1.3 million unemployed won't get benefits restored !

[DalTheJigsaw123]

[link to finance.yahoo.com]

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 1.3 million laid-off workers won't get their unemployment benefits reinstated before Congress goes on a weeklong vacation for Independence Day.

 

An additional 200,000 people who have been without a job for at least six months stand to lose their benefits each week, unless Congress acts.

 

For the third time in as many weeks, Republicans in the Senate successfully filibustered a bill Wednesday night to continue providing unemployment checks to people who been laid off for long stretches. The House is slated to vote on a similar measure Thursday, though the Senate's action renders the vote a futile gesture as Congress prepares to depart Washington for its holiday recess.

 

A little more than 1.3 million people have already lost benefits since the last extension ran out at the end of May.

 

"It is beyond disappointing that Republicans continue to stand almost lockstep against assistance for out-of-work Americans," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Edited July 1, 2010 by LeonBasin

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Complain to Joeblast and vortex. they don't like government "interfering" with our lives: 'Quit sniveling and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps! We simply mustn't spend on anything (but war) right now!'

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Brian]

...

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Dear Americans,

 

Cash baby cash! Regulations be damned!! No government handouts!!! uh oh. Can you give us 50 Billion dollars?

 

Signed,

US BANKERS (Reps)

 

 

 

 

(*apparently its all hypocritical BS when the hen comes to their HOME to roost.)

 

 

 

 

 

LOL well you DO see some of american idiocy encroaching the minds of it's youth, so maybe we can start working toward solutions to end this insanity.

 

 

Dear Americans,

 

 

Boycott the power. Revolt against your media. Lay claim to your own lives and learn how to survive without being babied by big brother.

 

 

 

Signed,

 

The Dying Breed of a Freedom Loving Sovereign.

[Marblehead]

I'm reading the posts but keeping my mouth shut.

 

I love America! I hate politicians and religious clergy.

 

Hate & Love!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I'm reading the posts but keeping my mouth shut.

 

I love America! I hate politicians and religious clergy.

 

Hate & Love!

 

 

 

You hate american power holders, but lvoe america?

 

So why not get the PEOPLE of america together and HANG THE TRAITORS?

 

 

The "people" who have POWER in america are SERVANTS. if the SERVANTS are living better thn the PEOPLE, then they are stealing our resources.

 

 

That's pretty much TREASON.

 

 

 

BUT AMERICANS ARE TOO STUPID TO RECOGNIZE TREASON WHEN IT'S BLATANTLY PARADED IN FRONT OF THEM IN THE MEDIA!

 

 

So the PEOPLE of america are thereby held guilt of treason in my eyes.

 

 

 

I can hold nearly every human life in america on trial for treason. but im too stupid to know how.

[joeblast]

What part of endlessly extending unemployment benefits makes sense? Oh, and not funding the extensions, just pulling the money out of some unmentioned ass?

 

Its unfortunate that the people in charge subscribe to the idea that the gub can simply "provide a shot in the arm" and our woes will simply retreat. Its more like those flu shots that just give you a mild case of the flu, making you believe you're protected against any more than that single strain of the flu.

 

Last (& only) time I was on unemployment was around 9/11 - anyone I knew that was also collecting breathed a sigh of relief when the benefits were extended another 3 months. So after 9 months and the benefits expired, that's when we all said shit, its time to go look for a job. The data reflects this; unemployment extensions makes the unemployment rate go up and simply makes people defer the "real" job search until their free ride is up. Its not that we werent looking for "real" jobs, but merely that we were able to hold our job standards high while we sat back on the gravy train; if a job didnt pay well enough, it wasnt pursued.

 

But of course that pragmatist line of thought doesnt cut it with a bleeding heart - my god, where are all of these people going to get their sustenance from? Suck it up, lower your standards, and take a job, any job, if its that important. No, we need to help these people and dont need to consider where the money is coming from in the least?

 

That doesnt sound very responsible. What Harry Reid doesnt mention is that the only demand that was made for extending these benefits is that they actually fund them with real money and not just toss it onto the national debt. I'm sorry, but that is simply wasteful and irresponsible to do. So cry me a river!

Edited July 2, 2010 by joeblast

[Brian]

...

[Owledge]

Having your resources taken from you is theft. Having them taken from you and given to someone else by a third-party who deems who "deserves" how much is a one-way ticket to totalitarianism.

So you reject the idea of taxation?

 

 

I can hold nearly every human life in america on trial for treason. but im too stupid to know how.

I tend to say that the power lies with the people everywhere and all the time. It all boils down to numbers. Every tyranny was made possible by many people allowing it to happen.

 

As an anecdote: I talked to a policeman recently who thinks that young people have no right to protest because they haven't made any contribution to society yet. In a way, hearing things like that is like a nightmare. They don't learn from the past, they don't see the implications. And after all, nobody denies there are many problems in society, and guess who is responsible for them?

People make babies, which - we shouldn't kid ourselves - is definitely not selfless. They force them into this world and to live in the mess that they created, and then they show this arrogance towards them.

