In Defense of Unemployment Assistance
Posted by Joe Rivett on 03.11.2010
People on unemployment should not be compared to welfare queens...
Republicans have finally decided to take a stand. No more will they allow the deficit to get any higher. They didn't take a stand when they were in power. So when the trillion dollar Medicare entitlement was debated, the deficit didn't matter. The trillion dollar Iraq War, no problem. They have decided to take a stand against those collecting 10 billion dollars of unemployment? Really?
One of the things I learned about Economics is that you can't have everyone work in a capitalist society. There needs to be a certain amount of unemployed so that firms can hire better workers and replace old ones as well as expand. New businesses also need a pool of unemployed workers. The latest statistic is that there are six people for every one job. For those five that do not get the job, help is needed.
Another thing I learned in Economics is that when people save too much, it hurts the country. That is why after 9/11 Bush wisely told us to go about our normal lives and shop. When you give someone who is used to making 800 a week 300 a week, they will put all of that money back into the economy.
At some point, government has to draw a line just as it did for welfare. But people should be given fair warning. In addition, during the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, Americans should be sympathetic to those looking for work.
A good friend of mine lost his job in New York City. With a $1400 a month one bedroom apartment, he would have been crushed without unemployment insurance. The money allowed him to stay afloat until he found a new job. He deserved that assistance because he had a solid work history and paid taxes when he was working.
The purpose of government is to be a safety net. That is why we have social security. That is why we have Medicare. That is why we have disability and unemployment insurance. We aren't communist. Government should not give you a job or tell you what job you should have. Government shouldn't just give you unlimited benefits, but it should be there when sh*t hits the fan.
If we allow unemployed people to not receive benefits, they'll have a lot of time on their hands. Throughout history, people without money get desperate and that leads to crime and revolution. Therefore, the best way to promote capitalism is to help those hurt by the economy so that they don't become socialist revolutionaries! One of the main reasons the US never turned to communism was FDR's willingness to force government to intervene in people's lives until things got better.
Apparently, eight Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a filibuster on extending unemployment benefits. Senator Jim Bunning's plan to save the deficit failed. Republicans have been very successful this past year but they are playing with fire if they decide to mess with those receiving unemployment. They are really playing with fire when I read John Kyl's opinion that those receiving benefits are akin to welfare queens. Of course Kyl never said that but I can read between the lines when he explains that unemployment is an incentive to not find work. I read an interesting response on a blog from someone about this:
What a moron. Every time I was on unemployment I was expected to do three job interviews a week to get my check. Doesn't he know that it's tied to job searches? Gawd these billionaire senators are clueless. As far as the welfare "queens", every one I knew, single mothers who had small children, could hardly wait until junior was in school so they could think about getting a job and dealing with the child care issues that were more manageable.
Wow-Another Republican bashing article from Joe?! That's crazy talk!
As for unemployment being about "welfare queens," I compare it to the Hippie Movement of the late 60's (wait-let me explain).
When all was said and done and as the 60's drew to a close, there were objectivley less Hippies/Bleeding Heart Progressives then there were non-Hippies and or Conservatives (which is evidenced by Nixon winning two terms in 68 and 72). However, al though Hippies may have been in the minority, the continual spreading of their message and the impression they left defined the entire era. The same rule applies here to unemployment.
Al though those who are on unemployment/welfare for the most legit of reasons far outnumber the amount of people who abuse the system and live off the hard work of their fellow taxpayer, the image of a coke-head mother of 7 living in inner city Detroit or Chicago, who use their welfare check to buy a gram or two of weed or an ounce or two of cocaine along with a brand new 47 inch HDTV has left far more of an impacting impression on the taxpayer then those who truly wish to find work and better themselves. The few rotten apples have spoiled the bunch and those rotten apples have also led to the majority of us (taxpayers) defining welfare/unemployment in more of a negative light then a positive one.
Al though I disagree with Kyl's statement as he is judging unemployment in the most plural of terms, I can more then see where he or anyone like him is coming from, and I think it is only fair that you see the point in their opinion as well.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Unemployment Compensation is one of the few safety net programs I strongly support. Having said that, wasn't the complaint that the Congress and President were breaking their third paygo rules promise they have made during the past year?
I do love the re-occuring logic that if my opponent acted irresponsibly in the past, then it is ok for me to act 5x more irresponsibly today.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 01:01 PM
Yep, it's not like unemployment Assistance doesn't cost anything which means a future tax hike. But, as we all know, business like taxes.
Posted By: Guest#2398 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:31 PM
I actually agree with you Rivett to some extent.
I think anyone who worked and lost their job should get benefits for a period of time until they can get back on their feet.
I think that we need to seperate out those who simply collect welfare without putting anything into the system.
Your economics classes did teach you how to balance a budget? Sometimes people have to do without to make ends meet- and that means less or no benefits.
