OT: Kentucky Loser

On Feb 27, 3:45=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and fo=
cus on
> >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. $50=
0B of
> >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of =
adding
> >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvanta=
ge
>
> >> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
> >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependen=
t
> >> >on these funds.***
>
> >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In my
> >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
> >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
> >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>
> If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
> hand out and ask for our money?

Very little feels better than that ;-)

Got that data yet, Gordon? You wouldn't want to be vulnerable to
accusations of Talking Out Of Your Ass, now would you??

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>>
>> >> bl_n_477910.html
>>
>> >>   If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and focus on
>> >> what he is saying,  you find the man has some very valid points.  $500B of
>> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of adding
>> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?  
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> >> Rob Leatham
>>
>> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>>
>> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
>> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
>> >on these funds.***
>>
>> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>>
>> That program is not being screwed with.  It's the liberals that want
>> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
>> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars).  In my
>> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>>
>> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work.  The
>> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available.  The
>> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
>> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
>> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed  That fundamental flaw of
>> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
>Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.

If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
hand out and ask for our money?

> Lew, are you talking about the Puffington Host screwing up on the
> title of the article? =A0You're right, it's nothing new. =A0Bunning would
> have happily voted for the bill had it used stimulus money instead of
> adding more to the deficit. =A0Are you opposed to his concept or to the
> extension of unemployment funding? =A0WTF,O?

so it's an accounting problem?


shelly
>
> --

On Mar 2, 12:09=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:10:43 -0500, Steve <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2010-02-28 22:40:53 -0500, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> said=
:
>
> >> In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.
>
> >Glad you've had continued employment. But, should you lose your job, I
> >trust you'll not take the handout.
>
> I am retired now. =A0I have paid into that fund my entire life. =A0Someon=
e
> else has gotten the money that I worked hard for. =A0If I had the money
> I paid into the fund it would be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
>
> Having said that I could have retired a few years earlier if I didn't
> have to support some Democrat.

Waaaah! Suck it up tough guy.

On 02/28/2010 09:40 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:54:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> "why should I work when> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> You best your sweet ass the unemployed want to goof off and get more
>>> while they loose the health insurance, can't pay the mortgage and hope
>>> like hell no one gets sick and has to see a doctor they can't afford
>>> to pay or buy the drugs needed for a love one at inflated prices
>>> because they no longer have health insurance.
>>>
>>> Yes Gordon, you are a pathetic little bigot.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Hey, now... Gordon's just making a simple mistake - he's thinking
>> WELFARE, not unemployment. It's the same argument, really :) I wonder
>> what he'd like the government to spend the unemployment insurance
>> money on?
>>
>> shelly
>
> No, I made no mistake. The well is dry and the only way to replenish
> it at the rate and duration it is being paid out is with tax dollars.
> In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.
> You and the employer shouldn't be required to pay. You keep what you
> earn. Unfortunately the politicians would have no way to get their
> piece of it so that will never happen.
I don't know where you are at but in Al, everyone pays a set percentage
into an employment insurance fund until it is fully funded, when the
fund drops to a certain level the the fee kicks in and you pay it until
the fund is full and any money borrowed to keep it afloat in bad
periods of unemployment is paid back, sure it is a complusory fee but
It hasn't showed up on payroll anytime since the mid eighties and is not
being collected even now.

basilsik

"GarageWoodworks" wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-bl_n_477910.htmlSo what else is new?Lew

> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and
> focus on
> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points.
> $500B of
> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of
> adding
> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
--------------------------------
Now is not the time to pay for Bush's 8 year reign of fiscal fuck ups
unless you wish to restore the tax cuts of Bush's reign to make it
possible.

Lew

"Gordon Shumway" wrote:

--------------------------------
> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In
> my
> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater
> than
> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work
> when
> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> the program needs to be screwed with.
------------------------------

Spoken like a truly pathetic bigot.

Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
not a handout.

Perhaps you would care to share with us where the jobs you state are
available per your quote below.

"There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work".

Not only the unemployed would like to know, but a lot of government
officials lives would easier if the unemployment problem were solved.

-------------------------------------
"why should I work when
> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed
-----------------------------------------
You best your sweet ass the unemployed want to goof off and get more
while they loose the health insurance, can't pay the mortgage and hope
like hell no one gets sick and has to see a doctor they can't afford
to pay or buy the drugs needed for a love one at inflated prices
because they no longer have health insurance.

