Extending unemployment

Great question. As I understand it, a portion of our paycheck goes toward unemployment insurance, although I believe it is hidden. If run properly, the effect of pooling risk would take care of paying out the insurance benefits. But with Congress involved, I wonder if that insurance pool is spent like everything else and replaced with IOU's, aka social security. Debt, from a Keynesian standpoint is supposed to be a short term fix. However, it has become a long term strategy and both sides of the aisle have been responsible for running up the tab. What scares me is that the country has grown out of trouble in the past through consumer spending. Buy that spending was either on the credit card or the mortgage. That well has run dry and if we are going to reverse this trend of debt, we will have to pay it off with money we would otherwise use on consumables. Without consumer spending our economy goes further down the crapper, more unemployment, more federal debt. So how close are we to the point of no return? And what alternatives do we have to grow the economy while repaying the debt?

So NAVET by that assessment I would say that there is no chance for growth in the US unless led by technology.

Not necessarily. I think that one way we could grow out of this mess is with massive(and necessary) infrastructure rebuilding. Use public debt to rebuild infrastructure and use fees on infrastructure use to pay off the debt. The multiplying effect of wages on the citizens providing the labor would grow the economy. The increased efficiency of the infrastructure would lower the cost of doing business in general. Technology would certainly be involved with that strategy, in fact a massive infrastructure rebuild would be a necessary ingredient to technology growth and innovation. It could happen. And it's real growth, not some consumeristic buying spree paid for with a chinese credit card, or a war paid for with a chinese credit card, or TARP paid for with a chinese credit card.

Continuing to extend unemployment benefits encourages working under the table and laziness and will only lengthen our unemployment problem.

Do you really think most people are lazy and don't want to work? Current unemployment is caused by lazy people?

Umm...yes.  Lots of people are just naturally lazy.  I am.  You give me the choice of sitting on my butt playing Playstation or working and I'm going to choose Playstation every single time.  But, if I don't work, I don't eat.  If the government extends the unemployment benefits it will give those naturally lazy people another excuse to play another game.  If they know they're going to get a check in the mail this month whether they work or not, they're not going to take the extra steps to get a job that pays them better than their unemployment check. 

Construction workers seem to be really bad about thinking it's OK to get an unemployment check.  It would cause permanent damage to my pride if I relied on a check from the government to pay my bills.  But with them, it's just a normal part of the life of a construction worker.  I realize there's a whole union issue with them (which is a whole different conversation), but these guys would be much better off if they skipped out on the union and started their own little company.  I've got a buddy who is a fireman and has a contracting business.  He's busier than he really wants to be.  Which tells me that there is an opportunity out there for someone with some drive, a truck, some tools, and some know how.  

So, no lazy people didn't cause the unemployment issue.  But lazy people aren't going to fix it either.  Lazy people aren't going to get more education to make themselves more marketable.  Which means that they aren't going to get a job outside of their field.  They'll just continue to get unemployment.  Maybe if we shut it off, we can get people off their butts and get them worried about how they're going to feed their family.     

 They should go into business for themselves?

OK, "this idea is another selection from the "let them eat cake catalog." It would be funny if you weren't serious about it. So, tell me how would that work? Somethng like this:

Joe Unemployed guy laying on the couch starts to mull over his options. "Hmm, i'm unemployed. I've maxed out my credit cards. I'm overdrawn at the bank. I'm late on the rent, there isn't any food in the house, the electric is turned off, so is the cable, and the phone, the bank repossessed my car.  And now the government is turning off the gravy train. What am i going to do? Hey, I know, I'll start a contracting business. I'll go out and buy a truck and go buy the tools that i need along with getting my LLC, insurance, permits, and license from the state. Then i'll start a marketing campaign to get clients.Honey!!!! Whew, we're saved!!!!!!!" 

Spiff, do you see a problem with this, because i do.

Spiff the average working person who was making 30 to 40k a year before losing their job gets around $300 a week in unemployment comp. How far do you think that goes toward keeping a family fed and sheltered? Do you you really think these people are sittin' home drinkin and screwin' as the kids go hungry and they lose everything they own? Now, understand, there are some very powerful forces in this country who want you to think just that. But, really, do you beleive it?

Demonizing the needy is a repub trick from long ago. Making them out to be useless bums that only need a kick in the rear makes it much easier to turn your back to them and sleep at night. If only it were true, that they are worthless!

Spiff, the view you exibit here is either very naive or very cold hearted. The start a biz comment tells me you haven't thought this out.

[quote=BondGuy]

 They should go into business for themselves?  Or something.

OK, "this idea is another selection from the "let them eat cake catalog." It would be funny if you weren't serious about it. So, tell me how would that work? Somethng like this:  BondGuy - I got love for you, but I have to disagree with you.  What you are describinng below is an extreme situation.  Plenty of people are out of work, but another spouse works.  There are also plenty of people who started businesses while they were on unemployment.  I know - I have a few clients like that.  Amazing how fast business picked up once they stopped getting unemployment.

Joe Unemployed guy laying on the couch starts to mull over his options. "Hmm, i'm unemployed. I've maxed out my credit cards. I'm overdrawn at the bank. I'm late on the rent, there isn't any food in the house, the electric is turned off, so is the cable, and the phone, the bank repossessed my car.  And now the government is turning off the gravy train. What am i going to do? Hey, I know, I'll start a contracting business. I'll go out and buy a truck and go buy the tools that i need along with getting my LLC, insurance, permits, and license from the state. Then i'll start a marketing campaign to get clients.Honey!!!! Whew, we're saved!!!!!!!" 

Spiff, do you see a problem with this, because i do.

Spiff the average working person who was making 30 to 40k a year before losing their job gets around $300 a week in unemployment comp. How far do you think that goes toward keeping a family fed and sheltered?  $1200 a month is nothing to sneeze at.  I lived on half of that amount when I was single.   Do you you really think these people are sittin' home drinkin and screwin' as the kids go hungry and they lose everything they own?  No.  I don't.  But I do feel like they are at home saying "Why can't the government feed me?  Poor me, why can't I get a job?  Why won't nobody hire me."   Now, understand, there are some very powerful forces in this country who want you to think just that. But, really, do you beleive it?  I believe, without powerful forces, but from seeing with my own eyes, that people can get jobs.  They just might not be able to get a job that pays what they were used to.  But what do you do?  Do you continue to get unemployment.  If you can get a job making $1300 a month, do you get it, or do you take the $1200 the government gives you?  Most of these people would take the $1200 the government gives you.  Let's take it a step further.  What if you could get $1150 a month?  Now we're getting somewhere.  Do you go WORK?  Or do you take the $1200 a month?  I'm pretty sure most would agree the fiscally responsible thing to do is to take the $1200 a month.  Right?  But what if that $1200 a month wasn not available?  Hmmmmm.

I am reminded of being in New Orleans after Katrina.  A woman was crying on the street.  A very LARGE woman.  She was crying because she said she was hungry.  Now, keep in mind, this woman had received $2000 a month from the government so far (this was the first month after it had hit).  She could get three meals a day from the Red Cross and a shower, etc.

But here she is, bawling in front of Wendy's.  On the front door of Wendy's it says "NOW hiring:  Free meal and $1000 for APPLYING inside".  WTF?  That sign should have been taken down after the first ten people showed up, but it had been there for WEEKS!  Why?  Because people are lazy!

Demonizing the needy is a repub trick from long ago. Making them out to be useless bums that only need a kick in the rear makes it much easier to turn your back to them and sleep at night. If only it were true, that they are worthless!  No one is demonizing the needy.  We are demonizing the lazy.  I know plenty of people who are needy that are hard workers.  Here's the thing:  If you are industrious, you don't stay needy for too long.

Spiff, the view you exibit here is either very naive or very cold hearted. The start a biz comment tells me you haven't thought this out.

[/quote]

As for starting a business.  When I started my own RIA, I needed cash.  I was billing in arrears and I left at a really bad time of year.  So I consulted on start-ups and helping people get started running a business.  Most of these people had $20k in debt, a couple of kids, etc.  They received loans and deferred payments (this was not that long ago, btw) once we looked at the different options.  In fact, in my state, there are grants that are put up by non-profits and the local municipalities for people to start businesses.  You need to write a business plan (which the SBA will gladly help with, or I was helping them write it - for a fee).

This is the easiest place in the world to start a business.

Keep in mind, innovation drives the economy.  Just look at our own industry.  Look at the people coming up wiht new ways to interact with the financial community. New ways to make money.  New ways to provide services for clients.

That goes for all sorts of industries.  There are very physically lazy people, who, while they don't want to work hard, will figure out a way to make some money.  They innovate.  Especially if they aren't at home sitting on their fat butts!

Why?  Because activity stimulates brain activity.  Stress stimulates brain activity. 

I think Spiff is right.

The people that are truly the driving force behind this great nation are not the people that need unemployment benefit extensions. These wonderful strong economic contributors may need unemployment benefits to help them through a tough time but I can guarantee anyone that WANTS a job will FIND a job.

The true spirit of America and the ones that make up its backbone have no problems with humbling themselves a little bit and taking that job others would think is beneath them. You are either naturally motivated or naturally unmotivated. Those that are motivated will find a way to better their situation. Those that are naturally unmotivated will find a way not to work.

BG- I see two problems with your argument and I generally find intelligence in your banter.

First I don't think the republican vs democrat debate is necessary. I am neither and I respect not many people who are either. However, even if you are democrat calling this a republican trick isn't really a good way to look at things. In fact lets just discuss this from an American issue. Lets not polarize each other with nasty ideas of intent.

Second- I understand your cries for compassion. However is it really that compassionate of you to want to continue to give people no incentive for getting off this system when you and I both know that the current system has produced generation of laziness, squalor and poor parenting.

Is the more compassionate parent the one who gives their drug addict son $10 so he can only buy a little meth or is it the parent who gives their son nothing and turns him to the streets?

I feel like your ideology is in fact the most heartless becasue that ideology makes sainthood out of just giving enough to eat but gives no hope for future generations to better themselves.

They say that an addict must hit rock bottom before they change. I believe the same to be true to people addicted to entitlement. I also realize the problems with my own logic, there will be more murder, more robbings, more violence but these are a 1 generation problem. Once the folks who are addicted to be given everything to live their life have either changed or died, the next generation will not know the words entitilement.

There are some 30 million unemployed  Americans. 15 million become unemployed during the last 2 years. They didn't all suddenly succumb to their natural state of laziness. They got fired. And last month the country added 85,000 in private secor jobs. Divide that into 30 million to get a sense of job availability.

The notion that the 15 million newly unemployed should just buy a pick up truck and start building houses, cleaning houses or cutting grass is pretty weak reactionary thinking. And comparing them to drug addicts? Shameful IMO.

The character issue isn't about the 10% unemployed and whether they're lazy,  it's about the 90% of us who have a job. Do we feel a responsibility to help, or not. If not, just admit it. It's not about the worthiness of the person who doesn't have a job, it's about you. You don't feel an obligation to help. Nothing wrong with that if that's how you feel. Just don't pretend that you'd gladly help if only they were more deserving.

Now, it happens, I don't favor continuation of benefits. It's not personal, it's just business. I don't think it's a leveraged use of funds.

I do support a continuation of govmnt stimulus. We are not out of the woods, and to be worried about the deficit now is inviting a second recession that will easily slide into a depression. A cliff-notes read of the Great Depression will show that the depression didn't take hold until a really bad recession, which had initially been stimulated into growth by federal spending, morphed into a depression by a reactionary move to quickly cut the deficit and slash spending.

So I would support an extension of unemployment benefits if it were tied to a more productive use of the unemployed bodies. Public works projects, etc. Let's get them out of the house and being productive. Trust me, 15 million newly unemployed are not just lazy, drug addicted construction guys. They want to work, we just won't be able to provide the private sector jobs needed to get them back to work for perhaps several years. The government will likely need to be part of the solution. I would just hope for a more thoughtfuland creative solutoin on their part.

(I'm pretty certain I'm going to regret wading into this discussion)

BG - While I respect your opinion, I couldn't disagree with it more. 

Most general contracting work can be done with a relatively small group of tools.  Hammer, cordless drill/screwdriver, recip saw, tape measure, chop saw or circular saw, speed square, and a pencil.  The guy that installed my sliding glass door, replaced my back door, and all of my windows didn't use much more than those and maybe some small hand tools.  If he gets bigger jobs that pay him more, he buys other fancier tools he might need on some other jobs.     

There isn't a construction worker worth his salt who doesn't have those tools and more in their garage right now.  Or in the tool chest in the bed of their truck that they already own.   

Advertising?  Tell your family, friends, and neighbors that you're going into business for yourself.  Print up some business cards on your home computer.  Walk through a neighborhood handing out those business cards while asking to bid some work the homeowner might be considering.  Throw an ad in the local paper. 

Word of mouth advertising is really the only way most small contractors work.  My wife has a cousin who has never placed an ad in any paper. Doesn't have business cards.  But yet he feeds his family and has more work than he can handle in the new town they just moved to.  He has a truck and some simple tools.  That's it. 

Back to your Joe unemployed scenario.  You described the people who most get under my skin to a T.  First, why are you just sitting around?  Why aren't you out pounding the pavement looking for ANY kind of work.  Why is your wife at home if you're happy butt is sitting on the couch unemployed.  If you can't find a job, maybe she can.  Or, gasp, maybe you can both find a job.  One of you can work during the day, one of you at night.  That way you don't have to pay a babysitter.  I know, it sucks, but nobody promised that the pursuit of happiness was going to be fun.

The problem is those kind of people wait until it's an emergency to act.  It's only when the government money stops flowing in that Joe figures he'd better get to gettin' and find a way to replace that $1200. 

Northfield - I am sure you are going to regret wading into the issue.

Classic example of left wing... Make everyone else feel horrbile if they don't agree with you since you sit on your moral high horse.

"The character issue isn't about the 10% unemployed and whether they're lazy,  it's about the 90% of us who have a job. Do we feel a responsibility to help, or not. If not, just admit it. It's not about the worthiness of the person who doesn't have a job, it's about you. You don't feel an obligation to help. Nothing wrong with that if that's how you feel. Just don't pretend that you'd gladly help if only they were more deserving. "

That is a SICK SICK paragragh... Where is your logical based argument? The old salesman always goes for the guilt trip.

RW - says that govt programs are addicting like a drug... you say he is shameful? What is shameful is instead of using a logical arguement and defending your points you just accuse everyone else of being bad people if they don't believe what you do. Kinda like being racist if you were white and didn't vote for Obama.

I still can't believe the above paragraph. HELP is an easy word to use. I am struggling with my business. Would you help me by sending me your top 5 clients. Oh wait... you don't think I deserve it. Well it isn't about me deserving it , it is about you being a greedy jerk...

