Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 50 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Are we punishing the unemployed?
Published Thursday, July 22, 2010
Virtually every developed nation as a form of unemployment compensation designed to soften the blow to those who lose jobs and need time to retrain or time for the job market to improve in their chosen field of endeavor.
For the most part this is a social construction that makes sense to everyone in America and even our most radical politicians have voted to invest in workers by supporting unemployment compensation. Until now.
The Great Recession, beginning at the end of 2007, has been the most punishing recession on American workers since the Great Depression, and jobs have yet to return to over 10 million workers who have been affected by this economic downturn.
No one seems to know this better than Republican critics of the administrations attempts to stimulate the economy and encourage business and industry to once again hire.
Republicans are quick to remind Americans that there are not enough jobs…and the economy is not yet recovered and returned to prosperity.
They are right, and the administration must continue to encourage economic development.
But these very same critics, armed with the knowledge that there are not enough jobs to employ the great numbers of the unemployed today, still want to deny unemployment benefits to those most in need. And their premise for abandoning their fellow Americans in an economy with too few jobs?
It is twofold; first they claim unemployment benefits encourage the unemployed to avoid work. Second, they argue that the cost of unemployment benefits must be paid for by cuts in other areas of government.
There is not a great deal of research available on the effects of unemployment in causing people to not want to return to work.
And most Americans would be justifiably offended to have it suggested that our modest unemployment benefits offer enough value to make unemployment a great job.
However, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has done a calculation regarding this argued effect, determining that the extended jobless benefits may have caused a 0.4 percent increase in the unemployment rate this year. That would translate into 600,000 extra people on the unemployment rolls. That would be an extraordinarily modest effect.
The second argument against funding unemployment benefits is that in our deficit spending environment these benefits must be paid for by other reductions in government spending.
Over the past half century such costs have not been offset by other cuts in spending. This argument might have more creditability if those advocating it had not largely voted in favor in 2003 of Medicare Part D, prescription drug coverage, without paying for it.
The argument might also be less offensive if many of these belated fiscal watchdogs did not still advocate making the 2003 Bush tax cuts permanent, at an estimated cost of over a trillion dollars, paid for by debt.
So while opponents of helping the unemployed can justify paying for tax cuts for the rich with debt, paying for meager unemployment compensation for average Americans is simply totally unacceptable.
Ironically, while these politicians stand steadfastly opposed to helping the unemployed, their other claim, demanding more help for the economy, is best served by paying unemployment benefits.
Moody’s Analytics reports that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits $1.61 in economic growth is achieved. This compares with a $0.32 economic growth estimated for extending the Bush tax cuts.
It is clear that both the rational and compassionate choice should be to extend unemployment benefits immediately for the many Americans still struggling to reclaim their jobs and careers in this difficult economic environment.
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FINALLY! Some real evidence on what I have said all along. The Republican stance is to make the rich, richer, and make the poor, poorer. This is on astonishing display for the whole country to see right now.
The difference between the two, and the reason for the difference in economic growth based on a dollar spent, is that those receiving unemployment benefits have to use that money for purchasing needed goods and services. The wealthy do not need the dollar, therefore the majority of it goes into savings, 401k's, etc.
When are people going to wake up and see the truth?
Oh, and to all who are preaching the 1-1-11 fear campaign, get over it. Its been proven untrue, and its not going to affect you at all, unless of course those on here are independently wealthy, making over $250,000 a year. For some reason, I doubt it.
Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high taxes and welfare programs.
He stopped her and asked her, "How are you doing in school?"
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and ever had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she was spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?"
She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party
Posted by dragon (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I always enjoy when I see another local resident who openly touts that he is voting against his own interests, and voting Republican.
Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Never said which way I was voting, merely passing on an easily understood explanation of Liberal Vs Non Liberal thinking. This place often has too much drama, so I thought I'd add a little levity.
Posted by bklibrary (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We as a nation since Barry Goldwater and the Reagan days see a movement of hypocricy that is leading our nation to destruction. Every media or major news effort is bound to BIG BIG CORPORATIONAl rule and propaganda. They poison the minds of the voters with using religion, patriotism and name calling to meet their agenda. If a nation is to survive it must make sure the people are first with issues as a living wage, health insurance and sound education. The Moderate Democrats and Conservatives are pushing every aspect of labor benefits and retirement down the toilet. The so called people who buy this agenda are hypocritical by not even seeing what is happening in our country. I have always believed in a person goes to work for somebody or some company and they work hard to make that company a profit. Because they have got to make a profit so I can get my pay day and benefits. But loyalty is out the door. I know that there are good people out there who belive this same way. We have to get back to a standard of getting good jobs and better quality way of living because if we let conservatism drive our nation just scrap the Labor day celebration because those same chickens of hypocricy do not deserve to celebrate labor day like the founding fathers of this holiday worked for. Any politician that voted against unemployment benefits ought to be run out of this country on a rail.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Welcome to the Republican Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riiiiiiiight. The millions of out-of-work Americans are just too darn lazy and irresponsible to get jobs, and they're living large on those $350 unemployment checks. Southeastern Ohio, especially, is about to be put under a microscope; there's a Dateline special Sunday night about the lives of people here since manufacturing jobs disappeared. Try this: take a look at it, all those desperate, angry, humiliated people and their scared kids. If your reaction is, "What a bunch of losers!" - welcome to the Republican party.
