Extended Unemployment Benefits "Shot Down".

My mother who would be 102 if she were alive had a saying she heard in her childhood: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

You don't think 99 weeks of unemployment is enough?

I know several people that are on unemployment and they live in different areas. At times I have been in their presence and someone would start to tell them about a job opening they knew about. EVERYONE of them said, "Naw, I'm drawing my unemployment." Certainly there are those out there looking that can't find a job. My son looked for six months before finding one. It's not the job he wants to stay in for the rest of his life but he feels like at least he's working. The ones that have been on unemployment not looking for a job have hurt the ones that truly need the unemployment benefits. Now they will all suffer. Bailouts - that has only contributed to the unemployment.

quote:

Sez Ronnie P.:You don't think 99 weeks of unemployment is enough?

Has nothing to do with the 99 weekers. There is no 5th Tier in this legislation.
This is for those whom have exhaused all State benefits.

There is plenty of unused stimulus money that could be used to extend unemployment benefits without adding to the deficit. Those in charge of the so-called stimulus are just holding on to it so they can buy votes come November.

quote:

Originally posted by:
Fighting Illini There is plenty of unused stimulus money that could be used to extend unemployment benefits without adding to the deficit. Those in charge of the so-called stimulus are just holding on to it so they can buy votes come November.

Exactly,the Dems want to squeeze the money for "job creation"(?) while the Reps want to play a hypocritical game of "we don't want to borrow any more money"
Politics as usual...

I understand that there are lots of folks out there that abuse the fact that they get unemployment, but there are sooooo many like myself, who when laid off, went back to school. I have been to several job interviews, but who wants to hire someone that is in school for a different type of job, knowing that they will be leaving to pursue a job in the field they are training for? If I were the person doing the hiring, then I would definitely steer away from hiring someone who will only be there for the next few months. I received the 20 week extension, which would have taken me through my time left in school, but after receiving 5 weeks of that, suddenly no more. If it weren't for a student loan that I received at the beginning of the semester, then my son and myself would be out on the streets. The fact that they put off making a decision so they can take a week off with their families just frustrates me, and lots of others that are in my same situation. Guess you can't win when you are counting on your elected officials. It was government cutbacks with medicaid and medicare that caused me to lose my job to begin with. For the individuals that are taking advantage, then shame on you, but for the others like me, good luck.

One other thing to consider. Some folks are drawing $600 plus per week unemployement. When that runs out, it's kinda' like losing a job.

sorry, still don't use the spellcheck often enough

Must be nice to draw that much per week....I barely got that for the whole month. I think in Alabama the maximum is $255 per week.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/0...ne_forever/index.htm

quote:

"The job losses during the Great Recession were so off the chart, that even though we've gained about 600,000 private sector jobs back, we've got nearly 8 million jobs to go," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute.

Excluding temporary Census workers, the economy has added fewer than 100,000 jobs a month this year -- a much faster and stronger jobs recovery than occurred following the last two recessions in 2001 and 1991.

But even if that pace of hiring were to double immediately, it would take until 2013 to recapture the lost jobs. And the labor market very likely doesn't have years before it gets hit with the shock of the inevitable next economic downturn.

quote:

It would take the creation of 10.6 million jobs immediately for the same percentage of the population to be working as was the case three years ago.

Of course, it will take time to create jobs. If it takes three years, more than 3.5 million additional jobs will be needed because of continued population growth.

So what should the unemployed do, become homeless? That wouldn't strain this economy any more now would it?

I realize there are people who take receiving unemployment benefits for granted, but for the vast majority jobs are not available.

I'm afraid some of you don't understand that we're moving into new territory where employment is concerned. During the last bad recession in the early 80's, the average time the unemployed were out of work was 6 months; there are people out there now - during this Great Recession - who've been looking for a job over two years.

And even with tax cuts for businesses, where will the jobs come from? In what sector will the free market suddenly create 8 million jobs?

