Damn right!

Everyone who is jobless is obviously lazy!

/It's "logic" somewhere, I'm sure.

Is this a typo?

The change would have increased the rate at which employers pay into the state unemployment trust fund by up to $4.50 more a worker a year, according to the governor's office

and:

Virginia provides some of the lowest unemployment benefits in the country. Employers pay an average of $98 per worker a year for unemployment insurance. The national average is $258.

If not, then I'm not sure their plan (cunning) was thought in a completely, shall we say 'full' fashion.

We need the House of Burgesses back.

Unemployed voters to Virginia Assembly: you're fired, go find an honest job.

In their defense, if you're part time, you're not unemployed.

Yeah, Republicans, being against expanded unemployment benefits in the worst job market in at least 25 years is a real winner of a strategy.

Because jobs are just so plentiful right now.

So if I work two part time jobs then I'm full time!
/with all the great benefits

eddyatwork: Because jobs are just so plentiful right now.

On the other hand, I have seen some people be WAY over reliant on Job Service to find them a job. Even people who were rather desperate to find work. No initiative to actually go out on their own and look for something that's not listed at Job Service. If Job Service can't find them a job, then there must not be anything out there.

Not saying that everyone is like that, just pointing out that aspect.

The GOP-controlled House of Delegates, a fiscally conservative body that has long opposed fundamental changes to laws that extend such benefits, killed the proposal after members argued it would translate into higher taxes for businesses once the supply of stimulus money was exhausted.

Sounds like a good reason to me -- that stimulus money won't be flowing forever.

UnkoPatrol: So if I work two part time jobs then I'm full time!

No. It's means you're a greedy job hoarder. You should quit one so someone else can have it.

KaponoFor3: Sounds like a good reason to me -- that stimulus money won't be flowing forever.

Hi!

The change would have increased the rate at which employers pay into the state unemployment trust fund by up to $4.50 more a worker a year, according to the governor's office

Virginia provides some of the lowest unemployment benefits in the country. Employers pay an average of $98 per worker a year for unemployment insurance. The national average is $258.

How to get rid of unemployment, forever:
Get rid of minimum wage.

It's so simple it's scary.

KaponoFor3: Sounds like a good reason to me -- that stimulus money won't be flowing forever.

Seems pretty dumb to let people suffer in a really bad recession because you will have to raise taxes in the future. That seems exactly what *should* happen, actually.

Hank Rearden: Get rid of minimum wage.

Is your assertion that in countries with no minimum wage laws, there is no unemployment?

Ah, the GOP, telling the poor to go fark themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps like their rich asses did for the last 40 years.

Obdicut: Hank Rearden: Get rid of minimum wage.

Is your assertion that in countries with no minimum wage laws, there is no unemployment?

YUP. Provided they are economically liberal and freedom loving.

Commies don't count.

Oh man, there is just way too much comedy gold in this whole thing. I think I need to go lie down.

Hank Rearden: YUP. Provided they are economically liberal and freedom loving.

So prior to 1912, there was no unemployment in the US?

Hank Rearden: Obdicut: Hank Rearden: Get rid of minimum wage.

Is your assertion that in countries with no minimum wage laws, there is no unemployment?

YUP. Provided they are economically liberal and freedom loving.

Commies don't count.

It also requires a perfectly competitive market, which is relatively rare.

The change to Virginia's unemployment system would have allowed thousands of residents who work part time or are in approved job training programs to be eligible to receive benefits

Well....OK. We are already running a monumental deficit. If you have a job, I think you get money after the jobless get their full dispensation. Take that money and spend it on something that creates jobs or give it to the jobless, that's my preference.

Also, Timmy needs to know his role. This helps.

50mm: It also requires a perfectly competitive market, which is relatively rare. has never existed in reality and will never exist in reality

Fixed that for ya.

Obdicut: 50mm: It also requires a perfectly competitive market, which is relatively rare. has never existed in reality and will never exist in reality

Fixed that for ya.

That was my gift to whoever wanted to connect the dots.

Obdicut: Hank Rearden: YUP. Provided they are economically liberal and freedom loving.

So prior to 1912, there was no unemployment in the US?

I don't know. You tell me.

Obdicut: Hi!

Yes I read that part of the article. Your point?