And quit blaming Republicans because they are taking a stand...and last I checked the Democrats continue to fund the war (and they should) as much as the Republicans.
Good write-up.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 03:25 PM
I see nothing wrong with the safety net of unemployment insurance. The problem is that when it's part of a much larger spending package that cripples business investment and job creation. Then it becomes part of the spin cycle that's tough to break. Fiscal discipline on the part of our politicians has to enter the equation somewhere otherwise it's welfare, which is bad for society as a whole.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 05:52 PM
I thought it was already well established that "welfare queen" was Republican code for "poor black people who keep voting Democrat"?
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 06:30 PM
Hey, Chris,
Let's not forget that Obama and the Dems have more than doubled (tripled?) the deficit that Bush and the Reps caused! Obama has already spent and plans on spending more than any other president COMBINED!!
So, Mr. Rivett... To quote Chris Jericho, "Would you please SHUT THE HELL UP!"
Thank you.
[note: I hate the Reps and the Dems... We need real people in office.. not puppet and elitist politicians.]
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 07:17 PM
In the economic turmoil that this country is in how can anyone suggest to reduce any assistance.
I work in the design/construction field which is one of the worst hit field due to the recession. I have been out of work for 7 months and there is no end in sight. I have tried to start my own company to keep afloat now and to possibly proseper when the market picks up.
I could not even contemplate this if not for unemployment. I am not sure what I would do without this assistance.
Those who are against this help are just out of touch
Posted By: Big Dirty (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Hey Chris: I think before you and your Republican counterparts start "bashing" the unemployed of this country (most of whom lost their job at no fault of their own), you really need to look at the facts.
1. Unemployment insurance is based on individual earnings where there is a contribution made on both the employee and employer's part in the form of taxes (employer's tax being considerably higher).
2. The employee's wages are calculated with 4 quarters. The states usually add the 2 highest paid quarters and divide by 2, and then multiply by 0.0385. This number is the weekly TAXED (by the claimant/individual who collects) wage that he/she actually collects.
So, with that said, although I agree w/you on listening to others w/different opinions and points of view, I DISAGREE w/you, however, with your premise that "one bad apple spoils the bunch". First of all, a "coke-head mother of 7 living in inner city Detroit or Chicago" as you so eloquently put it, is probably NOT going to be able to afford "cocaine" or a "brand new 47 inch HDTV". She can probably, like so many others in this country not living in either city, only afford the essentials like shelter for her and her kids, food, keeping the heat on, etc. Furthermore, Republican Senators Kyl and Bunning are BOTH HYPOCRITES for NOT supporting unemployment extensions. Number one: the revenue from unemployment actually goes BACK into the economy and the in the pockets of corporations when the "unemployed" pay their bills and spend what little they have at McDonalds or Taco Bell. And two, they BOTH voted for and authorized the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest top 1 percent and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (BOTH paid for on the backs of working and poor tax payers). Republicans ARE NOT the answer nor do they have ANY valid ideas to improve the country as a whole which includes EVERYONE and not just the privileged few. Wake up people, the rich are getting a lot richer and the poor are getting nothing.
With that said, President Obama, Senate leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi realize that they inherited a disastrous economy no one, scholar or ignoramous, Neaderthal Republican alike, has seen since the likes of the Great Depression and that this isn't going to be a "quick-fix". So, if the unemployed of this country offend you because their not working and you are or if they're struggling and you're not, then in the words of one of your nut-job, backwards, Republican ASSHOLE senators Jim Bunning: "Tough shit."
Posted By: Guest#6734 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 11:19 PM
It isnt the governments job to provide a safety net, it is the governments job to keep us safe. Poor people are poor people because they made poor choices. If they dont like it, maybe they shouldnt have had kids, maybe they should have paid attention in school, maybe they should have saved their $$$ instead of spending it on Air Jordan's and some hip-hop cds.
Posted By: Graham Wellington III (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 11:33 PM
again the reason the richest people got the biggest tax cut, is becuase they were paying the most in taxes, and you look at obamacare if it were to pass, everyone would have to pay, as you would have 93 % unsubsidized, 7 % subsidized, tell me how's that going to work, plus the unemployment, at some point you have to stop it, as now it will pay up to two years with this extension, even the socialist european countries don't have that long unemployment benefits, and you do have to pay for it, you can't just call everything an emergency, or sooner or later were going to go bankrupt, don't think it can happen, look at california, which has a 66 billion dollar shortfall, becuase of the contracts and entitlements they have, and you have the us at a 14.9 trillion shortfall with the recent raising of the debt ceiling, at some point you're going to run out of money and ruin the us credit rating, and when that happens, why would countries by exports from us, when it would be cheaper to by from other countries, or buy there own stuff
Posted By: coby preiemsberger (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 12:57 AM
People need help sometimes, this I agree. People tend to take advantage of hand outs I tend to agree with more.