I predict a double-dip recession before things get better.

quote:

Originally posted by tdh75:
I understand that there are lots of folks out there that abuse the fact that they get unemployment, but there are sooooo many like myself, who when laid off, went back to school. I have been to several job interviews, but who wants to hire someone that is in school for a different type of job, knowing that they will be leaving to pursue a job in the field they are training for? If I were the person doing the hiring, then I would definitely steer away from hiring someone who will only be there for the next few months. I received the 20 week extension, which would have taken me through my time left in school, but after receiving 5 weeks of that, suddenly no more. If it weren't for a student loan that I received at the beginning of the semester, then my son and myself would be out on the streets. The fact that they put off making a decision so they can take a week off with their families just frustrates me, and lots of others that are in my same situation. Guess you can't win when you are counting on your elected officials. It was government cutbacks with medicaid and medicare that caused me to lose my job to begin with. For the individuals that are taking advantage, then shame on you, but for the others like me, good luck.

To your point (from the article I linked):

quote:

"We've got the wrong people in the wrong place with the wrong skills," said John Silvia, chief economist with Wells Fargo Securities. He said construction workers in California or Florida and auto workers in Michigan will have to relocate and retrain to find new jobs.

"As many as half the people who lost their jobs will have to find something else to do," said Silvia.

Something will have to be done, tdh. I don't like the fact that so many people are still living off only unemployment benefits, but we've never had to deal with a recession like this before.

Good for you for going back to school and trying to better your situation. Best of luck to you and your little boy.

We have dealt with such recessions before. Just not in most of our lifetimes. Japan had a similar recent one for a decade because government made bad choices.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
We have dealt with such recessions before. Just not in most of our lifetimes. Japan had a similar recent one for a decade because government made bad choices.

This one's different. We've lost jobs at a pace we've never seen before and they're not coming back. And many economists believe we will start to see more frequent, longer recessions in the coming years.

Here's an example of the impact right here in Alabama. From Al.com:

http://blog.al.com/businessnew...o_jobs_market_i.html

quote:

The Jefferson County Board of Equalization received 450 applications for an entry-level appraisal assistant position with a starting salary of $27,000, according to Bob Rogers, property appraisal supervisor. Rogers, who is interviewing 45 finalists, confessed that he was "amazed" by the quality of the applicants.

"A couple of them even have an MBA," he said.

From Alabama's rural counties to its big metro areas, there is a huge gap between the rising number of applicants and the scarcity of jobs, despite an improving economy, said Tom Surtees, director of the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations.

quote:

In Jefferson County alone, there are 1,056 available jobs listed on the department's website, compared with 42,485 registered job seekers. Shelby, the county in May with the lowest jobless rate at 7.3 percent, had 8,416 registered job seekers, with 1,546 listed openings.

With more seekers than jobs and no end in sight, what would you propose to do about it?

quote:

Originally posted by tdh75:
Must be nice to draw that much per week....I barely got that for the whole month. I think in Alabama the maximum is $255 per week.

I believe Penn pays about 600 a week and so does Mich. Down here it is in the 200 range you mention.

Mass is $625 or more MN is near $600, WA, Penn and MI are in the same range along with a couple of others. When I don't have a job, I cannot afford to draw from my home state. In fact, I have not worked in AL in over 4 years. You just have to go to the jobs. I have not had one yet come to my front door. BTW, I pay full AL income tax each year. That one irritates me somewhat.

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Defeating jobless bill

http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...7069997/0/ELECTION04



Among them are Alabama Sens. Jeff Sessions, of Mobile, and Richard Shelby, of Tuscaloosa, who joined their Republican peers last week in defeating an extension of unemployment benefits.

The dems own the House and Senate. Republicans can’t defeat anything. Nice spin.

quote:

The Jefferson County Board of Equalization received 450 applications for an entry-level appraisal assistant position with a starting salary of $27,000, according to Bob Rogers, property appraisal supervisor. Rogers, who is interviewing 45 finalists, confessed that he was "amazed" by the quality of the applicants.

Allow me to translate:

"A useless government agency, that probably doesn't really need to exist in the first place, received 450 applicants for an overpaid entry-level secretary job that will provide a better wage than the private sector, better benefits, and days off on every government holiday. This comes as no surprise because the private sector can't afford to hire these people due to the fact that so much money is being used to prop up these useless government jobs."

not to mention that most of the jobs that are available are minimum wage jobs at mcdonalds or shoveling sh** at some farm, what's the middle age person who's worked all his life to get to a decent salary and loses his job to do? draw unemployment until things get better or take the minimum wage job that he may not be physically able to do and actually bring in less than the $255 weekly when you consider taxes and fuel used to drive to said crap job.

