Robin Cox – 1/28/09

This page was last updated on February 2, 2009.

No reason to extend benefits for jobless; Robin Cox; Beaver County Times; January 28, 2009.

I don’t usually have a problem with how the Times entitles my letters, but the title it gave this letter is telling. The central theme of the letter is we’re far better off when we invest, save, and spend our own paychecks instead of letting politicians spend them. One would think a title would draw on that. That’s why my title was “Freedom vs. confiscation.” Instead, the Times chose a title that wasn’t even what I wrote on the unemployment point, but is how the Times sees the world. There’s a big difference between providing a reason why extending unemployment benefits isn’t a good idea and saying there’s “no reason to extend benefits for jobless,” and the Times knows it.

FYI, other items on the list in the letter had there been room (The Times has a 250-word limit.) would have been no bailouts for business, ending business subsidies, ending minimum product prices, right to work legislation, and so on. These are all things I’ve mentioned many times before.

Below is a copy of the letter as I submitted it.

Title: Freedom vs. confiscation

History shows freedom is the foundation of economic prosperity, yet most current mainstream proposals for “economic stimulus” are rooted in confiscation and politicians spending other people’s paychecks, pension checks, et cetera on politics-driven projects. These are the same people who knew better than we who should get mortgages. Current events and history show these programs not only don’t work, they exacerbate the problem. For example, extending unemployment benefits seems like the caring thing to do until you realize this provides a disincentive (no matter how large or small) for people to take a job. Likewise, the minimum wage artificially drives up all wages and provides a disincentive for business owners to offer employment. If the economic value of a job is $5, a business can’t pay $7.15 and survive.

Why not let we the people as individuals determine how our paychecks are invested, saved, and spent? A partial list of how this could be done includes:

· cutting income taxes for those who actually pay them,

· cutting extraconstitutional spending to reduce deficits and debt,

· cutting or eliminating the minimum wage to open up more jobs,

· not extending unemployment benefits.

Instead of a privileged handful of politicians spending our paychecks on politics-driven projects, the best economic stimulus plan would reduce/eliminate unnecessary drags (including taxes) on the economy and unleash the power of 300 million individual Americans making their own economic choices with their own paychecks in their family’s best interest.

For your entertainment and as a teaching exercise, below you’ll find the reader comments visible on the Times website at the time I published this critique. They’ll give you an idea of the quality and tenor of some of the comments I receive via e-mail regarding my website’s critiques. I generally don’t publish the contents of e-mail I receive from critics because the sender may consider the message private and I don’t want to embarrass the author.

Without getting into a blow-by-blow critique of all of the comments below (There are too many.), here’s a partial list of observations.

· All but a couple of the contributors hid behind screen handles. Why?

· Most of the comments appear to have a significant emotion content. My experience is thinking with your mind is more caring than letting your positions be driven by emotion. For example, I’d love for everyone to have everything they need and want. I know, however, that’s likely impossible and “robbing Peter to pay Paul” won’t change that, ever. Indeed, more than trivial think time reveals redistribution tends to drag everyone down instead of lifting everyone up. Check out the experiences of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony, and how has that “War on Poverty” – with its price tag of trillions of dollars – gone for the past 40+ years? Effective individual freedom is the key to prosperity for the greatest number of people. When we curb freedom in the name of caring, compassion, et cetera, we’re actually working against our stated goal.

Emotion-based positions are also the easy way out. Who, including me, wouldn’t like to say, “Sure, take from a pot of money and give it to a family without a job.”? Of course, that “pot of money” is confiscated from other families trying to address their own challenges, like clothing, education, food, healthcare, housing, saving for retirement, et cetera. Not only is there nothing altruistic or compassionate about confiscating from one family to give to another, it doesn’t work and drags everyone down. It simply makes people holding that position feel good. An emotion-based position is also how you get to believe it’s greedy to want families to invest, save, and spend the income they earned to meet their own challenges but it’s compassion to confiscate the fruits of a family’s labor to give to someone else.

Should people who need help get it? Of course. That help, however, should come from private charities funded by voluntary contributions. There’s a big difference between confiscation and voluntary giving. It’s called freedom and true compassion.

