• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Less is more

It's getting to the point where we should probably begin every story about what they're doing in Washington with the disclaimer, "No this isn't a joke. We're not kidding. They really are considering this."

Senate Democrats crafting a job creation bill are considering a proposal to give money to workers who cut their hours in order to avoid layoffs.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would give unemployment compensation to employees who accept a reduced work schedule to allow their companies to avert layoffs or to hire more employees. Reed's proposal for work-sharing was mentioned during the Senate Democrats' lunch Tuesday, when Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) announced that an initiative focusing on jobs would soon be a priority, Reed's office said.

The government paying people to work less so companies will hire more people -- what could possibly go wrong? Hey, I have an idea. Let's call it the "three workers to watch while one worker fills the pothole" act. As NR points out, this idea didn't exactly work as planned when it was tried in France.


tim zank
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 1:35pm

It's just the next logical step. More democrat math 1+3=8.
just gets better every day doesn't it?

Bob G.
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 1:49pm

Ce' Magnifique...!!!
(translation = WTF???)

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 2:01pm

Florida does this already. Signed into law by Jeb Bush.


tim zank
Thu, 11/19/2009 - 2:49pm

Nice try Kevin. That would have been former Governor Bob Graham (D-Florida) Jan 2, 1979 to Jan 13, 1987.


"Short Time Compensation resulted from a 1983 Legislative amendment to the Unemployment Compensation Law and is provided for in Section 443.1116, Florida Statutes."



"The Short Time Compensation Program was created by the Florida Legislature in 1983 to help businesses to keep their workforce intact while reducing labor costs. Not surprisingly, the program has become more popular in the past two years."

Kevin Knuth
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 9:21am

Tim- Sorry- you are correct....sorta. It was modified under Jeb Bush- http://law.onecle.com/florida/labor/443.1116.html

tim zank
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 9:48am

Gee, thanks for the half hearted mea-culpa. Hopefully it's now obvious to the rest of the people that read this blog that this was a Democrat implemented program in place since 1983 and that your "shoot from the hip" inference was simply more partisan hackery intended to imply somehow this was implemented by a Republican governor.

That's why your credibility is always in question, I'm sure you knew full well Bush didn't create this program, but like always, in drive by fashion, you INFERRED it was.

Just try being honest for a while instead of lacing your comments with inuendo and supposition, it'll make you more believable, maybe.

Kevin Knuth
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 10:33am

Tim- I admitted you were correct. Florida has line item veto power for the governor. Bush could have stopped it, and did not.

So YOU are the partisan- always wanting to blame Democrats and putting blinders on when the GOP is involved. Clearly it had support from both sides and has been a LAW since 1983- 26 Years!

Oh, and at least 4 other states have similar programs.

Maybe it is not such a bad idea after all!

tim zank
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 11:20am

Pay attention readers! Here is another glaring example of how to insert an asinine inference to draw attention away from the the point:
(From Kevins reply above):
"Bush could have stopped it, and did not."

You'll note the structure of the "drive by".

1st: The acquiescence in the first sentence.

2nd: The defiant "but I'm really sort of right" argument based solely on the irrelevant and astoundingly stupid argument any sitting Governor of any party would actually axe a 23 year old program of any kind.

3rd: Foist the blame and infer that the other side has always been cool with the program without any basis in fact that they have been. (i.e. if no one is bitching about it right at this moment, it must have had unanimous support for those 23 years, right?)

4th: Lastly the always popular "and see, some other people are doing it so it must be great" meme.

That boys and girls is the Knuth, and nothing but the Knuth!

Kevin Knuth
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 12:37pm

Tim- why so partisan? You stated in your FIRST statement :"It

tim zank
Fri, 11/20/2009 - 2:28pm

I'm not arguing government at all, I'm pointing out how you (personally) obfuscate ALL arguments. You pretty much subscribe to the "I know you are but what am I" style of arguing. It's typical of liberals and 3rd graders because they can never win on the merits of common sense, as they have none.

Elementary really.

Fri, 11/20/2009 - 9:06pm

Grow some skin, timothy.

Sun, 11/22/2009 - 5:41pm

Good lord, am I of all people going to have to be the voice of reason here?
Tim, you lose a point for being the first to bring up a political party, and you lose another point for using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic."
Nobody calls it the "Repub" Party. That would be childish.
Obviously, anyone could come up with a list of bad moves made by administrations of either party.
I'm going to become a Whig.

tim zank
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 11:37am

I refuse to call them the "Democratic" party, as their actions for 40+ years have (in my view) not been remotely close to anything "Democratic", but have instead promoted an agenda more towards socialism. The party that stands for "no personal responsibility" and "free sh#t for everyone" is and shall remain the "Democrat" party.

