jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (243 posts)

Three years of unemployment benefits?

  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago

    Thats ridiculous, if you can't find a job in your area in three years then move to where the jobs are. Unemployment is beginning to be a career for some people.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image77
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      three years unemployment benefits?  What the heck would be the incentive to find work?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        After 3 years they are going to offer retirement.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image77
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol  No wonder there are so many democrats.

        2. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They say most people find work 1 week after their benefits run out.  Hmmm..

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thats weird huh?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No that's an ignorant callous statement.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You'd best stick to emptying bed pans.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If the choice were sitting on my ass for 99 weeks or emptying bedpans and doing an honest days work, I'll empty bedpans.

                How bout you?

          2. 61
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I wonder those who find work one week after eligibility ends simply work long enough to get back on the dole.....

            1. Jim Hunter profile image59
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think a majority of the unemployed are trying to screw the system but there are certainly those who do.

              I had a friend a few years ago who lost his job and couldn't even get unemployment.

              He took his truck and borrowed a trailer and picked up scrap metal wherever he could find it, by the time he found a job he was averaging 500 a week and working only 5 hours a day.

              He continues to do that to pay for his sons college tuition. He didn't wait for the government to save him because he knew they would never come.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Picking up scrap metal pays that much in a few hours?  Wow!  It must be hard work or more people would be doing it.

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  As a teenager I would make as much as 500 a load. Granted that was not the norm. Probably more like 100 dollars a load. I normally made four trips to the scrap yard a month.

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                    Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Even at $100 a load and five hours of work, $20 an hour isn't bad.  But it still goes down to the fundamental question, will people work?  As you can see from the answers, people only want to be paid for certain kinds of work even in a bad economy with high unemployment.  I don't know if the gov't can do anything about that.

                2. Jim Hunter profile image59
                  Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Scrap metal prices are pretty good, and yeah it can be done in a matter of hours.

                  If you drive 5 hours a day and make 100 a day you are doing pretty good.

                  Gas and wear and tear on your vehicle has to be factored in so say 75 a day.

                  I am probably low on my figures the entire point is there is money out there and depending on the government is crazy.

                3. megs78 profile image61
                  megs78posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  it depends on the market for metal.  we brought in a lot of metal a couple of years ago when the market was good and made about 1200 dollars on one load.  This year, trading in a car, plus a huge load of metal only gave us a 100 bucks.

              2. 61
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm seeing a lot of "pickers" in my area. I used to "pick" when I was a teenager for summer work.

                Well, I suppose "most" don't "game" the system. However, I would imagine the number would frighten the tax payer.

              3. Seafarer Mama profile image86
                Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Great story, Jim Hunter. Very resourceful guy...and very smart! Wish everyone with that gumption the best that their spirit and willingness to work can reap!

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's a very cynical, ignorant comment. I've worked for nearly ten years in various aspects of the Michigan unemployment insurance system. My work has brought me into direct contact with many people who are unemployed and reading thousands of appeal cases. A very small percentage of people work the system. The vast majority prefer to work and are doing their best to find a job. The unemployment benefits are not high enough to provide many with an incentive not to look for work.

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Who says that? It's pure B.S.

        3. mega1 profile image81
          mega1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Being able to pay the mortgage, car payments, children's college tuition??

    2. Kotori profile image87
      Kotoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who is able to move these days?  No, seriously.

      Anyone who owns anything, whether it be a condo or a house, is pretty much stuck with it.  A majority of homeowners in Illinois have lost significant home value in the last two-to-five years.  Most people I know are upside down in their home loans.

      And where are these jobs you speak of?  Also seriously.  My relatives have been moving all over the country trying to find jobs.  But no one over 50 or unemployed over 6 months is getting a job.  Not even at McDonald's.  Yes, they've tried.  And these are people who just three years ago were making over $50,000 a year.

      And no one is getting three years of unemployment.  I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's completely inaccurate.  99 weeks is less than two years.

      1. Rafini profile image83
        Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        99 weeks is inaccurate.  My unemployment benefits just ran out, after 1 year.

    3. ginarook profile image61
      ginarookposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, but hey, such is life. Honestly, it's hard for even me to have moral fortitude when I'm just scraping by knowing that there are super rich people taking advantage or our government (extended tax cuts, ahem). In the grand scheme of things, that's more offensive than people milking unemployment.

      I'm not excusing it, just saying pick you battles.

      1. EPman profile image60
        EPmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tax cuts are not "taking advantage of the government". Quite the opposite, actually -- with tax cuts, the government is taking advantage of you less, no matter what class of people it's for.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not for those earning $20-40,000. They will pay more, so the billionaires can pay less.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. Quit spouting this nonsense.

            If I get to pay 21% taxes, and you pay 20% taxes, it's NOT that YOU are exploiting me, it's that you are being exploited less by the government.

            Look at what's happening: the government steals X% of our wealth, but because they only steal Y% of someone else's wealth, you think that Y is trying to kill you... or something.

            It's nonsense.

            the government needs to tax us so much because they can't stop spending, because there are no consequences to their spending. Bernanke can just print more money out for them (there has been over 1 trillion bucks created in under 10 years).

            Realize that the evil one is the government, not the rich.

          2. 60
            Lisa00posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            yes, i agree banks are quite secure and allow comfort for older period of your life.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "taking advantage or our government (extended tax cuts, ahem)"

        You mean extended tax rates.

        The rates have been the same for the past 10 years.

        And you know those wealthy people are Americans too, they deserve equal protection under the law.

        Isn't that the liberal dogma these days?

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who made the rates that way? George W Bush. Did he have consensus? No. In 2001, he did it through reconciliation. Second time, 2003, the vote was tied, and Cheney broke the tie so the give-aways could go through. This was a Republican gift to their base, pay-back for getting them elected, nothing more. And it ruined the country.

          It will not save it this time either.
          JFK cut taxes, but he got rid of loopholes.
          David Kemp, a Republican--new leader of House Ways and Means, wants to do the same. Let's see if they let him.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The super-rich people are the ones currently opposed to extending unemployment benefits.

    4. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jim on this one you are a bit off base. Mostly in using the word “they” as a collective and the presumption made of those on the “public dole.”

      Firstly, Unemployment Benefits are not public payments of perceived welfare, the checks received are benefit payments from a government sponsored insurance policy. An Insurance system in to which those that are now receiving benefits paid premiums in support of. Granted the system has been woefully mismanaged, not unlike Social Security, and is under funded, but not due to the actions of those that paid the premiums, employees and employers alike.

      Another aspect of the particular situation is that most of the people that find themselves unemployed have had this status thrust upon them by no fault of their own. Many find themselves unemployed as a result of government interference and an aggressive liberal agenda of increased taxation and regulation.

      Imagine, losing a $70K+ per year job ($1,350.00 per week) and then trying to subsist on a UE insurance maximum benefit of $275.00 per week. What do you think is driving the foreclosure monster? $275.00 per week barely pays for the groceries of a family, then combined with the monthly the electric bill, mortgage, legally required insurances, that leaves a lot of month left at the end of the money.

      Most would rather be working than collecting a measly insurance benefit of 10% or 20% or less than what they used to earn?

      That is the situation for many of the people I know here in the South. Many have lost these types of high paying jobs they held for twenty or thirty years and all those years paying premiums into the UE insurance system.

      If you want to harp about UE benefits, do so, but harp about the right thing, those that are not entitled to receive it, the disparity of federal distribution of funds (see my hub on that subject), the mismanagement of the concept, but not about the people whom, by no fault of their own, are forced to barely survive on it.