Sorry about going off here but seeing your ignorance is not bliss, it is you using a left wing agenda and then irrational - emotional passive aggressive assertions to make your point instead of talking about the real problems.

Realworld -

First,  i'm not a democrat. That said, there aren't too many if any dems holding up extending unemployment benefits.

Second, like it or not, your argument above engages the republican dogma of devaluing people. Look at your words. Lazy, squalor, poor ,addict. That's right out of the repub playbook. Makes it easy to deny them doesn't it?

Third, you are changing the scope of the original question from one of extending unemployment benefits to one of entitlement. The two are not the same. Prior to the economic meltdown unemployment benefits were very straight forward. You got six months, end of story. And, you've had to prove you were looking for work. Some states put you into an employment pool. They call with a job, you go and you work. So, no multi generational stiffling from living off the man coming from the unemployment benefit policies of this country. if you've got a problem with the welfare system, well, thats another subject.  But i suspect that your problem with welfare is less about the system and more about your stereotype of the people. But i digress in my banter.

And, Realword, what do you know of addicts? Are you one? Are you married to one? One of your kids an addict? More book knowledge or just a natural progression from lazy, squalor, poor parenting to drug addicts? All part of the same stereotype? You say "they say an addict has to hit rock bottom before they'll change."  Who is "'they?" And what do your really know of them? I suspect not much because you speak from an unknowing distance.

If you want to discuss the welfare system we can, but my comments were limited to the unemployed. Most of whom are hard working people who find themselves in a horrible situation.

Magician - $1200 a month is nothing to sneeze at? Are you serious? Who do you think the average unemployed person is? Do you think it's someone who believes $1200 a month is win fall? $1200 a month is paid to someone who was making $4000 a month prior to getting axed. The guy who was making $300 a month working one day a week  at Burger King doesn't get $1200. Nor does the generational lazy guy in realworld's world. They get little if anything. For the unemployed person who is getting that $1200, there is a $2800 shortfall every month that they've got to cover. And, believe me, the unemployed people I know are working every day to find  jobs.

Take the lesser paying job? Would you? My brother is faced with this. He is a plant mgr for a large Pharma company. Well, that is until september when the plant closes for good. At age 56 with 30 years experience, and an MBA, should he go work a line job for 12 bucks an hour? Quite a step down for a guy running a 250 acre manufacturing facility, don't you think? The 30k in unemployment benefits he could receive is a fraction of his salary. So, yeah, he's highly motivated to find another job. Flew to Europe last week for an interview. But step down or hold out for the better job? Not even a question and it shouldn't be.

On the start a biz thing - Again I find you and spiff have a disconnect with reality here.

We're not talking rich people here. Even if not unemployed most of these guys are week to week employees. That is they are living week to week. This person couldn't get an unsecured loan if their life depended on it. And no bank is going to make a business loan to an under capped start up. Period! Thus no way to get the thousands if not tens of thousands needed to start even a basic business.

I'll give you an example. Your guy wants to start a concrete masonry company. He's got five years experience. He needs a truck, tools, forms, and a masonry pump, and a trailer for the pump. The truck is 15k, the tools another 3k. the forms add in another 3k,  but the biggie is the pump, 15k used. And the trailer for the pump, another 4k used. Add that up. The only thing the bank will lend on is the truck. but only if there is an income to make the payment, which there isn't because he's a startup independant contractor.

Listening to you guys on this is like listening to Steve Martin's How to make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First get a million dollars!  You all make it sound so turn key, anyone could do it. Just go out there and do it, what's the problem? The problem is it takes money most people don't have or have access to.

And BTW, easier to start a business in Hong kong than here. This is not the easiest place to start abusiness.

BG- Seriously I don't need to answer what I know about addicts. And is this conversation really worth talking down to me like that?

You are right though, I did mix up entitlement and welfare... Although right now we don't have any answers for how long this may go on. To me letting people not work and collect paychecks from uncle sam isn't really different from welfare.

Also man you are going to judge me.. and say I am sterotyping? I ask you to actually step outside your box. do you not think that there are people who are on extended unemployment who are lazy or live is squalor or are bad parents? I didn't mean to make the point that everyone that can not find a job for over a YEAR is a degenerate but you have to admit it is in there somewhere.

As for your brother - he may have had a good job - but he lost it. I didn't lose it, he did.

Really he did... so I am willing to give him unemployment for maybe 6 months but I don't know where your plan seems to end. How long is too long.

I also am not meaning to degrade you or anyone on here. I sincerely didn't say that unemployed people were drug addicts. I can see where I typed wrongly, but in the same respect I do think that extending these benefits only adds to the disincentive of actually fixing the orginal problem which is unemployment. I only used the addict part to try to illustrate how tough love may actually be the best medicine.

Your point about starting your own business is also out of touch, all some people want is for others to make their own money... I don't need Joe Unemployed to be a millionaire just to feed his kids on his own dime after some help from me. I am simply debating this to understand at what limit we have given too much.

Rw - Ok ,fair enough. I was being tough on you because I believe you are talking down about the unemployed. And that somehow those unemployed have gone from honest hard working people to low life scum who don't deserve a helping hand. I have to tell you of all the unemployed people I know,maybe a dozen people,  i know of not one who fits your description. So my question; where does your description of generational laziness come from?

I'm sure that there are people who are milking the system. of course there are. So what! The difference between us is that I see them as the exception where as you see them as the rule. But make no mistake, they are the exception. And for those people there will be no change. regardless of what happens. And by the way, we're talking welfare here, not unemployment, because to get unemployment you have first to have had a job. So, the welfare lifers fail on the first count. And that's not to say there aren't people gaming unemployment. There are. But the benefit is not enough for most people to sit back and relax on. That clock is running.

On the subject of addicts, regardless of how you meant it's use.  I attacked you there because you come up with the Oprah answer to addiction. The stereotyped answer. "They say an addict has to hit rock bottom before they'll change." What a load of bullshit! Think about the logic of that line in this context: Addiction is a disease. Fully recognised as such by the AMA.  Medical science has uncovered hereditary propensity for addiction. It's in the genes. In other words, addicts don't chose to become addicts.  An addict has a disease that they had NO control over getting. Not a thing they could have done to affect the outcome. You can go home tonite and knock down a few beers no problem. An addict can't. You can take a hit off a bong and walk away, an addict can't. This is the way of addiction. Not their choice, just the way it is.  So, being that drug addiction is a disease over which the addict has no control, they were predisposed to , how does an addict change that after hitting rock bottom? Answer : They can't change it. Anymore than a cancer patient can change their disease. So much for pop medicine and stereotypes!

Spiff- In my state you need a license to become a contractor. The people you are discribing are the people our state is trying to get rid of. Too much fraud.

To get a license you need to be an LLC (defacto) and have insurance to get a license. You need a tax ID number. You also need a street address with a working phone line registered to that address. In addition to the state license you need a license from the county  and town you are domicled in. All up, in fees and legal cost 4 or 5 grand before you drive your first nail. Delaware is easier. But nothing is free.

Taxfree -my view was not a left wing view, but a libertarian view. That is that I am not for govmnt intervention because it does not generally work. It may be worthy and honorable. But it still doesn’t tend to work.

Although you did not take a position, I believe we probably agree on the end result. I’m just trying to be honest on how I get to the conclusion that employment benefits should probably not be extended beyond current provisions. It’s not that the unemployed don’t deserve it or are lazy. It just isn’t a good use of the funds and we could use the money elsewhere. Like I said - it’s not personal, just business.

[quote=BondGuy]Take the lesser paying job? Would you? My brother is faced with this. He is a plant mgr for a large Pharma company. Well, that is until september when the plant closes for good. At age 56 with 30 years experience, and an MBA, should he go work a line job for 12 bucks an hour? Quite a step down for a guy running a 250 acre manufacturing facility, don't you think? The 30k in unemployment benefits he could receive is a fraction of his salary. So, yeah, he's highly motivated to find another job. Flew to Europe last week for an interview. But step down or hold out for the better job? Not even a question and it shouldn't be.[/quote]

"Take a lesser paying job? Would you?" - Yes without a doubt.

"But step down or hold out for the better job?" - Are you fucking serious? How about get a job then look for a better one? If you want to sit on your ass until the job you want becomes available then live off of your own savings not my dime!

I know and have about 5 clients who are unemployed and I know many people who are currently drawing unemployment.

The ones who were not lazy actually took census jobs. Literally 4 people I know took census jobs. However not 1 union person did. Not one.

What that tells me is that there are certainly a lot of different people on unemployment.

Bondguy - Damn you are really lost here. "So what if they are milking the system" that is about the most unamerican thing that you can say. This country was not built on programs paying people for doing nothing. Also if you really believe that the unemployed have to be seriously looking for a job, the conversation is over. That is STUPID and if you really know that many unemployed you would know that that is simply not true.

Northfield - Libertarian? Government intervention... I guess maybe the only explanation if that is really true is if you are religous... That would add up for your DUMB ASS comments about it being about the people working not the people not working.... That still doesn't add up at all.

I can anyone who hasn't worked and is allowing their checks to be paid with government aid in 6 months lazy.

Bondguy - the thing about your brother is a great example. Did you not talk to him about saving? Something tells me that he stupidly bought a really nice house, nice cars, maybe even sent a kid to a private school. If he didn't network in the industry of HIS choice well enough to land another gig, tough shit. This is why you save your money and don't spend everything that you make at your job you have worked for 30 years.

I literally am shocked you use him as an example to me he is an example of what is messed up here. When times are good spend everything that you have and when they are bad cry to the federal government and elect dumb ass people who will pay for you while bankrupting the country. No one is going to hire a 56 yr old with an MBA who isn't a total awesome worker b/c he probably was overcompensated in the eyes of the industry.

Still a few questions for people who WRONGLY assume it is ok to continue this entitlement program.

1. When will it be enough? You can not say when the jobs come back because we all know they won't for a lot of the 50-60 yr old people.

2. How does extending unemployment help putting people back to work?

Is it really too much to ask to cap unemployment at 6 months?

Well said

Taxfree, I see that you are new here. Welcome! It's my hope that you will chime in on business related matters as well as social and political issues.

On the looking for a job issue - I'm trying to follow what you are saying. Are you saying that I'm stupid if i believe unemployed are looking for jobs? If that's what you are saying I have to ask; how is it stupid to believe the unemployed are looking for jobs when in my state you need to show proof of that search to claim benefits? Benefits are claimed every two weeks. No proof, no check.  No belief system needed.

On my causal attitude towards those gaming the system - an extreme minority who are not going to change. These people are also the people who are irresponsible in every walk of life and are always looking for ways to get over on others. Again, where i live this type of bum is in the extreme minority. I take it from your reaction that this type of lowlife is not in the minority in your neck of the woods? Thus your outrage? I guess i'd be frustrated to if i lived in your neighborhood. I don't like those kind of people any more than you do. I'm just glad i don't have to live around them or near them.

About my brother. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I ask, because you need to show me where i said my brother was fiscally irresponsible? What i said was he was losing his job. That's it!  Yet, you use your misreading of my comment to launch into your soapbox diatribe  about  misguided entitlement programs helping those not worthy. Your argument is no different that RW's. He makes the needy out be worthless vermin, you make them out as fiscally irresponsible. Both put those in need in the same place - not worth helping. Convenient!

Is six months unemployment enough? In a near depression not nearly.

Perhaps you see something in the unemployment numbers that i don't?

You are aware that those falling off the backend of unemployment, where benefits have run out, are no longer counted as unemployed? Any idea what the real number is?

How does unemployment help put people back to work? Again, where i live, not where you live, it keeps people actively looking for work. Unfortunately that work isn't coming until the economy turns.

ND - Apparently you know little of the high end job search field. Those engaged at this level are not sitting on their asses playing with their game systems at home. Most have offices, some with hired assistants. This team is scanning the world for placement opportunites. networking, technology, and very expensive employment search specialist are also put to task.

As i said my brother flew to europe last week for an interview. He's a top guy in his field with a wealth of experience. I assure you he's not sitting on his hands waiting for the day to bilk the government out of a whole $600 a week. Survey says he shouldn't settle for a job just to get a paycheck. It would take away from the effort to find the right job. Which aren't a dime a dozen. And under no circumstances should he take a job in the "Jobs easy to get" catagory. Just because you would take a job handing out fries at window #2 doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And in a world that is competitive as it is today, devaluing our most knowledgable and experienced employees is a serious mistake. (Additionally, a personal note,  when i fly I want to see some gray hair on the guy in the left front seat)

As a side note i've advised him to retire. He's got the dough. money isn't an issue. He's just a driven individual. Still, i told him to get his captain's license and work for a yacht company delivering boats. getting the license is a formality as he has years of experience piloting large boats. He loves boats, being on the water, it's a natural fit. He says he's not ready for the pasture.

[quote=BondGuy]ND - Apparently you know little of the high end job search field. Those engaged at this level are not sitting on their asses playing with their game systems at home. Most have offices, some with hired assistants. This team is scanning the world for placement opportunities. networking, technology, and very expensive employment search specialist are also put to task.

As I said my brother flew to Europe last week for an interview. He's a top guy in his field with a wealth of experience. I assure you he's not sitting on his hands waiting for the day to bilk the government out of a whole $600 a week. Survey says he shouldn't settle for a job just to get a paycheck. It would take away from the effort to find the right job. Which aren't a dime a dozen. And under no circumstances should he take a job in the "Jobs easy to get" category. Just because you would take a job handing out fries at window #2 doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And in a world that is competitive as it is today, devaluing our most knowledgeable and experienced employees is a serious mistake. (Additionally, a personal note,  when i fly I want to see some gray hair on the guy in the left front seat)

[/quote] Are you talking about unemployment benefits or difficulties finding employment? I understand the difficulties finding a comparable job to the one you brother lost, since we are using him for an example. But he would be considered a professional middle to upper class white collar type of person and should have enough knowledge/experience to hedge his risks which would include losing his job. I would hope he had the since to live within his means too. If so he should have a substantial cash reserve. (just using him for an example no accusations implied)

Unemployment benefits were not designed for this type of professional. Unemployment benefits were designed for the middle to lower class blue collar worker hence the max of $300-$400 ish per week maximum income in my state. And if you think "proving" to search for a job is difficult let me assure you it is easy as any other scam.

My final and formal opinion of unemployment benefits are similar to the housing credit that just ended. I see the reason and understand the necessity to some point but it must end or you cannot define the line between hand ups and handouts. I would recommend a phase out or monthly reduction in the benefits. You see what happened to the housing market when the $8000 credit was ended. Why instead of extending that program did they not try to ratchet it down $1000 or $2000 per month until it reaches $0. That is what should have been placed in affect for unemployment because I guarantee you the majority of recipients will not look for work until the benefits either stop or they drop below a level where they cannot continue the lifestyle they choose to live.

