Romney's "Very Poor" Choice Of Words
I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor -- we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich -- they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. ... I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.
--Mitt Romney, in an interview with CNN's Soledad O'Brien
Mitt Romney's gaffe last week (reproduced in full, above) is going to wind up the "gaffe that keeps on giving" for Barack Obama and the Democrats in this election cycle. Because the more Romney's comment is examined and dissected, the worse it looks for him. This could, in fact, be the defining moment for Mitt Romney as a national political presence. That phrase is often bandied about in politics, but I use it here in the full literal sense of "defining moment" -- a point in time which absolutely cements an image in the public mind of who you are and what you stand for as a politician. The image, quite obviously, is not a good one for Romney.
The statement caused an initial media frenzy, which almost exclusively focused on the sound bite -- "I'm not concerned about the very poor" -- which was being spliced into Democratic ads before the sun had even set. Even Newt Gingrich piled on that part of Romney's statement, fulminating that anyone running for president should have the good sense to be concerned with all Americans (or at least say so in public, for Pete's sake). This is Politics 101, folks, and the fact that it took Newt Gingrich to point it out to Romney was highly amusing to Lefties everywhere.
Romney desperately tried to spin his statement, and wound up floundering: "You've got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying -- and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different." Um, well, that would be true of just about any political gaffe, wouldn't it? If you got to go back and re-edit your own words in such a manner, then gaffes wouldn't even exist. Unfortunately for Mitt, they do.
Romney, of course, is going to complain loudly when the "not concerned about the very poor" soundbite is used against him in ads, but he simply has no leg to stand on when it comes to "context." He has no credibility on the subject, and no moral high road to take. He has already, in this election, run an ad of Barack Obama saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." What Obama said -- with context -- was actually the exact opposite: "Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." Romney's campaign, when the ad came out, defended its use, saying "We used that quote intentionally." So good luck begging for context in political ads now, guys.
Even more unfortunately for Mitt, the out-of-touch and elitist image this gaffe conjures up is exactly the image a lot of folks already had of Romney. He appears to many as the type of guy who has no idea who the "very poor" are, or how they live. The only way a guy like Mitt Romney interacts with poor people -- when not actually on the campaign trail -- is either in an employer/employee relationship (as with the domestic help in his multiple houses), or a patron/servant relationship (the valet parking his car, the busboy clearing his table, or perhaps a ski lift operator). Neither breeds any sort of real understanding of what it is like to occupy this rung of the social ladder in Mitt -- or, for that matter, the fears many middle-class folks have of being one financial emergency away from a dive headfirst into that safety net. The man has lived in a bubble for almost his entire life -- and it shows.
But while most of the attention so far has been focused on the "out of touch" nature of Mitt's "very poor" choice of words, the real damage to Mitt as a Republican candidate stems from how he attempted to explain what he really meant. Ignore the soundbite/gaffe part of Mitt's statement, and things get even worse for him among his party's base. Chalk this one up as a victory for the Occupy Wall Street movement, because all of a sudden the Republican Party as a whole was having a debate about their party's poverty policies. In a million years, I never could have imagined that happening without the outside force of the Occupiers changing the frame of the nation's political debate. Think about it: when is the last time any Republican used the word "poor" in any political speech? For the life of me, I certainly can't remember it, unless it was some part of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" flim-flam that my subconscious has just completely blocked out.
Which brings me to my main point -- Mitt's explanation for his bad soundbite was extraordinary because it used the framing of Democrats. Mitt is arguing his point on a field created and defended by Democrats -- not the usual Republican language. This is stunning, because Republicans are normally so adept at speaking of just about any issue in their own private terminology. It's also stunning because it is such a losing position for Romney to take.
First, the language. Republicans never say "poor" (as I've already mentioned), much less "very poor." As far as conservatives are concerned, poor people either (1) deserve what they get in life because of their own bad choices, (2) are lazy and cheating the system to get a free ride through life, or (3) are budding conservative heroes, because we all live in a Horatio Alger novel and just need to grasp strongly on those bootstraps and pull.