      Even as a staunch Constitutional Conservative, I support this as a program that needs to stay in place and be extended until the economy can reemerge.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Excellent points.

        I have to go to work to help pay for some of these people to cuss me while I'm gone.

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's an ignorant statement. There must be jobs available which match the skills of the people who have been laid off through no fault of their own. Laid off auto workers don't qualify for nursing or computer programming. Moreover, moving is difficult when you can't sell your house. Blaming workers for not finding jobs in areas where unemployment is as high as 15% makes about as much sense as blaming the patients in your hospital for getting pneumonia.

      1. TamCor profile image80
        TamCorposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        Ralph, I disagree with most of your political views, but in this, I agree 100%.

        We're in Ohio, and in our particular area, unemployment is very high--I don't know the percentage.  My husband lost his job, and for months and months, he and I scoured the papers, the online job sites, whatever we could, wherever we could, looking for work for him.

        Try living on $295 a week, for three people...yeah, unemployment is the way to go...come ON!!!  sad

        We submitted resume after resume, he went on interviews. But, he is over 50, so that was one strike against him. Another one was that for every job opening in this area, there were 600 other people, at least, applying for it. 

        Our son went to apply for a part-time job at a PET STORE, and the line for applicants wrapped all around the mall, and outside the doors--for a part-time, minimum wage job.

        As far as moving--we would've moved in a heartbeat, if we could've afforded to--we checked into it.  We weren't trying to keep up a mortgage--no, we'd already lost our home after Tom was laid off--we just had no extra money to move--moving is NOT inexpensive.

        Jim--I agree with you in most of your views, but I think you are so far off with this one, I'm sorry.  But then, once you've been down this road, you have a lot more understanding for others going through it, I guess.

        We're lucky--my husband finally found a decent enough job to get by on for now(except for no insurance)...but so many others in this area haven't.  Home after home has been foreclosed on...businesses and factories have closed down...and, at least in our area, the economy hasn't improved at all.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's good to find common ground once in a while in the forums. Thanks. You are so right. I live in the Detroit area which is as bad or worse than where you are. And that's pretty bad.

          1. 61
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph, I don't understand why Detroit isn't a CONSTANT NATIONAL STORY. I know Time did their story there. However, I don't think most of the nation understands just how bad it is.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Very true. The other day after lunch at the Ivanhoe (aka Polish Yacht Club) we took a little drive around the inner city. It was very depressing--lots of burned out houses and big abandoned apartment and commercial buildings. And plenty of people at traffic lights with signs asking for help to buy food. The one positive thing was that the car traffic was light. But I'd rather have the traffic!

              1. 61
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No doubt Ralph. Detroit was the right arm of the nations industrial might. To see her on her knees like this is VERY depressing.

              2. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hi, Ralph. My town isn't exactly an industrial center, but we did once have a thriving Industrial Park, right off Interstate 75. The other day Johnny and I took a shortcut through there on our way to somewhere else, and it was depressing to see so many abandoned buildings.

                We're losing restaurants, too. Our eateries got a lot of traffic from the interstate, but now even some of them are closing down.

                1. TamCor profile image80
                  TamCorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's how it is around here, too, habee...even in our small town, there are blocks of empty factory buildings--just sitting there, falling into disrepair...it's so sad.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Jim--I agree with you in most of your views, but I think you are so far off with this one, I'm sorry.  But then, once you've been down this road, you have a lot more understanding for others going through it, I guess."

          I have been unemployed before, and I know it isn't fun. I'm also sure you and your husband are not like some who just simply won't look for work while collecting an unemployment check.

          There are jobs in New York and Pennsylvania for welders, my brother who works for a large company who sent him to get a natural gas pipeline started said most of the vehicles had either Texas or Louisiana plates.

          Those people moved to where there was work, they didn't take their entire families or sold their houses they took themselves.

          It may not be a viable option for you but for a lot of people it is, but they don't do it.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed, don't blame the people who got laid off.

        But don't blame the companies who can't hire.

        Blame the people who are responsible.

        Blame the FED. Blame the government. Blame minimum wage. Blame QE1&2. Blame the fact that the entirety of the professional economics think that deflation is bad.

    6. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      __________________
      Be careful, when you judge others situations..it may happen to you.

  2. IzzyM profile image86
    IzzyMposted 5 years ago

    In the UK when unemployment benefit runs out (after 1 year) they put you on to Social Security where you get the same if not more money than when you were just unemployed. Some people have made a career out of malingering!

    1. Flightkeeper profile image77
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's a wonder that we get so many legal and illegal aliens.  We should let them know about the UK! lol

      1. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Can't exactly walk there.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image77
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, they can pay someone.  If the illegals can pay a coyote huge amounts of money to bring them over the border, they can find a way to fly or sail in to the UK.

          1. shazwellyn profile image83
            shazwellynposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No thank you... we have enough with the whole of Europe to contend with!  Please dont encourage!!

            1. Flightkeeper profile image77
              Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't blame you Shaz, still I think more people should know about the generosity of benefits that the UK can provide people. tongue

              1. shazwellyn profile image83
                shazwellynposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                We have Simarlians (cant be asked with the spelling!) families that cost the UK £30,000 a year - more than our own inbreeds.

                Yes, the UK has been a free for all for years - thanks Tony Blair, you idiot!

    2. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, would someone please tell me where the jobs are?

      I haven't been able to find one and I've been looking for 18 months.

      So has my daughter.

      We did move.

      We moved from San Diego to Houston in order to find the jobs. She has found jobs that want to pay her $8 per hour working 20 hours per week. Can't pay the rent on that. Yes, she does have a degree and has excellent references.

      I'm 59 years old. There's agism in the market place.

      According to government sources, women over 55 years of age are not finding work.

      I've sent out in the region of 2300 resumes over the last 18 months. I have walked from one business to another business, looking for work.

      In America, for every one job that exists, there are 5 people to fill it. Where do you suggest the other four find work?

      I know someone who obtained a Masters degree 18 months ago. She's still working at a job for $8 per hour 24 hours per week because she can't find work.

      And do you honestly think people want to live on $900 per month for the rest of their lives when they could be earning $2500 or $4000 or $8000 per month?

      Where exactly are all these jobs? One in four people I knew in San Diego was either out of work or earned $8 per hour working 20 hours per week. These were mostly graduates.

      One guy with a Masters in Science moved to Indiana after 18 months where he eventually found work.

      As for not paying them unemployment. Be my guest.

      The crime rate should shoot right up, and the operative word is shoot. Because there are a lot of people who won't have any money and the only way they will be able to find it is rob, plunder, steal, whatever.

      If I cannot find anything soon, I will return to Europe.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't hold your breath getting any kind of reasonable reply from those who believe it's more important to continue tax cuts for billionaires than to help a person who is truly suffering.

        Sorry you are having such a hard time of it.  Jobs truly are scarce, and many people who are working are underemployed:  working part-time and/or for paltry wages.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hell, I can't even get that!

          No, I'm not holding my breath. I'm trying to use my writing skills to earn. and I'm busy designing a business for the web. One has to survive. But it's touch and go. And one needs capital, which I don't have... smile

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You mean you're not a lazy malingerer content to live off the government dole for the rest of your life?  (in case you don't know me, I'm joking)

            Good for you, Sophia.  I'm sure things will eventually pick up for you.

            1. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, if you notice (this is for the benefit of others because I'm sure you have noticed) I've done more than 50 hubs in a little over two weeks, all of which require a lot of information and have had a lot of care put into them...

              And, of course, the rest of the time I'm looking for jobs.

