This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

There are, roughly, three reasons people are unemployed.

1) They want to be unemployed.
2) They want to be employed, but are delaying to find a better job.
3) They want to be employed, but aren't able to find jobs, at all.

Increasing or decreasing unemployment benefits alters categories 1 and 2, but doesn't have much traction on category 3. You can't really cause businesses to expand by making workers more desperate. Indeed, if workers are desperate, they'll cut back spending, depressing demand, and further reducing incentive to hire.

The current jobs crisis has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2, and everything to do with 3. People didn't suddenly and collectively shift their preferences for leisure, or raise their expectations for better jobs. The jobs just up and vanished, and aren't coming back until demand picks up. Failing to pay unemployment insurance now, or cutting it back, would be bad for everyone.

I'm just going by what the majority of studies have shown. It doesn't account for those people who are in the wrong jobs, or underemployed. I think there is also a big problem with structural unemployment. It seems too many of our jobs were ones of convenience that could be easily shed to tighten the bottom line as needed (e.g. greeter at Wall-mart). We need more doctors and nurses, but former greeter at Wall-mart is not enough of a qualification.

But hey, you're right, we can also think of this as a party! Hellz yeah, the federal government continues to pay us a pittance to survive without work! Woo! Unemployment roolz! Somebody pass the beer bong!

It's called a simile.

"The government is like the worst venture capitalist ever. It's like we gave them some billions of dollars and they blew it on a big party, instead of careful investments in things that would grow the jobs market."

So, yes, it's like the federal government was sent out with a $Trillion to get us some jobs, and they blew it on a kegger. Yes. It's a simile. No offense to drunken sailors meant.

Cash for clunkers was popular, but by and large a waste. Also, it has no traction on the poorest, who do not have clunkers, because they do not drive. Tax cuts largely benefit those who pay taxes, again, not the poorest, who don't. That the states did not default on their various obligations is fantastic, but that's just continuing the status quo, not contributing anything new.

Cash for ____ only pulls future activity into the now, leaving a void in the future. Bailing out the states pushed the critical decision needed at the moment into the future, and there was great hope the recession would be a short term spike. They expected tax revenue to return within a year. Their remedy is a placebo. In the past the recessions were short, so when the economy got better everyone would say, "See! The placebo works!"

But, it doesn't. This is because the government produces nothing. It can only take from one pile and put into another, or take from our children's future by borrowing for today's malinvestments.

The banks, on the other hand, were basically forgiven the whole credit default swap issue, with their terrible decisions being "insured" not by AIG, who couldn't foot the bill, but by the taxpayer.

Yes, I would blame the mortgage originators, whether they be banks or not. But, just because a bank got caught holding the toxic asset doesn't mean it was their fault it was created. Still, I agree that "Buyer beware" applies to corporations as well as consumers.

And what was the cost, to those who led the financial sector down this path? Rack and ruin? Jail time? Tar and feathers? Smaller bonuses? Nope, they're pretty much still rich and powerful. Bonuses here in London just reached a new record high - I don't know the US case, but nothing fundamental has changed. The same old casino playing the same old games.

What law was broken? It was congress who allowed CDO, and CDS (through Fannie and Freddie), who repealed Glass-Steagal, and who didn't reign in derivatives (or other junk investments). Is it the foxes guarding the hen house?

We'll see. But many of them would have gone under already, many times over, were it not for massive injections of government liquidity. If they still fail, well, maybe they shouldn't have been playing with fire in the first place. (By fire, I mean an ever-increasing web of collateralized debt obligations backed by credit default swaps, all insured by AIG, which could not possibly cover the kind of losses the industry would face in the event of a serious crisis.)

I agree, but as we discussed at the time, there was a serious downside to allowing the worlds largest financial organizations to collapse.