But Mitt's bigger error wasn't saying "very poor," it was in fact using the term "safety net" -- over and over again. And then doubling down on his error, by promising to "fix the holes" in the safety net, if it "needs repair." This is where Mitt's playing ball on a Democratic field, and not just because it fits in so perfectly with the campaign Barack Obama is teeing up to run, either. Republicans, as a general rule, never speak of the "safety net" unless in seriously derisive terms. They prefer, instead, to speak of the "culture of dependence" or people who use "entitlements" (Marc A. Thiessen has a good example of this over at the Washington Post today, for reference, complete with reverent Ronald Reagan genuflections).
The weakness for Romney is that his statement -- ignoring the gaffe, and giving him all the context he wants us to consider -- is absolutely laughable, on the face of it. This is what comes from playing on the opposition's turf. Because Republicans today are all about "entitlement reform" -- which means, stripped of its own spin, "less money for the safety net." This basic disconnect cannot be reconciled with Romney's statement, no matter how much context we add. It is necessary to commit an act of doublethink to even try. Romney is for Paul Ryan's budget. The Ryan budget shrinks the safety net. So how, exactly, is Romney going to "fix" the safety net? How will making seniors pay an extra $6,000 a year for health insurance do that? How will cutting funds to Medicaid fix things? How is giving the ultra-wealthy (which you also say you're "not concerned with") another round of tax breaks going to fix the safety net, Mitt? Please explain, with figures and budget projections to back your claims up. Anytime you're ready....
These are the questions some intrepid reporter needs to ask Mitt Romney, and soon. Because talking about the "safety net" was Mitt's real "very poor" choice of words. You want to talk about the safety net, Mitt? OK, then let's talk about the safety net -- and your proposals to fix the holes in it. That would, indeed be a conversation worth having. And if the media doesn't ask Mitt, I'm sure Obama eventually will -- the first time they face each other in a debate.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
As I have said for Gingrich and Cain, Romney will do just fine for a nominee. Pass the popcorn.
perhaps this is why the romney campaign hasn't let him answer any questions lately. brilliantly written post CW, clear and insightful. this is the kind of writing that reminds me why i came to stop by here so frequently in the first place. now hold on while i get this brown stuff off my nose...
CW-
You definitely hit it. And Newt called him on it. It's kind of sad actually that Republicans will see Romney as a liberal for any mention at all of a social safety net.
If he wasn't playing "who's the most conservative" so hard, Romney doesn't seem like such a bad guy. But he's not so good at playing to the base. Why?
I think part of the problem conservatives face is that they've dug such a deep hole with their Ayn Randian rhetoric, that just about anyone who isn't reciting John Galt sounds like a liberal.
-David
OK, everyone -
Thanks for the kind words. I do have to admit, I'm entering into an intense phase in my book project where I'm seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and pushing hard to get to the goal, so I probably will not have a lot of time to be answering comments the next two or three weeks or so. Just fair warning, I'm not ignoring you and I still make time to read every comment everyone writes, but I'm bearing down on getting a book proposal ready and so have to apologize in advance if my participation here gets a little sketchy in the weeks to come. Tuesdays and Thursdays may get a little thin, too, in the article department (well, even thinner than they've been of late...).
Anyway, just wanted to thank you for the support in the meantime. I love to write articles like today's, on the generic theme of: "Everybody's reading the situation WRONG, and HERE'S WHY:" and will continue doing so in the meantime, never fear...
-CW
Personally, I think the Left is trying to put TOO much emphasis on Romney's "very poor" remark...
Basically what Romney said (at least, what *I* take away from his comment) is that there are mechanisms in place to help the very poor. The very rich obviously don't need any help..
Romney seems to be saying that he is concerned about the Middle Class. That's the class that doesn't have the resources of the very rich nor the safety net of the very poor.
THAT's the class of people that government needs to be concerned..
That's what Romney is saying..
Call me silly, but I would have thought ya'all would have AGREED with that...
Now, if the Left wants to make the argument about the "safety net", they do so at their own peril...
Because Obama and the Democrats have been "fixing" the safety net for 3 years now...