              Plus I'm doing as much as I can to create an income for myself, because I don't want to be a burden to the government. On the other hand, if I didn't have Unemployement, I would be on the streets...

            2. seanorjohn profile image79
              seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes,good luck Sophia. So many decent hard working people are struggling to find jobs. Times are hard for ordinary people. We need extaordinary people to get things moving.

          2. IzzyM profile image86
            IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sophia, I'm in a similar boat to you. At almost 50 years old I lost the business I had invested my life savings into thanks to the global recession.
            I live in a country that offers no social security nor unemployment benefits for previously self-employed people (as I was), even though I'd paid into the system.
            For three years I searched for work everywhere - the minimum legal rate of pay here is €5 an hour. I was willing to work for 3 - anything at all - washing dishes, cleaning, etc - but there was nothing for me. I survived thanks to handouts from my mother who lives in another country.
            Last Christmas I'd just enough money to buy a small chicken for dinner but no money to go out or go to parties. In fact round about that time I went without food for three days too because I had none in the cupboard and no money.
            But hey this year thanks to Hubpages I am now earning more than that elusive €3 an hour for a 40 hour week that I needed just to live on.
            Keep writing and it'll work out for you too!

            1. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's good to hear! I see you live in Spain. Love the place. smile

              Can one live that cheaply in Spain? If so, I might make my way there!!! smile

              I do hope things work out for me on hubpages. I'm putting a lot of energy into it.

              1. IzzyM profile image86
                IzzyMposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A few short years ago you could, but not now. It seems like inflation is spiralling out of control -the prices of everything are going up and up. I'm aiming to earn €100 a day on here, now that is enough to live a good life here smile

                1. 0
                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, that gives me something to work on!

            2. seanorjohn profile image79
              seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              See, this is the positive way. ignore Jim's negativity.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you can't find a job in Houston Texas for more than 8 dollars an hour then you have zero marketable skills.

        Point is you should take the 8 dollar an hour job and get off of unemployment that surely doesn't pay you that much.

        Hard times fall on everyone, but doing nothing isn't the answer.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wow! There is going to come a day, my friend, when despite all your skills, you will find that the market has moved on without you. Perhaps, then, you will have a broader picture of reality.

          I have plenty of marketable skills. However, the market isn't very big. Internationally, there are fewer and fewer jobs each year.

          What exactly is it that you do that you deign to sit judgement on more than a few million people?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He empties bed pans.

            1. 0
              Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LOL! smile

      3. Kotori profile image87
        Kotoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sophia, you're absolutely right.  Agism is huge.  And all of the online job search sites want the years that you graduated high school.  So it's not hard to figure out how old you are from there.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Racism is also a factor as is reluctance to hire anyone who has been convicted of a felony.

        2. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, guys. I've learnt this the hard way.

  3. 0
    SirDentposted 5 years ago

    I remember it used to be 6 months with no chance of an extenstion.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong. Unemployment benefits have been extended with bipartisan support in every recession until unemployment declined to the point where jobs were available.

  4. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    the bill is not three years of benefits.  the max is 99 weeks if in a state with unemployment above 8.5%

    The bill would also keep jobless aid flowing to the long-term unemployed for 13 more months, maintaining extended limits, which now range from 60 weeks in states with less than 6 percent joblessness to 99 weeks in states where the unemployment rate is more than 8.5 percent. Benefits normally last for 26 weeks.

    perhaps not as unreasonable as the most wealthy getting a tax bonus for 2 more years.

    all the extension does is move the date at which those who are long term unemployed can claim. the cut off date was Nov. 30.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Uh, its a lot more unreasonable.

      Unless you buy the Pelosi math which says an unemployed persons dollar is worth two dollars.

      You don't buy that...do you?

      1. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure most unemployed spend that minimum wage claim on living expenses. or do you want them on the streets?

        ask the most wealthy where they put their millions.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I'm sure most unemployed spend that minimum wage claim on living expenses. or do you want them on the streets?"

          Thats exactly what they should spend it on, but each dollar they spend is still just one dollar.

          Not two.

          It doesn't matter where the wealthy put their dollars, its their money not yours.

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "ask the most wealthy where they put their millions."

          Swiss bank accounts, so they can avoid paying American taxes.

          Law-breakers! Thieves and swindlers!!

          But oh so proper.

  5. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    it does matter when the argument is that their money creates jobs. I don't care where they put their earned money, but to say skilled unemployed workers don't deserve a minimum wage check they paid into while working is unfair in argument that the most wealthy create jobs with their tax bonus.. absurd.

    if the tax cuts help businesses begin hiring, great.
    if the unemployed are able to pay their mortgage while searching for these jobs, great. businesses need to hire the unemployed, which many are not.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They don't deserve 3 years of unemployment period.

      The wealthy will not spend money on job creation or investing until they know there money is not going to be confiscated by the government.

      When the democrats took control of congress in 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.6 it is now almost (if not) 10%

      If you look at the graphs you will see that there was job creation as a direct result of these tax rates.

      Democrats scared it away and they are still doing so, hopefully businesses will see that they have friends in congress again.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jim, the wealthy are not interested inc reativing jobs. Period. They are interested in making as much money as possible.

        Right now, the American public can no longer bring a profit to many American corporations. They are making their money selling in China. That much is pretty much common knowledge.

        There are no jobs for people in America anymore. Only the diehards actually believe there are. I've a gut feeling that the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate is 25% or higher - which is the same as my home country.

        I don't believe jobs will return to America until industry is reestablished here. And I think more and more people with your opinion are suddenly going to find themselves unemployed and unable to find new employment.

        At that point, your opinion will change. And not a moment before.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry but you're wrong about me not having a job. Something drastic and unheard of before would have to happen, people would have to stop dying and getting sick before I am unable to find a job.

          I planned ahead you see, I put myself through college working for a damn sight less than 8 dollars an hour and using the GI bill. I believe the Army is taking people up to 42 years of age now so you see not everyone has to be unemployed that is unemployed.

          I painted houses and hung sheetrock for 5 years while attending school, I worked my ass off obtaining knowledge that would serve me for the rest of my life.

          I'm sorry if people who attended college and got a degree in literature or some equally useless subject are having a hard time finding jobs, they should have used there head for something other than wearing a lampshade at a frat party.

          How many of those 8 dollar an hour jobs did you take? You know if you got two then you're up to 16 dollars an hour, that still leaves 8 hours to sleep.

          What did people do before the government took over the unemployment field?

          They payed into an actual unemployment insurance plan usually offered by a fraternal organization, when they lost their job they received money that they payed in, not my money..

          1. seanorjohn profile image79
            seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your math is faulty. Two jobs at $8 an hour doesn't come to $16 an hour. So they should "use there heads". Did you mean "their heads?" Perhaps you shouldn't be quite so dismissive of a college education.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image59
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, you're right,that and a 1.50 and you can get a 20 ounce coke.

              Pardon my spelling error.

              Gotta love the grammar cops.

              1. seanorjohn profile image79
                seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's not the spelling that's your problem. You are writing utter gibberish. What on earth does your last message mean?  1.50 and you get....?

                1. seanorjohn profile image79
                  seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Jim, can you explain what you are trying to say. I notice you chose not to reply about your poor math. With your math we could all get 20 x $5 hour jobs and be getting $100 an hour. Wow, we can quickly become millionaires.

                  Why don't you check out my hub on how to become a multi- millionaire on the minimum wage. It is satirical and a not for profit hub.I put the who wants to be a millionaire banner where google place ads.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I did respond about my faulty math, I said you were right.

