Unemployment Benefits Extension Clear...

Unemployment Benefits Extension Clears Hurdle

There are 77 comments on the WJW Fox 8 Cleveland story from Jul 20, 2010, titled Unemployment Benefits Extension Clears Hurdle. In it, WJW Fox 8 Cleveland reports that:

Legislation to restore unemployment benefits to millions who have been out of work for more than six months broke free of Senate Republican delaying tactics on Tuesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WJW Fox 8 Cleveland.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#64 Jul 26, 2010
MySmileyFace wrote:
<quoted text>Try learning economics. You tax less, then people have more to invest. They invest in people (jobs) and then more taxes get paid. Stop listening to the left wing media and expand your horizons. You live in a box. Careful, Obama will nail it shut. Tax the rich. LOLOL. Who do you think does the hiring in these small companies? The people who you say are rich. Wow, how stupid are you?
WRONG. You're trying to explain the Laffer Curve, there is a point where taxing too much lowers tax revenue, but the same is true for taxing too little.
When taxes were highest on the rich, they reinvested in their businesses to keep money out of the taxman's hands.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#65 Jul 26, 2010
SOFA and all you other liberals face facts Obama and the whole democratic group declared war on Big Business..........I don't think the democrats or Obama can even come close to winning that war.....

Big business back in the 70's blew away most union jobs by merging and buy outs etc. Now Obama thinks he can control the very people that produce the needed income to keep government running, THAT income is the paycheck that the worker makes and pays taxes on. Don't try to touch the profits that are used to produce these jobs that Obama just can't figure out. Maybe he skipped that day at Harvard, about basic economics, instead Obama was stapling flyers around campus. ROFLMAO.
Economist

United States

#66 Jul 26, 2010
To MSF and Dand D, Why don't you just get off this subject now instead of continuing to make yourselves like ignorant fools. Your facts, your thinking, and your logic on this topic are way off base. Where did you come up with some of that garbage? You're also very rude to those who disagree with you. I can disagree without calling someone stupid. MSF calls herself independent. I don't think she knows the meaning of the word. Are you ashamed to admit that you're an ultra conservative Republican? You are an embarrassment to true independents.
Viewer

United States

#67 Jul 26, 2010
MySmileyFace wrote:
<quoted text>No they want people like you to get a job. They want unemployment to be funded (they suggested the unspent stimulus money but the dems said no) so here we go into more debt. You should be mad at the Democrats because they are doing everything they can to make it so that those who could create jobs cannot because they are taxing them to death. Please stop just reading the PD or listening to CNN. They are only telling you one side of the story. Take a job at Walmart or Sam's. They pay more than unemployment.
Yeah, watch FOX news, they are fair and balanced and always take both sides of an issue. What newspaper should we read, MSF? Which one do you read? Or do you read anything, Sarah? Oops, I mean MSF.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#68 Jul 26, 2010
Economist wrote:
To MSF and Dand D, Why don't you just get off this subject now instead of continuing to make yourselves like ignorant fools. Your facts, your thinking, and your logic on this topic are way off base. Where did you come up with some of that garbage? You're also very rude to those who disagree with you. I can disagree without calling someone stupid. MSF calls herself independent. I don't think she knows the meaning of the word. Are you ashamed to admit that you're an ultra conservative Republican? You are an embarrassment to true independents.
Wait until the elections then talk about logic. Those that voted for Obama didn't see that even today the Democrats only allow home owners to put down 5% and then force the banks to accept the buyers. Then the banks HAVE to put the very unsecured loans in with good loans. Then Obama blames the banks when they go into foreclosure. These are FACTS AND YOUR/LIBERAL LOGIC.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#69 Jul 26, 2010
MySmileyFace wrote:
<quoted text>Try learning economics. You tax less, then people have more to invest. They invest in people (jobs) and then more taxes get paid. Stop listening to the left wing media and expand your horizons. You live in a box. Careful, Obama will nail it shut. Tax the rich. LOLOL. Who do you think does the hiring in these small companies? The people who you say are rich. Wow, how stupid are you?
You don't understand economics. Employers don't hire more people than are necessary to meet demand. They don't hire just because they have more money to hire. That would be a waste. Increase spendable income to the middle class and demand at all levels will increase, thus necessitating hiring to meet increased demand.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#70 Jul 26, 2010
D and D wrote:
SOFA and all you other liberals face facts Obama and the whole democratic group declared war on Big Business..........I don't think the democrats or Obama can even come close to winning that war.....
Big business back in the 70's blew away most union jobs by merging and buy outs etc. Now Obama thinks he can control the very people that produce the needed income to keep government running, THAT income is the paycheck that the worker makes and pays taxes on. Don't try to touch the profits that are used to produce these jobs that Obama just can't figure out. Maybe he skipped that day at Harvard, about basic economics, instead Obama was stapling flyers around campus. ROFLMAO.
Really? Taxes on businesses are lower today than any time in history. As much as a 1/3 that as under Nixon or Eisenhower. Were they in a war against big business?
When unions were the strongest, middle/working class pay rates were higher in comparison to real spending than they are now. Big business, the ruling upper class has done away with many good paying jobs. Wealth is being concentrated at the top, thus lowering spendable income at every other level. This decreases demand, and decreases the need to hire. Demand and consumption fuel hiring and jobs. That's basic economics.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#71 Jul 26, 2010
D and D wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait until the elections then talk about logic. Those that voted for Obama didn't see that even today the Democrats only allow home owners to put down 5% and then force the banks to accept the buyers. Then the banks HAVE to put the very unsecured loans in with good loans. Then Obama blames the banks when they go into foreclosure. These are FACTS AND YOUR/LIBERAL LOGIC.
WHAT! The Democrats only allow home owners to put down 5%? Really? What bill was that? If you want to put down 100% you can. So that's wrong. Force banks to accept buyers? Really? Again, what bill was that? Banks are NOT forced to grant loans, they never were. In fact, the Obama administration through the Federal Trade Commission won a lawsuit against Countrywide and Bank of America for it's subprime practices. Practices that occurred while Bush and the GOP were running the show. So don't make a claim that is so grossly inaccurate.

