Jump to content
Simple mathematics. Below is how the numbers work.
Using Rep Pelosi's ratio, someone getting $1000 in unemployment creates $1730. Someone still working would get net pay larger, thus spending more and paying taxes. If such working person were earning $1700 and spending $1400, he would thus create $2422. $2422 is higher than $1730. When you include the taxes paid, this is significantly better than the person loosing his/her job.
Jack, I can tell from your previous writings that you are not stupid. That is something that cannot be said about a lot of the right wing respondents. Why do you act stupid now? Of course she was referring to continuing unemployment benefits for those that had lost their jobs, not to firing additional people so we could spend more on unemployment.
Of course it is a left leaning organization. The right wing people do not care about anyone's rights except themselves and others with whom they can identify. This does not make it an extremist organization. Only a liberal organization would attempt to identify hate groups while the Republicans cater to hate groups to get their vote. I am sure you can find some right wing editorials printed in the mainstream press that is critical of the SPLC but editorials are strictly the opinion of the author and inconsequential as to the quality of the organization. Since you imply opposition to homosexuals and non Caucasians having equal rights, you must be a part of the hate group to whom Republicans cater.
Excellent points! Those 700,000 job losses will also be very expensive for states and hurt state budgets. States will lose income tax dollars from these workers. In addition, expenses for auxiliary services such as unemployment and food stamps, will increase. All this while House Republicans are insisting on paying for additional tanks that the Pentagon does not want.
From my research into the Dustin Inman Society, I found it to be a group with an extremist viewpoint of no compromise on immigration and has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC. Examining the web site listed, it becomes obvious that they quote peoples opinions and then represent these stated opinions as factual proof. D. A. King is only a recognized as an authority by others that hold his extremist viewpoints on immigration. I have not read the immigration bill and so cannot give a fair analysis as to its passage but have researched the issue sufficiently to know that our immigration policy and handling of illegal immigration needs a major overhaul. I am also sure, from discussions I have heard, that the current bill has many good points. Some compromise might be necessary to get a workable improvement through Congress. Congressmen should all be working to improve the bill instead of dismissing it as unworkable while using emotional arguments that are not based on facts.
I am amused by your inability to research, defending it by ridiculing those of us that do research. Further amused by your inability to understand english, for instance, Jack pointed out that I am a Mr., not a Ms.:
Your preoccupation with my employment status is also amusing, I am retired, have been for years. I planned for my retirement and have no plans of seeking employment. While I am not insulted by your accusation of being Why_not since illustrate significantly more intelligence than the most posters, I am not he or she. Your preoccupations are only a futile attempt to set up a smoke screen to the facts and avoid putting forth any effort to learn.
And yet, Richard, You indicate a desire to put the Government back in the hands of Republicans. You know the ones that have grown the deficit. Do some research. Deficit grew under Reagan and under both Bush's. One must reduce the deficit before one can reduce the debt. The most accurate comparison is in relation to GDP. Under Carter, average deficit was 2.5% GDP. Under Reagan that increased to 4.2% GDP. In fact, sicnce WWII, every Democratic President has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP while every Republican except Eisenhower have increased the debt as a percentage of GDP. For those that think it can't be true without resources, all this is available from Wikipedia. You might learn even more by researching it yourself with topics like Reaganomics and history of US public debt.
While it is true that I rarely give sources, I do give factual information that I have researched from multiple sources. If I tell you where to find it, you have learned very little. If I can encourage you to hone your research abilities, then you might actually learn something useful. How can anyone take you seriously when you apparently are dependent on a single source? You will notice that I am not directing this at Jack since his comments do reflect an ability to check multiple resources on many issues, even though we disagree on many points.
Anyone that resorts to blackagendareport.com as a source is really desperate. Glen Ford does have a knack for twisting the facts to suit his agenda but he does not present them accurately. If you want your "facts" to be given any credence, you should not cite extreme sites -- left or right -- They are weighted down so much with biased opinion to make them unreliable as a final source.
Please! Do not arbitrarily group the sentiments of Americans to be reflected in your extremist opinions. Polls demonstrate that you are in the minority. Even many Republicans are critical of the infantile like behavior brought on by the surge of the tea party voters electing representatives that are only interested in blocking any real progress. The big problem with Obama is that he is too interested in bipartisanship and has ceded too much to republicans his efforts for compromise. Now Republicans in the House seem to think that they can dictate terms and accuse the President of obstruction when they don't get their way. They have even had the gall to pass the overturn of the affordable health care act, at my last count, 37 times - probably more by now. They know full well that this is nothing more than political posturing and a significant waste of time and tax payer dollars. They should spend that time on things like reconciling the differences in the Ryan budget and the one passed by the Senate, but the no compromise blockers are not interested in anything except tax breaks for the wealthy, making guns available for criminals and getting reelected through the funding of special interest groups.
Last login: Saturday, June 1, 2013