And there is the crux of the problem.
A huge number of jobs have left this country and will not be back for along time, if ever. We are now a service oriented country with little to no manufacturing capability. We either have our medical profession, which before too much longer is going to be raped by the government. We have a few car manufacturers in which the government has had to rescue because the unions had them over a barrel. We have a little aircraft manufacturing, but the word on the street is because of the high cost of building these, most if not all of those jobs will be going overseas.
The only people left working are going to be paying almost everything they make to taxes so those who rather not wrok the "meaningless" crap jobs can sit at home and draw a check.
When the rest of the workers decide to do the same, then everyone can starve. The government was not designed to support people. It is going to collapse. The only alternative is for them to take over everything and give us what they want us to have. To each according to his worth to society. If you are unskilled laborer, don't expect too much. Change we all can believe in....right.

I do not agree with extending unemployment as it will only raise the unemployment taxes that businesses already have to pay and increase the burden on small business. I do think unemployment needs some reform. As it is now, if you take any job even one less than the benefits then you loose the unemployment benefits. I think there should be some income allowed while people receive the benefits. I would think something along the line of receiving full unemployment benefits while making up to something along the lines of 2/3 your salary before becoming unemployed and starting to phase out the benefits above that amount. This would encourage people on unemployment to take a lower paying job while looking for a better one or get a bit of the entrepreneurial spirit going. This would also help the folks who are receiving unemployment to make ends meet while they search for a job that pays close to what they have been used to making in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
And there is the crux of the problem.
A huge number of jobs have left this country and will not be back for along time, if ever. We are now a service oriented country with little to no manufacturing capability. We either have our medical profession, which before too much longer is going to be raped by the government. We have a few car manufacturers in which the government has had to rescue because the unions had them over a barrel. We have a little aircraft manufacturing, but the word on the street is because of the high cost of building these, most if not all of those jobs will be going overseas.
The only people left working are going to be paying almost everything they make to taxes so those who rather not wrok the "meaningless" crap jobs can sit at home and draw a check. The government was not designed to support people. It is going to collapse. The only alternative is for them to take over everything and give us what they want us to have. To each according to his worth to society. If you are unskilled laborer, don't expect too much. Change we all can believe in....right.

I was agreeing with you up to the part in bold. I'm not a pro-union person, for the most part. I think the time for unions has come and gone - in MOST cases. (If employers would treat their employees with respect and pay them a decent wage, there wouldn't be a need for them at all in this country anymore. American businesses have still not caught on to this concept, however.) Anyway, I think the unions and their demands (along with NAFTA) are largely responsible for our manufacturing jobs being shipped to other countries. So I agree with the "unions had them over a barrel" part.

However, I don't agree with your statement, "...those who rather not work the meaningless crap jobs can sit at home and draw a check." I just don't think it's that simple. I know there are people out there who are passing up jobs just to keep getting an unemployment check, but it's tough out there finding a job, any job at this point.

Part of the problem is, because of the recession, this is an employers' market; they have the upper hand when it comes to negotiating pay and benefits. Since it's an employers' market, they are going to offer to potential employees the lowest wages they can get away with - sometimes without any benefits.

So, for example, let's say Mr. Johnson was making $40/hr - a salary commensurate with his education and experience - before the recession. After the recession hit, Mr. Johnson can't find any jobs comparable to his old salary - even if he moved because, remember, the recession is happening everywhere, not just in a few states...and moving costs a LOT of money. Trust me. So he eventually has to settle for $8.00/hr because that's all he can find and he's exhausted his unemployment benefits. Tell me how a person is suppose to live on that. Unless you are living with mom and dad you can't. A mortgage, utilities, groceries, insurance, food, day care and on and on demand more than $8.00/hr.