“Perfect? NO. Forgiven? YES!”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#72 Jul 27, 2010
LOL wrote:
<quoted text>
got your **** kicked, didn't you.......
No, I did not.

“Perfect? NO. Forgiven? YES!”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#73 Jul 27, 2010
sofa_king_cool wrote:
<quoted text>WHAT! The Democrats only allow home owners to put down 5%? Really? What bill was that? If you want to put down 100% you can. So that's wrong. Force banks to accept buyers? Really? Again, what bill was that? Banks are NOT forced to grant loans, they never were. In fact, the Obama administration through the Federal Trade Commission won a lawsuit against Countrywide and Bank of America for it's subprime practices. Practices that occurred while Bush and the GOP were running the show. So don't make a claim that is so grossly inaccurate.
No it occured with Barney Frank and his buddies twisting the arm of the banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. This goes back to the 90's. Guess what? Clinton. They backed those loans with Freddie and Fannie. Better go back and read the history. You just might be surprised.

“Perfect? NO. Forgiven? YES!”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#74 Jul 27, 2010
Economist wrote:
To MSF and Dand D, Why don't you just get off this subject now instead of continuing to make yourselves like ignorant fools. Your facts, your thinking, and your logic on this topic are way off base. Where did you come up with some of that garbage? You're also very rude to those who disagree with you. I can disagree without calling someone stupid. MSF calls herself independent. I don't think she knows the meaning of the word. Are you ashamed to admit that you're an ultra conservative Republican? You are an embarrassment to true independents.
I am an ultra conservative INDEPENDENT. And you call us ignorant fools because we disagree with you. Wow, pot calling the kettle black. If you are an economist..........right.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#75 Jul 27, 2010
MySmileyFace wrote:
<quoted text>No it occured with Barney Frank and his buddies twisting the arm of the banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. This goes back to the 90's. Guess what? Clinton. They backed those loans with Freddie and Fannie. Better go back and read the history. You just might be surprised.
What legislative bill did this?
Funny, but sub-prime loans accounted for less than 10% when Clinton was president. But accounted for over 21% when Bush was President in 2004 with a GOP congress.
Again, the facts don't fit your claims.
You blame the democrats, but when the GOP is in power sub-prime lending doubled.
Drew