DamnYankees: Seems pretty dumb to let people suffer in a really bad recession because you will have to raise taxes in the future. That seems exactly what *should* happen, actually.

Well I must respectfully disagree.

Hank Rearden: I don't know. You tell me.

Rand Troll is randy.

50mm: Hank Rearden: Obdicut: Hank Rearden: Get rid of minimum wage.

Is your assertion that in countries with no minimum wage laws, there is no unemployment?

YUP. Provided they are economically liberal and freedom loving.

Commies don't count.

It also requires a perfectly competitive market, which is relatively rare.

True. I know exactly where this convo is going, and I will bow out gracefully...

/bye bye
//don't feel like debating the welfare state today

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Hank Rearden: I don't know. You tell me.

Rand Troll is randy.

Rand troll wants to point out that minimum wage was invented to keep negroes from working in Long Island.

But they tik er jibs!

/the illegal aliens that is

KaponoFor3: Well I must respectfully disagree.

Next time you are starving, don't borry any money because you will have to pay it back. Now, you'll probably die, but at least you won't be in debt.

Hank Rearden: minimum wage was invented to keep negroes from working in Long Island

Long Island, Australia? Or Long Island, Massachusetts? I'm confused.

DamnYankees: Next time you are starving, don't borry any money because you will have to pay it back. Now, you'll probably die, but at least you won't be in debt.

People are starving to death now?

[Citation needed]

Don't worry -- I won't "borry" any money.

Is now a good time to point out that the introduction of min wage and its various increases never increased unemployment nor lead to inflation? Cause it seems like it is.

KaponoFor3: People are starving to death now?

[Citation needed]

So you've now changed your argument. No longer is it "don't borrow money to help problems now", its "things really aren't so bad right now".

And you wonder why your economic philosophy is dying.

WhyteRaven74: Is now a good time to point out that the introduction of min wage and its various increases never increased unemployment nor lead to inflation? Cause it seems like it is.

I'm actually more surprised that people haven't been using the minimum wage increases over the last couple years as blame for this crisis. Just like how Clinton's increase in minimum wage caused the horrifying crisis of a positive budget.

KaponoFor3: Obdicut: Hi!

Yes I read that part of the article. Your point?

DamnYankees: Seems pretty dumb to let people suffer in a really bad recession because you will have to raise taxes in the future. That seems exactly what *should* happen, actually.

Well I must respectfully disagree.

Must be nice to not be effected by the current situation. You selfish farking prick.

Hank Rearden: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Hank Rearden: I don't know. You tell me.

Rand Troll is randy.

Rand troll wants to point out that minimum wage was invented to keep negroes from working in Long Island.

... what?

KaponoFor3: Yes I read that part of the article. Your point?

That the taxes paid by employers in West Virginia for unemployment insurance are well below the national average, and that the increase would be nowhere near enough to bring them even close to the national average.

Did that somehow escape you? Or are you taking a principled ideological stand against the very concept of state-run unemployment insurance in the first place?

DamnYankees: So you've now changed your argument. No longer is it "don't borrow money to help problems now", its "things really aren't so bad right now".

And you wonder why your economic philosophy is dying.

I'm not changing my argument at all. I quoted from the article, saying increased costs for businesses in the future when stimulus monies run out is a good reason, IMO, not to take that stimulus money to extend benefits in the first place.

I'm not the one that brought up people starving -- you did. Are you just pulling things out of thin air, or is there really evidence that unemployed people in Virginia are starving to death?

GWLush: Must be nice to not be effected by the current situation. You selfish farking prick

That's right ladies and gentlemen, if you are against this you must be a selfish prick!

KaponoFor3: I'm not the one that brought up people starving -- you did. Are you just pulling things out of thin air, or is there really evidence that unemployed people in Virginia are starving to death?

You seriously don't know that hunger in America is a huge farking problem?

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

KaponoFor3: I quoted from the article, saying increased costs for businesses in the future when stimulus monies run out is a good reason, IMO, not to take that stimulus money to extend benefits in the first place.

How do you know its a good reason? What about what Obdicut showed you that the increase would be small and still way below average?

KaponoFor3: I'm not the one that brought up people starving -- you did. Are you just pulling things out of thin air, or is there really evidence that unemployed people in Virginia are starving to death?

