Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course you can. You can come to the conclusion that one size doesn't fit all -- that one answer doesn't cover all situations, that every case is different. I know you learned how to do that in law school.

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

The simplistic thinking comes in by assuming that what applies to some people applies to all people.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Well, I could go all philosophical on you and say because no man is an island entire of himself and because we are a society, not a mere collection of individuals, but I really don't think that advances dialogue.

These questions are a somewhat different discussion. I'll readily grant there can be a wide variety of political solutions to the problems of how to deal with the unemployed from total socialism to total reliance on personal and private charity and everything in between. These are hard questions and there are no easy answers. It's easy enough to say "they should find work," but what about children? It's easy enough to say "why should I pay their bills" but what about my (and your) health insurance premiums and other bills that are higher to recoup what others can't pay?

With my health insurance, I get to choose my risk pool and pay for the coverage voluntarily. If I don't pay my taxes because I don't want to be a part of that particular risk pool, I go to jail. I see that you're trying to correlate those two things, but private insurance and public entitlements aren't as comparable as you suggest.

The blithe "well, they just don't really want to work so why should we help them" is a cop-out, a rationalization. It avoids asking the hard political questions about what society's role is or should be and what the implications to society as a whole of doing this, doing that or doing nothing at all actually are.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing from a false premise, and it is that false premise -- the blanket assertion that all unemployment is essentially the fault of the unemployed -- that I am challenging.

Where have I ever said that there should be no cut-off or advocated indefinite guaranteed mimimums? I haven't suggested either. I've merely said that dismissing the entire problem with "well, it's their own fault" is a cop-out. One rarely gets to the right solution if one doesn't at least attempt to understand the problem.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Simplistic thinking is never needed. Real problems require real thinking.

But if you're really concerned about the overall economy, maybe we should add "corporate welfare" to the discussion. Oh, wait, that's a complicated issue ill-served by simplistic sound bytes, too.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

Clearly, you are assuming facts not in evidence, as I've never said society's role should be bigger, unless you mean bigger than nothing. I don't know what "my way" is, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Frankly, I readily admit I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that ignoring or dismissing the problem isn't the right answer. I know that refusing at least an attempt to understand the problem isn't the answer. And I know that every option, including doing little or nothing, can have unintended consequences, and that sometimes those unintended consequences turn out to be bigger problems than the original problem. Which is why critical thinking skills, not simplistic explanations, are called for.

And to be honest, it's why when I hear someone offer a response of essentially qu'ils mangent de la brioche, I assume they don't have any real clue what they're talking about or insights worth paying attention to.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing from a false premise, and it is that false premise -- the blanket assertion that all unemployment is essentially the fault of the unemployed -- that I am challenging.

Where have I ever said that there should be no cut-off or advocated indefinite guaranteed mimimums? I haven't suggested either. I've merely said that dismissing the entire problem with "well, it's their own fault" is a cop-out. One rarely gets to the right solution if one doesn't at least attempt to understand the problem.

Simplistic thinking is never needed. Real problems require real thinking.

But if you're really concerned about the overall economy, maybe we should add "corporate welfare" to the discussion. Oh, wait, that's a complicated issue ill-served by simplistic sound bytes, too.

Clearly, you are assuming facts not in evidence, as I've never said society's role should be bigger, unless you mean bigger than nothing. I don't know what "my way" is, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Frankly, I readily admit I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that ignoring or dismissing the problem isn't the right answer. I know that refusing at least an attempt to understand the problem isn't the answer. And I know that every option, including doing little or nothing, can have unintended consequences, and that sometimes those unintended consequences turn out to be bigger problems than the original problem. Which is why critical thinking skills, not simplistic explanations, are called for.

And to be honest, it's why when I hear someone offer a response of essentially qu'ils mangent de la brioche, I assume they don't have any real clue what they're talking about or insights worth paying attention to.

^^^ German Chocolate please?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

[I]qu'ils mangent de la brioche[/I

Yay!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing from a false premise, and it is that false premise -- the blanket assertion that all unemployment is essentially the fault of the unemployed -- that I am challenging.

