published Saturday, December 28th, 2013

Never Mind

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

86
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
soakya said...

first of all, he's probably unemployed because of government intervention in the work place, regardless of party. second, if the man was holding a democrat sign he would be digging in someone else's pocket to give the unemployed man the help he was needing. then he would preach about how its the government job to help the poor.

December 28, 2013 at 12:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

Why not a sign with an arrow pointing to a guy next to him with the sign saying "take his".

Where is the emphasis on opportunities to work? A lot of people want a job and a good weekly check but too many don't want to work.

Where is the emphasis on preparing people for a job and teaching them the responsibility of work?

December 28, 2013 at 4:56 a.m.
jjwhi1 said...

Bennett maybe you should check once again to see who does most of the giving in this country. I know it wouldn't fit your narrative, but we all have our little dissapointments in life.

December 28, 2013 at 6:39 a.m.

Another turd by the Democrat Party Hack.

It's hilarious how Obama and Democrats make it seem as if they're not in power, and that they haven't been in control of D.C. for most of the last 60 plus years. Obama is a jackass who acts like he's disgusted with what's going on and hasn't been president since 2008.

Alprova said, "2014" will be a good year for liberals". Well, when is not a good year for liberals? D.C., and it's suburbs are experiencing massive growth, while the rest of the country is struggling. The government is constantly growing, and liberalism dominates the media.

December 28, 2013 at 6:47 a.m.
degage said...

Stock market highest ever, so the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer under liberal rule. Obamas buddy George Soros must really be happy with his puppet.

December 28, 2013 at 7:09 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

The first five commenters here could have saved themselves the effort by just saying, "Let them eat cake."

The term 'compassionate conservative' is the 21st century's greatest oxymoron.

December 28, 2013 at 7:18 a.m.
conservative said...

I know of two people who waited until their jobless benefits ran out before they found work. One tried to get food stamps but had too many assets.

I know one right now on benefits. He has told me of two places at different times hiring maintenance workers but he has not bothered to apply. They are hiring but he ain't applying. I don't think he will bother until his benefits run out.

I don't know if he is on food stamps but he drives a newer model Jeep.

December 28, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
conservative said...

Never mind.

December 28, 2013 at 7:45 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rat: Move along. Surely there's work to be done down at the shelter.

December 28, 2013 at 8:12 a.m.
soakya said...

We saw a good example this week of the liberal giver in one editorial, and I apologize if it seems like I'm going after the marine who gave at least 20 years of service to his country, I thank you for that. However he told the story of his sister that was fated as an adult to spend her life in poverty because her mother felt education was a waste of time, non sense. too many people rise above their circumstances and succeed. He even admitted what most liberals won't, she chose welfare over a job, and I don't blame her, she did what was in her best self-interest. She did what we all do every day, put our own self-interest first, the progressive and the conservative, the only difference is the progressive acts like he doesn't put his own self-interest first. By demanding government take care of the problem the progressive is seeking his own best self-interest, this way he doesn't have to meet the needs of his immediate family himself but can spread that responsibility to others.

The problem is the government. She was fated to poverty as an adult because government made it more profitable to accept it than to work. He even admitted he once gave her a check to be spent on her child. One check. That may have met an immediate need but how did that help her overall situation. Why not offer to pay tuition at a local community college so she could acquire a skill and provide for herself for the rest of her life. No, he thought the answer was more government involvement. He had an opportunity to put into practice what he preached but he didn't. I would be willing to bet everyone of you progressives know someone who could also use the assistance his sister needed but instead of helping yourself all you do is demand more of others. If you are in the position to help then help and quit expecting government to do it for you. Government should not be in the charity business, you should be.

December 28, 2013 at 8:13 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

But Soak, it makes the Loony Left feeeeeel good to take the moral high-ground.

December 28, 2013 at 8:18 a.m.
yddem said...

^^^ sounds more like a preacher than a water park.

December 28, 2013 at 8:19 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

"The President attend Church on Christmas". Do. Not. Care. Besides, he has the MSM (and Alpo) to grant him absolution.

December 28, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
rick1 said...

Dennis Gabryszak who is a Democrat NY State Senator allegedly made the following comments about sex workers. “if workers in the sex trade were to unionize, he would no longer be able to afford their services.”

Gabryszak is so caring and compassionate that he is down right concerned that unionizing sex workers would put them in the unemployment line.

You have to wonder if Gabryszak cares this much about union workers in other trades losing their jobs because people might not be able to afford that union companies goods or services?

You also have to wonder does Gabryszak go bargain hunting at WalMart and other non union companies for his goods and services, or does he just limit his union free shopping to prostitution?

Note: There have been four victims who have come forward alleging sexual harassment against Gabrzsak.

http://menrec.com/democrat-if-prostitutes-were-to-unionize-id-never-be-able-to-afford-their-services/

December 28, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Wow, do conservatives ever know of anyone who is on unemployment simply because they lost their job?

