It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the Anger over Unemployment Extension?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Antar, long time no see.

I hear food boxes and charities are already overwhelmed.



Eventually what happens to one happens to all.

When the Government continues to support and fund the most insidious causes, to allow another extension would be a drop in the ocean of their indebtedness.



Your words of wisdom are beautiful. People cannot realize that we are in this together. It makes me sad, but only you can put it into words that make sense.


I hope humanity can learn to care about each other, before the evils kill us all off.




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Forhome, your statistics are flawed. The average per capita is not actually found by taking the total GDP and dividing by all the people. That is just the allocated amount of money in the US per capita, not the earnings per capita. What per capita income is, is actually the amount of income that 50% of americans make more than, and 50% make less than.

Now the figures vary on this from 27k to 37k. However, that is NOT taking into account debt ratio. As a country, the US is about 97% debt to gdp ratio, and when you add in household debt it gets close to 300% (200% is considered third world by the IMF). We must also remember that the top 5% owns more of the wealth than the bottom 30%, which destabilizes the equation. This is even more destabilized when you realize that the lower and working class also own the lions share of the debt. Figure all this in, THEN you can figure how we compare to the 1970's.

In reality though, all you truly need to do is look at the facts. In the 50's and 60's (the golden age of america), one man, working in a factory could afford to own a home, get a new car every three years, support a family of 7 or 8, and retire in his 50's and be taken care of forever. This is no longer even close to the case. Yes, we have larger household incomes, but its because in working and middle class families both parents are pretty much forced to work to afford all their bills and debt.

The cost for gas has multiplied by a factor of 5, food has skyrocketed, and housing is ridiculous, with a 230k home actually costing over a cool million to pay off in 30 years, something our grandparents never had to deal with.

Second thing i would like to point out. You guys post how each dollar in unemployment, childcare, blah blah blah, has to be drawn in debt, and so its wasteful giving these folk free money. This is somewhat a fallacy also. Unemployment, social safety nets, education, healthcare, roads, police, these are all essential items for social stability. Its what our TAXES are supposed to pay for, and its not free...its paid for by all of us. Our government, however, uses all our taxes to pay for its loans, its military, its subsidizing, and then points out poor people as the culprit to why our economy is doing so bad, turning people against themselves, and dividing the middle and lower class against each other, with pseudo intellectuals, swelled with superiority basking in their own wisdom at understanding how "personal responsibility" is the answer, and that the poor should be shut out on their own.

The truth is that education, affordable housing and food, protection from job loss and crisis, these things stabilize society. These are what the whole idea of taxation is justified by. War for profit, medicine for profit (making it exhorbitant), banking for profit (making it extortionist), subsidizing big business (causing monopolistic oligarchies and price fixing, as well as enhancing the wealth gap), these things have proven, over and over again, to DEstabilize economy, and they are the very reasons intelligent people RESENT taxation.....especially when its without representation, as it is here in the US. My rant.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


I am sorry sir, I do not wish to be rude, but the true definition of GDP per capita is indeed GDP/population.Investor words

Per capita is a term adapted from Latin phrase pro capite meaning "per (each) head" with pro meaning "per" or "for each", and capite (caput ablative) meaning "head." Both words together equate to the phrase "for each head", i.e. per individual or per person. The term is used in a wide variety of social sciences and statistical research contexts, including government statistics, economic indicators, and built environment studies.
Wikipedia

However, I do agree with you on the issue of taxes and social support. Both are vital to the upkeep of our countries. Anyone who says anything otherwise is unaware of their full benefits.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Oh, i see. You are saying there is more money in america now than there was in the 70's. That is true. The GDP has doubled since the 70's. However, sadly, the purchasing power of the average person has sadly declined, which means that the top, Tiny wedge of the pie (wealthy elite) have gained pretty much all the profit, while middle and lower class workers have gained nothing, and have constantly been tasked to be more productive while earning that same amount.

I thought you were saying that there was more money for each person, and the reality is no, there is much much more money for a few people, but everyone else is left fighting for the scraps. Ah, and then theres outsourcing!