Tom Delay made that assertion. I did not. I simply stated that welfare has to end at some point. These continued extensions of benefits are to the detriment of society... and yes, if an otherwise healthy individual runs out the clock on their benefits, I do think they ought to bear the burden of that and I do think they have to be somewhat complicit in their situation.

Where have I ever said that there should be no cut-off or advocated indefinite guaranteed mimimums? I haven't suggested either. I've merely said that dismissing the entire problem with "well, it's their own fault" is a cop-out. One rarely gets to the right solution if one doesn't at least attempt to understand the problem.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence as well, counsel. I have stated over and over that at some point, the burden needs to shift away from society and back onto the individual. At some point, their plight is not my fault, nor should it be my problem. It seems we're in agreement there.

Simplistic thinking is never needed. Real problems require real thinking.

I don't think simplistic or real thinking is happening right now in Washington. At least nothing that is focused on cost/utility as it should be (unless the desired outcome is political capital).

But if you're really concerned about the overall economy, maybe we should add "corporate welfare" to the discussion. Oh, wait, that's a complicated issue ill-served by simplistic sound bytes, too.

In principal, I think that all transfers of wealth from public to private entities should be closely scrutinized. I think everyone outside Goldman-Sachs understands that in the long run, these sorts of relationships are arguably the precise reason for our current economic situation. (Fannie/Freddie anyone?)

Clearly, you are assuming facts not in evidence, as I've never said society's role should be bigger, unless you mean bigger than nothing. I don't know what "my way" is, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Frankly, I readily admit I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that ignoring or dismissing the problem isn't the right answer. I know that refusing at least an attempt to understand the problem isn't the answer. And I know that every option, including doing little or nothing, can have unintended consequences, and that sometimes those unintended consequences turn out to be bigger problems than the original problem. Which is why critical thinking skills, not simplistic explanations, are called for.

What I'm sure of is that the status quo is not only not working out very well, it's rewarding complacency and inefficiency. That don't cut it in my book.

And to be honest, it's why when I hear someone offer a response of essentially qu'ils mangent de la brioche, I assume they don't have any real clue what they're talking about or insights worth paying attention to.

And those advocating for the status quo or for more governmental help when we're already way, way past being able to pay for that help are not advocating useful solutions even if those solutions are arguably workable in the short term. Selling out our future to make marginal improvements in the present is absolutely not a sound way of managing any crisis. Passing out more free money like this and not actually doing anything to reconfigure our systematic issues is only setting us up for a much more dramatic and much more serious failure than those in the past.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tom Delay made that assertion. I did not. I simply stated that welfare has to end at some point. These continued extensions of benefits are to the detriment of society... and yes, if an otherwise healthy individual runs out the clock on their benefits, I do think they ought to bear the burden of that and I do think they have to be somewhat complicit in their situation.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence as well, counsel. I have stated over and over that at some point, the burden needs to shift away from society and back onto the individual. At some point, their plight is not my fault, nor should it be my problem. It seems we're in agreement there.

I don't think simplistic or real thinking is happening right now in Washington. At least nothing that is focused on cost/utility as it should be (unless the desired outcome is political capital).

In principal, I think that all transfers of wealth from public to private entities should be closely scrutinized. I think everyone outside Goldman-Sachs understands that in the long run, these sorts of relationships are arguably the precise reason for our current economic situation. (Fannie/Freddie anyone?)

What I'm sure of is that the status quo is not only not working out very well, it's rewarding complacency and inefficiency. That don't cut it in my book.

And those advocating for the status quo or for more governmental help when we're already way, way past being able to pay for that help are not advocating useful solutions even if those solutions are arguably workable in the short term. Selling out our future to make marginal improvements in the present is absolutely not a sound way of managing any crisis. Passing out more free money like this and not actually doing anything to reconfigure our systematic issues is only setting us up for a much more dramatic and much more serious failure than those in the past.

+1776

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by bosaco

indian bum?

Indian with a feather or Indian with a dot?

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

Then you say this (the bolded). What commonalities are you suggesting are going to emerge? That these people have degrees, were working before, and were laid off or the business went under? What are the commonalities that YOU are suggesting? That these were law abiding, minding their own business, paying their own bills, and living their own lives kinda people? What is it that you are suggesting.