And THAT has made things worse for ALL Americans..
Even Obama himself has said so...
Speaking of Obama... Looks like he has embraced the Citizens United ruling... So much for it being the epitome of evil, eh??
Again, I have to ask.. What will Obama have to do to lose ya'alls support??
Declare himself a Republican??? :D
Michale
It's all over the InterWebs: Romney does not have conservative instincts. And I really believe the pundits have (for the first time in a LOOOOOOOONG time) hit the nail on the head.
It is incoceivable to me that Newt, Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, McConnell, Boehner or any other elected Republican I can think of (including Scott Brown) would use the term "safety net" in any kind of admiring light.
Maybe I'm wrong, but can anyone here name an elected R (Senator, Governor, or Congressman who is not from NY or the NE) who could say such a thing? And I don't mean that as snark, its an honest question.
Michale,
Basically what Romney said (at least, what *I* take away from his comment) is that there are mechanisms in place to help the very poor. The very rich obviously don't need any help.
Oh, my God, Michale, I haven't had such a hearty laugh as what that brought on for a very long time. Probably since the last time you said something so inherently funny. :)
Oh, my God, Michale, I haven't had such a hearty laugh as what that brought on for a very long time. Probably since the last time you said something so inherently funny.
probably since michale has been elsewhere most of the week. he totally missed DF's anti-michale rant in FTP 195.
"When I wake up in the morning I go thru a litany of pain that reminds me of Michale."
~DerFarm
RE: "Very Poor"
yes, obviously mitt didn't really mean he doesn't care about the poor. that would be political suicide. but he did demonstrate once again that he has zero understanding or empathy for the difficulties that regular americans face. as CW wrote, romney first of all has no moral leg to stand on when it comes to others taking him out of context, and second of all was basically admitting that all those "entitlements" (which the Right loves to hate and wants to get rid of) are actually a good thing.
~joshua
joshua,
...probably since michale has been elsewhere most of the week. he totally missed DF's anti-michale rant in FTP 195.
Oh, I'm quite sure Michale did not miss that rant ... a rant which, by the way, I found to be an almost clinical reflection on the writer. Michale is a very strong person to be able to ignore it. I could not.
Liz,
Oh, my God, Michale, I haven't had such a hearty laugh as what that brought on for a very long time. Probably since the last time you said something so inherently funny. :)
"It's funny because it's true..."
-Homer Simpson
:D
Joshua,
probably since michale has been elsewhere most of the week. he totally missed DF's anti-michale rant in FTP 195.
Oh, I didn't miss it. DF is one of those people one simply CANNOT debate intellectually with because they use the {fingers in the ears}"nyaaa nyaaa nyaaaa... I'm not listening to you... nyaa nyaa nyaa" debating technique..
In essence, I simply will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.. It would be like dynamiting fish in a barrel... :D
But, speaking of DF, I am confused by one thing he has claimed. DF has stated, for the record, that he "hates" Republicans. Then he goes on to a long laundry list of racism to justify his hatred of anything Right...
Now, here is where I am confused...
All the racist crap he lists... WAS COMMITTED BY DEMOCRATS!!??
So, if I understand DF correctly (and I do more than he will every know.. :D) he "hates" Republicans because of all the racist acts committed by Democrats!!
WTF!!??? (and that doesn't mean "Win The Future")
Please someone explain to me on what bizarro Earth is THAT logical???
yes, obviously mitt didn't really mean he doesn't care about the poor.
One could make the same case that neither does Obama...
but he did demonstrate once again that he has zero understanding or empathy for the difficulties that regular americans face.
See above...
admitting that all those "entitlements" (which the Right loves to hate and wants to get rid of) are actually a good thing.
I don't think anyone on the Right wants to get "rid" of entitlements..
But there DOES need to be some limits... Where is the incentive to work when you can collect unemployment for years and years??
Democrats are creating a slave state where no one has to work... It's like I said before about drug dealers.. They get their customers dependent on them and that will always give them (the customers) the power...
The Left simply wants to give the people fish..
The Right wants to TEACH people to fish..
