2012 Presidential Election

[Ink Asylum]

It prevents further job losses.

[bean]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

Not that I'm one of those people who thinks the presence of unemployment benefits reduces desire to search for jobs, but putting $50 billion in the "American Jobs Act" for unemployment benefits is pretty ridiculous. That might be A Good Thing To Do, but it sure as balls isn't promoting job growth.

Actually, unemployment benefits save the government money because unemployed people that don't get meager unemployment checks end up becoming homeless people who cost us billions in hospital costs and increased crime. People don't just run out of the checks and then magically find jobs.

They don't all become homeless and cost the government more money in hospital, police, and prison costs either. Often, they end up having to rely on loved ones for help and/or they have to take jobs where they are underemployed. Still, some of them become homeless. We have a social safety net because it costs a lot more to pull people up from nothing than it does to stop them before they've lost their home and method of transportation.

Is the only part of the bill you have a problem with or do you not like how it spends it's other funds (Also, are you deliberately trying to give people the impression that it only extended unemployment benefits?):

$50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
$35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
$30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
$15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.

[Inverarity]

You can make the argument that spending on unemployment benefits is the most stimulative spending of all, in that you're enabling people who are unemployed to continue returning money to the (very domestic) services sector rather than cutting expenses to the bone.

Having been through a long stretch of unemployment during the last recession, I was pretty happy with the way UI worked out. It wasn't generous by any stretch, but it was enough to enable me to continue looking for work in my field, while drawing down my savings much more slowly than I'd have had to otherwise. If you accept that one of the functions of UI is to allow people to avoid having to fall down the job/wage ladder by giving them time to train and find equivalent jobs to the one they lost (as opposed to displacing someone who may not have the option of a higher-skill or professional job), then I think it's worked pretty well for me and others in the unfortunate cases where we've had to rely on it.

Coming back around to the topic of November's election, I expect Obama to win. Romney is a tough candidate to like. I actually thought he was an okay governor here in Massachusetts, at least for the first couple of years - at which point he got bored with us and started spending most of his time using Mass. as a punchline at Republican campaign events in other states. I honestly think he has no concrete idea of why he wants to be president, other than that it's the top job available in politics, and he's spent his life working his way to the top of whatever organization he's in.

(It might be uncharitable to point out that he's typically had to work his way to the top starting from somewhere just a sliver below the top. But I'll do it anyway.)

[MagGnome]

I wish I had gotten unemployment benefits. My finances are in total disarray, and probably will be for some time. The price of being a student in this country, I guess. :/

[Narradisall]

Try Politics instead Mags. I hear it pays well.

[TheKeck]

http://xkcd.com/1044/

Can anyone explain the joke to me here? I really feel like I'm missing something. (Or is it just a pure random non sequitur, which is all I'm getting out of it?)

[Ink Asylum]

It's mocking those types of quizzes, not Mitt Romney. I'm guessing Randall feels like most of the ones you see aren't very convincing.

[MagGnome]

Narradisall - There's always that, although something tells me I wouldn't get very far in politics.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

It prevents further job losses.

Wait, how does it do that?

And bean, I know there's positive benefits of doing it. My irritation is making it a plank of something that's stated purpose is to create jobs, which it doesn't do.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

Wait, how does it do that?

Because, in a simplified example, if I'm one of a store's ten regular customers, and I lose my job, that store loses 10 percent of its sales, and might have to lay off one of its workers, which means reduced sales for a different store, etc. Unemployment insurance helps limit the chain of economic misfortune.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

Because, in a simplified example, if I'm one of a store's ten regular customers, and I lose my job, that store loses 10 percent of its sales, and might have to lay off one of its workers, which means reduced sales for a different store, etc. Unemployment insurance helps limit the chain of economic misfortune.

Eh...that's basically like saying "any positive economic thing is about jobs." I could apply the same principle to lowering wages.

Anyway, let's stop discussing it, because its a really minor annoyance, I probably shouldn't have even brought it up.

[bean]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

And bean, I know there's positive benefits of doing it. My irritation is making it a plank of something that's stated purpose is to create jobs, which it doesn't do.

You don't see how these funds would create new jobs?

$50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
$35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
$30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
$15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.