There are many ways the government could prop up the mortgage market. They could do it directly - just shave a whole whack off mortgage values on primary residences, financed directly by the government. Or they could nationalize the banks' balance sheets, sort them out, guarantee mortgages as part of a larger restructuring, and spit them back out in a couple years when things have calmed down.

They probably should have temporarily nationalized those in trouble, and eventually fired the executives (without golden parachutes) and their boards of directors. Actually fix the debacle with the laws that allowed the mess to happen. Bring in financial resuscitation teams to clean up the balance sheets, then relaunch them as private.

But no, they decided to just give enormous sacks of cash to Wall Street, and hoped they'd go do the right thing with them. Their risks were insured ex post, their balance sheets were propped up, they got loans at absurdly good rates. The folks who were supposed to fix the crisis were all drawn from the same pool of Wall Street financiers and high-end Econ/Finance academics, a three-legged technocratic chimaera. If that's not a textbook case of regulatory capture, I don't know what is.

Here is where we wholeheartedly agree. Government and Wallstreet are incestuously close, however I tend to blame government more rather than the sharks on Wallstreet who are true to their nature.

It is our republic that was purchased with blood such "... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I don't think we meant to replace the word "people", with "wealth" or "corporation". The corruption of government should be illegal, but it is not apparently. I do hold both those doing the corrupting and the corrupted accountable, but more-so the corrupted. Corporations are self serving, and profit is their motive. But, our elected officials deceive us into believing they will bring "change", accountability, and actually serve us for once. Politicians with principle are extremely rare. What I like about the tea party republicans is that they seem to be acting to principles, but they bring much conservative baggage along with that.

I still believe the root of the problem is that our Congress believes they can take an ever growing amount of GDP and dole it out as they please. They believe they can pick the winners and the losers, and its this ongoing policy of malinvestment that disrupts our economy. There probably is a more neutral way to create incentives and disincentives, but I think the stronger they are the more they will distort the "natural order".

[Jester]

I'm just going by what the majority of studies have shown.

Oh, Larry, what a wacky guy you are.

Seriously, the "majority of studies" are correct, but only within a limited scope. As I said, providing benefits increases the first two groups, those who are unemployed because they prefer unemployment, and those who are holding out for the perfect job. (See: Labour market, German.) But that's not what exists right now. It doesn't matter if equilibrium unemployment went up from 4% to 4.5%, because *actual* unemployment is at 9.2!

I think there is also a big problem with structural unemployment. It seems too many of our jobs were ones of convenience that could be easily shed to tighten the bottom line as needed (e.g. greeter at Wall-mart). We need more doctors and nurses, but former greeter at Wall-mart is not enough of a qualification.

All sectors are down. I agree it would be nice to have a more educated population with awesomer jobs, but it's difficult to see how to change that in less than 30 years. It's not like someone sat down and said "Hey, how about we have Wal-Mart greeter jobs, rather than doctors! That would be great!" Those things are not substitutes.

It's called a simile.

"The government is like the worst venture capitalist ever. It's like we gave them some billions of dollars and they blew it on a big party, instead of careful investments in things that would grow the jobs market."

So, yes, it's like the federal government was sent out with a $Trillion to get us some jobs, and they blew it on a kegger. Yes. it's a simile.

It is a simile. Where the real event was "continued to fund unemployment insurance payments," you made the comparison of "kegger." So, um, yeah, I'm pretty much standing by what I said.

Cash for ____ only pulls future activity into the now, leaving a void in the future. Bailing out the states pushed the critical decision needed at the moment into the future, and there was great hope the recession would be a short term spike. They expected tax revenue to return within a year. Their remedy is a placebo. In the past the recessions were short, so when the economy got better everyone would say, "See! The placebo works!"

But, it doesn't. This is because the government produces nothing. It can only take from one pile and put into another, or take from our children's future by borrowing for today's malinvestments.

