"People don't want to come back to work"

[winbig]

WTF?

C'mon already. People are just extending their unemployment time after time just because they feel like sitting on their ass all day? Even though that doesn't give them a job to go to when they KNOW that their unemployment is going to run out at some point? Give me a break.

This just pisses me off.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

In a radio interview, Republican gubernatorial nominee
Tom Corbett insulted hundreds of thousands of unemployed Pennsylvania workers, by saying the following:

"People don't want to come back to work while they still have unemployment. They're literally telling - I'll come back to work when the unemployment runs out. That's becoming a problem. The jobs are there, but if we keep extending unemployment the people are just gonna sit there and...I've literally had construction companies tell me, I can't get people to come back to work, until - we'll come back when unemployment runs out."

 

[love2winalot]

I never post about this type of stuff, but ..................

This all comes down to, "What did you make per hour $, at your job"? Unemployment starts at $5 hr, or the min wage. If you worked your ass off, at a low income job, then it is more likely you will just claim unemployent until you can't any more. $5 hr and hard work, or $5 hr for free?

This is totally different if you were making $20 hr or so. These people have their life style at stake, and unemployment is an insult. Even a pay cut, down to $14 hr, is still a lot better than unemployment. It is just a matter of what boat you are in..................

 

[winbig]

Personally, if I had a chance to go back to work if I was on unemployment, I'd jump on it, no matter if it was for a cut in pay, or not. Unemployment is no guarantee, and there's no telling if you'll have it one week to the next.

Here in PA, you get 60% of what you were making before. But, for the first 4-5 weeks after you file, you don't get a check. After you go back to work, you end up getting 2 checks, but that's no help for that first month or so, is it?

 

[rockycatt]

so if they extrapolate this situation we could conceivably become a welfare state = communism

 

[ksech]

I have to slightly disagree here. My son just recently returned to the employment line (May). He has spent the last 10 years on and off unemployment due to extreme "cutbacks" from previous jobs.
First job loss - job terminated when IBM/EIT decided to downsize.
Second - Ascendia corp. filed bankrupcy
Third - Lockheed lost the presidential helicopter deal.


In the 6 months he was on unemployment this last time, he had 1 job interview. The job was 75 miles away at minimum wage in a field which he had no experience in whatsoever (selling life insurance door-to-door). Why should he take something which will cost him more in the long run? I watched him go from an energetic, funloving, hardworking person to a depressed, angry person.

Thank God he has some great friends. He landed a decent job (through a friend), which, hopefully, will last a long time. Nothing is a guarantee anymore. There is no job security anymore.

 

[felicie]

It ought to go back to a time when you got it for what 6 weeks period. and you had to make an effort daily (with signatures) that you were actively searching for a job. I know people I believe are in the business of staying on unemployment for life and they only work long enough to get some big ass refund at tax time! After watching this pattern over and over you suddenly think wtf?

 

[voltage1]

My unemployment ran out before I was able to go back to work and I was pissed over the comments that some of these politicians (assholes) made!!! . wonder how they would like it if they made $360 ( or less) a week and tried to pay house payments , Insurance , car payments, utilities and put food on the table for their family. No tier 5 .... Bullshit !!!

Fortunately I am back at work and now I have to replenish the savings and pay all the relatives and friends that I had to borrow from to make ends meet.
I know I was in a panic for the last few months of my unemployment. I could see the end of it and had no Idea if any work was going to come ...I applied for jobs that I was way over qualified for and apparently so were 2000 other people.... I didnt care what the pay was ...I needed a job.
The end is not in sight ... and these Guys (politicians) are so out if touch with the pulse of the people .... only thing I know is that I will remember when election time comes around .. BYE BYE... every single one of em needs to be replaced !!!! All parties ...EVERY ONE OF EM !!!!


okay I'm stepping down off the soap box

good luck to all those that are still unemployed

Volt

 

[rockycatt]

they the politicians the lowest form of life on earth the vast majority
so if your one of the extreme minority that may possibly be honest your guilty by association and as its told to us pee ons
ignorance of the law is no defence and a accessory before the fact of a crime is treated as a principle

ill volunteer for the firing squad when the time is presented

 

[smittytime]

It's a fact that this politician is correct... IN SOME SITUATIONS...

I personally know a few people who either won't take a job if its the same or close to what unemployment is paying or take a job "under the table" so that they keep getting unemployment. Whenever you take from one person and give to another it is bad.