Do some people abuse the system? Absolutely. Just as many supposedly upright citizens cheat on their taxes. Just as many financial institutions have commited fraud. Just as health care providers have ripped off taxpayers on a massive scale.

That said, I have little doubt that most people on unemployment wish to have jobs and most of them are on unemployment through no fault of their own.

But it's more conveinient for the family values party to paint them as unemployed because they are shiftless and not willing to work.

December 28, 2013 at 10:16 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

diggity says, " I have little doubt that most people on unemployment wish to have jobs and most of them are on unemployment through no fault of their own." Hope that's true. diggity. But not sure it is

December 28, 2013 at 10:48 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Klanservatives on Parade! You don't even realize you are also under attack by the right. The fact that they've got you using the term 'elitist' must make their double chins shake with gluttonous glee. Soldier on, "useful idiots."

December 28, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
soakya said...

wow! please one of you progressive's explain to me how you believe government can meet the needs of the poor when they can neither create wealth, jobs, nor money, for the money they print or borrow must eventually be paid back with tax dollars and creates inflation making your dollar less valuable but individuals cannot meet the needs of the poor? Please explain.

America is a giving nation and if government was not in the charity business tax payers would be hanging on to more of their own money and they could decide who to help at a much lower cost than a wasteful government.

December 28, 2013 at 10:54 a.m.
rick1 said...

The American Dream doesn't come from a government check.

December 28, 2013 at 11:55 a.m.
dude_abides said...

"America is a giving nation and... ...they could decide who to help."

So, like, we could just "tip" the poor to whatever extent we felt necessary? I think we should establish a means of choosing representatives to do our bidding for us. This way the people who would just let children starve could be made to share the burden with those that want to help. A sort of "governance," if you will, of the monies we accrue through the goodness of our collective hearts! I guess it just depends on which rules you want to play by. Some people, when faced with hunger or deprivation, might revert to another set of rules in which food or money belongs to whoever can get away with taking it. Boy, we'd want some government then, wouldn't we?

December 28, 2013 at 11:56 a.m.
soakya said...

so, like, when you see a need, like, for example your sister struggling, so, like, you and the rest of your family could meet that need, so, like, you don't have to expect others to like, meet the need like, you could be meeting. then like, the government could like, do what it was designed to do. like, protect our borders, provide for the national defense, like protect you from harm from others. then like, we could have the government the founding fathers created. they didn't create a government that was in the charity business like, go back and read your history.

December 28, 2013 at 12:18 p.m.
soakya said...

can any progressive explain how the government can meet the needs of the poor but individuals can't. where does government get their money? I know you progressives believe it does actually grows on trees but borrowed money has to be paid back with what, taxes, collected from whom, individuals. and whether you like it or not individuals are the only people who pay taxes. Corporations, estates, and trust don't pay taxes people pay taxes. And I know you also believe printed money has no effect on the economy but when you print money without increasing the amount of goods available you create inflation.

December 28, 2013 at 12:42 p.m.
degage said...

Anyone that has been on unemployment 99 weeks, more that likely have not been looking very hard for a job. Obama says he created 2million jobs so people should be working by now.

Dude, no one wants children to starve and you know it. You are just parroting the lefts talking points, you know the ones that come from the Alinsky play book that Obama rules by.

December 28, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dude says, "like Some people, when faced with hunger or deprivation, might revert to another set of rules in which food or money belongs to whoever can get away with taking it. Boy, we'd want some government then, wouldn't we? " Would you like that, Dude?

December 28, 2013 at 1:20 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Liberals need there to be victims. People finding jobs and being self sufficient means they might need less government.

Without victims(the poor), what use are the liberals.

The liberal mantra is and will always be "STRIVE FOR MEDIOCRITY!"

December 28, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

The percentage of people living in poverty now is higher than than it was when the "new deal" came along so many years ago.

Liberalism is, was and always be a failure.

December 28, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toes says "Liberals need there to be victims". steady supply of voters

December 28, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
jesse said...

I guess that's a democrat standin there w/his hand out,the republican must be on his way to WORK!!

December 28, 2013 at 2:23 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

MickeyRat said...

The first five commenters here could have saved themselves the effort by just saying, "Let them eat cake."

The term 'compassionate conservative' is the 21st century's greatest oxymoron.

hotdiggity said...

Wow, do conservatives ever know of anyone who is on unemployment simply because they lost their job?

But it's more conveinient for the family values party to paint them as unemployed because they are shiftless and not willing to work.

dude_abides said...

So, like, we could just "tip" the poor to whatever extent we felt necessary?

As a nation we have no legal/constitutional requirement that we aid the truly poor but morally we should. However let’s measure the limits of that moral requirement. The truly poor in this country have a higher standard of living than the vast majority of the world’s population.

They’re humans as well so should we make sure that they at least have the equivalent standard of living as the poor in this country? Should we make that our task before we increase the standards for our nation? Since only half the household in this country pays the federal income tax that would support such an endeavor should more of us start paying taxes that we do not currently pay to help out.