So it is not as simple as writing these people off as lazy ("rather not work"). It's tough out there...and it's something this country hasn't experienced since the Great Depression.

quote:

Originally posted by BFred07:
As it is now, if you take any job even one less than the benefits then you loose the unemployment benefits. I think there should be some income allowed while people receive the benefits. I would think something along the line of receiving full unemployment benefits while making up to something along the lines of 2/3 your salary before becoming unemployed and starting to phase out the benefits above that amount. This would encourage people on unemployment to take a lower paying job while looking for a better one or get a bit of the entrepreneurial spirit going. This would also help the folks who are receiving unemployment to make ends meet while they search for a job that pays close to what they have been used to making in the past.

Now, Fred, at the risk of taking the fun out of a potential debate (or argument) with you, I must say I agree with your idea. I'm glad to see you offering a real solution instead of getting caught up in the blame game and writing off the unemployed as just lazy leeches who refuse to look for work.

I made peace with b50m earlier in the week and can't find a way to argue with you on the threads anymore. What's going on? I've stepped into Bizarro World or something. What's next, me becoming an ultra-conservative right-winger? Lord help me. Maybe I'll start a spanking thread...

Don't worry butter, if you think you are turning to the dark side, watch Hannity. He scares me away and I am conservative!

BFred makes plenty of sense. Many people get paid 'under the table' so they can keep the unemployment benefits and have a job to equal what they need. The situation needs a good overhaul by neutral parties if anything is going to happen. I expect that to happen around 5050.

Stability in the market is what keeps businesses from freaking out and laying off workers. Every time the admin yells about that evil Wall-street, the Dow drops, owners freak, and more get laid off. The market predicts the future, not what the present is. Until the admin figures that out, recessions will continue.

Once more, the US is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world. Although, China may surpass us by 2012. Automation has gotten better. That's another reason for the lost jobs, but high production levels.

quote:

Originally posted by Jobe:

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Defeating jobless bill

http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...7069997/0/ELECTION04



Among them are Alabama Sens. Jeff Sessions, of Mobile, and Richard Shelby, of Tuscaloosa, who joined their Republican peers last week in defeating an extension of unemployment benefits.

The dems own the House and Senate. Republicans can’t defeat anything. Nice spin.

Not quite since the Repubs have decided to filibusterer EVERYTHING , whatever , since they would rather see the country go down the river than to see Obama and his party succeed at anything.
It ain't "Mr Smith Goes to Washington"s filibuster anymore .

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:

quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Defeating jobless bill

http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...7069997/0/ELECTION04



Among them are Alabama Sens. Jeff Sessions, of Mobile, and Richard Shelby, of Tuscaloosa, who joined their Republican peers last week in defeating an extension of unemployment benefits.



The dems own the House and Senate. Republicans can’t defeat anything. Nice spin.

Not quite since the Repubs have decided to filibusterer EVERYTHING , whatever , since they would rather see the country go down the river than to see Obama and his party succeed at anything.
It ain't "Mr Smith Goes to Washington"s filibuster anymore .

THANK YOU seeweed! Saves me the time of posting to jobe, that the only "spin" I suspect, is in jobes head...

Buttercup, If you are unemployed and in need of money to support your family, a good work ethic will dictate that you take whatever comes along in an effort to help support your family, until something else opens up, rather than sucking from the government teat and living off the back of others.
Unemployement was only supposed to be stopgap to help people bridge the gap to a new job, and was never meant to be something that lasted for months and even years.
Thank God some people in the government are having a little tough love and saying NO to more psedning. The money is not there. The problem is getting worse. There are some jobs out there, they may not pay much, but desperate times calls for desperate measures. Take the job, make less money, and apply for some help (Medicaid, Food stamps, school lunches, etc). They do not need to be totally dependent on the government and the other taxpayers.

Great op-ed in the WSJ today.


By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
The current debate over extending and increasing federal unemployment benefits encapsulates the disagreement between the Democrats in power in Washington and their Republican opponents. What the consequences will be of raising unemployment benefits in today's depressed economy is at issue.

The most obvious argument against extending or raising unemployment benefits is that it will make being unemployed either more attractive or less unattractive, and thereby lead to higher unemployment. Empirical research supports this view.

The Democratic retort is that the economy today is so different from the past that we have to suspend our traditional understanding of economics. With five job seekers for every job opening, the unemployed are desperate for work and increasing unemployment benefits will have very little if any disincentive effect. This view hinges on a total change in employee behavior from "normal" times to the current period of "the Great Recession."