Yes Gordon, you are a pathetic little bigot.

Lew

<[email protected]> wrote:

> Lew, are you talking about the Puffington Host screwing up on the
> title of the article? You're right, it's nothing new. Bunning would
> have happily voted for the bill had it used stimulus money instead
> of
> adding more to the deficit. Are you opposed to his concept or to the
> extension of unemployment funding? WTF,O?
-------------------------------------
Bunning is simply playing the "No" bit to the hilt.

Bunning was a pretty decent pitcher, but can't say the same about his
politics.

Lew

so it's an accounting problem?


shelly
>
> --

<[email protected]> wrote:

> If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
> "benefits"?
----------------------------------------
The question has already been answered.

Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.

Lew

On 2010-02-28 22:40:53 -0500, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> said:

> In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.

Glad you've had continued employment. But, should you lose your job, I
trust you'll not take the handout.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:10:43 -0500, Steve <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 2010-02-28 22:40:53 -0500, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> said:
>
>> In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.
>
>Glad you've had continued employment. But, should you lose your job, I
>trust you'll not take the handout.

I am retired now. I have paid into that fund my entire life. Someone
else has gotten the money that I worked hard for. If I had the money
I paid into the fund it would be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Having said that I could have retired a few years earlier if I didn't
have to support some Democrat.

> Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
> not a handout.

If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
"benefits"?

On Mar 1, 1:33=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
> > "benefits"?
>
> ----------------------------------------
> The question has already been answered.

I didn't see you answer, only the dumbass statement.

> Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.

Google wasn't showing me the rest of the thread. It gets confused.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>>
>> bl_n_477910.html
>>
>>   If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and focus on
>> what he is saying,  you find the man has some very valid points.  $500B of
>> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of adding
>> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?  
>>
>> --
>>
>> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> Rob Leatham
>
>Spoken like someone with a job.
>
>***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
>balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
>on these funds.***
>
>Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>

That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In my
opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.

There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
the program needs to be screwed with.

On Feb 27, 6:01=A0pm, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:45=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> > >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> > >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and =
focus on
> > >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. $=
500B of
> > >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead o=
f adding
> > >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>
> > >> >> --
>
> > >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvan=
tage
>
> > >> >> Rob Leatham
>
> > >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> > >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order t=
o
> > >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are depend=
ent
> > >> >on these funds.***
>
> > >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> > >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> > >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> > >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In m=
y
> > >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> > >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> > >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> > >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater tha=
n
> > >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work whe=
n
> > >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> > >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> > >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>
> > If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
> > hand out and ask for our money?
>
> Very little feels better than that ;-)
>
> Got that data yet, Gordon? =A0You wouldn't want to be vulnerable to
> accusations of Talking Out Of Your Ass, now would you??

Gordon needs to consult Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh first. He'll
get back to you.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:54:46 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>
>> -------------------------------------
>> "why should I work when> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> You best your sweet ass the unemployed want to goof off and get more
>> while they loose the health insurance, can't pay the mortgage and hope
>> like hell no one gets sick and has to see a doctor they can't afford
>> to pay or buy the drugs needed for a love one at inflated prices
>> because they no longer have health insurance.
>>
>> Yes Gordon, you are a pathetic little bigot.
>>
>> Lew
>
>Hey, now... Gordon's just making a simple mistake - he's thinking
>WELFARE, not unemployment. It's the same argument, really :) I wonder
>what he'd like the government to spend the unemployment insurance
>money on?
>
>shelly

No, I made no mistake. The well is dry and the only way to replenish
it at the rate and duration it is being paid out is with tax dollars.
In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.
You and the employer shouldn't be required to pay. You keep what you
earn. Unfortunately the politicians would have no way to get their
piece of it so that will never happen.