                    With the fact that you're right and $1.50 you can buy a 20 ounce coke.

                    What a lucky person you are.

                    The grammar cops, they always show up.

          2. Kotori profile image87
            Kotoriposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sophia never said you in particular would find yourself out of work, Jim, she said that more people of your opinion will find themselves out of work.  Big difference.  But even doctors and pharmacists will feel the pinch as the new healthcare legislation takes effect.

            Just wondering, are you simply TRYING to upset people?!  You are on a forum of people who are attempting to make money at WRITING, and yet you call the field of literature "useless."  Hmmm...

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The wealthy will not spend money on job creation or investing until they know there money is not going to be confiscated by the government."

        Where were they from 2000-2008, when they knew the gvt was on their side?

        Not creating jobs here, that's where!


        it's really quite simple.

        Profits over people= Disaster

        "God will get you for that. "(Bea Arthur)

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          GOD I HATE THE RICH SO MUCH!!!

          I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT BILL GATES HELPED ME BUY THIS COMPUTER I'M USING AND THIS OPERATING SYSTEM SO THAT I CAN COME ON HUBPAGES AND YELL ABOUT HOW EVIL HE IS!

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It's not hating to state a fact. The rich copped out on America. Bushco helped them do it....no, encouraged them to! And, whoever it was that gave them tax incentives to move overseas.
            Was that NAFTA?

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You're blaming Bush for NAFTA??

              1. livewithrichard profile image84
                livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this



                NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The House approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17 and the Senate by 60 to 38 on November 20. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994.

                We get screwed from the left and the right, front and back, and upsidedown.  The blame game is just a diversion away from the next screwing.

                1. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I was going to paste that, too. When I said "Bush," I meant W, of course!

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              See, Lovemychris, you keep arguing:

              "RICH PEOPLE SUCK AND SHOULD DIE!!"

              Then you ALWAYS, without a doubt, point to an idiocy of government that started it:

              "BUSH DID SOMETHING EVIL THAT CREATED IDIOTIC INCENTIVES FOR THE RICH TO DO EVIL THINGS!!!!"

              but you never say:

              "The government needs to stop being stupid".

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    it is not 3 years. I'm not sure where you're getting that figure. it is up to 99 weeks only in states with a rate above 8.5% unemployment. if in a state below 8.5, they will be cut off sooner.


    there are success stories out there about people finding new careers or like your friend, they become resourceful and end up making up more money.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for injecting a fact into this discussion.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i'd love to see a source -- not that i'm saying you're wrong, I just want to back it up so i can yell at jim with authority if he's wrong.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        there are plenty of articles online stating it clearly. I have no idea where he got the 3 years. here's one from the Wall Street Journal that may clarify it for you. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/ … elp-99ers/

        also keep in mind the states decide the Extended Benefit period, if they have one at all. I know in Florida, in order for long term unemployed to receive up to 99 weeks, the state of Florida will have to authorize the Extended Benefit period once again, as it ended on Dec. 1. Florida is now at 12%.

        http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/ … extension/

        Ralph, you're welcome. yes, if they read it to understand, it explains it well.

        I'm working, so I can't engage in discussion at the moment.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          at the very least, 99 weeks is too long anyway. But still Jim needs to get these things right. I'll post to him.

          1. rebekahELLE profile image91
            rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            it is long and yet some people still aren't understanding the bill, they extended the time for 13 more months. that doesn't necessarily mean someone will receive 13 additional months of unemployment, it depends how long they've already been filing claims. not all states have the extended benefit period which can give someone up to 99 weeks. the extended benefit period takes place after regular unemployment and emergency unemployment claims are exhausted.
            individual states legislate an extended benefit period. the state, if it qualifies, enacts this period once an extension has been signed into law by the President, which it has. the extended benefit period is an additional 20 weeks. I hope this helps clarify.
            then that's it. if someone is entering those last 20 weeks, it's red alert time. good luck! get help with your resume, take advantage of programs out there to assist you in finding a position.

            it's fine to disagree with something, but yeah, get it right first.

  7. Seafarer Mama profile image86
    Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago

    Reading all the posts thus far has been rather informative.

    I am not on unemployment, but my family lives on the edge of poverty. My husband works full time at a museum and I work part time for another nonprofit....I just wrote a book for a publisher on a "work-for-hire" basis because it was a reliable income for a while. But the hours I spent on it for the pay I received averaged to about $3/hour. The only way I have had to raise that has been doing little extra tasks for the publisher related to the book, and to set up a web site from which I could earn "royalties." I joined their affiliate program so that I can earn money for each copy of my book sold, along with everyone else who could also earn those royalties. The publisher is not giving me royalties other than that...and selling me copies of the books for 20% less so that I can sell them at market rate and reap a profit. Considering all the marketing I need to do to make the money I have already earned by writing the book, doubles what I should be making...and other marketing execs make at their salaried jobs!...

    I joined Hub Pages to earn money while I develop my writing skills, and revise another manuscript that has the potential for publication. I still work part time job because I have only earned about $15 from Google Adsense, and nothing from Amazon. I have worked hard to increase traffic to my site so that I earn the commissions....but that takes lots of time before one sees the "rewards."

    Yes, there are more people who are qualified for certain jobs than there are jobs out there to fill, so the youngest, and "freshest" get them because the employers get to save on "overhead" by taking advantage of their inexperience. Not everybody can make millions of dollars in a short amount of time without winning the lottery unless there is something shady about how they are doing it. If they are not hurting other humans, they are benefiting from the demise of the planet by investing in stock sold by companies who are doing just that.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Next time you publish a book, use www.createspace.com.
      They are Amazon's publishing earn. There is no cost to you whatsoever. smile

      Good luck.

      And the reason everybody is earning so little is that there is a cartel at the top.

      The figures internationally reflect that the rich are now richer than they have ever been in history, and the poor are rapidly returning to the level of poverty that brought about revolutions like the French Revolution...

      There is growing public anger.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You write very well. Good luck. Some of the unemployed people are illiterate. Others don't speak English.

  8. Seafarer Mama profile image86
    Seafarer Mamaposted 5 years ago

    To all those who are making ends meet by sheer wit and sweat, I send out my loving energy to you!

    Not everybody who deserves unemployment receives it. It is not a "livable wage." The amount received is not based on need, but on how much "unemployement insurance" your previous employer paid into the system. If you have been working freelance, too  bad.

    So does someone spend their money to move, or to work to feed their family and find a new job...which often forces them to see their family less?

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I sold everything to move. I reckoned that at least the cost of living was lower in Houston and if I did have to earn less, then at least I wouldn't have to pay elevated rent, etc.

  9. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 5 years ago

    Helping those truly in need is a job for philanthropy, not taxes.

    If the government "just wants to help" then they should abolish the Federal Reserve and end our overseas empire.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unemployment compensation has two purposes: 1. Tide people who are involuntarily unemployed (laid off) over until they find another job and 2. Provide a counter-cyclical stimulus to the economy to prevent or help recover from a recession. The system has served the country well since it was adopted under Roosevelt in the 1930s. Every industrialized country (Not China) has some form of unemployment insurance benefits. Without it we would be tripping over beggars on the sidewalks of many cities.

  10. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This is a very complicated issue. I think unemployment benefits should be done on a case-by-case basis. There are many unemployed folks who have searched diligently for a job. There are others who haven't. A manager at a local factory here laid off several employees months ago, and when business picked up, he called them to come back to work. Several refused to come back, saying they wanted to wait until their unemployment checks ran out. Those types are making it extremely hard for people who are actually looking for jobs.

