tkihshbt wrote:

I don't know what to think...Republicans are furious at Republicans, Democrats are furious at Democrats. Joe Scarborough is furious at both of them. This is odd.

I stated my position on this:

http://2006cardinals.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=262

No need to apologize, TK. 

The thing is that the very same people who will argue that it must be a good compromise because everybody hates it, will turn around and make a Neville Chamberlain crack when it suits their purpose. 

This idea that people earning more than $250,000 deserve an extension to their tax cuts, or that any of us do when the budget deficit is so large, is just irresponsible and should not have been subject to compromise, IMO.  Especially when we consider what else the $60 billion of extended tax cuts for the rich could buy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/weekinreview/05numbers.html?_r=1

So Max can I assume you'll take the responsible approach and send the IRS an additional amount to cover what you think your tax bill should have been?

What exactly is that "responsible message" that the politically viable left should have communicated to the general public?  That the tax paying public should happily hand over its tax dollars so that the government can continue to try to spend its way out of a recession.  It would be pretty hypocritical for the government to tell the public to "suck it up" when that same government isn't willing to check its own spending.

As for unemployment (and other government subsidies), my guess is that the public's view of these projects has much more to do with knowing someone (or several someones) who have gamed the system for a long time.  Within the last 2 weeks alone, I've had 3 calls from different employers, each wanting to know how to handle an employee who refused to work when needed because if the employee would have worked the extra hours he would have forfeited his unemployment supplement.  That's not propaganda--that's reality--and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that the system wasn't designed to serve as a disincentive for people to work.  However, in some cases, that's exactly what it's become.  And yes, I'm not real thrilled that my tax dollars get used to benefit that type of scam.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"That's not propaganda--that's reality--and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know that the system wasn't designed to serve as a disincentive for people to work."

It wasn't, but the system wasn't designed to accommodate the 21st century, either. The guy who took out a 30-year mortgage on a $500,000 home in the Clinton economy 15 years ago on the basis his $100K job would always be there for him has two choices - wait for another job with that salary (good luck) and collect, or take a job waiting tables.

Why does he have to choose one or the other?  I personally don't have an issue with unemployment serving as a subsidy.  For example, let's say this guy would get $500 per week on unemployment.  Waiting tables he makes $400/week.  Why not have a solution, whereby the guy takes the job, but still receives partial unemployment.  Now he makes more than $500/week and has a job while looking for his next $100K job.  I would have much less problem with this guy collecting partial unemployment for a much longer period of time than the guy who is sitting at home doing nothing.

BTW, I'd love to know how that guy afforded a $500K home on $100K per year salary.

A very good post, Max. And a good argument by Fors as well. My problem, though, is the perception that a large amount of the unemployed are just not willing to work. I know you aren't specifically saying that, but people like Sharron Angle pushed the idea that folks who have been laid off from good-paying jobs need to suck up their pride and start bagging groceries for $7 an hour during the weekends. This is just dangerous. How many computer programmers that were laid off from 08-09 are going to get hired at Walmart?

What Republicans and some Democrats don't realize is that a large portion of the workforce that was laid off are extremely overqualified to do the work available now. I don't think anyone says that those people should be on unemployment forever, but until we're nearing six percent unemployment, we can't let people starve.

One thing that is constantly ignored by both parties and will be a big issue for the next 50 year is the cost of disability and health care for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. These wars will end up costing at least $2 trillion, which could be a large chunk of our GDP.

"I personally don't have an issue with unemployment serving as a subsidy."

Ok, but a lot of people I'm listening to do, and just assume everyone on employment is trying to scam the system.

"BTW, I'd love to know how that guy afforded a $500K home on $100K per year salary."

RE prices what they are in this area, you have two options - live in a town where you don't have to worry about your safety and be house poor, or live in town where you have bars over the windows and walk around with a little change in your pocket.
We opted for the former, thinking that if we opted for the latter we'd have to make up the difference anyway by sending our son to a private school.

forsberg_us wrote:

BTW, I'd love to know how that guy afforded a $500K home on $100K per year salary.

Last year we were looking more in the $220,000 range, but factoring everything up: assuming a family has very little debt and good credit, they can get an FHA loan that requires 3.5% down ($17,500) and the monthly mortgage payments would probably be about $3700 per month.  Taxes and insurance might run another $1000-2000 per month (???), I am guessing, for a total of perhaps as much as $5700 per month.  So the guy earning $100k per year, earns about $8,300 per month, probably watches 25% of that go to taxes, leaving him $6250.  Thus, my very rough estimate is that either insurance and taxes are less than I am thinking, or else $500k might be a bit out of range, but not by much, if a person wants to be house rich and cash poor.