That's the basic difference...
Liz,
Michale is a very strong person to be able to ignore it. I could not.
Yer too sweet... I was able to ignore it in the same manner I am able to "ignore" my grandson when he acts like a snotty little brat...
I simply consider the source and hope that they grow out of it. :D
hehehehehehehe
Michale
In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/obama-campaign-to-support-super-pac-fundraising/?hpt=hp_t1
Once again, someone tell me the difference between Democrats and Republicans??
It slipped by me again....
Michale
They get their customers dependent on them and that will always give them (the customers) the power...
"Scratch that. Reverse it"
-Gene Wilder, WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
:D
Michale
The Left simply wants to give the people fish..
The Right wants to TEACH people to fish...
no, the Right want people to learn to fish on their own, with no rod, no reel and no training, in a pond with no fish, and starvation when they don't catch anything.
~joshua
Joshua,
no, the Right want people to learn to fish on their own, with no rod, no reel and no training, in a pond with no fish, and starvation when they don't catch anything.
Of course, that's not true, but the mental imagery DID make me laugh... :D
On the other hand, the OTHER end of the spectrum is demonstrably true..
How long is unemployment these days?? One year?? Two???
Where's the incentive to find work???
Food stamps.. Obama's had almost as many people move to food stamps in 3 years than Bush had in TWO TERMS!!?
Unions.. Great thing about unions.. They once were needed to combat corporate greed... Now they epitomize it...
http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/02/07/eag_exclusive_teachers_union_staffers_set_sail_on_7day_caribbean_cruise
I am all for a hand up... But Democrats seem to be basing their ENTIRE agenda on hand outs...
Of course, these handouts ONLY go to those who support Democrats...
Great way to engender political loyalty, but don't count me as one who thinks that it is morally or ethically right...
Michale
On the other hand, the OTHER end of the spectrum is demonstrably true...
How long is unemployment these days?? One year?? Two???
Where's the incentive to find work???
umm, no it's not. the other end of the spectrum is that the Left want to give people a tiny bit of fish, so at least they don't starve to death while they try and find something to fish with. of course it doesn't always work out that way, some folks would rather just subsist on the dole than make something of themselves. however, the Lefty rationale is better that than that they live in the street or turn to crime for survival.
honestly i can't believe you're making me defend the president on this. right now, gainful employment is scarce. since so many people are having their jobs outsourced, their houses illegally foreclosed, and the prices of everything skyrocketing, many people genuinely can't afford to food shop. that's obama's fault?
Unions.. Great thing about unions.. They once were needed to combat corporate greed... Now they epitomize it...
so your solution is to eliminate unions, thereby making workers' lives that much easier? don't get me wrong, there are definitely problems with union leadership, and my own is a prime example - this morning i had to watch a video where the union president stood next to the superintendent promoting a new agreement heavily in management's favor. but these are problems that need to be addressed with a scalpel, not a hacksaw. taking away the power of unions to negotiate pay and working conditions won't make them do a better job of it.
umm, no it's not. the other end of the spectrum is that the Left want to give people a tiny bit of fish,
99 weeks of "fish" is not tiny by ANY stretch of the definition..
And Democrats want to INCREASE that time..
My gods, man.. Almost TWO YEARS of free money???
That's home delivery of fish for the family...
That is NOT a hand up. It's a hand-out pure and simple..
so your solution is to eliminate unions, thereby making workers' lives that much easier?
Unions are no longer needed..
There are so many laws in place that protect workers and employees already. Any deficit in worker safety can be addressed legislatively..
Unions are now part of the problem. Not part of the solution..
taking away the power of unions to negotiate pay and working conditions won't make them do a better job of it.
The problem is, when workers get "better pay", somewhere else in the chain, someone is getting screwed... And it's usually people like you and me...
Unions these days have gotten as greedy and as power-mad as they corporations.. That article on the Union Cruise is a perfect example..
Here's another: Postulate a scenario where you have a school district who needs to fire a teacher. Two teachers are on the cutting block. One is a devout Union member, attends all the Union meetings, pays all the Union dues and then come... This teacher is a screw-up who couldn't teach anyone... The other teacher is the best teacher in the world, but doesn't support the Union..