AGAIN have you ever been out of work 6mo, 8mo, 12mo, 18mo, etc? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE? IF NOT, SHUT TO THE UP!

Originally Posted by Kevin

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Yes, it is a simplistic look to a huge problem. It's a very popularized look at a problem that has been here for some time. Then look at who is in control of the nation and begin to make some changes within your own communities to those who either understand you or feel that they can improve the current state of affairs. It's also a downgrading look at those who are in a situation that they are trying to change but with the state of the current economy, they cannot.

Originally Posted by Kevin

With my health insurance, I get to choose my risk pool and pay for the coverage voluntarily. If I don't pay my taxes because I don't want to be a part of that particular risk pool, I go to jail. I see that you're trying to correlate those two things, but private insurance and public entitlements aren't as comparable as you suggest.

You say with your health insurance, you get to choose your risk pool, well, good for you! I'm not able to do that, so sorry. I didn't ask for my set of genes, but I just got to deal with what I have been given. I don't have health insurance and the last company that I worked for they didn't have health insurance for us employees either. I didn't get to choose anything, but when I had health insurance I used it to keep myself as healthy as I could. I WANT to be able to have the choice to pay for my health insurance, but alas, I don't even have that option. Being on unemployment, I cannot afford the premiums that I would need to be able to afford that. But you need to be grateful to God that you are in a position to do so. Think about those who cannot.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

O.K., to clear things up for you, this is how things were done before, if you cannot remember history, it was called Reganomics. Yes, alas, the trickle down theory. And if I do remember then, the cutbacks that were made, everything from education to drug rehab programs to mental health institiutions, left such a bad taste upon the American people that we are STILL paying for this lapse in reality now.

When those cutbacks were made and programs were slashed to the bare bones of a structure, the cost deference that emerged the government found was greater because of the need for more of the same services because what the government found was that people cannot always take care of their own because they are barely making it for themselves.

Look back on what Reganomics left for a legacy and then get real.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by libramunoz

AGAIN have you ever been out of work 6mo, 8mo, 12mo, 18mo, etc? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE? IF NOT, SHUT TO THE UP!

So if I haven't personally experienced something, I can't talk about it? I've never been charged with a crime or been sued or been divorced, but people pay me good money to opine about that... guess I need to find a new job.

Yes, it is a simplistic look to a huge problem. It's a very popularized look at a problem that has been here for some time. Then look at who is in control of the nation and begin to make some changes within your own communities to those who either understand you or feel that they can improve the current state of affairs. It's also a downgrading look at those who are in a situation that they are trying to change but with the state of the current economy, they cannot.

Ah okay, so it's not your fault. I get that. Is there a time when at least some of the blame for this situation shifts to you? Or is it never anyone's own fault that they don't have a job?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So if I haven't personally experienced something, I can't talk about it? I've never been charged with a crime or been sued or been divorced, but people pay me good money to opine about that... guess I need to find a new job.

At the extent that you are involved this particular subject...you shouldn't.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So if I haven't personally experienced something, I can't talk about it? I've never been charged with a crime or been sued or been divorced, but people pay me good money to opine about that... guess I need to find a new job.

Ah okay, so it's not your fault. I get that. Is there a time when at least some of the blame for this situation shifts to you? Or is it never anyone's own fault that they don't have a job?

In a simple answer, NO, NO, NO!

But if you were to ACT like a human, you can EMPATHIZE with others that are in this situation. You can discuss how You could potentially help them. You can help to try and understand their situation!

But in order to do this, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLD AND JOIN THE REST OF US! You are going to have to see BEYOND what your world has limited you too, and see that the world goes beyond that scope, because right now, it's a very, very, very limited scope that you're looking through and at.

When you approach someone who is unemployed as though they are a pathetic peon in your view, then you will get a rash of abuse hurtled at you with the force of a javelin coming towards your head.

You have to learn how to be human and just learn how to empathize with a person, not persecute(?) them, which your posts are doing.