    Those who are putting real time and effort into seeking gainful employment should have a "safety net."

    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Habee,

      "Several refused to come back, saying they wanted to wait until their unemployment checks ran out."

      This scenario is playing out all over the country. I'm hearing the same thing in Tennessee.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "This scenario is playing out all over the country. I'm hearing the same thing in Tennessee."

        In my experience (10 years) working in the system this is not true, not even close to being true.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone who refuses a recall notice or job offer is disqualified from receiving any more unemployment benefits. I'd be willing to give odds that the factory owner you cite notified the unemployment agency that his laid off employees refused his offer to return to work. Many employers routinely protest unemployment benefits for their former employees because their unemployment tax rate goes up significantly the more employees collect benefits against their account. In Michigan the tax rate is under one percent for employers who have experienced few layoffs or claims against their accounts, and it's over 14% for employers whose employment fluctuates widely, e.g., construction companies, auto companies. It's call experience rating which is supposed to give employers an incentive to plan ahead to avoid or minimize layoffs.

    3. Ohma profile image80
      Ohmaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure I understand this.
      Where I live if you are offered and refuse to take work available you forfeit your unemployment benefits. The reporting process here asks specifically if you refused work that was available, and the company would have reported the available work.
      How is it that they can refuse to go back to work?

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The employer has to report it.

  11. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Gosh, Jim
    You sound downright Scrooge-like.
    Believe it or not, many Americans had perfectly good careers in place three years ago and worked very hard to get there.

    The SECOND DEPRESSION cast a wide net, indeed.
    Here in California, a once bustling construction industry stopped dead in its tracks. The trickle down effect of that is huge.
    Even teachers are on the block.
    A venerable law firm I used to work for that had weathered every other economic storm since the 1950s closed its doors. These are smart people. This firm had diversified its practice areas so that if one sector dipped another sector would carry them through. NO ONE could have predicted the magnitude and severity of this current situation.

    If the unemployment rate in a state is 9% or higher,it means that almost 1 out of every 10 citizens does not have a job.
    Sorry, but there are only so many $8/hour jobs to go around.

    We need WIDESPREAD employment reinstated in our country.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Gosh, Jim
      You sound downright Scrooge-like.
      Believe it or not, many Americans had perfectly good careers in place three years ago and worked very hard to get there."

      3 years ago?

      Wasn't that about the time the Democrats took control of congress?

      Have a nice day.

      1. Rafini profile image83
        Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol  I honestly don't think Democrats taking control of congress had anything to do with people like Bernie Madoff!! 

        lol  I don't believe Democrats taking control of congress, 3 years ago, had anything to do with MILLIONS of American's living well beyond their means to the point of bringing down Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae! 

        lol  Democrats taking control of congress "may" explain the economic crisis of the USA, but it seriously has nothing to do with the World Economic Crisis!!  Seriously!  The USA isn't the Only country in the world struggling with a growing population that has lived, for 20 years or more, well beyond their means!  The USA isn't the only country where corrupt business practices threaten the livelihoods of it's citizens!

        hmm  Try again, Jim, & either find another scapegoat or the true culprit.

        1. 61
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          " I don't believe Democrats taking control of congress, 3 years ago, had anything to do with MILLIONS of American's living well beyond their means to the point of bringing down Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae!"

          There is a lot of truth to that. People in the USA are going to have to come to grips with the idea that most of us were spending too much. Most of us are too deeply in debt. Few of us have job or financial security because of it. However when it comes to Fredie and Fannie, the D's had a LOT to do with that.

          1. Rafini profile image83
            Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            (I don't see it hmm )

            Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae are financial insurance backers or something like that, right?  (lol - excuse my ignorance, but I've chosen to live within my means and had no idea who AIG even was until they needed a bailout)

            How can you blame newly elected Democrats for the mistakes made by the financial industry over the past 20-30 years?  How is it even possible to blame Congress for financial institutions approving loans of $250,000 for someone earning less than $50,000 per year?  How can anyone not blame the financial institutions for falsifying documents in order to make these overblown loans possible?

            Uh-uh.  Time for people to wake up and open their eyes before getting out of bed.  In order to live responsibly, one must first be responsible.

            1. 61
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Freddie and Fannie were NEVER intended to BUY every other mortage granted by privately held mortgage companies and banks. However this is exactly what happened. So, banks were granting loans that they NEVER intended to hold and service. They would grant them and sell them to Freddie/Fannie. Who are backed by tax payers....see how it worked?

              1. Rafini profile image83
                Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So, doesn't the problem originate with the BANKS that approved the loans in the first place?  Or, are you saying Freddie/Fannie told the banks to approve these loans, which the people would never be able to afford to repay, in order to sell the loans to Freddie/Fannie?  That makes no sense!!

                Even if this non-sensical approach is exactly what happened, the current congress cannot be held accountable for what began 20-30 years ago. hmm

                1. 61
                  C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The current congress CAN be held accountable IF they put pressure on Freddie, to garantee the loans.... That pressure was being brought from both sides of the ailse by the way.

                  1. Rafini profile image83
                    Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    However when it comes to Fredie and Fannie, the D's had a LOT to do with that.

                    So, I think we're back to square one, aren't we?  The "D's" (or current congress) can't be held accountable for something they haven't done yet

                    Which brings about this conclusion:  People who choose to live beyond their means are the true culprits - because without them none of this would have been possible.

        2. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I don't believe Democrats taking control of congress, 3 years ago, had anything to do with MILLIONS of American's living well beyond their means to the point of bringing down Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae!"

          roll
          You don't believe that?

          You don't think democrat policies aimed at making sure mortgage loans were given to people who couldn't or wouldn't pay them back had anything to do with the housing problems that occurred?

          Try again and this time read a little history or watch any number of videos on youtube of democrat politicians falling all over themselves to cover for those failed policies.

          1. Rafini profile image83
            Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The fact that millions of Americans were living beyond their means does not require me to watch Youtube videos.  Millions of Americans CHOSE to live beyond their means, Congress & the Housing Market had nothing to do with Millions of Americans CHOOSING to ignore the truth -  The mortgage they were signing for was more than they could afford.  Nobody in the world can convince me Congress had anything to do with it.  It was a choice.

            Gee, I wonder if I should go out and get a credit card to buy things I can't afford today, even though I know I don't make enough money to make the required monthly payments?  Do you mean to tell me there's someone out there willing to guarantee my credit card?  Do you mean to tell me I can purchase overly-priced products which I'll never be able to afford to pay for?  And, not only is it Not My Fault if I can't pay, but, I Won't Be Held Accountable Either??  Right, it isn't my fault I don't earn enough money to make my increased monthly mortgage payment of $1800 - which I knew was coming - and someone else should have to pay it for me, someone else such as the taxpayers through a bailout program because, after all, I only earn $50,000 per year or more.  If it weren't for Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae, I wouldn't even own a house!  I'd be living in an apartment - as if I were POOR!!!

            I'm telling ya, this country needs to grow up. hmm

            1. Milla Mahno profile image59
              Milla Mahnoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wow! Just wow! So perfectly said...

    2. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed, and the only way to do that is to loosen the governmental grip on the throat of business. The Obama and Republican leadership agreement can go a long way to that end, but the business forecast fears of increased regulation and control created by pending legislation and the push for Global financial monetary equity (redistribution of wealth) have to be eliminated from business model formulas before a real jump start to the economy can occur.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Agreed, and the only way to do that is to loosen the governmental grip on the throat of business. "

        You've got it backwards. Business has a grip on the throat of business.