If the system is heavily regulated I would be all about it. However it is NOT heavily regulated. It is hardly regulated AT ALL.
For example, when it comes to showing receipts for the things they buy with this money... well I have a strong feeling nothing is checked. How could it be when these "people" use their welfare cards to take out money which is then spent on cartons of cigarettes rather than an apple or an orange. When they buy unhealthy or expensive brands rather than the cheaper stuff. Beggars cannot be choosers and these pompous fools act like they are entitled to the best! Hell, a friend who works as a lunch lady often tells me the kids with financial support generally have better clothes, expensive cell phones/mp3 players, and jewelry in comparison to the people who dont. Explain that one. How is all this possible?
Still, if I ever lose my job I look forward to taking advantage of the system like they do. It is time those of us who work hard everyday join in with the rest who take advantage of the system, and then we can see how long this freeloader mentality lasts. Im quite sure Hurricane Katrina is a good example of what will happen.
Got a problem with my opinion? Too bad, I paid my taxes this year. Im entitled to complain about where the money goes.
Oh and before GaryML calls me a racist again, I should point out the majority of people I see taking advantage of the system are overweight, white females. So dont pull the black card on me again, pal.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 06:45 AM
Guest6734-Try not to be naive. I beg of you. Do you honestly think that there are no abuses in the welfare system that would allow a leech of society to afford the finer things in life at the taxpayers expense? I have seen it with my own eyes!!! Millions of others have seen it with their own eyes. In fact, I work with people who practically brag about how their family members (not those living in the same house as them-extended family I mean) manipulate the system and do the very thing I am talking about.
Again... I am not saying that most people on unemployment or welfare are leeches... they are not. But are you going to honestly tell me that when most people hear the term "welfare" they do not automatically define it in a rather negative sense because of small, yet highly visible % of people who abuse the system? Or that on occasion when they hear the term unemployment (at least, when they heard it up until a year and a half ago when millions began losing their job) in the back of their mind there is not just a tiny bit of a negative stigma wrapping in their brain? If you do believe all of that, then I actually feel sorry for you... literally. No b.s.-I feel sorry for you.
Second, why do you accuse me of being a Republican? Because I am critical of Joe or Zimmer? I have yet to find one article written by the two that in any way shape or form appears to be anything other then liberal. To call them "independent" would be like me calling Glen Beck or Bill O'Reiley "fair and balanced." All I ask for are articles that have a habit of being equally critical of all parties... I have not read one from Joe or Zimmer yet on this website. I have read tons of Bush bashing and Republican bashing (and deservingly so) yet can barely find a snipit of negativity towards Dems and or Obama. Please... do not label me when you do not even know me. It demeans us both.
Posted By: Chris-Chicago (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 08:57 AM
"Wow-Another Republican bashing article from Joe?! That's crazy talk!
As for unemployment being about "welfare queens," I compare it to the Hippie Movement of the late 60's (wait-let me explain).
When all was said and done and as the 60's drew to a close, there were objectivley less Hippies/Bleeding Heart Progressives then there were non-Hippies and or Conservatives (which is evidenced by Nixon winning two terms in 68 and 72). However, al though Hippies may have been in the minority, the continual spreading of their message and the impression they left defined the entire era. The same rule applies here to unemployment.
Al though those who are on unemployment/welfare for the most legit of reasons far outnumber the amount of people who abuse the system and live off the hard work of their fellow taxpayer, the image of a coke-head mother of 7 living in inner city Detroit or Chicago, who use their welfare check to buy a gram or two of weed or an ounce or two of cocaine along with a brand new 47 inch HDTV has left far more of an impacting impression on the taxpayer then those who truly wish to find work and better themselves. The few rotten apples have spoiled the bunch and those rotten apples have also led to the majority of us (taxpayers) defining welfare/unemployment in more of a negative light then a positive one.
Al though I disagree with Kyl's statement as he is judging unemployment in the most plural of terms, I can more then see where he or anyone like him is coming from, and I think it is only fair that you see the point in their opinion as well.
Posted By: Chris"
Congrats, Chris! You just made an excellent argument in support of racism! Allow me to explain:
In the same vein as your argument, it is also quite safe to assume that the number of productive, educated, law-abiding [insert ethnicity here] citizens far outnumber those of the same ethnic background who are lazy, uneducated criminals. However, by your logic, if a [insert ethnicity here] person robs you at gunpoint and leaves a lasting negative impression on you then I should see the point in your opinion if you become an intolerant racist against that person's ethnicity?
Should we not except our fellow citizens to approach each problem facing our world rationally by analyzing the facts rather than simply accept and understand that they will make ignorant decisions based on propaganda? Don't we have some responsibility to better educate the uninformed for the betterment of mankind?
