Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gotta Love Politicians

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gotta Love Politicians

    As my wife says, "all politicians are scum." chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "B_Sing" wrote in message news:6aeafc56.-1@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > The Senate voted a couple of days ago on a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. > > They needed 60 votes to pass it. They got 59. Absent: John Kerry, who says he supports the bill. He was busy campaigning. Nice representation of the people who elected him, eh? Gotta love politicians. > > Here's the vote count <http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...ll_vote_cfm.cf m?congress=108&session=2&vote=00088>. > > Brian

  • #2
    Gotta Love Politicians

    What I want to know is, how did we end up _these_ two as the main choices? Kerry's too busy begging for votes from the unemployed to actually help them. And Bush & Co., well, there you go. They forget to make room in the budget for things like, well, the War on Terror. And whatnot. Me no likey! Aren't there any heroic leaders around anywhere? Or did they all get body-slammed in the political arena? What can be done about this? Shrug and get back to work, I guess. :-) Brian P.S. Yeah, I know, we're not supposed to talk politics in polite company. So here we are. :-)

    Comment


    • #3
      Gotta Love Politicians

      Brian, that was a simple Republican setup, executed to fool everyone who isn't watching Republicans closely. For starters, Republicans have not even allowed this vote to take place since last fall, despite repeated attempts by Democrats to force a vote to extend unemployment, and also to increase the minimum wage. Republicans know who pays their bills, and it's not the working man. Republicans allowed some of their most vulnerable members to vote yes, enough to go up to 59 for those who had earned a reward from Republican leadership. Had Kerry returned, they would have switched one of the votes. They will not allow unemployment to be extended or the minimum wage to increase. Please everyone think about that when you vote this fall. Ralph P.S. I saw your second post, Brian. No problem, I don't see any polite company around here. All the great politicians seem to me to be Senators, with a slight edge to Republicans, although several great Democrats as well. It appears that they have too much integrity to be elected president. I am thinking McCain, Hagel, Biden, Corzine, and many others.

      Comment


      • #4
        Gotta Love Politicians

        They will not allow unemployment to be extended or the minimum wage to increase.
        Why not?
        I am thinking McCain, Hagel, Biden, Corzine, and many others.
        Yeah, McCain is/was one of my favs too. Too bad for the dirty primary of 2000. Brian

        Comment


        • #5
          Gotta Love Politicians

          Ralph said: "All the great politicians" That's an oxymoron. There are only two personality traits that catapults a person into politics: The desire for power and/or the desire for serving others for the social good. In days past there were many leaders that wanted to be politicians to serve the public. But I don't see it today. Today's politician wants power. And they'll do almost anything to obtain it. The problem is that those who want to serve the public will just be buried by the power hungry who know how to work the system and the airwaves. Our current system will beat anyone down who doesn't have the insatiable desire for power. Only my opinion, of course. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gotta Love Politicians

            Chuck wrote: There are only two personality traits that catapults a person into politics: The desire for power and/or the desire for serving others for the social good. I'll have to give that some thought, Chuck. It seems to me that the extremes of a pollyannish "serving", a word used by politicians that immediately declares to me a piousness that does not exist, and "power", the quest for control, are too, well, extreme. Aren't most politicians somewhere in between? But if so, what is it called? I think "making a difference" is the answer, and I see that as neither pious serving nor a lust for power. Ralph

            Comment


            • #7
              Gotta Love Politicians

              Why will Republicans not allow unemployment to be extended or the minimum wage to increase, Brian? Well, as I wrote above, Republicans know who showed them the money, and it isn't the working man. The minimum wage is easy. It increases costs to the people who bought and paid for Republicans fair and square. Not allowing an extension of unemployment is more complex. One is that it increases federal spending and thus the debt, even though the money to pay for the extension is actually in a fund designated for the purpose. The more compelling reason is more insiduous though, smacking of Animal Farm to the degree that George Bush's middle name has become Orwell. To extend unemployment is to acknowledge that there is long term unemployment. That can't be allowed. Republicans believe that people are unemployed by choice, and that people won't find a job if they are being paid not to, which is their vision of what unemployment is. They say it's amazing how people find work when their government coddling is cut off. They just don't say what that work is, or that a minimum wage job means the house goes on the auction block, or much of anything to be frank about it. To them, it's one less person unemployed, and one more business transaction when that house is auctioned off. The numbers are looking good, say the Republicans. Ralph

              Comment


              • #8
                Gotta Love Politicians

                Thanks for the reply, Ralph.
                Not allowing an extension of unemployment is more complex.
                What about the argument that if you make it more expensive for employers to hire people, they won't? Won't they beat on existing employees for maximum productivity instead? What are the benefits now for unemployment? Are they insufficient? I know that this is talking about Fed unemployment, and here in California there is state unemployment too, and it represents a much bigger payroll deduction. Of course, the employer pays both. (And, as an aside, the companies that lay off more people pay a higher percentage). Brian

                Comment


                • #9
                  Gotta Love Politicians

                  I liked this page on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics web site. It shows unemployment by state, and also changes in unemployment by state, so you can compare and see where jobs are being added. Interesting. Brian