Now this is the first part of your question, now here's the second--

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ah okay, so it's not your fault. I get that. Is there a time when at least some of the blame for this situation shifts to you? Or is it never anyone's own fault that they don't have a job?

You egotistical twit! Hell no this had NOTHING TO DO WITH ME!!!!!! So damn sorry to burst your bubble! I didn't tell my ex boss to steal 8 million dollars from Medicaid! I didn't tell her to scam the government! I didn't tell her to underpay her employees! And I damn sure didn't tell her illegal ass to stay in this country when she was supposed to have been deported in 1992!

Now tell me, Mr. Wannabe Silverplated spoon, how in the hell is this my fault? What in the hell did I have to do with her and her decisions? Where in the hell did I go wrong other than apply to work with her butt and stay there? HUH!!!!!! Where in the hell am I to blame in this? If you can answer that you're a good one!

I have been unemployed before, and yes, I did and DO take RESPONSIBILITY for myself and FOR MY ACTIONS!!!! I admit where I did and didn't go wrong. I admit what I could have done better and how I could have made a difference. IN OTHER WORDS, YES I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MYSELF AND MY ACTIONS.

But for YOU to ASSUME that I am unemployed because I a) want to be, b) this is MY FAULT, and c) I desire to remain unemployed, you are crazy stupid nuts!

You don't KNOW someone's SITUTAITON until you are in there or YOU HAVE HEARD THEM. Stop being an ASS through ASSUMING, because this time, you aren't making an ass out of me, but you're CONFIRMING THAT YOU'RE AN ASS THROUGH YOURS!

To answer your last question, you'd have to ask individual unemployed people in order to get your answer. Try just becoming a person and asking instead of your usual, ASSUMING.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by libramunoz

In a simple answer, NO, NO, NO!

But if you were to ACT like a human, you can EMPATHIZE with others that are in this situation. You can discuss how You could potentially help them. You can help to try and understand their situation!

So then you can stay on the dole indefinitely and it's never your fault. If that rationalization helps you sleep at night, well Godspeed.

I imagine that the majority of the unemployed were originally laid off through no fault of their own, that is obviously not something within their power. How hard they work at gaining further employment and what opportunities they choose to accept and what sorts of compromises they're willing to make are well within their power, however.

[dreamseeker]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So then you can stay on the dole indefinitely and it's never your fault. If that rationalization helps you sleep at night, well Godspeed.

I imagine that the majority of the unemployed were originally laid off through no fault of their own, that is obviously not something within their power. How hard they work at gaining further employment and what opportunities they choose to accept and what sorts of compromises they're willing to make are well within their power, however.

saying that again means that you weren't really paying attention to what ppl are saying.

1) no one wants to go from being a high level manager to working at walmart, but,
2) even when they try, they're being turned away because they're overqualified.
3) even if you get the job, if you're barely making ends meet on unemployment, why would you take a job that gives you even less money? so that you can say you're gainfully employed? gtfohwtbs.
4) so if you want to call that exploiting the system so that you can keep a house over ur head and your kids fed and all your other financial obligations met, then so be it. you can call me the unemployment queen and i wouldn't give a fuck.

and that's my 2 cents. *walks out of thread to collect my unemployment check*

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So then you can stay on the dole indefinitely and it's never your fault. If that rationalization helps you sleep at night, well Godspeed.

I imagine that the majority of the unemployed were originally laid off through no fault of their own, that is obviously not something within their power. How hard they work at gaining further employment and what opportunities they choose to accept and what sorts of compromises they're willing to make are well within their power, however.

If there ever was a wise time to walk away from this thread...now would be it.

You know in the 2 or 3 years I have been on this board Kevin, you have shown me you don't know what it means to be a minority (Jena thread), poor (inner city student fights teacher thread) or unemployed (this thread).

Just stop responding already.

[dreamseeker]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

If there ever was a wise time to walk away from this thread...now would be it.

You know in the 2 or 3 years I have been on this board Kevin, you have shown me you don't know what it means to be a minority (Jena thread), poor (inner city student fights teacher thread) or unemployed (this thread).

Just stop responding already.

heh. i concluded all that in less than 1 yr.