Also, just some information about the word "plank". It's a bit of word play. The party platform is made of planks (like a real platform), but the planks are the endorsed policies of the party.

For example, many Republicans don't care about marriage equality. It's a non-issue to them and they would easily compromise on it to gain an advantage when voting on something they do care about. However, had Santorum been successful enough to prevent Romney from having the majority of delegates necessary to win at the convention, he could have negotiated with the GOP so that this more conservative Republican view gains a plank (full endorsement) in the party's platform. I used a Republican example because you seem to be Republican but if you were a Democrat, I would have used marijuana legalization as a plank that some politicians would like to attach to the party's platform (though they have not been successful yet).

Democrats don't create a "plank" from a bill that is used to create jobs, strengthen infrastructure, and extend unemployment benefits. It is an extension of a very old and fundamental plank in their platform (that domestic spending on infrastructure creates jobs and strengthens economic stability), but this isn't anything new. They aren't creating a new plank, and you don't use a bill as a plank. Bills are written based on planks, so you had that backwards.

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

It's mocking those types of quizzes, not Mitt Romney. I'm guessing Randall feels like most of the ones you see aren't very convincing.

Ah, that does make sense. Thanks.

I guess it wasn't very relevant to this thread after all. Sorry for the distraction.

[Zero]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Narradisall - There's always that, although something tells me I wouldn't get very far in politics.

Well, you'd have to get rid of that pesky little homosexual problem you have.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by bean

You don't see how these funds would create new jobs?

$50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
$35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
$30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
$15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.

Your reading comprehension, is, like, SUPER bad.

Also, just some information about the word "plank". It's a bit of word play. The party platform is made of planks (like a real platform), but the planks are the endorsed policies of the party.

For example, many Republicans don't care about marriage equality. It's a non-issue to them and they would easily compromise on it to gain an advantage when voting on something they do care about. However, had Santorum been successful enough to prevent Romney from having the majority of delegates necessary to win at the convention, he could have negotiated with the GOP so that this more conservative Republican view gains a plank (full endorsement) in the party's platform. I used a Republican example because you seem to be Republican but if you were a Democrat, I would have used marijuana legalization as a plank that some politicians would like to attach to the party's platform (though they have not been successful yet).

Democrats don't create a "plank" from a bill that is used to create jobs, strengthen infrastructure, and extend unemployment benefits. It is an extension of a very old and fundamental plank in their platform (that domestic spending on infrastructure creates jobs and strengthens economic stability), but this isn't anything new. They aren't creating a new plank, and you don't use a bill as a plank. Bills are written based on planks, so you had that backwards.

I overextended the term somewhat, but I defer to the "you should know what I meant" clause. Feel free to substitute "plank" for "major thrust".

[bean]

@Orc - How am I not understanding you? You said that the American Jobs Act would not have created jobs, but this bill that Republicans voted down had over a hundred billion dollars in it to improve infrastructure, schools, and protect the jobs of emergency service workers. If you believe that money would not have created jobs, please explain how the work would be done without employing people?

I overextended the term somewhat, but I defer to the "you should know what I meant" clause. Feel free to substitute "plank" for "major thrust".

Right. People often learn new terms from context and as a result sometimes learn them wrong. I can see how you would think that plank might mean "major thrust" from context.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by Zero

Well, you'd have to get rid of that pesky little homosexual problem you have.

That's just the start...

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by bean

@Orc - How am I not understanding you? You said that the American Jobs Act would not have created jobs, but this bill that Republicans voted down had over a hundred billion dollars in it to improve infrastructure, schools, and protect the jobs of emergency service workers. If you believe that money would not have created jobs, please explain how the work would be done without employing people?

He did NOT say that the act would not create jobs. He said that changes to unemployment insurance within the act would not create jobs and therefore seem out of place. You referenced a bunch of things that have nothing to do with unemployment insurance.

[bean]

@TheKeck - Here is what Orc typed:

And bean, I know there's positive benefits of doing it. My irritation is making it a plank of something that's stated purpose is to create jobs, which it doesn't do.

[Narradisall]

Originally Posted by MagGnome

That's just the start...

I believe having at least five skeletons in the closet is required anyway, and as long as you have a trophy wife the homosexuality shouldn't be a problem. Just avoid hook ups in mens rooms in the future and you'll be set.

Mags 2020!