We can’t force the other first world countries to assist us in this so should we make it our task alone if necessary. The population of the U.S. is about 5% of the Earth’s and it will take a great effort from this nation. Should all of our citizens be taxed to near poverty to make this happen if that is needed?

If the left in this country is truly so dedicated to this proposition of greater assistance to the poor should they not articulate to the poor in this nation that they are going to have to forgo any additional assistance and maybe take less to accomplish the task of all mankind's standard of living being increased?

Or is this nothing but political game playing to attract the voters in this country to become brand dedicated when they vote? To in fact convince some of them that their livelihood absolutely depends on the brand they choose?

December 28, 2013 at 2:47 p.m.
Plato said...

I grew up in Eastern Kentucky, one of the poorest areas in the country. It's also one of the most conservative. People there are like a lot many of voices in this thread, they think everyone should pull their weight and it's evil for government to provide any assistance to those that need it - until it's them. Then all of a sudden those "strong conservative values" of pulling your own weight disappear and they become the first ones in the unemployment or food stamp line, or to sign up for social security disability. Over one third of them get at least one government check a month many get multiple checks.

The fact is a lot of those folks that are receiving unemployment or other benefits are Republicans they just don't articulate their objections to government assistance any longer.

Funny thing how an empty wallet can instantly change a political ideology. :)

December 28, 2013 at 2:53 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

dude_abides said...

Some people, when faced with hunger or deprivation, might revert to another set of rules in which food or money belongs to whoever can get away with taking it. Boy, we'd want some government then, wouldn't we?

No! And to be blunt about it we would want a gun and plenty of ammo which the left seems to have a short supply of. However there is little danger that will transpire in this nation unless things get much, much, much worse. Everybody in this nation including the poor are too fat and lazy to strike at a snake about to bite them. Which in an economic sense is under way already.

December 28, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
rick1 said...

This is an important read, penned by Madison, on why he did not think the federal government would be able to overwhelm the people or the states. The warning contained herein has not been heeded by the people or the states.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-papers/federalist-paper-46-the-influence-of-the-state-and-federal-governments-compared

December 28, 2013 at 3:09 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Plato, what % of food stamp and other public assistance recipients are Republicans, in your estimation?

December 28, 2013 at 3:31 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Another thing the left fails to mention is that the "poor" in this country are not a static class of the same individuals. Poverty is not a class of people, but rather a situation in which some people temporarily find themselves.

People in poverty tend to not like it there and better themselves and so move out of poverty. The leftists want (and claim) there to be a permanent "poverty class" so they can be their knight in shining armor and "save" them.

They love to get the masses conditioned to free hand-outs all the while blaming republicans for their misfortune. Here they find a permanent democrat voting bloc. And government guaranteed healthcare is the panacea for the left.

The left insults every minority class it can by insinuating that they can do absolutely nothing without the government despite massive evidence to the contrary.

December 28, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Plato said...

I grew up in Eastern Kentucky, one of the poorest areas in the country.

And you got the he## out of there as soon as you could ... didn’t you. You didn’t want any part of hanging around and trying in some way to assist you friends and family that could not or would not leave. You didn’t want to start a business that would employ people, establish training programs, or community assistance groups... did you? At least the Latino illegal aliens send part of their income back to the home folks ... do you?

It's also one of the most conservative. People there are like a lot many of voices in this thread, they think everyone should pull their weight and it's evil for government to provide any assistance to those that need it - until it's them.

I know these people well and they do not think it is evil but the truly Conservative ones think it should not become a lifestyle.

Then all of a sudden those "strong conservative values" of pulling your own weight disappear and they become the first ones in the unemployment or food stamp line, or to sign up for social security disability. Over one third of them get at least one government check a month many get multiple checks.

It is true that many of them, once they are in the government assistance system, find it very hard to return to fending for themselves as the government does it so well for them. Which fairly well confirms the political equation of how Democrat voters are created. It’s not what can I do for myself and country but what others and the government can do for me.... Right?

The fact is a lot of those folks that are receiving unemployment or other benefits are Republicans they just don't articulate their objections to government assistance any longer.

I know what you mean ... don’t it just burn you a%% that after all that effort to get them all of those government checks the swine are not grateful enough to vote the way you think they should? It’s just like workers in a right to work state riding on the backs of the union members that get them all of their pay and benefits ... Right?

Funny thing how an empty wallet can instantly change a political ideology. :)

If that is true then they had no core values before the wallet was empty.

December 28, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

I saw where 81% of millenials didn't even know that Obamacare was the same thing as the affordable care act.

Moronic low-information a$$holes.

December 28, 2013 at 3:59 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

12-year-old drug smuggler reignites immigration debate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/dec/27/12-year-old-drug-smuggler-reignites-immigration-de/

I knew ol' Easy was up to no good.

December 28, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Toes, you cold hearted, mean spirited mope. That child is just misunderstood. (he may be too old for Easy)

December 28, 2013 at 4:19 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

I get really sick and tired of hearing this nonsense from the right that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. What Bullsh!t! Even if it were true, who gives more than whom is entirely irrelevant, but then they (the RWNJs) are masters of irrelevancy and so crafty in their attempts to distract from the issues at hand.

