Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Co-sign everything AGDee and Libramunoz said.I hate it when the system is misused as well. I also hate it when people simply assume that the majority of those in the system are misusing it or are out of work simply because they're lazy/feel entitled/looking for that free check/have too high expectations/whatever.

But what I hate the most, I think, is the near-arrogantly simplistic and totally lacking in critical thinking approach of some educated and intelligent people who are all too willing to simply say unemployment is the fault of the unemployed period. Sometimes things are that simple, but all to often, they're much more complicated than that.

I can hardly come to any other conclusion though. If someone spends however many months on the dole as are currently allowed and has yet to find a job, when does the blame shift from the economy or somesuch other nebulous entity to the individual? Does it ever shift?

And let's just assume all of these "It's not their fault" premises ad arguendo. Why are their problems my problems? Why must I and other taxpayers continue to watch the money I spend in taxes go to solve their problems? Pay their bills? Bail them out? I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that the current federal fiscal irresponsibility can continue indefinitely. But I get to watch as my money is spent on this crap and then I, who will still be gainfully employed for the rest of my life, will get to bear a lot more than my fair share in paying it back. But I guess I shouldn't have a problem with that?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But I get to watch as my money is spent on this crap and then I, who will still be gainfully employed for the rest of my life, will get to bear a lot more than my fair share in paying it back. But I guess I shouldn't have a problem with that?

You don't know what tomorrow will bring. Because of your situation you may believe that you will have your job 'forever' but you never know what may happen that *POW* you could be unable to work.

Kevin not everyone's life is like yours, people on GC have told you that time and time again and I don't think you get that. It's not everyone has the ability to find a job 'just like that' and it's not for a lack of trying. Like others on here, I have friends with multiple degrees who can't find work regardless of the income spectrum they are looking.

I also agree with AGDee, libramunoz and MC have said. It's not as 'easy' or 'simplistic' as you say...hell if you want to be a help, give libramunoz a hand, make yourself useful, start a job bank or something so that way you can at least feel like you've helped someone who needs it. It kills me also the people that complain that unemployed people are lazy but aren't doing anything to help them.


Kevin it really amazes me how you come out looking when you enter into these kinds of debates...and you keep coming back.

[Prettyface08]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

You don't know what tomorrow will bring. Because of your situation you may believe that you will have your job 'forever' but you never know what may happen that *POW* you could be unable to work.

Kevin not everyone's life is like yours, people on GC have told you that time and time again and I don't think you get that. It's not everyone has the ability to find a job 'just like that' and it's not for a lack of trying. Like others on here, I have friends with multiple degrees who can't find work regardless of the income spectrum they are looking.

I also agree with AGDee, libramunoz and MC have said. It's not as 'easy' or 'simplistic' as you say...hell if you want to be a help, give libramunoz a hand, make yourself useful, start a job bank or something so that way you can at least feel like you've helped someone who needs it. It kills me also the people that complain that unemployed people are lazy but aren't doing anything to help them.


Kevin it really amazes me how you come out looking when you enter into these kinds of debates...and you keep coming back.

The bolded!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by bosaco

Top be honest, when I hear your people make excuses and I see illegals sneaking into the country and outperforming your people I assume you don't have any real clue.

My people?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tom Delay made that assertion. I did not. I simply stated that welfare has to end at some point.

Kevin, I was responding to your statement in this thread -- "There are jobs out there and if that fails, there's entrepreneurship" -- admittedly through the filter of other comments you have made in the past, like

Originally Posted by Kevin

And as far as being unemployed, I don't see how it isn't the worker's fault? Or that it should be up to the employed to subsidize the unemployed. Poor savings/spending habits, choosing to work in a doomed industry, etc. These are all personal choices or at the very least, they are gambles that turned out poorly. That's part of life in a non planned economy.

If you're now saying that this statement doesn't represent your opinion, great.

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).

No thinking at all, huh.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I can hardly come to any other conclusion though. If someone spends however many months on the dole as are currently allowed and has yet to find a job, when does the blame shift from the economy or somesuch other nebulous entity to the individual? Does it ever shift?

And let's just assume all of these "It's not their fault" premises ad arguendo. Why are their problems my problems? Why must I and other taxpayers continue to watch the money I spend in taxes go to solve their problems? Pay their bills? Bail them out? I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that the current federal fiscal irresponsibility can continue indefinitely. But I get to watch as my money is spent on this crap and then I, who will still be gainfully employed for the rest of my life, will get to bear a lot more than my fair share in paying it back. But I guess I shouldn't have a problem with that?

I know many well-educated, experienced folks (some of who are family members) who are currently unemployed, even though they have been quite conscientiously looking for jobs for many months now. These are people who have been working since they were in their teens at various jobs, all of which have taken some sort of unemployment taxes out of their checks every pay period. These are people that have paid, for years, into the system for years for just this purpose. Just on the off chance that they might one day need a bit of assistance to get through a rough patch. It is not just your money they are taking, it is their own. Even still, believe me, these folks are willing to take almost anything, because unemployment is nothing compared to the salaries that they are used to makings and even compared to salaries that they could be making at any reasonably-salaried position (read $8/40 hrs and up). How many other similar stories could those commenting in this thread tell.

The next question is where should your money go? Are corporate bailouts ok? Is it okay for your money to go to schools that your children will never attend, parks that you will never visit, roads that you will never drive down? Should tax revenue, specifically the miniscule portion that you actually pay into that pot, really only be used for projects that you will personally benefit from?

