Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.

How about moving the discussion to solutions.

Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses...

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint Exupery

ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tatoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work. it's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. Which, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Furthrer, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can. Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?

To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your fist and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed i know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride.

ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong.

Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone i know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a masters in math and a masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it?

[quote=RealWorld]

How about moving the discussion to solutions.

Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses...

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint Exupery

[/quote]

RW, i hear you. Still, i'm going to say what i'm going to say the way i want to say it. Sorry if it takes up a lot of bandwidth.

Tell ya what. Just for you we can have a debate/conversation limited to three word posts. Say whatever you want to say, but say it with three words only.  Because we disagree i'll begin with:

You are wrong!

First off, I am just going to start ignoring Navet all together. He will not be around much longer anyway, besides his verbal diarrhea is nauseating.

Second...

[quote=BondGuy]ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tattoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work.[/quote]

Do you always read what you want? I never said all unemployed are lazy. The guy standing on the street corner with sandwich boards looking for a job was inspirational. All though, I may be guilty of generalizing the unemployed.

I am a strong advocate to help anyone that wants to help themselves. I do not believe in account minimums when there are people out there just starting to plan for the future. I will help anyone willing to help themselves. But maybe you and I have a difference of opinion similar to the chicken/egg analogy. I believe in expecting results before offering rewards and it seems you feel more to offer rewards in hopes of expecting rewards. Neither one is right and neither one is wrong, I guess. Just difference of opinions. 

[quote=BondGuy] It's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. This, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Further, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. [/quote]

I do not expect them to put in applications at McDonalds on the way home from clearing out their desk. Again you read what you want to and not what I said. I do expect them to start looking at all options within the next couple days and decide on a plan of action. 

[quote=BondGuy]OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can.[/quote]

Surely if you do financial planning, you know most people live above their lifestyle and really needed a promotion not a layoff. But yes as close as they can would be acceptable to me. I had a friend that was let go and had several interviews lined up and accepted the first position offered. Unbeknown to him two weeks later he was offered his first choice and then accepted it. I wish he had not taken the first offer but he thought the interview with the preferred employer went poorly. 

[quote=BondGuy]Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?[/quote]

Again, I do not have a problem with unemployment or any entitlement program, I do have a problem with perpetual entitlements.

[quote=BondGuy]To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your first and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exhausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed I know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride.[/quote]

I completely agree with making time for exercise and family. I would not expect more time spent then a typical days work.

[quote=BondGuy]ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong. [/quote]

I guess we have found another difference between you and I.  I would rather take a shit job, but I would not expect someone to take a job for less then what their benefits would provide though. Unemployment benefits are not meant to maintain the recipient’s lifestyle but they are designed to maintain a REASONABLE lifestyle for that income range and it is capped at a max just like most other programs that are TRUELY designed for the middle to lower class. It is assumed someone making 100k a year is financially responsible enough to not have a need for unemployment i.e. cash reserve etc. but you and I both know by the savings rate in the US that this was not so (below 2%). Credit was too easy, keeping up with the Jones' was too important.

[quote=BondGuy]Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone I know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a Masters in math and a Masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses’ helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it? [/quote]

44%? That's wonderful. Good for them and I feel they should continue to receive benefits as long as they are enrolled and maintaining a 2.0 average (anything less will probably keep them from succeeding in this field anyway). If they cannot find jobs after graduation they should enroll in the next level of education in their particular field of interest.

As for the person you know, if the $10 p/h job provides more income then unemployment benefits and it will not reduce her GPA in school then yes she should. If she is finished with school, then yes she should. If her desired position opens up, it is more likely to be filled from within first, someone with work experience and current references second and an outta work grad student third. At least that is my opinion of HR.

[quote=navet]

Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.

[/quote] 

As far as I know there are only 10 rights that people have in this country as dictated by the Constitution:

1.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be voilated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.   