If indeed it is true that conservatives give more than liberals, the ONLY thing that sets them apart is in their giving to their respective churches. There are far more conservative church-goers than liberal church-goers, so that fact alone would be enough to put conservatives at the top of the list for “charitable” giving. And while some churches do indeed give to the poor and needy and do commendable charitable work outside the domain of their church, there are many fundamentalist churches that spend the tithes and contributions of their parishioners on things that have nothing to do with the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, such as campaigns to fight against gay marriage or to lead crusades against abortion. What’s more, many church goers tithe and donate as much from a sense of obligation as from a sense of compassion. It is no surprise that Utah and Idaho, two heavily populated Mormon states, rank among the top states of charitable donors. It is also no surprise that the vast majority of “charitable” giving there is limited to tithes and donations made to the MORMON CHURCH.

So enough already with the BS about how much more charitable you conservatives are than liberals. Like almost everything else you say, it is a bald-faced lie, a distortion, and just another of your typical slithery ways of spinning things in an attempt to support your specious arguments.

December 28, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
yddem said...

toes said "The percentage of people living in poverty now is higher than than it was when the "new deal" came along so many years ago."

If it is important to some claim you want to make, you need to get your facts right. We are nowhere near the level of over 50% during the Great Depression.

December 28, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Well, democrats DO give more republican money away than democrats give of their own. So cut 'em a check there big fella'.

December 28, 2013 at 4:41 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Well then yd, if it's as good as you claim, the war on poverty should end. The fact is that there are higher numbers of people getting public assistance now than then.

80 years of the leftist "war on poverty". Show us results,

December 28, 2013 at 4:48 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

As for the constant absurd claims from you rabid righties and libertarians that it should be up to the individuals in our society, and not the government, to help the poor, with not just occasional donations but a constant supply of money to those in need (soakya is especially big on this lame-brained idea), please tell me how the average working person is supposed to be able to do this when it is all they can do to pay their own bills and keep their own heads above water? Very few middle class families today have the luxury of investing in the stock market or saving for their retirement, let alone have the means to constantly support those in need. And what about someone without health insurance who is diagnosed with any one of countless incurable genetic diseases that require expensive ongoing treatment or who is in ICU from a serious accident and racking up tens of thousands of dollars of doctor and hospital bills? How could anyone, other than a member or the 1-2% of the wealthiest, afford to pay for such expenses out of pocket?

You RWNJs keep spouting nonsense. I honestly think that you are certifiably insane. Your hatred of government is so irrational and your adolescent, half-baked notion of “individual freedom” is so clichéd and unrealistic that you sound like a bunch of 14-yr.-olds throwing a tantrum and demanding to be left alone in your room, there to whine about how misunderstood you are.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

December 28, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
yddem said...

no, toes, I did not "claim it is good," I simply corrected your misstatement.

December 28, 2013 at 4:51 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Laughable. With a "steady stream of money" flowing their way, what's the incentive to do any better?

You must have missed the part where different people move in and out of poverty at different times and most don't stay there forever. That's the liberal dream, to have a static population of "poor" people to champion for. There is no such thing as true equality. Equality is the latest catch-word for a democratic party that is currently against the ropes by their own dear leader.

December 28, 2013 at 5:02 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

yd claims, "nowhere near the level of 50%". Then why all the "must do something now" urgency?

December 28, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.
yddem said...

toes, please provide your authority for your claim of a "must do something now urgency."

December 28, 2013 at 5:10 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

I know people RIGHT NOW who are waiting until unemployment benefits expire before taking a job that pays less than the job they lost.

I've had to step down twice in my life to take a job that paid less than the one I had before. In both cases, I made up for the difference and regained, and exceeded, my previous pay level within a year or two. It's not the end of the world.

December 28, 2013 at 5:19 p.m.
yddem said...

Okay, toes, I cannot find the authority all in one location. I think there were there were about 75 million Americans living below the poverty level in the Great Depression. Unemployment peaked at 24.9%. Currently, there are 12 million Americans on welfare (38.8% White, 39.8% Black), 46.7 million on food stamps and 5.6 million on unemployment compensation (that figure just went down, of course).

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

http://econc10.bu.edu/Ec341_money/Papers/Carroll_paper.htm

December 28, 2013 at 5:23 p.m.
Plato said...

Plain Truth - interesting question you asked. I surfed around and found that Pew Research had the answer:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/07/FT_13.07.12_FoodStamps_310px.png

December 28, 2013 at 5:32 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

When someone on UI has used up all their benefits through the state, which they have previously paid into through their years of working, and the federal government kicks in and extends those benefits, it is not just a “charitable” thing that the government is doing. There is a sound economic reason for doing it: First off, unemployment must be at an abnormally high level, due to the fact that there are far more unemployed people than there are available jobs (the Bureau of Labor Statistics has stated that there are more than 3 applicants for every job, or the ratio of jobs to unemployed people is 4 million to 12 million). So the jobs simply are not there. Those jobs lost from this latest and worst recession since the Great Depression are not coming back, and the "job creators" are not creating any new jobs - not because of over-regulation by the government or uncertainty about Obamacare or taxes, but simply because there is no DEMAND. And there is no demand because people, other than the very rich, do not have enough money to spend.