[quote=BondGuy]

Taxfree, I see that you are new here. Welcome! It's my hope that you will chime in on business related matters as well as social and political issues.

On the looking for a job issue - I'm trying to follow what you are saying. Are you saying that I'm stupid if i believe unemployed are looking for jobs? If that's what you are saying I have to ask; how is it stupid to believe the unemployed are looking for jobs when in my state you need to show proof of that search to claim benefits? Benefits are claimed every two weeks. No proof, no check.  No belief system needed.

On my causal attitude towards those gaming the system - an extreme minority who are not going to change. These people are also the people who are irresponsible in every walk of life and are always looking for ways to get over on others. Again, where i live this type of bum is in the extreme minority. I take it from your reaction that this type of lowlife is not in the minority in your neck of the woods? Thus your outrage? I guess i'd be frustrated to if i lived in your neighborhood. I don't like those kind of people any more than you do. I'm just glad i don't have to live around them or near them.

About my brother. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I ask, because you need to show me where i said my brother was fiscally irresponsible? What i said was he was losing his job. That's it!  Yet, you use your misreading of my comment to launch into your soapbox diatribe  about  misguided entitlement programs helping those not worthy. Your argument is no different that RW's. He makes the needy out be worthless vermin, you make them out as fiscally irresponsible. Both put those in need in the same place - not worth helping. Convenient!

Is six months unemployment enough? In a near depression not nearly.

Perhaps you see something in the unemployment numbers that i don't?

You are aware that those falling off the backend of unemployment, where benefits have run out, are no longer counted as unemployed? Any idea what the real number is?

How does unemployment help put people back to work? Again, where i live, not where you live, it keeps people actively looking for work. Unfortunately that work isn't coming until the economy turns.

ND - Apparently you know little of the high end job search field. Those engaged at this level are not sitting on their asses playing with their game systems at home. Most have offices, some with hired assistants. This team is scanning the world for placement opportunites. networking, technology, and very expensive employment search specialist are also put to task.

As i said my brother flew to europe last week for an interview. He's a top guy in his field with a wealth of experience. I assure you he's not sitting on his hands waiting for the day to bilk the government out of a whole $600 a week. Survey says he shouldn't settle for a job just to get a paycheck. It would take away from the effort to find the right job. Which aren't a dime a dozen. And under no circumstances should he take a job in the "Jobs easy to get" catagory. Just because you would take a job handing out fries at window #2 doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And in a world that is competitive as it is today, devaluing our most knowledgable and experienced employees is a serious mistake. (Additionally, a personal note,  when i fly I want to see some gray hair on the guy in the left front seat)

As a side note i've advised him to retire. He's got the dough. money isn't an issue. He's just a driven individual. Still, i told him to get his captain's license and work for a yacht company delivering boats. getting the license is a formality as he has years of experience piloting large boats. He loves boats, being on the water, it's a natural fit. He says he's not ready for the pasture.

[/quote]

This is a mistake.  A little experience is needed yes.  But at some point, an aged pilot can actually increase your chances of a crash.

Your brother, of course, would not even need unemployment, so what is the problem?  Obviously, he is smart and hardworking.  He didn't get to be where he was by not being those things.

However, I would say the majority who remain on unemployment and out of the workforce are there because they are too lazy to find a job.  There is no incentive to get a decent paying job.

$1200 a month is better than no-hundred dollars a month and will allow you to eat. 

I think what we are trying to say is, if you have NO OTHER options, you get a job that pays the bills.  To do otherwise is weaksauce. 

I volunteer at homeless shelters and see it all of the time. 

Here is a good example.  My neighbor has been laid off for about five months.  On unemployment.  He is an IT guy.  An IT manager.  My home network wasn't working.  I went over asked him to look at it.  He came in, split the network, did some fancy smancy stuff and was in and out in less than thirty minutes.  Network works great.  I gave him $100 for his efforts.  Then asked him to come to the office.  Gave him another $150 (there were phones and other stuff to do too).  This was last week.

He now has 12 jobs booked.  Three are from businesses that are clients' of mine.  9 are from the neighborhood. 

Do you know what he's been doing the last five months?  Playing video games.  In fact, when I get home from WORK, he asks me to get online.  He doesn't realize that just because I come home at 4, doesn't mean I still don't have work to do.  I make dinner and then go back to the office.

Regardless, he knows his unemployment benefits will be ending soon.  And now he has a business.  Imagine that.

The IT guy you referenced should have his unemployment benefits end already since he is working as an independent contractor.  This is what so many people do.  I know of several who milk out the unemployment and are working for cash. 

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]ND - Apparently you know little of the high end job search field. Those engaged at this level are not sitting on their asses playing with their game systems at home. Most have offices, some with hired assistants. This team is scanning the world for placement opportunities. networking, technology, and very expensive employment search specialist are also put to task.

As I said my brother flew to Europe last week for an interview. He's a top guy in his field with a wealth of experience. I assure you he's not sitting on his hands waiting for the day to bilk the government out of a whole $600 a week. Survey says he shouldn't settle for a job just to get a paycheck. It would take away from the effort to find the right job. Which aren't a dime a dozen. And under no circumstances should he take a job in the "Jobs easy to get" category. Just because you would take a job handing out fries at window #2 doesn't mean it's right for everyone. And in a world that is competitive as it is today, devaluing our most knowledgeable and experienced employees is a serious mistake. (Additionally, a personal note,  when i fly I want to see some gray hair on the guy in the left front seat)

[/quote] Are you talking about unemployment benefits or difficulties finding employment? I understand the difficulties finding a comparable job to the one you brother lost, since we are using him for an example. But he would be considered a professional middle to upper class white collar type of person and should have enough knowledge/experience to hedge his risks which would include losing his job. I would hope he had the since to live within his means too. If so he should have a substantial cash reserve. (just using him for an example no accusations implied)

How long would you last (not you personally, but most high wage earners) if your income suddenly and unexpectedly went away? Went away forever? For most, there is a breaking point where something has to give. My point, it has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. Those less responsible will reach that point sooner than those more fiscally responsible. But all will reach the breaking point. Making it about fiscal responsibilty gives the hard line anti entitlement crowd an out. It's a spin that allows them to turn their back on their neighbors in need.

Unemployment benefits were not designed for this type of professional. Unemployment benefits were designed for the middle to lower class blue collar worker hence the max of $300-$400 ish per week maximum income in my state. And if you think "proving" to search for a job is difficult let me assure you it is easy as any other scam.

Unemployment benefits are designed for everybody. But, I'll agree that the working wealthy could get by without it. The point is, it's not a living wage for anyone. At least it's not here in the Northeast. While there may be plenty of people gaming disability payments, playing around with unemployment isn't usually worth it. Why? The benefit is realtive to the previous income while employed. So, if the guy was making $500 a week before getting laid off, their benefit would be in the $150 - $175 a week range. Not enough to motivate someone to beat the system so they can stay home and play playstation. $800 a week gets you about $300 a week and so on. So, not a way to live the life of Riley.

As for scamming the system, Ok, tell me how?  A form has to be completed with names of firms contacted for employment. The form asks for phone number and dates of application. Lie about this and it's 3 to 5 years in the state pen. Don't complete the form, and no check that week. I'm not saying it's fool proof, just not enough money in this,  not worth doing 3 to 5 for trying it.

My final and formal opinion of unemployment benefits are similar to the housing credit that just ended. I see the reason and understand the necessity to some point but it must end or you cannot define the line between hand ups and handouts. I would recommend a phase out or monthly reduction in the benefits. You see what happened to the housing market when the $8000 credit was ended. Why instead of extending that program did they not try to ratchet it down $1000 or $2000 per month until it reaches $0. That is what should have been placed in affect for unemployment because I guarantee you the majority of recipients will not look for work until the benefits either stop or they drop below a level where they cannot continue the lifestyle they choose to live.

[/quote]

[quote=Magician]

This is a mistake.  A little experience is needed yes.  But at some point, an aged pilot can actually increase your chances of a crash.

That you'll have to prove to me. The point isn't about old pilots. it was about devaluing some of our most valuable employees. The ones with the most experience. How old was Reagan when he was elected President? But, if you want to talk about old pilots, the story of United Flight 232 comes to mind. OK, no miracle on the Hudson. 111 of the 285 on board died. But that anyone lived was through the effort of the then one month shy of retirement Captain. A guy named Al Haynes who managed to get a mortally wounded  jumbo jet on the ground at an airport. The black boxes were recovered and the data programed into flight simulators. Airline pilots are required to undergo sim training on a regular basis. To date, few pilots who are exposed to this situation do more than create a giant smoking hole in the ground as the simuation rolls the plane over on its back, as it tried to do in real life, stopped by Capt Al, and then begins a death spiral. The few that get near the airport lose it and create the smoking hole there. None has done as well as Old Al Haynes did in real life. So, not so fast on devaluing an old experienced hand.

Your brother, of course, would not even need unemployment, so what is the problem?  Obviously, he is smart and hardworking.  He didn't get to be where he was by not being those things.

The spin from the hardcore anti entitlement crowd is that people are bilking unemployment. This spin gives them grounds to deny those in need a helping hand. I use my brother as an example of how no one in their right mind is out to bik unemployment because of the large gap between the working paycheck and the benefit.

My brother is a bad example, not because of the paycheck/benefit gap, but because he has means of support. Still, the argument holds up because the benefit recieved is relative to the working paycheck. A $25,000 a year worker doesn't recieve $25,000 in benefits. That worker would get at most $175 a week. Let's call it $8000 a year. Where is the incentive to lay back? Everything is relative, a 25k guy can't live on 8 or 10k anymore than a 150k guy can live on 30k and those amounts wouldn't be an incentive to do so.  That's the point.

 You guys act as if someone making 10k a year loses his job, kicks back and gets 20k in benefits.

However, I would say the majority who remain on unemployment and out of the workforce are there because they are too lazy to find a job.  There is no incentive to get a decent paying job.

Look at the numbers above. maybe not exact, but really close. Tell me someone with the wolf at the door has no incentive to replace their lost income. Are you serious? What you're doing is spinning it so that you don't have to extend a helping hand. By spinning the reality that these folks are innocent victims of the economic downturn into irresponsible bums too lazy to look for work you can turn your back. You can walk away without regret. After-all, they don't deserve any help! That about cover it from your POV?

$1200 a month is better than no-hundred dollars a month and will allow you to eat. 

Agree, which is the point of getting a benefit. But for a family of four it will do little more than provide basic food, and gas money. It's not going to replace an income.  Remember, the 25k guy doesn't even get that amount.

I think what we are trying to say is, if you have NO OTHER options, you get a job that pays the bills.  To do otherwise is weaksauce. 

Yes and no. If you lost your job would you take a a job a Wal- Mart for 8 bucks an hour? Not if it's going to cost you a chance of maintaining your current lifestyle.

I volunteer at homeless shelters and see it all of the time. 

Here is a good example.  My neighbor has been laid off for about five months.  On unemployment.  He is an IT guy.  An IT manager.  My home network wasn't working.  I went over asked him to look at it.  He came in, split the network, did some fancy smancy stuff and was in and out in less than thirty minutes.  Network works great.  I gave him $100 for his efforts.  Then asked him to come to the office.  Gave him another $150 (there were phones and other stuff to do too).  This was last week.

He now has 12 jobs booked.  Three are from businesses that are clients' of mine.  9 are from the neighborhood. 

Do you know what he's been doing the last five months?  Playing video games.  In fact, when I get home from WORK, he asks me to get online.  He doesn't realize that just because I come home at 4, doesn't mean I still don't have work to do.  I make dinner and then go back to the office.

Regardless, he knows his unemployment benefits will be ending soon.  And now he has a business.  Imagine that.

No, he doesn't have a business. He's using a skill to temporarily collect some  income. Most likely unreportable income. Unsustainable in the long run.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I get it, desperation is the mother of invention. But using a skill to get some cash flow going is not a long term solution. It's unlikely that all he's doing is sitting around. If so, he is the exception, not the rule. In some fields getting one or two interviews a month is as good as it gets in this economy. Throw in a job fair or two, a few networking lunches, and maybe sometime taking online course to better his situation. No reason to sign up for Steven's Tranport to drive a chicken truck.

[/quote]

Weekly unemployment benefits by state

State Maximum State Maximum

Alabama $255 Montana $407
Alaska $370 Nebraska $308
Arizona $240 Nevada $362
Arkansas $409 New Hampshire $427
California $450 New Jersey $584
Colorado $475 New Mexico $455
Connecticut $519 New York $405
Delaware $330 North Carolina $494
District of Columbia $359 North Dakota $385
Florida $275 Ohio $372
Georgia $330 Oklahoma $392
Hawaii $545 Oregon $482
Idaho $362 Pennsylvania $539
Illinois $385 Rhode Island $528
Indiana $390 South Carolina $326
Iowa $443 South Dakota $285
Kansas $423 Tennessee $275
Kentucky $415 Texas $378
Louisiana $284 Utah $444
Maine $496 Vermont $409
Maryland $380 Virginia $378
Massachusetts $628 Washington $541
Michigan $365 West Virginia $424
Minnesota $566 Wisconsin $363
Mississippi $230 Wyoming $387
Missouri $320

Well you are being obtuse. Here is an example for you. One of my buddies, (as Kid Rock said, I slept in dumpsters and got high with Kings so I have friends of every size shape and color) that doesn’t like to work, lost his job just across the state line in KY. He applied for unemployment and receives the max which is about $400 a month. Every six weeks he submits online all of three places he submitted a resume to. That’s it next six weeks approved. TRUE STORY. I don't know what world you live in but in the real world the average income of a US citizen is $50,000 so at $400 per week unemployment will sustain the average worker for a while. And maximum benefits are attained below the average income range so unemployment benefits by design are not meant for above average income earners.

As for the question about what would I do if my income suddenly went to zero? I would adjust accordingly. What would you do if your income suddenly doubled? Go out and buy two of everything you have?

So let me get this right, you are saying it is ok for people to not have 6-12 months minimum cash reserve or are you saying we should feel sorry for them and subsidize their income since they do not? Neighbors in need should lean on charitable organizations and non-profits where I donate as a choice not through the government where I am forced to "donate"

I mean this in the nicest way BG when I say your comments lead me to believe you are totally out of touch with the real world.

If you can say "Welcome to McDonalds" you can get a job. 

Unemployment benefits are akin to welfare after 3 months.  People need to do what they have to do to survive.  If it involves taking a lower paying job, losing the house, the starbucks, and the fancy car so be it. 

Headline in today's local paper "Unemployment fraud on the rise."

I guess you guys are right, it's a huge problem. Not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No fraud is good but taking the numbers apart here's how it breaksdown in my state:

Unemployment fraud is up 40% year to date. That looks bad, but  it is still below the 2008 level. 2008 was lower than the peak in 2006.