Posted By: Cortez (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
**********
Let's not forget that Obama and the Dems have more than doubled (tripled?) the deficit that Bush and the Reps caused! Obama has already spent and plans on spending more than any other president COMBINED!!
***********
Yes, paying off the mess that Bush left us has been pretty costly, hasn't it?
Or do you have some solution other than bailing out corporations that overstretched because Bush and his cronies let them get away with anything?
Oh, you don't have a solution? Then take your own advice and shut the hell up!
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 01:58 PM
Here is the thing. This is constantly fought over, when it represents 3% of the GDP, and in reality is money well spent. People get upset because they are not receiving anything.
No one talks about Corporate Welfare(although it is hard to define) but it makes up a much more significant part of the spending.
I don't know if it truly is a bad thing outside of the idea that it is not provided equally to individuals, but it certainly could stand more modification then the Welfare and unemployment system. However, if we stopped corporate welfare, which to me simply gives incentives to businesses to stay in or move to a region, we could pay for Healthcare, or kill Muslims depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on.
I personally think corporations are good for the country, just as I see unemployment as a necessary part of the budget. So to me, fixing the corporate welfare seems like it would yield much more lucrative results, then stopping Welfare benefits, which at only 3% of the GDP is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Posted By: Crackers (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 02:39 PM
Oy, the stunning ignorance of the writer of this piece..
First of all, "compassionate conservatism" is not something all Conservatives are defined. That's like calling all liberals communists or Nazi's. There's classical liberals, fiscal con/social libs and others just like there are other types on the right.
Second, Senator Bunning was standing up for Senate rules, ie Pay Go. Once again, if looking into the actual facts is too much of a hassle for you, this site needs another hamfisted left-winger writing the opposing viewpoint.
And as has been pointed out, the purpose of the government has NEVER been that of a safety net. It was only under FDR did that mentality spring up from the regressive movement.
Posted By: SteveC (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 02:43 PM
While there are certainly many who take advantage of the system, the bottom line is that no matter how self-righteous some of us try to act, the floor can fall out beneath absolutely anyone at any time.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 03:20 PM
Guest#6734, first of all, I'm on unemployment.. I see firsthand the need for it, especially in these trying times.
The point I was making, was not to bash the Republicans for spending if you're not going to take the Dems on for spending more and faster!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 04:19 PM
The issue is there is plenty of warning, until this extenstion the people that would have qualified for it have had several extentions, each with a cut off date.
While it is true that searching for a job is tied to recieving benefits, they almost never check so there is no verification for the vast majority of those recieveing benefits.
Posted By: peepshow (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 07:24 PM
okay, honestly, i collected for the better part of two years. i received about 4 extensions, with a 5th one offered. all i have to say is thank god i finally found a job. in my personal experience, collecting unemployment benefits made me extremely lazy. i felt that as long as that money was coming in, why even bother to look for a job? there really is no system of checks and balances for unemployment in my neck of the woods. therefore if i did not even apply for a job, i still got that check. i started to fell really bad about everything, my lack of a job, and my collecting, so i understand where some of these comments are coming from. but honestly, anyone out there who is collecting that is actively looking for work(when you really don't have to) good for you, because once again in my personal experience, it made me extremely lazy, because once again, no matter what i did, that check always managed to come. just my experience, and oh yea, thank god i now have a job. best of luck to anyone else out there looking for work. i hope you find it soon.
Posted By: former ueb collecter (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 08:24 PM
honestly, anyone out there who is collecting that is actively looking for work(when you really don't have to) good for you, because once again in my personal experience, it made me extremely lazy, because once again, no matter what i did, that check always managed to come. just my experience, and oh yea, thank god i now have a job. best of luck to anyone else out there looking for work. i hope you find it soon.
Posted By: former ueb collecter (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 08:24 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you weren't making payments on a house, car, or kids while you were collecting employment? Otherwise, you would have had some incentive in the form of a lack of adequate funds.
Posted By: Guest#6823 (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 01:17 AM
People on here do realize that welfare and unemployment are two different things, right?
Let's also note that the economy almost collapsed before Bush left office, and Obama got saddled with it. I'm not simply bashing Bush, because at this point it's too easy. That is a fact.
We are in the middle of a recession, the likes of which has not been seen since The Great Depression. The job market is in bad shape due to this. For any politician to do what Jim Bunning did is not only cold and heartless, it's also indefensible. Denying people benefits now is a dastardly thing for him to have done.
Yes, people in some cases abuse the system. But does that mean you should punsh everyone? For every 1 0r 2 people that take advantage of the system, there are 3 times as many that don't want to be either welfare or unemployment.
Posted By: CMatt666 (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 02:04 AM
"And as has been pointed out, the purpose of the government has NEVER been that of a safety net. It was only under FDR did that mentality spring up from the regressive movement."
...and the Great Depression ended. I wonder why????
Posted By: Guest#5229 (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 06:15 AM
"Wow-Another Republican bashing article from Joe?! That's crazy talk!