Who do you think the Union is going to throw to the wolves???
"Ecclesiastes assures us... that there is a time for every purpose under heaven. A time to laugh... and a time to weep. A time to mourn... and there is a time to dance. And there was a time for this law, but not anymore. "
-Kevin Bacon, FOOTLOOSE
There was a time for Unions.. But not anymore.
Legislation can do what Unions used to do. And will do it a LOT more fairly than Unions do it..
Michale....
No one wants to talk about Obama's 180 on the Citizens United/Super PAC issue!???
I am shocked, shocked I tell you!!! :D
We're at war with Eurasia. We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia...
Citizens United/Super PACs are NOT a threat to our democracy. They have NEVER been a threat to our democracy...
Michale
umm, no it's not. the other end of the spectrum is that the Left want to give people a tiny bit of fish,
Dependency Index Shoots Up 23% Under President Obama
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm
That's a buttload of "tiny"....
Michale.....
"You can't say yesterday you don't believe in them and today you have three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change at election time. You've got to look at how do they act when it's not convenient, when it's harder."
-Candidate Barack Obama, talking about PACs.
I have to ask??
How many words of Obama's are gonna come back and bite him on the arse???
Michale.....
Unions are no longer needed..
There are so many laws in place that protect workers and employees already. Any deficit in worker safety can be addressed legislatively..
Unions are now part of the problem. Not part of the solution..
that entire statement is just flat untrue. labor laws do not even begin to protect people without unions from unethical employers. no matter how many times you say it michale, it will continue to be completely and utterly untrue.
this is not to say that unions do a perfect job or are without fault. some have definitely lost touch with the rank and file and are more concerned with their own bottom line than the concerns of the people they represent.
however, this insidious idea that things would just be hunky-dory if unions ceased to exist and some similar force did not put feet on the ground to replace them is twenty different kinds of wrong. every trade or industry that has de-unionized has resulted in thousands of workers with no healthcare, no workman's comp for on the job injuries, and no reasonable recourse when someone decides to fire them for cause, even though no real cause exists. i know real people who this has happened to. the "laws in place to protect workers," don't do squat without legal and political force behind them. unions provide that force, and unless something else with a similar force takes their place, no union means no real-time protection, and millions of people treated unfairly with no recourse except a long, costly lawsuit that they have little hope of ever winning.
as for unemployment benefits, they are such a miniscule sliver of the government pie that they're barely even worth mentioning in the context of a state budget, much less the federal budget. even if these payments were 100% attributable to the president, which they're not even close to being, it's not like millions of extra jobs will suddenly materialize for people to fill. our economy has a demand-side problem, and forcing people who can't find work to starve won't help them find work. americans are generally not lazy people, right now there just aren't any fish in the pond.
seriously, michale. i'm no huge fan of certain unions and i'm no huge fan of obama, but your points of view here are so far removed from the reality on the ground that you're forcing me to argue in defense of both.
I admire your passion, Joshua..
I really mean that....
I guess it's just one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on..
I read about the nastiness, corruptness and lawlessness of Unions every day..
I very rarely read about anything good coming from today's Unions..
I will meet you part of the way... I am sure that there ARE Union officials who are good and decent people...
Just as I am sure you will agree that there are Corporate officials who are good and decent people..
The problem is, we rarely see those people and their efforts are not rewarded, but rather condemned and buried..
our economy has a demand-side problem, and forcing people who can't find work to starve won't help them find work. americans are generally not lazy people, right now there just aren't any fish in the pond.
And giving them every incentive NOT to work, NOT to stand on their own two feet is not the solution either..
Have you ever wondered why Obama and the Democrats ignored the jobs situation for TWO YEARS, and instead concentrated on the give-aways, the freebies and the entitlements??
Doesn't that simply defy the laws of reason and logic???
Obama and the Democrats concentrated on the freebies and entitlements rather than jobs because they WANT the people dependent on the government..
23% rise in government dependency in two years...