Not malinvestments. Quite the opposite. Future economic growth builds on the present economy. If resources lie idle, producing nothing (Oh, hello, 9.2% unemployment. Didn't see you come in!), they don't just produce nothing for today, but they also leave no useful residue (capital) for the future. These are people who could be building stuff that we need - bridges, houses, power plants, roads, steel, whatever. Instead, they're sitting on their butts. Criminal waste.

This is *exactly* the time when we want to pull resources from the future into the present. Why? Once again, idle resources. The choice is not between consuming now or consuming in the future. The choice is between making something, and making nothing. We can't save a slice of our nothing, we can't invest it. We'll never get those hours of labour back, that slack capacity that never went into use.

Yes, I would blame the mortgage originators, whether they be banks or not. But, just because a bank got caught holding the toxic asset doesn't mean it was their fault it was created. Still, I agree that "Buyer beware" applies to corporations as well as consumers.

Well, yes, it is. If you own an asset, it's because you bought it. If you bought it, it's your responsibility. That's how the free market works. If you are demand, you can't complain that it's all supply's fault!

What law was broken? It was congress who allowed CDO, and CDS (through Fannie and Freddie), who repealed Glass-Steagal, and who didn't reign in derivatives (or other junk investments). Is it the foxes guarding the hen house?

...

They probably should have temporarily nationalized those in trouble, and eventually fired the executives (without golden parachutes) and their boards of directors. Actually fix the debacle with the laws that allowed the mess to happen. Bring in financial resuscitation teams to clean up the balance sheets, then relaunch them as private.

Yes, exactly. Arrests only where crimes were committed. But did they show management the door? No. Did they come within a mile? No.

I agree, but as we discussed at the time, there was a serious downside to allowing the worlds largest financial organizations to collapse.

Saving the banks was the right thing to do. Painful, but necessary. What gets my goat is that it stopped there - once Wall Street had gotten theirs, the political momentum shifted quickly and irreversibly against anything further, aimed at helping anyone else. Further spending was derided as "malinvestment," to be compared with a "kegger," to use your preferred simile, and so nobody else was "bailed out." Only the banksters. Everyone else got salutary lectures on the value of belt-tightening, and sanctimonious heckling about how they must just be unemployed because their benefits are so generous, they'd rather stay on the couch.

What I like about the tea party republicans is that they seem to be acting to principles, but they bring much conservative baggage along with that.

(Well, at least we seem to have correctly identified where the Tea Party lives, politically.)

I don't think they've ever been given any serious test of anything. It's very easy to "act to principles" when all you have to do is grandstanding, but governing requires compromise, and they've so far proven incapable of even getting elected, let alone governing.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Seriously, the "majority of studies" are correct, but only within a limited scope. As I said, providing benefits increases the first two groups, those who are unemployed because they prefer unemployment, and those who are holding out for the perfect job. (See: Labour market, German.) But that's not what exists right now. It doesn't matter if equilibrium unemployment went up from 4% to 4.5%, because *actual* unemployment is at 9.2!

Or, more like 17% if you look at U6. I like to look at the participation rate rather than U3.

All sectors are down. I agree it would be nice to have a more educated population with awesomer jobs, but it's difficult to see how to change that in less than 30 years. It's not like someone sat down and said "Hey, how about we have Wal-Mart greeter jobs, rather than doctors! That would be great!" Those things are not substitutes.

Not all sectors are suffering. Construction and manufacturing are worst off.

It is a simile. Where the real event was "continued to fund unemployment insurance payments," you made the comparison of "kegger." So, um, yeah, I'm pretty much standing by what I said.

Because civil conversation is forwarded by pulling out figures of speech and deliberately misrepresenting what was said. I said the government blew the money on something that got us nothing in return. If I said someone was as stubborn as a mule, I'm not calling them an ass.

Not malinvestments. Quite the opposite. Future economic growth builds on the present economy. If resources lie idle, producing nothing (Oh, hello, 9.2% unemployment. Didn't see you come in!), they don't just produce nothing for today, but they also leave no useful residue (capital) for the future. These are people who could be building stuff that we need - bridges, houses, power plants, roads, steel, whatever. Instead, they're sitting on their butts. Criminal waste.