· Most of the comments include personal attacks, including referring to me as “mean-spirited,” “clueless,” “heartless,” “cold,” “simple,” greedy, et cetera. At least one person asserted I’m passing someone else’s beliefs off as my own. Instead of engaging in a reasoned debate they expect they’d lose, too many people – regardless of ideology – use personal attacks to demonize the opposition. Opponents tend to get angry when I tell them this, but I consider personal attacks to be a good sign.

· One of the personal attack contributors actually believes he/she is due “some sort of rebuttal.” I guess he/she thinks he/she is my target audience. While I critique positions of flamethrowers, I tend not to get into a dialog with them. It’s usually a waste of my time and of readers’. This contributor appears to believe my lack of rebuttal indicates he/she scared me off. Scaring off the opposition, of course, is the goal of flamethrowers.

· The comments tend to focus on the extension of unemployment benefits point and avoid the central theme of the letter. Ask yourself why. As a side point, I wonder how many of these contributors read past the Times-supplied title.

· A couple of people seem to believe I don’t know the difference between welfare and unemployment compensation. Theoretically, unemployment compensation is funded by a combination of federal (6.2% of first $7,000/year of wages) and state (PA uses a complicated formula) unemployment taxes. As with Medicare and Socialist Security taxes, federal unemployment tax law requires employers to make it appear as if the employer pays the taxes even though they really come from the employee’s compensation.

As far as I can tell, the collected taxes go into “trust funds” and benefits are supposed to be paid from those funds. Historically, however, both federal and state governments tend to take on debt when the trust funds are exhausted and extending unemployment benefits hastens the drain. That’s why politicians can extend unemployment benefits even when there are insufficient unemployment taxes in the kitty. When benefits paid by any government program exceed the collected taxes, that increases our debt. Do advocates of extending unemployment compensation also advocate increasing our debt?

· Some asked if family/friends of mine or I had ever been unemployed as if that determines who can offer an opinion on this subject. This is the same tactic we see with abortion for convenience (If you oppose it, your opinion is invalid unless you’re a woman who had an abortion.) and military action (If you support it, your opinion is invalid unless you’ve been in combat.). I guess this means you can’t have an opinion about murder unless you’re a murder victim. <g> Just as with the personal attacks, the intent is to shout down or marginalize opposition to avoid an intelligent debate. FYI, while I have never been involuntarily unemployed, friends and family have. I’m currently retired and live off my savings. No pension, no Medicare, no Socialist Security, no part-time job, and I pay for my healthcare out of my own pocket.

· Some comments get into class envy.

· At least one contributor appears to believe a business owner is a bad guy if he doesn’t eat a government-mandated wage increase.

· Another contributor believes “money-loving, greedy employers” would pay their employees “probably next to nothing” “if their [sic] were no minimum wage” law.

· The same contributor believes it’s the government’s job to tell a business how much its owner can pay himself. Actually, despite what he/she wrote, context indicates he/she probably meant company management and not the owner since “corporate owners” are the shareholders. In any case, where in the Constitution is government given the power to tell a business how much it can pay employees, whether at the top or bottom of the payroll scale? Now, if you’re talking about a business doling out taxpayer bailout bucks, that’s a different story. Then again, government should not be bailing out failing businesses.

· Some contributors seem to believe being pro-business and pro-employee are mutually exclusive positions. That would have been news to Samuel Gompers, father of the American labor movement, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and AFL president for 38 years until his death. Mr. Gompers once said, “The worst crime against working people is a company that fails to operate at a profit.” You can find other quotes from Mr. Gompers at “Labor Unions.”

· None of the critical comments explain how confiscating from Peter to pay Paul stimulates the economy.

· One author apparently believes a spending bill written by politicians and voted on by politicians isn’t primarily about politics-driven projects.