Second, for every dollar paid out in unemployment benefits it generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. Every dollar that an unemployed person receives goes right back into the economy. If that money is taken out of the equation, it is ridiculous to think that the government is SAVING money. Certainly there is a savings up front, but the tax payers and the government will pay dearly for it later on. Those unemployed and now completely destitute people do not just go away, nor do they miraculously become the next rags-to-riches story, having been forced to the edge of a precipice. Sure, some miniscule number might arise from the ashes of nothing, but the vast majority will likely become homeless, resort to crime and incur court and prison costs, become ill and end up in emergency rooms, and in the end will cost the tax payer and the government more than if some marginal amount had been paid out to them in the first place.

The social/economic safety nets are not there just for “charity.” They actually make sound economic sense, whether conservatives want to face up to that fact or not.

December 28, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Authority comes from having two good ears and suffering through short bsnbc viewings. It doesn't take long to hear how the "mean republicans" want to "starve children".

December 28, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Rickaroo, the weak spot in your argument is that the middle class has come to expect to live on the raw edge and exist paycheck to paycheck because they are unwilling to sacrifice a bit to save some money and gain job skills BEFORE they saddle themselves with families and debt. It's not a God-given right to have children when you're 16 years old and expect society to pay all the bills.

My own parents "had an accident" that resulted in ME, born when my mother was 19 years old, and short-circuiting their plans to have both of them work and save money before having a family. Their first experience with financial comfort occurred when my father was 41 years old. He got a promotion (that he worked for) and I got a college scholarship. His brother, who had exactly the same job with the same company in a different state, did not have children until he was 30 years old. He and his wife ALWAYS had extra money to save and invest.

So, DO YOU GET THE POINT? People can MANAGE THEIR LIVES to AVOID living in POVERTY.

And, by the way, my father and his brother, ages 10 and 12, raised a cotton crop by themselves, plowing behind a mule, sharecropping on their grandfather's farm in rural Alabama. Neither one went to college. Both served in the armed forces. Both contributed money to buy a house for their mother when they got their first jobs after the service.

So, the problem that liberals have is that a whole bunch of responsible people have lived a decent life, gotten an education, delayed having families, and now RESENT THE HELL out of being taxed at 25% or MORE of their income to give tax refunds to people who PAID NO TAX! (Earned income credit).

We completely understand that millions and millions of people who have been raised on the dole and allowed to squander their educational opportunities are now in poverty because of THEIR OWN actions.

We don't resent helping those who CANNOT help themselves. The problem I've seen over and over in the past 40 years is that so many people CANNOT WAIT to get into some kind of situation where they can draw welfare or disability payments and sit home and watch TV instead of working.

The voluntarily underemployed vastly outnumber the genuinely needy. That's where your arguments fail.

December 28, 2013 at 5:41 p.m.
Plato said...

Jt6gR3hM said...

And you got the he## out of there as soon as you could ... didn’t you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To be honest I left at age 18 to serve 8 years in Uncle Sam's Navy including a year in Viet Nam, then realizing my future didn't lie in a steel mill or a coal mine, pursued a business education and founded two successful businesses that actually did employ a few folks. But I'm sure all of that is foreign to you.

BTW your premise that one side of the political spectrum's objective of continuing our historical social safety net, is a conspiracy to get votes, is beyond cynical to the point of absurdity.

December 28, 2013 at 5:42 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Oh, Rickaroo. $1.90? A dollar earned at a job in private industry/business generates much more in "turnover." The lowest paid people generate at least $2.50 in turnover for every dollar earned.

A dollar in government payments to someone of low income only goes to rent, food and utilities. A dollar paid to someone in the middle class goes to automobile makers, appliance makers, service providers, insurance companies, etc., and many MORE uses before it finally ends up being paid to a minimum wage worker who only uses it to purchase food and pay rent.

This is basic macroeconomics as taught in GOOD colleges. Keeping people on the low-pay government dole makes sure that economic growth in all other areas except food and rent never gets to see those dollars. Welfare cases are not buying new cars and paying for life insurance, new houses, and all those other businesses which contribute to the growth of a strong economy.

December 28, 2013 at 5:49 p.m.
yddem said...

Plato, responding to junktrash, said "BTW your premise that one side of the political spectrum's objective of continuing our historical social safety net, is a conspiracy to get votes, is beyond cynical to the point of absurdity."

That is a continuing theme of the neocons on this forum.

December 28, 2013 at 5:50 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Yeah, and the economy will blossom when the fresh faced millenials must now spend their disposable income on mandated healthcare.

December 28, 2013 at 6:05 p.m.
rick1 said...