  12. 61
    C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago

    I would like to point out that Unemployment is NOT paid by the employee, but the employer. I keep hearing "THEY PAID INTO IT". That's not actually how it works. An employer pays a particular rate based on the number of claims they have. That means that some employers pay more than others. Keep in mind that while there are Federal guidlines and a TAX, these programs are State run and can vary.

    1. readytoescape profile image61
      readytoescapeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually it is, both the employer and the employee pay into the fund, though you are technically correct that now only the employer "pays" the FUTA tax, this tax, as well as others like workman's compensation, are a portion of the formula to determine total employee remuneration rates.

      For example a particular skill set (job) to produce a particular product is valued at "X" dollars per.

      All of the taxes (as above), fees, overhead benefits packages are combined(as Y)and subtracted from the "X" value, this calacuation will equal W (wages)

      X - Y = W

      W = the Actual maximum wages paid to an employee to provide a particular skill set.

      And you are confusing Workmans Comp with Unemployment. Unemployment is a flat percentage, Workers Comp is based on claim rate.

      1. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, not confusing workmans comp with unemployment. States vary. Tennessee rates for instance vary from 0 to 10 percent based on the employers use of the system.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wright is right on this one.

      2. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Further the flat rate for FUTA is 6.2%. However it can be reduced to .08 IF the employer pays it's states UE taxes in full(previous years) by Jan 31st of the following year. So we can see that not all employers pay 6.2%.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not correct. Unemployment insurance taxes are experience rated, i.e., they vary depending on how many employees have been laid off and collected benefits against the employer's account. In Michigan the minimum tax rate is under 1% of the first $10,000 or $15,000 of wages and the maximum is more than 14%. Employees do pay unemployment insurance taxes.

        http://www.michigan.gov/uia/0,1607,7-11 … --,00.html

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Correct.

  13. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Yes, it's all the Democrats' fault!
    Which means that beginning in January, we not only should, but WILL see an immediate reversal of this economy.
    Yessir, by 2012 all will be well and wonderful in America again.
    The Republicans will loosen the stranglehold of regulation that is the SOLE reason businesses are not hiring, and all those tax breaks for the rich will translate into well paying jobs for all -- with rich health benefit coverage, too!

    And no one will ever have to extend their unemployment benefits ever again.

    lol lol lol

    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know your being sarcastic, but the idea of immediate gratification is a problem. It will take years to get out of this mess.

    2. Flightkeeper profile image77
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think we have to wait when we kick out the dem in the executive seat and have the majority republican in the senate.  Then we can see about fixing things right.

    3. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      smile)  You and me, both. I'm waiting to see what's going to happen when the Republicans take over and it's suddenly realized they can't do anything either,and that the real issue is systemic...

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The Republicans will make it worse.

    4. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Which means that beginning in January, we not only should, but WILL see an immediate reversal of this economy."

      Unfortunately the guy at the top is a democrat so the reversal won't be immediate.

  14. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Yes, I am being sarcastic in response to Jim Hunter's comment. I said 3 years ago people had decent jobs and he said 3 years ago is when the Democrats gained majority.

    I so agree. Americans have a HUGE problem with immediate gratification. We want it all and we want it NOW. We were/are uncomfortable with the economy so decided to "punish" Obama and the Democrats by voting in GOP candidates to Congress.
    I bet you anything that by 2012 people will be disillusioned with THAT choice and the pendulum will swing back. We have no tolerance for either waiting things out, or doing the footwork to make things better.

    FK -- I don't know what you mean by "fixing things right." I can only assume that you mean with a Republican president and senate, the country would get involved in yet another unfunded war!

    1. Flightkeeper profile image77
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      That was less expensive than democrats in congress and in the presidency passing a stimulus bill that didn't work and an unfunded health care bill that put this generation and the next two generations in hock. lol

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are wrong on all counts.
        Stimulus DID work....hell, some Republicans took credit for projects that they voted against!

        This Uber-Rich tax break will cost more than Obama's stimulus, and your grand-kids will pay so Russshhhhhh can make 59 mil instead of 57.

        Healthcare bill saves money in the long run, once it's implemented and running. According to the CBO.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Keeping the same tax rate doesn't cost anything, unless you spend more than you take in, ooops, I forgot thats what liberals do.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            UhHuh....2000-2008 tells the story...much better than your Russshhhhh talking points.

            We see where republican policies lead....into the hellpit.

            Only solace you can take is people who say "Bush was not a Republican!"

            I tend to agree. Neo-Con. That's a  breed on it's own. Very dangerous one at that.

  15. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    funny that the senate repubs are complaining about working up to christmas eve like most Americans do,  many working on Christmas Eve and Christmas day.  such hypocrisy. these guys are elected to work for the American people who put them there.

    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I will settle for  CONGRESS, both sides of the aisle working less. The less they do, the less they screw!

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, but they are mad they have to work with the morons the people removed.

  16. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Now, now, rebekahELLE.
    Where's your Christmas spirit?
    Don't you think our hard-working representatives have earned a little extra time off?
    I mean, they've been working so, so hard on extending those tax cuts for the wealthy!
    Their work for the year is complete.
    At least,that's probably how THEY see it lol

  17. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    This is how it works now, according to my best friend who's a judge for unemployment:

    Workers don't pay into unemployment. The employer pays premiums for unemployment insurance. For the first 24-26 weeks that someone is receiving unemployment benefits, the insurance pays. After that, the Federal government pays instead.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yayyyyy! My daughter just got a job! smile

  18. 0
    Home Girlposted 5 years ago

    Congratulations, things wil get better for you.
    I work 2 jobs with min. pay.
    Three kids - none of them working. Youngest one goes to University, major - philosophy (!!!), probably will be uneplohttp://serve.mysmiley.net/mad/mad0217.gifyed with a diploma. How wonderful!

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks! It's amazing how much a piece of good news can brighten one's day! smile

  19. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    they pay into it through their employer. but it's not essentially 'their' money, it's an employer's pool of unemployment insurance which pays the unemployed former employee's state benefits.
    here's a decent analysis from Politi-Fact which may help people understand. http://politifact.com/ohio/statements/2 … -and-exte/

    lol
    hey, MM, it's in high gear. I finally decorated our tree  and the stockings are hung by the chimney with care..
    http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMIig6MKKf-RnhA5WEtward3wIBJWYYKtAGyB_Tz35yrlTCi3Y

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the Politifact link. It should be helpful for those in this forum who don't understand why we have unemployment compensation and how it works. If they read it which is doubtful!

      1. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Again, lets be clear. "THEY" if by that you mean the employee, pays nothing. If they did, it would probably be tax deductible, it's not because they paid nothing. Not all business' pay the same rate, some don't pay at all. It's not really insurance, it's more as you described...a pool of money.

  20. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Ok , so I really do know what poverty is.I grew up in it! But here's the thing .  Unemployment  at 10 % , Ok so , 50 % of unemployed are always unemployed. They don't want to work anyway sooo! Whats the big deal.  Actually about at a real % of 3- 5 % unemployment . No a big deal.

  21. LSKing profile image86
    LSKingposted 5 years ago

    I find it interesting that someone can work for 15 years, get laid off, collect unemployment and people get mad at you for doing so.

    If I'm not mistaken, what we pay into unemployment is way more then what we get back. I'm just saying........

  22. libby101a profile image60
    libby101aposted 5 years ago

    What about those of us who worked 14 years at the same job, making a little over 60,000 a year plus bonuses and then get laid off? I have been searching very hard for a job for 9 months! I've sent out dozens of resumes and had a few interviews but there are so many others doing the exact same thing! I have a degree and years of experience!