To keep extending unemployment you are allowing people to pass up jobs that they COULD take because they want to be more picky or would rather collect money while staying home. That is not the case in every situation, I am sure but it IS the case. You can google this right now and find story after story of those who 'just quit' looking for work. Felt it wasn't worth their time.

I know that it isn't easy but if a person cannot make payments on their current lifestyle because their income level dropped then they shouldnt expect their neighbors (i.e. tax payers) subsidize their lifestyle. They simply need to downsize their home or rent and get a lesser car.... etc. It is not easy nor desirable but necessary. What is not necessary is for politicians to take personal property from one person and give it to another.

Look, if we stopped just giving people money after 6 months and forced them back to work all of those "help wanted" signs that I see at restaurants, hotels, gas stations....etc wouldn't be there. If you are out of work I do feel bad for you...however, it is not a right to sit home and collect an income while you pass up lesser jobs. Any person that finds themselves unemployed should go pound the pavement until they find a job (ANY job) then worry about moving into a better job later. It is just ridiculous that they keep extending the unemployment. It is a socialistic act and it is bad for an economy and more importantly, it is bad for the mind set of a nation. Socialism breads laziness and complacency and this continuing extension of unemployment is unneccessary and it is not good for the nation.

AGAIN, I know this isn't all situations, but it is the situation that I am addressing and most likely so was this polititican.

 

[felicie]

I have to slightly disagree here. My son just recently returned to the employment line (May). He has spent the last 10 years on and off unemployment due to extreme "cutbacks" from previous jobs.
First job loss - job terminated when IBM/EIT decided to downsize.
Second - Ascendia corp. filed bankrupcy
Third - Lockheed lost the presidential helicopter deal.


In the 6 months he was on unemployment this last time, he had 1 job interview. The job was 75 miles away at minimum wage in a field which he had no experience in whatsoever (selling life insurance door-to-door). Why should he take something which will cost him more in the long run? I watched him go from an energetic, funloving, hardworking person to a depressed, angry person.

Thank God he has some great friends. He landed a decent job (through a friend), which, hopefully, will last a long time. Nothing is a guarantee anymore. There is no job security anymore.

A job will give you more guarantee than unemployment compensation and I think your son knows that. I hope he gets his 'good' life back real soon.

 

[slotplayer]

A study by Moody's Analytics recently found that every dollar spent by the government on benefits for the unemployed produces an overall return of $1.61 for the economy.

In comparison, we only get a 32-cent impact for each dollar in tax cuts.

If fox news mentioned it, it must be true.

 

[felicie]

english smarty pants english!

 

[vegetagirl2008]

english smarty pants english!

What he is saying that every dollar the government spends they get back in the economy..which does not make any sense to me at all..

 

[swampwitch]

It has to do with the dollar going back into the economy which stimulates trade. An unemployed person who gets an unemployment check doesn't save it. He /she spends the dollar on something useful, like food. The dollar spent on food is one more dollar that the store didn't have before. That dollar contributes to the store's profit, which is then spent on new/old employee wages and inventory. The inventory bought with that dollar is then sold at a profit. And so on and so on.

Tax breaks for the wealthy however do not stimulate the economy. That tax break is simply money that is left in the bank. While the whole idea of rich people keeping more money means they hire more people blah blah might sound good in theory, in practice it just doesn't happen. It's been shown time and again that trickle down economics doesn't help the overall economy.

 

[just play]

Look, if we stopped just giving people money after 6 months and forced them back to work all of those "help wanted" signs that I see at restaurants, hotels, gas stations....etc wouldn't be there. If you are out of work I do feel bad for you...however, it is not a right to sit home and collect an income while you pass up lesser jobs. Any person that finds themselves unemployed should go pound the pavement until they find a job (ANY job) then worry about moving into a better job later. It is just ridiculous that they keep extending the unemployment. It is a socialistic act and it is bad for an economy and more importantly, it is bad for the mind set of a nation. Socialism breads laziness and complacency and this continuing extension of unemployment is unneccessary and it is not good for the nation

I very much disagree with this.

The way your thinking is...if someone was making 50,000 a year, owns a home and a car, have children, they should now take a job at a gas station?

You also said something about not having someone else pay for your lifestyle. A person is not going to sell their home that took them their whole lives to pay off, to settle for a gas station job. Or sell their brand new car they bought when they had this 50,000 a year job.