I don't the safety net need kick in only at starvation. I'd like to know at what point you think the safety net ought to kick in, though. I can gather you don't want people to starve, though - right? So you should be in favor of food stamps at the very least.

Obdicut: That the taxes paid by employers in West Virginia for unemployment insurance are well below the national average, and that the increase would be nowhere near enough to bring them even close to the national average.

Virginia, not West Virginia.

That state is allowed to choose how it wants to make itself attractive to businesses, and this state chooses to do so by keeping taxes on business low. That's the decision of the state -- it makes sense to me, even if other people view it as selfish.

Did that somehow escape you? Or are you taking a principled ideological stand against the very concept of state-run unemployment insurance in the first place?

I can support certain versions of state run unemployment insurance, but I don't have any real details about Virginia's other than what the article provides.

Obdicut: You seriously don't know that hunger in America is a huge farking problem?

Interesting links but they don't speak specifically to Virginia, which is what this article is about.

DamnYankees: I don't the safety net need kick in only at starvation. I'd like to know at what point you think the safety net ought to kick in, though. I can gather you don't want people to starve, though - right? So you should be in favor of food stamps at the very least.

I do not want people to starve (contrary to what some here apparently think). I support food stamp programs so long as the food stamps can only be used for, you know, actual food. That doesn't get into the issue of when food stamps are traded for cash or other items on the black market though, but I think that is an unavoidable consequence of such a program.

KaponoFor3: That state is allowed to choose how it wants to make itself attractive to businesses, and this state chooses to do so by keeping taxes on business low. That's the decision of the state -- it makes sense to me, even if other people view it as selfish.

So you're just going to disappear in a poof of 'state's rights'?


I can support certain versions of state run unemployment insurance,

Really? I thought you wanted people to keep 100% of their income? Would this be an example of something that you think it's okay to take money from people to support?

KaponoFor3: I do not want people to starve (contrary to what some here apparently think). I support food stamp programs so long as the food stamps can only be used for, you know, actual food. That doesn't get into the issue of when food stamps are traded for cash or other items on the black market though, but I think that is an unavoidable consequence of such a program.

I was once in line behind a man who was quite upset his food stamps wouldn't buy beer and lottery tickets. I had a hard time not laughing.

/cool story bro

50mm: I was once in line behind a man who was quite upset his food stamps wouldn't buy beer and lottery tickets. I had a hard time not laughing.

Did he try the "liquid bread" argument?

Obdicut: So you're just going to disappear in a poof of 'state's rights'?

I may disappear later because work, but are you telling me you don't believe in the right of a state to choose what level of unemployment benefits to provide? Should that be a federal mandate?

On the whole, are you in favor of more governmental power being in the hands of the federal government or the respective state governments?

Obdicut: Really? I thought you wanted people to keep 100% of their income? Would this be an example of something that you think it's okay to take money from people to support?

No see this is you telling me what position I believe in again. I never said that I believe people shouldn't be taxed on their income -- what I did say is that people should have a right to their income first, and start from the position that any taxes should be justified by the government taking their money rather than starting from the assumption that the individual should have to justify to the government why their money should not be taken.

50mm: I was once in line behind a man who was quite upset his food stamps wouldn't buy beer and lottery tickets. I had a hard time not laughing.

Case in point.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: So you've now changed your argument. No longer is it "don't borrow money to help problems now", its "things really aren't so bad right now".

And you wonder why your economic philosophy is dying.

I'm not changing my argument at all. I quoted from the article, saying increased costs for businesses in the future when stimulus monies run out is a good reason, IMO, not to take that stimulus money to extend benefits in the first place.

I'm not the one that brought up people starving -- you did. Are you just pulling things out of thin air, or is there really evidence that unemployed people in Virginia are starving to death?

GWLush: Must be nice to not be effected by the current situation. You selfish farking prick

That's right ladies and gentlemen, if you are against this you must be a selfish prick!

Damn right you are a selfish prick. Most of your ilk are. Unless they find themselves on the other side of employment and then they are "gimmee gimmee". You could care less about the poor or the unemployed in this country. Just admit it.

KaponoFor3: 50mm: I was once in line behind a man who was quite upset his food stamps wouldn't buy beer and lottery tickets. I had a hard time not laughing.

Case in point.

Yes. Case in point. Someone that was unable to abuse the system.