That shit was awesome news. Better than that vague-ass “This month alone, my stimulus created or saved some 10,000 jobs…somewhere” announcement, and nobody who did any fact-checks could find those supposed jobs created, or the existing jobs that were “saved” by the stimulus. We got more jobs back…but why do I get the funny feeling that they were created in spite of his policies, rather than because of anything he did? Question, guys: (I’m not really up on this so please keep the flamethrowers at half-mast, ok?), but if we were to repeal GAT and NAFTA, as well as have Obama tax job exporters more heavily (as he claimed he would before he got elected), would that help the overall jobs and economy situation? I mean, we’re hurting cuz companies here took most of the real work elsewhere leaving us with a nearly completely service economy, right?
I forgot the percentage, but a significant amount of those new jobs are Census workers…and of course that shit is temporary. If you’re previously unemployed, a temp job is better than nothing (or nothing + a weekly unemployment check) though.
That is quite depressing though…I see more and more people in our system that have been on unemployment benefits for 90+ weeks now. Honestly, I think a person would be more inclined to get some kind of job if they knew the benefits would end at some point. Extensions that continue FOREVER just allow folks to be generally complacent and comfortable in this notion of “the gov’ment will take care of me forever.”(even though you can obviously make so much more on an actual job), which is sad. (*note–at least in my state, they are finally coming to an end. The deadline for transition into the next “program” was this past week, so whatever balance a person is on in terms of their unemployment as of Monday…that will be it for them. …but we all know that America is basically a Nanny State now, so they’ll likely be 200 more extensions so people don’t ever have to go back to work.)
The right to fail (and thus the incentive to achieve) has been taken away.
for single payer, think of like more of a universal healthcare system; something similar to medicare, only for everyone
From what I can understand, it will not be single payer…but every time Obama shows up to try to sell it, he talks about it like it will have many features of single payer…but it won’t be called that. Damn near every one of these points, he claims Obama care will have. Bait and switch?
Single payer health insurance is a system by which the health care expenditures of an entire population are paid for through one source the Federal government or a subcontracting entity using tax revenue from individuals and employers.
Distinctly different from socialized medicine, whereby the government owns and operates health care facilities, a single payer system is simply a financing mechanism. The government collects and allocates money for health care but has little to no involvement in the actual delivery of services. Care is provided privately at hospitals and clinics but paid for publicly.
Individuals are allowed to choose their providers, and physicians are either compensated on a fee-for-service basis or paid salaries by hospitals that receive an annual global budget or by nonprofit health maintenance organizations.
All medically necessary services are covered by the insurance, including primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, long term care, mental health, substance abuse treatment, dental services, and vision care.
Services are delivered based on need rather than on ability to pay. Coverage is uninterrupted and equal for everyone, thus ending the dependency of health care access upon employment status.
one of the benefits universal or single payer healthcare would have is it would reduce the need for companies to spend exorbitant amounts of money on retirees benefits and medical funds, etc, so they can be more competitive with overseas companies that don’t have to worry about providing healthcare to their citizens because they live in nations where there’s already government-sponsored versions
for real yo. but conservatives don’t want the unemployment benefits extended, and they don’t want “meaningless” infastructure building jobs created in the interem. where as i still maintain that since we are paying those people ANYWAY, why not pay them to actually do something. and there are a SHITLOAD of infastructure projects that need work, broadband lines need to be run, highways expanded or repaired, parks and other public area’s refurbished etc.
anyways here is a little insight into the so-called “independent” block of voters known as the tea party… your going to be shocked to find out that they aren’t really independent at all. and before anyone cry’s bloody murder about how HP is my source please take note that the polling source is a conservative leaning one newt gingrich has used on many occasions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/tea-party-survey-old-cons_n_522336.html
edit: unfortunately rhio the “right to fail” has only be available to lower and middle income class americans for the past 20+ years. it’s an illusion. the truth is what our system REALLY comes down to and why i think it needs to be reformed so badly is capitilism for the bottom 95% and socialism for the top 5%. only not even perfect socialism (as in exactly as a socielist country would do) because the only thing that gets socialized is their losses, all their profits get privatized. as for single payer, that would be great. and no new gov’t networks would need to be created because they allready exist in medicare/caid, we just would open that shit up to everyone. (carry’s on dreaming about a day when our politicians legislated with our best interests in mind).
i can’t imagine how anyone would try to seriously claim tea partiers are independents. they may not consider themselves strictly republican, but they are classic conservative fuck the government people.