Whitehall, PA

#76 Jul 27, 2010
sofa_king_cool wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand economics. Employers don't hire more people than are necessary to meet demand. They don't hire just because they have more money to hire. That would be a waste. Increase spendable income to the middle class and demand at all levels will increase, thus necessitating hiring to meet increased demand.
How do you propose increasing spendable income? When government tries to create demand it must either tax (take money away from the consumer), borrow (create future debt for the consumer), or print (devalue the currency of the consumer). I fail to see how any of these scenarios is beneficial to consumers or businesses alike.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#77 Jul 27, 2010
Drew wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you propose increasing spendable income? When government tries to create demand it must either tax (take money away from the consumer), borrow (create future debt for the consumer), or print (devalue the currency of the consumer). I fail to see how any of these scenarios is beneficial to consumers or businesses alike.
Tax cuts on the middle class. Investment in infrastructure to create jobs. Fair trade policies that puts a tariff on goods coming from countries that subsidize their manufacturing giving their manufacturers an unfair advantage. Tariffs on countries that still practice slave like labor practices seen in China and India. China, Japan and most of Europe put significant tariffs on American made goods shipped there, bolstering their manufacturing, we need to go back and do the same in return. We can make things again if it was economically viable. We can become self sufficient and increase pay scales. From the 40's through the 70's we had some of the best years of GDP growth, the middle class had wages that could purchase a single home, a newer car, college education for the children, all on a single income. We can get back to that if we get back to the trade policies of the past. But we need to stop the flow of wealth to the top .1% creating the largest gap between the top and the middle class in the world.
Reds

Rome, NY

#78 Jul 27, 2010
sofa_king_cool wrote:
<quoted text>Tax cuts on the middle class. Investment in infrastructure to create jobs. Fair trade policies that puts a tariff on goods coming from countries that subsidize their manufacturing giving their manufacturers an unfair advantage. Tariffs on countries that still practice slave like labor practices seen in China and India. China, Japan and most of Europe put significant tariffs on American made goods shipped there, bolstering their manufacturing, we need to go back and do the same in return. We can make things again if it was economically viable. We can become self sufficient and increase pay scales. From the 40's through the 70's we had some of the best years of GDP growth, the middle class had wages that could purchase a single home, a newer car, college education for the children, all on a single income. We can get back to that if we get back to the trade policies of the past. But we need to stop the flow of wealth to the top .1% creating the largest gap between the top and the middle class in the world.
Sofa_King_A_Rite_On
llamamamma

Stockholm, Sweden

#79 Jul 27, 2010
MySmileyFace wrote:
<quoted text>Not going to discuss this with you. You are the English police and live out of the country. Move back and we can talk.
Being unwilling or unable to defend your positions using examples or even to articulate what economic theories you base them on doesn't represent your position well
Bob Feldman

Ashley, OH

#80 Oct 2, 2010
Connie Tarasovich wrote:
This government needs to quit sending millions if not billions of dollars to other countries for any type of aid. We have people losing their homes in virtually every neighborhood in this country.People are losing their jobs,cant afford healthcare,kids going without food,families living in homes with no power etc...all going on right under our wonderful governments nose! Maybe they re just too busy trying to play big shot by sending all OUR money to aid other countries to see whats destroying their own?
Maybe you should get a job and stop getting handouts. People like you destroy this country. You have to many kids you can't afford and no job. No that you can't get a job, you're just too lazy to work.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Max Baucus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Revenant' author is a mystery man Jan '16 Ritual Habitual 1
News Hudson: Designed to fail: Only the members of C... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Elise Gingersnick 1
News PRUDEN: Obamacare called 'The fiasco for the ages' (Jul '13) May '15 Will Dockery 20
News Scandal Threatens Montana Democrat's Hold On U.... (Aug '14) Jan '15 DCtechsonstates 46
News News Guide: Montana's 2014 elections (Nov '14) Nov '14 Ace McMillan 3
News Harry Reid's Desperate Measures (Oct '14) Oct '14 CZars_R_US 5
News Jeff Bridges Eyed by Some Anxious Montana Democ... (Aug '14) Aug '14 Le Jimbo 1
More from around the web