On the face of it, the idea that higher unemployment benefits won't lead to more unemployment doesn't make much sense. Imagine what the unemployment rate would look like if unemployment benefits were universally $150,000 per year. My guess is we'd have a heck of a lot more unemployment. Common sense and personal experience indicate higher unemployment benefits will make unemployment less unattractive and thereby increase unemployment even in the Great Recession. As the chart nearby clearly shows, since the 1970s there's been a close correlation between increased unemployment benefits and an increase in the unemployment rate. Those who argue that things are different today don't have the data to back up their claims.



The Democratic argument also ignores the impact of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees. Whether increased unemployment benefits incentivize workers to work less or disincentivize employers from hiring more workers, the effect will be the same—higher unemployment.

The second point made by the Obama administration is that unemployment benefits are a great way to stimulate demand. Increased unemployment benefits operate quickly and the recipients spend what they get, which makes these stimulus funds the best bang for the buck.

Here again the facts are in dispute. Studies have shown that previous stimulus spending—much of which was also targeted for the poor and unemployed—was to a large extent saved and not spent. But I'm not going to rest my case on the obvious failure of Washington's prior stimulus packages. Based upon the above logic (as described in the January 2009 white paper co-authored by White House economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein) the administration forecast that the unemployment rate would be a little above 7.3% in the third quarter of this year. That isn't going to happen.

View Full Image

Associated Press
The flaw in their logic is that when it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else. There isn't a "tooth fairy," or as my former colleague Milton Friedman repeated time and again, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them. For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.

While the unemployed may spend more as a result of higher unemployment benefits, those people from whom the resources are taken will spend less. In an economy, the income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero. Quite simply, there is no stimulus from higher unemployment benefits.

To see this, imagine an economy that produces 100 apples. If 10 of those apples are given to the unemployed, then people who otherwise would have had those 10 apples now won't. The stimulus of 10 apples for the unemployed is exactly offset by the destimulus of 10 apples for those people from whom the 10 apples were taken.

Given the massive inefficiencies the government creates in securing resources from the private sector, there may also be a large negative income effect over wide ranges of stimulus spending. This is the proverbial "toll for the troll." These massive inefficiencies could lead to lower output.

To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may "buy" more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will "buy" less. There is no stimulus for the economy.

But it doesn't stop there. While the income effects sum to zero, the substitution effects aggregate. The person from whom the unemployment funds are taken will find work less rewarding and will work less. The person who is given the unemployment benefits will also find work relatively less rewarding and will therefore work less. Both people in this two-person economy will be incentivized to work less. There will be less work and more unemployment.


Not only will increased unemployment benefits not stimulate the economy, they will at the same time lower the incentives for people to work by reducing the amount people are paid for working and increasing the amount people are paid for not working. It's pretty basic economics.

No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job. Unemployment benefits are a safeguard for individuals down on their luck. But to argue that unemployment benefits actually reduce unemployment is disingenuous at best, and could induce our government to enact policies that have the effect of destroying our nation's production base from whence all benefits ultimately flow.


More
Obama Shifts to Export-Led Jobs Push Long Recession Ignites Debate on Jobless Benefits
Any government program that would reduce unemployment has to make working more attractive for both employer and employee. Since late 2007 the federal government has spent somewhere around $3.6 trillion to stimulate the economy. That is a lot of money.

My suggestion would have been to take all $3.6 trillion and declare a federal tax holiday for 18 months. No income tax, no corporate profits tax, no capital gains tax, no estate tax, no payroll tax (FICA) either employee or employer, no Medicare or Medicaid taxes, no federal excise taxes, no tariffs, no federal taxes at all, which would have reduced federal revenues by $2.4 trillion annually. Can you imagine where employment would be today? How does a 2.5% unemployment rate sound?

Mr. Laffer is the chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy—If We Let It Happen" (Threshold, 2008).