As for unemployment being about "welfare queens," I compare it to the Hippie Movement of the late 60's (wait-let me explain).
When all was said and done and as the 60's drew to a close, there were objectivley less Hippies/Bleeding Heart Progressives then there were non-Hippies and or Conservatives (which is evidenced by Nixon winning two terms in 68 and 72). However, al though Hippies may have been in the minority, the continual spreading of their message and the impression they left defined the entire era. The same rule applies here to unemployment.
Al though those who are on unemployment/welfare for the most legit of reasons far outnumber the amount of people who abuse the system and live off the hard work of their fellow taxpayer, the image of a coke-head mother of 7 living in inner city Detroit or Chicago, who use their welfare check to buy a gram or two of weed or an ounce or two of cocaine along with a brand new 47 inch HDTV has left far more of an impacting impression on the taxpayer then those who truly wish to find work and better themselves. The few rotten apples have spoiled the bunch and those rotten apples have also led to the majority of us (taxpayers) defining welfare/unemployment in more of a negative light then a positive one.
Al though I disagree with Kyl's statement as he is judging unemployment in the most plural of terms, I can more then see where he or anyone like him is coming from, and I think it is only fair that you see the point in their opinion as well.
Posted By: Chris"
Congrats, Chris! You just made an excellent argument in support of racism! Allow me to explain:
In the same vein as your argument, it is also quite safe to assume that the number of productive, educated, law-abiding [insert ethnicity here] citizens far outnumber those of the same ethnic background who are lazy, uneducated criminals. However, by your logic, if a [insert ethnicity here] person robs you at gunpoint and leaves a lasting negative impression on you then I should see the point in your opinion if you become an intolerant racist against that person's ethnicity?
Should we not except our fellow citizens to approach each problem facing our world rationally by analyzing the facts rather than simply accept and understand that they will make ignorant decisions based on propaganda? Don't we have some responsibility to better educate the uninformed for the betterment of mankind?
Posted By: Cortez (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Congratulations Cortez, you are what we in the civilized world call a moron.
Go take your Jesse Jacksoning elsewhere pal.
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 08:32 AM
...and the Great Depression ended. I wonder why????
Posted By: Guest#5229 (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 06:15 AM
Very simple, World War II happened. When you can suddenly put a huge majority of the unemployed in uniform and the entire nation goes into war mode, it tends to stimulate the economy just a bit.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Until the class differences in this country get solved and the working class get pissed and decide enough is enough nothing will change.
As it stands Wall Street is running Washington and has been since Reagen took office (This includes you Bill Clinton!).
So the arguement about people needing benefits, well they have been taking it up the ass for nearly 20 years...the least we can do is give them some extended benefits.
I mean really people what do you expect when you want a strong modern military yet cut the tax rate on the richest from 90% to 33% from 1950-1960 until now. Meanwhile the middle class has vanished. Instead of trying to stick your finger in the dam and give people benefits how about fixing the system.
How many people have been indicted since the bailout? Oh that's right NOBODY. How many reforms has Washington passed to make sure this doesnt happen again...whats that? Yeah you guessed it ZERO?
So yeah give people the benefits but until you fix this mess non of it will matter and the fact of the matter is BOTH parties are at major fault here by what they have done the last 20 years and by ramming the bailout down our throats.
Posted By: truth (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 05:20 PM
Hey AG Awesome,
I hope you lose your job tomorrow, you racist piece of shit.
Love,
The real world
Posted By: TonyFoxtrot (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 07:43 PM
"
Congratulations Cortez, you are what we in the civilized world call a moron.
Go take your Jesse Jacksoning elsewhere pal.
Posted By: AG Awesome"
Excellent work with the "Yeah, well you're a stupid head!" style of retort. It's almost not worth pointing out the irony in YOU calling ME a moron. Almost ;)
Posted By: Cortez (Registered) on March 13, 2010 at 08:25 PM
I feel like I should clarify, since it seems there are still people out there like AG who need to be slapped in the face with a point before they can grasp it. So much for subtlety...
I was not trying to present an argument against racism. I merely used racism as an example to prove my point. The point I was trying to make, which only AG seems to have failed to understand, is that we shouldn't be tolerant of ignorance. My point was that we should be educating the ignorant rather than patting them on the head and saying "it's alright, you just don't know any better". Again, AG, sorry if that went over your head.
Posted By: Cortez (Registered) on March 13, 2010 at 08:31 PM
Cortez, apology accepted douche bag :-)
And Tony Foxtrot is a joke, did you even read what i posted? You sanctimonious sambo!
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 13, 2010 at 10:07 PM
While the notion that some have that unemployment should be abolished is utter idiocy. So is the idea of extending benefits (as is being proposed-if hasn’t already passed) to 90 weeks. But then again, maybe this along with so many other issues would be less controversial were there better oversight and less abuse. We have not had very responsible, efficient or even ethical government management of public funds or programs in recent times.