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9.  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I could post the rest of the amendments, but I any 5th grader who's had to study the Constitution can tell you that the things you're saying are rights are simply just wishes and that they just simply aren't in there.  Nice try though.  The problem we're dealing with right now is that WAY too many people view what they want their government to do for them as rights.  And they couldn't be more wrong. 

The sad thing is that it seems this particular administration wants to step all over our actual Constitutional rights to further it's own agenda.  The Fairness Doctrine and comments about people clinging to their God and their guns come to mind.  How about we just strike the First Amendment altogether? 

This goes way beyond unemployment insurance and well into my disagreement that this country needs to undergo some, what did you call it...progressive renaissance. 

Spiff, we all know the Bill Of Rights, and rights issued under the constitution. You must have a lot of time on your hands. The right to medical care comes from a source that pre-dates our constitution by a millenium or two. Every doctor takes an oath when they recieve their MD degree in the US. The Hippocratic oath sets the standard for treating patients. Currently, in the US any patient who presents at a hospital will recieve care irregardless of their ability to pay. Therefore, by fiat, everyone in the US has medical coverage. Many have expanded that care to a "right" to care, and for practical reasons. When we treat people irregardless of ability to pay, we essentially "insure" all citizens. The alternative is to let the poor suffer and die(many middle class would fall into this category). The most hamane and cost effective alternative is to provide national health insurance to all citizens, pool risk in the most cost effective way, and pay for that insurance through taxes. That doesn't mean nationalization of medicine. Medicare pays for privately run medicine through a taxed insurance plan. That is what is happening now and will evolve into a single payor system for all citizens. Pretty much a done deal, just a matter of time.

Cut and paste.  I wouldn't actually type out all of that.  Again, I'm going to cut and paste the basis of your argument and ask that you tell me where it says that doctors are obligated to treat everyone, therefore creating the "right" to healthcare in this country:

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

Nowhere in there does it say that doctors swear that they will treat everybody regardless of their ability to pay.  Again, nice try, but health care is a privilege in this country, not a right. 

However, I do have a right to get together with my Christian friends, congregate on public grounds, and let the government know that we believe they aren't acting in our best interests all while singing The Old Rugged Cross and Just As I am. 

That's a modern version of the oath. Most new MD's take the original. But either way, I am not going to waste time argueing the relative merits of which oath doctors take. It's a very moving ceremony that everyone should witness. The point I make is really very simple. As a country, will we refuse to treat a citizen that cannot pay? If you are in favor of that, then you will be on the losing side of the national healthcare argument. And as long as we choose to treat all citizens who need it, the question becomes how best to pay for it. The most cost effective way to do so is through pooling of risk on a national basis. Thus, national health insurance for all citizens. And I maintain that every citizen, and ultimately evry human being has a right to medical care.

You won't because you can't.  Even in the classic and ancient versions of the oath it isn't there. 

I've been to several family member's ceremonies and you are correct that it is very moving.

We can agree on a few things. First, that if you're sick, your ability to pay for your medical care shouldn't mean that you have to die.  I think most physicians, whether it's in the oath or not, would agree.  It's just who they are.  I do believe that doctors, many of whom are business owners, should have the right to turn people away if it doesn't make business sense for them to treat someone.  Or they should be able to refer them to a facility that will treat anyone regardless of their financial status.

To that end there are many faith based hospitals out there that are set up to run this way.  In fact the vast majority of the hospitals here in STL are faith based:  St. John's Mercy, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Barnes Jewish, St. Luke's.  Each of those will treat anyone. 

Second, pooling risk is the most cost effective way to pay for medical costs.  You'll notice I didn't say at the national level.  Unless you're going to give the responsibility of running a program like that to a company who actually has experience in doing it, like a large insurance providor (think BC/BS types), I don't think the government is capable of effectively doing it.  Too much red tape.  I don't think that's what Obama and his folks have in mind, however. 

I don't believe this national healthcare debate is over.  The states are going to excercise some rights of their own, as is dictated by the Constitution, and cause a big stink before it's all said and done.  We're going to see how far Obama thinks he can get his hands in everyone else's pie before someone slaps it.   