· Another tactic on display is the straw man. For example, some contributors wrote as if I believed a person could raise a family on the minimum wage. As I’ve written many times before, I do not. Though a well-meaning but misguided concept, the minimum wage was never intended to support a family. As I’ve detailed in previous critiques, the minimum wage – regardless of amount – is a feel good exercise in futility. Think of a dog chasing its tail. Some contributors wrote as if I advocated the elimination of unemployment compensation though I clearly wrote unemployment benefits simply shouldn’t be extended. Extending benefits speeds draining of the unemployment trust funds and increases debt and/or shortchanges more recent beneficiaries when the trust funds run dry.

· One contributor believes letting people keep and invest, save, or spend their own paychecks is “neoliberal economics,” whatever that is. I’ve been accused of a lot of stuff because of my positions, but I believe this is the first time an accusation has included anything with “liberal” in it. What’s really a hoot is the contributor appears to be a follower of John Keynes (1883-1946), a British economist favored by leftists. I learned about Keynes in economics classes in high school, college, and grad school. Leftists tend to like Keynesian economics because it favors government intervention in the economy like that of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s during the Great Depression and Presidents Bush and Obama in 2008/2009. Of course, we know intervention didn’t end the Great Depression and likely extended it. One point where lefties and Keynesian economics part ways is when it comes to taxes. In “The Means to Prosperity” (1933), Keynes recognized increasing tax rates can provide the double whammy of damping an economy and reducing collected taxes, leading to deficit spending and debt. To this day, most – but not all – leftists appear to believe increasing tax rates has no effect on the economy and always increases collected taxes. One lefty even told me President Clinton’s 1993 tax rate increases were actually responsible for the economy we had during most of the 1990s.

· The same contributor claimed that I addressed the “supply side” but that “[t]he problem is on the demand side.” When the letter addressed both supply and demand, why would the contributor make this misrepresentation? You see, this gentleman is one of our local lefty activists. In his view of the world and that of the folks to whom he appeals, business is bad. Therefore, claiming I favor business over the consumer and employee plays well to his audience.

As he has in other threads, the contributor implied consumers paying off “old debt” doesn’t help stimulate the economy. This position is wrong and here’s why. To provide for normal operations and protection against bad investments, loans, et cetera, financial institutions must maintain a given percentage of their assets as liquid assets, such as cash, gold, et cetera. The percentage varies depending on the amount of anticipated bad investments, loans, et cetera. After the government provided various bailouts to financial institutions last fall, a lot of people were surprised when the cash infusion didn’t result in a lot of new loans. The two major reasons for this situation were 1) the financial institutions used the cash infusion to shore up their reserve requirements, and 2) the uncertainty about the extent of bad mortgages forced financial institutions to become more conservative about how much they kept in reserve.

The tight credit affects both businesses (supply side) and consumers (demand side). It affects businesses because many (most?) purchase raw materials and/or finished inventory on credit. If a business can’t get loans, it can’t stock its shelves or acquire raw materials to manufacture products. If the products aren’t there, consumers can’t buy them. Tight credit affects the demand side because if consumers can’t get a loan – for a new car, for example – consumers can’t purchase as much as they normally would. That’s a reduction in demand.

When consumers pay off “old debt,” they are doing two things. First, they’re putting cash back into the lending institutions and this improves their ability to lend responsibly. Second, it reduces the amount of potential bad loans the financial institution has to allow for. Again, this improves the ability for a lending institution to lend responsibly to both businesses and consumers. Claiming paying off “old debt” doesn’t stimulate the economy is either the result of ignorance or an attempt to deceive.

leopard wrote on Jan 30, 2009 6:46 PM:

" Paula7. I've been out of the loop for a couple of days and just got your response. I apologize for the tone of my post. I own a small business as well. I understand your point of view. However, could you imagine if the government were not involved in social issues. Who would protect the "little guy?" When you talk about the value of the employee to your business, you may be a fair employer to your employees. I don't know. But, again, imagine what some money-loving, greedy employers would place on their employees if their were no minimum wage..probably next to nothing. Also, there will always be people who take advantage of the welfare system but, let's flip things around. Right now, corporate owners are paying themselves billions of dollars in bonuses during this financial crisis. Our legislators must now go in and fix that loophole to stop this from happening. So, instead of these corporations using stimulus money to create jobs, they are pocketing it. Money=power. If you don't have much money, someone has to protect you. Thanks for your consideration. "

tellyouwhat wrote on Jan 30, 2009 3:53 PM:

" what about the people that don't have any debt? "

jlaxsr01 wrote on Jan 30, 2009 1:22 PM:

" instead of giving the banks 750 billion to bail them out of poor judgement, set up accounts for citizens in debt between $50,000. and $100,000 pay the debts off directly to the banks, that way the citizen is debt free and can go forward in stimulating the economy, and the banks still get their 750 billion dollars and allows them to continuning lending "

tellyouwhat wrote on Jan 30, 2009 12:27 PM:

" keysmann you hit the nail on the head. i have family members who are in this same boat. they bought their kids playstation 3's, nitendo ds, added them to their cell phone plans this christmas....all the while they are living paycheck to paycheck and barley can afford to pay the bills (some bills don't get paid). they all drive newer SUVs but are upset cause of gas prices going up. now one of them loses their job and their world turned upside down. it's everyone's fault except their own. "

desmo wrote on Jan 30, 2009 11:34 AM:

" SonnyD, tax cuts did not grow the deficit to $10T. Out of control govt spending did!! Revenue to the Treasury has been consistently increasing every year. Unfortunately, our inept govt is spending even more and will continue to do so until the dollar is absolutely worthless. We need a massive decrease in govt spending not $1T "stimulas" plans that will do nothing but pay off political favors. Also, where do you get your supposed "facts"? Move on dot org! "

joshua636 wrote on Jan 30, 2009 10:59 AM:

" Robin: Rather than posting that we are all "conclusion jumpers" as you put it, why don't you answer with some sort of rebuttal? Perhaps you are regretting the letter to the editor?

Sonny d and Carl: Very well put, I'm glad to see somebody still pays attention to the basic economics. Tax cuts generally never work, especially in this situation. "

SonnyD wrote on Jan 30, 2009 10:27 AM:

" Paula 7 is another tax-cut charlatan. Tax-cuts never were, and will never be the answer. The facts:

A $1.00 tax cut produces a $1.29 ROI

A $1.00 govt. spending increase produces a $1.59 ROI

In fact a $1.00 corporate tax cut produces 0.30 ROI, a negative return on investment.

Bush's massive tax cuts resulted in a $10 trillion dollar federal deficit and the primary reason we're in the condition we're in!

Republicans have been playing the tax-cut card so long they're actually starting to believe they're own BS. "

CarlDavidson wrote on Jan 30, 2009 10:07 AM:

" Robin is arguing the discredited 'supply side' neoliberal economics here, the policy that got us into this mess.

What it ignores, first, is that businesses need major purchase orders right now, rather than tax cuts. Without purchase orders to make goods or deliver services, you can cut taxes to zero and reduce the minimum wage to $1 an hour, and businesses still won't be hiring if they don't have orders. Anyone who has ever run a business understands this. The problem is on the demand side.

Second, individual consumers are cutting back on purchases because of layoffs. They're also cutting back because they're credit is maxed out, and they're not getting more. Second, they're in no position to buy a new repaired bridge as an individual. Finally, even if they get a cash infusion, a chunk of it goes to old debt or purchases at Walmart, which delivers purchase orders to firms in China but not here.

The cure is Keynesian 'demand side' purchases made here, directly to firms that will hire when they get the orders. Then you get the ripple effect helping us all. "

tol369 wrote on Jan 30, 2009 8:55 AM:

" By most of your posts, I get the impression that you all want to pay more taxes. Yeah, that would be real good for the economy (hopefully you'll get the sarcasm). It seems a lot of you, this administration included, have no clue about how to stimulate the economy. Bush started the bailout fiasco, but Obama wants to snowball it. "

Jon wrote on Jan 30, 2009 2:06 AM:

" Hopefully people will learn from this. Debt and credit are to blame. Nobody saves anymore. The government is going to keep spending till the dollar collapses. After that it will be every man and woman for themselves. The federal reserve owns you now. You are all a slave to a bank that isn't even a federal entity. Fiat currency will never support this bloated country. Plant a garden and invest in your family. Its going to get very ugly soon. "

shakeykay wrote on Jan 29, 2009 11:55 PM:

" I lost my job in 2005. I received unemployment for 26 weeks while I looked for another job. The job I was able to get does not pay anywhere near what I was making but I was able to get health insurance through the state. I have many health problems. Recently, I received a letter telling me my unemployment was extended. Of course I had to take it. The state does not stand by and let you make your choice. I am still doing the same job and my extended unemployment is partial. I no long have health insurance and I can no longer buy the medicines I badly need. I cannot get the tests that I am to have every three months and I no longer can go to the doctor. So, your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't "

keysmann wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:38 PM:

" I'm truly not trying to sound like a smarta**. So please hear me out. I have been where those of you are now. A few times. Go to work and boom it's gone. How am I going to go home and tell my wife? The only thing that truly helped us in that situation was the fact we never lived beyond our means. We found ways to save money which wasn't easy. If that meant cutting back on presents at Christmas so be it. But we always have a reserve of 6 months wages for the both of us saved. Like I said, it's not easy to do but you have to do it. It means going for the 36" TV instead of the 60" HDTV. It's buying the clunker at the used car lot instead of buying the Escalade. We are blessed I feel because we've been more frugal. My wife just got a new job last week making more money than her last job. She got really lucky. But she worked hard to get it. I'll pray for those that are seeing hard times. God Bless "

Lock wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:23 PM:

" In the middle of an economic meltdown Cox’s big worry is that laid off workers might get an extension in UE benefits to help them stay afloat during the crisis, or that a $7 minimum wage exists.

The outrage of Wall Street CEOs awarding themselves $18 Billion in bonuses in 2008 even as their companies were going bankrupt doesn’t bother him though. He must also be OK with those execs accepting hundreds of billions in taxpayer’s TARP bailout money for their bankrupt companies, then squandering tens of millions on office decorations, expensive junkets, and new corporate jets… or he’d have complained about it in his letter.

Cox’s letter shows just how badly warped and twisted the far-right perspective can get. "

emtajo wrote on Jan 29, 2009 7:46 PM:

" Robin, all I can say is that you must never have had the unfortunate experience to lose a job through no fault of your own. You also must not know the feeling of wondering how you are going to support your family, keep your home and meet all of your other monthly obligations. And lets not forget about health insurance. I no longer have a job, but I can pay over $1000 a month to get COBRA. With the economy as it is, if all of the people who are unemployed lose their UC benefit or don't get EUC, the mortgage crisis will only get worse. And then you'll be screaming about all the people who got mortgages they can't afford. Everything changes when you lose your job. Suddenly all that you worked hard for your at risk to lose. I wonder what your opinion would be if you went to work tomorrow to find you were going to lose your job. I'm guessing you would tell the Department of Labor and Industry to keep their money since you don't think the extension is necessary? "

swoa wrote on Jan 29, 2009 6:50 PM:

" Ronin Cox I hope you have everything you want and need. Bit for a heart maybe you should visit OZ They may actually have a place called OZ on your plant. "

jjwalker wrote on Jan 29, 2009 5:12 PM:

" Ms Cox you must not realize the extraordinary circumstances facing this country and the world. Have you not read the stimulus package; it calls for tax reductions; which are some of “your” ideas. We as a country need a multiple pronged approach to solving these economic crises, and extending benefits is just one of the prongs.

Also you must not be aware of the growing despair among everyone who has lost a job. I still have one, but man if I get laid off it would be nice to know I am not relying on your meager taxes to feed my family. One other thing Olympian hurdler, have you not noticed that states are running deficits because of reduced tax revenue, why you may ask ? unemployed workers!!!!!