Not really. It’s pretty logical that the states that can’t afford anything would be getting the most federal aid, so it’s not really relevant to take that fact into account when you’re judging their voting records.
There’s no real debate here. On top of having to pay out more than they’re looking to take in from people with pre-existing conditions, they’re looking at tens of billions in tax hikes, they’re looking at the government discouraging people from buying premium policies and they’re looking at pretty much all the subsidies the government has been paying out to them for when they are faced with insuring people they otherwise wouldn’t disappearing. They may not go under, but it’s certainly not helping their bottom line.
Yeah, they did a great job of creating 50,000 temp jobs in the Census Bureau. Look for the upcoming spike in unemployment.
By sheer coincidence, this is the headline on CNN.com right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html
The vast majority of them are Republicans, though.
Well temp jobs are tough cuz they can fuck you in the long to. My mother was getting decent unemployment when she lost her job but she did the right thing and went out and got a new job, it just happened to be a temp job that ran out in the winter and because of that her new unemployment check went from $250 a week to $70 bucks a week. She pretty much got punished for doing what your supposed to do and find a new job, just the only one should could get was a temp job. I ended up moving back into the house cuz she couldn’t afford to pay the bills and feed herself.
Just going out and getting a job isn;t always the best option, it can make things worse in the long run.
How, exactly, was she “punished?” She was receiving *unemployment *cheques. Once she became employed, those cheques were reduced because she had an income and was able to save (which is what people who are in dire straits are supposed to do). That isn’t being punished. That’s being taught to be responsible with your money.
How do you save 250 bucks? I make about 500 a week and don’t have much left over after the house mortgage, bills, food and other necessities. I got about 50 bucks in my pocket when all’s said and done. That’s not a lot. I didn’t mean punished literally, I meant it in that going out and getting a job like you are supposed to do made things worse for her when that job ran out. If she had not gone out and gotten a job she would have been better off.
Because if she hadn’t gotten a job she’d have been making more money long-term.
Because if she hadn’t taken the temp job her unemployment checks would be higher, moron. Let me paint the picture for you since reading isn’t your forte:
- Poster’s mom got fired from a job.
- Poster’s mom gets unemployment checks of $250
- Poster’s mom does the right thing and gets off of unemployment to get a temporary job
- Temp job runs out, and when she goes back on unemployment, since unemployment checks are based on pay and length of time at your LAST job, her unemployment checks are now $70.
Can you connect the fucking dots and see it wasn’t in her best interest to even take the temporary job now?
It is like his entire post to explain a situation where doing the right thing and getting off of unemployment ASAP will net you less money overall went completely over your idiotic head. Go fuck yourself.
Yes, and the ability to stand on your own two feet instead of having others pay your way for you is a completely ridiculous notion. My mistake, I’m sorry that I don’t enjoy footing the bill for the lazy and unmotivated because “if they hadn’t gotten a job they’d have been making more money long-term.”
Furthermore, it isn’t in society’s “best interests” to prop people up without giving them a kick in the ass to make them work for their own living. Living off public money shouldn’t be comfortable in the least. Based on what you’re saying, people shouldn’t bother looking for work because the government’s funding is more beneficial for them. Therefore, they simply shouldn’t work and they should live off government cheques. Hmmm… can’t see how that could go wrong. Now its already a little late, Airthrow, but try and think before you put your fingers to the keys. Not looking like an idiot isn’t your forte but with a little help you might make some progress.
first of all, what the fuck about a unemployment check for $250 sounds comfortable to you? not exactly living it up.
and the whole point was that she could have better spent her time looking for an actual long term job and not accepting the temp at all. so to just to spell it out for you, they are saying don’t “settle” for that temp bs job instead of a job similar to your last real one. it’s a perfect example of the WRONG incentives at work. we need to encourage people to get those temp jobs for as long as they can whenever they can, not discouraging that practice.
the solution to the economic problem is to erase capitalism from the planet.
Did you know that she paid INTO unemployment insurance? So why the fuck isn’t she entitled to collect it? Is the concept of insurance too complicated for you to understand?
its unfortunate that people who believe in free markets dont know the history of it.
if we didnt have unemployment or social programs/justice many of us would be living in fucking shanty towns
take that ayn rand shit and shove it back up your ass where it belongs. thats what i say
Conservatism by definition is against change, which is funny because for the last 150 years this country has been getting progressively BETTER, not worse. Their wet dream is for their to be no more unions, anti-monopoly laws etc that keep big businesses from abusing the people even MORE than they already do.
Conservatism should be considered a sexual fetish for big businesses instead of a valid political philosophy.