Poll: Do You Support Extending Unemployment Beyond 99 Weeks?

[Jarhead]

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.

Exactly where are those small to mid sized companies supposed to get the capital to pay for it? Afterall, we ARE in a recession.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

LOL for 99 weeks????

Geez .... that's almost 2 freaking years!

If you can't find a job in 2 years you have issues. Or are a Democrat.

 

[Dis]

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 ******* WEEKS of unemployment, still has no job, and is pissing and moaning (from his couch) because he's not getting anymore money.

 

[Nosmo King]

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, **** Bush.

That about sum it up?

Not quite. But, a typical wingnut response is 'We spoil people by providing unemployment insurance. Things were better when there were no labor regulations and the employer could pay or not pay the employees whatever they felt like and kept the rest for themselves. At least that way, workers would be hungry all the time and looking for the best opportunity to move on! **** the workers! Lower taxes on those oppressed wealthy people and Obama can't tie his own shoes let alone run the executive branch, dumb ass ******!' That about sum it up?

 

[Jarhead]

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, **** Bush.

That about sum it up?

Not quite. But, a typical wingnut response is 'We spoil people by providing unemployment insurance. Things were better when there were no labor regulations and the employer could pay or not pay the employees whatever they felt like and kept the rest for themselves. At least that way, workers would be hungry all the time and looking for the best opportunity to move on! **** the workers! Lower taxes on those oppressed wealthy people and Obama can't tie his own shoes let alone run the executive branch, dumb ass ******!' That about sum it up?

Why do you go to the extreme?

I personally agree with unemployment entitlements. But we need to draw the line as it will prove to hamper the elimination of high employemnt numbers. You need to realize that a good portion of the unemployment burden falls on the last two employers of record for any given unemployed individual. Every time we extend their entitlements, it puts more of a strain on the last two employers, who, in many cases are barely making ends meet in a recession.

It is easy to extend the benefits, but the more you extend them, the more you will extend the duration of high unemployment numbers.

And it becomes a viscious circle.

This is not about making it easy for the business owners. It is about making it possible for the business owners to hire people.

I suggest you do a little more research and a lot less regurgitating the left wing "the GOP wants the rich to get richer" talking points. It does not help the debate and certainly does not allow our politicians to make sensible decisions.

 

[editec]

Unemployment insurance prolongs unemployment. This is proven.

Umm so does lack of jobs.

virtually every dollar spent in unemployment benefits rolls right back into the economy with 2 weeks.

Hell - You mean China's economy in 2 weeks.

Whose fault is that?

Neocons, fake Dems, FREE TRAITORs, Corporate tools, big banks, and a host of people all claiming that they LOVE this nation.

 

[editec]

Don't try and compte with Rdean in the realm of deliberately stupid. He will leave you choking in his dust.

And whats wrong with Average? It works for Dow Jones

Average incomes can be a very misleading indicator.

Median income at least tells us something real about the state of income distribution. Coupled with standard deviation it can be very informative

Of course even median income is misleading since capital gains aren't considered income, neither are tax free bonds, but at least median incomes is more telling than average income statistics.

 

[editec]

Of course unemployment is a drag on the economy.

But then too, so is having millions of families going on WELFARE and losing their homes

Tough choice, isn't it?

I'm informed that extending unemplyment last time cost about $100 billion dollars..

The jaw-dropping numbers combine the approximately $85 billion cost of continuing emergency benefits through 2010 for the long-term unemployed – jobless more than six months – plus an estimated $15 billion to continue subsidies to help pay health insurance premiums.

Even before the last new round of extended benefits in November, the cost of unemployment compensation was estimated by the White House to exceed $140 billion for fiscal 2010, which began in October. Just two years ago – when the unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in contrast to the current 10.2 percent – the cost of unemployment benefits was only $43 billion.

source

Lot of dough isn't it?

Why it's nearly 1/10th of what we've spend in our two Asian misadventures since we started them.

Why... we could start another war with still another nation, if but only we'd stop paying those 9 million unemployed americans.

And who doesn't want us involved in another war, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

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, **** Bush.

That about sum it up?

Not quite. But, a typical wingnut response is 'We spoil people by providing unemployment insurance. Things were better when there were no labor regulations and the employer could pay or not pay the employees whatever they felt like and kept the rest for themselves. At least that way, workers would be hungry all the time and looking for the best opportunity to move on! **** the workers! Lower taxes on those oppressed wealthy people and Obama can't tie his own shoes let alone run the executive branch, dumb ass ******!' That about sum it up?

And that happened when exactly?
You really need to get your information from something more reliable than romance novels.

 

[Barb]

A Modest Proposal

For preventing the children of poor people in Christian America from being a burden to their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the public

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great nation or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and doors, crowded with beggars, followed by children, all in rags and importuning every cold hearted American rich person for a handout. These fathers/mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in standing in line at the unemployment office, begging sustenance for their helpless children: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, turn to communism or fascism, or even leave their dear native country.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by very knowing conservatives, republicans, and libertarians of my acquaintance, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a stew.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for the corporations, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving more pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing. But given the current job situation and the surveys as noted in this thread, this solution will surely meet the moral and gluttonous tastes of all Conservative Americans. Thank you.

