Anyone but Obama

I said "your type", not you personally. So I did not in fact make the assetion that you assumed I did, but you took it that way. Now, if I were like you, I would keep saying "show me where I said that"...but it's not my thing .

 

What's the difference? Sounds like you've made an accusation you don't have the balls to back up. You're losing it dude.

 

So why have you been arguing about the Welfare Reform Act?. Yes, both Social Security and Medicare are needed, but they both need drastic revision. When SS was set up, the average life span was about 60 and it began at age 65. Now with the average age of ~80, why does it still begin at age 65?

As for your second part, a person making 20,000 a year working 6 to 9 months is below the poverty line. So if you "revamp the entire process to keep those making anything over the poverty-line, or maybe 1-1/2 times the poverty-line", that would include an average family making $35,000 and could be somewhere north of $40,000 (depending on the family size). BTW, those figures are accurate. Go look them up if you don't believe me. Your $20,000 sounds perfectly reasonable to me. My guess is that would cut unemployment in half or more. Go for it.

 

I know you guys hate to see comparisons being made that reflect badly on you... but you both are pretty extreme in your opinions, and refuse to see if differing opinions have any merit. Hitler was like that too lol.... and yeah, NOW I am directly stating that both of you have some of the same characteristics as Hitler... he never thought his ideas were bad either.

But I know how much you'd like me to avoid making that type of comparison ...so I'll judge you on your actions.

I find you both Guilty ...of intentional ignorance... of hypocracy... and deceit. There is no fine involved, no penalty of any kind, only my comment/opinion that both of you are about as unreasonable as it gets.

 

How are you confusing "your type" with "David, you are"? ...the answer is because you choose not to see the diffenece.... which means you are ignorant. You are ignoring the obvious answer. But I don't expect you to agree.

 

The poverty guideline is at $10,890 for one person. In my area that would be just enough to get by, but that's it. In a city the amount needed is significantly more. In my area, anyone making $15,000 should be fine, but on the edge. At $20,000 people can begin to save money in banks, etc.

 

I understand it's hard for a lib to grasp the concept of core values & principles but in the real world many people hold them....and they weren't typically formed recently based on what some half wit says on a forum. In your world, anyone with an opinion is extreme and anyone you can't sway with weak, poorly thought out comments is a Hitler. Hmmmm.....I believe this says more about you than it does the targets of your ire.

 

Fine! There aren't too many singles like that but I have no problems with those figures.

Now, how about the second part of my question

 

So now you see the words and understand them, then attack me as a coward for not saying what you found so offensive directly at you. The only thing I'm losing is respect for you and rlm for being too unreasonable to discuss issues with.

 

I don't think I'll be losing any sleep, what about you rlm?

 

Let me see! I ask you to support your opinion, showed you where you have misunderstood me, agreed with you unemployment suggestion, listened to you compare me to Hitler, listened to you call me hypocritical and closed minded, and call me "****ing extremist's head", but you say I am "being too unreasonable to discuss issues with". I think this thread shows exactly what has been going on.

 

Not in the least. In fact I will sleep better knowing we have backed another liberal into a corner trying to avoid answering to logic.

 

Yep, you don't need my opinion, and you don't even want to consider them. That's intentional ignorance.

You should remember that I have agreed with you on some points in the past, and still will ...despite your obstinance.

So, label me a lib, I don't care, but the "core values & principles" part is wrong, though I don't expect you to be able to see how, and this time I'm not going to explain it to you...

...and it's 3/4 wit...

 

I agree ...though you made some misstatements... and the occasional lie ....to support your views.

 

...'till then I consider both of you to be too extreme to listen to reason and will treat you as I see fit

 

I would ask you to support that, but I have learned. Yep, you don't need my opinion, and you don't even want to consider them. That's intentional ignorance. Still waiting for:

 

The previous conversation is pointless. In order to move the discussion to a more sensible place, someone has to stop being a ****, but no one is budging. Fine. I'll do it.

I agree with some parts of David and rlm's opinions on unemployment. I agree that there are people that abuse it, and that needs to change. I'll disagree on anything that hurts those near the poverty line ($10,890 for a single person, $22,350 for a family of four).

What should be done to reform it and keep the abusers off unemployment? I suggested we limit the ability to pay into and receive unemployment benefits for those working roughly 1-1/2 times the poverty line (according to the number of people in you family). That would amount to a single person being able to receive unemployment benefits up to an annual income of roughly $16,500, while a person in a family of four could receive benefits with an annual income of roughly $33,500. Anyone making more money than that in a year would not be able to receive benefits.

There are problems with that kind of plan though, like when a family member is no longer in the home or another is added. In Michigan, the employer pays a tax on the first $9000 that an employee earns. I'd say if an employer pays his employees well enough, and could reasonably assume that unemployment benefits would not be applied for by his employees, then he should be exempted from that tax.... though at tax-time as a refund.

The basic premise is sound though, that at a certain income (not necessarily 1-1/2 time the poverty line) you would no longer be eligible for benefits.

Anyone else have a reasonable opinion or idea?

 

Enough. We all are guilty to some extent.

 

I think I see our philosophical difference. You wish to treat the sympton while I think we should treat the disease. Your mission is to protect people at the poverty line while I would like to create an environment where people never get to that point. If we expect people to act responsibly & be self reliant it has to start early in life. Some people are satisfied living in poverty & they do it by choice. These folks shouldn't be pitied & do not deserve handouts.

 

I said I agree with your premises about unemployment, but you "agree with some parts of David and rlm's opinions on unemployment." Are you saying you disagree with my agreeing with your earlier statement? Huh? And, I am sorry, but I am totally unfamiliar with Michigan law so I cannot comment.