    Think about this--I paid premiums for 14 years...so it's wrong to draw my little $250 a week when I can't find a job? I can't take 2 jobs, I have children who would be stuck in daycare, which is only open from 7 to 4! I have children to feed...if I take an 8 an hour job it is not going to help any considering I also have to pay a daycare! I come out below what I draw on my unemployment! Things change slightly when you have children to feed and daycare expenses!

    It is rough going from a nice salary with bonuses down to a measly $250! I am writing and doing whatever I can! I have even put applications in where my parents live--and traveled there for interviews! I can't afford to travel but I did, thinking I may land a job! Too many others were doing the same thing!

    It's funny to see others discuss how someone else should move and do this or that, when they have no idea what the circumstances are! You can't move when you owe a huge mortgage! You can't take on two jobs when you have young children who can't take care of themselves! When I was making a good salary daycare expenses was not a problem--but I have done the math! I can't afford to pay out 120 a week in daycare for 8 bucks an hour!

    When I lost my job, I lost good insurance for my entire family and many other benefits! It's a big change for someone who has worked their entire life! And it's very upsetting to hear someone say you are not trying hard enough or whatever, when you know how many resumes you've sent out and how many trips  you've taken to another state for interviews! Give me a break!

    1. LSKing profile image86
      LSKingposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I was hinting towards the same thing above you. My husband just got laid off right before thanksgiving sad

    2. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The people who are so insensitive to the plight of others just haven't had it happen to them yet. When it does, they'll change their tune. Unfortunately, there are some people who are not able to evaulate a situation by observing. They are ruled by their prejudices and belief systems and they only learn the hard way...

  23. seanorjohn profile image79
    seanorjohnposted 5 years ago

    So many USA citizens are mad. You are such a rich country and yet you can't have a sensible health service. Just google it and you will see .

    1. libby101a profile image60
      libby101aposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree! I'm not angry though! I just get a little upset when I see others claiming those who are drawing unemployment are being lazy or whatever when I know my own circumstances! What is the point in paying premiums when you are told by others it's wrong to draw it? So why do you pay any premiums?  I'm actually quite happy and calm! LOL!

      I do agree with your statement though! It's horrible!

      1. seanorjohn profile image79
        seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Libby I feel for you and hope things get better.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We have a sensible health service.

      What we don't have is a sensible government.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm on my fourth career which is representing claimants in unemployment compensation appeal hearings. I have ten years of first-hand experience in this field. What's the basis for your opinions? I don't recall ever seeing you admit you were wrong. Why is that so hard for you?

  24. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    For you folks who don't agree with extending unemployment benefits, what do you propose these people do? We can't let them starve. Even if you don't care about them, when they all lose their homes because they can't pay their mortgages, it will have an impact on ALL homeowners. As these foreclosed homes flood the market, the value of your home will decline even more than it has in the last couple of years.

    Maybe those on unemployment could work on infrastructure or at state or national parks in exchange for their checks. Would that make you feel better?

    And, BTW, I'm not unemployed, and neither is my husband. But my heart breaks for those who are seriously looking for a job and can't find one in this terrible economy/jobs market.

  25. megs78 profile image61
    megs78posted 5 years ago

    Its true that EVERYONE needs to be responsible for the recession.  Main street made the choice to ignore basic math equations and Wall Street was just as greedily encouraging Main Street to do so.  We are not idiots, and we are not small children who need to be guided in everything we do but as soon as things got bad, thats exactly how we acted.  It is pretty shameful that we can't be accountable for our own actions.

    and why, for heavens sake, is there still no regulation in the States?

    1. Rafini profile image83
      Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

    2. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I notice you don't blame government who forced mortgage companies to offer mortgages to those unable to pay them back.

      By the way if you owned a company and the government told you "go ahead, make that loan, if they don't pay you back we will" would you make the loan?

      Government was the problem, they played Russian roulette and you and I payed for the gun.

      1. 61
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is why, no matter how well intentioned, government when unchecked is dangerous. None of us is as dumb as all of us!

        While I agree with you on the housing debacle, I must say that many Americans are simply being irresponsible. Why? Because no one is holding them accountable. Why? Because we are FREE. Freedom requires blood, sweat and tears to gain and retain. If you don't do the work, you will loose your freedom.

      2. Rafini profile image83
        Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I notice you don't blame government who forced mortgage companies to offer mortgages to those unable to pay them back.


        And who "forced" people to accept the offers?  NOBODY!!  It was a CHOICE!!

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Government was ONE problem. There were plenty others.

      4. megs78 profile image61
        megs78posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        not me, I live in Canada.  We didn't do that here.

        1. megs78 profile image61
          megs78posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well...not to the same extent as Americans anyways.

  26. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
    By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

    Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

    Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

    Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

    Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
    Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
    Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.


    Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5 … z18OjS5xSw

    1. 61
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      so WHO ended up with the paper? Fannie and Freddie. They bought CRAP! They should not have. Otherwise, why have any regulation? These entities were set up to expand the "secondary housing" market. Translation, help those who normally couldn't afford to get into a home(down payment/closing cost), but could afford to make a house note. That's all they were supposed to do...that's IT! Not blindly buy garbage paper from banks and mortgage lenders! All this bad paper should have been shut down by Fannie and Freddie before it ever got started! The truth is that Banks and Mortgage lenders were only approving what they KNEW Fannie and Freddie would buy. Which up until 08 was darn near anything.

  27. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Unemployment is accessed on previous income earned (least in the USA) So a person is only getting back what hes paid into.

    There have been some great ideas,and incentives for employment posted above ,but I cannot help but think in this great land of opportunity ,what has happened to the factories ? production ? manufacturers? roading work decreasing-why? building?.

    Freedom is often a word I hear bandied about a little too lightly. Some people just are not free ..of debt  poverty ..of despair... and thats the sad reality.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The secret about freedom is you are on your own.

      Freedom isn't given to you from government in the form of food stamps but in your ability to tread through this world on your own making good decisions.

      If you make decisions based on the factor that there is always a safety net then you will probably always choose the riskier path.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        your ability to tread through this world on your own making good decisions.

        Jim, If youre hungry ,sick and dont know where the rents coming from ,that pretty much screws ones ability to make ANY decison ,let alone a good one.

        1. seanorjohn profile image79
          seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Very good point Eagle, but I don't think Jim listens to reason. He certainly shouldn't be working in the caring profession because he doesn't care about anyone but himself.

          There are some great hub contributors here who have had to put up with his rants. They should take no notice of Jim's crazy nonsense. I am lucky enough to be in work but understand how difficult it is, in this economic climate, to find work.

          Good luck  and best thoughts to all seeking work.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thankyou for your encouraging comments.


            Sadly I think Jim's attitudes are reflective of some people in every community. In my opinion ,quite shallow.

            Then again, maybe its just Jims style ,to stir up the waters I guess.

