Poll: Do You Support Extending Unemployment Beyond 99 Weeks?

[boedicca]

No. I'd rather see the government quit its campaign to murder the private sector so that we can create jobs again. Most of the unemployed would rather have a job than be on the dole.

 

[WillowTree]

Typical lib response.

Let's recap your answer: No, I have done no research on the topic. No, I cannot cite any source for my belief but it sounds good. Gosh, Republicans are heartless because they don't want government to provide for everyone's ever need. Raise taxes, fuck Bush.

That about sum it up?

I think you have it by golly.

 

[Jarhead]

People in a free society should be able to wait for a decent job with a company that doesn't treat them as an expendable commodity instead of human beings.
me:

The burden should be on the employee to make themselves indespensible. They should establish a differential. Work harder. Take initiative. Expand their education in their trade.

If they do not want to go that route, then they should consider becoming an employer and work the long hours at the beginning as they build a business.

If they opt to have less stress and not work above and beyond the norm, then they should be prepared for the worst to happen.

I have a woman working for me who will see me fire me before I fire her. She has proven to be THAT instrumental to my company.

I have another employee who, for the last 3 years, has used every sick day and every personal day our handbook allows. Ironically, all of them always landed on a friday or a monday. But he gives me 100% when he is here. Yet, if I need to lay off, he will be the first to go. He made that choice.

And some employees are the victims of circumstance beyond their control. Folks who make steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china have seen their places of employment locks and shuttered and the real means of production shipped overseas. Fat lot of good making themselves indispensable to those industries while those industries have closed shop.

Then, the towns which service those factories close up as well. So, rather than having a job which provided a good livelihood, the chance to get another job in town is gone with the wind too! Now, as families move away, the real estate values drop, potential buyers vanish and the formerly employed factory worker is left with no value in their home, no prospect for further employment and the bitter taste of disdain left by those who 'think' the unfortunate jobless will get spoiled if the state extends the largess it gives freely as foreign aid to the countries now building their former factories.

If your complaint is about jobs being shipped overseas, I am 100% in agreement with you.
But, again, they chose to take those positions. The ones who started 10 years ago were well aware that outsourcing and overseas was something companies were doing, but they opted to take that chance. They were lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages. As sad as it is, they lost the gamble.

On the flip side, if you invested all of your time and money to build a company, and then a competative company from overseas moved into your territory and their "lower prices" ran you out of business, how would you feel?

Employees take chances when they opt to accept a job. If it pans out for their career, great for them. If not, it sucks.

Employers also take chances when they opt to open a business. If it pans out, great for them. If not, it sucks.

 

[Nosmo King]

The burden should be on the employee to make themselves indespensible. They should establish a differential. Work harder. Take initiative. Expand their education in their trade.

If they do not want to go that route, then they should consider becoming an employer and work the long hours at the beginning as they build a business.

If they opt to have less stress and not work above and beyond the norm, then they should be prepared for the worst to happen.

I have a woman working for me who will see me fire me before I fire her. She has proven to be THAT instrumental to my company.

I have another employee who, for the last 3 years, has used every sick day and every personal day our handbook allows. Ironically, all of them always landed on a friday or a monday. But he gives me 100% when he is here. Yet, if I need to lay off, he will be the first to go. He made that choice.

And some employees are the victims of circumstance beyond their control. Folks who make steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china have seen their places of employment locks and shuttered and the real means of production shipped overseas. Fat lot of good making themselves indispensable to those industries while those industries have closed shop.

Then, the towns which service those factories close up as well. So, rather than having a job which provided a good livelihood, the chance to get another job in town is gone with the wind too! Now, as families move away, the real estate values drop, potential buyers vanish and the formerly employed factory worker is left with no value in their home, no prospect for further employment and the bitter taste of disdain left by those who 'think' the unfortunate jobless will get spoiled if the state extends the largess it gives freely as foreign aid to the countries now building their former factories.

If your complaint is about jobs being shipped overseas, I am 100% in agreement with you.
But, again, they chose to take those positions. The ones who started 10 years ago were well aware that outsourcing and overseas was something companies were doing, but they opted to take that chance. They were lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages. As sad as it is, they lost the gamble.

On the flip side, if you invested all of your time and money to build a company, and then a competative company from overseas moved into your territory and their "lower prices" ran you out of business, how would you feel?

Employees take chances when they opt to accept a job. If it pans out for their career, great for them. If not, it sucks.

Employers also take chances when they opt to open a business. If it pans out, great for them. If not, it sucks.

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

 

[Jarhead]

And some employees are the victims of circumstance beyond their control. Folks who make steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china have seen their places of employment locks and shuttered and the real means of production shipped overseas. Fat lot of good making themselves indispensable to those industries while those industries have closed shop.

Then, the towns which service those factories close up as well. So, rather than having a job which provided a good livelihood, the chance to get another job in town is gone with the wind too! Now, as families move away, the real estate values drop, potential buyers vanish and the formerly employed factory worker is left with no value in their home, no prospect for further employment and the bitter taste of disdain left by those who 'think' the unfortunate jobless will get spoiled if the state extends the largess it gives freely as foreign aid to the countries now building their former factories.

If your complaint is about jobs being shipped overseas, I am 100% in agreement with you.
But, again, they chose to take those positions. The ones who started 10 years ago were well aware that outsourcing and overseas was something companies were doing, but they opted to take that chance. They were lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages. As sad as it is, they lost the gamble.

On the flip side, if you invested all of your time and money to build a company, and then a competative company from overseas moved into your territory and their "lower prices" ran you out of business, how would you feel?

Employees take chances when they opt to accept a job. If it pans out for their career, great for them. If not, it sucks.

Employers also take chances when they opt to open a business. If it pans out, great for them. If not, it sucks.

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

 

[Nosmo King]

If your complaint is about jobs being shipped overseas, I am 100% in agreement with you.
But, again, they chose to take those positions. The ones who started 10 years ago were well aware that outsourcing and overseas was something companies were doing, but they opted to take that chance. They were lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages. As sad as it is, they lost the gamble.

On the flip side, if you invested all of your time and money to build a company, and then a competative company from overseas moved into your territory and their "lower prices" ran you out of business, how would you feel?

Employees take chances when they opt to accept a job. If it pans out for their career, great for them. If not, it sucks.

Employers also take chances when they opt to open a business. If it pans out, great for them. If not, it sucks.

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

I wonder if you understand how the economy here in the Rust Belt worked. Small, one factory towns offered limited opportunities for good livelihoods. You went to work in the mill, or you went to college and became a professional. Our communities thrived and were great places to raise a family. The idea of being unemployed and not having a safety net is anathema to us.

What's even more painful is the attitude that we did something wrong by working hard and raising a family by the best means at our disposal.

 

[LANMaster]

I think that I voted yes, under the condition that Congress cut some other social spending program to PAY for this extrension.

Sorry if my yes vote skewed the results.

 

[Jarhead]

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

I wonder if you understand how the economy here in the Rust Belt worked. Small, one factory towns offered limited opportunities for good livelihoods. You went to work in the mill, or you went to college and became a professional. Our communities thrived and were great places to raise a family. The idea of being unemployed and not having a safety net is anathema to us.

What's even more painful is the attitude that we did something wrong by working hard and raising a family by the best means at our disposal.

No Nosmo. You did everything right. I do understand. Mpre than you can imagine. But we all make choices and sometimes they do not pan out as we would like. Right now, my company is hanging on by a thread. Likewise, so is my family. We hope everyday that things will get better. But in the end, I may lose everything. I made the choice to own my own and I may suffer the consequences. My fault? I dont see it as my fault. I see it as life.

Farmers lose their crops to floods. Their fault? No. Their choice to be in a business that is affected by weather? Yes.

We all make decisions in life that are usually a product of us assuming they are the best decisions. And maybe they are at the time we make them, but that is always subject to change. If we look at ourselves as victims, we will lose incentive to bounce back.

 

[Jarhead]

I think that I voted yes, under the condition that Congress cut some other social spending program to PAY for this extrension.

Sorry if my yes vote skewed the results.

But what about the small and mid sized companies that will have their unemployment burden put them over the top?

It is not as cut and dry as congress eliminating other expenses. What about the businesses? We have already cut all other expenses to bare bones minimum.
We have no leeway.

 

[The Rabbi]

I take umbrage with your choice of words. To be 'lured by great benefits and generous hourly wages' sounds like a sucker bet. Responsible people find wages and benefits a good thing to help build their families and communities. you make it sound as if only the risk takers would find opportunity at a good job while the real responsible workers should hedge their bets and take crappier jobs that still may or may not be around five, ten fifteen years into their employment. It's not a gamble, it's real life. It's families. It's communities. It's our very nation.

And the examples I cited: steel, automobiles, laundry baskets and fine china are all very real examples of industries moving overseas to reap greater profits at the expense of their customers, workers and communities. I have seen Jones and Laughlin Steel ship rolling mills to Singapore. I have seen GM close plants and ship the line to Mexico. I have seen Rubber-Maid pressured by Wal*Mart to lower costs by moving their operations to communist China. I have seen sterling China close and padlock the pottery and ship their equipment to Puerto Rico. These weren't examples of businesses elbowed out by competition after foreign plant opened here in America, these are examples of short sighted trade policies designed to enrich the stockholders and impoverish the workers.

Seems after this sort of shafting the workers deserve the chance to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. After all, how rich do a few folks have to get before the rest of us are driven into receivership?

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

I wonder if you understand how the economy here in the Rust Belt worked. Small, one factory towns offered limited opportunities for good livelihoods. You went to work in the mill, or you went to college and became a professional. Our communities thrived and were great places to raise a family. The idea of being unemployed and not having a safety net is anathema to us.

What's even more painful is the attitude that we did something wrong by working hard and raising a family by the best means at our disposal.

Aww, poor baby. Miss your little safety net?
Get over it. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.
Again, there are no guarantees in life. It is not government's job to guarantee an outcome to anyone's livelihood. Everything entails risk. But for every inefficient factory that closed there are probably 3 importers making money. Not anyone's fault if someone had the wrong job skills, won't moved, or can't be re-trained.
As for using anecdotes, please show where i used an anecdote. What I wrote is even more valid than your fantasy of 40-somthings laid off with no food to put on the table.

 

[rightwinger]

If you can't find work after 99 weeks...you never will

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Um no.

 

[Nosmo King]

I DO see it as a lure. So many people make decisions based on salary and benefits and do not consider the consequences.
I had a choice when I came out of the military. Make 50K a year like my friends selling mortgages, or start my own business and make nothing for my first year. They went with the lure, I went with my own gamble.

And my concern is not the rich folk. An extension of unemployment will put many a small and mid sized company under.
And the irony? Thoise business owners will not be afforded a dime of unemployment when they go under.
Not to mention that they will not be around to employ those that need jobs when the recovery is in full swing.

I wonder if you understand how the economy here in the Rust Belt worked. Small, one factory towns offered limited opportunities for good livelihoods. You went to work in the mill, or you went to college and became a professional. Our communities thrived and were great places to raise a family. The idea of being unemployed and not having a safety net is anathema to us.

What's even more painful is the attitude that we did something wrong by working hard and raising a family by the best means at our disposal.

Aww, poor baby. Miss your little safety net?
Get over it. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.
Again, there are no guarantees in life. It is not government's job to guarantee an outcome to anyone's livelihood. Everything entails risk. But for every inefficient factory that closed there are probably 3 importers making money. Not anyone's fault if someone had the wrong job skills, won't moved, or can't be re-trained.
As for using anecdotes, please show where i used an anecdote. What I wrote is even more valid than your fantasy of 40-somthings laid off with no food to put on the table.

I'm not demanding a safety net. I'm saying that decisions the workers were not part of resulted in the loss of their jobs. Thanks, "Free" Traders! schmucks.

And your notion of twenty somethings is an anecdote. And to apply that shallow thinking to the lives of workers screwed blue by profit hungry Capitalist whore-mongers is vapid and shallow thinking. Thanks for carrying on with that great Conservative tradition!

 

[Jarhead]

I wonder if you understand how the economy here in the Rust Belt worked. Small, one factory towns offered limited opportunities for good livelihoods. You went to work in the mill, or you went to college and became a professional. Our communities thrived and were great places to raise a family. The idea of being unemployed and not having a safety net is anathema to us.

What's even more painful is the attitude that we did something wrong by working hard and raising a family by the best means at our disposal.

Aww, poor baby. Miss your little safety net?
Get over it. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.
Again, there are no guarantees in life. It is not government's job to guarantee an outcome to anyone's livelihood. Everything entails risk. But for every inefficient factory that closed there are probably 3 importers making money. Not anyone's fault if someone had the wrong job skills, won't moved, or can't be re-trained.
As for using anecdotes, please show where i used an anecdote. What I wrote is even more valid than your fantasy of 40-somthings laid off with no food to put on the table.

I'm not demanding a safety net. I'm saying that decisions the workers were not part of resulted in the loss of their jobs. Thanks, "Free" Traders! schmucks.

And your notion of twenty somethings is an anecdote. And to apply that shallow thinking to the lives of workers screwed blue by profit hungry Capitalist whore-mongers is vapid and shallow thinking. Thanks for carrying on with that great Conservative tradition!

What prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

 

[Nosmo King]

Aww, poor baby. Miss your little safety net?
Get over it. Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid.
Again, there are no guarantees in life. It is not government's job to guarantee an outcome to anyone's livelihood. Everything entails risk. But for every inefficient factory that closed there are probably 3 importers making money. Not anyone's fault if someone had the wrong job skills, won't moved, or can't be re-trained.
As for using anecdotes, please show where i used an anecdote. What I wrote is even more valid than your fantasy of 40-somthings laid off with no food to put on the table.

I'm not demanding a safety net. I'm saying that decisions the workers were not part of resulted in the loss of their jobs. Thanks, "Free" Traders! schmucks.

And your notion of twenty somethings is an anecdote. And to apply that shallow thinking to the lives of workers screwed blue by profit hungry Capitalist whore-mongers is vapid and shallow thinking. Thanks for carrying on with that great Conservative tradition!

What prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

 

[Jarhead]

If you can't find work after 99 weeks...you never will

Rahm Emanuel said "never let a good crisis got to waste"

If I were unemployed for 99 weeks, I would consider opening up a low cost business...a service business of some kind that does not require inventory.

Many a recession have proven to be turning points for peoples careers.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not demanding a safety net. I'm saying that decisions the workers were not part of resulted in the loss of their jobs. Thanks, "Free" Traders! schmucks.

And your notion of twenty somethings is an anecdote. And to apply that shallow thinking to the lives of workers screwed blue by profit hungry Capitalist whore-mongers is vapid and shallow thinking. Thanks for carrying on with that great Conservative tradition!

What prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

 

[WillowTree]

I sure hope you people aren't planning on filing for unemployment benefits when you lose your jobs.

That would be very hypocritical of you.

And you need to sit back and collect unemployment for damn near two years, why? If you KNOW that money's going to run out, you're going to get off your dead ass a hell of a lot quicker..

I know someone that was laid off from his present job as a maintenance guy..

It took him precisely *2 days* to get another job making MORE than what he was making previously, doing exactly the same work; just on a different shift.

Turns out the company (and they're not a small company - Badger Meter) had been trying to fill that position since Feb!

Tell me people aren't just sitting on their ass collecting money because it's being handed to them.

I know another jackass that just got OFF 99 fucking WEEKS of unemployment, still has no job, and is pissing and moaning (from his couch) because he's not getting anymore money.[/QUOTE]

hymn must be a demonRat!

 

[Nosmo King]

What prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Slave wages in Asia. And a nice tax credit to do so.

On top of those "slave wages" there is the cost to build a factory there and the cost to proodcue there (taxes, etc) and the cost to ship back to the US.

So I again ask, what prompted those employers to ship the jobs overseas?

Maybe the unions got a little greedy with those "for life" benefits that no one else gets?

there are two sets of signatures on a labor contract. Why would the employers sign if he thought there wasn't profit in it for him? Why blame the worker?

The "free" trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, GAT et al) were sold as a way to enlarge American markets. Well, we have become a consumer society rather than the solid producer society we were in the 20th century. Our wages and benefits have fallen. Our jobs have been outsourced.

And the net result? A larger gap between the wealthy and the working class. A massive trade deficit. The loss of skilled labor and the jobs they were employed in. A consolidation of the means of production, distribution and sales. And, yes, the advent of the $50 DVD player.

Consumerism. The opiate of the masses.

 

[Nosmo King]

I sure hope you people aren't planning on filing for unemployment benefits when you lose your jobs.

That would be very hypocritical of you.

And you need to sit back and collect unemployment for damn near two years, why? If you KNOW that money's going to run out, you're going to get off your dead ass a hell of a lot quicker..

I know someone that was laid off from his present job as a maintenance guy..

It took him precisely *2 days* to get another job making MORE than what he was making previously, doing exactly the same work; just on a different shift.

Turns out the company (and they're not a small company - Badger Meter) had been trying to fill that position since Feb!

Tell me people aren't just sitting on their ass collecting money because it's being handed to them.

I know another jackass that just got OFF 99 fucking WEEKS of unemployment, still has no job, and is pissing and moaning (from his couch) because he's not getting anymore money.[/QUOTE]

hymn must be a demonRat!

let anecdotes be your guide! forget the reality, focus on the few abusers and let that ruin the opportunity for others! Must make you feel just great, not having neither heart nor soul nor brain!