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
Buttercup, If you are unemployed and in need of money to support your family, a good work ethic will dictate that you take whatever comes along in an effort to help support your family, until something else opens up, rather than sucking from the government teat and living off the back of others.
Unemployement was only supposed to be stopgap to help people bridge the gap to a new job, and was never meant to be something that lasted for months and even years.
Thank God some people in the government are having a little tough love and saying NO to more psedning. The money is not there. The problem is getting worse. There are some jobs out there, they may not pay much, but desperate times calls for desperate measures. Take the job, make less money, and apply for some help (Medicaid, Food stamps, school lunches, etc). They do not need to be totally dependent on the government and the other taxpayers.

Well, maybe yes and maybe not, like a lot of things it "depends"
I can tell you from experience that looking for a job IS ITSELF a full time job. I know, been there, done that.
It is very difficult , if not impossible to actively search for a job doing what you are qualified while you spend 8 to 10 hours a day running an air powered jack hammer as a common laborer for min wage. Some ability to support your family while you do the full time job of looking for good work is money well spent in my opinion.
On the other hand, you do have a point that after a while it may become necessary to run that jack hammer. This particular time and type of recession may be a time to put that off as long as possible.
I'm just saying that it is so easy to judge others on that issue if you haven't been there yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
Buttercup, If you are unemployed and in need of money to support your family, a good work ethic will dictate that you take whatever comes along in an effort to help support your family, until something else opens up, rather than sucking from the government teat and living off the back of others.
Unemployement was only supposed to be stopgap to help people bridge the gap to a new job, and was never meant to be something that lasted for months and even years.
Thank God some people in the government are having a little tough love and saying NO to more psedning. The money is not there. The problem is getting worse. There are some jobs out there, they may not pay much, but desperate times calls for desperate measures. Take the job, make less money, and apply for some help (Medicaid, Food stamps, school lunches, etc). They do not need to be totally dependent on the government and the other taxpayers.

This statement only shows that you haven't the slightest clue of the enormity of the jobless situation in the US right now.
Your implication that those needing/drawing extended Unemployment benefits lack a "good work ethic" is typical stereotyping by someone whom obviously has never had their life drastically altered by an unexpected shutoff of wages.

quote:

rather than sucking from the government teat and living off the back of others.

From this, I would figure you are:
A. retired from one of the Industries that were here in the "Golden Days" ie. Reynolds, FORD, or the Government/State, and drawing a fat check.
B. Work for a Government/State Agency ie TVA, Postal, etc and NEVER have to worry about being laid off.
C. An older "Union" member, who has never had to actually experience "searching for work" because someone did it for you.

quote:

Unemployement was only supposed to be stopgap to help people bridge the gap to a new job, and was never meant to be something that lasted for months and even years.

Guess they didn't factor in double digit unemployment levels, a going-on-3-years recession (and showing no improvement) and the GOVERNMENT.

quote:

Thank God some people in the government are having a little tough love and saying NO to more psedning. The money is not there. The problem is getting worse. There are some jobs out there, they may not pay much, but desperate times calls for desperate measures.

Let me see if I can translate this: "Thank God ,for teyates, that the people in Government are involved in a pizzing match and could give a rats-a** less about good people whom are hurting more than they have ever known. Some losing everything because the don't have a "good work ethic". The money is there, but we are NOT going to spend it on "average Joe Citizen" because we may need it for future bailouts of our "friends" (croneys). The problem is getting worse (for Joe Citizen) but WE (politicians) have nothing to worry about...after all, we're ABOVE the commoner!

quote:

Take the job, make less money, and apply for some help (Medicaid, Food stamps, school lunches, etc).

Huh? Since when is a Gov'ment "teat" not a Gov'ment "teat"?

quote:

There are some jobs out there, they may not pay much, but desperate times calls for desperate measures.

See...A,B. and C...