Good article, which explains the true cost of extending unemployment benefits.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/11/29/cbo-extending-unemployment-benefits-would-cost-100k-job-created

December 28, 2013 at 6:16 p.m.
jesse said...

yddem it may be cynical beyond absurd BUT L.B.J. said it OUTLOUD!! BUT maybe he was just shootin off at the mouth!!YA RECKON??

December 28, 2013 at 6:17 p.m.
alprova said...

I see two sides to this issue. On one hand, the uemployment picture in many areas of the country is still such that it is still hard for some to find a job.

On the other hand, someone who cannot find a job after being unemployed for a year, is either abusing the system or is unemployable for other reasons, of their own doing.

Employers hold all the cards currently, in that they can be more choosy when filling open slots. Competition is very tough for the good jobs.

Undoubtedly, there will be many of the 1.3 milion slated to lose UI benefits, who will legitimately experience some measure of severe disadvantage due to them being cut off.

The rule used to be that UI benefits were not cut for as long as unemployment stayed above 6%, or thereabouts. We're still in the high 7% range.

It will be interesting to see if there comes a sharp drop because 1.3 million are going to be forced to crap or get off the pot.

Both parties voted for the two year budget deal that included these cuts, so no one can point fingers at the other, in a political game of shame.

If bi-partisanship in Congress is at possible in the near future, it had to start sometime.

I find it a little more than laughable when Republican cheerleaders lump all those drawing UI into one nice, neat category, just as they do with those on welfare and who draw food stamps.

I had a 75 year old widow in my office the other day, who brought me some paperwork from the State of Georgia, mandating that she conduct an online review of her Medicaid and Food Stamp benefits. She knows nothing about a computer.

I did it with her sitting beside me and was shocked at what little this woman was living on. Less than $900 a month. Her food stamps are being cut from $45 to $40 a month.

I wonder how many of you fine Republican cheerleaders could even fathom having to survive on so little.

December 28, 2013 at 6:21 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I know people RIGHT NOW who are waiting until unemployment benefits expire before taking a job that pays less than the job they lost.I've had to step down twice in my life to take a job that paid less than the one I had before. In both cases, I made up for the difference and regained, and exceeded, my previous pay level within a year or two. It's not the end of the world." - P_D

Most of you people bragging about your personal experiences of having to "step down" at some point in your life and take a job that paid less than the job you just lost and then rising back to a level of financial success are relating your experiences from a time prior to this latest recession. So many of you don't even have a clue how hard this recession has been on those who lost their jobs. You think because you personally were not hit hard by it, everything is hunky-dory and these people are just a bunch of whiners who can't take a few hard knocks. But you are shameless in your lack of empathy and your willful ignorance in understanding the true nature of the devastation that this recession has wrought upon so many people.

But the only way that you can justify lumping all poor people or unemployed people into the category of "moochers" is to simply brand them all as spoiled, lazy do-nothings content to live off the govt. dole. That way you can appease your conscience and halfway make sense of your arguments for increased austerity, which in reality make no sense at all.

December 28, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
rick1 said...

A landmark study from Sweden found that more generous unemployment benefits increased the rates of unemployment. The relationship was very robust. Every 1% point increase in benefits increased unemployment by 5%.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3570.pdf

In 2007, Sweden reformed its unemployment insurance system. The government provides 60 weeks of benefits, but on a sliding scale. The longer someone is unemployed, the less they receive in assistance. This system provides a powerful incentive to find work.

http://people.su.se/~annla/pub/EarnedIncomeTaxCredits130218.pdf

Since several posters on this site have supported how things are down in Europe, you shouldn't have a problem with using a sliding scale for unemployment like they do in Sweden.

December 28, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Rick, the flaw in your argument is always that you assume that all people who draw unemployment compensation fit into the category as abusers, who do nothing until they have to.

That simply is not the case.

So who gives a hoot what they do in Europe or anywhere else.

This is the United States of America. We do things OUR way, whether some of you are on board with it or not.

The Republican utopia some of you imagine will never come to pass, no matter how much you wish for it.

December 28, 2013 at 6:36 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"On the other hand, someone who cannot find a job after being unemployed for a year, is either abusing the system or is unemployable for other reasons, of their own doing." - alprova

Al, it seems that you are buying into exactly what the right-wingers are trying to make everybody think - that many, if not most, of the unemployed are without jobs through their own fault. But there are MANY people who have been unemployed for more than a year in this stagnant and ailing economy. Most of the jobs that were lost were middle-management, low-tech jobs that are not coming back. There are not enough jobs to accommodate those who are in need of jobs today, and even with training and re-education, which most people cannot afford, there will not be enough jobs to go around. Add to that the large number of people in their 50s and 60s who lost jobs. Age discrimination is illegal but it is very real. It is extremely difficult for people in their 50 and 60s to get hired anywhere.

Sure, there will always be some people who abuse the system and are content to remain on the dole, but the vast majority of those unemployed are not remaining unemployed by choice. Most people are not content to scrape by on a mere pittance of unemployment benefits or welfare, especially those who lost jobs that afforded them a much better lifestyle than they are living now.