It makes no sense. I said somewhere else here a few weeks back, I live on a very small street, 14 houses, and 3 families are unemployed right now. This is a middle class area. No one has yachts/porches/mansions, so it really has nothing to do with their "lifestyle", it has to do with normal neccesities like Voltage mentioned. House tax/house insurance/heat/water/electric/food/car insurance/clothes/fix things that break...where in that sentence do you see any spending that is frivalous?

A person CANNOT pay these kind of bills on a gas station job, or just any job, it is impossible. So people should get off unemployment to take these menial jobs for what? Just to say "I'm not on unemployment anymore" to make some people happy. Then what happens to all these bills? Should people stop paying them and get crediters after them and in some cases (house tax) jailtime is a possibility.

I believe like with many other situations, if you haven't been in a certain predicament you cannot understand it.

 

[greasemonkey]

I very much disagree with this.

The way your thinking is...if someone was making 50,000 a year, owns a home and a car, have children, they should now take a job at a gas station?

You also said something about not having someone else pay for your lifestyle. A person is not going to sell their home that took them their whole lives to pay off, to settle for a gas station job. Or sell their brand new car they bought when they had this 50,000 a year job.

It makes no sense. I said somewhere else here a few weeks back, I live on a very small street, 14 houses, and 3 families are unemployed right now. This is a middle class area. No one has yachts/porches/mansions, so it really has nothing to do with their "lifestyle", it has to do with normal neccesities like Voltage mentioned. House tax/house insurance/heat/water/electric/food/car insurance/clothes/fix things that break...where in that sentence do you see any spending that is frivalous?

A person CANNOT pay these kind of bills on a gas station job, or just any job, it is impossible. So people should get off unemployment to take these menial jobs for what? Just to say "I'm not on unemployment anymore" to make some people happy. Then what happens to all these bills? Should people stop paying them and get crediters after them and in some cases (house tax) jailtime is a possibility.

I believe like with many other situations, if you haven't been in a certain predicament you cannot understand it.

yes, If you live in a middle class neighborhood but you don't make middle class money then it is a choice in lifestyle. I would sympathize with people in this position but I certainly don't condone the government taking my money and giving it to the person collecting the check so that they don't have to give up the house that they can no longer afford or drive the car they can no longer make payments on. Why is my pocket being skimmed from? Why isnt it just as smittytime said and they sell the house that they cannot afford and rent where they can afford until they get back on their feet? Why is it OK to want the government to steal from fellow citizens and give it away? Why do I have to do with less so that you don't? Why dont you just do with less for now and take the job THEN climb back up to where you were?

There is no difference between the scenarios that:

A) I live in a mansion, I drive 5 sports cars and a rolls royce. I am a CEO of a huge corporation and have a private Jet.

BUT, I lost my job that I was making 3 mill$ per year at and now I want the government to take money out of all the other people's pockets and give it to me so that I don't have to sell the mansion, yacht or cars and I can keep living here on my estate as if I didn't lose my job while others flip the bill for me.
I COULD take a job making 250,000$ per year but that is really low for what my bills are and I wouldnt be able to afford payments on my things.

or

B) I live in a middle class neighborhood with my family. I have a nice yard and a reliable vehicle on a nice street.
BUT, I lost my job paying 50,000$ per year at and now I want the government to take money out of all the other people's pockets and give it to me so that I don't have to sell my house and car and move into a lifestyle that I can afford because I think I am above working at "menial" jobs like Wal Mart or a gas station and those jobs cannot support my lifestyle that I have grown accustomed to SO>>> I want YOU to do with less so that I don't have to.


---------------------------------------------

The above 2 scenarios are the same. One person has more to start with but the principles are the same. It should not be the Governments role to steal money from other people to give to you. The govt is not your nanny nor your parent. You should only have what you can afford and if you have a bad break and can no longer afford your stuff then get less expensive stuff. It is really simple and you shouldnt think you are entitled to other people's money which is exactly what govt money is. It is other citizens money that they had confiscated by the govt.

 

[greasemonkey]

Tax breaks for the wealthy however do not stimulate the economy. That tax break is simply money that is left in the bank. While the whole idea of rich people keeping more money means they hire more people blah blah might sound good in theory, in practice it just doesn't happen. It's been shown time and again that trickle down economics doesn't help the overall economy.

You actually have this backwards.

In THEORY (liberal/socialist theory that is) , people keeping their own money would just sit idle and not be used to go back to the economy

However, in PRACTICE it stimulates the economy to the EXTREME. Go back and look in recent American History what the Reagan tax cuts did to get us out of the mess that the Carter regime had us in.