Most importantly, over the past five years less than 1% of benefits paid have been due to fraud. Fraud includes working while still collecting benefits, under the table income, and falsifying employment benefit forms. The state estimates that it recovers 2/3 of the benefits paid due to fraud. It also pursues those who defraud the state by filing criminal charges against them.

Ok, less than 1% of benefits paid are due to fraud - where's the problem?

Even if that number was doubled, is this a problem?

66 cents on every dollar lost to fraud is recovered.

Where's the problem?

There is no problem. Just a mean spirited group of people who want to deny help to those who need it.

ND - you are living on another planet if you honestly believe you would "adjust accordingly" if you lost your income. You really have no idea what that means. I find a comfortable naivety in your statements.  And about the six months reserve - you keep pounding that fiscally irresponsible button. That really gets you off the hook doesn't it? Ok, what happens after six months? Many of the long term unemployed are coming up on two years of unemployment. These people did everything right. Lived within their means, had six months reserve, now gone. What about them. Turn your back on them as well?

This isn't about feeling sorry for anyone. It's about helping your fellow man. Giving them a hand up. If you believe there is something wrong with that and it puts me out of touch, well then, so be it. I'm glad to be out of touch with the world of hate in which you live. And I mean that in the nicest way.

One aspect of this debate that i find fascinating is the roll of the Christian right. These people are Christians. Yet, as a group they are among first in line to deny entitlements. Apparently, they live compartmentalized lives where they don't see their actions of denial as juxtoposed to living the faith they profess. When i see one of these types with a bumper sticker that reads 'What would Jesus do?'" I have to think Jesus wouldn't turn his back on anyone in need, blowing them off as unworthy.

The truth is the entitlement debate is about politics. This confuses people. Gets them acting against their own best interest. In this case in a religious sense.

I like Jesus, I just wish he'd hurry up and finish my taco!  I think it's cool he has a job and I doubt free loading idiots that suck off someone elses teet would stand up well in the view of the lord.

How long should we give unemployment benefits?

How does extending unemployment benefits help get people back to work?

What happens if we don't extend unemployment past 4 months?

That's it Navet aka BondGuy, blame it on the Christians. You know Jesus can create bread and fish so of course he would help the unfortunate out. But not me, I am just a poor sinner that lives WELL WITHIN my means. Trust me, if I can eat fucking beans and cornbread for years while I put myself through school, these lazy fuckers can collect aluminum cans or something. I know worst case scenario, my home and food is covered no matter what.

As for your state, who is really keeping up with the fraud numbers? The number of people on unemployment is overwhelming so no one has time to really investigate fraud.

I have a suggestion for you since I am in a giving mood tonight. How about unemployment benefits are exchanged for college credit hours or community service hours? Believe me when I say I am ALL about hand ups but not hand outs.

Apparently unlike you and your fancy ass boats, I am not leveraged at all! I can afford not to work another day, if i choose.

I bought a $120k house in a nice, safe neighborhood (it's worth about $180 now).  I drive a Compact, non-gas guzzling car.

We cook most of our meals, and we buy our groceries clipping coupons. 

I net over six figs.  I'll never have to worry about unemployment (of course, I'm self-employed). 

People like me did everything right. 

For the record, I'm guessing BG is not leveraged at all and probably pays cash for everything.  He's been in the business a long time and I'm guessing has been hitting seven figures for quite some time.

Regardless, I can disagree with him and others without making personal attacks.  Let's try and keep this civil.

ND - I wasn't trying to get under your skin. Just an observation that many Christians seem not to live their faith. How does one profess to be a follower of Jesus and then deny help to those in need? And, when you bring it up they get in your face about it. I readily admit to not being the world's best Christian. But even i know there are no qualifiers in the Bible. Regardless of your means you help people.

You have many ill concieved beliefs about the unemployed. Lazy Fuckers being one of them. And, your convinced that this group is lacking fiscal responsibility. Generally, not true. The unemployed are a cross section of american workers. Some are very hard working, some not so much, with the middle ground covering the average.

 I find it hard to believe that there is anyplace in this country where one could kick back on unemployment benefits and get a tan. From what you guys are saying, it's doable in your neck of the woods. No doable here in the high cost Northeast.

As for my leveraged fancy sailboat something you should know. In the best of times boat financing is a crap shoot. Even withh a plus 800 FICO, big stable income, and plenty of skin in the game(DP), the average person gets screwed when financing a boat. For that reason it's not advised under any circumstances.

When it comes to financing a bluewater sailboat it gets worse. The term bluewater means the boat is capable of ocean passage making. Thus an owner could weigh anchor and sail away from their responsibilities including the bank that holds the note.  For this reason obtaining financing on such a vessel is practically impossible. More so these days. The boat I'm trying to buy ( I thought it was a done deal but there's a hiccup on the seller's side) is just such a boat. That said, in this environment it's unlikely i could get financed for the boat. On bluewater sailboats in this price range it's pretty much cash is king. Most buyers are dreamers who have sold their homes  for a shot at living the dream.  They put that cash into the purchase. This reduces their cost to living/sailing expenses and puts the adventure withing range of a surprising number of average people. I'm sorry the boat bothers you so much.

RW - We need to get over the hump on the recovery. Creating an underclass of poor isn't going to do that. Unfortunately, if the economy doesn't pick up the answer is probably something like parts of an FDR like New Deal. Here's a fact - the infrastructure in this country is crumbling. Massive public works project to rebuild it ? Put millions to work and have something of great value to show for it.

About this thread - summer duldrums - I long for heated debate with Mikebutler222. Entertainment!!!

Ignore ND, Bond Guy. He's just pissed because the first person he sees every day is his ugly cousin..er...wife...OK same thing. And I don't ever seeing the words "lazy fu-ker" in the bible. Keep preaching ND...btw...maybe you should consider sheep?

Back to the Christians - My Bible tells me to help the widows and the orphans.  It tells me to help the poor and the needy.  It also says that if a man shall not work, neither shall he eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).  I think this is where most Christians lose their giving spirit.  I can quote you all kinds of verses from Proverbs that talk about being lazy. 

BG - you're comment about the WWJD bumper stickers makes me think that Jesus would say get off your butt and go get a job.  There are way too many verses in the Bible that reference laziness, slothfulness, and work for me to think otherwise.  

Now, I also know that a lot of churches are willing to help those that come and ask for it.  I know my church has a fund, not a small one BTW, specifically designated for people who have lost their jobs and can't pay for the basics of life.  Every church I've ever been a part of has a similar fund.  In addition to that, most churches support some sort of shelter or food pantry to help people in need. 

I think there is a huge difference between the Biblical command to help the poor and needy and being OK with extending unemployment benefits. 

Stupidity is by birth, ignorance is by choice. Right now, most (and I say the vast majority) of unemployed want to find work more than anything. What is available right now usually pays much less and has no benefits(can you say universal healthcare?). Most people either have been out of work in this economy or know several people who are struggling. To call these struggling people "lazy fu-kers" is not only untrue, it is profoundly stupid. As usual, republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. These unemployed, their friends and their family will vote accordingly. The good news is that it will lead to a progressive rennaisance, in my opinion long overdue. So keep calling these folks names, neocon nazis. Every time I hear you bornagins say "lazy fu-ker" I hear the word  "victory".

I'll never understand political idealogues.

I like how both sides are using words like "vast majority" and "most".  How in the world do you know?

Do you work at an unemployment office?

If you have anectodotal experience, then fine.  But I would venture to guess most of us don't.  I simply have some examples of people I know (or who are clients). 

As for the comment, "most people want to work", I think this is false.  This, of course is my opinion.  But how many people have worked in a corporate environment?  How many of the people there actuallly WORK?

Not many.  In fact, I'm guessing 20% of the people do most of the work, like anywhere else. 

So, you are saying these people want to work, I think you are meaning to say that they want a "job".  And I think that most people can agree on that.

navet - Woodrow Wilson must be your hero. 

I'd be curious to hear what it is that you mean by a progressive renaissance.  What does that mean for the future of our country?  What does that mean to us socio-econimically?  Politically?  Just a guess on my part, but I'm guessing we're going to find that your progressive renaissance wouldn't make Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Ben Franklin very happy.  But Woodrow Wilson will LOVE it.   

Neocon Nazis?  Seriously?  We disagree with your progressive views, so we're neocon Nazis?  You know there's a difference between a conservative and a neocon.  You might want to figure that out before you start hurling insults.  

[quote=Magician]

I'll never understand political idealogues.

I like how both sides are using words like "vast majority" and "most".  How in the world do you know?

Do you work at an unemployment office?

If you have anectodotal experience, then fine.  But I would venture to guess most of us don't.  I simply have some examples of people I know (or who are clients). 

As for the comment, "most people want to work", I think this is false.  This, of course is my opinion.  But how many people have worked in a corporate environment?  How many of the people there actuallly WORK?

Not many.  In fact, I'm guessing 20% of the people do most of the work, like anywhere else. 

So, you are saying these people want to work, I think you are meaning to say that they want a "job".  And I think that most people can agree on that.

[/quote]

Of course "20% do the work" isn't anecdotal.....lol

Clueless is no way to go through life sfiffy! Ben Franklyn was very progressive. George Washington, as president, followed the recommendations of Alexander Hamilton, who was very progressive with respect to debt and the exchanges. Thomas Jefferson suffered from extreme inconsistency, backtracked on political philosophy when he was faced with the reality of the presidenct(aka, Lousianna purchase). Maybe you neocon christian nazis shoul read something more in depth than glen bicker.

1

BG - I think you have me all wrong and completely right at the same time. I do want and try to help as much as I can. I do not believe in being forced to do so. I noticed you did not respond to my comment of exchanging unemployement checks for college credits or community service hours worked. Trust me when I say I know all about falling on hard times, but I would not move in with my neighbor and lounge around on his couch for months without giving something back. So let me restate my POV if I am forced to pay for entitlements, I expect something in return. I personally think there should be more given to the <18 and >65 crowd because of what they can do for this country and what I hope they have done for this country.

Also for the Bible comments, I will just say that if you let someone get between you and God, well guess who is closer.

Navet - Why do you always start with the Republican nazi hell fire and brimstone everytime? good grief dude...

OK, fine.  We'll put our disagreements on history aside for the time being. 

You still didn't answer my original questions, so I'll repeat them for you.  You're looking forward to this progressive renaissance.  What does that mean for the future of our country?  What does that mean to us socio-econimically?  Politically?

I'm curious what a brilliant mind like yours believes will be a positive outcome for our country if this progressive renaissance comes to fruition.

Oh yeah, and it's Ben Franklin.  With an I not a Y. 

[quote=navet]

[quote=Magician]

I'll never understand political idealogues.

I like how both sides are using words like "vast majority" and "most".  How in the world do you know?

Do you work at an unemployment office?

If you have anectodotal experience, then fine.  But I would venture to guess most of us don't.  I simply have some examples of people I know (or who are clients). 

As for the comment, "most people want to work", I think this is false.  This, of course is my opinion.  But how many people have worked in a corporate environment?  How many of the people there actuallly WORK?

Not many.  In fact, I'm guessing 20% of the people do most of the work, like anywhere else. 

So, you are saying these people want to work, I think you are meaning to say that they want a "job".  And I think that most people can agree on that.

[/quote]

Of course "20% do the work" isn't anecdotal.....lol

[/quote]

Interesting, you leave out the part, "I would guess", yet quote the entire thing.  What is interesting is that you don't even qualify your statements.  You think that you "know" everything.

Navet, you are exactly what is wrong with this country.  You only see and hear what you want to hear.  Just like those ridiculous partisan hacks that fill up Capitol Hill.

1

You and navet are like opposite ends of the same stick.  Partisan bickering about what is right and what is wrong, what is progressive, what is conservative.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

Respectfully speaking to both points....

Spiff & Magician - Is it possible that although you can make it past hard times and still keep your head on straight that there are people in our country who are simply not able to take care of themselves like you? I mean to say maybe we are all not equal in terms of intelligence or capability and it is possibly unfair for you to say "I made it on XYZ, why can't Joe Unemployed down the street do the same?".

Bond guy and Navet- I disagree that most people on unemployment want to find work. I really think that you are wrong there. They want to find work that pays as well as the job they left (and maybe offers the same level of low productivity as we know the least productive jobs are the ones missing now) , but that is certainly different than finding work in general.

I personally disagree that not extending unemployment is going to create a new under class of poor. I almost find that idea absurd in a respectful manner.

Premise A. Unemployed are not lazy

Premise B. Not extending unemployment will leave the unemployed in a permanent state of poverty.

I think those statements are contradictory. If the majority of unemployed are not lazy; then obviously when !#$#$ hits the fan, they are going to find work, make work, get work, hell I bet Edward Jones would have a hiring frenzy with all these people willing to knock on doors for 5 years

Last question - Some of us have talked about putting people back to work on infastructure. Sounds great... is it possible, if so what infastructure? Where? How much would it cost? My bet is less than the blank check for unemployment.

RW - certainly there are a few people in the unemployment lines who are not as intelligent as me.    But, I think the average person who suddenly finds himself or herself out of work for over 6 months really needs to reevaluate where they are in life and what changes they could possibly make to make themselves more marketable.  

A couple of examples come to mind.  First a friend who used to be a home inspector.  Well, that was great when the RE market was booming, but not so much now.  He took some classes at the local CC and is now working in a local hospital as some sort of receptionist type job.  He's making decent money and paying his bills.  He's also contributing to a 401k for the first time in his life.  He made a change when he realized something needed to change. 

Second is a relative of mine who got out of college, many years ago, and just couldn't find a job in his field.  He is trained as an Electrical Engineer.  Went to the best engineering school in the state and graduated with a good GPA.  Unfortunately, so did a lot of other folks.  He worked two jobs, completely unrelated to his degree, for about a year, just to make sure there was food on the table at home.  Finally he decided that there was one place that doesn't turn away any able bodied people willing to do the work.  He joined the Army.  Spent 6 years in the Army, got out and went into the National Guard, and landed a job as a security guard at a nuclear power plant.  He started talking with the people who worked there and they found out about his EE degree and encouraged him to apply.  His time in the military and his EE degree landed him a job.  So now he's got a 401k, pension from his company and eventually the military, has two incomes, and a pretty rosy future (minus the misc trips to Iraq, Kosovo, and Bosnia).  Again another person who made a change when a change was necessary. 

I'm not saying that it's possible to raise a family or even pay the bills on unemployment checks.  I'm positive it wouldn't be for me and my family.  I'm also positive that if for some reason I find myself in the unemployment lines, I would be willing to take any job that just simply paid the bills.  Even if it meant I only got $100 more a month than what the unemployment check would have been, I'd take it. 