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,,who???
Posted by Dennis_Lambert (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The rich have been given tax breaks over the past thirty or so years under the presumption that it would eventually make its way down to the poor, increasing their wealth and making life better for all. This is what was called "trickle down economics" by Reagan and his cronies. The problem is that it DOES NOT WORK. As jonferguson said, the rich use that money to put into savings and 401K, they do not spend any extra income they receive. They save it and will it to their children and complain when they are hit by the estate tax. That is the price you pay for living in a capitalistic economy. The only way capitalism works is if people spend their money and keep it circulating in the economy. Whereas the poor do not generally have any extra money and rely on Social Security when they retire because they did not have the money to put into retirement accounts.
By the way, if Mary was getting a 2.0 GPA, she would have been kicked out if she was going to school under financial aid. Mary is one of those students who's parents are paying for her to go to school and doesn't need the education because her parents are going to get her a job when she graduates. Most of the students that I encountered while at school who were receiving financial aid were working hard to ensure their grades were good enough to pass, those who were absent most of the time were the students who didn't care because mommy and daddy were paying the tuition bills.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the real world, Mary's friend has the great gpa because her daddy gave a big endowment to the college and her professors let her cruise through.
The people work to make it in this world are by and large not the richest of the rich. They are not the ones, by and large, who make over $250,000 and looking at a tax increase which would put them back where they were under Reagan. It is amazing how so many people around here are mindlessly catering to the rich who couldn't care less about this region or the people in it. Do you guys go and wash their cars and do their landscaping on your day off too?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you guys go and wash their cars and do their landscaping on your day off too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrious Republicans do; we Democrats collect welfare and watch TV in our underpants all day. You can take that to the bank, because hustlinhillbilly read it on the internet. PALIN 2012: EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TOO COMPLICATED
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DennisLambert you're right-I went to school with some of those kids that HH was talking about. One was the kid of a lawyer. He didn't do too great in school, but it's okay. Everything turned out great for him anyway.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't even think they read. I think they just sit back and watch their little 2 minute video vignettes...spliced, diced and bigoted by their favorite propagandameisters like Andrew Breitbart.
These are the people who can't see the fact that Fox News has run 4 ginned up stories [ 1) Van Jones 2) ACORN 3) the "new" black panthers and 4) Shirley Sherrod ] that ALL have the two things in common....
1. The "scandals" were completely fabricated
2. The targets were all black Americans
They could check it out here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qAQ3XXxK... but they just can't stomach anything not chewed up and spit into their collective mouths by Fox.
These are the same people who cannot understand why images like this are racist.....
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITI...
They're passing their rasicm down to their kids...
http://thinkingmeat.net/wp-content/uploa...
And these people are patently unpatriotic and disrespectful to the president...
http://www.papamiket.com/wp-content/uplo...
What's next, burning the American flag? Burning Obama in effigy?? Or is their ultimate goal that "2nd amendment solution"??? And what is after that...maybe a nut from the other side driving a truck filled with explosives into one of their rallies???????
Yeah, that's the country we'd get if their type had their way.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Me too; as a college student, I was never without a full-time job. My greatest fear was that I'd be assigned a group project with some of those kids, and have to sink or swim based on their effort. Yikes.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta,
You mean to tell me you were against "It takes a village to raise an idiot?" You as the progressive should have preferred the communal effort in achieving a goal yet you feared it. Interesting.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought Ironton was a city, not a village.
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The wealthy do not need the dollar, therefore the majority of it goes into savings, 401k's, etc.
---------------
always enjoy when I see another local resident who openly touts that he is voting against his own interests, and voting Republican.
----------
Any politician that voted against unemployment benefits ought to be run out of this country on a rail.
---------------
Try this: take a look at it, all those desperate, angry, humiliated people and their scared kids. If your reaction is, "What a bunch of losers!" - welcome to the Republican party.
--------------------
Most of the students that I encountered while at school who were receiving financial aid were working hard to ensure their grades were good enough to pass, those who were absent most of the time were the students who didn't care because mommy and daddy were paying the tuition bills.
-----------------
In the real world, Mary's friend has the great gpa because her daddy gave a big endowment to the college and her professors let her cruise through.
