Unemployed Storm Wall Street Demanding Extended Benefits

[MintJulep]

First time ever citizens here have stood in the streets and demanded a govt check.

November can't get here fast enough. Two years is more than long enough to find a job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/small-group-of-long-term-unemployed-99ers-fails-to-rattle-wall-street-2010-8

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c64348d7f8b9ae659640200-590-/image.jpg

[Mike D.]

First time ever citizens here have stood in the streets and demanded a govt check.

November can't get here fast enough. Two years is more than long enough to find a job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/small-group-of-long-term-unemployed-99ers-fails-to-rattle-wall-street-2010-8

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c64348d7f8b9ae659640200-590-/image.jpg

It is hard for people to find a job when they are convinced the gubberment is their lifelong parent. I love their sign. I admire a group of people who are open about their allegiance to Nazism. Unlike the vast majority of them who pretend otherwise.

[Hawkeye2j]

First time ever citizens here have stood in the streets and demanded a govt check.

November can't get here fast enough. Two years is more than long enough to find a job.

http://www.businessinsider.com/small-group-of-long-term-unemployed-99ers-fails-to-rattle-wall-street-2010-8

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4c64348d7f8b9ae659640200-590-/image.jpg
Minty, don't make statements you can't back up with history because once again you are dead wrong.
Look up the Bonus March of 1932.

[Independent Harry]

I think maybe they're a little pissed that Wall Street got their handout in the billions of dollars and got saved...and they are not. Too big to fail, but to small to care about.

[Mike D.]

I think maybe they're a little pissed that Wall Street got their handout in the billions of dollars and got saved...and they are not. Too big to fail, but to small to care about.

Maybe. But at least the Wall Street fat cats are technically "working." Standing at the mailbox waiting for free checks isn't.

[MintJulep]

I think maybe they're a little pissed that Wall Street got their handout in the billions of dollars and got saved...and they are not. Too big to fail, but to small to care about.Unemployment is not a lifetime entitlement because you lost a job once. Two years is plenty of time to get a job. They should be thankful they got handouts for two years on a fluke instead of demanding more.

[Trinnity]

They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't have a sympathizer in the White House.

[nondual]

Two years is plenty of time to get a job.
Why do you think we have those long lines of people looking for work? There are no jobs, can't you understand that? Unless you believe they should settle for any kind of job, even for a job paying half what they were getting before..? Probably. Since that's the plan, right? To lower everyones wages even more?

Prison labor camps and slave wages a la Chinese! Isn't that corporate America's agenda?

[MintJulep]

Why do you think we have those long lines of people looking for work? There are no jobs, can't you understand that? Unless you believe they should settle for any kind of job, even for a job paying half what they were getting before..? Probably. Since that's the plan, right? To lower everyones wages even more?

Prison labor camps and slave wages a la Chinese! Isn't that corporate America's agenda?Never ending unemployment benefits are a disincentive to get a job and it needs to end. Why get a job taking less than you were making when you can sit home and collect a check?

We have a President and administration conducting a war on the private sector and until their hands are tied, businesses will not hire and I don't blame them. Two years is way long enough to find a job and continuing to pay those past 2 years needs to cease. There is simply not money to pay for it. We had higher unemployment than this in the 80s and in the Great Depression, there was no such thing as unlimited unemployment and everyone survived.

[nondual]

Why get a job taking less than you were making when you can sit home and collect a check?
Because they are getting more from unemployment than they are from any of those low paying jobs. Why do you expect them to make dumb decisions?

If they were to take those lower paying jobs they would have to give up on their mortgage payments, and since that what they paid unemployment insurance for, they will get every penny they got coming to them.

Here, watch this... if your limited attention span permits it...

Republicans vs. the Unemployed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#38684357)

[MintJulep]

Because they are getting more from unemployment than they are from any of those low paying jobs. Why do you expect them to make dumb decisions?

If they were to take those lower paying jobs they would have to give up on their mortgage payments, and since that what they paid unemployment insurance for, they will get every penny they got coming to them.

Here, watch this... if your limited attention span permits it...

Republicans vs. the Unemployed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#38684357)Employers pay for unemployment, not employees. Cut off the teat and you'll see a whole lot of people "finding" jobs real fast. We don't have the money to pay the perpetually lazy to sit home for years collecting "free" checks.