This refusal of some people to go outside their normal field of employment is a big problem.  I searched on monster.com yesterday for a few minutes and found over 250 entry level, no degree required jobs just in my city alone.  I'm positive there are jobs out there for the people willing to take them.  They might not be the kind of job you want to keep for the rest of your working career, but in my opinion it's better to be working at anything than to be taking a handout from the government. 

0

Life in low pay lane!

Let's go with the "take any job that pays the bills agrument." Let's ignore that this thinking falls flat on it's face on the first count; that is, these jobs won't pay the bills. So, now we're flipping burgers at Wendy's. This is known as a "job easy to get" because it's in the "Jobs easy to get catagory." The job is easy to get because it requires no skill, no training, and no license. It is easy to get because it offers low pay, long hours, and no benefits.

Of course while you're busy working at Wendy's for 39 hours a week, 39 hours to keep you as part timer thus denying you full time wages and benefits, you have put your engineering degree aside and with it 25 years of experience as a professional engineer, program director and project leader. Still, you are actively seeking work in your field. And, as luck would have it you have a promising interview coming up next week. But there is a problem. You are scheduled to work that day. You know if you ask, the manager will not give you time off. There are no days off at this Wendy's. So, you decide to call in sick. You go on the interview. It goes well. The next day you go back to Wendy's, work your shift, and are called into the manager's office just before you leave. He says "Don't come back, you are fired." When you ask why, the manager, all of 24 years old, dismisses you with a wave and says " you missed yesterday." And with that your career at Wendy's come to a close.

Getting fired from a "Job easy to get" is as easy as getting hired. The "keep your job threshold" is very low in these positions. There is a line of unskilled people willing to take your place. Hirable with a phone call. Thus the revolving door in this catagory.

But for you this is a big problem. You gave up receiving employment benefits after your layoff from Lockeed because you believed in work and didn't want to take public assistance. The serverance benefits from Lockeed, along with the pay from whatever job you could get would allow you to go a year without tapping into savings. And, surely you would land someplace before then. But things hadn't worked out as planned. Lockeed now, was almost two years in the rearview mirror. The economy was still on its back.

The series of low pay meanial jobs had interfered with finding a job as an engineer. The Taxi company fired you when they found out you were taking time off to interview instead of looking for fares. The phone collector job was run by pricks who wouldn't let you take a bathroom break, let alone take time off for interviews. Plus they constantly shorted you on your paycheck. The chicken processing plant gave you a week to come up to speed before you were gone. To your credit  you out lasted the eight people you were hired with. And the Hyundai dealership was a joke. A $250 a week draw against commission. They only paid you $25 per car sold. That meant you needed to sell 10 cars a week just to make the draw! That's 40 cars a month! One month in and the dealership had sold a grand total of 110 cars. Split between 11 salesman ranging from 23 cars down to 6 per guy. No one made draw and the bottom five guys were fired. You among them. That was a relief at the time because of the pressure from managment the 12 hour shift 70 hour weeks and all the crap from customers who  believed it was their God given right ot abuse car salesman. 70 hour weeks left no time to seach for work in your field. Next up was the in home carpet sales job. They kept sending you on appointments with only a husband or wife, unclosable one leggers in the biz parlence, that lasted only two weeks. The Verizon and Sprint stores wouldn't hire you., too old, even though you could run circles around the kids working there. Same story at Apple. Out of options, you then worked for Werner Transportation. Some how you survived the CDL training. You endured a trainer who didn't teach and only wanted the extra training check.  Still,  somehow, you were qualified to command an 80,000lb vehicle carrying freight worth over a million dollars.  Then 3 weeks into your first solo trip, 1200 miles from home, you are called to the yard office of the Werner depot in Houston Texas . When you enter the office the manager fires you on the spot. He said you made an unauthorized turn onto an unapproved route. This is bullshit, but there is no arguing. He gives you bus fare home. You get home and apply to other trucking companies.  But, none of the big companies will hire you because Werner has queered your abstract. Straighten that out and call us back came the reply again and again. To straighten it out requires hiring lawyer. With what money? You find a job working for a local produce trucker. He puts  you into an aging Kenworth T600. The truck is a POS. The owner insist you drive the truck even though the brakes are not working properly. You walk away. Weeks later you read in the paper that, that very truck has been invovled in a horrific accident. You couldn't get a job over at Enterprise rent a car because of your age, 49. No one at the location over 30. That brought you to taking job at Wendy's. And now this! A real probelm because you chose to work rather than collect, and you were fired, there are no unemployment benefits to be has at this point. Then, in the mail, a letter from a lawyer. Werner is suing you to recover the cost of your CDL training, $5500! Included is a copy of the agreement you signed. The promised phone call from the interview comes. Your heart races. The interviewers loved you but believe that you are over qualified and wouldn't be happy in the position offered. You assure them that is not true. But the deal is sealed, they've hired someone else, and cheerfully wish you good luck.  On the table in front of you is a notice that you have special delivery letter waiting for you at the post office. You know the letter is from the mortgage company. Final forecloure notice. Your heart sinks. The kids will be home soon. You gather yourself. You pick up the local paper and see that the Kia dealership one town over is looking for six promising candidates for career position, draw against commission, rewarding career for hard workers. You dial the phone.

Ok, guys ,read that and understand this - that is life in the jobs easy to get catagory. Hired in a heartbeat and fired just as fast. Just ballbusting work for little money and no respect. There is no reason that anyone who has skill, training, education, or experience beyond that level to subject themselves purposely to that existence. Why? because as i said in the very first sentence, it fails on the first count. It doesn't pay the bills. And it never will. Lowering oneself to that level permenantly relegates you to the underclass of the working poor with no way out.  Not a way to raise and support a family. Take the unemployment check and work your butt off to find a job that fits your qualifications. it can be in a different field, different state, different country, just not on the bottom wrung.

BG - You apprently have never worked at a fast food restaurant.  They don't fire you for calling in sick.

I'm going to chime in again with a personal story.  When I was in graduate school (just about to graduate), a classmate of mine mentioned that he would never take a job for less than $80k. 

He ended up with a decent job making $90k for a while.  Got a few promotions and got laid off in 2008.  Now, I worked with this guy quite a bit on projects.  This is the guy who didn't show up for project meetings, who never did his part of the work, so either I or someone else had to take up the slack.  Those of you who have MBAs know what I'm talking about.

It is no wonder this guy got laid off.  He is still, to this day, out of work, because he is sticking to his (I need to make $80k).  His wife works two jobs (I see her at the gym in the a.m.), and he tells her she can quit as soon as he gets a good paying job again.

Really?  You are going to let your wife do that?  W.T.F.?!

The job market is littered with these people.

BG - your example of the guy with REALLY bad luck would be the minority.  It's like my uncle.  Wants to start a business, and only needs $5k to do it.  My dad said he'd give it to him, if he would just get a job in the meantime.  Show us you are willing to work.  Show us you are willing to do SOMETHING.  ANYTHING. 

I will never hire someone who has been languishing on unemployment.  I am at the rate of hiring somebody new every two months this year (that is, increasing headcount).  You better show me some work ethic and not entitlement.

0

Mag, my guy is an amalgam of several people. Not that, that scenerio couldn't happen. The point is that joining the working poor does not solve any problems for the unemployed person. They get an unlivable wage, usually below poverty level, no benefits, and no future. This comes at a cost of interfering with the task at hand, finding a job that will maintain the lifestyle the individual worked and sacrificed to attain.

And contrary to your experience in fast food, these jobs are very easy to lose. Not that taking a day off will cost you the job. But it doesn't take much.

I'm not saying that under no circumstances  don't take an easy to get poverty pay job, just not as your first move.

Everyone of us can come up with personal examples of people who bootstrapped themselves up. Such people are the exception, not the rule. Once most people get relegated to the bottom wrung, the bottom wrung is where they stay.

Again, you like the others opposed to helping people demean the unemployed with your word usage. Lanuishing on unemployment?

1

Mily, what qualifies you judge anyones thinking?

By the way we missed you, how was rehab?

Unemployment insurance is paid out of unemployment insurance taxes that all employers of full time employees pay. So we all pay for this insurance through our employers. The idea of unemployment insurance isn't just for the benefit of the employee. It serves the greater good by keeping the flow of goods and services during brief periods of economic downturn. To say that people on unemployment are freeloaders would be similar to saying people who collect disability or life insurance payments are freeloaders. And to say that people are somehow "happy" to recieve about 1/3 of their income to do nothing, is not only inaccurate(you have to show proof of job hunting), but downright foolish. And like BG said so eloquently, taking any job is not usually a solution. But the truth is, we all have the right to unemployment insurance because we pay for it.

0

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Back to the Christians - My Bible tells me to help the widows and the orphans.  It tells me to help the poor and the needy.  It also says that if a man shall not work, neither shall he eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).  I think this is where most Christians lose their giving spirit.  I can quote you all kinds of verses from Proverbs that talk about being lazy. 

BG - you're comment about the WWJD bumper stickers makes me think that Jesus would say get off your butt and go get a job.  There are way too many verses in the Bible that reference laziness, slothfulness, and work for me to think otherwise.  

Now, I also know that a lot of churches are willing to help those that come and ask for it.  I know my church has a fund, not a small one BTW, specifically designated for people who have lost their jobs and can't pay for the basics of life.  Every church I've ever been a part of has a similar fund.  In addition to that, most churches support some sort of shelter or food pantry to help people in need. 

I think there is a huge difference between the Biblical command to help the poor and needy and being OK with extending unemployment benefits. 

[/quote]

Spiff, this is a really good post.

navet - I agree that we all have the right to the unemployment insurance that we purchase.  For a limited time.  There have already been extensions of the original unemployment insurance terms.  Why would we extend them again? 

My BOA and I were talking about this thread this morning.  She said that someone in one of her college classes has been looking for a job for 2 years and her unemployment insurance extensions were about to run out.  2 years.  You can't tell me you've been seriously looking for a job for 2 years. 

In two years you can get certified to become a paramedic, dental hygenist, HVAC worker, medical technician, nurse.  You can get computer certificates.  You can become a paralegal.  This list could go on and on.  If you're out of a job, chances are you can get grants to go back to school.  Or you can get student loans that are paid back when you get a job.  Lots of options out there.  The point being, if you're getting a check from the government, figure out how to stop getting a check from the government.   

It's actually a little scary to think that our government would support this woman for a full two years.  I'm guessing she's received just a little bit more than she's put into the system.  Hmm...sound like Social Security.  That program is run incredibly well, don't ya think?

There are over 130,000 jobs listed right now on monster.com.  Add to that the number of small business owners who don't advertise on monster.com and I'll bet that there are a ton of jobs out there if people are willing to do the legwork and go find them. 

Or, maybe there could be more jobs if small business owners, and big corporations, weren't terrified of what's going to happen if all of the changes in the tax codes and health care program hit their businesses square in the nose.  That will certainly make you want to just hold onto what you've got and not add any more staff. 

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

navet - I agree that we all have the right to the unemployment insurance that we purchase.  For a limited time.  There have already been extensions of the original unemployment insurance terms.  Why would we extend them again? 

My BOA and I were talking about this thread this morning.  She said that someone in one of her college classes has been looking for a job for 2 years and her unemployment insurance extensions were about to run out.  2 years.  You can't tell me you've been seriously looking for a job for 2 years. 

In two years you can get certified to become a paramedic, dental hygenist, HVAC worker, medical technician, nurse.  You can get computer certificates.  You can become a paralegal.  This list could go on and on.  If you're out of a job, chances are you can get grants to go back to school.  Or you can get student loans that are paid back when you get a job.  Lots of options out there.  The point being, if you're getting a check from the government, figure out how to stop getting a check from the government.   

It's actually a little scary to think that our government would support this woman for a full two years.  I'm guessing she's received just a little bit more than she's put into the system.  Hmm...sound like Social Security.  That program is run incredibly well, don't ya think?

There are over 130,000 jobs listed right now on monster.com.  Add to that the number of small business owners who don't advertise on monster.com and I'll bet that there are a ton of jobs out there if people are willing to do the legwork and go find them. 

Or, maybe there could be more jobs if small business owners, and big corporations, weren't terrified of what's going to happen if all of the changes in the tax codes and health care program hit their businesses square in the nose.  That will certainly make you want to just hold onto what you've got and not add any more staff. 

[/quote]

Again, i believe you are oversimplfying the situation this unemployed person finds themselves in. Outside of our resident economist, Mily, most people can't forcast the future with any accuracy. The reason being that the future is unknowable. The woman in your BOA's class would first have to give up on her current career choice. If the recession is temporary as all recessions have been in the past what's her motivation to do this? Ok, no jobs today, look for work but hang in for your current career.

Ok, so now were past that. Time to rethink the current career choice and get training in another disipline. It will take anywhere from one to three years to get the training needed to get a job on the new career path. Here's where it gets tricky. Which of the available careers will be in demand upon graduation from career school? The answer is nobody knows. All of the careers you mention in your post are in recession.  So, picking a new career and getting trained, not so simple as just do it!

That's not to say that there aren't jobs out there. There are. For most people ,not enough jobs to justify a complete career makeover.

1

[quote=Milyunair]

This isn't about feeling sorry for anyone. It's about helping your fellow man. Giving them a hand up. If you believe there is something wrong with that and it puts me out of touch, well then, so be it. I'm glad to be out of touch with the world of hate in which you live. And I mean that in the nicest way. - BG

I know folks who are absolutely opposed to war, and others who feel the need to defend themselves or their values.

Pacifists have to be respected.

It's okay to be a touchy - feelie liberal with your own money. When you start borrowing and spending other people's money, where does it stop?

You cross a line when you imply that those who fear debt live in a world of hate. The is where the discussion breaks down, the worst kind of mental diarhrea.

The fact that you can't forecast the future is the reason to be prudent. What gives you any cred here, when you just ignore questions, like, where are your good paying jobs going to come from? You can't answer the question, so you say, borrow money, in hopes that we can pay it back. But you don't really care, because you already got yours, so you're just having fun with us.

[/quote]

I agree with you. It's OK to be touch feely with your own money, as long as you don't start borrowing and spending other peoples money. But let's not just blame the left for that problem. We are currently fighting two wars using a Chinese credit card to pay for them. So it's OK to kill hundreds of thosands of people(directly or indirectly), using other peoples money, yet you stand in righteous indignation at the thought of helping folks out of tough times with other peoples money. And so many of the pro-war types are so-called christians. I have a little trouble with that. I would agree with the conservatives(I was one for most of my life) if they would have stuck to their principals. But considering the lions share of this economic mess was initiated under the conservative watch, yet they are the first to complain and finger point at any dem solution, it just smacks of hypocracy to me.

BG - For the most part, I am oversimplifying things.  It's not easy to just wake up one day and start a business for yourself.  My wife and I go through this once in a while because she has a talent that could morph itself into a business rather easily.   There are licenses, inspections, etc that she'd have to go through to get the business going.  Or, she can just keep doing it the way she is now, which is very small time, under the radar.  