The facts speak for themselves... And what they are saying ain't pretty...
Michale.....
it's kind-of like mitt romney, come to think of it. the guy has all these theories of how to "fix" the safety net or government spending, and zero concept of how the policy will impact real people's lives. there are a lot of things that ought to work in theory but are an absolute disaster when the rubber meets the road. when reagan cut federal funding to mental institutions, the theory was that they'd re-enter the mainstream of society. the direct result, however, was a lot of crazy homeless people scaring people in the streets. what should work and what does work are rarely if ever the same.
i'm sure you can name a few other policy disasters that were good in theory, but i'd rather not get side-tracked any more than we are already. de-unionization is one of those things. cutting off unemployment insurance is another. mitt wasn't lying, he seriously isn't concerned with problems he sees as already addressed, even if those problems happen to be human beings who are homeless and starving.
"I believe in two things: discipline and the Bible. Here you'll receive both. Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me. Welcome to Shawshank."
Warden Norton - The Shawshank Redemption
No one is saying cutting off unemployment insurance..
But, seriously.. Isn't TWO YEARS a tad unreasonable??
And Democrats want to make it LONGER!!!
Unemployment Insurance is SUPPOSED to be a way to help people thru tough times..
It is NOT meant to supplant REAL work...
Unless, of course, Democrats have anything to say about it...
Good one on the movie quote.. :D
Michale
But, seriously.. Isn't TWO YEARS a tad unreasonable??
If someone can't find a job in TWO YEARS that is NOT caused by lack of jobs...
Michale....
But, seriously.. Isn't TWO YEARS a tad unreasonable??
that depends on your reasoning. if you're asking whether most people ought to be able to find work sooner, the answer is yes. in a mitt romney ideal world scenario, if people behaved according to the conservative theories, yes. however, there's a big disconnect between how people should behave and how they actually behave.
i see there being four categories who would be on unemployment that long, only one of which would in the real world benefit society by being cut off. most people WANT to work, not just for the money but to be able to say they did something meaningful with their day. so, okay:
1. yes, there are folks who would and could work, but are on unemployment because they prefer it to work. however, it's a smaller number than you might think. for a relatively small cost, these people are kept from taking the decent jobs away from others who want and deserve them.
2. some folks are highly trained in fields where the workforce is shrinking due to the economy. they're trying hard to find a job, but the jobs are scarce with shrinking salaries. further, companies work the system by laying you off just before you qualify for benefits. these people probably do get part-time or out-of-field work, but that doesn't pay the bills. the economy will eventually get better, and these people will eventually be able to pay society back if they're kept from falling off the edge. but it's going to take time.
3. there are some people who are genuinely unable to do full-time work, with or without the money. maybe they have some sort of physical or mental condition that doesn't qualify them for disability. maybe they have kids or a sick mom and can't afford day care. have a heart, man. anyhow, they would cost society a whole lot more if they were walking the streets, sleeping in homeless shelters and knocking on your car window begging for change.
4. the last group want to work, but not at wal-mart. perhaps they're college-educated, perhaps not. they are smart, able, but don't have the right skills for the jobs that are available, and don't see any incentive to working dead-end jobs for companies whose business practices are practically slavery anyway. unemployment insurance keeps this group going back to school or searching for new careers, rather than becoming professional protesters, or worse, actual criminals. starve this group and they'll show up hungry at your doorstep, possibly when you're not home.
~joshua
When there are a thousand resumes/applications for every job, adding more to the stack provides no additional benefit to anyone. When there's a depression, people without jobs shouldn't be pushed to try to get jobs. They should be encouraged to do something productive instead, like getting an education or working in the informal economy.
So, what ya'all (Joshua and dsws) seem to be saying is that the government owes the people a living...
We'll just have to disagree on that...
Michale.....
"I wish I could be abducted by aliens and taken to their home planet where I wouldn't have to work."
-Abductee Wannabe, X-FILES
I'm just sayin......
Michale.....