Sorry, i thought you were referring to the Median per capita income.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by pexx421]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 





What a load of derailing gobbledygook. Hello, we were discussing economic stimulation, not hiring economists. I know that is your thing, derailing with babble. I saw you the last 2 days derailing one of my threads with ATSer evil incarnate. I am not getting into that time consuming trap with you. For now, I will entertain myself at your expense.


Economic stimulation happens through the facilitation of supply and demand. Hello! Economists have little to offer in the way of supply, and there just isn't any great demand for them. Hello! As to your shameless plug of your own thread regarding an entirely different topic, I don't suppose your willing to admit that such a plug is derailing this thread. Hello!




Yea, when it comes to building automobiles, space shuttles, working with atom smashers, and working out nation's economies, I let others think for me. Tell me, are you so awesome and smart that you designed your own microwave, or programmed a chip for your car to get better gas mileage? BTW are you an economist? No? Then perhaps they, along with Physicists, car designer, and computer programmers know more than you and I, yes?


Comparing economists to producers is pretty foolish, and it is no more wiser to allow automobile manufacturers, space ship manufacturers, and physicists to do your thinking for you then it is to let economists do your thinking for you. If you can't think for yourself, it is disingenuous to enter into a thread and start calling other people stupid, particularly other people that are clearly more interested in thinking for themselves than you are.

Your foolish adoration of titles is revealing. You care not for track records, and failure/success ratios, only that a title has been bestowed upon a "specialist". What good is a doctor who can not heal his, or her patients? What good does the title of doctor do then? What good are microwaves that don't work? Is it only important to you that a person designed the non working microwave, or do you care enough to differentiate between design and completion, and the success rate between them?

Allen Greenspan is an economist, yet here is an economist who feigns astonishment at the disasters that happened on his watch. Ben Bernanke is an economist, and he, along with other economists such as Paul Krugman, advocated the imprudent fiscal policy of "too big to fail" in spite of anti-trust laws that directly contradict such an "unofficial" fiscal policy.




"they don't ask economist permission to do so"? That is so ridiculous, of course they don't, why would anybody. That's not the function of an economists. But you already know that, and this is a trap. Damn I fell into it. Moving on.


Given that you allow so many different people to do your thinking for you, what makes you so sure you know what is ridiculous, and what isn't? What precisely is the function of an economist, or is that a trap for one who isn't inclined to think for themselves? Do some research on it, maybe some online source can tell you what to think about it.




The other great thing about math is you can display mathematical facts in a pie chart. Thus it becomes a mathematically factual pie, not a banana cream or apple pie. Please expose the lie you see and enlighten us with all the details of why it's a lie. Your ball.


What you can't do with a pie chart is turn one dollar into $1.64...not if your using math. This is the lie, and no exposing is required as anyone who is capable of doing simple math understands that one dollar spent equals one dollar spent. If one dollar spent on unemployment checks translate into $1.64 returned to the economy, then the lie is this, one dollar went to someone getting an unemployment check, and 64 cents more was spent getting that one dollar to that person, which in truth means that $1.64 was spent, not one dollar. Did you really need that explained to you, or do you only listen to those people that make you feel good?




And you have yet to specifically challenged any of the bullpuckey I have supplied, thus you are full of hot air. All these paragraphs of nothing. No alternate conclusions, no contradicting facts, no supplying any of your own facts, not even a point. You brought this thread nothing, and you sucked me in to bring nothing too. I won't do this with you again.


Again, $1 equals $1, not $1.73, or $1.64. Of course, under fiat currency, $1 equals nothing really except for the cost of the paper it is printed on, as it is not backed by any real wealth. However, regardless of the wealth, or lack thereof, behind a dollar, the idea behind that currency is that each dollar represents an exact amount of money. It is not as if people accepting unemployment checks are getting $1.64 for every dollar paid to them, are they? Where is this extra 64 cents coming from? Your silly little Zandi graph doesn't explain that, it only makes a claim, of which you have foolishly bought into.




And you finish with trying to take me to task on a sarcastic exaggeration? Don't talk to me anymore, you are too weird for me. Good day.


Uh-huh. Okay. Was that last post of yours a billion and two posts filled with FACTS?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Yea sorry, maybe I should of made that a little more clear. Technically since the population and technology escalates over time, so does productivity and overall output. However, just because there are now more goods and services being bought and sold than ever in America, doesn't mean it's being spread out evenly so I totally agree with you.

It is interesting, the comparison you make between the 40's and now and I see what you mean. The wife didn't have to work (nothing sexist about that), and neither did their 14 year old children, yet they got along just fine. However, I think the whole modern "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality also contributes to today's severe problems of an overworked population kept alive on medication and nutrition-less-food. We work harder than ever so not only can we afford the newest car, but two of them, the latest TV, enough channels to watch for years, internet, the most modern furniture, etc.

If we all got used to doing with a little bit less, we could all take it easy a little bit more, and wind down the hyper-consumption mentality that has gripped America. If that happens, it will slowly start to change those at the top, and you'll see the restoration of the once-glorious America we saw post WW2.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Yes, but theres differences too. When i was younger, we still had washers and dryers from the 70's, and i dont recall my parents buying a new one often. I only ever bought used TV's, and they lasted forever, and you will still sometimes find those ugly old pale green stoves they sold in the 70's. Cars lasted a hell of a lot longer, broke down less, and most people could do maintenance or repairs with a plier and a screwdriver.

Nowadays, TV's are built to only last 5 years, autos are made to planned obscelesence, and dont even think about trying to repair one yourself, washers and dryers are listed in the store with 5 or 7 year lifetimes and cost accordingly, and dont even get me started on things like a/c window units. Everything is disposable now.

Retirement has gone the way of the dinosaur, and the main jobs around are service industry since all our production and manufacturing has been outsourced. And where i work in hospitals its like you have to switch jobs every five years or so to get your appropriate pay level, otherwise you just get your 2% bonus annually (used to be 5%). Benefits are deteriorating, healthcare is skyrocketing, as is college, and those two costs alone are a huge barrier for most people to move above the station they are born into. The US is now lagging behind all western euro countries in social mobility, and WE are the country that invented social mobility! (ok, a little hyperbole there on my part....we'll call it artistic license for illustration)



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 





I would like to know what basic math has to do with this? Actually, I have some basic math that might help you. Take a look at this*:


Okay, which is it? Do you really want to know what basic math has to do with this, or do you want to rely on basic math in regards to this? Are you relying on basic math? Let's examine this:




1975 Per Capita GDP: American GDP (1.62 trillion) for 1975, adjusted for inflation, would equal 6.32 trillion dollars in 2009 CPI (Try it yourself). Due to the lack of public information for American population levels in 1975, we will have to derive it from info available now. So, between 1980 and 1981, American population levels have grown ~3 million to 229,465,744 people, so subtract 6 years (multiplied by 3 million) to 1975, I estimate the American population to be (1985 population - 18 million=) 211,456,744 people.


First let's clear up the mistake of fact that there are no public figures available for The U.S. population in 1975. Although, before clearing up that mistake of fact, I must tell you that your own guess at it is a good one. Job well done, my friend.

Nationmaster.com offers this figure for the population of the U.S. in 1975: 215,973,000. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics offers a chart that supports those figures, or yours for that matter, since it is not offering an exact amount. hierographics.org reduces the population by a few million to come closer to your estimate, which is 212.6 million.

The actual per capita GDP for The U.S. in 1975, according to Nationmaster.com was $7,825.49 per capita, Nationmaster does not have any figures past 2006, but for that year the GDP in the U.S. was $44,155.00 per capita. However, a different site offering a Ranking of Per Capita GDP offers a prudent caveat to using the GDP as a measurement of living standards:


Warning: it is important to note the limitation of GDP when comparing the living standards of countries. These income figures are computed using the current exchange rates. By definition, exchange rates are biased as they are based on the prices of traded goods and nontraded goods are ignored. These may not reflect the real standard of living. For example, in 2002, US per capita GDP of $36,000 and that of China was about $1000. This does NOT mean that the living standard of a typical American was 36 times that of a Chinese. Realistically, Americans may be only three times as well off as Chinese, due to low prices in China. Also, the World Bank report argues that for example, Americans live in spacious houses and less polluted environment than the Japanese, even though per capital income leves of both countries were about the same in the early 1990s.


That same site offering Ranking of Per Capita GDP begins with this statement:


In 1975, US trade surplus was about $12 billion, but that would be the last time in the 20th century that the United States had a trade surplus. In 2008, the US export amounted to $1.84 T, but imports were about $2.52 T. Thus, we had a trade deficit of about $700 B(X - M = T ). China has now replaced Mexico as our second largest trading partner. (Canada is our largest trading partner.)


So, in 1975, where The U.S. had a trade surplus, today The U.S. struggles with a trade deficit. This is just one figure you left out of your basic math in order to arrive at the assumption that American's are richer today than they were in 1975. Staying with online calculators, why not try Measuringworth.com where you can calculate the purchasing power of a dollar in 1975 compared to that purchasing power in 2008. According to that calculator, $100 dollars in 1975 would have bought $400 dollars worth of goods and services in 2008.

There are many problems in relying on GDP as an indicator of growth, and averaging incomes:


Accuracy and reliability

The rate of change of GDP is a major factor influencing policy action to stabilise the economy (as noted in the article on macroeconomics). Errors in the calculation of GDP can damage the economy as businesses and consumers make adjustments to their behavior in response to an erroneous figure. (The damaging Lawson boom in the Britain in the late 1980s was largely attributable to such an error [11] [12]). Since it takes time for action in response to news of the GDP growth rate to take effect, the regulatory authorities and commercial organisations tend to react to early estimates, which are often subject to substantial revision. (The average revision to Britain’s quarterly growth figures between 1961 and 2001 was 0.2 per cent as compared to an average growth rate of 0.6 per cent, but the discrepancy was much greater in the late 1970s when a 1.7 per cent year-to-year reduction in GDP was later revised to a rise of 2.7 per cent[13]). Attempts have been made to assess the accuracy of the components of GDP statistics [14], but since GDP data is compiled from thousands of inputs, it is not possible to do a complete check. Some indication of its reliability is, however, possible by comparing GDP estimates that have been compiled in different ways. The United States GDP is calculated separately from incomes data and from production data, and the difference is termed the "statistical discrepancy" [15]. Since the early 1990s that discrepancy has been substantial, with the real income measure growing faster than the real product measure. [16] (In 1993 the statistical discrepancy peaked at 1% of GDP, and over 7 years the income measure grew at an average annual rate of 4.3% and the product side measure at 4.0%). Estimates of statistical discrepancies for other countries are available from an United Nations database [17]. Different countries have adopted different practices in allowing for the statistical discrepancy in their published statistics.


en.citizendium.org...

Or consider this:


Despite the careful documentation of theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of social welfare and progress, its use in the course of time has not changed. Information about GDP growth has a significant influence on decision-making by individuals, businesses and governments. In fact, politicians and macroeconomists become noticeably nervous when there is little or no GDP growth. Unfortunately, the use of GDP must be regarded as a serious form of information failure.


www.thebrokeronline.eu...

Using the GDP as an indicator of economic growth can have value, but what value does it have to the average person if it takes $400 today to buy what a $100 could buy back in 1975? How does that equate to people being richer today? Are people today earning $400 more for every $100 that was earned in 1975? You claim that:




2008 Per Capita GDP - 1975 Per Capita GDP = Wealth Difference $47,819.55 - $29,887.91 = $17,931.64


However economist Paul Krugman writing for The New York Times makes this claim:


Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.


Granted, Krugman was using figures from 1970 to 1999, but have peoples increased to the levels you have said they have in the past decade? What is the average income of a person in The U.S. today? Worldsalaries.org claims that for the year 2005, the average salary for an employee, including the self employed, in The U.S. was a gross income of $42,028, but after taxes the disposable income was only $31,410, which brings up yet another factor that has to be considered when discussing how much richer Americans are today than they were in 1975, and that is the rate of taxation.


In turns out that for the 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income (a higher rate presumably because of progressivity hitting the second wage-earners income) in taxes works out to be $22,374.


econlog.econlib.org...