My point is that there are a ton of people out there who either have worked in a particular industry and have some knowledge of that industry but no marketable skills otherwise, but are unwilling to take a leap and get some sort of training to change that. 

If we could funnel some of that unemployment money back into the small business arena, you'd see a drastic rise in employment.  If we could just give some of the existing small business owners reason to believe that they're not going to go broke paying for health care and their taxes, we'd see a rise in employment. 

I think the reason we don't agree on this issue is that we're seeing this issue from opposite sides of the coin.  On your side it's impossible to make changes, take a job that's not ideal, start a business, etc so the government, and therefore the working, taxpaying Americans are responsible for giving additional assistance to the unemployed.   I see this as an opportunity for the thousands of people out there who think they could be their own boss to actually try to give it a shot.  It's just a function of where my tax dollars go.  One ends up creating jobs, the other creating dependancy on the federal government. 

Which, is what the progressives want at the end of the day, isn't it navet?

1

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

BG - For the most part, I am oversimplifying things.  It's not easy to just wake up one day and start a business for yourself.  My wife and I go through this once in a while because she has a talent that could morph itself into a business rather easily.   There are licenses, inspections, etc that she'd have to go through to get the business going.  Or, she can just keep doing it the way she is now, which is very small time, under the radar.  

My point is that there are a ton of people out there who either have worked in a particular industry and have some knowledge of that industry but no marketable skills otherwise, but are unwilling to take a leap and get some sort of training to change that. 

If we could funnel some of that unemployment money back into the small business arena, you'd see a drastic rise in employment.  If we could just give some of the existing small business owners reason to believe that they're not going to go broke paying for health care and their taxes, we'd see a rise in employment. 

I think the reason we don't agree on this issue is that we're seeing this issue from opposite sides of the coin.  On your side it's impossible to make changes, take a job that's not ideal, start a business, etc so the government, and therefore the working, taxpaying Americans are responsible for giving additional assistance to the unemployed.   I see this as an opportunity for the thousands of people out there who think they could be their own boss to actually try to give it a shot.  It's just a function of where my tax dollars go.  One ends up creating jobs, the other creating dependancy on the federal government. 

Which, is what the progressives want at the end of the day, isn't it navet?

[/quote]

No, it's not what progressives want. It's insurance. The insurance should go to the person for whom the premiums were paid. What progressives want is justice. And a viable middle class.

Spiff, you are expanding my answer. I view welfare programs as creating government dependancy. Unemployment, by comparison is a blip on the radar. Unemployment does not create a culture of dependancy.

I agree, your wife should step out of her comfort zone and start the business. Many small businesses start that way.

Where i don't agree is in the use your skills to start a business type of thinking. And, the thinking that says if you don't do this it's because you are lazy. Most unemployed people are not in a position to start a business. Both financially or from a peace of mind POV. No money coming in, limited resources, and dooms day financial thinking takes over. The thought of blowing through the savings kitty on something that 'Might" work is usually off the table in these homes. Unlike your wife's situation, there is no stable income to fall back on as the business grows and if the biz doesn't produce. Most businesses take years to produce a sustainable income. Those started on a shoestring budget even more so. Going out on your own is a non starter in most cases in this situation.

Not to mention the risk. Most of you guys are preaching fiscal responsibility and conservatism. What could be more risky than starting your own business?

Navet - good catch on the hypocrisy of what the conservatives consider money well spent.

0

1

1

0

BG- I just continue to disagree with your points. And they are a bit long winded man. I think that your "points" empathize the larger issue.

First - Dead wrong on the Wendy's job. It is actually really really hard to get fired from these places. Why? B/C Wendy's knows there are a lot of people who think the job is beneath them. Also if you are calling in sick all the time you should be fired. Right?

Second - The orginal problem still persists. Why should anyone think that Wendy's is beneath you? Really? Nothing is beneath me if I want to pay the bills.

Lastly - If you work 39 hours at Wendy's and you can't pay the bills, it looks like you will put in 31 hours at the local gas station too. Is that soooooo wrong? To ask people who are not working and still living ABOVE their means (notice not your means or my means) their means.

Sir if you don't have a job, maybe you shouldn't have the 4 bedroom house with the 3 car garage? I just don't get what point you are making. In fact maybe you just got caught up in Milnayair's crazy posts and got aggravated but you basically have made the other's sides point.

BG - If you have a "level 8" job on a 1-10 range I really doubt you have to go all the way to fry cook at Wendy's to find a job. You may have to go from "level 8" to a "level 4" job maybe. You kill me with your EXTREME examples.

Also, you never answered my question so I will ask it for the third time. Do you see anything wrong with asking for college credit hours or community service hours etc. worked for exchange of unemployment benefits? I would even bite my tongue and say this would be a requirement after the first 6 weeks have passed so they can make a decent effort to gather their thoughts and get together a game plan of what to do next. What about winding down unemployment benefits? For example start off with 100% and reduce that amount by 1% each week until they are back to work or two years have passed.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you and Navet are disagree with this quote - "When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves" George Pataki

[quote=N.D.]

BG - If you have a "level 8" job on a 1-10 range I really doubt you have to go all the way to fry cook at Wendy's to find a job. You may have to go from "level 8" to a "level 4" job maybe. You kill me with your EXTREME examples.

Also, you never answered my question so I will ask it for the third time. Do you see anything wrong with asking for college credit hours or community service hours etc. worked for exchange of unemployment benefits? I would even bite my tongue and say this would be a requirement after the first 6 weeks have passed so they can make a decent effort to gather their thoughts and get together a game plan of what to do next. What about winding down unemployment benefits? For example start off with 100% and reduce that amount by 1% each week until they are back to work or two years have passed.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you and Navet are disagree with this quote - "When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves" George Pataki

[/quote]

Extreme examples? What extreme examples? You, along with RW, spiff, and Miliy have all taken the "any job in a storm" position.

By " You kill me" I hope you mean you are, at the least , entertained? Maybe not so much?

The Wendy's post is an amalgam of people and some of the things they've experience down in the low pay lane. All of the trials and tribulations of our out of luck no count lazy f*cker example are taken from real life. Every event I posted is from real life experience. Either myself or someone i know. Some details changed for net security purposes. The Werner trans example is exactly what happened. The rookie driver was dispatched with directions from his dispatcher. Those directions put him on a dead end street from which he had to back out. Apparently a big nono at Werner. He called the dispatcher, who apologized, said ops it was a right turn, not left, and rerouted him to his pick up. Three weeks later he was fired for the wrong turn. The dispatcher claimed ignorance. The rookie with copies of the wrong routing tried to fight it but his trucking career was effectively over.

My son couldn't find a part time job easy to get because the town he was going to school in was and is flooded with out of work Pratt and Whitney engineers. They were working at Mickey Ds. So much for level 8 going down to level 4! I might add that none of you guys were making any such "job level" qualifications in previous posts.

The point is that along with being hard work, and low pay, these jobs are easy to lose. I find it interesting that by my bringing to life the reality of what each of you has been saying,  you and RW are backing away from the any job rhetoric and calling my reality extreme. Reality is not extreme.  Reality is a bitch.

About your question - I think a work for benefits or college credit/skills training in lieu of program is an excellent idea. It could reduce taxes while creating substance. Unfortunately, the state workers unions in most states would never let this happen.

I agree with George's statement, but i don't think he was the first to say it. Regardless, one need look no further than the Society Islands to see the result of too much government dependance.

[quote=RealWorld]

BG- I just continue to disagree with your points. And they are a bit long winded man. I think that your "points" empathize the larger issue.

First - Dead wrong on the Wendy's job. It is actually really really hard to get fired from these places. Why? B/C Wendy's knows there are a lot of people who think the job is beneath them. Also if you are calling in sick all the time you should be fired. Right?

Second - The orginal problem still persists. Why should anyone think that Wendy's is beneath you? Really? Nothing is beneath me if I want to pay the bills.

Lastly - If you work 39 hours at Wendy's and you can't pay the bills, it looks like you will put in 31 hours at the local gas station too. Is that soooooo wrong? To ask people who are not working and still living ABOVE their means (notice not your means or my means) their means.

Sir if you don't have a job, maybe you shouldn't have the 4 bedroom house with the 3 car garage? I just don't get what point you are making. In fact maybe you just got caught up in Milnayair's crazy posts and got aggravated but you basically have made the other's sides point.

[/quote]

Long winded? I prefer verbose!

On that count, no one's forcing you to read my posts.

As i've said, every example in that post is taken from a real life example. Either my own or someone I know. If anything i cut out some of the more disturbing details. Like getting fired from a retail job for being 15 minutes late. Or, getting fired for filing a sexual harrassment complaint against your boss. This shit really happens. And, by the way, the harrassment complaint resulted in a six figure settlement. But, still, the low pay employee found themselves on the street with no money and no paycheck simply because she was tired of the unwarranted advances. How scary is that?

Wendy's isn't beneath anyone. It just doesn't pay the bills. Nor would cobbling together two or three of these types of jobs. Taking three low pay jobs that together might bring in 12k before tax doesn't replace an 80k salary as an engineer. Nor does it replace the 150k a project manager could make. Again, you are speaking from a positon of the unknowing oversimplified solution.

What means do you speak of? The previous long term lifestye that the newly unemployed has work a lifetime to achieve or the new unemployed means? When should they adjust an how do they adjsut? For example, who do they sell their house to?

You are absolutely correct, an unemployed person shouldn't own a 3 bedroom home with a three car garage. So, when Mr. production manager loses his job because the company execs above him sold the company and bolted with their golden parachutes, the new bosses closing the doors, when exactly should he sell the home he worked his entire life to buy? And, in this economy who, exactly who would he sell it to? Honestly RW, do you think before you post? Or are you just spewing more Glen beck dribble? I ask, because this statement "don't have a job shouldn't own a big house" is assinine. And, i think if you really think about it you'll agree. After-all, if you lose your job today are you going to sell your house tomorrow? I think not.

 Help!!!!

For the record, this has been one of the most entertaining threads we've had on here in a while.  And even though, BG, you and I are on different sides of the table, it's nice to have a civil discussion without a lot of the other sophomoric posts we normally see. 

What's up with Mily's posts?  Did he get banned for something?

Found this report on Yahoo this morning: http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110013/debate-on-jobless-benefits

I find it interesting that the studies are showing that unemployment benefits are actually increasing the length of time some folks are out of a job. 

Spiff, good article.

I thought the article had balance. Hits on both sides of the issue. The 58 year old JP Morgan employee said it best that no one can live on unemployment benfits. Everyone she knows is looking for work every day. Which makes my point. So both sides covered.

I thought Mily's 1's and 0's were just a new level of insanity. The term +1 is used to show agreement. But, there wasn't any reference to what was being agreed to. The zero made no sense, but again par for the poster. I guess we'll see. I didn't see anything recently that was a bannable submission. It could have been something he tried to post. And then there is this: There are a large number of ex-patriot posters who are banned. I've suspected that Mily, who has zero'd in on me is one of these people. Just one of the many dual personalities that populate this site. Maybe even someone i'm friendly with on the outside who has decided to bust my chops and liven things up here a bit. It's a possibility and now they got busted by the RR forum police? His recent absence corresponded neatly with some known vaca time of some people I know.

And then again, maybe not!

You can't take any of this stuff too seriously.

[quote=BondGuy]About your question - I think a work for benefits or college credit/skills training in lieu of program is an excellent idea. It could reduce taxes while creating substance. Unfortunately, the state workers unions in most states would never let this happen.[/quote]

UNIONS?? We could start another entire thread on this bullshit topic.

Anyway, excuses are just that, freakin excuses. Everybody has the option to get up and put on a pair of work boots or they can open the dresser drawer and shake out that folded up wrinkle free "poor pitiful me" attitude. I have roofed houses, sold and serviced automobiles at a dealership, called for donations from the local firefighters hall, hauled off junk, went back to school, help start a business, held office in my local district, and now I am trying to build my idea of the perfect career, all on top of volunteer work that continues regardless of the economy. None of these jobs/careers relate to one another. I started each one at the very bottom. The ones I realized were not for me I left at the bottom. Trust me when I say if I can find something to do, then anybody willing to humble themselves somewhat can do the same. 

Your life is what you make of it. Anyone receiving unemployment benefits while sitting on their couch complaining is not worth my air that they breathe. If they are putting on some type of work/school/volunteer boot each morning to try and make sure tomorrow is better than today, I congratulate them. But facts are facts and the longer someone is on unemployment benefits the higher the probability they are not humble enough to make a difference for themselves or the community they live in. But instead choose to blame their situation on everything but their self.

BG - Just so I understand what you are saying let me ask you this question. How long after someone starts unemployment benefits do you think it is acceptable for them to wake up and pile on the couch in anticipation of watching Ellen instead of indulging themselves in the possibilities of a job search or the excitement of furthering their education or the rewarding feeling they could get from giving back to their community in some way?

Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.

How about moving the discussion to solutions.

Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses...

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint Exupery

ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tatoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work. it's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. Which, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Furthrer, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can. Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?

To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your fist and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed i know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride.

ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong.

Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone i know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a masters in math and a masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it?

[quote=RealWorld]

How about moving the discussion to solutions.

Bondguy - Respectfully, you are unable to keep my attention with such long winded responses. It isn't that I don't want to read your responses. I am interested in your perspective. I (and anyone over 5 yrs old) know that I don't have to read your responses...

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
- Antoine de Saint Exupery

[/quote]

RW, i hear you. Still, i'm going to say what i'm going to say the way i want to say it. Sorry if it takes up a lot of bandwidth.

Tell ya what. Just for you we can have a debate/conversation limited to three word posts. Say whatever you want to say, but say it with three words only.  Because we disagree i'll begin with:

You are wrong!

First off, I am just going to start ignoring Navet all together. He will not be around much longer anyway, besides his verbal diarrhea is nauseating.

Second...

[quote=BondGuy]ND - we have differing points of view on this subject. Your POV plainly tattoos all unemployed as lazy and not looking for work.[/quote]

Do you always read what you want? I never said all unemployed are lazy. The guy standing on the street corner with sandwich boards looking for a job was inspirational. All though, I may be guilty of generalizing the unemployed.

I am a strong advocate to help anyone that wants to help themselves. I do not believe in account minimums when there are people out there just starting to plan for the future. I will help anyone willing to help themselves. But maybe you and I have a difference of opinion similar to the chicken/egg analogy. I believe in expecting results before offering rewards and it seems you feel more to offer rewards in hopes of expecting rewards. Neither one is right and neither one is wrong, I guess. Just difference of opinions. 

[quote=BondGuy] It's as if they are responsible for losing their jobs. This, of course, is impossible. Had they been responsible for losing their jobs they couldn't qualify for benefits. Further, you want them immediately go down to the local fast food joint and get a job tomorrow. [/quote]

I do not expect them to put in applications at McDonalds on the way home from clearing out their desk. Again you read what you want to and not what I said. I do expect them to start looking at all options within the next couple days and decide on a plan of action. 

