We were told extending unemployment was the best way to stimulate the economy

I never argued that either. I simply pointed out who it is that actually pays for UI insurance.

Read the full post. I know you did not argue that. You are getting hung up on one point.

You are still wrong on that one point. It comes out of YOUR compensation.

Your employer does not consider your cost based on your take home pay. Your employer could not care less what your take home pay is. The government could leave you with 5% of it or 100%. It does not matter. Your employer considers your cost based on your total compensation, of which UI is a part.
 
There is nothing to give back. I just won't sign up. Yes it is welfare. No two ways about it. It should have never been started but I can't put that genie back in the bottle. People are wetting their pants over who wins this election but it doesn't matter a whit except for one thing and is how quickly we come crashing down as a country. If Maobama wins we don't have more than 5-10 years. Romney wins, maybe 20. The trajectory is set and there isn't much anyone can do about it.

It isn't a matter of liberal vs conservatives or republicans vs democrats. It is a matter of math. There is no magic fairy dust. The politicians will keep kicking the can down the road until there is no more road. I am always amused by pollsters asking voters "does this candidate care about you". If you worry about a politician caring about you, you are a fucking loser.

If you think you can give the gobblement your money and magically get more back, you are an idiot of monumental proportions.

Personally I am prepared for doomsday. But, I could always be more prepared. I have food, water, electricity and heat. If other people want to keep their heads in the sand then I say fuck em.

I hear you, I think. What is your concern? Economic ruin or military disaster?
 
I hear you, I think. What is your concern? Economic ruin or military disaster?

economic ruin, it is inevitable unless MAJOR changes are made. take for instance the recent flap over Romney's words. Well maybe folks didn't like it, but it was dead on balls accurate.

We are 16 trillion in debt and people keep squabbling about who ran up the tab. That is like the folks on the Titanic arguing about who didn't see the iceburg.

When you factor in unfunded liabilities it comes to $65 trillion if you go with the small number (depending on the PV you use).

Where are we going to get $65 trillion from? Arguing over a 4% tax increase on the so called rich is like pissing in the ocean. And from where I sit I don't see anyone who wants to give up their gobblement benefits because "they paid into the system".

Ask yourself this question, if the Fed weren't buying our debt, who would? What happens one day when there is a debt auction and there are no takers? Grab your financial ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.
 
economic ruin, it is inevitable unless MAJOR changes are made. take for instance the recent flap over Romney's words. Well maybe folks didn't like it, but it was dead on balls accurate.

We are 16 trillion in debt and people keep squabbling about who ran up the tab. That is like the folks on the Titanic arguing about who didn't see the iceburg.

When you factor in unfunded liabilities it comes to $65 trillion if you go with the small number (depending on the PV you use).

Where are we going to get $65 trillion from? Arguing over a 4% tax increase on the so called rich is like pissing in the ocean. And from where I sit I don't see anyone who wants to give up their gobblement benefits because "they paid into the system".

Ask yourself this question, if the Fed weren't buying our debt, who would? What happens one day when there is a debt auction and there are no takers? Grab your financial ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.

Romney's comments were nothing but stupid on many levels. It appears you are just buying into a bunch of racist hype on Obama.

I am concerned about economic ruin too. However, I am a bit more optimistic and, you might not accept this, pragmatic.

First off, I think you are very wrong about who is the best option here. We would be in ground wars throughout the middle east if that nut McCain had won. I disagree with it on principle, but Obama avoided consulting congress on Lybia because that psychopath would have demanded more ground troops. Biden was right about using special forces more (an idea long advanced by libertarians). If McCain had won we would be entangled in Lybia, Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. Romney seems hell bent on taking us into Iran and that could drag us into all of those.

With congress on his side (it's not as if the Dems ever really oppose spending) Romney will spend us into oblvivion. He claims he wants to cut taxes, which is a dumb idea. I don't know, he may be less gullible than Ryan on the subject, but still I don't see him doing anything good for the debt.

If anyone can reform SS/Medicare it is Obama. Romney will not be able to do it. It's similar to the fact that only Clinton could reform Welfare and only Nixon could go to China. Likewise, it will probably be a Republican that finally does something about ending the drug war.

Obama will be a lame duck on other issues. He will not be able to enact any more big government plans. He would be even less powerful if the GOP ditches Romney and instead focuses on Congress. That is one reason to applaud the idiotic comments of Romney.

If Obama can do something about the long term sustainibility of SS/Medicare then the unfunded liabilities will not be that big of a problem. It is not as if investors (they are not as dumb as partisans) do not consider them now and they still feel we are a good bet. We will just turn them into external liabilities, which will lead to more inflation, but...

For the pragmatism, why on earth would you waste energy and money on bogging yourself down here if you expect ruin? That is stupid. Forget that I will be sipping tea with Lowaicue or chewing on the Royal Rat in Belize. You grab your ankles I will "Ride the River."
 
Back
Top