The number of public officials (both duly elected as well as appointees) that have in past few decades, hewn to any kind of altruistic code of honor and service to their community and country, can be counted on one hand. It is not the system that is the problem, it’s the people running it. There has never been, since before the out break of WWII, a greater need for citizens to get involved and get this greedy, unprincipled, devious politicians and bureaucrats out of the business of fleecing the people of this great nation. This goes for Democrats and Republicans alike. We are under siege by a greater enemy, from who this so called leaders are supposed to protect us. That enemy is the progressive movement, that does not look for the easily ill-gotten gains of money, no that greed is just a means to an end. The real prize is power. Power that is surreptitiously being usurped from the people by way an effort to curtail the basic freedoms upon which the nation was founded.
But I digress. What was the question again?
Posted By: mfm66 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 05:12 AM
Last time I checked, every working person pays a piece of every check into Unemployment Benefits.
And if you collect those benefits your weekly payout is only a fraction of what your working check would have been.
And the benefits don't last forever (I know that the issue is really about extending benefits but let's cover the basics first, they're being deliberately misinterpreted again) such that you never collect more than you paid into the system.
Up to the point of extending benefits (assuming of course the government hired someone in the last 50 years who can do high school math) people who collect unemployment cost the taxpayers NOTHING. If you don't ever collect Unemployment in you rlife, guess what? You've given a few percent of every check to the government to use as they see fit.
Next: UEB collectors = welfare queens. retarded. Anyone who is working poor (and these numbers grow every day) can barely afford to keep their head above water while working. When their "paychecks" are suddenly cut by 1/3, how do some of you figure they're buying new TVs and stereos that they couldn't afford when they were working?
Posted By: Guest#3085 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Next: UEB collectors = welfare queens. retarded. Anyone who is working poor (and these numbers grow every day) can barely afford to keep their head above water while working. When their "paychecks" are suddenly cut by 1/3, how do some of you figure they're buying new TVs and stereos that they couldn't afford when they were working?
Posted By: Guest#3085 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Well Billy, its because they "all know someone" who has done that exact thing. You dont think posters in a pop-culture forum would make such a statement without having experience in the matter, do you?
Then again, in a few months, when the Greek debt crisis, which is now underway in the UK, lands on our shores and another 10% are laid off, maybe they'll chance there tune?
Then again, in a few years, when oil production has dropped 10%, while demand has grown 10%, and the economy is a giant shit ball, it wont be about who has what job. It will be about who has more food and more ammo.
Posted By: Guest#6169 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM
I love it when somebody reads another persons point of view and does not agree with it, there responses are not an alternative view or a standpoint but an insult.. Hey i dont agree with what you said therefore i will call you stupid. to all the genius readers of this forum If you dont like something comment your reasoning not your insults.
Posted By: Stuart (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 02:11 PM
Well Billy, its because they "all know someone" who has done that exact thing. You dont think posters in a pop-culture forum would make such a statement without having experience in the matter, do you?
Then again, in a few months, when the Greek debt crisis, which is now underway in the UK, lands on our shores and another 10% are laid off, maybe they'll chance there tune?
Then again, in a few years, when oil production has dropped 10%, while demand has grown 10%, and the economy is a giant shit ball, it wont be about who has what job. It will be about who has more food and more ammo.
Posted By: Guest#6169 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Gloom and doom naysayers like yourself are no help to finding any solution. Thank god people like you are few and far between.
Dont worry, 2012 will be here soon enough for you, right, pal?
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Wow-I was gone for two days and apparently I missed some sort of pissing match between AG and Cortez.
As for whose side I am going to take, probably neither.
To AG-I agree with you that there is something rather "Jesse Jackson," to Cortez's commentary, but he does have a somewhat valid point.
To Cortez-I think I know where you're going with your point, but the point I want to make in response is that you cannot change people-people are judgmental, ignorant (you and me included-we're all guilty of it)and easily define people when we have no right or reason to define them (like the guy who called me a Republican on here when I am not one). Al though it sucks and it is unfair, I more then understand why I was called a Republican, and you should more then understand why people cringe at the thought of welfare due to its negative connotations. I know you want to change that, but you never will. Better to just accept it. And, as for racism, al though it should not be tolerated, it will never be cured, and the reason for that is because "the few" ruin it for the rest. We may try not to judge people based upon the actions of a few, yet, at the same time, it can be hard not to, and every once and a while we learn that had we not been so PC and judged them based upon the "cover" that was their book, we could have prevented catastrophe (Fort Hood killings for example). We're damned if we do and damned if we dont. But, fair or not, racism will never go away. But please... dont think that my argument is in favor of racism, because it is not, nor does it condone it. All it does is say it is there, it should not surprise people, it wont go away, and that it is just a harsh reality that needs to be accepted.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend guys. :)
Posted By: Chris-Chicago (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Chris: "Naive" is an interesting label considering that no where in my first post do I so openly criticize and compare the unemployed of this country to "leeches" or "welfare queens" or "Hippies/Bleeding Heart Progressives". These were YOUR words, NOT my own. What's more, is you seem to believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, that the "unemployed" of this country, as evidenced in your first post, is like some venom-spreading incubus whose only intent is to get those around them to believe in their message of despair (or entitlement, which I believe, for MOST unemployed individuals DOES NOT exist). This argument is weak and immaterial.