> -------------------------------------
> "why should I work when> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed
>
> -----------------------------------------
> You best your sweet ass the unemployed want to goof off and get more
> while they loose the health insurance, can't pay the mortgage and hope
> like hell no one gets sick and has to see a doctor they can't afford
> to pay or buy the drugs needed for a love one at inflated prices
> because they no longer have health insurance.
>
> Yes Gordon, you are a pathetic little bigot.
>
> Lew

Hey, now... Gordon's just making a simple mistake - he's thinking
WELFARE, not unemployment. It's the same argument, really :) I wonder
what he'd like the government to spend the unemployment insurance
money on?

shelly

On Feb 27, 7:48=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:54:58 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 5:45 pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly=
-
>
> >> >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and=
focus on
> >> >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. =
$500B of
> >> >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead =
of adding
> >> >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>
> >> >> >> --
>
> >> >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadva=
ntage
>
> >> >> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >> >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >> >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order =
to
> >> >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are depen=
dent
> >> >> >on these funds.***
>
> >> >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> >> >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> >> >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> >> >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In =
my
> >> >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> >> >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> >> >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> >> >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater th=
an
> >> >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work wh=
en
> >> >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> >> >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> >> >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>
> >> If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
> >> hand out and ask for our money?
>
> >Non sequitur.
>
> You may think it's funny because you're not the one paying the
> freight.

I've been paying into the freight all of my working life.

On Feb 27, 5:45=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and fo=
cus on
> >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. $50=
0B of
> >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of =
adding
> >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>
> >> >> --
>
> >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvanta=
ge
>
> >> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
> >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependen=
t
> >> >on these funds.***
>
> >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In my
> >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
> >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
> >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>
> If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
> hand out and ask for our money?

Non sequitur.

On Feb 26, 11:14=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> bl_n_477910.html
>
> =A0 If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and focu=
s on
> what he is saying, =A0you find the man has some very valid points. =A0$50=
0B of
> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of adding
> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay? =A0
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham

Spoken like someone with a job.

***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
on these funds.***

Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Gordon Shumway" wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
>> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
>> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In
>> my
>> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>>
>> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
>> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
>> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater
>> than
>> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work
>> when
>> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
>> the program needs to be screwed with.
> ------------------------------
>
> Spoken like a truly pathetic bigot.
>
> Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
> not a handout.
>

Unemployment "insurance" is mandatory on businesses. In that regard, it
differs little from a "tax."

When the fund is depleted, the only way to replenish it is by raising the
"tax."

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
>> not a handout.
>
> If that is the case, then why is the federal government allocating funds
> to make unemployment payments? Shouldn't those funds be there from the
> unemployment insurance?

They were when the rate was <6% and typical worker found a new job after a
couple of months. At 10% and longer times colleting, the funds are long gone
in most states.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Mar 1, 1:33 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
>> > "benefits"?
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>> The question has already been answered.
>
> I didn't see you answer, only the dumbass statement.
>
>> Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.
>
> Google wasn't showing me the rest of the thread. It gets confused.

Well, that and the fact that the original occurrence of that statement
came in a sequence in which the statement was made that it would make more
sense to use some of the unspent Porkulus funds to pay for this extension of
benefits rather than to create even more new debt, then the statement was
made that jobs were available if one looked hard enough to which Lew
replied:

"Spoken like a truly pathetic bigot.

Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
not a handout."

My point with my original statement was the fact that those unemployment
payments are NOT coming from insurance funds since those funds are now
depleted. Those extended unemployment benefits are, at this time a handout,
and at the minimum are taking money from someone else, who, given the
current debt situation, has yet to be born let alone work a single day of
his/her life. The question raised by the congressman is still valid -- why
add even more to this debt when unspent Porkulus funds are still available?

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Feb 27, 7:48=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:54:58 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 5:45 pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly=
-
>
> >> >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and=
focus on
> >> >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. =
$500B of
> >> >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead =
of adding
> >> >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>
> >> >> >> --
>
> >> >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadva=
ntage
>
> >> >> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >> >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >> >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order =
to
> >> >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are depen=
dent
> >> >> >on these funds.***
>
> >> >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> >> >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
> >> >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> >> >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In =
my
> >> >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> >> >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
> >> >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
> >> >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater th=
an
> >> >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work wh=
en
> >> >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
> >> >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> >> >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>
> >> If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
> >> hand out and ask for our money?
>
> >Non sequitur.
>
> You may think it's funny because you're not the one paying the
> freight.

Please don't take offense to this, but you are the biggest scum bag I
have ever come across on this newsgroup (7+ years worth).

> They were when the rate was <6% and typical worker found a new job after a
> couple of months. At 10% and longer times colleting, the funds are long gone
> in most states.


maybe so. Does that mean the insurance shouldn't be paid out to a
person who just lost their job (because the $$ is gone?)

shelly

On Feb 26, 11:06=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 26, 11:14=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> =A0 If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and f=
ocus on
> >> what he is saying, =A0you find the man has some very valid points. =A0=
$500B of
> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of add=
ing
> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay? =A0
>
> >> --
>
> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
> >on these funds.***
>
> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> That program is not being screwed with. =A0It's the liberals that want
> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). =A0In my
> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. =A0The
> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. =A0The
> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed =A0That fundamental flaw of
> the program needs to be screwed with.