[nondual]

Employers pay for unemployment, not employees. Cut off the teat and you'll see a whole lot of people "finding" jobs real fast. We don't have the money to pay the perpetually lazy to sit home for years collecting "free" checks.
You should have watched the clip. It would have saved both of us some time.

That perpetually lazy mechanic you are referring to held that job for the past twenty years, and he didn't lose it because of his own fault. Now, whose fault is it that he is now unemployed? Wall Street and corporate America, right? So, what's wrong with letting them pay for the broken dishes?

[nondual]

Employers pay for unemployment, not employees.
They pay for unemployment insurance, right?

[nondual]

ECONOMY -- ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH COSTS $36 BILLION, BENEFITS 2 PERCENT OF AMERICANS: (http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/pr20100813) This week, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released an analysis of what would happen to the tax code if the conservative proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts were to be adopted. The tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire at the end of the year, and the Obama administration has proposed renewing only those for the lower- and middle-class. "You will find Republicans resisting very strongly any bill that allows taxes to be raised on any segment of Americans today," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), while Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said the House GOP will throw "everything we've got" into preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy. And too many Democrats -- like Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) -- have been cowed into expressing a willingness to extend the tax cuts temporarily for a year or two. According to the JCT analysis, extending the cuts for the wealthy -- which affects only two percent of the population -- for just one year will cost $36 billion. Obama's plan, meanwhile, focuses the tax increase on the very top of the income scale. The 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million "would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000" and the 315,000 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million would "owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average." Even under Obama's plan, the very rich will be paying less in taxes than they did in 2001, since they would be paying a lower marginal rate on their first $250,000 in income. As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo writes, "It's worth remembering that income inequality is currently the worst it has been since the 1920s. The richest one percent of households now receive nearly 25 percent of the country's income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s."

[MintJulep]

They pay for unemployment insurance, right?Employers pay for unemployment 'insurance', not employees.

Duh.

[MintJulep]

You should have watched the clip. It would have saved both of us some time.

That perpetually lazy mechanic you are referring to held that job for the past twenty years, and he didn't lose it because of his own fault. Now, whose fault is it that he is now unemployed? Wall Street and corporate America, right? So, what's wrong with letting them pay for the broken dishes? What's wrong with him finding another job in the interim, even if it's at a lower pay rate? It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay his way for life, not to mention, there is no money to do so. This reminds me of the "Katrina" bunch who were still living in gubmint trailers -- three years later. There is simply no excuse for such sorryness.

[nondual]

...there is no money to do so.
Yes there is, just let the Bush tax cuts expire, that's all! :D

[MintJulep]

Yes there is, just let the Bush tax cuts expire, that's all! :DYes, let's get the unemployment rate even higher. Great idea. Get those ee-ville rich people. That's the ticket. :thumbsup:

[Citizen]

What a bunch of lazy idiots. Lower taxes and cut government red tape.

"Progressives" want high taxes and high regulation and then act shocked when jobs go elsewhere. Welcome to reality. They make it harder and harder to do business in this country and then lay a guilt trip on me that I should pay for their mistakes with my tax dollars when business inevitably dries up.

The Democrats don't comprehend the counter-intuitive effect that all their taxing, spending, and government regulation actually makes it harder for people to climb out of poverty. Many Republicans DO understand it yet go along with Dems anyway for political expediency and cheap populist points. Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse.

We all know that not everybody has a portfolio. That said, if you find yourself "just scraping by," it might behoove you to rectify that by learning a different skill to put yourself in position for a higher paying job or starting your own business. Good economic times are a good time to do such things that way you don't get fucked as hard when the bad times come around. But that should go without saying.

[nondual]

Yes, let's get the unemployment rate even higher. Great idea. Get those ee-ville rich people. That's the ticket. :thumbsup:
The unemployment rate even higher? :confused: Tax cuts to the rich are the less effective and slowest way to stimulate an economy.

[nondual]

What a bunch of lazy idiots. Lower taxes and cut government red tape.

"Progressives" want high taxes and high regulation and then act shocked when jobs go elsewhere. Welcome to reality. They make it harder and harder to do business in this country and then lay a guilt trip on me that I should pay for their mistakes with my tax dollars when business inevitably dries up.