Furthermore, have you considered what it would mean to the cohesion of our society if social welfare programs ceased to exist? What it would mean if we all truly adopted this "every person for herself" mentality? Really have you ever thought about it? Do you imagine that if we were to leave our floundering neighbors completely to their own devices that some how, all of the sudden, jobs would appear and everyone would be gainfully and adequately employed? Do you really think that?

Did you ever consider what would happen if masses of people suddenly found themselves perpetually outside of the system, with no way and no hope of getting a foothold for advancement (and that is all that many of these social welfare programs are, are, toeholds. No one is getting rich on welfare or unemployment, and most folks would give it up in a second if they could find a job that paid a living wage that allowed them to truly support themselves and their families)? Why, in that scenario, would they have any cause to invest in any element of our society? Is that a better alternative?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I can hardly come to any other conclusion though.

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.

Some people are indeed resting on the dole. Others are doing everything within their power to find work -- any work -- and to make ends meet, but because of the job market in general, inability for one reason or another to move, health issues (their own or family members) or a host of other reasons, it's not happening for them.

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

Why are their problems my problems? Why must I and other taxpayers continue to watch the money I spend in taxes go to solve their problems? Pay their bills? Bail them out? I don't think anyone could reasonably believe that the current federal fiscal irresponsibility can continue indefinitely.

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?

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.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't mean this as a "Rah, Rah, Welfare." My point is simply that it's a complex and complicated issue (or set of issues) that requires real thinking, not platitudes.

But I get to watch as my money is spent on this crap and then I, who will still be gainfully employed for the rest of my life . . . .

I hope you're right about being gainfully employed the rest of your life. But I wouldn't take that for granted, if I were you. I know too many former lawyers who prove the assumption wrong.

[APhiAnna]

Kevin, I really don't think I understand your point. It is very clear right now that in many areas of the United States, corporate jobs aren't hiring unless they are bringing in key executives. For entry level or just above entry level jobs, it is quite the opposite, they are slashing out whole divisions. Say you graduated recently with an MBA, or a degree in public relations, etc. You don't qualify for those top positions obviously, and nobody is hiring entry level positions. Even when they are, the "talent pool" has risen from maybe 30 applicants to 150 because of the bad economy, making it extremely difficult.

The places that are hiring (ie Target, McDonalds, Fry's) aren't going to take you because they know you are overqualified. The second you get a job you are going to ditch them and leave them with an empty slot. People aren't making this up Kevin...if you walk through the door of a Hooter's with a degree from a strong school, let alone TWO degrees, they are in no way going to hire you.

And your entrepreneurial idea? First off, you need CAPITAL to start a business. Second, everybody knows that to start a business is a risky move that requires long term patience to receive payoffs...NOT an optimal solution if your house is in foreclosure, your bills just turned off, etc. Third, your ideas of lawn mowing and all that...that is NOT going to adequately provide for a family of four living in Orange County or Atlanta, for example. Anyways, it is those little services that people are letting go of in the first place during this economy...my family is lucky enough to be financially stable at this point, and even they have gotten rid of the maids who cleaned our house once a week and the gardener that we have said since I was a child. Lastly, not everybody can manage starting a business...just like any job, you need specific skill sets to be an entrepreneur. For many intelligent, well-qualified people, it still isn't a viable option for their skills.

I literally think you come into these arguments trying to be difficult just to show off that you are a lawyer.

[DrPhil]

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.

Some people are indeed resting on the dole. Others are doing everything within their power to find work -- any work -- and to make ends meet, but because of the job market in general, inability for one reason or another to move, health issues (their own or family members) or a host of other reasons, it's not happening for them.

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

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?

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.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't mean this as a "Rah, Rah, Welfare." My point is simply that it's a complex and complicated issue (or set of issues) that requires real thinking, not platitudes.

I hope you're right about being gainfully employed the rest of your life. But I wouldn't take that for granted, if I were you. I know too many former lawyers who prove the assumption wrong.

Brilliant, as always! The bolded made me chuckle.

Some of the posts in this thread are...interesting. They must be written by people who have never experienced unforeseen troubles and/or don't know anyone who has. The unemployed range from the average citizen who was always living paycheck to paycheck (some people commenting in this thread are probably doing the same--don't get brand new now and act like you'd be AWESOME if you lost your job)-------to people with PhDs who are standing in unemployment lines.

In fact, ALL of the unemployed people who I know have MBAs, masters, or PhDs. And they have ALL managed to get over the fear and depression to constantly seek employment. As someone said before, they are denied a whole lot of jobs because they are overqualified. Many companies would rather EXPLOIT low wage or moderate wage labor than hire someone with a higher degree who may be more conscious and demanding of everything.

So, many of these people have started their own businesses (thank GOD for savings investment money to invest in a business when you're unemployed, eh?); found SOMEONE who will hire them while they keep their eyes open for a CAREER option instead of a JOB; or done things like gone back to their cleaning business backgrounds and started power washing and cleaning homes for money.

Can you imagine how heartbreaking and time consuming it is to have a DOCTORATE and to be passing out cards for a power washing business where YOU are the main power washer on almost a full-time basis? That can be taxing on your mental and emotional health, your savings account (you have to buy things in order to clean things), and you possibly can't tend to your family as well because your new job isn't like your former position in your CAREER.

The people who are fucking the system are the EXCEPTION, just as with social welfare. People are giving the exception too much weight. It goes without saying that people who fuck the system should not get over on the system. DUH.

[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?