.

Sorry. The clear intent of the Constitution is that Congress must declare war before we can take military action, to say nothing of the clear intent of the Founders.

But that's for another thread, don't you think?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Again, another whole thread misrepresentating the right-wing posted by an inherently misled leftist. I have nothing to say to you, chegitz.

------
To make myself look good. (in response to why he posted in this thread)

------
Uh no. You failed.

------
Or just follow the USSR (Commie) system: No unemployment. Those who were unemployed were either thrown into gulags or murdered.

Now that was a mean thing to say! Sorry Chegitz... I just had to... "

#1 was an attack on Floyd(Or at least that was my impression, he could have meant JT but I think #2 would have made more sense if that was the case), in #2, it seems like he is trying to make himself appear better by trying to disassociate the right wing of which he is a part from Floydian ideology, thus not letting himself get tarred. #3 was a reply to Boris going after him. #4 was a stupid joke in bad taste that added nothing to this thread.

Or at least that's my interpretation of Fez on this thread. I could well be wrong. But then I may well have missed the other stuff and Fez does have a history, so I can understand your decision.

As for the economic thing, the cost to consumers may not be that much, I was just pointing that out because in Floydian ideology any harm to the average person is completely evil. Actually though if you added up all the Deadweight losses from the Unemployment Insurance taxes you might end up with a more significant impact. Although in this case most economists would say the positive externality gotten from people not pushing for more new deal style programs every time there is an unemployment surge makes unemployment insurance worth it.

[Ming]

Well Shi Huangdi... I think MtG properly explained that it was a cumulative problem ban... and not based on just this thread, but based on this and other threads that Fez had posting in

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Ming
Well Shi Huangdi... I think MtG properly explained that it was a cumulative problem ban... and not based on just this thread, but based on this and other threads that Fez had posting in

which is why I said:

"so I can understand your decision."

[Ming]

Never mind me Shi Huangdi... I just finally got my computer back from Rah, as he just finished playing a Civ II MP game from my place. This is a just quick review of the forums before I crash

[Shi Huangdi]

'Night ming...... Friday nights are always good(in because it's the first night you don't have to get up in the morning. (in addition to other reasons weekend nights are good )