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 12:42pm

"no personal responsibility" and "free sh#t for everyone"?

Sounds like the GOP to me.

"The Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

So Bush and Rove shored up the senior vote- by putting my kids and grandkids in debt.

way to go... "Conservatives".....

tim zank
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 7:30pm

We conservatives were adamantly against the Medicare drug bill. It was an awful move, which (one would think) should open your eyes as to how unsustainable (and utterly comical)the rest of these horsesh&t plans are.

When spending a gazillion dollars didn't work, why on Earth do you guys believe tossing a few gazillion more on top of it will? Would you treat your home budget like that? Math is math, no matter how many zeros are added to the numbers.

Here's a newsflash, 2+2=4 and it always will, no matter how "artful" your accounting is.

Forget for the time being the awful socialist implications of the plans being rammed down our throats, and concentrate (with no emotion) on the reality of the numbers, math and simple addition, and then explain to all of us how in the fark we will ever dig out of this financial hole if we keep borrowing and spending.

We are, as a nation are now borrowing to pay just the interest on other debt. This is the same brilliant principle used unsuccesfully by scads of business people...The builder that uses the drywall draw on house "a" to pay for the foundation on house "b", the car dealer that double floor plans his inventory, the manufacturer that gives financing to people who can't pay later just to move product today, there are literally hundreds of examples all with the same theory, "If we just borrow from Peter to pay Paul until things pick up, we'll be ok."

No, no you won't. It takes cash to "feed the beast" and if that cash is borrowed instead of "real income" it cannot, has not and will not sustain itself.

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 11:05am

The GOP pushed that bill through with a vote at 3AM. Three hours of debate were NOT televised because Karl Rove got the camerars turned off!

Are you saying Rove is NOT a Conservative????

tim zank
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 12:21pm

What? Are reading a different post? Jeez, stay on topic...I don't know what comment you are responding too, it certainly isn't mine....

Try this: Look right above your last comment, you'll see MY last comment. As threads progress, usually the post below is in answer to the post above. See, they kinda go in a sequence, that way the conversation makes more sense.

Kind of reminds me of my wife's train of thought, we'll be driving along and I'll say, "gee, it sure is sunny out today" and she'll say "Why didn't you run the dishwasher before we left?". Both valid thoughts, just not related to one another in any way though.

Hang in there Kevin, We'll help get ya back on track.

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 12:37pm

I am asking about this statement YOU made:
"We conservatives were adamantly against the Medicare drug bill. "

Rove pushed it through Congress- so is Rove a conservative or not? Quit trying to dodge questions.

tim zank
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 12:59pm

Heh heh heh...dodge the question, that's rich. I guess to answer your ridiculous question (which is obviously asked to draw the conversation away from my point of the ridiculous spending by this administration) yes kevin, Mr Rove is a conservative. When your boss tells you to do something, you do it, whether you agree with it or not (if you want to keep your job). See how easy common sense is when applied?

But hey, ask me another pointless question and avoid the issues at hand. I'm not sure which page of the Saul Alinsky playbook that's on, you may have to check. Sorry, I don't keep a copy close by.

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 2:25pm


Nice- now YOU are blaming Bush!

However, it also shows you are clueless to politics and the political process. Rove pushed Medicare Part D to gain voters-

"As a political expedient designed to give George W. Bush a second term in the White House, Karl Rove convinced, cajoled, and browbeat congressional Republicans into creating Medicare Part D, the program

tim zank
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 4:44pm

What part of my post did you not understand? This is like arguing with a 3rd grader...What does the current administrations propensity to spend us into bankruptcy have to do with Rove?

Got an answer to my question yet, or are you going to the "wayback" machine again for another Bush mis-step?

He's not in office anymore, we are arguing about the current administration, do you have any thoughts on that, or should we discuss Nixon for a while too?

Tue, 11/24/2009 - 8:04pm

Good grief, timothy, get a grip!!

And if you and Mr. Knuth want to continue your Bele/Lokai impersonations, please!, take it offline!

tim zank
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 8:37pm

Sorry Nellie, I was under the impression blogs WERE the place to argue about politics & such. It's sort of the nature of the beast, no? Or were you here hoping for recipes or Star Trek reviews?

Tue, 11/24/2009 - 9:04pm

Well, at least you're consistent, timothy - when you can't think of anything constructive to say, you sling the personal attacks. Very mature.