I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.

and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?

oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

I was wondering how navet got to be so old and uses irregardless.

I would say it is the Edward Jones minimum hiring standard, but so many of the Jones guys I know are smarter than that.  And it would kind of be a thread hijack.

Regardless of whether the Hippocratic oath states that people are entitled to healthcare (which I think that Spiff proved that it doesn't), we live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Emphasis on STATES, plural.  We seem to have forgotten that. 

No one is entitled to healthcare, retirement or welfare.  Should we, as a caring society, take care of our weak, our infirm and those without the ability to care for themselves?  Yes.  I think we should.  As individual citizens, and maybe even government help. 

The disabled, either through mishap, or if they were born that way, should be cared for.

But I read something interesting the other day.  Check this article out:  This woman was born with an issue that caused her to have her leg amputated.  I just want to point out that she made something of her life.

http://www.rangerup.com/kellybruno.html

Plus, she's kind of hot.

Anyway, people in this country need to sack up and start doing for themselves.  I wonder what the frontiersmen did when they lost their jobs?  I guess went to the unemployment line... oh wait, there WAS no unemployment line.

One more point on unemployment.  I have two open positions.  I have been trying to get them filled for about three weeks.  I'm not asking for a whole lot, but people have applied with Master's degrees knowing what the salary range was. 

Out of 30 people who have applied, I have offered ten interviews so far.  NINE have been no-call, no -shows. 

Yeah, people really want to work.

[quote=navet]

I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.

[/quote]

You're thinking that I want my state to run my healthcare program?  Hardly. 

National defense, btw, is constitutional.  That is something I'm OK with getting taxed for.  The National Highway System was originally constructed to make travel for our military vehicles easier.  The by-product of that was a highway system that lets us go where we please whether I'm in my mini-van or a green Humvee.  I'm OK with the taxes for that too.

Your idealism is to be commended.  I think you truly believe that the government should help everyone with pretty much everything.  That they are the answer to our problems as a country.  I believe, however, that the unintended consequence of drastically more people becoming dependant on the country for an ever growing laundry list of daily needs is simple - bankruptcy.  We simply run out of money.  Just like with Social Security.  Just like with Medicaid. 

Here's the reason I don't think the government can make it work:  They don't think like business owners.  They judge the success or failure of a program based on how much money they throw at it.  They never, ever, stop to think about the results.  They never stop to think about how they can create a better product with less investment dollars.  In their book if it's broke, throw more money at the problem and it'll get better.  That simply doesn't work.  It doesn't work in my household, my business, or my church, and it surely doesn't work in our government.  If I thought the government handled ANY program well, I might have a little faith that they could handle healthcare. 

I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.

1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.

2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate?

BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window.

[quote=N.D.]

and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?

oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

So I guess you are an asshole, irregardless!

[/quote]

[quote=RealWorld]

I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.

1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.

2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate?

BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window.

[/quote]

Would have had?

He's evidenlty never asked you a question about bonds.  That's the beauty of this country.  We can completely disagree on politics and social issues, but lend each other a helping hand on other issues.  I know that when I have a question about bonds, there's really only one guy I know will shoot straight without bias and tell it like it is.  And it ain't Mario DeRose.

I don't think bonds are very intellectual. I have taken advice from you BG on bonds in the past and agree with how you view them. I find your mindsight very intelligent on that aspect of finance.

This entire discussion is hard to swallow. Instead of coming to a formidable solution with "intelligent people" we debate the merits and worthiness of individuals. BG's answers have been slowly breaking down to the level of childish. I imagine that some of mine haven't been as thought out as they should be.

I guess this is the reason why Washington has so much trouble with the same problems, it is very difficult in the polarized society that we live in to intelligently look beyond our on convictions and develop solutions for the better good. Maybe that is human, however we will not survive as a country so divided and that is the livelyhood of you, I and our offspring.