Which in turn only brings up another point; if Americans are richer today, why on average does it take two wage earners today to keep up with the cost of living, when in 1975, on average, it only took one wage earner per household? Why? Well the answer is simple isn't it? That answer is that in 1975 $100 purchased what costs $400 today. No amount of macroeconomics is going to translate that fact into a genuine increase wealth. Wealth is as valuable as what it buys. People don't need a degree in economics to understand that.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
A society needs to care and provide for even the least of it's number.

A world where those who work and those who cannot find work are treated differently is not a world I wish to be a part of.

I'm a Sole Parent in Australia and on the Disability Pension for the long term effects of a broken back and smashed knees.. but, when recovered I worked another 25 years until the injuries caused me to not be able to do so anymore. I do some work as a Psychic and other related ventures. I pay TAX despite not having to.

I've done the hard yards, so to speak.

I have friends who earn over 150K per year. Their Taxes pay for three family's like mine and I am exceedingly greatful for their understanding of my position.

What irked me about the OP is the sweeping generalisation that intends to treat those less fortunate as something less deserving.. without ever knowing the situations of the individuals.

So, what happens when you find yourself in the same un-fortunate position in life?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


I agree with you 100 percent however, there are some nut jobs here that even with it hitting them in the face cannot handle the truth cannot see the truth until it it is kicking their dam a----es and then maybe only then will they agree with you it is because they have no humanity or compassion for what the hell is really going on, they talk all dam day about nwo, obama martial law but, hell you mention people needing to survive because of what has happened and all they can do is b----m about the people taking their money out of their pockets and buying food and paying for a way tolive! To those of you and you know who you are kiss my a-=- , if you don't like my unemployment check coming in get off your tails and do something about it! just like I thought all mouth as always



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by darkelf
 


It most definitely IS a hand out. Nobody has been FORCED to breed. Someone should really think about finances before they decide to breed. Forcing other people to care about your broken condom is unfair. It IS a hand out.


I have to agree with this being a hand out in SOME cases. I know a few women personally, who entrap men with children. My ex-wife being one of them. They get these men, whom they think has money, and *oops* get pregnant. Once the baby is born, or even before, she loses interest in the man, and then bleeds him dry for the next 18 years. My ex-wife did this to her previous husband. Had 3 kids with him, and gets $1200.00 a month for child support! She did the same with me, except she didn't get me with a child, but she played on my desire to settle down and get married. When I met her, I had over 200k saved up in the bank (I am a whack job when it comes to saving money), 3 years later its all gone! I know I allowed myself to be fooled, and that's my fault, and I will lick my wounds on that.

Back on to the subject at hand, her workplace shut down 2 years ago, and she hasn't worked a day since. She expected to collect unemployment, and for me to support her and her 3 kids all on my own. With the extravagant lifestyle she was trying to live, I simply couldn't afford it. Since we have a "limited divorce" (look up Maryland divorce laws) I still have to provide for her to the tune of $1100 a month. So lets do the math:

$1200 a month child support from previous marriage
$1100 a month alimony from me
$1400 a month unemployment
--------
$3,700 a month total WITHOUT WORKING A DAY!

So lets put this into perspective:

I make $3,500 a month working a 40 hour work week busting my ***
She makes more than I do a month and not doing a damn thing but partying and who knows what else.

So yes, child support, unemployment and alimony are ALL HAND OUTS!

Where is the rewarding feeling for working 40+ hours a week to provide for yourself?

It seems the people who abuse the system are the ones getting rewarded.

I wish I didn't have a job, was a woman with kids, and just collected. Seems to be a pretty good gig in my opinion.

And yes, I am bitter. I am tired of handing over 1/3 of my monthly earnings to a woman who didn't contribute anything to our household, who is living high on the hog, while I struggle to pay my bills.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Money is only paper. Give the people money to buy bread and stay indoors. Enjoy it while it lasts, you know that the jig is almost up. FED money is just an illusion, but for now it helps people, so give it to them. WWIII is just around the corner so enjoy life and be kind to the common man. The elites have the gold and bombs so thank God for every good day before the guacamole hits the ventilation.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Slaves we are.