Quite a nice statement of ideology and belief.

But -- deep within it -- exist a lot of assumptions.

Why not ... humor a very few of us, and ... go ahead and back them up.

Data ... sources ... you know.

Thanks!

On Feb 27, 1:06=A0am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Feb 26, 11:14=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> >> =A0 If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and f=
ocus on
> >> what he is saying, =A0you find the man has some very valid points. =A0=
$500B of
> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of add=
ing
> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay? =A0
>
> >> --
>
> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> >> Rob Leatham
>
> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
> >on these funds.***
>
> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> That program is not being screwed with. =A0It's the liberals that want
> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). =A0In my
> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. =A0The
> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. =A0The
> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed =A0That fundamental flaw of
> the program needs to be screwed with.

Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.

On Mar 2, 12:09=A0pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:10:43 -0500, Steve <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2010-02-28 22:40:53 -0500, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> said=
:
>
> >> In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all.
>
> >Glad you've had continued employment. But, should you lose your job, I
> >trust you'll not take the handout.
>
> I am retired now.

I hope you're not collecting that socialist hand-out social security
are you?

Get back to work you lazy ass.

> =A0I have paid into that fund my entire life. =A0Someone
> else has gotten the money that I worked hard for. =A0If I had the money
> I paid into the fund it would be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
>
> Having said that I could have retired a few years earlier if I didn't
> have to support some Democrat.

On Feb 27, 2:14=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:06=A0am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Feb 26, 11:14=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> > >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>
> > >> bl_n_477910.html
>
> > >> =A0 If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and=
focus on
> > >> what he is saying, =A0you find the man has some very valid points. =
=A0$500B of
> > >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of a=
dding
> > >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay? =A0
>
> > >> --
>
> > >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantag=
e
>
> > >> Rob Leatham
>
> > >Spoken like someone with a job.
>
> > >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
> > >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
> > >on these funds.***
>
> > >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>
> > That program is not being screwed with. =A0It's the liberals that want
> > to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> > program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). =A0In m=
y
> > opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> > There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. =A0The
> > jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. =A0The
> > problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
> > some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
> > I can goof off and get more" has prevailed =A0That fundamental flaw of
> > the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.

John Mason: Ah, an educated man.

[Stanley gives a modest wave]

John Mason: That, of course, rules out the possibility of you being a
field agent.

--"The Rock."

On Feb 27, 7:35=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Gordon Shumway" wrote:
>
> --------------------------------> That program is not being screwed with.=
=A0It's the liberals that want
> > to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
> > program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). =A0In
> > my
> > opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>
> > There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. =A0The
> > jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. =A0The
> > problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater
> > than
> > some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work
> > when
> > I can goof off and get more" has prevailed =A0That fundamental flaw of
> > the program needs to be screwed with.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Spoken like a truly pathetic bigot.
>
> Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
> not a handout.
>
> Perhaps you would care to share with us where the jobs you state are
> available per your quote below.
>
> "There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work".
>
> Not only the unemployed would like to know, but a lot of government
> officials lives would easier if the unemployment problem were solved.
>
> -------------------------------------
> "why should I work when> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed
>
> -----------------------------------------
> You best your sweet ass the unemployed want to goof off and get more
> while they loose the health insurance, can't pay the mortgage and hope
> like hell no one gets sick and has to see a doctor they can't afford
> to pay or buy the drugs needed for a love one at inflated prices
> because they no longer have health insurance.
>
> Yes Gordon, you are a pathetic little bigot.
>
> Lew


Excuse me, but ... all due respect ... you're muscling into my
turf ;-)

Ah, well. You were clearly here first, and probably have a *lengthy*
history with this particular one ;-)

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:33:43 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
>> "benefits"?
>----------------------------------------
>The question has already been answered.
>
>Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.
>
>Lew
>
>
Gettin' a little cranky aren't we.

On 2/26/2010 3:58 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "GarageWoodworks" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-bl_n_477910.html
>
> So what else is new?

It's purely coincidental, but I just finished adding "Team USA -
Kentucky" to the list of solar engine R&D folks (see bottom of page).