Now, on the flip side of this coin, do I believe that there are "abuses" in the unemployment system that we have here in America. Sure, we do. But what you neglected to point out is that there are abuses in every system, entitlement or non-entitlement program alike. Social security, Medicare, Disability, the ENTIRE American health care system, private insurance, banks (big one), American jurisprudence, Washington D.C. and the list goes on. So, for you to single out "unemployment" and automatically conclude that it's completely corrupt just because a few "bad apples" take advantage of it while many others are still poverty-stricken, trying to survive and pay their bills and actually still contribute to this economy, objectively speaking, is another weak argument and just another classic example of misplaced anger. Instead of picking on Joe Rivett, a writer/contributer, who I'm guessing is paid to have an opinion, maybe you should try writing your local Congressman or woman and venting that way. To me, I would think that questioning our elected officals and their motives would be far more imperative in the long run for the welfare of the American taxpayer than questioning free lance writers.
And, just for the record here, I have more "negative stigma" in my mind and heart for what the banks and AIG did to this country than any "bad apple" collecting unemployment. And, yes, Democrats and Republicans are at fault for this. What's "demeaning" is for someone to focus negatively on an issue like unemployment which in reality represents a fraction of a penny in REAL cost incurred on the American taxpayer most of which is billed to the employer and claimant in the form of taxes and NOT look at the real problems the country is facing like a broken government, lobbyism, corruption, banks and insurance companies enslaving regular Americans, a broken health care system, soldiers getting killed or wounded in Iraq/Afghanistan in the thousands.
Unemployment assistance through the Social Security Act, set up by FDR, was the "front line of defense" in not only combating, but pulling America out of the Great Depression.
Posted By: Guest#6734 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 08:31 PM
Guest6734
Where do I begin?
First of all, you're right. Joe gets paid to write an opinion. But... he also gets paid to take our comments, both negative and positive. It comes with the territory.
Second, i didnt say welfare queens. Joe did. As for the term leeches, yes, I said it... but how does that make me naive, especially when I say that most people on unemployment are NOT leeches and deserve our helping hand. I'm confused... either you didn't read my first post properly, or you're inventing things to better your argument.
Venom-spreading incubus? Again... my entire point of my first point was to describe why there is a negative connotation with the term welfare, even though most who are on it or unemployment deserve it (remember-the point is to single out a few rotten apples).
Also, Joes article is about unemployment and welfare, as evidenced in his title. While there are abuses in any system, I find it only proper to speak about the abuses that were mentioned in the article. If I am writing on a baseball blog I am not going to start talking about football, am I?
Finally, as to corporate America, you will get little argument with me there. I dont believe we should have more government control over it (at least not sweeping control, but I would not mind a little more regulation), but you're right-they are just as guilty as anybody or anything else for the downfall of our economy.
Take care.
Oh-PS, trust me... I have written my Congressman many times (especially about health care-luckily, he will vote the right way). :)
Posted By: Guest#2035 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Then again, in a few years, when oil production has dropped 10%, while demand has grown 10%, and the economy is a giant shit ball, it wont be about who has what job. It will be about who has more food and more ammo.
Posted By: Guest#6169 (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Gloom and doom naysayers like yourself are no help to finding any solution. Thank god people like you are few and far between.
Dont worry, 2012 will be here soon enough for you, right, pal?
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 14, 2010 at 03:40 PM
So, when you cant attack the message, attack the messanger? There is no way the world will develop a solution to this problem when NO ONE in the media talks about it. They wont, because doing so would scare the shit out of people and lower their ratings.
But dont worry, just keep on arguing over health-care, gay marriage, and all the other problems with are meaningless by comparison.
Posted By: Guest#6926 (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 02:51 AM
Reading some of the toss in the comments section for this, I can't help but pray that none of you are registered to vote. You make BBC's 'Have Your Say' users look like geniuses in comparison.
Posted By: Cun\' (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 07:46 AM
Ooops-Sorry. I forgot to sign my last comment. I'm guest 2035. Sorry about that.