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Gotta Love Politicians

                    What about the argument that if you make it more expensive for employers to hire people, they won't? Won't they beat on existing employees for maximum productivity instead? What are the benefits now for unemployment? Are they insufficient? I know that this is talking about Fed unemployment, and here in California there is state unemployment too, and it represents a much bigger payroll deduction. Of course, the employer pays both. (And, as an aside, the companies that lay off more people pay a higher percentage). Brian Brian, the extension for most would have been a 13 week extension to an expired 26 week state benefit. The money for it, about $5 billion, was already collected. I don't believe this extension would have raised employer taxes. The extension is the same payment as the state payment as far as I know. Maximum benefits in Ohio are $315 a week, taxable income, almost $8 an hour for a working week. Not only is minimum wage lower, but it is more difficult for minimum wage employees to arrange to go to an interview than for someone in a typical professional job, so it is important for both the income and the ability to job hunt. What is ironic is how much effort was made last year to try to get income tax cuts in place for people to spend more to revive the economy, yet the Bush administration passes on the opportunity to infuse $5 billion directly into the domestic economy right before the election so that they can say it's not needed, the economy is a success. Extending unemployment would say there is long term unemployment, and people can't find jobs. This administration has never accepted the truth about that or anything else. Refusal to raise minimum wage is like offshoring, a race to the bottom, both the bottom of the barrel for workers and the bottom line for corporations, the Republicans patrons. Why even have a minimum wage? When you don't, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. People don't remember why there's a minimum wage. They don't remember the way things used to be. Republicans think it doesn't apply to them, until it does. Then they would wish it were higher, but you can be assured they would no longer be a Republican. They would be a Democrat. Ralph By the way, my very occasional sig is now: author, Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy www.justiceforchandra.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gotta Love Politicians

                      Ralph, Two comments... 1. Minimum wage is currently high enough. Here in Calif. it's $6.30. Most jobs paying minimum wage are not intended to be for a career. Most of them are for part time workers, students, etc. to supliment their income or to give a teenager a job. Raising the minimum wage makes it difficult for employers to find afford such positions as file clerks, hamburger flippers or someone to empty trash cans in an office. The notion that says a person filing papers in an office should make enough to support a family of 3 is just plain silly. But if you listen to the raise-the-minimum-wage-zealots that's exactly what they'll have you believe. They'll show some poor woman who is a single mom trying to support a family of 3 on a minimum wage job. 2. Extending the unemployement compensation is just a form of socialism. Socialism, as we have seen often over the last century, simply doesn't work. Long term unemployment compensation is the worst kind of socialism as the receiver has absolutely no incentive to find work during the time they receive the compensation. Long term unemployement compensation is the same as welfare and most of us have expressed our displeasure with welfare for many years now. Blaming the current administration for implementing policies that the majority has desired is anger directed at the wrong place. Personally, I don't want any more of my taxes to go to compensate long term unemployment. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Gotta Love Politicians

                        The Senate voted a couple of days ago on a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits for 13 weeks. They needed 60 votes to pass it. They got 59. Absent: John Kerry, who says he supports the bill. He was busy campaigning. Nice representation of the people who elected him, eh? Gotta love politicians. Here's the vote count. Brian

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Gotta Love Politicians

                          ..that eye is really starting to bother me. It was immediately visible that the three states that look like they have the best numbers are North Dakota, where nobody wants to go, Virginia, next door to D.C. (who needs a sales department when you can just take money when you "need" it), and Georgia. Hmm. On government programs, remember that most of the money allocated for good things after studies of cow flatulence--David Barry's example was real--it goes to paper-pushers. As soon as government folks get to where they have budget responsibility, the figure goes on their resume and grows. They have to have more, right now, or else everybody's going to starve, get malaria, die on the job. Forty years after President Johnson's "Great Society" and multiplying school budgets, we have an army of thousands of homeless in New York where they did not exist before, there is more poverty, the top three classroom problems reported by teachers have gone from talking in class, chewing gum, and paper wads, to rape, drugs, and assaults. And the SAT scores have suffered from "score inflation" to hide the fact that they are rocketing to the bottom. The expression "throw more money at the problem" is accurate. And I am not a corporate tycoon. One of the least egregious of these socialistic programs is the unemployment benefit. And the employment agencies. And by the way, where do people get the idea that the Democrats do not have wealthy backers? Bill Gates, supposedly beleaguered by a Dem. administration, donates more money to the Democrats. William Buffett, Bill Gates, and George Soros get together for a press conference and demand that nobody lower inheritance taxes! Sheesh! (What is wrong with this picture?) Jimmy Carter's tax return his first year as pres showed he did not owe one penny in income tax. Oh, he was a nice guy, he paid ten percent anyway. (Ten percent of what!?) Nelson Rockefeller, as VP, the same. The Dems take care of their buddies alright, but if you want to try to start making some money, they'll tax you into oblivion. Who needs competition? Can't have upstarts getting enough to hire their own "tax fixers"... (Disclaimer: Don't make this mistake: I am not.not.not defending any Republicans..)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X