----------------
It is amazing how so many people around here are mindlessly catering to the rich who couldn't care less about this region or the people in it. Do you guys go and wash their cars and do their landscaping on your day off too?
----------------
Industrious Republicans do; we Democrats collect welfare and watch TV in our underpants all day. You can take that to the bank, because hustlinhillbilly read it on the internet. PALIN 2012: EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TOO COMPLICATED
------------------
One was the kid of a lawyer. He didn't do too great in school, but it's okay. Everything turned out great for him anyway.
---------------
What's next, burning the American flag? Burning Obama in effigy?? Or is their ultimate goal that "2nd amendment solution"??? And what is after that...maybe a nut from the other side driving a truck filled with explosives into one of their rallies???????
Yeah, that's the country we'd get if their type had their way.
------------------
Me too; as a college student, I was never without a full-time job. My greatest fear was that I'd be assigned a group project with some of those kids, and have to sink or swim based on their effort. Yikes.
***************
Lets see if I have this right.
If we take money from the rich and give it to the poor then everything will be hunky dory, and everyone will live happily ever after.
A drive thru Lawrence county of the future by Obama; everyone will be living in mansions and you won't be able to tell the difference between a rich persons house or a poor persons house.
But uh oh there is a problem, someone has one too many cars parked out front, some idiot decided he could make some extra cash mowing his lazy neighbors yard. Some people just never learn.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mike
That is the reason Liberals have gone out of the way to distort the story of Robin Hood. Who was Robin Hoods arch enemy? The Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin Hood wasn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor, he was stealing the government who were overtaxing the populace to give them their money back.
Indie,
Keta didn't say where she went to college. Regardless, my comment stands.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Lets see if I have this right"
------------------
That would be an amazingly rare event.
The elimination of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy does not constitute a soaking of the rich. It is a return to the tax rates we had under Reagan. So what was Reagan in your book" A communist? A socialist? A Nazi?
You don't have to wait. Drive through Lawrence county now. Count up the households that make over $250,000 and get back with us. That will be the ones impacted by returning to the tax rates under Reagan.
Are you saying our county is loaded with such people? Hey, that's great. Obama must be doing a great job if we do have that many people making over a quarter million per year.
Mowing the lazy neighbor's yard and has an extra car out front? What in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know? Unless that's one awesome mower and one rich neighbor paying for the service, I seriously doubt that mowing the neighbor's yard will put that person over $250,000 per year. You say that some people never learn and then, with your own remarks, prove at least that one part to be right.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But Mike, we're supposed to be fiscally conservative, right? So you shouldn't be opposed to letting the temporary (by Bush's own pen) tax breaks for the rich, which are not funded, and add to the national deficit, expire as Bush planned for them to, right? I mean, if you are going to add to the deficit, you have to take something away, right? Right? Mike? (cricket, cricket)
I'm always floored that no one see's the hypocrisy in their remarks.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
79Tiger. I voted for Ronald Reagan. I worked in Ronald Reagan's campaign. Ronald Reagan was no Robin Hood and a return to the tax rates we had under him, which is Obama's plan, is not "stealing from the rich to give to the poor."
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 22, 2010 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon, our President's plan, as has been clearly communicated many, many times calls for an increase in the tax rate paid by those making over a quarter million dollars per year. The increase puts the tax rate at the same level they had under Reagan.
Those who whine and moan about this tax increase are implicitly making one and only one point.
We must have a tremendous number of people in this country who make over a quarter million dollars per year. Let's accept the good news and join them in a bipartisan effort to thank President Obama for doing such a great job with the economy that we have an abundance of people making such a fine wage.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ha! I'm with you! We should run for office. With this kind of bipartisanship, we're a shoe-in......
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
should have preferred the communal effort in achieving a goal, yet you feared it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I loves me a communal effort, but I'm afraid this one would have required that everybody show up at least, say, 50% of the time. Still, a rising tide - that would be me - lifts all boats. I'd have done my best. Has anyone else figured out what's up with flag-burning, working your way through college, mowing your neighbor's yard and taking his parking space, etc? And what does Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (two commas) who (three exclamation points) mean? You need to provide some context for your remarks, unless you're sending a message to someone using a secret code.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indie,
Obama wants to return to the Reagan Admin tax rates on income? Where is that information coming from? Re Robin Hood. The story is distorted by Liberals because the rich are despised but the government is revered in their eyes. So tell a falsehood enough times and it actually becomes a fairy tale. Except for those who know the truth.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta, I'm afraid you must just have a little too much real world experience. These folks who make over a quarter million per year can't relate to what you're saying.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
stealing from the rich
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is priceless. You're passionately defending tax cuts that will benefit two percent of Americans, and that two percent doesn't include you. Gullible as newborns. You never disappoint.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama wants to return to the Reagan Admin tax rates on income? Where is that information coming from?