No actually, I am self employed. Was born to parents who did not graduate high school and worked every day of their life. My father worked as an upholstery man during the day, and a mechanic in the evening. Along with the help of his two son, he cut pulpwood on the weekends to make ends meet. He managed to be able to send both of his kids to school and college. He is retired now, living on SS and a $100 a month retirement check he gets from La-Z-Boy.
I worked my way thru the final years of college, and then graduate school. I know what it is to work, and I know I have bills to pay. I expected to pay them when I took on the committment to do so. If I can't do so, I will put it on the market and sell them if I can in order to settle the debt. If I lose my job today, I will find something else to do tomorrow, whether it pays the same as now or not. That is the type of work ethic I have. I will do whatever is necessary to keep food on the table for my wife and kids as long as they live under my roof.
It is ridiculous for you to sit here and justify that people should siton their azzes and draw a check from the government when there are jobs out there for them to work.
Callous? call it what you will, but if you find it easier to draw a check for 60 weeks than to go out and take a job that is a little beneath you, because you are holding out for something better, you have a poor work ethic. If that hits you in the head like a side of bricks, so be it, the truth hurts sometimes.

And the other problem, is the money is not there. Can you not understand that? This money is being borrowed from somewhere else, or taken from the pockets of those who are working already. Get a grip. We should not be bailing out huge comapnies (actually it was the Unions of those companies) nor the banking industry, but both parties succumbed to that drug and fell for the lies.

quote:

No actually, I am self employed.I worked my way thru the final years of college, and then graduate school.

Business owner getting "hit" by those taxes, from the same Government dolling it out to
"those sucking the teat"? And while you were working your way through...did you have a family to feed? Was there a market for what you majored in? Did minimum wage allow you to be independent, and still attend college?

quote:

If I lose my job today, I will find something else to do tomorrow, whether it pays the same as now or not. That is the type of work ethic I have.

Obviously haven't had to in todays economy.

quote:

as long as they live under my roof.

Hmmm...is that the same as "As long as they do what I SAY"? That statement alone speaks volumns of your "ethic"

quote:

And the other probelem, is the money is not there. Can you not understand that. This money is being borrowed fromsomewhere else, or taken from the pockets of those who are working already. Get a grip.

The "money" hasn't been there in over 50 years. But there hasn't been a problem shelling it out to other nations, pet projects, mothballed nuclear plants, BAILOUTS, etc...NOW it's about people.
Borrowing? Take a look at Social Security, etc.
Taking from working peoples pockets...how easy you forget that the unemployed were once EMPLOYED...many for most of their lifetime.

But you keep that "grip"...it's easier when you have something in hand, to judge those that have nothing to "hold on to" anymore.

Just went out to grab lunch. In downtown Chicago there were signs posted in the windows of Subway, Quizno's, and 7-11 that said they were hiring.

Well I have certainly been told. Yep, self employed and do pay out the nose thru taxes, as does everyone else who is working, owns a home, buys groceries, etc. And I do not begrudge helping those who need it, BUT there is apoint and time when it becomes necessary for those out there to start helping themsleves.
Yes, I did have a family, when I was in graduate shcool. My wife worked 50 hours a week at a nursing home, while I took care of our son after school. During the summer I also worked in a local hospital lab, cut grass, and helped out on a farm to make ends meet. It still did not fully fund my education, so I borrowed what I had to and am still paying it back.
If the government had taken the billions they gave to car companies and banks and returned it to the people and paid off older people looking to retire (opening up some jobs for the younger folks) it could have been used more eefectively. Instead we backed up some large overinflated union hacks and promised retirement plans.
I agree that we are giving too much to other nations, etc, but that is the problem with big government.
I never said that my children had to do as say as long as they lived under my roof...haha....nice try putting words in my mouth. I do however expect them to help out with things at home, be respectful of their elders and other people's property, and to be grateful for what they have.

quote:

Originally posted by bama in chi-town:
Just went out to grab lunch. In downtown Chicago there were signs posted in the windows of Subway, Quizno's, and 7-11 that said they were hiring.

I counted 7 or 8 job listings in the CJ this morning as well. There are some jobs out there to be had if you are willing to do them. But for many it is easier to cash a $250 check than to fry chicken at KFC.

quote:

And I do not begrudge helping those who need it, BUT there is apoint and time when it becomes necessary for those out there to start helping themsleves.

Had this been your original statement...and included the the added "There are many whom ARE trying"

instead of...

quote:

rather than sucking from the government teat and living off the back of others.

This exchange would have never taken place.

Good'ay

Yeah, and if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas..... ... BUT my statement does not cover everyone just as yours does not. There are many exceptions to the the rules, and mitigating circumstances.