Too high taxes caused stagflation, weakened our economy, created ultra high int. rates and ultra low investment capital.
It was a mess that socialist/liberal theory in practice brought us. Then Reagan came in and cut taxes across the board and in particular the capital gains tax. This made the economy BOOM for 20 years.

This is NOT theory - it is real and has ALWAYS worked. What is theory but NEVER works is the socialistic idea of take, take, taking peoples personal property via over taxation and then they have less to spend, invest and use as they want.
Not only is it bad for economies but it is a total disregard for personal freedoms.

As a matter of fact, look at past, recent and current history and you will see that whenever a society implements really socialistic or communistic practices with their economies that it ruins their economies.

 

[silcnlayc]

just play: I very much disagree with this.

The way your thinking is...if someone was making 50,000 a year, owns a home and a car, have children, they should now take a job at a gas station? YES

You also said something about not having someone else pay for your lifestyle. A person is not going to sell their home that took them their whole lives to pay off, to settle for a gas station job. Or sell their brand new car they bought when they had this 50,000 a year job. Why not?

It makes no sense. I said somewhere else here a few weeks back, I live on a very small street, 14 houses, and 3 families are unemployed right now. This is a middle class area. No one has yachts/porches/mansions, so it really has nothing to do with their "lifestyle", it has to do with normal neccesities like Voltage mentioned. House tax/house insurance/heat/water/electric/food/car insurance/clothes/fix things that break...where in that sentence do you see any spending that is frivalous?

A person CANNOT pay these kind of bills on a gas station job, or just any job, it is impossible.Of course they can So people should get off unemployment to take these menial jobs for what? To survive? Just to say "I'm not on unemployment anymore" to make some people happy. Then what happens to all these bills? Should people stop paying them and get crediters after them and in some cases (house tax) jailtime is a possibility.

I believe like with many other situations, if you haven't been in a certain predicament you cannot understand it.

Ok...I wasn't going to give my 2 cents here but I have to after this reply...I have "been there and "done it" So I can speak from experience.

I was one of them unemployed but for ONLY 2 months...I went after any and every job I could. I finally found one that I wanted so badly, I took a 50% paycut. I made an agreement with my new employer who sent me away twice and told me I was "over qualified" and could not afford me before he finally hired me...I told him he couldn't afford NOT to have me..

So, I hounded him for weeks until he finally agreed to hire me on a "temp" basis full time since no-one else applied for this job and I sat in his office until I convinced him he needed me.

Yes, I lowered my standards...yes I gave my shiny new car up, yes, I scaled back on everything I could..why? Because being unemployed was not my cup of tea...People do not need all the fancy surroundings to survive...they need food and any kind of shelter they can get...do you think kids care what you drive or where you kive? I had 2 at that time...

So, yes, what is wrong with someone taking a job lower than what they had? It is better than starving IMO..Move?, if it came to that, I know we would have but we didn't have to...since I went back to work even at half price..

My deal with my new boss? It was if he saw that I was an asset in 6 months he would give me 25 % a raise. I got it...the other part of that deal? If I increased his bottom line within a year, he would give me another 25% Raise.. I got it..

So...yes, you might start out back at the bottom , but if you believe in yourself..you can come out of this whole ..How long ago was this...this happened in 1997 to me and my husband...Perserverence and determination will always win out if you believe. Sitting on your ass will get you NOWHERE!
So if you feel it is below yourself to find that job..then I believe you deserve to lose all your pretties that you have surrounding yourself with...shame that so many hold on to "things" and not each other...it doesn't natter what you drive or where you live as long as it is together and you have food on the table....

 

[swampwitch]

You actually have this backwards.

In THEORY (liberal/socialist theory that is) , people keeping their own money would just sit idle and not be used to go back to the economy

However, in PRACTICE it stimulates the economy to the EXTREME. Go back and look in recent American History what the Reagan tax cuts did to get us out of the mess that the Carter regime had us in.

Too high taxes caused stagflation, weakened our economy, created ultra high int. rates and ultra low investment capital.
It was a mess that socialist/liberal theory in practice brought us. Then Reagan came in and cut taxes across the board and in particular the capital gains tax. This made the economy BOOM for 20 years.

This is NOT theory - it is real and has ALWAYS worked. What is theory but NEVER works is the socialistic idea of take, take, taking peoples personal property via over taxation and then they have less to spend, invest and use as they want.
Not only is it bad for economies but it is a total disregard for personal freedoms.

As a matter of fact, look at past, recent and current history and you will see that whenever a society implements really socialistic or communistic practices with their economies that it ruins their economies.