The Democrats don't comprehend the counter-intuitive effect that all their taxing, spending, and government regulation actually makes it harder for people to climb out of poverty. Many Republicans DO understand it yet go along with Dems anyway for political expediency and cheap populist points. Sometimes I'm not sure which is worse.

We all know that not everybody has a portfolio. That said, if you find yourself "just scraping by," it might behoove you to rectify that by learning a different skill to put yourself in position for a higher paying job or starting your own business. Good economic times are a good time to do such things that way you don't get fucked as hard when the bad times come around. But that should go without saying.
Lower pay roll taxes, if anything.

[MintJulep]

The unemployment rate even higher? :confused: Tax cuts to the rich are the less effective and slowest way to stimulate an economy.Okay then, drop the tax cuts, and let's see what happens. :thumbsup:

It will suck for those losing jobs, but it will absolutely ensure the rage of the population against Dear Leader and seal his fate as a one-termer. I say let's do it.

[Citizen]

Lower pay roll taxes, if anything.

Why stop there? How about lowering taxes across the board?

[nondual]

Okay then, drop the tax cuts, and let's see what happens. :thumbsup:

It will suck for those losing jobs, but it will absolutely ensure the rage of the population against Dear Leader and seal his fate as a one-termer. I say let's do it.
Most rich people getting these tax cuts just take the money and either spend it on themselves, or save it. Most of which never asked for tax cuts and never needed them.

[nondual]

Why stop there? How about lowering taxes across the board?
Yeah! Fuck America! Right Citizen?

[MintJulep]

Most rich people getting these tax cuts just take the money and either spend it on themselves, or save it. Why shouldn't they? They EARNED it.

Most of which never asked for tax cuts and never needed them. As I said, let them, and see what happens. It matters little to me because I know what will happen. If it will help send Marxism back into the woodworks for the next 100 years, I'm all for it.

[Citizen]

Yeah! Fuck America! Right Citizen?

False. You feel that way but I don't.

[nondual]

Why shouldn't they? They EARNED it.

As I said, let them, and see what happens. It matters little to me because I know what will happen. If it will help send Marxism back into the woodworks for the next 100 years, I'm all for it.
Under Democrats, a person making $100,000 to $200,000 would be getting around $3,766 in tax cuts. Under Republicans, that same person would be getting around $3,690, which is roughly the same amount.

But when it comes to really high income earners, those making over a million a year, would be getting $6,349 in tax cuts under Democrats, while under the Republican's tax plan, they would be getting $103,835.

See the huge disproportion? If you wanted to keep proportions, that tax cut shouldn't be greater than $18,450.

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showpost.php?p=221409&postcount=17

[nondual]

False. You feel that way but I don't.
I know. Your problem is that you need a bailout, you need a break, right, you are the one who needs help, not the homeless, or the unemployed. That's why you believe in wealth redistribution.

[Citizen]

I know. Your problem is that you need a bailout, you need a break, right, you are the one who needs help, not the homeless, or the unemployed. That's why you believe in wealth redistribution.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything about libertarianism? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a foolish claim. Yeah Obama would never bail out any company. Yeah never. You want to clump me in with neo-cons thats fine then whatever, Commie.

[nondual]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know anything about libertarianism? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a foolish claim. Yeah Obama would never bail out any company. Yeah never. You want to clump me in with neo-cons thats fine then whatever, Commie.
But you want to keep the Bush tax cuts for ever, don't you? Even though it means 36 billion hike on the deficit, yet, it adds barely any jobs? But you love your country?

[Citizen]

But you want to keep the Bush tax cuts for ever, don't you? Even though it means 36 billion hike on the deficit, yet, it adds barely any jobs? But you love your country?

When have I ever said that? Why would you assume that? Oh yeah because you clump everyone who doesn't correspond to every detail of your liberal sensibilities into one big group.

[MintJulep]

When have I ever said that? Why would you assume that? Oh yeah because you clump everyone who doesn't correspond to every detail of your liberal sensibilities into one big group.No, what he does is makes up shit no one have said or even implied, assigns it to you and hopes it sticks.

[Dale escondido]

The tax cuts were intended to exspire by themselves.
They should have disappeared during the boom.
The moneys could have went to reducing deficiets.
But alas, we are looking at them during the worst recession short of depression ever.
Only washington could turn logic on its head like that.
How about when we get unemployment down to say 6-7% before we start looking at the daunting task of this problem?
How about stopping gov growth to a point where no amount of tax could be enough.
How about 20%cut in federal wages today, across the board.
No one in the private has taken a 20% or more cut.
Or fuck it just print all the money we need in secret and don't worry anymore?