This is *exactly* the time when we want to pull resources from the future into the present. Why? Once again, idle resources. The choice is not between consuming now or consuming in the future. The choice is between making something, and making nothing. We can't save a slice of our nothing, we can't invest it. We'll never get those hours of labour back, that slack capacity that never went into use.

But, by your own words...

They didn't invest in construction or really promoting domestic manufacturing, but instead paid out billions for people to do nothing.

Well, yes, it is. If you own an asset, it's because you bought it. If you bought it, it's your responsibility. That's how the free market works. If you are demand, you can't complain that it's all supply's fault!

To be fair though, when Moody or S&P rate a derivative's risk as AAA, why would you necessarily question it?

Yes, exactly. Arrests only where crimes were committed. But did they show management the door? No. Did they come within a mile? No.

I really don't understand the mentality of rewarding failure... at all...

Saving the banks was the right thing to do. Painful, but necessary. What gets my goat is that it stopped there - once Wall Street had gotten theirs, the political momentum shifted quickly and irreversibly against anything further, aimed at helping anyone else. Further spending was derided as "malinvestment," to be compared with a "kegger," to use your preferred simile, and so nobody else was "bailed out." Only the banksters. Everyone else got salutary lectures on the value of belt-tightening, and sanctimonious heckling about how they must just be unemployed because their benefits are so generous, they'd rather stay on the couch.

Nice turnabout. Actually, I've always maintained that if government actually knew what they were doing, it would be beneficial to allow them to be the spender of last resort. But, what you get instead are debacles like Solyndra, OptiSolar, or potential ones like Tonopah Solar Energy, or Mesquite Solar, etc.

I'm not as convinced that repairing aged infrastructure is as beneficial (economically) as building something that increases market capability (e.g. new power plant, high voltage transmission lines, electric car plant, electric car charging station implementations, etc.). There are tremendous downside risks for bridges and/or tunnels collapsing, but for building an economy they are treading water. Do it if you have to, but they don't move us closer to our goals. Although, much better to do even this than to pay people to do nothing.

(Well, at least we seem to have correctly identified where the Tea Party lives, politically.)

I don't think they've ever been given any serious test of anything. It's very easy to "act to principles" when all you have to do is grandstanding, but governing requires compromise, and they've so far proven incapable of even getting elected, let alone governing.

They certainly are miles away from progressive. But, there are conservative democrats (blue dogs), and conservative libertarians (e.g. Ron Paul). I think the biggest difference is that the tea party hasn't hinged itself to the religious right, or big business, but rather have common cause in fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

[Treesh]

But hey, you're right, we can also think of this as a party! Hellz yeah, the federal government continues to pay us a pittance to survive without work! Woo! Unemployment roolz! Somebody pass the beer bong!

The sad thing is that "pittance" (for some folks) is actually more than what I make. I had a couple of friends lose their jobs over the last year and they both made more on unemployment than what I make by working my 32 hours a week and this is in the same town, similar educational background, work ethic, etc.

I have no real point to this post other than just a minor annoyance that unemployment can pay more than minimum wage so I don't feel too badly for folks when they say they can't get a job (that they want) while still getting paid for being unemployed.

[kandrathe]

The sad thing is that "pittance" (for some folks) is actually more than what I make. I had a couple of friends lose their jobs over the last year and they both made more on unemployment than what I make by working my 32 hours a week and this is in the same town, similar educational background, work ethic, etc.

I have no real point to this post other than just a minor annoyance that unemployment can pay more than minimum wage so I don't feel too badly for folks when they say they can't get a job (that they want) while still getting paid for being unemployed.