It is my opinion that I'm not wrong. I believe history proves my point. You believe otherwise. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[just play]

Ok...I wasn't going to give my 2 cents here but I have to after this reply...I have "been there and "done it" So I can speak from experience.

I was one of them unemployed but for ONLY 2 months...I went after any and every job I could. I finally found one that I wanted so badly, I took a 50% paycut. I made an agreement with my new employer who sent me away twice and told me I was "over qualified" and could not afford me before he finally hired me...I told him he couldn't afford NOT to have me..

So, I hounded him for weeks until he finally agreed to hire me on a "temp" basis full time since no-one else applied for this job and I sat in his office until I convinced him he needed me.

Yes, I lowered my standards...yes I gave my shiny new car up, yes, I scaled back on everything I could..why? Because being unemployed was not my cup of tea...People do not need all the fancy surroundings to survive...they need food and any kind of shelter they can get...do you think kids care what you drive or where you kive? I had 2 at that time...

So, yes, what is wrong with someone taking a job lower than what they had? It is better than starving IMO..Move?, if it came to that, I know we would have but we didn't have to...since I went back to work even at half price..

My deal with my new boss? It was if he saw that I was an asset in 6 months he would give me 25 % a raise. I got it...the other part of that deal? If I increased his bottom line within a year, he would give me another 25% Raise.. I got it..



So...yes, you might start out back at the bottom , but if you believe in yourself..you can come out of this whole ..How long ago was this...this happened in 1997 to me and my husband...Perserverence and determination will always win out if you believe. Sitting on your ass will get you NOWHERE!
So if you feel it is below yourself to find that job..then I believe you deserve to lose all your pretties that you have surrounding yourself with...shame that so many hold on to "things" and not each other...it doesn't natter what you drive or where you live as long as it is together and you have food on the table....

In 1997 USA wasn't in the position we are in now.

Also you made a deal with your boss, how many employers can you do that with these days?

Everything is VERY different now, i talk to the people on my street...believe me it's VERY different on the job hunt now.

 

[just play]

yes, If you live in a middle class neighborhood but you don't make middle class money then it is a choice in lifestyle. I would sympathize with people in this position but I certainly don't condone the government taking my money and giving it to the person collecting the check so that they don't have to give up the house that they can no longer afford or drive the car they can no longer make payments on. Why is my pocket being skimmed from? Why isnt it just as smittytime said and they sell the house that they cannot afford and rent where they can afford until they get back on their feet? Why is it OK to want the government to steal from fellow citizens and give it away? Why do I have to do with less so that you don't? Why dont you just do with less for now and take the job THEN climb back up to where you were?

There is no difference between the scenarios that:

A) I live in a mansion, I drive 5 sports cars and a rolls royce. I am a CEO of a huge corporation and have a private Jet.

BUT, I lost my job that I was making 3 mill$ per year at and now I want the government to take money out of all the other people's pockets and give it to me so that I don't have to sell the mansion, yacht or cars and I can keep living here on my estate as if I didn't lose my job while others flip the bill for me.
I COULD take a job making 250,000$ per year but that is really low for what my bills are and I wouldnt be able to afford payments on my things.

or

B) I live in a middle class neighborhood with my family. I have a nice yard and a reliable vehicle on a nice street.
BUT, I lost my job paying 50,000$ per year at and now I want the government to take money out of all the other people's pockets and give it to me so that I don't have to sell my house and car and move into a lifestyle that I can afford because I think I am above working at "menial" jobs like Wal Mart or a gas station and those jobs cannot support my lifestyle that I have grown accustomed to SO>>> I want YOU to do with less so that I don't have to.


---------------------------------------------

The above 2 scenarios are the same. One person has more to start with but the principles are the same. It should not be the Governments role to steal money from other people to give to you. The govt is not your nanny nor your parent. You should only have what you can afford and if you have a bad break and can no longer afford your stuff then get less expensive stuff. It is really simple and you shouldnt think you are entitled to other people's money which is exactly what govt money is. It is other citizens money that they had confiscated by the govt.

That is a HUGE difference and you know it.

A person doesn't NEED 5 cars...a person doesn't NEED a yacht. I am talking about normal families that worked their asses off their whole lives to finally have a house paid off, car paid off.

So you want people to jump at the first job at walmart or where ever instead of holding out an extra month or two to find a suitable job?

Please.

 

[winbig]

So you want people to jump at the first job at walmart or where ever instead of holding out an extra month or two to find a suitable job?