So, what ya'all (Joshua and dsws) seem to be saying is that the government owes the people a living...
extended unemployment insurance is not a living, it's subsistence. it's also not owed anyone, it's a matter of practicality, a bad option that's better than the other bad options currently on the table.
extended unemployment insurance is not a living, it's subsistence.
The hell it ain't a living..
During the off-season, my son pulls down about $2K a month in un-employmnent. That's TWICE my wife makes...
Tell me that ain't a living....
Michale.....
So, what ya'all (Joshua and dsws) seem to be saying is that the government owes the people a living...
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Do you agree that bond issues owe bond holders the payment agreed to in the bonds? Do you agree that companies selling homeowners' insurance and car insurance owe policy holders the promised payment on valid claims?
So how come people who work for covered employers, and pay in to government-run unemployment insurance, aren't likewise owed their unemployment-insurance payments? Is it just because it's government, and you think government should be free to default on its agreements?
'Cause that's all of who gets unemployment payments, at least in most states. If you haven't paid in, you don't qualify.
So how come people who work for covered employers, and pay in to government-run unemployment insurance, aren't likewise owed their unemployment-insurance payments? Is it just because it's government, and you think government should be free to default on its agreements?
Now THAT's a very rational and logical argument...
If it could be shown that the unemployed person is only receiving what they put into the program, then my objection would be moot...
Michale....
Not "only receiving what they put into the program". Only receiving what they're due, under a program paid for by what similarly-situated people put in.
For many years, I put money into car insurance and was lucky enough to receive not one red cent back. Then some idiot ran a red light, and their insurance company paid the estimated value of my car. No one checked or cared whether it was more than I had put in over the years, only whether it was what I was due under the terms of the agreement.
Same for unemployment coverage.
Same for unemployment coverage.
I disagree.. For your comparison to be valid, you would have had to be paying the Insurance Company that, in turn, would pay you for your accident..
My agreement with your point vis a vis what a person puts into the Unemployment kitty notwithstanding, I still maintain that providing so much Unemployment Insurance for such a long length of time is detrimental to the job health of our economy. Who would actually go to work if they could make a decent living staying home and living off the State.. Kinda goes along with Joshua's point a while back about people not paying extra taxes if they don't have to..
And, I am constrained to point out that one is not actually getting the money they paid into the Unemployment kitty.. That money already was paid out to someone else..
In that, Unemployment Insurance is a Ponzi Scheme.... Much like Social Security...
Michale.....
For your comparison to be valid, you would have had to be paying the Insurance Company that, in turn, would pay you for your accident.
The only differences are 1) it's run by the government instead of by a private company, and 2) everyone working for a qualifying employer has to pay the "premium".
It does have to be an "accident": if you quit your job voluntarily, you can't collect unemployment benefits.
It does come out of the payments, of course. Sure, the government borrows money, big time, but unemployment benefits are an invisibly small part of the budget. And even if you count the benefits as being paid for with the borrowed money instead of the current year's tax money, taxes do pay for them, sooner or later.
You do have to have "paid your premiums": if you didn't work for a qualifying employer, you can't get unemployment benefits.
And it's not a Ponzi scheme. It doesn't have entire cohorts getting out a lot more than they paid in. It doesn't depend on population growth to meet its commitments.
I still maintain that providing so much Unemployment Insurance for such a long length of time is detrimental to the job health of our economy.
You're switching cause and effect. When the economy is bad, people are unemployed for a long time. But the problem isn't that there aren't enough people willing to work and capable of doing the jobs. There are. Every job opening has hundreds of applications or resumes. The problem is that there aren't enough people willing and able to buy the goods and services. Companies can find employees effortlessly, but they're scrambling for customers.
(They'll have a hard time finding employees if they refuse to hire anyone who's unemployed, and just try to poach employees away from their competitors. They'll have a hard time finding employees if they won't hire anyone over 40 and they insist on 20 years of experience doing exactly that job. But even if they're pretty unreasonable, there's someone unemployed these days who would be a good match.)
People don't add anything to the economy by making the stack of resumes a little taller.