December 28, 2013 at 6:42 p.m.
yddem said...

Yes, jesse, I reckon.

December 28, 2013 at 6:45 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, funny you should make the comment "So who gives a hoot what they do in Europe or anywhere else," when so many posters in this forum including yourself have called for a single payer health care system like they have in Europe and other countries.

Reference the 75 year old lady who came to your office. Did you offer her any monetary assistance like paying the extra five dollars every month that was cut from her food stamps? If she is a customer of yours did you reduce her interest rate?

What was the purpose of telling this story since it appears you did nothing to assist her?

December 28, 2013 at 6:48 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

PlainTruth said...

So Plato, what % of food stamp and other public assistance recipients are Republicans, in your estimation?

Plato said...

Plain Truth - interesting question you asked. I surfed around and found that Pew Research had the answer:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/07/FT_13.07.12_FoodStamps_310px.png

"Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. About one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps."

"Women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps."

"About 18% of adults aged 18 to 29 have benefitted from this entitlement program compared with 8% of those 65 and older."

Very interesting numbers but what does it really prove. I think the key words are “received food stamps at some point in their lives”. This only shows that a very small minority, at least for Republicans, needs a safety net at some part of their lives. Most people would understand and accept that as a reality that we should address.

However the length of time and number of occurrences on the program would show who is more likely to become permanently or long term dependent on it. Also people’s voting preferences during periods of being on and off the program would be interesting. Only from my personal experiences and referencing the above data I have come to my opinion of how that shakes out.

December 28, 2013 at 6:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Would you like that, Dude?"

No, of course not, but I couldn't stop them from taking your stuff any more than I can stop you from displaying a little boys naked ass on this site. Aren't you afraid your avatar will lead to bestiality (man-on-duck, for instance)?

December 28, 2013 at 7:26 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I've not seen this much Leftist BS on here in quite some time. Roo is particularly pissed and seems to know exactly what the right wants. Maybe he could suggest some lottery numbers for me.

December 28, 2013 at 7:29 p.m.
alprova said...

Rickaroo wrote: "Al, it seems that you are buying into exactly what the right-wingers are trying to make everybody think..."

I'm really not. And here's why I am not. On Inauguration day, 2009, I was fired from a very good job and had to fight for unemployment in a state located 1,000 miles from where I live.

Long story short, I won my case, and at the time, unemployment was over 10% locally. It took me four months to find a job, and it was a $60 a week cut from what I was drawing, but I took it. I took a second job to make up the difference.

I have a sister who rode the unemployment train ride for almost two years, who magically found a job the week she drew her last check. She pondered filing for disability until she found out that it would take a long time to get it approved. She is one of those abusers that people talk about. Oh and by the way, she is a Republican.

Many people find themselves unemployable due to very poor work records and I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for people who place themselves in that category.

"But there are MANY people who have been unemployed for more than a year in this stagnant and ailing economy. Most of the jobs that were lost were middle-management, low-tech jobs that are not coming back."

In that case, you take something that pays better than UI and hope for the best, keep looking, keep applying, and keep praying.

"There are not enough jobs to accommodate those who are in need of jobs today, and even with training and re-education, which most people cannot afford, there will not be enough jobs to go around."

The day I see not one single advertisement for a job in the local paper, then I will be in full agreement with you, but the fact is that there are unfilled jobs, and not all of them require special skills.

"Add to that the large number of people in their 50s and 60s who lost jobs. Age discrimination is illegal but it is very real. It is extremely difficult for people in their 50 and 60s to get hired anywhere."

That one, I will agree with you 100%. I never had a minute's trouble finding a job until I hit 50.

"Sure, there will always be some people who abuse the system and are content to remain on the dole, but the vast majority of those unemployed are not remaining unemployed by choice."

I'll bet the true numbers are higher than we both realize. Most people with enough coming in to make ends meet are not going to work as hard as they should to find a job. It's human nature.

"Most people are not content to scrape by on a mere pittance of unemployment benefits or welfare, especially those who lost jobs that afforded them a much better lifestyle than they are living now."

I don't consider everyone an abuser, but you have to scrutinize someone who claims to not be able to find SOMETHING after a full year has passed.

December 28, 2013 at 7:46 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

So who gives a hoot what they do in Europe or anywhere else.

You did when healthcare was the issue being discussed. Unemployment is a state program and worked fine until the federal government got involved. BTW, employers pay the state unemployment insurance which is adjusted based on employer experience, lay offs etc..

It is hard to comprehend how big, cumbersome, inefficient and redundant the federal government is. The evolution to a subservient society that wants a government that tells them what to do and when to do it and takes care of them with little effort on their part is nearing completion.

Governing by executive order is about to reach unprecedented levels shortly after Obama returns from vacation. Remind me of saying that if it doesn't happen. I would be thrilled to have to apologize.