Apologies to Jonathan Swift Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal


UBI and the Flat Tax
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070

******* BRAVO!

 

[Barb]

I say absolutely not! Even Socialist job creation like FDR's WPA beats the shit out of paying people to sit on the couch getting unhealthy burdening the health-care system & ultimately loosing their job skills making it nearly impossible to ever get them to support themselves or be a productive member of society again.

Yeah. that's what people who lost their jobs are thinking! How on earth can I just sit here for a while longer?

If that's what you truly believe, then I submit you have never lost a job and watched your family wonder if and when the next meal will be served.

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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:

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

The Center for the Study of Policy Studies added that Lower social protections at a time of rising unemployment threatened to change the economic opportunity structure for an entire class of the labor force. The Center specified that this was not a temporary change, but a permanent consequence for generations of their families.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency: Domestic Policies After Reagan. 1st. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986, 5.
Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.
The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 3-5.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. that's what people who lost their jobs are thinking! How on earth can I just sit here for a while longer?

If that's what you truly believe, then I submit you have never lost a job and watched your family wonder if and when the next meal will be served.

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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:

People in a free society should have every need taken care of by big daddy government.
Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. The gov't does not owe people a decent job, benefits, a living wage, or any other such bullshit.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah. that's what people who lost their jobs are thinking! How on earth can I just sit here for a while longer?

If that's what you truly believe, then I submit you have never lost a job and watched your family wonder if and when the next meal will be served.

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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:

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

The Center for the Study of Policy Studies added that Lower social protections at a time of rising unemployment threatened to change the economic opportunity structure for an entire class of the labor force. The Center specified that this was not a temporary change, but a permanent consequence for generations of their families.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency: Domestic Policies After Reagan. 1st. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986, 5.
Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.
The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 3-5.

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.

 

[Barb]

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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.

Improving supply does NOTHING to improve demand. Your personal experience with a handful of employees does not address what in some states approaches 20% unemployment.

 

[The Rabbi]

More people have been employees than employers. SO they never see it from the employers' perspective. Good employees are very valuable, being so rare. Bad employees with shitty attitudes are a dime a dozen. No wonder they get treated like crap.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Improving supply does NOTHING to improve demand. Your personal experience with a handful of employees does not address what in some states approaches 20% unemployment.

Huh? WHere does he mention supply and demand? What does that have to do with Obama's 20% unemployment in some states? WHich states have rates that high btw?

 

[Mr Natural]

Yeah. that's what people who lost their jobs are thinking! How on earth can I just sit here for a while longer?

If that's what you truly believe, then I submit you have never lost a job and watched your family wonder if and when the next meal will be served.

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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:

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

The Center for the Study of Policy Studies added that Lower social protections at a time of rising unemployment threatened to change the economic opportunity structure for an entire class of the labor force. The Center specified that this was not a temporary change, but a permanent consequence for generations of their families.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency: Domestic Policies After Reagan. 1st. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986, 5.
Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.
The Center for the Study of Social Policy. On The Edge: Poverty, Work, and Reaganomics, 3-5.

What used to be the Personnel Department is now Human Resources.

That term alone speaks volumes as to how workers are viewed by corporations.

 

[Mr Natural]

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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:

People in a free society should have every need taken care of by big daddy government.
Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. The gov't does not owe people a decent job, benefits, a living wage, or any other such bullshit.

That would make a great campaign slogan for the repubs.

Go with that.

 

[Nosmo King]

You've surveyed every single unemployed person and found they all fit this category, right? You never came across some 20-somthing who said "gov't paid holiday, let's party!"? You never came across someone else who said, "i've got 2 months severance plus unemployment. I can afford to wait for the right job" right?
Because that is exactly what happens.

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

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, **** Bush.

That about sum it up?

Not quite. But, a typical wingnut response is 'We spoil people by providing unemployment insurance. Things were better when there were no labor regulations and the employer could pay or not pay the employees whatever they felt like and kept the rest for themselves. At least that way, workers would be hungry all the time and looking for the best opportunity to move on! **** the workers! Lower taxes on those oppressed wealthy people and Obama can't tie his own shoes let alone run the executive branch, dumb ass ******!' That about sum it up?

Why do you go to the extreme?

I personally agree with unemployment entitlements. But we need to draw the line as it will prove to hamper the elimination of high employemnt numbers. You need to realize that a good portion of the unemployment burden falls on the last two employers of record for any given unemployed individual. Every time we extend their entitlements, it puts more of a strain on the last two employers, who, in many cases are barely making ends meet in a recession.

It is easy to extend the benefits, but the more you extend them, the more you will extend the duration of high unemployment numbers.

And it becomes a viscious circle.

This is not about making it easy for the business owners. It is about making it possible for the business owners to hire people.

I suggest you do a little more research and a lot less regurgitating the left wing "the GOP wants the rich to get richer" talking points. It does not help the debate and certainly does not allow our politicians to make sensible decisions.

The hypocrisy of Rabbi arguing with anecdotal evidence gives me free reign to 'go to extremes'. Imagine seeing a few kids abusing unemployment benefits and then using that example to deny those benefits to struggling families! Disgusting politics to be sure.