-------------------------------
It was said about a thousand times during the campaign, when that was one of the issues he ran on. Here you go....
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
"Under the Obama Plan:
* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan."
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keta,
What political persuasion do you figure are those you once feared of causing you to have a failing grade had you worked for a "communal grade" and also of those in your last post? I bet they are not conservatives.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tiger. Where have you been for the last 2 years? Its a KNOWN FACT that the tax rates are going back to the Reagan days. Seriously dude, check it out for yourself. And try not to get your info from the emails you get that start: FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:re:re: OBAMA IS GOING TO TAX YOUR A$$ INTO OBLIVION!
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, that was good news for the middle class. Here's the part more directly answers your question 79Tiger....
"# Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit. "
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indie,
If the Bush Tax Cuts expire, the lowest rate goes from 10% to 15%. How many of those folks do you figure are making over $250,000? Also, the top tax rate under Reagan initially was 28%. I believe it is 36% or higher now. Point this one out to me where Obama is proposing a 28% tax rate on the highest income earners.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jon
I delete any e-mail that has a preface of FW. It has to make it through my spam first and it is rare if it does. I still think you folks are wrong. The Bush Tax cut rates didn't take us back to the Reagan rates. How you can claim that and still want the Bush rates to expire is beyond me.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I'm sure they ARE conservatives, and I bet they ask a lot of people if they want fries with that. And I would also imagine they think Sarah Palin is a soccer mom, just like them. And that she will go all lipsticky pitbully on America when SHE'S president.....good grief. Gullibility at its finest.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee 79Tiger, you're making me do all the legwork tonight huh? I'll be right back with the details. Who's the conservative???
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jon,
Are you Keta? Or just answering for her as if you were also in that "village of idiots. "
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indie,
I'm done for the evening. I will catch it tomorrow. Don't want to make Jim Crawford look too popular with so many posts in one day.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think your quote was "it takes a village to raise an idiot" Just a villager Mike, just a villager.
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, the top tax bracket under Ronald Reagan was as follows:
1981......................70%
1982-1986.............50%
1987......................38.5%
1988-1990.............28%
I already gave you the link above for this info.....
"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut."
The max tax rate during the 90s (1993-1999) was 39.6%. So, in the worst scenario, Obama's tax rate wouldn't be over 39.6% and this is actually far LESS than the 50-70% we had under Reagan from 81-86. It's about the same as we had in 1987 and it is a little more than we had right at the end of the Reagan administration in 1988 and January of 1989.
Here's the link if you don't trust my numbers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_...
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I go and do all the legwork and now you're gone. That's no fun. Well maybe some of the conservatives will want to come and get some.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVRFEP4_y...
Posted by indieVoter (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OK then. Good night and remember...
清空你的思维，是无形的，无形 - 如水。现在你把一个杯子水，就成了杯子，你放入一个瓶子就成了一瓶水，你把茶壶是它成为茶壶。现在，水可以流动，也可以崩溃。是水，我的朋友。
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm starting to think that some of the people on this board don't actually know the meaning of the word liberal.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm also not understanding how my comment about the lawyer's kid I dated in college got included in some weird diatribe. He was a lazy jerk who didn't bother doing anything because he didn't have to.
This idea that only conservatives work is getting old and doesn't even make sense. I know very few poor liberals.
I'm sick of a political party whose main base seems to just want Cliffs Notes--that's why I'll keep wasting my vote on the Libertarian candidates.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
indie, your breakdown of the tax brackets erally needs to be published. People need to read some truth abuot the ACTUAL goings on with this. I wish you would consider submitting that as a letter to the editor. The fear mongering going on about 1-1-11 right now is ridiculous. A little shot of truth would be nice.
I got an email (one of those FW:FW:FW that I spoke of earlier, that talked about how Obama was going to start taxing your health care plan as income on your taxes in 2011. Sadly, there were several people who actually believe this garbage. It's gotta be headed off at some point.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Alisonmiller:
American Heritage Dictionary
lib·er·al: (lbr-l, lbrl)
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------
pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv)
ADJECTIVE:
a. Moving forward; advancing.
b. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
c. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
NOUN:
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that it doesn't mention the U.S. Strange huh?
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on July 23, 2010 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good work Indie. Very informative.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on July 23, 2010 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim Crawford an insightful article. I have found the Democratic response rather appropriate and the Republican response questionable.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on July 23, 2010 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I join 79Tiger in his compliment to IndieVoter pertaining to his research.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on July 23, 2010 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, I enjoyed jonferguson's information on Liberal, Progressive and Conservatism. Thanks Jon.
Posted by tigerexpress (anonymous) on July 27, 2010 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again you must be a complete fool to enjoy any information that supports the liberal right or the conservative left as we need actual thinkers here not the same old rethoric we always here in this think less column.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)