December 28, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

A lot of people on unemployment don't work hard at finding a job. Many are not willing to relocate to get a job comparable to the job and pay they lost. The number working for cash that also draw unemployment is a high number. Most will not take a job that does not pay 2X the amount of their unemployment.

Check this out and help if you can....

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RBqjZ0KZCa0?showinfo=0&rel=0&hd=0

December 28, 2013 at 7:58 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, funny you should make the comment "So who gives a hoot what they do in Europe or anywhere else," when so many posters in this forum including yourself have called for a single payer health care system like they have in Europe and other countries."

You're the one making that leap. While I am fully aware that other nations do health care better, not every one of those nations offer single-payer systems. France and Singapore, both at the very top, utilize a combination of governmental subsidies and catastrophic health care insurance coverage.

Not every nation in Europe is to be admired, for various reasons, so you don't see me praising the Continent in general.

"Reference the 75 year old lady who came to your office. Did you offer her any monetary assistance like paying the extra five dollars every month that was cut from her food stamps? If she is a customer of yours did you reduce her interest rate? "

She was NOT a customer of mine. She was merely an acquaintance.

Rick, I am rather cash strapped at the moment myself. My monthly medical expenses are through the roof, due to the expense of my amputation and the medical supplies needed to care for it on a daily basis. Wheel chairs, walkers, medifying my auto with disability controls, bandages, sompession bandages, etc., it all adds up, and it's costing me plenty.

I have never claimed to be wealthy. I am doing okay, but am far from comfortable at the moment.

The woman has a man friend whom I know helps her monetarily as the need arises. She's an expert at finding free stuff, so she gets by.

"What was the purpose of telling this story since it appears you did nothing to assist her?"

I provided the assistance she asked me for, which was to assist her in filing her online interview.

She did not ask me for money.

December 28, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
soakya said...

lets see, the individual reaching into his own pocket to help another vs. the progressive thief using the government to reach into his neighbors pocket to help another neighbor- who is selfish one? tough question.

December 28, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Dude, I'll leave the bestiality to you.

December 28, 2013 at 8:17 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, you can use other countries for healthcare but I can not use Sweden's programs for putting unemployment insurance on a sliding scale? Do you like keeping people dependent on the government?

You mention Singapore's health care. Remember we talked about how in Singapore citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom. The emphasis on family extends into old age: retired parents can sue children who fail to support them.

When we had this discussion I asked if you would be for the same type of program in this country that they have in Singapore and you said you would be. But you are against a sliding scale for unemployment like they have in Sweden?

http://www.economist.com/node/15524092

By what you say it sounds like the 75 year old lady is not in need and is being taken care of by a male friend and charities if that is where she gets her free stuff from.

You did not answer if she was a customer and if so did you reduce her interest rate?

December 28, 2013 at 8:47 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Dude, I'll leave the bestiality to you." What a rapier wit!

I see you're sticking with the NAMBLA icon.

December 28, 2013 at 9:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

dude, I believe you mentioned nambla before….interesting. but hey, anything goes with you lefties, so have at it. are you registered, dude?

December 28, 2013 at 9:28 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "are you registered, dude?"

No, I've never gone bankrupt, or am I misunderstanding the question?

December 28, 2013 at 10:17 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I'll simplify it. Do your neighbors know of your proclivities?

December 28, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Thank you for simplifying, I thought you were talking about getting assistance for the debt problems you never had. Was it Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 that you never filed?

I'm sure there's taxpayer financed help available for your naked little boy complex.

December 28, 2013 at 11:33 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "You did not answer if she was a customer and if so did you reduce her interest rate?"

I most certainly did answer that question. She was not a customer...judt an acquaintance, as in a friend of a friend.

December 29, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Quack Quack, and have a Happy new year..

December 29, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
Plato said...

Rick1 said: "In 2007, Sweden reformed its unemployment insurance system. The government provides 60 weeks of benefits, but on a sliding scale. The longer someone is unemployed, the less they receive in assistance. This system provides a powerful incentive to find work."

This is typical of the conservative arguments. They tell a half truth to make a point, but when you look at the entire picture their argument goes up in smoke and their disingenuous nature is exposed.

While it's true that the Swedish Program reduces benefits incrementally over time, they start at 80% of your normal wages and reduce it to 70% after 450 days. After that you are enrolled in their Job and Development Guarantee Labor Market Program where you train for a guaranteed job.

OTOH if you look at the State of Tennessee for instance, the benefit range is from $30 to a maximum of $275 per week. In some cases that isn't even 15-20% of what a person normally earns.

It should be no surprise to anyone that if you can receive 70-80% of your normal wages by staying home that a lot of folks will make that choice, but it's hard for me to believe that people receiving 6 or 7 hundred a month from the state while they are out of work like their situation and aren't motivated to get a job.

December 29, 2013 at 10:07 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

Plain truth - in East TN where it's 98% white, about 98% of those on food stamps and participate in their favorite pastime, government disability payments, are white. The same is true in Eastern Kentucky. I suspect the opposite is true in Memphis. What's your point?

December 31, 2013 at 1:54 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.