This is really important stop passing off Sean Hannity’s ideas as your own. "

dddash wrote on Jan 29, 2009 4:52 PM:

" 'Based on the comments in this thread, perhaps conclusion jumping should be an Olympic event.' Are you referring to conclusions resulting from the gender ambiguity of your name or about the lack of brainpower demonstrated in the letter? "

bigdawg65 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 4:45 PM:

" TO desmo, i guess finding a job in this economy is just so easy who needs extended unemployment. To robins latest comment, nobody jumped to any conculsions that you did not make. You, desmo and paula7 are so high up on your thrones where the economy does not effect you and you could care less about anyone who lost their job due to the econmoy and has beeen unable to find another job. I guarantee that none of you could possibly live on $1144 a month, min. wage, but you expect all your lowly subjects to do this. Unemployment is paid for by taxes from employees and employers so we basically getting money we paid to the government back to help us while we find work. You three are so far out of touch with what is going on in this economy that there is nothing that can be said to make you understand from high up in your ivory tower what we are going through down here. "

Robin Cox wrote on Jan 29, 2009 2:53 PM:

" Based on the comments in this thread, perhaps conclusion jumping should be an Olympic event. In any case, you have contributed more than you know.

Thank you. "

ronn10 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Gotta love the income tax holiday P7. I'd get 28% income and would spend, spend, spend. A new saturn Vue made in TN, Loan from ESB bank (local) filled with PA petro from Kwikfill. Food from Giant Eagle not a thing from walmarts. Vacation to Fla and CO (not Cancun). Dinner at Lock 6, Sals, Kellys' and the Back Door. Rolling rock beer and a GE refer to put it in and a good tide for the local serbian church. gotta like that stimulus!! "

flash88 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:19 AM:

" History proves nothing. Robin, you are nothing but a typical mean-spirited Reporklican. As long as you and your buddies "take care" of each other, then screw the rest of us.

Well we voted your kind out of office. So, hopefully things will get better for EVERYONE. "

teal07 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:10 AM:

" My husband has been laid off from his job since November. Has Robin ever known the fear of walking into her job and then out of the blue been told you no longer have a job ? PLUS, Robin, in addition to losing your job right before Thanksgiving, how would you like to be told you and your family also no longer have health insurance in two weeks, unless you have over $1000 a month to pay for COBRA coverage ? Instead of looking for a job, my husband and I need to give up--don't bother working 2nd and 3rd minimum wage jobs JUST to make ends meet...We both need to stop working and collecting that pesky unemployment and go on welfare...at least we would get food stamps and HEALTH CARE, and won't even have to leave the house. Jobs are so over rated "

Paula 7 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:06 AM:

" leopard iIappreciate your point of view.

I simply want governmnet out of social issues. I've witnessed many violations of the food stamp program. Seems the bureacracy always grows out of control. I agree both parties "distribute" the wealth. That's the problem. I have 22 employees some unskilled and still expect me to "provide" them with a substantial living. So ask you > Employee #12 is young, completed a GED. No car, divorced and wants a job. It's emptying trash cans, cleaning floors and keeping things tidy and whatever fill in work we can find to supply 40 hours a week.

HOW much is this employee worthto "your" company? Understanding that bens , SSI, Unply Ins

and Disability Ins doubles the dollar per hour the employer pays. Respond and I'll tell you what I pay. Also remember "Value Added" Is you customer willing to pay more for the product because of costs you incurr. "

desmo wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:41 AM:

" Will all you people slamming Robin please reread the letter. It did not mention cutting unemployment benefits, merely not extending them past their current timeline. Our wonderful govt is in the process of passing a $1,000,000,000,000 bill that is going to drastically increase the size of our federal govt, waste billions and most likely provide very little "stimulus" to the economy overall. Who exactly is going to pay this bill? Anyone want to answer this? "

jjwalker wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Dumb opinion! "

ad1977 wrote on Jan 29, 2009 8:05 AM:

" I must say, that is one heck of a post..Have you any idea what the american people are goin through trying to find jobs? You cannot just walk up to an employer and say your gonna hire me or else..So goin from a job that pays 20.00 an hour and both people working in that family to trying to get a job at 5.00 an hour? Whats that gonna pay for penny candy? What should we use to provide our family with? You should lower your pride a little and take the place in our shoes for a while, then i guarantee you will change your mind,unless your living high in the money..Well if that is the case, then you should give us all a job that pays what our old jobs did, then you wont have nothing to complain about? Did your kids have a great christmas?...Well while we were picking out of our penny banks and skipping bills to pay so our children could have something for christmas you were probably looking out your window laughing..Well i hope you dont ever get laid off...you wouldnt know how to handle it..will pray for you... "

trek1 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 11:52 PM:

" Newsflash... not that I need to set the records striaght fro Robin, but Robin is a guy. Nice of you all to assume otherwise. "

davew wrote on Jan 28, 2009 11:50 PM:

" And I try to get laid off and I can't.....! "

southern beaver countian wrote on Jan 28, 2009 7:34 PM:

" Similar sentiments didn't work too well for Marie Antoinette and Louie. Better watch who you foist the cake upon. "

leopard wrote on Jan 28, 2009 6:26 PM:

" Paula 7, you're right. Robin is going to take some heat from her comments and you are too. So, what is your idea for "incentives?" I guess if we take away or not extend someone's employment benefits, and they have NOTHING coming in, that ABSOLUTELY is an incentive. What would you do if that were you? You talk about Nancy Pelosi wanting $300 million for contraceptives but, in the same breath, you complain about food stamps. Which way do you want it? Do you want to pay for the condoms or for the welfare for children of unplanned pregnancies? I bet you don't believe in abortion either. You say that a booming economy occurs when people spend money hence, creating jobs. What money do people have to spend right now? Where are these jobs? Many Americans would like to know. You also refer to "socialism." The only difference between Democrats and Republicans in "distributing wealth" is that Democrats spread wealth to the middle class. Republicans spread it upward. By the way, a "tax holiday" doesn't help the unemployed, does it? "

leopard wrote on Jan 28, 2009 5:41 PM:

" Greed, greed greed. It is AMAZING how money drives people. To he__ with looking out for your neighbor who may be hurting. Unemployment drives disincentives? Do away with the minimum wage? What is the matter with you? DO THE MATH! If an individual worked a 40 hour week, their GROSS PAY averages out to be $1,140.00 a month. What could YOU do living on such a wage, let alone trying to support a family. The only reason that the minimum wage "artificially drives up prices" is because in order to maintain a higher standard of living, business owners raise their prices when the minimum wage goes up. Regarding unemployment, have you ever been unemployed? Look at the people who have lost their jobs recently who have little or no training to do other jobs. I guess that they need to go back to school or get some training. Where does THAT money come from. These are the very people who live pay check to pay check. They struggle when the ARE working, let alone when the are not. Everyone for themselves, right? "

kd wrote on Jan 28, 2009 2:32 PM:

" Robin must be a very lucky individual. She has clearly never lost a job through no fault of her own. She has clearly never had to make a living on minimum wage. All of her family and friends must also be in very secure, high paying jobs. She should share her secret with everyone else so that no one would ever need a helping hand. "

dddash wrote on Jan 28, 2009 1:31 PM:

" Your Highness, Ms. Cox, I beg your pardon. Only those lowly workers who have paid into the UC system (through their tax dollars) qualify for UC benefits. When you look down at us from your ivory tower please remember that we had to have sufficient wages, been employed at least 4 months and had a qualifying separation from our employer in order to get ~60% of our wages for a few months. Your Majesty it seems you are confusing welfare and unemployment compensation. For your next letter may I suggest a subject: "Marie-Antoinette". "

joshua636 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 12:49 PM:

" I have to hand it to Robin, at least this is an Original Thought... although a very cold, unrealistic, and simple thought, an original thought all the same.

Robin: What do you do? If we get rid of minimum wage people would be working for 5.00 a DAY!! But business would thrive right? Can you live off of 5.15 an hour or 7.50/ hour for that matter? And Have you ever been laid off from a job? Severance packages that include extended benefits are not hurting anything! And lets talk about the "politically driven project".. roads, power grid, bridges, clean power, nuclear facilities, these are all politically driven huh? THEY CREATE JOBS!! Current events and history show they don't work? Maybe you should study up on what a money pump project is.. Robin you don't deal in reality. Let me suggest a book for you to read on how hard it is to actually survive on minimum wage, Its called "nickel and dimed in America" You can buy on amazon for like 4 bucks. You need to open your eyes a little more and understand economics is really about.... it's more than just your paycheck. "

markd wrote on Jan 28, 2009 12:34 PM:

" I think that there are 2 sides to this type of argument. On one had, there are people who need benefits because of layoffs and whatnot. I'm guessing that this article is not aimed toward this group. On the other hand, there are many people who just don't want to work and expect others to pay their wages. I have witnessed this first hand and cannot believe the mentality of these people. I know this is a suggestive longshot, but someone needs to regulate this system. Those who actively go out and look for a job should be covered, but if you are not doing anything to try to work, then you get "paid" what you deserve basically. "

ideaguy wrote on Jan 28, 2009 11:52 AM:

" One facet of the economy that Robin & Paula7 seem to overlook is that the economy is driven primarily by lower an middle class spending( the rich are smaller in number and save a larger %age of thier money). They buy the bulk of the goods made today. When that sector is hit hard with layoffs spending decreases dramatically, and the economy slows.

The "incentives" you both promote can back fire. Look around, are there any jobs that can support a modest $450.00/mo mortgage? $5.00/hr part time walmart jobs are not going to cut it. We will see more mortgages fail, compounding our problems. Depression anyone?

Another great "haves" plan. Maybe we should give more $$$ to big business & banks so they can buy out more compeditors and go on more retreat vacations while cutting staff. "

lovinglife wrote on Jan 28, 2009 11:35 AM:

" OMG what planet are you from Robin Cox? You're either wealthy to begin with and clueless, or just plan heartless and clueless. Collecting unemployment benefits is not the same as collecting welfare. You're proposing to cut money from people who actually work. Unemployment is not given to people who quit or get fired from a job. It's given to those who have lost a job through no fault of their own. It doesn't last forever either. Unemployement benefits are a temporary source of income so you can find another job without devasting personal financial consequences.

How would you cope if lost your job today and had no income until you found another job. "

bigdawg65 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:45 AM:

" So let me get this right, if you have been laid off and have been trying to get a job and are unable to due to the economy we are in, it is your fault. There are more people out of work right now due to no fault of theirs and have been trying like heck to get a job without any luck, it is their fault and their family should suffer. Then you say the minimum wage is to high, right not a family of one cannot live on minimum wage. I guess it is safe to say the you could live on $286 a week/$1144 a month paying your rent/mortgage and all other bills and buy food and gas try it.But i guess since you are up on your high horse and the economy has not effected you, to he## with everyone else as long as the haves have and the have nots never get. Then you want to cut taxes, i say raise your taxes since you can afford them, you are way out of touch with what is going on with the economy. "

zippy wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:37 AM:

" What a great time for this idea! Just in one day this week, corporations announced over 71,000 job cuts, so by all means, let's cut out unemployment benefits so that those people can be a little "more hungry" and "get more competitive". Maybe they can pool their resources and talents and start their own car manufacturer or phramaceutical company or heavy equipment manufacturer. That shouldn't be too hard, right? I'm sure alot of displaced workers would have no problem getting financing for that, even in this financial cycle. And lets cut minimum wage , too because now that the job market is really tight, we can probably find people to actually physically fight for those jobs. You live in a very simple theoretical world, missy. "

Paula 7 wrote on Jan 28, 2009 8:01 AM:

" Your on the right track Robin. However, get ready for the few BC socialists to fire their standard "Bad Mouth" on you. It's about incentives. If you delay the incentive to get out and find a job then that's what they will do. With close to a trillion dollars "up for grabs" in congress everyone is trying for a piece of it. Nancy Pelosi wanted 300 million for contraceptives for poor people. Durbin wants a million for the census. Other Dems want an additional 400 million for expanded food stamps. What they don't want to consider is It's our money and borrowed too. How do we earn money on expanded food stamps?

A booming economy is defined by people ( not government) spending money causing growth incentive and

jobs. Giving every working american an income tax holiday for a year would do just that. Money wouldn't be wasted on welfare. People up to $250K would get back 19%, 28% and 33% of their income back. It would fuel the economy and get us back on track. "