This topic always gets to me. And I've come to the conclusion, people vocalize their position because they are ignorant and born complainers. That's all. They are missing the bigger picture always!

Who CARES if unemployment benefits get extended? Who CARES if people receive welfare? Who CARES if young people get disability? Who CARES how much they spend on a war that you never voted for?

It does NOT effect your dollar! Your taxes are taken (and spent) anyway. Where they apply them has NOTHING to do with your money.
This money (like the OP spoke about) is fiat money. They're going to take it anyway.

The nations deficit is an entire other argument. And again, where they apply your money is something totally different. And why they TAKE your money is yet another thing.

You think prisoners have a say over what they serve for dinner?

They have the power. We are their slaves. Now THAT is worth being upset about not.....where they spend this make-believe money. Who cares????

Us slaves are SO missing the point that it's pathetic!

[edit on 22-7-2010 by One Moment]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


I've always said it...

There isn't enough gold to back up all these dollar bills. Pretty soon, we'll all be using debit cards instead of cash.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by LostNemesis
 





This is what the state is about. Children are control over us. With children, they are able to take your paycheck.


Speak for yourself because my kids aren't in control over me. And what exactly is that fuzzy logic you are using about, "With children, they are able to take your paycheck."? Who, the state? What the hell state are you living in? Nobody takes my check and I have 3 kids.
Nemesis = yes
Lost = Definitely!




Thanks for bringing some sense to this thread.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 



Talk about stupid! How many smart cookies would it take to get it through your thick head that if unemployment benefits, (financed through taxes), and food stamps, (also financed through taxes), are the highest stimuli for the economy, that the economy is in serious trouble. If the best the federal government can do in terms of stimulating the economy is to use tax dollars to give to unemployed and poor people to spend, then the economy is not going to get better through government fiscal policy.







No. You better hope and pray you never become unemployed. I work in the unemployment field and I see people everyday I bet before they got fired were in the same stance as yourself.

Unemployment is paying someone to be unemployed. That little bit of money is designed to keep them from drowning attempting to survive until they can find another job.

It's the reason unemployment is usually no more than half of your regular salaray. Common sense should tell you that having to live off half your usual earnings isn't a walk in the park.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by One Moment
 


Spending money that is printed out of thin air, or borrowed without intent of possibility to be repayed deflates the value of all the dollars that have been put into circulation before, and earned at higher price, so I indeed care about deflating the value of the money I have already earned at great effort now being given away for nothing but avoiding reality.
There is no free lunch for any stable system, and any individual that plays the system and avoids their obligations steals from everyone else.
Once money loses it's value due to intentional irresponsibility it will not be rehabilitated
So yes, collecting welfare when one can work at ANYTHING is theft from the value of everyone elses savings and future

[edit on 22-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Extending unemployment is the only way that the government can keep the lies about economic recovery and keep Americans from taking to the streets in anger and prevent anarchy



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bentai22

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by darkelf
 


$1200 a month child support from previous marriage
$1100 a month alimony from me
$1400 a month unemployment
--------
$3,700 a month total WITHOUT WORKING A DAY!

So lets put this into perspective:

I make $3,500 a month working a 40 hour work week busting my ***
She makes more than I do a month and not doing a damn thing but partying and who knows what else.

So yes, child support, unemployment and alimony are ALL HAND OUTS!






How much does she spend to keep a roof over the kids head? How much is the grocery bill? How much does she require for childcare? How about keeping the kids clothed? There would be a reason you're required to supply $1100 per month in alimony. Is her monthly mortgage say.......$1900?

I'm a man and I can say that if she has 3 children, she works everyday without a day off 12 hours minimum.

If unemployment is $1400 per month, the cost of living must be extremely high. Unemployment usually is a couple hundred dollars less than the actuall mortgage or rent.

What happens if her ex husband loses his job and is unable to pay the child support? Has he been able to now?

The grass always looks.........we all know the rest.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


WHO CARES? Debt is more worthless than paper money. Who has the nads to collect such debt when if it were not for the debtor the debt holders could not function or in most cases exist. A war will set all this in chaos anyway, debts will be tossed out and everyone will scream do over.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join