[quote=BondGuy]OTOH, my POV is that they should try to get a job that maintains their lifestyle. Short of that, get as close as you can.[/quote]

Surely if you do financial planning, you know most people live above their lifestyle and really needed a promotion not a layoff. But yes as close as they can would be acceptable to me. I had a friend that was let go and had several interviews lined up and accepted the first position offered. Unbeknown to him two weeks later he was offered his first choice and then accepted it. I wish he had not taken the first offer but he thought the interview with the preferred employer went poorly. 

[quote=BondGuy]Read the article in spiff's post. In NJ benefits extended unemployment by an estimated 1.something weeks. Again, where is the problem with the loafers and the takers?[/quote]

Again, I do not have a problem with unemployment or any entitlement program, I do have a problem with perpetual entitlements.

[quote=BondGuy]To answer your question - never. If you are unemployed your first and only job is looking for work. Only after you've exhausted all you can do that day or time period is it play time. The unemployed I know take their situation very seriously. They are engaged in looking for work. That doesn't mean there isn't time for a run or bike ride.[/quote]

I completely agree with making time for exercise and family. I would not expect more time spent then a typical days work.

[quote=BondGuy]ND, coming up we've all done our share of shit jobs. Yes, we can all go back that way, but who would want to? I don't hold that against anyone. Yeah, the guy who turns down a good offer because he wants a better offer, that's wrong. [/quote]

I guess we have found another difference between you and I.  I would rather take a shit job, but I would not expect someone to take a job for less then what their benefits would provide though. Unemployment benefits are not meant to maintain the recipient’s lifestyle but they are designed to maintain a REASONABLE lifestyle for that income range and it is capped at a max just like most other programs that are TRUELY designed for the middle to lower class. It is assumed someone making 100k a year is financially responsible enough to not have a need for unemployment i.e. cash reserve etc. but you and I both know by the savings rate in the US that this was not so (below 2%). Credit was too easy, keeping up with the Jones' was too important.

[quote=BondGuy]Read today in USA Today that 44% of the 2010 Nursing sch grads are unemployed with little hope of finding jobs anytime soon. One of those grads is someone I know. Four years in school to get her BS in Nursing. On top of that she has a Masters in math and a Masters in chemistry. Smart woman! She got an offer yesterday from a local hospital for an MST position. They're the nurses’ helpers. The ones who do all the shit work. $10.00 an hour. Should she take it? [/quote]

44%? That's wonderful. Good for them and I feel they should continue to receive benefits as long as they are enrolled and maintaining a 2.0 average (anything less will probably keep them from succeeding in this field anyway). If they cannot find jobs after graduation they should enroll in the next level of education in their particular field of interest.

As for the person you know, if the $10 p/h job provides more income then unemployment benefits and it will not reduce her GPA in school then yes she should. If she is finished with school, then yes she should. If her desired position opens up, it is more likely to be filled from within first, someone with work experience and current references second and an outta work grad student third. At least that is my opinion of HR.

[quote=navet]

Have you ever woken up and watched Ellen? Or judge shows? Work is much better than sitting on your ass. And most people prefer to work. However, every citizen has the right to national healthcare, and a social safety net that includes social security and unemployment insurance. I wish you neocons lots of luck opposing those issues.

[/quote] 

As far as I know there are only 10 rights that people have in this country as dictated by the Constitution:

1.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be voilated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.   

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9.  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I could post the rest of the amendments, but I any 5th grader who's had to study the Constitution can tell you that the things you're saying are rights are simply just wishes and that they just simply aren't in there.  Nice try though.  The problem we're dealing with right now is that WAY too many people view what they want their government to do for them as rights.  And they couldn't be more wrong. 

The sad thing is that it seems this particular administration wants to step all over our actual Constitutional rights to further it's own agenda.  The Fairness Doctrine and comments about people clinging to their God and their guns come to mind.  How about we just strike the First Amendment altogether? 

This goes way beyond unemployment insurance and well into my disagreement that this country needs to undergo some, what did you call it...progressive renaissance. 

Spiff, we all know the Bill Of Rights, and rights issued under the constitution. You must have a lot of time on your hands. The right to medical care comes from a source that pre-dates our constitution by a millenium or two. Every doctor takes an oath when they recieve their MD degree in the US. The Hippocratic oath sets the standard for treating patients. Currently, in the US any patient who presents at a hospital will recieve care irregardless of their ability to pay. Therefore, by fiat, everyone in the US has medical coverage. Many have expanded that care to a "right" to care, and for practical reasons. When we treat people irregardless of ability to pay, we essentially "insure" all citizens. The alternative is to let the poor suffer and die(many middle class would fall into this category). The most hamane and cost effective alternative is to provide national health insurance to all citizens, pool risk in the most cost effective way, and pay for that insurance through taxes. That doesn't mean nationalization of medicine. Medicare pays for privately run medicine through a taxed insurance plan. That is what is happening now and will evolve into a single payor system for all citizens. Pretty much a done deal, just a matter of time.

Cut and paste.  I wouldn't actually type out all of that.  Again, I'm going to cut and paste the basis of your argument and ask that you tell me where it says that doctors are obligated to treat everyone, therefore creating the "right" to healthcare in this country:

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

Nowhere in there does it say that doctors swear that they will treat everybody regardless of their ability to pay.  Again, nice try, but health care is a privilege in this country, not a right. 

However, I do have a right to get together with my Christian friends, congregate on public grounds, and let the government know that we believe they aren't acting in our best interests all while singing The Old Rugged Cross and Just As I am. 

That's a modern version of the oath. Most new MD's take the original. But either way, I am not going to waste time argueing the relative merits of which oath doctors take. It's a very moving ceremony that everyone should witness. The point I make is really very simple. As a country, will we refuse to treat a citizen that cannot pay? If you are in favor of that, then you will be on the losing side of the national healthcare argument. And as long as we choose to treat all citizens who need it, the question becomes how best to pay for it. The most cost effective way to do so is through pooling of risk on a national basis. Thus, national health insurance for all citizens. And I maintain that every citizen, and ultimately evry human being has a right to medical care.

You won't because you can't.  Even in the classic and ancient versions of the oath it isn't there. 

I've been to several family member's ceremonies and you are correct that it is very moving.

We can agree on a few things. First, that if you're sick, your ability to pay for your medical care shouldn't mean that you have to die.  I think most physicians, whether it's in the oath or not, would agree.  It's just who they are.  I do believe that doctors, many of whom are business owners, should have the right to turn people away if it doesn't make business sense for them to treat someone.  Or they should be able to refer them to a facility that will treat anyone regardless of their financial status.

To that end there are many faith based hospitals out there that are set up to run this way.  In fact the vast majority of the hospitals here in STL are faith based:  St. John's Mercy, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Barnes Jewish, St. Luke's.  Each of those will treat anyone. 

Second, pooling risk is the most cost effective way to pay for medical costs.  You'll notice I didn't say at the national level.  Unless you're going to give the responsibility of running a program like that to a company who actually has experience in doing it, like a large insurance providor (think BC/BS types), I don't think the government is capable of effectively doing it.  Too much red tape.  I don't think that's what Obama and his folks have in mind, however. 

I don't believe this national healthcare debate is over.  The states are going to excercise some rights of their own, as is dictated by the Constitution, and cause a big stink before it's all said and done.  We're going to see how far Obama thinks he can get his hands in everyone else's pie before someone slaps it.   

I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.

and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?

oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

I was wondering how navet got to be so old and uses irregardless.

I would say it is the Edward Jones minimum hiring standard, but so many of the Jones guys I know are smarter than that.  And it would kind of be a thread hijack.

Regardless of whether the Hippocratic oath states that people are entitled to healthcare (which I think that Spiff proved that it doesn't), we live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Emphasis on STATES, plural.  We seem to have forgotten that. 

No one is entitled to healthcare, retirement or welfare.  Should we, as a caring society, take care of our weak, our infirm and those without the ability to care for themselves?  Yes.  I think we should.  As individual citizens, and maybe even government help. 

The disabled, either through mishap, or if they were born that way, should be cared for.

But I read something interesting the other day.  Check this article out:  This woman was born with an issue that caused her to have her leg amputated.  I just want to point out that she made something of her life.

http://www.rangerup.com/kellybruno.html

Plus, she's kind of hot.

Anyway, people in this country need to sack up and start doing for themselves.  I wonder what the frontiersmen did when they lost their jobs?  I guess went to the unemployment line... oh wait, there WAS no unemployment line.

One more point on unemployment.  I have two open positions.  I have been trying to get them filled for about three weeks.  I'm not asking for a whole lot, but people have applied with Master's degrees knowing what the salary range was. 

Out of 30 people who have applied, I have offered ten interviews so far.  NINE have been no-call, no -shows. 

Yeah, people really want to work.

[quote=navet]

I believe that it is impossible to run a healthcare plan from the states. Since there would have to be reciprocal agreements between states to cover out of state illnesses, a national program is the only feasable way to cover health costs. And there would have to be a national insurance standard. No way to get each state to agree to that. Healthcare, like national defence and the highway system has to be a national program.

[/quote]

You're thinking that I want my state to run my healthcare program?  Hardly. 

National defense, btw, is constitutional.  That is something I'm OK with getting taxed for.  The National Highway System was originally constructed to make travel for our military vehicles easier.  The by-product of that was a highway system that lets us go where we please whether I'm in my mini-van or a green Humvee.  I'm OK with the taxes for that too.

Your idealism is to be commended.  I think you truly believe that the government should help everyone with pretty much everything.  That they are the answer to our problems as a country.  I believe, however, that the unintended consequence of drastically more people becoming dependant on the country for an ever growing laundry list of daily needs is simple - bankruptcy.  We simply run out of money.  Just like with Social Security.  Just like with Medicaid. 

Here's the reason I don't think the government can make it work:  They don't think like business owners.  They judge the success or failure of a program based on how much money they throw at it.  They never, ever, stop to think about the results.  They never stop to think about how they can create a better product with less investment dollars.  In their book if it's broke, throw more money at the problem and it'll get better.  That simply doesn't work.  It doesn't work in my household, my business, or my church, and it surely doesn't work in our government.  If I thought the government handled ANY program well, I might have a little faith that they could handle healthcare. 

I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.

1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.

2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate?

BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window.

[quote=N.D.]

and after everyone receives a pay check no matter if they work or not, receives healthcare whether they pay for it or not, should we then clothe everyone? What about dental care and eye sight? Government should provide everyone with free transportation not just urban citizens, right? Who will draw the line between what should be a given and should be earned on their own?

oh yeah, Navet - Irregardless is an informal term meaning regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "incorrect" or "nonstandard".

So I guess you are an asshole, irregardless!

[/quote]

[quote=RealWorld]

I have heard many people comment that if we had a plan to get people back to work, maybe in terms of infastructure that would at least help these people "earn" some of their money.

1. What infustructure really needs improvement on a large scale or can they simply be state or county level.

2. Would the unemployed union workers really participate?

BG- You have thrown any once of intellectual respect that I would have had for you out the window.

[/quote]

Would have had?

He's evidenlty never asked you a question about bonds.  That's the beauty of this country.  We can completely disagree on politics and social issues, but lend each other a helping hand on other issues.  I know that when I have a question about bonds, there's really only one guy I know will shoot straight without bias and tell it like it is.  And it ain't Mario DeRose.

I don't think bonds are very intellectual. I have taken advice from you BG on bonds in the past and agree with how you view them. I find your mindsight very intelligent on that aspect of finance.

This entire discussion is hard to swallow. Instead of coming to a formidable solution with "intelligent people" we debate the merits and worthiness of individuals. BG's answers have been slowly breaking down to the level of childish. I imagine that some of mine haven't been as thought out as they should be.

I guess this is the reason why Washington has so much trouble with the same problems, it is very difficult in the polarized society that we live in to intelligently look beyond our on convictions and develop solutions for the better good. Maybe that is human, however we will not survive as a country so divided and that is the livelyhood of you, I and our offspring.

[quote=RealWorld]

I don't think bonds are very intellectual. I have taken advice from you BG on bonds in the past and agree with how you view them. I find your mindsight very intelligent on that aspect of finance.

This entire discussion is hard to swallow. Instead of coming to a formidable solution with "intelligent people" we debate the merits and worthiness of individuals. BG's answers have been slowly breaking down to the level of childish. I imagine that some of mine haven't been as thought out as they should be.

I guess this is the reason why Washington has so much trouble with the same problems, it is very difficult in the polarized society that we live in to intelligently look beyond our on convictions and develop solutions for the better good. Maybe that is human, however we will not survive as a country so divided and that is the livelyhood of you, I and our offspring.

[/quote]

Are you serious? 

Back to unemployment.  Read the Trust Company RIA thread for the obviousness of people who are lazy and won't either pay for what they need or do it themselves.

We've bred this into our society.

Get to work, people!

Like most neocons you guys insist on beating a dead horse. As for unemployment? Lots of luck with that position. Calling unemployed people "lazy F-ckers", will go far in the next election. And the "let the one's who can't pay die" attitude on national healthcare will go just as far. It's like you guys like to hear yourselves talk, even long after you lost on the issue. Remember when Taft was still pissing and moaning about FDR 20 years after the New Deal passed? And I'd love to hear your thoughts on civil rights, another issue you lost. You all do know you lost? And even after a slight dead cat bounce in the mid-terms(if you're lucky), your party and movement are dead in the water.

Navet - There's a difference between doing what is politically expedient and doing what is right.

Interesting thought on civil rights, considering some of the most racist anti-integration politicians were liberal Democrats.  Just like most of the big spenders were conservative Republicans.  How's that for irony?

Navet, how is it possible to get so old and still be so stupid?

Right?

[quote=RealWorld]

I don't think bonds are very intellectual.

[/quote]

I agree!!!!!! I don't find bonds to be very intellectual either. Being that the word intellectual can be used as a noun or an adjective, you used it as a noun. As a noun it can only be used to describe a person, not an inanimate object or intangible investment. So bonds can't be intellectual.

I was hoping you'd pick up on the three word thing, we could go back and forth a few times, three words at a time, and we could stick a fork in this thread, because it's done.

Ok, let's move on. I'm sure we can find common ground on other subjects.

