The recent mini-battle on the Capitol Hill was with Pay-Go and extending Unemployment benefits. Sen. Bunning said that we could not extend Unemployment benefits unless we had a method to pay for the legislation, as dictated in the new "Pay-go" rules that recently passed.
I heard a conservative radio commentator say yesterday (He was a sub for Fred Thompson and I can't remember his name), that it was a bad move by Sen. Bunning, because it makes the Republican Party look like the "Party of NO". My question is why is being the Party of No, bad?
I think that is what this country needs now is a few people saying no. No more spending, no more taxes, no government controlled health care, no card-check, no bailouts, no more insanity.
The argument in this case is that we should help those people who are unemployed. These people cannot find a job and it would be bad not to help these suffering people. My answer is in of two parts. Yes we should help people in the short term, till they find another job. That is how it was intended. What I have a problem is more times we extend the benefits, the more dependent we become dependent on those benifits. Are there people out there that can not find a job? Yes. Don't kid yourself though, there are a lot of people out there that will not do what it takes to get a job, any job, because they are accustomed to the "free money". I know because I have had these people in my office during the last year, as I was hiring for a maintenance position. I had many people who would not take an offered job because they wanted to wait for their unemployment to run out.
Another problem is that they do not want to be "underemployed". If you were working for $20 an hour and became accustomed to that lifestyle, then you lost your job. You get unemployment benefits. Would you take a job that paid less than your unemployment benifits? You take free money to not work and not take the lower paying job and have to work.
During the Great Depression my grandfather used to go to the local feed lot first thing in the morning, and start cleaning the stalls. He would clean all morning and then after a group of them were done the feed lot owner would come out and decide who he could afford to pay for the work. Some guys got paid, some didn't. Grandpa did what it took to support himself, support his family. We are losing that in this country. We aspect the government or someone else to take care of us when we are down. There are many companies that were started by people doing what it took to "put food on the table" that are multi-million dollar companies today. People need an incentive and if you are just giving people free money there is no incentive.
So as for being the "Party of NO", I say good, I'm happy to be in that party. The problem is that we have been saying yes for far too long.
I heard a conservative radio commentator say yesterday (He was a sub for Fred Thompson and I can't remember his name), that it was a bad move by Sen. Bunning, because it makes the Republican Party look like the "Party of NO". My question is why is being the Party of No, bad?
I think that is what this country needs now is a few people saying no. No more spending, no more taxes, no government controlled health care, no card-check, no bailouts, no more insanity.
The argument in this case is that we should help those people who are unemployed. These people cannot find a job and it would be bad not to help these suffering people. My answer is in of two parts. Yes we should help people in the short term, till they find another job. That is how it was intended. What I have a problem is more times we extend the benefits, the more dependent we become dependent on those benifits. Are there people out there that can not find a job? Yes. Don't kid yourself though, there are a lot of people out there that will not do what it takes to get a job, any job, because they are accustomed to the "free money". I know because I have had these people in my office during the last year, as I was hiring for a maintenance position. I had many people who would not take an offered job because they wanted to wait for their unemployment to run out.
Another problem is that they do not want to be "underemployed". If you were working for $20 an hour and became accustomed to that lifestyle, then you lost your job. You get unemployment benefits. Would you take a job that paid less than your unemployment benifits? You take free money to not work and not take the lower paying job and have to work.
During the Great Depression my grandfather used to go to the local feed lot first thing in the morning, and start cleaning the stalls. He would clean all morning and then after a group of them were done the feed lot owner would come out and decide who he could afford to pay for the work. Some guys got paid, some didn't. Grandpa did what it took to support himself, support his family. We are losing that in this country. We aspect the government or someone else to take care of us when we are down. There are many companies that were started by people doing what it took to "put food on the table" that are multi-million dollar companies today. People need an incentive and if you are just giving people free money there is no incentive.
So as for being the "Party of NO", I say good, I'm happy to be in that party. The problem is that we have been saying yes for far too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments on Plumb and Square are moderated. Comments made within 7 days of the posting will post right away. If you make a comment after 7 days of the posting, the comment will not post right away. I will be notified of your comment and I will approve the comment. I do not discriminate, I will post favorable and unfavorable comments. I will not post "sales" comments.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.