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Elsewhere/

(Photos and video)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On 03/01/2010 02:15 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:33:43 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the
>>> "benefits"?
>> ----------------------------------------
>> The question has already been answered.
>>
>> Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
> Gettin' a little cranky aren't we.

_Getting_ cranky? Hell, "Cranky" is Lew's middle name. :-)

--
What percentage of the driving populace do you suppose actually
understands the rules of engagement at a four-way stop?
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and
>> focus on
>> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points.
>> $500B of
>> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of
>> adding
>> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
> --------------------------------
> Now is not the time to pay for Bush's 8 year reign of fiscal fuck ups
> unless you wish to restore the tax cuts of Bush's reign to make it
> possible.

Uh, hardly.

The current administration added more to the national debt in its first
MONTH than the previous administration did in eight years. It's been a year
and the situation is even worse.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:58:29 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>"GarageWoodworks" wrote:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-bl_n_477910.htmlSo

>what else is new?

Lew, are you talking about the Puffington Host screwing up on the
title of the article? You're right, it's nothing new. Bunning would
have happily voted for the bill had it used stimulus money instead of
adding more to the deficit. Are you opposed to his concept or to the
extension of unemployment funding? WTF,O?

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:00:41 -0600, basilisk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't know where you are at but in Al, everyone pays a set percentage
>into an employment insurance fund until it is fully funded, when the
>fund drops to a certain level the the fee kicks in and you pay it until
>the fund is full and any money borrowed to keep it afloat in bad
>periods of unemployment is paid back, sure it is a complusory fee but
>It hasn't showed up on payroll anytime since the mid eighties and is not
>being collected even now.
>
>basilsik

In Illinois the employee pays a fixed percentage into the unemployment
fund and the employer also pays a fixed percentage. This fee is paid
in all economic conditions in every pay period. It would not be
possible for someone to ever get out what they have paid in.

Apparently living in a Republican state has even more advantages that
we don't have in a Democratic state.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> "Gordon Shumway" wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
>> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
>> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
>> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In
>> my
>> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>>
>> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
>> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
>> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater
>> than
>> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work
>> when
>> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
>> the program needs to be screwed with.
> ------------------------------
>
> Spoken like a truly pathetic bigot.
>
> Unemployment payments come from unemployment insurance funds and are
> not a handout.

If that is the case, then why is the federal government allocating funds
to make unemployment payments? Shouldn't those funds be there from the
unemployment insurance?

... snip

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:54:58 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 27, 5:45 pm, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Feb 27, 1:06 am, Gordon Shumway <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:27:51 -0800 (PST), GarageWoodworks
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 26, 11:14 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> >> >> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
>>
>> >> >> bl_n_477910.html
>>
>> >> >> If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and focus on
>> >> >> what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. $500B of
>> >> >> Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of adding
>> >> >> yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?
>>
>> >> >> --
>>
>> >> >> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>>
>> >> >> Rob Leatham
>>
>> >> >Spoken like someone with a job.
>>
>> >> >***This is not the program that needs to be screwed with in order to
>> >> >balance the budget when so many Americans (including me) are dependent
>> >> >on these funds.***
>>
>> >> >Balance the budget using the 100's of other methods.
>>
>> >> That program is not being screwed with. It's the liberals that want
>> >> to spend even more unbudgeted money (aka: my tax dollars) on that
>> >> program rather than using stimulus funds (aka: my tax dollars). In my
>> >> opinion the benefits are available far too long as it is.
>>
>> >> There are plenty of jobs available for those willing to work. The
>> >> jobs may not be what one desires but there are jobs available. The
>> >> problem is exacerbated by the fact that the benefits are greater than
>> >> some of the available jobs so the mind set of "why should I work when
>> >> I can goof off and get more" has prevailed That fundamental flaw of
>> >> the program needs to be screwed with.
>>
>> >Thanks for reminding me why I despise tea baggers like yourself.
>>
>> If you despise tea baggers like me, why are you so eager to hold your
>> hand out and ask for our money?
>
>Non sequitur.

You may think it's funny because you're not the one paying the
freight.

GarageWoodworks wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/jim-bunning-repeatedly-
bl_n_477910.html

If you get past the loaded words and misdirection on huff-po and focus on
what he is saying, you find the man has some very valid points. $500B of
Porkulus has not yet been spent, why not use that money instead of adding
yet more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham