# Why don't we make people WORK for Unemployment Compensation??



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

Why shouldn't we make people receiving unemployment compensation work for their check? They could work on public works projects like the CCC used to do...bridges, dams, amphitheatres, high speed railroads, schools, hospitals,
planting trees, all public work projects.
I say bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps!
It's a waste to just give away money for free and we can no longer afford it.
What do you think?
By the way I am 57 and have been working full time since I was 17 and have never collected a cent of welfare or unemployment. Not patting myself on the back but I have been unemployed and got up everyday and went to look for work until I found something even if I had to travel. Sometimes I worked for free with guys until they hired me.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

I would agree only if we also added in Welfare recipients....make them work in order to recieve their monthly check.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Why, you people are so mean to expect people to earn their keep. The horror! I can't believe I am reading this. I expected better from you both. Don't you know these people can't work at all, ever? Gosh and golly, it is YOUR job to care for them. Honestly, the nerve. (we really need a saracastic smilie here)!


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

But, but, but ....then, the left could not ask for another trillion in stimulus for FDR type projects.... You common sense guys/gals simply do not get it, the left claims we need to spend more to put more people to work. It makes no sense to do it the way you spell out, because spending more and making the rich pay is the only way the left can think of to fix things.....Evil corporations and advertising have clouded your minds....


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm all for making people capable of working work for their check.

Everytime I've seen it suggested it was immediately attacked as Socialism!

There's also a legitimate concern that it competes with private business in some cases.


----------



## mikellmikell (Nov 9, 2005)

The people who are getting unemployment are not they problem they paid for their insurance. The people ho refuse to work are the problem . Cut their money. W had a woman volunteer 4 hours a day so she could get help. She worked 2 days then disappeared took the phone number and made some kind of charge back system and gave it to all her friends. Then next month a 3k$ phone bill ,she should be in jail but there's no room so she's out to con somebody else. I took her car (nice one) and sold it for parts and scrap.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Everytime I've seen it suggested it was *immediately attacked *as Socialism!


LOL

No it wasn't



> There's also a legitimate concern that it competes with private business in some cases.


Not if it's GOVT jobs they are doing
It makes no sense to pay one group to do a job, and then pay another group to do nothing at all when all the funds come from taxes


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

fishhead said:


> I'm all for making people capable of working work for their check.
> 
> Everytime I've seen it suggested it was immediately attacked as Socialism!
> 
> There's also a legitimate concern that it competes with private business in some cases.


No it wasn't! It was attacked *BY* Socialists.. 

Conservatives think they should work for what is given them...Or at the least attempt to help pay the costs..


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The nightmare of "forcing" someone to work would cost more to the government than just putting out the money. There would be the 20% who would call in sick or family problems or broken down car or whatever. 
Or those who might show up but cause more damage than they accomplish.
Then you would have to hire someone to supervise and keep records etc.
You would have to pay at least worker's compensation- which would be another nightmare all by itself.
There would be court cases over who got fired or promoted or whatever thing someone could take offence over.
After years of dealing with the "public" I can tell you that people who really really want to work, do no matter what and people who don't, don't.
I used to think that the highways must be impassable on those days that recipients were required to come to do something- you know, all those broken down cars litteingr the roads.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

To be frank, I doubt many (most?) welfare recipients could physically do more than push a broom or do some job where standing for extended periods of time was not required. Harsh, but true.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

fishhead said:


> I'm all for making people capable of working work for their check.
> 
> Everytime I've seen it suggested it was immediately attacked as Socialism!
> 
> There's also a legitimate concern that it competes with private business in some cases.


*******************************************************
came directly from reading about it in Sibera where the 'socialists' practiced it upon their neighbors 
who they imprisoned in the gulags and forced them to work on chain gangs, death marches, etc. 
The pay-out came ONLY to the survivors who managed to stay alive on moldy bread (when 
they could get it) slimy, watery fluid that passed for soup and anything else that crawled 
through their cramped and putrid cells at night.

And what's to prevent private business from filling that niche by managing those projects that 
the 'gooberment' deems necessary......like improving a hiking trail or building a roadside rest area, etc.???


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Why should we "MAKE" people work for the proceeds of an insurance agreement, called Unemployment Compensation?

It is not a free gift, it is insurance, every person who has it had to give up some pay (money) to the employer, so the employer could pay the government for the insurance. So why should the newly jobless person be expected to pay twice on top of having no job?:heh:


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

They did work for some of it, but not for 99 weeks worth.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

edcopp said:


> Why should we "MAKE" people work for the proceeds of an insurance agreement, called Unemployment Compensation?
> 
> It is not a free gift, it is insurance, every person who has it had to give up some pay (money) to the employer, so the employer could pay the government for the insurance. So why should the* newly jobless *person be expected to pay twice on top of having no job?:heh:


You've got to be kidding. Newly jobless? The extensions have gotten ridiculous!

I-n-s-u-r-a-n-c-e is a foul word. It's not insurance. It's a racket and a trap as ALL insurance, especially when there is no *CHOICE *of the person to pay it. I paid into North Carolina via my checks for over 25 years. I was denied benefits because I _supposedly_ voluntarily quit my most recent job (at that time 2007).

I shared a job with another girl as office manager for a real estate office. The owner decided they should have one full time person. When they hired one, we two kindly stepped out.

I guess I was supposed to brace myself at the door and scream "no, I won't go!"??
Thousands of stories like this. But the saddest is that MORE stories of the people who have been collecting for almost 2 straight years. They've learned how to keep that money, and supplement with cash odd jobs, etc. 

And how bout the way they figure the wage benefits.. If you got canned 24-36 months ago, you may have qualifed for $400 dollars a week based on your quarterly earned wages they use to come up with a number.

Well, as the wage averages have gone down over two years, the benefits have not. Why would you accept a $9 hour job identical to what you were previously paid $12 for when you're getting $400 a week for nuthin!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

People should work for their money. Its called a job, and when you dont have one... you should hurry up and get one if you want cash to spend. pretty simple concept really. :shrug:


----------



## OkieDavid (Jan 15, 2007)

Unemployment compensation is intended to tide you over until you find another job. Kinda hard to go job hunting or interviewing when you are in a CCC camp working somewhere


----------



## house06 (Jan 4, 2007)

I have a family member who has been on unemployment for more than 70 weeks now. No job, does the minimal looking but has justified in mind that gas, etc is not worth the effort to look for a job or take a low paying job right now. I wonder what they do when the benefits run out and they are attemping to live on the very small salary that is coming in. 

This family member lives near a very very large city that is doing okay, very high unemployment rate state-wide but I wonder if it has anything to do with also being a 99 week state? 

I have been very very surprised by family members attitude regarding unemployment. Am not in that position but think that I would be doing something to attempt find employment rather than sitting around bemoaning lack of college degree, downturn in their particular industry, distance to travel to work, etc. and so forth. And if I couldnt find a job, think I would be volunteering somewhere, networking with others and doing some good in the world rather than sitting around moaning about how tough it is and can't find a job.

I am getting ready to take a PT teaching position that is a 2hour commute round trip, because it was a good opportunity, providing experience and networking. By the time it is done I will make very little money but will have useful experience that will hopefully result in something better. 

Sitting around "belly-aching" about not having a job didnt get this opportunity for me. And I am sorry to come across as "harsh" I do deeply feel for those who are unemployed .


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

"Why don't we make people WORK for Unemployment Compensation??"

and test them and the welfare recipients for drugs....and if you are already on welfare and turn up pg again, the welfare gets cut off, no excuses.


----------



## Forlane (Jul 17, 2010)

As a recently unemployed person I can say, actually getting on unemployment for the first time is no easy task. Its a full time job in itself just to get some sort of compensation which I paid into in the first place. 

I'm not asking for 99 weeks of pay or anything of the sort but when I suffer a work related injury and then LOSE all of my hours because I am now a "liability" it would be nice to have something to float myself until I can find another job. 

All I want is the money I paid in, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

"All I want is the money I paid in, nothing more nothing less."

And this is the kind of attitude that I don't mind seeing the benefits going to....but don't get me started on third and fourth generation welfare recipients!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mikellmikell said:


> The people who are getting unemployment are not they problem they paid for their insurance.


Employees do not pay unemployment insurance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

SquashNut said:


> They did work for some of it, but not for 99 weeks worth.


That is not Nation wide anymore. It varies from State to State as this chart shows.


----------



## sharplady (May 20, 2011)

My husband is one of those who has gotten extensions. Several of them in fact. He was originally laid off in November of 2010. Believe me when I say that he *has looked. He has gone as far as 90 miles one way to apply for a job. Now I do not know who is getting $400 a week to stay home but you can bet your fanny he is not. If it were not for the fact that we have always lived within our means and had some emergency funds we would be in deep trouble right now. 

Twice since Nov 2010 DH has been hired. He worked for 4 days at one place and 6 at another before they laid him off. Why? Because they did not get contracts that they were expecting. So they did not need him. 

Because we had a little bit in the bank we do not qualify for any government aid. You basically must have no assets for that to work for you and we will not get anywhere discussing the ways around the system. Yes they are there. We choose not to try and cheat the system. 

Why had hubby not gotten another job you ask? He is over 50 and looks it. He has over 30 years of experience in his field but they either look at him and think he is incapable of doing the job because of his age or they will not even offer him the low wage position because of his experience. He would be happy with a minimum wage job pushing a broom at this point. I would be happy if he was out of the house more. Not looking forward to the time that he retires and is home full time. He is depressed and on meds for it. I would be happy if a little bit of volunteer work was required to get the extended benefits. It would be a win win for me. But as already pointed out must leave people time to work at finding another job. 

My point is do not go knocking everyone who is getting unemployment. Some of them would rather not be on it. They would rather have a job and go to work and believe me it would make their SO's very happy to!

But that is just my story.*


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Somewhere I read: "You would be amazed at the number of people on unemployment who found work in the last two weeks of their benefits".


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Ds would have been thrilled to work in exchange for unemployment compensation. As long as he would have been able to get excused to go to interviews. He spent 2 years looking for a job doing anything and all he could find was through temp agencies, which is what he is doing now.

As for welfare benefits, in order to get welfare benefits here you do have to work. Entry level fast food jobs at minimum wage are reserved for illegals on welfare.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Jan Doling said:


> "Why don't we make people WORK for Unemployment Compensation??"
> 
> and test them and the welfare recipients for drugs....and if you are already on welfare and turn up pg again, the welfare gets cut off, no excuses.


So in your eyes we would be better off to just eliminate the benefits all together (unemployment and welfare). I agree. There is plenty of work out there it just does not pay as much as the free ride. While we are at it why do we allow the people to vote that are on this free ride? Oh I think the problem has been located.

Free ride (the gimme group) keep voting in the politicians who offer the best rigged freebies. Whats left of the middle class and all of their assets get to pay the bills.

Does it really matter any more? Is there any way to pay the massive bills that have been loaded upon us? I think not. I believe that this is the plan, too.:boring:


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Forlane said:


> As a recently unemployed person I can say, actually getting on unemployment for the first time is no easy task. Its a full time job in itself just to get some sort of compensation which I paid into in the first place.
> 
> I'm not asking for 99 weeks of pay or anything of the sort but when I suffer a work related injury and then LOSE all of my hours because I am now a "liability" it would be nice to have something to float myself until I can find another job.
> 
> All I want is the money I paid in, nothing more nothing less.


The government keeps the plan at 99 weeks (for now) because it is well known that comparable jobs do not exist. If the plan was for say, 12 weeks the welfare rolls would soar. The jobs have been moved offshore (by plan) and will never be back. So we might as well get used to it until the crash is complete (also by plan). When the crash is over we will be forced to work all day for a meal, perhaps less.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

I'm all for UE recipients working for the public good, but wouldn't that interfere with the meth heads that are trying to get their "Community Service" hours in?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

edcopp said:


> The government keeps the plan at 99 weeks (for now)


They Stopped that 99 weeks, there are just for a few States as that Chart says.
That chart is a brand new one as of July 29 2011.

And Our Governor just added 13 more weeks to WI 73 weeks to now make it 86.
Not all States are at that 99 weeks anymore.MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Gov. Scott Walker has signed a bill that clears the way for *another 13 weeks of federal unemployment benefits for out-of-work Wisconsin residents.*

The Senate passed the measure on Monday after a brief squabble within Republican ranks over whether the bill should do away with a one-week waiting period before the newly unemployed can collect their first checks.

The Senate amended the bill to wipe out the waiting period, but the Assembly reinstated it and sent the legislation back to the Senate. Majority Republicans approved the Assembly version, despite cries of flip-flopping from Democrats.

The bill makes $88 million in federal money available to people *who exhaust their initial 73 weeks of benefits.*
http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Walker_to_sign_bill_extending_jobless_benefits_126704328.html


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Ummmmmmmm, isn't working and getting paid for it a........... _JOB???????_


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

99 weeks? thats like..... almost two years!!! This thread makes me wonder why illegals bother to come to this country. Although THEY seem to be able to find jobs and keep food on their families tables here. Why cant our own citizens find work inside of a couple years?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

YH, they come because of all the free govt money. So what they work for minimum wage? It's more than they would make in Mexico in a month or more. THEY get jobs because you have to work to get welfare in jobs that are (in this area anyway) _reserved_ for them. They will work for less than minimum wage if they are paid cash daily. This work ethic is what has driven prevailing wages down to minimum wage for landscaping and construction jobs, with no workers comp. You can fine employers all you want but believe me they save that much every week in wages, taxes and perks. Considering the bottom line only it's much cheaper to hire illegals.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I've collected once. Lost a job that paid $15 dollars an hour. UE paid $8.50. All the local jobs that were available were less than that. Of course the UE ran out and now I'm making $8.50, but why would I drive 100 miles a day to earn what I could staying home and gardening and cutting firewood?


----------



## shellbug (Jul 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> No it wasn't
> 
> ...


I know sometimes we don't think we get the work and/or service we deserve out of government workers, but do we really want the guy that gets fired by Shoe Carnival calculating our tax refund or making any important decisions????


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

bluemoonluck said:


> I would agree only if we also added in Welfare recipients....make them work in order to recieve their monthly check.


+1000

While I was laid off, I could not get an interview (47 and no degree, but 20+ years experience)

I would have dug ditches, but I was 'over qualified'

The only 'opportunity' I had was to sell Kirby vacuums :roll eyes:


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> I'm all for UE recipients working for the public good, but wouldn't that interfere with the meth heads that are trying to get their "Community Service" hours in?


Don't the meth heads normally blow themselves and trailers up? :whistlin:

I would actually like to see those on welfare earn their keep... Especially the generational welfare recipients...

Those on UC (Unemployment Compensation) in PA do pay a small portion (very small) of the insurance bill. It is the employers, that pay through the nose..

I have no problem putting them to work for the money, as long as they can leave to go to job interviews etc.. 

But then I'm just an evil fiscal conservative "terrorist" Tea Party / 912 Patriots member. Who also is a life member of the NRA and a member of a few other groups considered by the liberal socialists/communists to be terror organizations.. Simply because we believe in the Constitution and expect the Government to live by it instead of violating it..

But YMMV! ound:


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

It is pretty simple the politicians are buying votes. The solution is to stop recipients (of the benefits) from voting, or to cut off the benefits. The politicians lose on either plan, so the money will just keep on flowing.

One other solution might be to replace the politicians:clap:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

tinknal said:


> I've collected once. Lost a job that paid $15 dollars an hour. UE paid $8.50. All the local jobs that were available were less than that. Of course the UE ran out and now I'm making $8.50, but why would I drive 100 miles a day to earn what I could staying home and gardening and cutting firewood?



Well- yes.....


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

the INSURANCE is in place to allow those that have worked time to find a new job consistent with their old one.
So yes as long as you haven't found a job as good as the old one it makes sense to keep looking right up to the last week.
You don't WORK to get insurance benefits.
That would be like making people work to get their social security INSURANCE benefit.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

bluemoonluck said:


> I would agree only if we also added in Welfare recipients....make them work in order to recieve their monthly check.


They do, at least in Texas. Someone on ANF has to work at community service 20-30 hours a week. HOpefully in an area they are trying to find work in so they can gain experience.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> Employees do not pay unemployment insurance.


They do indirectly. The employer pays it, but the move overhead expenses an employer pays, the less wages they pay. Trickle down effect.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

mikellmikell said:


> The people who are getting unemployment are not they problem they paid for their insurance.


This is correct, the people that work and pay into unemployment are not the ones draining the system. I use to get laid off from my job in the winter and never use to draw the unemployment check. My boss would ask me why I didn`t sign up for it, he said I pay into that so you will come back to me in the spring and work for me again. So I did take it after that, still didn`t think it was right but I did. The people that just sit on their ars and pop out babies and never intend to do a days work ,are the ones I think are a dredge on humanity. I feel you should do something in order to collect a check, be it cutting weeds in empty lots, picking up trash, painting crosswalks, whatever. I`m sorry the party is about to be over, no more free money for everyone.> Thanks Marc


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

CocalicoSprings said:


> Why shouldn't we make people receiving unemployment compensation work for their check?
> What do you think?.


Because if the worked, the government couldn't fully enslave them, duh!


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

> Why shouldn't we make people receiving unemployment compensation work for their check?


Because they and their employers paid into the system to have the money available in case the recipient needs it


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

My older brother worked for a company for 35 years, and was let go so some underling that made less could have his job. It took him over a year to find another similar job, he was looking for work all the time. He sent out almost a hundred resumes and very few interviews, it was a good thing he had unemployment to fall back on to get by for awhile. > Thanks Marc


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

The entire unemployment system is broken and focuses on the wrong people. We have a 52 y/o neighbor who worked until about 14 months ago when he was force ably retired but cant draw his retirement until 59 1/2. For the past 14 months he has made ends meet by doing labor jobs for local farmers and living off his savings, growing his own veggies and basically homesteading...but...be now has a severe back injury where he will have to limit his physical activity so he has decided to get a job in an office (where he has skills and experience). His hospital bills have wiped him out even though he did have insurance and he is actively seeking work and found a job that starts in 2 months where he will be able to support himself.

At my encouragement I convinced him to apply for unemployment to help him through the next 2 months but guess what? HE CANT GET UNEMPLOYMENT. They say he has to have worked 2 qualifying quarters out of the last 12 months and self employment doesnt count. The woman at the unemployment office actually told him he should have applied as soon as he was foceably retired and that he could have been drawing it all this time. So instead of him taking care of himself for all this time and then only applying for a 2month period where he actually needs it they are encouraging people to take it when they dont need it.

I have zero experience with unemployment but this seemed to make sense to the government drone at the unemployment assistance help counter. She actually made the guy feel dumb for not applying for it even if he really didnt need it because now hes screwed. The guy worked for 30 years paying into the unemployment tax....

I say get rid of the whole thing as its worthless in assisting people in need and even the workers encourage abuse.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

ss, yep. That's the way it works. You have to have had so many quarters where you worked so many hours in order to collect. My mom retired early (in hopes of saving a younger person their job, mandatory lay-off where she worked) and even though she didn't "need" it she collected unemployment. She had never drawn on it before in 30+ years of working and took it this one and only time. 

I can't collect it while I am setting on the couch with my broken foot. I didn't put in enough hours to be eligible for it.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

This is a great idea. We have crumbling infrastructure. They could be trained and properly supervised and do that kind of work.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think a lot of hard working Americans would be willing to charter a one way flight from China to the US for our jobs to come home in.
The jobs left and can't get back here on their own. The government agreements that allowed business to ship our jobs overseas won't close our borders, like they were for 200 years. All the government can do is cut corperate taxes (to encourage job creation) and keep the taxes low on those million dollar bonuses the CEOs get.
We need to face the facts that our jobs aren't coming back on their own. 
No jobs can be created in this country as long as business can make it in China or Mexico and ship it here, duty free.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

I can remember my Dad telling about working for the WPA during the depression. There weren't many free handouts then. Most people had to work to eat. Now, if you know how to work the system, the bureaucrats love you and dish the money out. That keeps their programs going and gives them a job pushing a pencil and shoveling out the dough. Employers pay state and federal taxes to cover those unemployment checks. Years ago my mother-in-law was feeling sorry for one of her sons because he just wasn't getting enough to live on with his unemployment check. My husband was self-employed, and I asked her how she thought we got along in the winter when work was slow. We planned ahead and saved for the slow times, we didn't get any benefit checks that were paid for by someone else.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ment-101-Who-pays-for-jobless-benefits-anyway


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

The WPA was quite actively involved in this area. Some of the guys retiring now from the plants and businesses got their PHD degree (post hole digger) through WPA. You showed up at a central location and the local WPA administrator (usually a town official) would give out assignments for the day.

I heard the story of one woman calling the WPA office. She said all of her sons were in the military and she needed her yard cut. WPA shows up with a truck, driver, foreman, four guys in the back, pulling an outhouse on a trailer.

I have two ditches on my farm which were dug by shovel and mule pan by WPA. Heavy equipment could have done the job in maybe two days. They took several weeks.

One of the local problems was they wasn't much cash money in circulation. Bartering was common. You could go help someone put their hay in a barn and get say two feeder pigs for payment. You paid off part of your grocery bill by perhaps bringing in a processed hog. Friday nights were when all of the people living outside town came in to town. One neighbor said many a night they rode (mule drawn wagon) in with chickens, eggs or a hog in the back of the wagon with the kids. Thus, PWA injected money into the local economy.

Flour sackes came with a variety of patterns and colors. After church women would gather to trade sacks so they could get enough of one particular pattern/color to complete what they were sewing up. Typically they were used for diapers and slips for women, but some did become dresses and shirts.

KY Lake was built by TVA on largely the same principal. They paid $.50 an hour, a virtually unheard of wage for many. They were more use to a dollar a day from can-see to can't see. Virtually all of the clearning for the lake was done by two-man crosscut saw, axes and mules to haul the trimmed down trees up to a loading area. Tops and trimmed branches were piled up and burned. Neighbor said if you were sick, you went to work sick. You kept a piece of old cloth in the bib of your overalls, went into the bushes and then went back to work. They knew there were guys up at the supervisors office sitting around just waiting for someone to quit or not show up.

Neighbor, now dead, said he would get up before dawn to do some farm work, then go down to work at KY Lake. Afterwards he would do some more farmwork, take a nap and then go out **** hunting until about mid-night. Sleep a couple of hours and then back to the routine. Back then your could get $12 for a large, well tanned, male racoon hide - and that was a lot of money. His son told me they ate so much roasted **** he is surprised he doesn't have ring around his eyes.

WPA was appropriate for the times. I am skeptical it would work now.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

We would have to borrow the money for the program from the Chinese.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Employees do not pay unemployment insurance.


your right but the employer does, now suppose the employer did not have to pay in,then also subtract the man hours over the coarse of the year to handle that and there's less expense. More money

do you think some or all that money might end up in the employees pockets?

so no more Unemployment, no more bureaucrats getting paid to handle that. 

well we are at it lets get rid of medicaid and social security. when we do that though I want a REFUND. I could have made some significant investments with that money over the years and had a tidy nest egg and never need Unemployment. you know I paid more in on that then my federal tax!

so there is a significant savings to the tax payer and employer and the employee has that much more money in there pocket. Again Hugh savings by slashing that Administrative work force.

now this all sounds good, really does but, always a but isn't there, whats the backlash going to be, well

1. there's going to be a lot of unemployed government workers added to the unemployed ranks, not able to participate in the economy, adding more to the unemployment roles.

2.Doctors and hospitals will suffer as will Medical Insurers, as a general rule so will patients and the general public in increased rates and diminishing services.

3. those that rely solely on their SS and SSI payments will no longer be Able to Participate in the economy, furthering Unemployment as well as placing burdens upon family and community.

then we might as well add Food stamps and welfare, that much less money in the economy. and again a huge savings to the tax payer in so many ways. and again it will be felt in other sectors of the community. 

I'm against these programs 100%, but I can see the ramifications of striping these programs out with out some kind of contingency plan. more so at this juncture in our history. Our Government has been pushing our jobs out the door for Decades now, or out right killing them! there is work but its limited and supported by this shell game, its all a sham always has been. a game of musical chairs and dependency. you and I and even those who think they are not paying for it are. Well there are those that benefit , not your average citizen either but a elite few. 

do you really think the average Joe a person that worked long enough to draw unemployment, is going to be happy to sit on his @#$ ? think he's getting rich collecting those checks? or do you think that those short checks go to pay the bills helping to pay someone who has a job. Perhaps YOU! 
and yes short check,you do not collect more then you made , you do not collect what you made, you collect a percentage. with that said, those programs alone put around 1.5 trillion into the economy.

you and I and even those who think they are not paying for it are.
Well there are those that benefit , not your average citizen either but a elite few. 

those are the guys that started crying when the real estate scam fell through and the banks needed to be bailed out, those are the same guys scrambling to push the debt ceiling higher. they are worth lots of those FRN's
but if the FRN falls well their done and so isn't a lot of the worlds economy.
You know why, we were not the only ones duped by this fraudulent system so was much of the world. some out of greed other just blind or necessity.

so you want these programs gone figure a way to get 1.5 trillion into our economy of course more would be better. you have think Uncle Sam wants his cut of that revenue. I'll tell you the first step pull the leeches off the small business man and make big business pay there share. I'm talking all levels Fed,State,Municipal. 

when money comes up short in one place its made up in others.

now I ask you, To have one's cake and eat it too? which shall it be.
I can almost Guarantee there are those here that do not want to cede what they feel is theirs but wish others too.


RANT OVER.:hobbyhors


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Part of the problem is that the jobs that have left the US were good paying ones. Even if they come back, which is unlikely with the current political will, they will not be so good paying. We are competing with people paid low wages and no environmental limits.
Extending unemployment just keep postponing the day when a people have to take jobs as they are- not as they were.
Once that happens, then people can act to improve the job conditions. But as long as employers can increase their profits but jobbing outside the US they will.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Then it wouldn't be "unemployment insurance" it would be "pay." They'd be employed, by the government. In competition with workers in the private sector. Something the government is not _supposed_ to be doing. 
The government is not supposed to compete with private businesses because it has too many advantages. Would these "workers" have FICA, medicare, etc etc taken out of their pay checks? Would the government have to pay for medical benefits? Should the government use its taxing powers to put competitors out of business? What about the USArmy Corps of Engineers taking over all construction projects and inducting all construction workers into the army?

How about government stop paying unemployment, getting out of the micro-management regulation business and letting business go back to work?


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I think a lot of hard working Americans would be willing to charter a one way flight from China to the US for our jobs to come home in.
> The jobs left and can't get back here on their own. The government agreements that allowed business to ship our jobs overseas won't close our borders, like they were for 200 years. All the government can do is cut corperate taxes (to encourage job creation) and keep the taxes low on those million dollar bonuses the CEOs get.
> We need to face the facts that our jobs aren't coming back on their own.
> No jobs can be created in this country as long as business can make it in China or Mexico and ship it here, duty free.


Tou`che!!

And the Auto industry in Michigan is pretty much gone, gone, gone........


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Riverdale said:


> +1000
> 
> While I was laid off, I could not get an interview (47 and no degree, but 20+ years experience)
> 
> ...


You've got our empathy here- try being 57! And much worse at 60.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> Because they and their employers paid into the system to have the money available in case the recipient needs it


You're going to tell us there's enuf 'unemployment ins' to keep 16% in benefits for 2 yrs??? 
BWHahahaha!


----------



## chickenmommy (Aug 24, 2004)

We are one of those families that has been on unemployment FOREVER! I was laid off May 9 of 2010. S.O. was fired (wrongful termination) on May 27 of 2010. 

I started working again on May 27 of 2010. S.O. still has not found work. Unemployment is no picnic. 

Right now he is making $6.87 an hour on unemployment with (of course) no benefits at all. 
He has medical issues that require he have physical therapy twice a week. 
On the other days he goes to whatever interviews he gets. The standard interview he has been to has turned out to be one of the following scenarios:
1. The wage per hour that was listed in the advertisement was a typo. This job wouldn't pay what he is bringing home on unemployment after deductions for taxes, etc.
2. After speaking to a person on the phone to set up interview appt, he shows up and finds out that they only want verifiable experience, they have no funds for training.
3. He is 53 years old. Need I say more?
4. There were 400 people that sent in resumes for this job and the cut off was 250. They won't even look at his resume.
5. What he is qualified to do is way above what the job is, so they won't risk hiring him because they see him taking their job away in the future.
6. No response at all. 

He has sent out no less that 5 resumes a week. Nothing. Yet. 

I looked for work, before I found the one that I got laid off from, for two years, with no unemployment compensation, and lived off my savings till it was gone. 
Then went to school to learn a new trade. 
$48,000.00 in student loan dollars later, I am now employable at $14 an hour. 
This is not a pretty picture.

I have lost a house, sold a bunch of furniture, moved to get a job, and don't feel like I am out from under yet. Don't have a dime extra after taxes and insurance to put back into savings. 

Until you have lived the life of perpetual unemployment you should not make accusations.

When I was first laid off and was approved for unemployment (that I never collected, by the way) I was talking to my sister (in another state) on the phone. Told her I was approved and she said "your welcome" I said for what? She said, in a rather snotty tone that she was paying my unemployment and if not for the employed the lazy unemployment collectors would be hungry. 

Guess who's collecting unemployment since December? It came back and bit her in her grits.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Kazahleenah said:


> Tou`che!!
> 
> And the Auto industry in Michigan is pretty much gone, gone, gone........


The finished product AND tier 1 and 2 suppliers.

It's rough, our costs go up , but the companies who buy our product (roll and sheet stock, both laminated with carpet and with a release liner) complain about price increases.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> You've got our empathy here- try being 57! And much worse at 60.


I have electrical, carpentry, millwright, painting and farming in my background. I prolly could have gotten a part time job with a local beef operation, but it would have really messed up the UIE.

TG, that's why I am building some things for sale (to get a rep). Picnic tables, potting tables, chicken tractors and the like.

And I GOTTA get my whizbang plucker done to do my 'Naked Chickens' business!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Don't forget. The people giving you that "unemployment insurance" are also ensuring that you remain unemployed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

chickenmommy said:


> We are one of those families that has been on unemployment FOREVER! I was laid off May 9 of 2010. S.O. was fired (wrongful termination) on May 27 of 2010.
> 
> I started working again on May 27 of 2010. S.O. still has not found work. Unemployment is no picnic.
> 
> ...


Much the same at our house, except DH is 60-try finding a job at that age. I'm retired, so we're living on my SS.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Riverdale said:


> I have electrical, carpentry, millwright, painting and farming in my background. I prolly could have gotten a part time job with a local beef operation, but it would have really messed up the UIE.
> 
> TG, that's why I am building some things for sale (to get a rep). Picnic tables, potting tables, chicken tractors and the like.
> 
> And I GOTTA get my whizbang plucker done to do my 'Naked Chickens' business!


Good for you! 
DH has only sales experience. But has done a really good job making some stuff. Not much good unless you want to make something that took you 60 hrs to make & $60 for materials but no one will buy even for the $60...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Good for you!
> DH has only sales experience. But has done a really good job making some stuff. Not much good unless you want to make something that took you 60 hrs to make & $60 for materials but no one will buy even for the $60...


Yeppers, its tricky to find a market niche for most anything.... but if you do!! wow, you can make a ton of money to give to the government.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Justin Thyme said:


> Don't forget. The people giving you that "unemployment insurance" are also ensuring that you remain unemployed.


Wait a minute, the government may be handing out the unemployment payments but employers are the ones who pay the unemployment taxes.

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/uitaxtopic.asp


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

linn said:


> Wait a minute, the government may be handing out the unemployment payments but employers are the ones who pay the unemployment taxes.
> 
> http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/uitaxtopic.asp


But not the federal unemployment insurance payments. Those state-run UIB funds have long been emptied. That is why the feds took (some of) them over and unemployment is now another benefit payed out as part of federal-largesse and the "stumbulus" money.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

i love how the ones who boohoo over people getting UI are the same ones who put us in this mess with their politics. Far as I am concerned they can all go fly a kite.....


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

lilmizlayla said:


> i love how the ones who boohoo over people getting UI are the same ones who put us in this mess with their politics. Far as I am concerned they can all go fly a kite.....


It's free money they did/do nothing to earn. Why are they complaining at all? 

The people who are giving it to them are the same people who are doing everything they can to make sure there are no jobs available for them to take.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> It's free money they did/do nothing to earn. Why are they complaining at all?
> 
> The people who are giving it to them are the same people who are doing everything they can to make sure there are no jobs available for them to take.


Thats a bunch of horse patties....People want to work...do you think any of them relished losing their homes? I understand somebody not wanting to drive 2 hours for part time work at 7.00 an hour. Its silly...they would be spending more than they bring in. Flub the principal of the matter. this is about the bottom line...UI Boohooers expect those who were FORCED on UI to take a job 300 miles away for minimum wage. If it werent for the war they supported..guess what? perhaps the economy would have recovered in a timely manner. But of course...everyone wanted to play couch soldier..and now look at this mess. NOW they care about the money spent..and the economy....should have thought about that before everyone wanted to play Rambo


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> It's free money they did/do nothing to earn. Why are they complaining at all?
> 
> The people who are giving it to them are the same people who are doing everything they can to make sure there are no jobs available for them to take.


I am very glad that I don't live in the world you seem to think exists.

Unemployment is not something that 99 percent of people would want to be on. They would rather be back at the jobs they had, still able to pay their bills. It is not free money, they had to work to be even able to receive it in the first place. They made less money so their bosses could pay into the system. They were productive members of this county yet you continue to put them down.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

lilmizlayla said:


> Thats a bunch of horse patties....People want to work...do you think any of them relished losing their homes? I understand somebody not wanting to drive 2 hours for part time work at 7.00 an hour. Its silly...they would be spending more than they bring in. Flub the principal of the matter. this is about the bottom line...UI Boohooers expect those who were FORCED on UI to take a job 300 miles away for minimum wage. If it werent for the war they supported..guess what? perhaps the economy would have recovered in a timely manner. But of course...everyone wanted to play couch soldier..and now look at this mess. NOW they care about the money spent..and the economy....should have thought about that before everyone wanted to play Rambo


What's "a bunch of horse patties"? That some people complain about their UIB? I suppose some people do and those are the ones I'm talking about. Period.

As for "the war they supported" do you really believe that it is the too many wars we are involved in that are the sap on our economy? Wars are usually good for economies. Workers earn money making things that get destroyed so they need to make more and spend their money on domestic products. (If we had any domestic [Made in America] products to buy, anyway.) 

Our economy is in the mess it is because of over-reaching-nanny-state government at every level. Interfering, 'regulating', controlling, licensing, taxing, fee-ing and generally f'ing up business at every level in every way.

Our country was built with small, unobtrusive government that was based on guaranteeing our freedoms and keeping us free. 

Today we have a bloated and overextended government scrabbling around the world to borrow money to pay for its ill conceived schemes while it tries to tax every last droplet of blood out of the economy it throttles at every turn.

*Good grief!*


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am very glad that I don't live in the world you seem to think exists.
> 
> Unemployment is not something that 99 percent of people would want to be on. They would rather be back at the jobs they had, still able to pay their bills. It is not free money, they had to work to be even able to receive it in the first place. They made less money so their bosses could pay into the system. They were productive members of this county yet you continue to put them down.


No body is putting anybody down. I was responding to a post bi illmizlayla about those who DO complain about it. Further, NONE of the people receiving UIB from the federal gov't paid a penny for it. They paid for the state-run UIB. And it ran out. And I am sure that you have heard many stories about people not accepting "jobs beneath their dignity" because they pay less than UIB. They'd rather NOT WORK. Those are the folks I am talking about.

Don't you see how this government is dividing the nation at every turn. Everyone should be working together to improve the economy. Not fighting against each other about what is clearly becoming a welfare-state. 

look at what welfare has done to the black family. Extend that to every family and what do you have left. A totally fractured society rife with "malaise" and ripe for a dictator with promises of "hope and change."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, its tricky to find a market niche for most anything.... but if you do!! wow, you can make a ton of money to give to the government.


Gotta go 'Galt'.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Justin Thyme said:


> No body is putting anybody down. I was responding to a post bi illmizlayla about those who DO complain about it. Further, NONE of the people receiving UIB from the federal gov't paid a penny for it. They paid for the state-run UIB. And it ran out. And I am sure that you have heard many stories about people not accepting "jobs beneath their dignity" because they pay less than UIB. They'd rather NOT WORK. Those are the folks I am talking about.
> 
> Don't you see how this government is dividing the nation at every turn. Everyone should be working together to improve the economy. Not fighting against each other about what is clearly becoming a welfare-state.
> 
> look at what welfare has done to the black family. Extend that to every family and what do you have left. A totally fractured society rife with "malaise" and ripe for a dictator with promises of "hope and change."



You are putting down those people by even suggesting that most of them want to be provided a living by others in a nanny state. Not one of my friends and family would be happy with that. They are however grateful for a hand up when things are bad. Who do you think will be paying those costs with their taxes. when they have a job again


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

CocalicoSprings said:


> *Why shouldn't we make people receiving unemployment compensation work for their check? They could work on public works projects like the CCC used to do...bridges, dams, amphitheatres, high speed railroads, schools, hospitals,
> planting trees, all public work projects.
> I say bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps!*
> It's a waste to just give away money for free and we can no longer afford it.
> ...


Did you ever think of the logistics of putting thousands of people to work who have no practical experience at building anything, physical experience at manual labor (and etc???)

We are NOT the raw material labor force of the 1930's! Many of those STRAPPING boys were farm boys raised on hard work, had basic red green mechanical knowledge, could run just about any machine or work a tool, were conditioned to put in a long day's work, etc.

Building stuff is dang hard work, and you do NOT throw the average cubical worker into that! Its incredibly hard just to find employees to do housework! 

I'm saying all this in light of---I recently had to find a new job, found one within a few weeks(this is where having friends helps, having a reputation in the local community), a good one, and I am on my knees thankful for it! I realize what a fluke it was, and I will do my dangdest to be a good employee. 

A long time ago I started putting my best into volunteering and building relationships in my community, and when I needed help that karma came back to me. And I am humbled and thankful for that!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Your post there WT, may just get a POTD award.
+1000


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You are putting down those people by even suggesting that most of them want to be provided a living by others in a nanny state. Not one of my friends and family would be happy with that. They are however grateful for a hand up when things are bad. Who do you think will be paying those costs with their taxes. when they have a job again


If YOU THINK that is what I am suggesting then that is arising from your own, personal interpretation of what I said. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't, and specifically referring to another person's post. 

People not wanting to work as a general rule is your thing.

On the other hand if you don't think that is a problem then maybe you should do some reading-up on the issue. There are plenty of people who have publicly said they aren't going back to work as long as they continue to get government support, which is exactly what the "benevolent" bureaucrats who do have real jobs with real benefits want.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

lilmizlayla said:


> If it werent for the war they supported..guess what? perhaps the economy would have recovered in a timely manner. But of course...everyone wanted to play couch soldier..and now look at this mess. NOW they care about the money spent..and the economy....should have thought about that before everyone wanted to play Rambo


So what you are saying is that all those jobs created by military spending has kept our economy from growing? What about all the "other" spending? doesnt it count too? I guess not, welfare checks sent directly to the recipients creates lots of jobs and really spurs on the economy. :shrug:

The problem is not with military spending, any more than it is with any other government spending. The problem is that we are spending far too much in every direction, and having to borrow nearly half of every dime we spend. Its killing our economy simply by taking so durned much money OUT of the economy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> D
> Building stuff is dang hard work, and you do NOT throw the average cubical worker into that! Its incredibly hard just to find employees to do housework!


Why not? Are you saying cubicle workers are above learning and performing manual labor? Its amazing what even overeducated chair polishers are capable of when their backbone starts rubbing blisters on the their belly buttons. 

Of course with many these days, that will never happen due to lack of backbone.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So what you are saying is that all those jobs created by military spending has kept our economy from growing? What about all the "other" spending? doesnt it count too? I guess not, welfare checks sent directly to the recipients creates lots of jobs and really spurs on the economy. :shrug:
> 
> The problem is not with military spending, any more than it is with any other government spending. The problem is that we are spending far too much in every direction, and having to borrow nearly half of every dime we spend. Its killing our economy simply by taking so durned much money OUT of the economy.


Actually the problem is that we (the government) aren't spending, we're giving the money away. Not creating jobs, replacing them.

Not even giving the money to Americans necessarily. Giving it to foreign nations and foreign banks, giving it to states to waste, giving it away as welfare, redistribution, UIB, etc etc etc.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm not paying into unemployment if I have to work for it when I need it. Anyway what will that solve? There is no demand for labor that needs to be filled, the problem is just the opposite. If we needed a labor force then jobs wouldn't be scarce and wages wouldn't be carp.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

It is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without significant cuts to the military...unless you favor tax increases, personally I don't.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

kirkmcquest said:


> ALL the spending has hurt the economy...didn't I get through to you last time?
> 
> *This is insulting. Why would you treat a fellow forum member like this? YOU are not the final word or the only purveyor of truth.*
> 
> ...


The attacks on our military are uncalled for and very biased. You clearly do not like the military. But please, get your figures correct before you use them to chastise a fellow forum member.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

kirkmcquest said:


> I'm not paying into unemployment if I have to work for it when I need it. Anyway what will that solve? There is no demand for labor that needs to be filled, the problem is just the opposite. If we needed a labor force then jobs wouldn't be scarce and wages wouldn't be carp.


If you got to work for it you wouldn't need it at all. Would you?

If the money were in the economy and not being sucked out of it by the government then there would be jobs available and the demand for labor.

The stated concept for the "stimulus" was that the money would be given to private companies to provide "shovel ready" jobs. Instead it was given to states to bolster their retirement fund. Much of it wasn't even spent. 

Giving it away as "wealth redistribution" does not help anybody. It's not available to companies to pay employees and to expand. In fact, the threat of increased taxes pushes companies to hold their cash just in case.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kirkmcquest said:


> It is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without significant cuts to the military...unless you favor tax increases, personally I don't.


sure its possible to balance our budget without cutting military expenditures or increasing taxes..... but it would require significant cuts to all of the unconstitutional spending going on.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Here are the facts, available to anyone on wikipedia;



> Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28&#8211;38% of budgeted expenditures and *42&#8211;57% of estimated tax revenues*


That means that possibly up to 57% of every tax dollar goes to military expenditure...nothing made up or malicious in my reporting of the *facts*. My intention is to get serious about what needs to be done to save our county.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Employers actually pay into both the federal and state unemployment systems.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

kirkmcquest said:


> BTW I would like to inform everyone that Justin Tyme and Yvonne's hubby have reported me for 'personal insult' due to my post regarding the facts of our budget. You can all read that there were no insults, name calling or anything of the sort in my post.
> 
> *Sir. Apparently two forum members did, in fact, find your comments rude and insulting. The fact that this was brought to your attention by a moderator should make you more circumspect in your dealings here. But, apparently, it has not.*
> 
> I bring this out only to expose that some people here play dirty, and when they cannot win a debate based on the facts or strength of their arguments, they cry to moderators to try an 'get you' in anyway they can. Sadly our nation's situation is very serious, and it is tragic that we are unable to discuss this situation like men. I truly do fear for the future of our country.


*You sir are only exposing yourself, a problem apparently endemic to liberals.*

Our nation is facing a very serious situation and, unfortunately, the worn-out liberal answers supported by made-up figures and "creative" information do not cut it. 

I drew my figures (which match Yvonne'shubby) from documents used by congress to determine their decisions. Awful as they have been.

And it's spelled "T*h*yme", not "Tyme".


Slap slap. Words at ten paces, sir. At dawn.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CocalicoSprings said:


> Why shouldn't we make people receiving unemployment compensation work for their check?


Unemployment is an insurance program, bought and paid for by recipients. Why should we make them do ANYTHING before receiving benefits?

Do you feel this way about any other forms of insurance?


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Justin Thyme said:


> *You sir are only exposing yourself, a problem apparently endemic to liberals.*
> 
> Our nation is facing a very serious situation and, unfortunately, the worn-out liberal answers supported by made-up figures and "creative" information do not cut it.
> 
> ...


Justin, I think you may need a little help. I don't even know what you are talking about..something about 'liberals'? I'm talking about the budget numbers and have posted the facts, backed up by wikipedia.

I'm starting to think you may be a very young fellow, who is just trying to have some fun with me. In reality, as we have discussed on other threads..the nonDOD military expenditures are almost as high as the DOD expenditures, put them together and you have close to 40% of the budget going to the military.

Here is the wikipedia link, with all the facts for anyone who is interested;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States



Now according to the facts, military expenditures account for up to 57 cents out of every dollar of revenue. That means there is 43 cents left for *everything else*. Now we overspend about 48% more than our revenues and we have a large percentage of revenue going to pay interest on our past debts.

You can call me names, liberal, or pretend that I have mortally insulted you and the entire military by bringing this up...but it really won't change the facts and refusing to face them is not an option for Americans any longer. Even if we cut ss, medicare, medicaid, and welfare down to zero..we might still be running a deficit if revenues continue to decline and % on the debt goes up anymore.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

kirkmcquest said:


> Justin, I think you may need a little help.
> *
> But not from you.*
> 
> ...


"Arguing", nay discussing this with you is pointless since you patently insist on basing your claims on false information. You insist on your own facts, even though found in "wikipedia," and refuse to recognize those used by congress, found in the _"Debt Limit Analysis"_ from the Bipartisan Policy Center _may_ be more relevant or even correct. (I admit: A stretch given that they _are_ used by congress.)

Thank you for keeping me "young" at heart. But now I am bored. you can have the last word here.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bluemoonluck said:


> I would agree only if we also added in Welfare recipients....make them work in order to recieve their monthly check.


And what if they are unable to work?


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

edcopp said:


> Why should we "MAKE" people work for the proceeds of an insurance agreement, called Unemployment Compensation?
> 
> It is not a free gift, it is insurance, every person who has it had to give up some pay (money) to the employer, so the employer could pay the government for the insurance. So why should the newly jobless person be expected to pay twice on top of having no job?:heh:




let's make them all wait until they are seventy before thay can collect. (cough)


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> The attacks on our military are uncalled for and very biased. You clearly do not like the military. But please, get your figures correct before you use them to chastise a fellow forum member.



horse patties.....Having our military overseas is UNNECESSARY! we have had so many soldiers killed..and for what? bring them home....and to heck with the middle eastern people.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> And what if they are unable to work?


welfare is not free..they have to be in a program 5 days a week...8 hours a day to receive it. OR be in school (they must have young children). Trust me, what that comes up to is less than minimum wage...about 5 bucks an hour for how much they give you....SOOOO makes no sense. 300 a month is keeping people at home? hahahaha...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Unemployment is an insurance program, bought and paid for by recipients. Why should we make them do ANYTHING before receiving benefits?
> 
> Do you feel this way about any other forms of insurance?


Its really not so diff from other 'ins.'...when your limit is up, its up.


----------



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

Everyone missed my point and there has even been fights over this post.
What I am asking is not whether people are deserving of unemployment checks. I am just suggesting that maybe they could do some type of work that will benefit society instead of just sitting on their thumbs. Some of my unemployed friends and relatives "milk" the system. Some don't. When my uncles were in the CCC during the 30's they were unemployed single males. They learned how to weld and how to run a bulldozer and operate heavy equipment. They didn't have any of those skills when they went into the Civilian Conservation Corp. I realize that many displaced workers today are married or female or too old or they have children. What I am asking is this....couldn't SOMETHING be required of anyone receiving a check from the government ? Maybe the first month or two they could attempt to find a replacement job or substitute employment but after it becomes apparent that there is no likelihood of getting employment a person begins to feel bad, sometimes despondent and sometimes loses self respect or self esteem. Occasionally they begin to hate and blame everyone around them. Marriages break up.
If there was just a program to make people work for their unemployment compensation they would have a JOB! Perhaps it could be optional...maybe the check would be higher if they opted to sign up for the CCC. For those who couldn't join the CCC they could do other local beneficial duties. Maybe work in an office, a library, a hospital, doesn't have to be hard physical labor. I am not talking slavery here.. I am not trying to judge, only attempting to find out if my thoughts are shared by others.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> If there was just a program to make people work for their unemployment compensation


We all ready did work for that check.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sammyd said:


> > If there was just a program to make people work for their unemployment compensation
> 
> 
> We all ready did work for that check.


Of course. It's insurance. Where is the logic in making people work for insurance benefits that they paid for?



If someone had fire insurance and his house burned down, would the insurance company expect him to work for his new house?
If an insured driver was in an auto accident, would it be fair to make him work for his replacement car?
If a man had life insurance and died, would we expect his widow to work for insurance benefits?

Those are all absurd suggestions. So why would anyone suggest that laid-off employees work for unemployment benefits?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And what if they are unable to work?


Then they wouldn't be getting *unemployment* pay in the first place.

They might qualify for *disability*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Where is the logic in making people work for insurance benefits that *they paid for*?


Keep that key phrase in mind




> If someone had fire insurance and his house burned down, would the insurance company expect him to work for his new house?
> 
> *Should he get 3 extra houses?*
> 
> ...




If you paid for *26 weeks *of insurance benefits, why should the GOVT extend that to up to* 99 weeks *for doing nothing at all?


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

CocalicoSprings said:


> Everyone missed my point and there has even been fights over this post.
> What I am asking is not whether people are deserving of unemployment checks. I am just suggesting that maybe they could do some type of work that will benefit society instead of just sitting on their thumbs. Some of my unemployed friends and relatives "milk" the system. Some don't. When my uncles were in the CCC during the 30's they were unemployed single males. They learned how to weld and how to run a bulldozer and operate heavy equipment. They didn't have any of those skills when they went into the Civilian Conservation Corp. I realize that many displaced workers today are married or female or too old or they have children. What I am asking is this....couldn't SOMETHING be *required of anyone receiving a check from the government *? Maybe the first month or two they could attempt to find a replacement job or substitute employment but after it becomes apparent that there is no likelihood of getting employment a person begins to feel bad, sometimes despondent and sometimes loses self respect or self esteem. Occasionally they begin to hate and blame everyone around them. Marriages break up.
> If there was just a program to *make people work for their unemployment compensation* they would have a JOB! Perhaps it could be optional...maybe the check would be higher if they opted to sign up for the CCC. For those who couldn't join the CCC they could do other local beneficial duties. Maybe work in an office, a library, a hospital, doesn't have to be hard physical labor. I am not talking slavery here.. I am not trying to judge, only attempting to find out if my thoughts are shared by others.


I think you flip flopping,at least to some degree, from your original post? but then I see the bolded text in the quote above. Which seems to now be redirection to the same ends as your OP. 

ccc is fine but lets give that to those who do not qualify for benefits of any kind.it would be much better if it was used as a on the job training program. 
you know what though, I prefer the Government just bow out and let businessmen be business men.Take it a step farther and require they do their job for their check and protect those businessmen from unfair foreign competition. then REAL JOBS will be created and then should be no need for anyone to carry anyone.


----------



## ChristieAcres (Apr 11, 2009)

CocalicoSprings said:


> Everyone missed my point and there has even been fights over this post.
> What I am asking is not whether people are deserving of unemployment checks. I am just suggesting that maybe they could do some type of work that will benefit society instead of just sitting on their thumbs. Some of my unemployed friends and relatives "milk" the system. Some don't. When my uncles were in the CCC during the 30's they were unemployed single males. They learned how to weld and how to run a bulldozer and operate heavy equipment. They didn't have any of those skills when they went into the Civilian Conservation Corp. I realize that many displaced workers today are married or female or too old or they have children. What I am asking is this....couldn't SOMETHING be required of anyone receiving a check from the government ? Maybe the first month or two they could attempt to find a replacement job or substitute employment but after it becomes apparent that there is no likelihood of getting employment a person begins to feel bad, sometimes despondent and sometimes loses self respect or self esteem. Occasionally they begin to hate and blame everyone around them. Marriages break up.
> If there was just a program to make people work for their unemployment compensation they would have a JOB! Perhaps it could be optional...maybe the check would be higher if they opted to sign up for the CCC. For those who couldn't join the CCC they could do other local beneficial duties. Maybe work in an office, a library, a hospital, doesn't have to be hard physical labor. I am not talking slavery here.. I am not trying to judge, only attempting to find out if my thoughts are shared by others.


I am certainly in agreement and have never believed there should be benefits when there is no work required to continue to receive those benefits. Those who are ill, disabled, or elderly, aren't being referred to. I am referring to those who are physically capable of working. Just think how much the govt could save...so they could throw our taxes away in some other manner. Yep, like hiring more goons to shut down businesses like Rawesome Foods.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you paid for *26 weeks *of insurance benefits, why should the GOVT extend that to up to* 99 weeks *for doing nothing at all?


they do that because the employer is paying 6% as a base of total payroll.
not everyone will qualify for unemployment, ever wonder how temp agency's stay in business, 90 days and your gone. even though those business are avoiding unemployment penalty's they still pay that 6%,year in year out. other employers pay more its based on claims against them. Some will quit for various reason,even changing jobs,that may not work out and leave you unqualified for benefits also. it also adds expense in having someone handle it.

I rather have that 6% in my check. As a employer I'd rather not have the headache.

If that person can not find above board work or work at all, well they will not be a burden on the system any longer will they. 

just remember though these will be the gears in the machine, the criminals that further the control agenda and the Informants that give up those who do not do the bidding of the leaders, and the Jackboots that correct that situation.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

lilmizlayla said:


> welfare is not free..they have to be in a program 5 days a week...8 hours a day to receive it. OR be in school (they must have young children). Trust me, what that comes up to is less than minimum wage...about 5 bucks an hour for how much they give you....SOOOO makes no sense. 300 a month is keeping people at home? hahahaha...


I don't know what you mean. I'm talking about things like disability.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you paid for *26 weeks *of insurance benefits, why should the GOVT extend that to up to* 99 weeks *for doing nothing at all?


THIS is the answer. When you pay for insurance, after the insured occurrence and you get paid... that's it. The insurance doesn't just go on forever. It stops. Tough. You get/got what you paid for. 

If you want more insurance go buy some. But don't expect to collect forever.

By allowing people to collect open-ended the government is both trying to ameliorate the effects of their anti-business policies while making the recipients ever more dependent on the government's supposed beneficence. The government is encouraging unemployment.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> THIS is the answer. When you pay for insurance, after the insured occurrence and you get paid... that's it. The insurance doesn't just go on forever. It stops. Tough. You get/got what you paid for.
> 
> If you want more insurance go buy some. But don't expect to collect forever.
> 
> By allowing people to collect open-ended the government is both trying to ameliorate the effects of their anti-business policies while making the recipients ever more dependent on the government's supposed beneficence. The government is encouraging unemployment.



nope....it isnt making anyone dependent on the government. for that lousy pay? PHHFT!


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

It is just the powers that be, purchasing votes (for cash and other benefits) from those who do not work. Discontinue the benefits, including the cash at 26 weeks and see how fast the numbers for unemployment change.:bash:


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Keep that key phrase in mind
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But what if you have worked for say 36 years and have NEVER drawn a dime, wouldn't one have paid in slightly more than 26 weeks worth of unemployment insurance?

Just curious as if that is the case, then it would be rather more beneficial for the employee (me) to have saved up 99 weeks of "unemployment" insurance rather than pay into the program that only gives me 26 weeks worth..correct? lol..just thinking out loud here.

I've never drawn unemployment insurance, when I was notified that our plant was closing, I was offered another job in Ohio, but found one in Huntsville and took that one instead. Never missed a day of work. I've never had to move for a job, but there is always a first time and so I moved..I've been in three jobs prior to the one I have now and all three companies were shut down and moved overseas or just shut down totally. I've managed to stay one bit ahead of layoffs by finding another job.

It's not easy, but a person really has to be paying attention to what is going on in their own business (read the financials, keep up with the industry, note changes within their own place of employment (are people leaving and not being replaced, do "key" people seem to be resigning or moving on to new employment, are shipments down, are orders down - that sort of thing)..and then plan accordingly. (and yes, it is a pain to move, but plan for it anyway cause in this day and time, you just might have to).

I am in the process of selling my beloved farm and trying to find another one close to where I work now. I had to leave family and friends. I am in the process of selling my horses and placing those that I cannot sell with good homes, giving away my farm dogs, and putting my things in storage). You do what you have to in order to work and this is what I had to do to not draw unemployment. Of course it would have been much easier to sit at the farm and draw unemployment. But I know there are no jobs left in my hometown that pay anything near a living wage..so I left. It has not been easy as I have lived at the farm for 26 years, it is paid for and I am paying RENT now..ugh..but necessary. Once the farm sells, I will pay cash for another place. 

I guess I look at things different, if I could not have moved, I would have drawn the UI. some people cannot move, they can't afford to move, have small kids, sick elderly folks, etc. But I believe that eventually there will be no where to move to in order to keep a job. I sincerely believe that eventually all jobs will be outsourced (I see a lot of that in my industry) and it is only a matter of time before the US will be primarily service based jobs. A country that produces no tangible goods is a country that will soon be third world. No one will be able to afford to pay for "services" without the "goods" that make it possible.

just a thought..sock away whatever you can for that rainy day..99 weeks of UI won't last forever and then what?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

sidepasser said:


> But what if you have worked for say 36 years and have NEVER drawn a dime, wouldn't one have paid in slightly more than 26 weeks worth of unemployment insurance?


Nope, your employer pays in only for a while... enough to cover the 26 weeks, then they no longer pay until someone collects benefits... If they keep people employed for thirty years with no layoffs their unemployment tax stopped about 29 years ago!.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, your employer pays in only for a while... enough to cover the 26 weeks, then they no longer pay until someone collects benefits... If they keep people employed for thirty years with no layoffs their unemployment tax stopped about 29 years ago!.


When did this start?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, your employer pays in only for a while... enough to cover the 26 weeks, then they no longer pay until someone collects benefits... If they keep people employed for thirty years with no layoffs their unemployment tax stopped about 29 years ago!.


You need to do better research.

One of my jobs is paying this bill. That does not happen to be the case.


----------