They do add to the economy, if they have the savings or unemployment benefits to spend, by making the stack of orders a little taller. Factories are sitting idle for hours a day. There are tons of people willing to work: even if you really believed the worst conservative fantasies about everyone who's culturally different from you being lazy, stupid, and worthless, that still leaves countless unemployed people who are well educated and have a good work ethic. But there's no effective demand. Almost everyone is either unemployed, worrying that they're about to be unemployed, or underwater on their mortgage. They want stuff, and the economy has the means to provide the stuff, but people can't afford the stuff because there are no jobs because people can't afford stuff because there are no jobs and so on around the vicious cycle.
The most effective ways to break that cycle are by government spending, and by transfer payments to those who will spend the money.
In the mean time, everyone is better off if the unemployed can put their time to some productive use. Adding a resume to the stack is completely unproductive, but getting an education is productive. Doing stuff for neighbors is. Even pursuing a hobby provides some benefit, if only to the person doing it.
Who would actually go to work if they could make a decent living staying home and living off the State.
Almost everyone. Well over 99%. No one wants to feel like a parasite. No one wants to feel as though they have no purpose.
The only differences are 1) it's run by the government instead of by a private company, and 2) everyone working for a qualifying employer has to pay the "premium".
No, the only difference is your paying ONE company but collecting from a different company...
In other words, the company that is paying you hasn't gotten one red cent from you.
I suppose it could be fair if the company who is paying you paid you the amount that the person who hit you has paid into the system.
Almost everyone. Well over 99%. No one wants to feel like a parasite. No one wants to feel as though they have no purpose.
Bull crap....
Using that reasoning, anyone who complains they are not paying enough in taxes WOULD voluntarily pay more so they wouldn't "feel like a parasite"..
You ask the average American if they would be willing not to work for $2K a month, you and I both know they would JUMP at the chance..
Michale....
No, the only difference is your paying ONE company but collecting from a different company.
I'm confused by the metaphor here. Does it mean your problem with unemployment insurance is the block grants, i.e. that the taxes are mostly paid to "one company" (the federal government), but the programs are administered by "another company" (the states)?
You ask the average American if they would be willing not to work for $2K a month, you and I both know they would JUMP at the chance.
It all depends on how they interpret it. If they won the money fair and square in a lottery, they'll be glad to collect the prize even it comes with a provision that they have to quit their job. If they feel like they're being given an opportunity to steal the money, they'll much prefer to keep their job.
I'm confused by the metaphor here. Does it mean your problem with unemployment insurance is the block grants, i.e. that the taxes are mostly paid to "one company" (the federal government), but the programs are administered by "another company" (the states)?
My problem with unemployment insurance is that it was supposed to be stop-gap measure to help someone when they needed it.
Under the Bush and Obama administrations, it became a something much different.
It became an incentive NOT to find work...
It all depends on how they interpret it. If they won the money fair and square in a lottery, they'll be glad to collect the prize even it comes with a provision that they have to quit their job. If they feel like they're being given an opportunity to steal the money, they'll much prefer to keep their job.
If you told the average American that they could receive $2K a month from the Government and all they had to do was fill out three job applications a week, most Americans would jump at that chance.
For me, personally?? I could make that much in a weekend, so I probably wouldn't.. :D
Michale
Since the current "OH MY GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" hysteria is out of the way with regards to Catholics and contraception.....
Let's talk about Obama's embracing of the Citizens United ruling and SuperPACs...
:D
Michale.....
My problem with unemployment insurance is that it was supposed to be stop-gap measure to help someone when they needed it.
So how does that fit with the "one company" / "two companies" thing?
It's still an insurance scheme. Some people get back way more than they put in; others are lucky enough never to get anything back; and it's not a significant overall transfer from one demographic to another.
From the point of view of overall benefit to society, what counts is that those people should be doing something productive. Filling out applications ain't it, no matter whether the surplus applicants are covered by unemployment insurance or whether they're properly (in the conservative perspective) reduced to groveling for change on street corners or thrown in jail for vagrancy. They should be in school, or taking care of their neighbors' kids, or something. Even if it's an inefficient government make-work program, as long as the inefficiency isn't 100% they're accomplishing something.