Interestingly, this is the same mentality that created the saying "If you didn't vote, you have no right to complain". How perverted the world is.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Hardyg

[Brian]

...

[Brian]

...

[Owledge]

As a general rule, I think that government is less dangerous when it is kept small & localized -- on a short leash, if you will.

An idea that doesn't deal with the root of the problem, though probably more practical. The problem with big government is that it tends to be corrupted, and in a way difficult to prevent. (Usual problem with concentration of power.) So the mentality that makes people become corrupted is the problem behind that.

Because... big government also has advantages. It CAN keep rampant inhuman capitalism in check. With small government, I'd say it is simply the case that you don't NEED to corrupt the government any longer in order to do 'evil deeds', because not even in theory is there any institution that might prevent you from that. Then you still have concentration of power, but at another place.

 

I would put the idea of small government in the same category as "get rid of money".

Sad truth: It's all human creation and thus people are at the root. And you can't change people, you can only help them change themselves. As long as you have people who simply don't want to care for their fellow humans, there will be trouble in society, and no fiddling with institutions will be a sustainable solution.

 

A metaphor just came to my mind: Imagine you have an immune mediated disease / auto-immune problem; a disease that nests in your immune system or even makes your immune system fight your own body. The usual strategy of our 'modern medicine' is small government: reduce immune functions. Great solution: Now you have an almost non-existent immune system and this is called a solution. Sorry guys, the actual problem you have to deal with is a certain microorganism causing all this.

[Brian]

...

[Owledge]

I disagree with the bolded section above because the idea that "big government" can keep rampant capitalism in check is a fabrication by big government proponents that is totally repudiated by history.

As I said... Theory and practice, and the same also applies to small government. The basic factor is that ruthless people will always find a way. Every system will be corrupted if it is put in place by corruptable people. All institutions and systems that drive our society are a reflections of the state of mind of the collective people, so as long as nothing changes there, it really doesn't matter whether the government is big or small.

To elaborate on the example of money: You could say, money is THE driving force for evil/corruption in this world, which sounds mightily impressive, but take away money (in a hypothetical model) and all the evil force inside people will find another means.

Fiddling with systems is a distraction. I won't say it is completely useless, but relatively ineffective. A bit like a quick fix out of deperation when people lack the wisdom of turning things around for the better.

 

Or to depict it in a simple, reality-based way that should say it all:

big government -> neoconservatives

small government -> neoliberals

 

After all, government is intended to be a mere form of representation, to make things more reasily manageable. If you want to reduce the size of government, you need to empower the people first, so that they can replace it with more direct representation. The extreme would be anarchy, and do you really think anarchy would work with the people of today? If it did, they wouldn't support the current system so much. Society is always designed in the way that works for the people. The vast majority of people in many countries are pretty unenlightened, so this is reflected in society and government structures.

[Brian]

...

[Brian]

...

[Owledge]

In the States, the "neoliberals" are often illogical "hippie-wanna-be" types who think big government can solve societal problems if only it is given enough authority over "evil conservative corporations" and if it "frees them from religion", while the "neoconservatives" are often illogical "Bible thumpers" who think big government can solve societal problems if only it is given enough military discretion and if it imposes their moral codes.

This is funny. According to my extensive research, your view of these terms is a rare exemption. And you are from the US, while I am German.

(Maybe because you set the focus more on the 'broad masses' than on the 'controllers'.)

 

Neoliberals are people deeply envolved in business affairs that call for freedom as a facade, but only have their own freedom to expand their commercial interests in mind. A good example in Germany is the FDP, calling itself a people's rights party, while their latest accomplishment was a VAT exemption for hotel businesses that came to be with the involvement of corruption or conflicting interests.

Doesn't what you call neoliberals apply much better to a socialist cliché?

And your description of neoconservatives is limited to the lower social levels, while I would say because it is behind the mask based on expansion of an imperialist like power very likely originated or was fueled by tasting the sweet taste of supreme power. The 'bible thumping' is just religion as a convenient tool to manipulate and control people. I bet Bush doesn't give a shit about God when power is the theme of the day. On the other hand, many deeply Christian people are more inclined towards people's freedoms (sometimes forming militias, which is their constitutional right) and are thus likely to be labeled domestic terrorists.

 

But yes, apparently, because the motivations are similar, there are many overlaps between the two political directions.

 

By the way, as a little fun-fact: People who call themselved liberal and don't know the meaning of the word are not liberal, because its origin has to do with the book, with freeing yourself by reading and understanding. In a way you could say that freedom is something that you can be given, while liberty is one's own achievement.

But like so often, language evolves to a great extent through misapplication and ignorance. So when people say "Those damn liberals!" they advocate ignorance and actually are ignorant. Funny and weird situation.

 

Did you know that Hugo Chavez sets a great example for liberalism? I don't know whether you've heard it, but in Venezuela they print articles of their constitution on food packagings!

Imagine that in the USA! This civil upheaval whould probably be stopped by Homeland Insecurity.

 

That reminds me of a thought I had recently: Incitement of the people (a.k.a sedition?) is punisheable by law, but governments do it all the time. It is part of their policy. The essence of their perpetuation.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Hardyg