BG - sure we can find common ground, but how much fun is that if we agree all the time?  I come on here everyday now not to find great ideas about how to be a better FA, but to find out what stupid things navet has posted.   

navet - how did "we" lose on civil rights?  Magician is correct that some of the heroes of the Progressive movement like Wilson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Margaret Sanger were incredibly racist and supporters of the eugenics ideas of the turn of the last century.  They were all trying to figure out how to quietly get rid of people of color.  But yet you have the gall to call us racists, and tell us we lost the battle on civil rights?  If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

You've told us a few times that we should turn off Glenn Beck and actually go read some history.  I'm going to suggest you do the same.  Go back and actually figure out what caused the roaring 20's and then what caused the Great Depression.   What you'll find is there is a direct correlation between the size of the government and the prosperity of the country.  And that correlation isn't bigger is better.  Once you figure that out, perhaps you'll change your tune on all of the government programs the progressive renaissance would like to put in place.  Unless you really want to revisit the 1930 economically, that is. 

I had an appointment just leave who was one of my glorious goodknight accounts.

Not a large account by any means. I asked her what has been new.

"Well my unemployment runs out at the end of august; looks like I will have to get one of those jobs at (names two 12-14 pr hour places that are hiring)...

I thought that was really timely and hilarious given the context of our conversation.

I also heard today that if we do not extend unemployment then at that same time 2 million people or 25% of the current unemployed are going to lose benefits. I see this being a problem with such a large number coming off at the same time.

Really would be good to discuss a solution or I guess I at least wish that Washington had a few ideas.

[quote=RealWorld]

"Well my unemployment runs out at the end of august; looks like I will have to get one of those jobs at (names two 12-14 pr hour places that are hiring)...

[/quote]

Dude, that's cold!!! You know damn well there are no jobs paying $12 to $14  an hour just for the taking. There aren't jobs paying $10 an hour just for the taking. The probelm is too many unemployed chasing too few jobs. You should stop with the right wing hate machine spin of devaluing the unemployed as lazy.

The chronically unemployed have to chose between paying ON the electric bill or buying food. Why aren't they going after those $14 an hour jobs? Gee, the must like having the kids go hungry!

In fact, not only are there no jobs for these people, the employers in the jobs easy to get catagory are taking advantage of the buyers market for out of work employees. They are lowering their pay scales. New employees starting in jobs that use to pay $9 an hour now get minimum wage. Current employees are seeing their hourly wages rolled back. Don't like it, get out!!!!! There is line a mile long waiting to get in the door. Which neatly explains why your claim of $12 to $14 a hour jobs is bullshit.

And then there is this: The republicans in the Senate blocked the Bill extending benefits stating there weren't offsetting spending cuts to balance the Bill. True enough, there aren't offsets. Yet, when the republican controlled Senate and Congress passed Bush's tax cuts into law there weren't offsetting spending cuts in that Bill to balance the lost revenue. That Bill sailed through both houses. Realize, this week, as the republicans get up to preach fiscal responsibility that they are talking out of both sides of their well fed mouths. And they are doing so on the backs of the unemployed poor.

Lastly,  find an unemployed family, and buy them their groceries! Get their electric turned back on. Pay for them to take their kids to the dentist. Stop making excuses and do something! You want realworld? It doesn't get anymore real than that!

If  you don't have money in the budget for that, try this, stop giving money to your church. Use that money to do God's work close up and personal. Your church will stop loving you but God won't. And 100% of your money and effort will go to helping a family in need.

[quote=BondGuy]Lastly,  find an unemployed family, and buy them their groceries! Get their electric turned back on. Pay for them to take their kids to the dentist. Stop making excuses and do something! You want realworld? It doesn't get anymore real than that!

If  you don't have money in the budget for that, try this, stop giving money to your church. Use that money to do God's work close up and personal. Your church will stop loving you but God won't. And 100% of your money and effort will go to helping a family in need.[/quote]

These are great words of wisdom BG! I am sorry the churches you are familiar with do not do as you have just described someone to do with their money. I can say the church I attend does just that and more. We offer daycare services three days a week for anyone to job seek and we also do a rotating daycare for single parents to work and spend a little time to themselves when needed.

I do not agree with enabling unproductive activities but hey it's just like raising kids, sooner or later you gotta let them risk falling in order to ever fly. If the net stays close underneath they will not jump very far.

I have two job openings. 

One paying $15/hr, and another paying $12/hr.  The people that I've gotten - sloppy, whorish have not done anything in twelve months.

All of the really good people have jobs.

BG - I'm seriously just telling you from experience, and recent experience at that.  I lost one of my best people to a job four weeks ago.  I like to think the experience at my shop helped her get the job.  At 24, this girls is now managing twelve people, getting full benes, and making $40k a year.

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=BondGuy]Lastly,  find an unemployed family, and buy them their groceries! Get their electric turned back on. Pay for them to take their kids to the dentist. Stop making excuses and do something! You want realworld? It doesn't get anymore real than that!

If  you don't have money in the budget for that, try this, stop giving money to your church. Use that money to do God's work close up and personal. Your church will stop loving you but God won't. And 100% of your money and effort will go to helping a family in need.[/quote]

These are great words of wisdom BG! I am sorry the churches you are familiar with do not do as you have just described someone to do with their money. I can say the church I attend does just that and more. We offer daycare services three days a week for anyone to job seek and we also do a rotating daycare for single parents to work and spend a little time to themselves when needed.

I do not agree with enabling unproductive activities but hey it's just like raising kids, sooner or later you gotta let them risk falling in order to ever fly. If the net stays close underneath they will not jump very far.

[/quote]

Our churches are no different. What i'm saying is it's not good enough. get out there and help someone yourself. You decide who to help and how to help them instead of leaving it up to someone else to get their hands dirty.

Two things will happen: First someone's family will get a much needed no strings attached helping hand from someone who can do with a little less fat. Second, you'll understand the problem and stop insisting these people have employment options they are too lazy, proud, or stubborn to take advantage of. You(figurative you) will finally grasp the desperate complexity of the situation.

Actually, you shouldn't stop giving to your church.  You should add helping family member, friend, or neighbor in need to what you are already doing.

The primary mission of the church is not benevolence.  It's salvation.  If you stop giving your money to the church and just give it to the needy, you lose focus of the purpose we have a church at all. 

[quote=RealWorld]

I was telling my wife how I thought it was amazing that so many Americans work in finance yet we are a country that is destructing from within due to poor budget control. Literally I spend 70% of my life going over finance with my clients while watching my country spiral into a nosedive based upon not being able to manage their own wallet.

I wondered what some intelligent thoughts would be on unemployment benefits in this country. We must realize that with the non passage of the extension that we are going to have millions of people with no work, no benefits coming down the pike.

What is the best (INTELLIGENT) way to deal with this situation and even the more broad issue of national debt?

[/quote]

All I can say is cut the expenditures then concentrate on incoming investors to invest to boosts economic and employment in a country.

I think welfare, unemployment and food stamps should all stop at some point.  I agree with many others on this board that human beings are lazy in nature...hell we work HARD so we can be LAZIER..oh the irony.

My heart goes out to those real hard working citizens who have lost their jobs due to America failing to keep jobs in the U.S. aka unregulated captialism.  But there are also many lazy ones who take things for granted.

I'll give you an example I see all the time when I goto the supermarket.  I see someone using a EBT card buying steaks, lavish cakes, and other treats at the supermarket.  They have Northface jackets, with $200 dollar cellphones, designer boots and hop into their Mercedes Bens and drive home. WHAT?

While I'm standing in line, buying raw goods so I can cook in batches for the week!  What is wrong with this picture?

I even remember speaking to someone years back, this man said, "Why would I find work? I make about the same when I DON'T WORK, live in project housing for free, and government gives me money for food.  This country is the BEST"

It's disgusting to see this happen.  I agree with unemployment and food stamps as long as it's REGULATED.

It's a mentality that has unfortunately become more prevalent as the government pushes harder and harder in their attempts to redistribute our wealth. 

My church is doing a coat drive this year.  A guy I know recently delivered some coats to a "needy" family in our area.  He said he walked in the front door and the kids were playing on their Wii in front of their big screen TV, but yet he was delivering coats to them because they said they needed them.  He said while he was there a 12 year old neighbor came over to ask for some help with changing a tire.  The mom said he could borrow hers and so my buddy went out to help.  She opened the garage and there was a Nissan Armada sitting there. 

She probably gets food stamps from the government, lives in HUD housing, gets her kids meals paid for at school, visits medical clinics for free, but has a $50,000 SUV, $1000 TV, $200 game system, and probably cell phones with text packages and data plans. 

The sad thing is that way too many people in this country expect to live that kind of lifestyle.  And when they can't afford it, they expect the government to pay for it for them. 

Personal responsibility is making a slow exit. 

Spiff.....Nail, meet hammer.   Nice job!

It's really sad to see this happenin because there are real people struggling out there as well as these lazy folks who are leeching off the tax-payers.

I came to this country when I was 10 years old with my family.  None of us knew a zip of english, and my father worked 2 jobs (7-11 cashier, and door to door chimney cleaning sale in a Korean neighborhood), mother worked 2 jobs (nail salon 10 hours a day 7 days a week and being a mother), as soon as I hit 16 I worked 2 jobs and so did my brother.  We all paid rent and saved $$ together until my parents saved enough money to buy a business and now they are living comfortably.

I paid for my entire college education on my own, by working full time and going to school full time.  Not even an hourly pay, it was a chop shop mortgage firm and I cold called and got paid 15 dollars per lead, and a tiny percentage when it closed LOL.  I'm not the brightest bulb either and if I can do it why can't they?? I lived on peanut butter and jelly the entire way pretty much with cans of tuna for protein.

This is why I do less and less charity in America and rather donate money elsewhere, where people actually need help. 

If my parents can come here without having American education, the language proficiency, no friends, family, and STILL survive and thrive through hard work and dedication, I can't see why people who are born here have any excuse not to.

New - your story is a great example of where the truely wealthy in America come from.  These are the folks Stanley and Danko were speaking of in The Millionaire Next Door.  The problem is 3rd and 4th generations born into the American lifestyle.  They learn to spend, don't save, and feel entitled.

[quote=newregrep]

I think welfare, unemployment and food stamps should all stop at some point.  I agree with many others on this board that human beings are lazy in nature...hell we work HARD so we can be LAZIER..oh the irony.

My heart goes out to those real hard working citizens who have lost their jobs due to America failing to keep jobs in the U.S. aka unregulated captialism.  But there are also many lazy ones who take things for granted.

I'll give you an example I see all the time when I goto the supermarket.  I see someone using a EBT card buying steaks, lavish cakes, and other treats at the supermarket.  They have Northface jackets, with $200 dollar cellphones, designer boots and hop into their Mercedes Bens and drive home. WHAT?

While I'm standing in line, buying raw goods so I can cook in batches for the week!  What is wrong with this picture?

I even remember speaking to someone years back, this man said, "Why would I find work? I make about the same when I DON'T WORK, live in project housing for free, and government gives me money for food.  This country is the BEST"

It's disgusting to see this happen.  I agree with unemployment and food stamps as long as it's REGULATED.

[/quote]

 You picked this person out of a crowded supermarket full of people and watched them? Somehow, you knew they were unemployed? Just from what, the way they looked, the way they walked, something, something told you these people were unemployed goldbrickin welfare cheaten scum? Then you noted everything they were buying. You took inventory. And, sure enough you were right when they pulled out that card! Then you continued the stake out, following them out to the parking lot where you watched them load up the new Mercedes. And, somewhere in there you also put your cell phone expertise to good use noting the expensive cell phone they, apparently pulled out and used while they were loading up all the free groceries.

Yeah, that's totally believable.

BG, come on, you've NEVER seen this happen?

Maybe you're from a real affluent neighborhood but I'm from Queens NY, a good blend of wealth, middle, and the poor. 

I happen to be behind this person, and I saw the entire transaction.  Excessive texting on the brand new iphone (easily $200..doesn't take a phone expert to notice an iphone), a northface jacket, and a few designer items.  Maybe I should mind my own business...but I always watch the transaction in front of me at the supermarket.  Our supermarket has a pull up station like IKEA where you can pull up your car and load the groceries and it's really hard NOT to look out the gigantic row of windows in front of me.

The point I'm making is, why does anyone who can afford all these other expensive items need government help??

You'll have to excuse BG.  His politics lean just ever so slightly to the left.  He's naturally forgiving of those folks who might be cheating the system. 

To be fair to the guy in front of you in the checkout line - he probably bought the Northface jacket at Goodwill, he got the iPhone from a wealthy neighbor who upgraded and felt generous enough to just give his old phone away rather than sell it on Ebay, the car belonged to his recently deceased father, and the rest of the clothes were knock offs purchased in Chinatown.  I got a very nice Guccci purse for my wife there one time.

BG - I think I've made that same type of observation dozens of times checking out at our local supermarket or Wal-Mart.  I'm always amazed that the retailers have to put up signs that say they won't accept EBT cards for things like cigs or beer.  You can't scrape enough money together to buy bread and milk for your 5 kids (who all get welfare checks, free lunches at school, free after school care, free school supplies (purchased by other parents), etc), but you sure as heck can scrape enough money together to buy a carton of cigarettes and a case of beer every week, a cell phone package with the works, and cable package with all the HD channels so  you can fully utilize your 52 inch flat screen.   

His point is absolutely spot on that there are way too many people using EBT cards, otherwise known as my money, to buy crap at the grocery store they don't really need, thinking that they are entitled to that money for some reason or another.  All the while spending their money on stuff that used to be considered luxuries. 

Now, before you get your panties in a wad, I know there are a lot of folks who use those services the right way, more than likely the majority of them.  It's those folks that don't that seem to always be in front of us in the checkout lanes.   

Ah,  you guys are jealous because the unemployed person was dressed better than you and drives a better car? So, of course they must be cheating the system?

The average unemployment chk in this country is $293 a week. if you can buy a new Mercedes, designer clothes, and the highest end consumer electronics on that, more power to you!!!!

I'm a little hinked out that there are guys in supermarkets paying so much attention to female shoppers. Around here that earns you a chat with the local PD.!!!

BG - I have to tell you.  There are some people who are hypervigilant.  Either they served in the military, or are former police or current police officers. 

And they notice things.  I can't believe you never noticed something like that.

Here is something funny.  I was at this place called Bahama Breeze a few years back (Not in the Bahamas).  This guy was outside wearing some old rags and had a sign that read, "Homeless, Hungry and Humble". 

After about two hours of panhandling, he pulls out his cell phone (this was before iPhones), checks the time and then begins to walk to the far parking lot.  I watched him go.  I almost yelled when I saw him approach a Mercedes SUV (Don't know the name off of the top of my head).  But then I saw him get out his keys.  He through his sign in the back.  Took off his ragged coat, revealing a nice shirt underneath, and got in his car.

Unemployment benefits are not a net stimulative factor, since they are not new money: they are funded by employment payroll taxes. As costs of benefits rise, employed worker cash compensation shrinks. With rates higher, costs rise to employers without any increase in worker’s paychecks. We need a safety net, but we need jobs even more urgently. Private sector jobs increase wealth and fund government, government sector jobs simply move existing wealth around.