I was trying to help a good friend find a job, and I found him 5 opportunities with other friends of mine which I could guarantee him an interview, and for which he was qualified to do. He didn't even apply for any of them since they paid less than what he was making on unemployment. But, he still lost his house. His choice.

Still, anecdotal evidence is not a norm.

[DeeBye]

I have no real point to this post other than just a minor annoyance that unemployment can pay more than minimum wage so I don't feel too badly for folks when they say they can't get a job (that they want) while still getting paid for being unemployed.

Not sure how it is in the US, but in Canada unemployment pays 55% of your last working wages. That's quite a hit.

I hate the attitude that some people have of those on unemployment. They aren't getting free handouts. They are using the system exactly how it was designed to be used. Do these people even know how unemployment works? You pay into it while working, just in case you need to collect from it if you lose your job. Do some people take more than their fair share? Sure, but that thing isn't unique to unemployment and there is no way to solve the problem of greed.

---

He didn't even apply for any of them since they paid less than what he was making on unemployment. But, he still lost his house. His choice.

Just pointing out that he didn't lose his house because he didn't take one of those jobs.

[kandrathe]

I hate the attitude that some people have of those on unemployment. They aren't getting free handouts. They are using the system exactly how it was designed to be used. Do these people even know how unemployment works? You pay into it while working, just in case you need to collect from it if you lose your job. Do some people take more than their fair share? Sure, but that thing isn't unique to unemployment and there is no way to solve the problem of greed.

It's not unemployment (funded by unemployment insurance paid by businesses), per se, but extending the benefit (at tax payer expense) into perpetuity to which I object.

When does unemployment just become unlimited welfare?

Another comparison. Back in 1983, I was laid off during the recession, and I filed for unemployment. In order to get it, I had to keep copies of all the applications and a log of all companies I had dealt with. They gave me a list of potential companies which I had to apply to as well (even if I didn't really want to work at them). I had to show real proof that I was really trying to get a job. In 2008, again laid off, I collected 40 weeks of unemployment @ about $400 a week and didn't have to show squat to get it. Even for myself... I didn't really get serious about getting another job until the down side consequences were dire enough.

[DeeBye]

It's not unemployment (funded by unemployment insurance paid by businesses), per se, but extending the benefit (at tax payer expense) into perpetuity to which I object.

When does unemployment just become unlimited welfare?

Another comparison. Back in 1983, I was laid off during the recession, and I filed for unemployment. In order to get it, I had to keep copies of all the applications and a log of all companies I had dealt with. They gave me a list of potential companies which I had to apply to as well (even if I didn't really want to work at them). I had to show real proof that I was really trying to get a job. In 2008, again laid off, I collected 40 weeks of unemployment @ about $400 a week and didn't have to show squat to get it. Even for myself... I didn't really get serious about getting another job until the down side consequences were dire enough.

Things must be different in the US then. My paycheque shows exactly how much I contribute to EI (Employment Insurance, same as your unemployment). As far as I know the business itself doesn't pay for it.

Collecting EI here means you have to show proof of a current job search, and there is a limit to how many weeks you can collect EI benefits.

[Occhidiangela]

I thought this thread was about the jagovs in the Westboro Baptist Church.

*Insert a picture of a train running off the rails here.*

[DeeBye]

I thought this thread was about the jagovs in the Westboro Baptist Church.

*Insert a picture of a train running off the rails here.*

This is pretty much what happens to every Lurker Lounge thread when certain people start making appearances.

Back on topic, those Westboro Baptist people sure are crazy!

[Treesh]

I have no real point to this post other than just a minor annoyance that unemployment can pay more than minimum wage so I don't feel too badly for folks when they say they can't get a job (that they want) while still getting paid for being unemployed.

Not sure how it is in the US, but in Canada unemployment pays 55% of your last working wages. That's quite a hit.