[nondual]

When have I ever said that? Why would you assume that? Oh yeah because you clump everyone who doesn't correspond to every detail of your liberal sensibilities into one big group.
Aren't you the one always saying leave Big Business alone? So, if you hold that position, why shouldn't I assume you were for retaining the Bush tax cuts?

[Citizen]

Aren't you the one always saying leave Big Business alone? So, if you hold that position, why shouldn't I assume you were for retaining the Bush tax cuts?

No, I never said that.

[olddude]

ECONOMY -- ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH COSTS $36 BILLION, BENEFITS 2 PERCENT OF AMERICANS: (http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/pr20100813) This week, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released an analysis of what would happen to the tax code if the conservative proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts were to be adopted. The tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire at the end of the year, and the Obama administration has proposed renewing only those for the lower- and middle-class. "You will find Republicans resisting very strongly any bill that allows taxes to be raised on any segment of Americans today," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), while Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has said the House GOP will throw "everything we've got" into preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy. And too many Democrats -- like Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) -- have been cowed into expressing a willingness to extend the tax cuts temporarily for a year or two. According to the JCT analysis, extending the cuts for the wealthy -- which affects only two percent of the population -- for just one year will cost $36 billion. Obama's plan, meanwhile, focuses the tax increase on the very top of the income scale. The 608,000 taxpayers who make between $500,000 and $1 million "would pay $6.5 billion more, or an average of almost $10,000" and the 315,000 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million would "owe $31 billion more, or almost $100,000 on average." Even under Obama's plan, the very rich will be paying less in taxes than they did in 2001, since they would be paying a lower marginal rate on their first $250,000 in income. As the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo writes, "It's worth remembering that income inequality is currently the worst it has been since the 1920s. The richest one percent of households now receive nearly 25 percent of the country's income, after earning less than 10 percent in the 1970s."

Good Lord noduel How the hell can you sit there and say it's going top cost the gubment 36 billion to extend the tax cuts. You dumb ass, it's not the gubments money to begin with to lose. It belongs to who ever it is that has worked for it. the fuckin gubment don't have no damn money it hasn't taken from somebody else. They need to get with the program and quit spending money like it grows on trees.

Until you can understand that concept you will never be able to understand the basics of how this country is supposed to work. Obungo's economy and his lack of ability to do anything about how he has destroyed any chance of the situation changing any time soon. The only jobs that have been created since this shaster took office is more gubment jobs to bleed us more.

I look for him and the demoCrits to start making noise like they may really want to do something for the unemployed and start talking it up about how bright the future is going to be if we just let them have the wheel a little bit longer. Me thinks that the damage is done and there is no hope that anyone would be stewpid enough to let these bastages stay in washington any longer that this fall. Stick a folk in them they are done.

[nondual]

Good Lord noduel How the hell can you sit there and say it's going top cost the gubment 36 billion to extend the tax cuts. You dumb ass, it's not the gubments money to begin with to lose. It belongs to who ever it is that has worked for it. the fuckin gubment don't have no damn money it hasn't taken from somebody else. They need to get with the program and quit spending money like it grows on trees.

Until you can understand that concept you will never be able to understand the basics of how this country is supposed to work. Obungo's economy and his lack of ability to do anything about how he has destroyed any chance of the situation changing any time soon. The only jobs that have been created since this shaster took office is more gubment jobs to bleed us more.

I look for him and the demoCrits to start making noise like they may really want to do something for the unemployed and start talking it up about how bright the future is going to be if we just let them have the wheel a little bit longer. Me thinks that the damage is done and there is no hope that anyone would be stewpid enough to let these bastages stay in washington any longer that this fall. Stick a folk in them they are done.
$36 billion that will be put to good use! :lmao2:

[olddude]

$36 billion that will be put to good use! :lmao2:

Yeah never miss the chance to buy another vote right?

[nondual]

Yeah never miss the chance to buy another vote right?
Politics is politics. :D

[Dale escondido]

Politics is politics. :D

Should rename it mudwrestling.
Only the mud is the cleanest thing in the ring.