Posted By: Chris-Chicago (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 08:08 AM
Guys, not that it's totally relevant to the argument, but employees don't pay anything into unemployment. Employees have income tax, SS tax, and medicare tax withheld. Employers pay unemployment, both Fed and State, and Workers' Comp. That is why the employer has discretion on who gets unemployment - most layoffs will get it, but unemployment orgs contact employers and the employers sign off on it. Then, their unemployment insurance (state) goes up. But, employees do not pay into unemployment.
Posted By: Duke (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 10:32 AM
A: Bad things happening = ratings. There are always some form of media outlets reporting on the travesties or else you would have no idea they existed, unless you are experiencing it first hand.
In my experience the only thing given limited to no coverage are issues that actually affect the news/cable stations that they want to hide from customers (ie price hikes in cable and energy bills, etc). And even these eventually get reported on after the fact.
B: Thing's are NEVER as bad as the gloom and doomers say they are.
Are times tough? yes. But unless you are dying of starvation in a third world country (in which case I would question what you are doing on the internet) time's are hardly impossible to get through.
And sorry if you see optimism and hope as an attack... dont know where you get that mindset (maybe your net rage)
:-)
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Ya know I am a 36 year old male, who has had at least one job since the time I was 16 years old. I served my country in the armed forces for 4 years. This past February, I lost my job. Given the state of the economy it took my 8 months to find a job, even though I applied for over 250, and interviewed for close to 80. Unemployment represented 23% of the income I had while working. So I was forced to sell my house and incur a nearly $30,000 loss. I'm still trying to dig out from the damage that time did to me financially. But without unemployment as any sort of income, I'd of had to file for bankruptcy. So while those 8 months for by no stretch a fun time for me, they were incredibly humbling and very difficult, I am very grateful that I at least had something coming in to help my provide for my family. I never wanted to file for unemployment and as I said it was incredibly humbling. I much like some of you looked down at people who had were on unemployment, but now I have a perspective that not many of you have...I have walked in their shoes. No one is getting rich on unemployment, and most of them are struggling to get by, and I know from going to the state employment center monthly, there are lots of them looking for work. I don't care if your Republican or Democrat, try walking a mile in someone else's shoes or at least try to see the situation from there point of view before casting judgment.
Posted By: Jryder17 (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 04:56 PM
There are rumors going around in my office that the forms that I am currently in charge of taking care of will be done by e-mail and if that happens, I could be losing my job next month. I have been with the company for about 11 and 1/2 years and have always been considered a good employee. If my company doesn't find another position for me or the dozens of other employees that take care of these forms, then we won't know what we would do without unemployment assistance. The office politics can be pretty disgusting. The bosses in our department created a job out of thin air for their pet. VERY few people like her and it seems like the ones that don't go around and stir shit are the ones who are going to be hurt. We haven't heard anything from anyone about who might lose a job, so people are getting more and more jumpy each day. The main thing to remember is that you can lose a job at just about any time and I don't think pulling the rug out from under the most vulnerable is the best way to "balance the budget". How about not buying outlet covers that cost $45? How about not giving the super-rich offshore tax shelters? How about using more renewable energy in gov't buildings? These are small things that can help so much, but I guess these ideas aren't sexy enough to think about.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 08:11 PM
B: Thing's are NEVER as bad as the gloom and doomers say they are.
Are times tough? yes. But unless you are dying of starvation in a third world country (in which case I would question what you are doing on the internet) time's are hardly impossible to get through.
And sorry if you see optimism and hope as an attack... dont know where you get that mindset (maybe your net rage)
:-)
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
No offense taken by hope and optimism, my friend. I simply want to see the issue taken seriously, and when you equate it to 2012, it demonstrates a lack of seriousness.
My guess is that you havent read much, if anything, about the issue of peak oil? I'd be interested to hear some optimistic predictions, or even feasable solutions to the problem.
Posted By: Guest#9572 (Guest) on March 15, 2010 at 08:36 PM
"While it is true that searching for a job is tied to recieving benefits, they almost never check so there is no verification for the vast majority of those recieveing benefits."
-peepshow
Well then the solution is to get greater accountability in unemployment benefits. Maybe actually have people CHECK and see if unemployed people are behaving responsibly.
-
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on March 16, 2010 at 06:59 PM
While it is true that searching for a job is tied to recieving benefits, they almost never check so there is no verification for the vast majority of those recieveing benefits."
-peepshow
Well then the solution is to get greater accountability in unemployment benefits. Maybe actually have people CHECK and see if unemployed people are behaving responsibly.
-
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on March 16, 2010 at 06:59 PM
I dont know where you guys live, but in NYC they check it all the time! Dont you remember the episode where George wants Jerry to lie about hiring him as a latex salesman for Vandelay Industries?
Posted By: Guest#6348 (Guest) on March 16, 2010 at 10:34 PM
and they wonder why other nations complain about our greed. its always WHAT ABOUT ME!!!
Posted By: LONGHORNS (Guest) on March 25, 2010 at 08:51 AM
STAY CURRENT