Unemployment benefits

[RetiredGySgt]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits. Further it is NOT a job of the federal Government to pay for such and is NOT in the Constitution.

They already receive to long a time for payments.

There are actually millions of jobs unfilled. Make them find work. I know how the sham goes my brother used to pull it every year. he had a seasonal job that did not work during the winter. SO he would go on unemployment for those 4 months and never even look for work.

 

[BreezeWood]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits.

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

 

[Politico]

When January rolls around hopefully the increases will be done away with.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, there are millions of jobs going begging. Because we simply do not have enough trained people.

 

[blackhawk]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits.

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

Yes are you including all of Bush tax cuts not just the one's for the Rich as the President is proposing? After all if no one can afford them no one needs them right?

 

[alan1]

About 3 million Companies Say 3 Million Unfilled Positions in Skill Crisis: Jobs - Bloomberg
snip,

Companies have reported more than 3 million job openings every month since February 2011, according to the Department of Labor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits. Further it is NOT a job of the federal Government to pay for such and is NOT in the Constitution.

They already receive to long a time for payments.

There are actually millions of jobs unfilled. Make them find work. I know how the sham goes my brother used to pull it every year. he had a seasonal job that did not work during the winter. SO he would go on unemployment for those 4 months and never even look for work.

Saying that something ‘isn’t in the Constitution’ only exhibits your ignorance.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The unemployment insurance program was enacted as part of the Social Security Act in 1935, and upheld as Constitutional in Helvering v. Davis (1937).

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about an individual right to own a handgun, but we never hear you or others on the right whining about that.

That your brother abuses the system is anecdotal and irrelevant, and in no way impugns the merits of the program.

And the right’s disdain for working Americans and those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own is duly noted.

 

[BreezeWood]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits.

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

Yes are you including all of Bush tax cuts not just the one's for the Rich as the President is proposing? After all if no one can afford them no one needs them right?

yes to be realistic all the cuts ... the Republicans have eviscerated the national treasury.

 

[blackhawk]

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

Yes are you including all of Bush tax cuts not just the one's for the Rich as the President is proposing? After all if no one can afford them no one needs them right?

yes to be realistic all the cuts ... the Republicans have eviscerated the national treasury.

Good so can we put down you oppose the Presidents plan to just end the tax cuts for the rich and extend them for everyone else you support taxes going up on everyone rich, middle class and the poor? Just so were clear and I'm not misrepresenting your position your in favor of everyone paying more?

 

[alan1]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits.

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

The ones Mr Obama is begging and pleading to remain for 98% of taxpayers?
Those Bush tax cuts? Or different ones?

 

[BreezeWood]

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

the "Reconciliation" one that only Republicans voted for - oh, by the way they are the ones who included the expiration to their own legislation, you seemingly object to ... do so kindly enlighten us as to their reasoning for such a curious epitaph.

 

[Valox]

Only if tax cuts provided jobs, then people would not be unemployed.

I am sure you support tax cuts for the rich, but where are the jobs?

 

[Valox]

About 3 million Companies Say 3 Million Unfilled Positions in Skill Crisis: Jobs - Bloomberg
snip,

Companies have reported more than 3 million job openings every month since February 2011, according to the Department of Labor.

3 million sounds right for structural employment, but most of our employment is cyclical.

 

[Clementine]

I absolutely do not support increasing the time one can receive benefits.

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

Yes are you including all of Bush tax cuts not just the one's for the Rich as the President is proposing? After all if no one can afford them no one needs them right?

The reason Obama wants higher taxes is so he can redistribute more money. There are ads running in Mexico encouraging them to come on over and head straight for the nearest welfare office. Obama and the Mexican government are in cahoots to transfer more people here so we can give, give, give and then give some more. That is why the administration is licking their chops when they look at the wealthy.

 

[rdean]

Romney had a plan for all those jobs that require training. Bring immigrants here who already have degrees.

The Republican leadership have told us why this was their solution:

 

[rdean]

Only if tax cuts provided jobs, then people would not be unemployed.

I am sure you support tax cuts for the rich, but where are the jobs?

Oh, that's a simple one:

More Arrests At Bain/Romney owned Sensata Factory That Is Moving Jobs To China

 

[S.J.]

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about an individual right to own a handgun, but we never hear you or others on the right whining about that.

No, but you on the left are relentless in your efforts to take that right away from us. What's good for the goose...

 

[Valox]

does that include the Bush tax cuts ... no one can afford ?

Yes are you including all of Bush tax cuts not just the one's for the Rich as the President is proposing? After all if no one can afford them no one needs them right?

The reason Obama wants higher taxes is so he can redistribute more money. There are ads running in Mexico encouraging them to come on over and head straight for the nearest welfare office. Obama and the Mexican government are in cahoots to transfer more people here so we can give, give, give and then give some more. That is why the administration is licking their chops when they look at the wealthy.

Economic stratification has increased under Obama, more than Bush. We are now living in a more divided world than ever. Income inequality is increasing and the rich are getter richer.

So, what is exactly your problem as the rich get rich and more middle go on food stamps. Isn't this what you wanted?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Nothing would get the unemployed more interested in getting out and finding some sort of employment quicker than immediately stopping all unemployment check payments.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about an individual right to own a handgun, but we never hear you or others on the right whining about that.

No, but you on the left are relentless in your efforts to take that right away from us. What's good for the goose...

The Second Amendment as ruled by the US Supreme Court provides an INDIVIDUAL right to own. possess and carry arms. one of which is a HANDGUN. So anyone claiming it does not is a bald faced liar.

Further the Second plainly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A Handgun is a covered arm.