1.3 million to lose unemployment benefits today (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

We also live in a society full of crime. What's your point? Because it happens doesn't make it right or even better for the society. I don't see any economic reason or benefit to have someone on unemployment who might be entering year 6 on the program for instance

the max was 73 weeks

Tim said why have a limit, merely pointing out we do need one. I realize what the limits have been. Maybe 6 months isn't right, but limitless isn't the right way either in my opinion.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Sorry, I didn’t realize you were still arguing the theoretical unlimited unemployment benefit proposed by Tim. carry on. [/SIZE]

 

[mad sweeney]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

Is your point our poor aren't poor enough?

No, my point is my kids think the end of the world is when Starbucks is out of their favorite blend or when our hi-speed internet is down for more than five minutes. And that is pretty representative of a lot of people in this country. Because I can't afford the things I want or in their estimation "need" and those people have it, we must be poor.

I simply put the tvs out there as an example of the difference of what we consider poor in this country and what is really poor as merely an argument to the number of people who won't take "that" job when in other places people just want a JOB. It really probably isn't the right argument for this thread--sorry for the hijack.,

So what you're saying as that you, as a person who is not on UE and doesn't have a need for it are judging people for whom it's absolutely necessary based on your perception of what non-entitlement needing people think about Starbucks? That's utterly ignorant.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

 

[Mark Davis]

We also live in a society full of crime. What's your point? Because it happens doesn't make it right or even better for the society. I don't see any economic reason or benefit to have someone on unemployment who might be entering year 6 on the program for instance

the max was 73 weeks

Tim said why have a limit, merely pointing out we do need one. I realize what the limits have been. Maybe 6 months isn't right, but limitless isn't the right way either in my opinion.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Sorry, I didn’t realize you were still arguing the theoretical unlimited unemployment benefit proposed by Tim. carry on. [/SIZE]

Yeah I'm a sucker. It's a good thing I'm not a real life fish.

 

[Courtjester]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

Is your point our poor aren't poor enough?

No, my point is my kids think the end of the world is when Starbucks is out of their favorite blend or when our hi-speed internet is down for more than five minutes. And that is pretty representative of a lot of people in this country. Because I can't afford the things I want or in their estimation "need" and those people have it, we must be poor.

I simply put the tvs out there as an example of the difference of what we consider poor in this country and what is really poor as merely an argument to the number of people who won't take "that" job when in other places people just want a JOB. It really probably isn't the right argument for this thread--sorry for the hijack.,

So what you're saying as that you, as a person who is not on UE and doesn't have a need for it are judging people for whom it's absolutely necessary based on your perception of what non-entitlement needing people think about Starbucks? That's utterly ignorant.

I don't know what you are attempting to say here, but as I pointed out my post about the tvs would just hijack this thread. So it is not relevant to the issue of the unemployment benefits. I am happy to discuss the issue of disparity of US poor vs. World poor in another thread however.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

Sorry, but you beat me to it. Guess I'll have to make do with 2nd place.

 

[mad sweeney]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

Is your point our poor aren't poor enough?

No, my point is my kids think the end of the world is when Starbucks is out of their favorite blend or when our hi-speed internet is down for more than five minutes. And that is pretty representative of a lot of people in this country. Because I can't afford the things I want or in their estimation "need" and those people have it, we must be poor.

I simply put the tvs out there as an example of the difference of what we consider poor in this country and what is really poor as merely an argument to the number of people who won't take "that" job when in other places people just want a JOB. It really probably isn't the right argument for this thread--sorry for the hijack.,

So what you're saying as that you, as a person who is not on UE and doesn't have a need for it are judging people for whom it's absolutely necessary based on your perception of what non-entitlement needing people think about Starbucks? That's utterly ignorant.

I don't know what you are attempting to say here, but as I pointed out my post about the tvs would just hijack this thread. So it is not relevant to the issue of the unemployment benefits. I am happy to discuss the issue of disparity of US poor vs. World poor in another thread however.

What I'm saying is that the perception of those receiving benefits are usually distorted through the lens of people who aren't in need. Your posts are exactly that. Whether it's people saying that they should all get flour and rice instead of money or people saying those people aren't actually as poor as they are or the ones that want to flush the whole thing because there's fraud, the people opposing it are more likely to be wrong about the users and their situation.

 

[quickhands]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

Can u PLEASE post some of that info u have on the tea party cuz that stuff is super interesting.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

Sorry, but you beat me to it. Guess I'll have to make do with 2nd place.

You might want to look into a lobotomy.

 

[mad sweeney]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

The funny thing is he's always leading the charge if anybody posts anything that might even slightly be putting down Christians... but it's all Obama in every thread.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

Sorry, but you beat me to it. Guess I'll have to make do with 2nd place.

You might want to look into a lobotomy.

Are you recommending it because it worked out for you?

Shouldn't you be running off to your other forum right now bad-mouthing everyone on this board?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

Sorry, but you beat me to it. Guess I'll have to make do with 2nd place.

You might want to look into a lobotomy.

Are you recommending it because it worked out for you?

Shouldn't you be running off to your other forum right now bad-mouthing everyone on this board?

No I'll let you get back to your anti-Obama shtick, Jim 11. Was hoping you might show your work but you just aren't that smart.

 

[Joe T]

I'm sure that God will take care of them. If they suffer, it's because they don't praise Him enough. The world is better off without them. Screw the poor, that is one of His central teachings, right?

What a strange 1st response post to this thread.

Can't wait to read more....

 

[Joe T]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

Or, they might actually start working and producing something, thus raising GDP and overall economic output of our nation...

 

[MaxThreshold]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

Sorry, but you beat me to it. Guess I'll have to make do with 2nd place.

You might want to look into a lobotomy.

Are you recommending it because it worked out for you?

Shouldn't you be running off to your other forum right now bad-mouthing everyone on this board?

No I'll let you get back to your anti-Obama shtick, Jim 11. Was hoping you might show your work but you just aren't that smart.

No, seriously, who did your lobotomy? Was it covered under Obamacare?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What a nut job.

 

[MaxThreshold]

What a nut job.

What a coward. Off to your other forum now!

 

[Juxtatarot]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

How would you go about calculating the right time to impose a limit?

 

[timschochet]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

How would you go about calculating the right time to impose a limit?

Think I already answered this. If it clearly appears that by setting a limit we gain as a society, that's when we set a limit.

 

[Joe T]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

 

[Joe T]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

 

[Juxtatarot]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

How would you go about calculating the right time to impose a limit?

Think I already answered this. If it clearly appears that by setting a limit we gain as a society, that's when we set a limit.

I ask because I suspect it's impossible to measure accurately. Sure, economists can crunch numbers but their results are only as good as the data they enter and assumptions they're making. Although I understand your point, I wonder if it's so impractical that it would be meaningless as a policy.

 

[Joe T]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

How do you determine who should be working?

 

[msommer]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

I really think the handing out toilet paper in public restrooms job got the short shrift. I can really see the value there!

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm sure that God will take care of them. If they suffer, it's because they don't praise Him enough. The world is better off without them. Screw the poor, that is one of His central teachings, right?

What a strange 1st response post to this thread.

Can't wait to read more....

It's in reference to MC's thread last month about wanting people to not work on certain days or else God would crush us for our lack of piety.

 

[Joe T]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

How do you determine who should be working?

Irrelevant and has nothing to do with my comment.

Do you agree that a person working and contributing is better for society as a whole than that same person not working?

If so, this is a pretty simple excercise.

Who is more likely to find employment even if it is not ideal - someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

 

[Dr Oadi]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

How do you determine who should be working?

Irrelevant and has nothing to do with my comment.

Do you agree that a person working and contributing is better for society as a whole than that same person not working?

If so, this is a pretty simple excercise.

Who is more likely to find employment even if it is not ideal - someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

Who is more likely to rob you? Someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

 

[Joe T]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

How do you determine who should be working?

Irrelevant and has nothing to do with my comment.

Do you agree that a person working and contributing is better for society as a whole than that same person not working?

If so, this is a pretty simple excercise.

Who is more likely to find employment even if it is not ideal - someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

Who is more likely to rob you? Someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

Exactly.

 

[mad sweeney]

Thanks for this thread Mr Cross. I actually wasn't going to file for UE this week since I thought I was ineligible. But because I was thinking about it, I realized my last work date was Saturday, not Sunday. That means I can claim this week! It's probably my waiting period week, but that means next week will be a paid week. You're awesome, don't ever change!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

My ex-wife is collecting $724/week.

what state does she live in?

Maximum Weekly Unemployment Benefits for 2013

• Alabama - $265
• Alaska - $441
• Arizona - $240
• Arkansas - $457
• California - $450
• Colorado - $454
• Connecticut - $555
• Delaware - $330
• District of Columbia - $405
• Florida - $275
• Georgia - $330
• Hawaii - $560
• Idaho - $343
• Illinois - $385
• Indiana - $390
• Iowa - $459
• Kansas - $420
• Kentucky - $415
• Louisiana - $258
• Maine - $372
• Maryland - $410
• Massachusetts - $653
• Michigan - $362
• Minnesota - $585
• Mississippi - $235
• Missouri - $320
• Montana - $446
• Nebraska - $348
• Nevada - $398
• New Hampshire - $427
• New Jersey - $600
• New Mexico - $455
• New York - $405
• North Carolina - $535, $350, effective 7/1/13
• North Dakota - $470
• Ohio - $524
• Oklahoma - $368
• Oregon - $507
• Pennsylvania - $573
• Puerto Rico - $133
• Rhode Island - $566
• South Carolina - $326
• South Dakota - $295
• Tennessee - $275
• Texas - $426
• Utah - $451
• Vermont - $425
• Virginia - $378
• Virgin Islands - $454
• Washington - $604
• West Virginia - $424
• Wisconsin - $363
• Wyoming - $387

 

[Abraham]

I've basically been unemployed twice since 2008. 72 weeks of free money is a joke. Start people at whatever the rate is and decrease it by $10 a week.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Everyone that continues to need assistance should be sterilized

We jumped the shark at about here.

 

[Boston]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

 

[Joe T]

I've basically been unemployed twice since 2008. 72 weeks of free money is a joke. Start people at whatever the rate is and decrease it by $10 a week.

huh?

 

[mad sweeney]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

Yeah, they should do something like tax their paychecks and base their weekly amount on their previous earnings so that it's in-line with their taxable income. Oh wait...

 

[Steve Tasker]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I actually kinda like this idea. Why not?

 

[Joe T]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I like it. Common sense solutions.

 

[Dr Oadi]

I've basically been unemployed twice since 2008. 72 weeks of free money is a joke. Start people at whatever the rate is and decrease it by $10 a week.

huh?

1rst week $300 29th week $10

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm not saying we shouldn't necessarily have a limit; I'm merely pointing out that I see no purpose in having a limit simply because, well, we should have a limit. I prefer to look at the situation right now. Right now it is good for our society that these people stay on unemployment.

It would actually be better for society if these people were actively working.

Like in Soviet Russia? Everyone should be working?

No.

How do you determine who should be working?

Irrelevant and has nothing to do with my comment.

Do you agree that a person working and contributing is better for society as a whole than that same person not working?

If so, this is a pretty simple excercise.

Who is more likely to find employment even if it is not ideal - someone receiving $300 a week for free or someone receiving $0 per week?

So you aren't going to answer the question then? It has everything to do with your comment since you are the one who proclaimed it is better for society that the unemployed find work. You don't consider what they'll be paid, what they'll have to do or even if those people can find jobs if they wanted to. So again, how do you determine who should be working?

 

[zoonation]

Max threshold is high comedy. I love buffoonery!

 

[Abraham]

I've basically been unemployed twice since 2008. 72 weeks of free money is a joke. Start people at whatever the rate is and decrease it by $10 a week.

huh?

1rst week $300 29th week $10

Yup. Despite what you may hear in sound bites, it is not impossible to survive on unemployment, particularly with access to savings and credit cards. Let's say your cost of living is $6k a month like mine was. Well, the bills were only $4k and we were saving $2k. So chop the savings part and living expenses are now $4k. Cut a little more and we got it to 3500, particularly because I didn't need gas money to get to work. My benefits were 560 a week, so I was basically short 1100 a month to make ends meet. Hey look, a credit card with a 10k limit and a savings account holding 20k. We can keep up this charade for over a year while I hold our for exactly what I want.

Inconvenience <<>> desperation.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I like it. Common sense solutions.

Who's going to determine who is able bodied? Who will provide the painting (or other activity) supplies? Who will provide the insurance for the workers? Who will lose a job that UI workers will take? Who will start to abuse that system to get cheap labor? Etc... Spend more money, create more fraud opportunities, expand gov't role. Doesn't seem very common sense at all.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I've basically been unemployed twice since 2008. 72 weeks of free money is a joke. Start people at whatever the rate is and decrease it by $10 a week.

huh?

1rst week $300 29th week $10

So they'll probably start robbing you at about what? Week 17?

 

[Boston]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I like it. Common sense solutions.

Who's going to determine who is able bodied? Who will provide the painting (or other activity) supplies? Who will provide the insurance for the workers? Who will lose a job that UI workers will take? Who will start to abuse that system to get cheap labor? Etc... Spend more money, create more fraud opportunities, expand gov't role. Doesn't seem very common sense at all.

We just did an overhaul on 1/6th of the economy...I am sure these issues can be overcome as well...

 

[Steve Tasker]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I like it. Common sense solutions.

Who's going to determine who is able bodied? Who will provide the painting (or other activity) supplies? Who will provide the insurance for the workers? Who will lose a job that UI workers will take? Who will start to abuse that system to get cheap labor? Etc... Spend more money, create more fraud opportunities, expand gov't role. Doesn't seem very common sense at all.

Do you get insurance every time you do volunteer work? You're smarter than this.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think a middle ground on this would be once someone hits a certain time-period of UE they are required to do some form of community service for at least 20 hours a week to receive their benefits...able-bodied people could be painting houses in low-income areas or doing something that would help a community save tax-dollars or help the less fortunate...I don't think it is realistic just to cut-off funds but I do think it's realistic that those being helped by public dollars give something back to the public...

I like it. Common sense solutions.

Who's going to determine who is able bodied? Who will provide the painting (or other activity) supplies? Who will provide the insurance for the workers? Who will lose a job that UI workers will take? Who will start to abuse that system to get cheap labor? Etc... Spend more money, create more fraud opportunities, expand gov't role. Doesn't seem very common sense at all.

Do you get insurance every time you do volunteer work? You're smarter than this.

It's not volunteer work if they're doing it for their pay.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Max threshold is high comedy. I love buffoonery!

Then Doctor Detroit is really going to make you smile.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I actually like Boston's idea for able-bodied welfare recipients. Just telling some of those people what they'd have to do would be the ultimate in reality show material. lol