I hate the attitude that some people have of those on unemployment. They aren't getting free handouts. They are using the system exactly how it was designed to be used. Do these people even know how unemployment works? You pay into it while working, just in case you need to collect from it if you lose your job. Do some people take more than their fair share? Sure, but that thing isn't unique to unemployment and there is no way to solve the problem of greed.

It is quite a hit and I never got angry at any of my friends who ended up out of work and still making more than I am. It just bothers me a bit that folks seem to feel so much is their right rather than a privilege, that luxuries become needs, so when they do take a hit in the wallet that's more than what they are used to it becomes "Oh the world isn't fair! I can't live off of this!" when there are so many others who are living off of less every day (although in my case, it's because of my own choices and actions so I really can't complain that I have it bad. I've got everything I need and I love my life. =) ). And some of those same people are the ones who fight against anyone else getting to taste some of those little luxuries, like not having to worry about being able to pay for regular doctor/dentist checkups or choose between eating and a doctor's visit.

Just a little rant against the whole "I am undone for I have not everything I'm used to, but it's still far more than a lot of other people have".

Edit: Missed a couple of keystrokes here and there. I know, I know. It's horribly shocking.

[kandrathe]

Back on topic, those Westboro Baptist people sure are crazy!

They'd be unemployed if it weren't for their frivolous lawsuits.

[DeeBye]

They'd be unemployed if it weren't for their frivolous lawsuits.

They are truly living the American Dream.

[kandrathe]

They are truly living their American Dream.

I added a couple letters for you.

Their life would be my nightmare.



God hates ponies.

[eppie]

It is quite a hit and I never got angry at any of my friends who ended up out of work and still making more than I am. It just bothers me a bit that folks seem to feel so much is their right rather than a privilege, that luxuries become needs, so when they do take a hit in the wallet that's more than what they are used to it becomes "Oh the world isn't fair! I can't live off of this!" when there are so many others who are living off of less every day (although in my case, it's because of my own choices and actions so I really can't complain that I have it bad. I've got everything I need and I love my life. =) ). And some of those same people are the ones who fight against anyone else getting to taste some of those little luxuries, like not having to worry about being able to pay for regular doctor/dentist checkups or choose between eating and a doctor's visit.

Just a little rant against the whole "I am undone for I have not everything I'm used to, but it's still far more than a lot of other people have".

Edit: Missed a couple of keystrokes here and there. I know, I know. It's horribly shocking.

I think you are using examples, extreme examples, to prove a point.
There will always be people who don't really need these benefits, misuse benefits or get too much, but that is no reason to be against a certain system. Most of the people deserve their benefits in a sense that society tries to support the ones that are worst of (and as deebye pointed out, they probably have paid taxes for it when the still worked).

I personally rather have some people getting unemployment benefits who don't really deserve it then having more people being poor because the can't get any help.

In India those people that dismantle old ships, make long hours under bad circumstances. They don't get old because of dangers and poverty, they will never have the chance of becoming a hardworking CEO with bonus package........yes there are always people that are worse of.

[Lissa]

It is quite a hit and I never got angry at any of my friends who ended up out of work and still making more than I am. It just bothers me a bit that folks seem to feel so much is their right rather than a privilege, that luxuries become needs, so when they do take a hit in the wallet that's more than what they are used to it becomes "Oh the world isn't fair! I can't live off of this!" when there are so many others who are living off of less every day (although in my case, it's because of my own choices and actions so I really can't complain that I have it bad. I've got everything I need and I love my life. =) ). And some of those same people are the ones who fight against anyone else getting to taste some of those little luxuries, like not having to worry about being able to pay for regular doctor/dentist checkups or choose between eating and a doctor's visit.

Just a little rant against the whole "I am undone for I have not everything I'm used to, but it's still far more than a lot of other people have".

Edit: Missed a couple of keystrokes here and there. I know, I know. It's horribly shocking.