For $220K you could probably build the exact same home I'm living in on the vacant lot next to ours.  Sadly, we didn't pay $220 when we built our house 3 years ago.   

Assuming you contribute to charity, before doing so do you look to see how they are spending your money and how much of your donation actually goes toward the cause?  Most reputable charities will make this information readily available, and my guess is that people are much more willing to contribute to charities where the lion's share of the contribution goes to the people who need the money rather than administrative costs or other waste.

I have little doubt that my views are jaded by personal experience.  When working for the police department, I couldn't even attempt to recall the number of times we were called for the purpose of "keeping the peace" while forcing some guy to leave his home.  In these situations, the man and woman don't get married, nor does the man ever get put on the occupancy permit becasue to do so would cut off all government assistance being received by the woman.  They live as a family, at least until she would get pissed off at him.  Then she had the ability to call the police and have the male put out of "her home."  Since he legally didn't "live" there (the occupancy permit being the dispositive document), he had no choice but to leave or be arrested for trespassing.  Never mind the fact that the guy slept there every night and every article of clothing he owned was in a closet or dresser in the bedroom. 

You're right Tk, I'm not suggesting that everyone on unemployment wants to be there.  Nor would I suggest that no one who receives SSDI is deserving.  The problem lies with the fact that there are so many abuses to each of these programs, and obviously no way to ensure that the money you are contributing goes to those who actually need it rather than those who have chose to exist that way.

forsberg_us wrote:

Assuming you contribute to charity, before doing so do you look to see how they are spending your money and how much of your donation actually goes toward the cause?  Most reputable charities will make this information readily available, and my guess is that people are much more willing to contribute to charities where the lion's share of the contribution goes to the people who need the money rather than administrative costs or other waste.

I have little doubt that my views are jaded by personal experience.  When working for the police department, I couldn't even attempt to recall the number of times we were called for the purpose of "keeping the peace" while forcing some guy to leave his home.  In these situations, the man and woman don't get married, nor does the man ever get put on the occupancy permit becasue to do so would cut off all government assistance being received by the woman.  They live as a family, at least until she would get pissed off at him.  Then she had the ability to call the police and have the male put out of "her home."  Since he legally didn't "live" there (the occupancy permit being the dispositive document), he had no choice but to leave or be arrested for trespassing.  Never mind the fact that the guy slept there every night and every article of clothing he owned was in a closet or dresser in the bedroom. 

You're right Tk, I'm not suggesting that everyone on unemployment wants to be there.  Nor would I suggest that no one who receives SSDI is deserving.  The problem lies with the fact that there are so many abuses to each of these programs, and obviously no way to ensure that the money you are contributing goes to those who actually need it rather than those who have chose to exist that way.

I hear that opinion, and believe I understand it.  But IMO opinion it misses the forest for the trees.  Go back to 1999, when unemployment really was below 5%.  Today it is nearly 10%.  Why is it the case that 5% of the workforce worked, or at least wanted to work, for the past 10 years when they could have just lived on dole?  The answer, IMO, lies in the facts that they are a) employable, and b) they found employment. 

Next, why is it that those other 4-5% didn't work in 1999 when the economy is strong.  The answer, again IMO, is that they were either a) unemployable,  and/or B) did want to live on the dole.  Thus, when people say things like, "my observation is that many, or even most, of the people living on public assistance are abusing the system," I agree that they may be correct, but that it is a small price to pay for the good it brings to our nation.

Many economists consider "full employment" to be somewhere around 5% unemployed, because after that you are digging into the ranks of unemployable.  As long as we are chugging along with no more than 5% or so on the dole, that's about the best we can hope for.  The thing to do with indigence is to invest our resources into seeing that the children of those 5% have a decent chance and breaking the cycle that put their parents in that group, and set aside our ethic that tells us they need to be taught a lesson about the value of hard work that they quite evidently never learned, and may never learn.

So, to me, our focus really needs to be on the wants and needs of the 95% who are employable and who want to work, and with that in mind we will quickly zero in on developing and maintaining clean safe neighborhoods in a country that strives, from one generation to the next, to more nearly attain the ideals in our Constitution, as being an indispensable part of a great nation.  In that light, those tax dollars that support indigent bums aren't 'wasted'.

forsberg_us wrote:

For $220K you could probably build the exact same home I'm living in on the vacant lot next to ours.

Would you really want me as a neighbor, though?