Please.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting that anyone should have to do that when I started this thread...But, if you are offered a job making more, or the same, that you get from unemployment, than by all means, go for it.

My ex wife was notorious for this BS. Keep in mind that these were the days where you actually had to prove every week that you were looking for work by "inquiring" about work to at least 3 businesses, and provide that information to the unemployment office.

Well, what would she do? She'd sit on her ass and go through the phone book and pick out 3 places each week that she knew either weren't hiring, or somewhere where she knew they wouldn't hire her because she didn't have the experience or whatever. She refused to even look for a job until the time came when her unemployment was close to running out.

Those are the type of people I was referring to....

But, to say ALL people don't want to go back to work, well............

 

[jetset]

Ok...I wasn't going to give my 2 cents here but I have to after this reply...I have "been there and "done it" So I can speak from experience.

I was one of them unemployed but for ONLY 2 months...I went after any and every job I could. I finally found one that I wanted so badly, I took a 50% paycut. I made an agreement with my new employer who sent me away twice and told me I was "over qualified" and could not afford me before he finally hired me...I told him he couldn't afford NOT to have me..

So, I hounded him for weeks until he finally agreed to hire me on a "temp" basis full time since no-one else applied for this job and I sat in his office until I convinced him he needed me.

Yes, I lowered my standards...yes I gave my shiny new car up, yes, I scaled back on everything I could..why? Because being unemployed was not my cup of tea...People do not need all the fancy surroundings to survive...they need food and any kind of shelter they can get...do you think kids care what you drive or where you kive? I had 2 at that time...

So, yes, what is wrong with someone taking a job lower than what they had? It is better than starving IMO..Move?, if it came to that, I know we would have but we didn't have to...since I went back to work even at half price..

My deal with my new boss? It was if he saw that I was an asset in 6 months he would give me 25 % a raise. I got it...the other part of that deal? If I increased his bottom line within a year, he would give me another 25% Raise.. I got it..

So...yes, you might start out back at the bottom , but if you believe in yourself..you can come out of this whole ..How long ago was this...this happened in 1997 to me and my husband...Perserverence and determination will always win out if you believe. Sitting on your ass will get you NOWHERE!
So if you feel it is below yourself to find that job..then I believe you deserve to lose all your pretties that you have surrounding yourself with...shame that so many hold on to "things" and not each other...it doesn't natter what you drive or where you live as long as it is together and you have food on the table....

Kudos, silcnlayc - in my personal view this is the sort of approach to life that really deserves respect

IMO a culture of entitlement permeating too deeply into a society can be dangerous and unproductive, and I don't believe that governments should be going too far down the nanny state road. We all have a responsibility to ourselves.

Successful nations are built on determination, hard work, self sufficiency and talent...and government's primary objective ought to be nurturing those qualities to encourage the development of enterprises and people in order to generate the wherewithall to better look out for truly needy members of a society, again imo.

I guess that as in most things there needs to be a sensible balance with incentives and motivators, because there are always those who will simply milk a system that is over-generous.

 

[greasemonkey]

That is a HUGE difference and you know it.

A person doesn't NEED 5 cars...a person doesn't NEED a yacht. I am talking about normal families that worked their asses off their whole lives to finally have a house paid off, car paid off.

So you want people to jump at the first job at walmart or where ever instead of holding out an extra month or two to find a suitable job?

Please.

No it is NOT. A person doesnt NEED to own a home or drive a middle class car - a person can rent and drive an older car. Both situations are the identical. It is YOUR perspective of what somebody needs or deserves. As was mentioned earlier you only NEED food and some shelter.
And if someone works their butts off their whole lives then has lost their job can you please, logically explain to everyone how you think it is appropriate to have the govt. steal it from me and give it to the guy who lost his job? That means that MY family now has to do with less and I have to work longer because you don't think that the person who actually lost their job should have to do without. You somehow think that I should though?

That is the absurd thinking of a person who believes that somehow their govt. should be a parent to them and give them everything throughout life. That isnt how it works nor should it. It is actually disgusting to think that anyone should have their personal property that they worked for taken and given to somebody else. That is just irrational.

 

[greasemonkey]

It is my opinion that I'm not wrong. I believe history proves my point. You believe otherwise. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. We all have different opinions on things.

I did, however, give you an exact point in history where tax cuts stimulated the economy. I also showed how tax increases hurt the economy. Can you (since you have a different opinion) show me a time when tax increases helped the economy? In ANY country at ANY time?