I think you are using examples, extreme examples, to prove a point.
There will always be people who don't really need these benefits, misuse benefits or get too much, but that is no reason to be against a certain system. Most of the people deserve their benefits in a sense that society tries to support the ones that are worst of (and as deebye pointed out, they probably have paid taxes for it when the still worked).

I personally rather have some people getting unemployment benefits who don't really deserve it then having more people being poor because the can't get any help.

In India those people that dismantle old ships, make long hours under bad circumstances. They don't get old because of dangers and poverty, they will never have the chance of becoming a hardworking CEO with bonus package........yes there are always people that are worse of.

Just an FYI, in India, they work 48 hours a week and no more (six 8 hour days). It is a law in India that no one can work more than 8 hours in a single day (and before you ask, I have a number of Indian friends that have relatives still in India along with dealing with folks from the Chennai India center for Verizon). That doesn't mean that some of the jobs aren't hazardous, but they don't work OT...ever...

[Jester]

Just an FYI, in India, they work 48 hours a week and no more (six 8 hour days). It is a law in India that no one can work more than 8 hours in a single day (and before you ask, I have a number of Indian friends that have relatives still in India along with dealing with folks from the Chennai India center for Verizon). That doesn't mean that some of the jobs aren't hazardous, but they don't work OT...ever...

This does not sound right. India is certainly famous for ridiculously restrictive labour laws, but zero overtime? An absolute, legislated 8/48 cap? I get quite a lot of references to overtime in India with a quick google.

Are you sure you are correct about this?

-Jester

[Lissa]

Just an FYI, in India, they work 48 hours a week and no more (six 8 hour days). It is a law in India that no one can work more than 8 hours in a single day (and before you ask, I have a number of Indian friends that have relatives still in India along with dealing with folks from the Chennai India center for Verizon). That doesn't mean that some of the jobs aren't hazardous, but they don't work OT...ever...

This does not sound right. India is certainly famous for ridiculously restrictive labour laws, but zero overtime? An absolute, legislated 8/48 cap? I get quite a lot of references to overtime in India with a quick google.

Are you sure you are correct about this?

-Jester

That's what I'm being told and what I've encountered while dealing with our (Verizon's) center in Chennai.

India has some very wacky labor laws. For instance, my friend Jassi and his wife went back to India to see the family, Jassi's brother wanted to know an exact date for when the family was getting together so he could take a day off either Saturday or Monday. Jassi asked him why he, his brother, just didn't take off both days to which his brother responded that if he took off both Saturday and Monday, he would have to take Sunday as a vacation not, not as a normal off day (and that's a mandated law as well).

[Treesh]

I think you are using examples, extreme examples, to prove a point.

Nope, because I'm not trying to prove a point. I specifically stated that my initial post had no point and I still stick by that. I don't want unemployment to go away. I honestly don't really care if the system is being abused or not or if it's working wonderfully or not. It's this sense of entitlement to everything someone wants that bugs me, especially when we have folks who struggle to get their basic needs. I could go into long rants about how I could make everything better if I was in charge, but honestly, all the political, socio-economic discussions that go on here are nothing more than mental masturbation without doing anything to back it up. We have these discussion because the folks here get enjoyment out of it (which is a good thing), but ultimately it comes to nothing without doing something to back it up. So, I don't join in except to throw in a couple of comments here and there without trying to prove things one way or the other. Besides, who's to say my opinions are "correct"? I could be wrong about a lot of things and what works for me doesn't work for everyone so I don't try to force my point of view onto others but rather just try to explain my own thoughts on the matter, although I never have had good luck communicating those thoughts.

[kandrathe]

...all the political, socio-economic discussions that go on here are nothing more than mental masturbation without doing anything to back it up.

Yikes!

In flagrante delicto...

Actually, I like to discuss these things as a way to complete my thoughts and have others poke holes in them. I learn quite a bit, and it forces me to do a little research into areas I otherwise would not. I more or less think about it more as casual talk around the coffee table.

Xbox is mental masturbation for me.