  28. Barbara Kay profile image86
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    This bill does not add more weeks of unemployment, but extends the extension they already had. You can still only get 99 weeks. If you have used that up, you can't get anymore. I just saw it on the news. They said most people don't understand that they just continued the old extension.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here's my take on all this.

      a) All service industries are an outcome of a solid manufacturing and industrial base. When there's a lot of surplus money around, then service industries develop.

      b) After WWII, Fort Knox was full of gold, and there were a lot of factories around. Some of them were the result of legislation which brought some balance to the economy and unions and management worked together. This was reflected in the period 50s and 60s when there was an equitable working system. The ratio of wealth was about the CEO earning 30 times what the guy at the bottom does. Today it’s something like 300 times what the guy at the bottom is.

      c) People didn’t understand that there were a lot of factors that were responsible for the building of wealth. One of them was the same for all other new world countries. There was land and resources waiting to be exploited. And so it was.

      d) In the 70s, Nixon removed the US from the Gold Standard. The Gold standard was there for a reason – so that the banks couldn’t just print money. America had been given status by the rest of the world to be the currency on which all other currencies were based on. This was because it was based on gold. There wasn’t anything anyone was willing to do at the time as we were in the middle of the cold war.

      e) The yuppies, Reagan, Ayn Rand, Thatcher all got this idea that while the rest of the universe was based on dog-eat-dog, humanity operated on a very fair meritocracy. One got what one deserved. For a while, during that golden age, because there was so much accrued wealth from minerals in the ground, undeveloped land, etc. wealth came very easily. All one had to do was a little work and one flourished.

      f) The ideologues thought it best for the oil to be imported and the business decided it was better if labor was cheaper. It wasn’t really cheaper. It’s just that the other currencies didn’t have the same worth as the US currencies (Hopefully that will now correct itself in the next decade).

      g) Over a period of time, consumers spent a packet. They borrowed because they were accustomed to things always coming right in the end. They let the factories go because they didn’t realize that the service industries were an outcome of them.

      h) In an effort to make everybody equal, trade schools were converted into two year universities so that everybody could get some ‘education’. So, everybody got educated and very few people got skills.  The skills went to China.

      g) The service industries do not build wealth. Now all the service industries are trying to sell products to all the people who no longer have money to buy them.

      h) Slowly, as there is less and less money, more and more businesses will close. Eventually, all those people who are saying that it’s only lazy, stupid people who can’t find jobs, will find themselves out of work as well. At that point, they will discover that no matter what they have to offer, if people don’t have money to pay for it, they can’t.

      i) I don’t believe this is a cycle, but a systemic problem with Super capitalism. In this I echo past secretary of labor, Robert Reich. I am looking forward to the Republicans coming into power and then I’m going to watch as the money gets even tighter, the jobs don’t return, and things become violent. The Pentagon has already warned that in the next decade, there will be wars about food.

      j) I’m retiring to a tropical island as soon as I figure out how to rig the lottery. 

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Right on! Let me know when you figure out how to rig the lottery.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          smile

  29. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Jim: rebekahELLE pointed to numerous sources stating that the new unemployment benefits are only for 99 weeks.

    ... that's about a two years max (52 weeks in a year).

    I agree that 2 years is too long, but it's only 66% of your claim of 3 years.

    HOW DOTH THEE RESPOND?!

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Defintion of a troll. The really sophisticated ones throw something outrageous into the fire, and then insult as many people as possible. They ignore anything sensible said to them because that isn't the point....

      Some trolls are harder to spot than others...

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I dunno, 3 years is not much different than 2 years. But still, I'm surprised he hasn't answered. Give him time, he might be busy

      2. Jim Hunter profile image59
        Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you see trolls everywhere, I have been at work doing doubles because we are short staffed.

        You know short staffed?

        Not enough qualified people to work?

        Too many unfilled positions?

        If its not 3 years who cares? Two years is way too long to be collecting unemployment.

        If you need a job and can do anything other than play on hubpages all day I know where you can find one.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm curious, if you don't mind sharing, what do you do for a living?  I know there is a shortage of nurses.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image59
            Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nurse Practitioner.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I tell my kids, if they have any interest at all, to pursue something in the medical field because it will most likely always be in demand.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thats true, there are so many jobs that are not filled because people think its too hard to get into.

                In a little over a month you can become a Certified Nurses Aide and I guarantee you will always be able to find a job.

                In fact you do not have to be certified at all to be a caregiver the pay is less but its more than 8 dollars an hour.

                In 3 months you can be a Certified Medical Aide, your job consists of dispensing medication.

                From housekeeping, maintenance to Physicians this field is always looking for help.

                1. seanorjohn profile image79
                  seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would be very worried to be under your care. You seem to be someone devoid of empathy.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't you have some posts to grade?

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ______________________________
                  I'm a Perioperative Nurse myself.
                  I find it hard, from the statements you have made, to believe that you are an NP.

                  The one thing that caught my eye is the one about the CNAs (which are now called PCTs), job consisting of dispensing meds. By law, in any state, only a RN or higher can distribute meds. A CNA is below a LPN and a LPN can not even dispense meds.

                  A CNA/PCT empties bed pans and bedside toilets. They also bathe the patients, pack sores/ulcers. Clean vomit/feces/urine etc.

                  Where I live the CNA/PCT courses take 9 mths.

                  And how are they suppose to pay for school? They may get a grant but they will have to pay it back.

                  The only thing I agree with is there is much opportunity in the medical field. But it is in RN, MSN, PA, NP and MD. Not LPN or CNA

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image59
                    Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "The one thing that caught my eye is the one about the CNAs (which are now called PCTs), job consisting of dispensing meds. By law, in any state, only a RN or higher can distribute meds. A CNA is below a LPN and a LPN can not even dispense meds."

                    I never said a CNA could dispense medication I said a CMA.
                    Not true.

                    "A CNA/PCT empties bed pans and bedside toilets. They also bathe the patients, pack sores/ulcers. Clean vomit/feces/urine etc."

                    "Where I live the CNA/PCT courses take 9 mths."

                    Again, not true.

                    "And how are they suppose to pay for school? They may get a grant but they will have to pay it back."

                    Uhhhh, you don't pay back grants, thats why they are called grants...roll

                    "The only thing I agree with is there is much opportunity in the medical field. But it is in RN, MSN, PA, NP and MD. Not LPN or CNA"

                    Thats the most ridiculous thing you have said so far, the chances of you being a Pejorative nurse are highly unlikely.

  30. megs78 profile image61
    megs78posted 5 years ago

    I think 99 weeks is too long...if you didn't pay that much into the benefits in the first place.  HOwever, people who have been working upwards of 10 to 20 years and have been paying into the system for exactly these situations definitley deserve it.  and should not be made to feel guilty about using it.  and here, you are not obligated to take a job that pays less than your old job while on benefits.  They are there so that you can take the time to find as good a job as your old one...until your benefits run out and you are forced to work for less.  BUT, I think thats logic.  Don't you?

  31. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I agree with Deborah. The last time I was unemployed I submitted over 200 resumes and got 3 interviews. I eventually got another job but it took a year...and I was trying hard every single day. I could not take jobs that included standing all day or physical labor due to issues I have, I have to work in an office basically.

    You don't know all the circumstances of why people can't get jobs. You can't just move all over the place on a whim. Although, I did apply for jobs elsewhere and I did have to move back to the other side of the country...but I had help from my sister who I was living with. I would not have been able to do it on my own with or without unemployment benefits.

    It kills me to hear the same people who criticize the President for high unemployment also criticize the unemployed for not being able to find a job.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      _______________________________
      I agree, and who really wants to live off that small amount if they could get a job. It keeps their heads above water, but doesn't pay all the bills.
      My neighbor lost her house because of the low amount of unemployment. If she could have found a job, she would have.

      I hear the President is working to keep unemployment longer. Good for him. No other President has done this for their country.

      Some people resent any good done for other people.

  32. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 5 years ago

    It's sad that the idea of not being reliant on government scares some people. Many have been conditioned to think that government needs to provide in order to sustain standards.

    Imagine if we weren't burdened by so many taxes? -- if we weren't always "paying into the system"? More of our money would be available for us to do what we wished with.

  33. seanorjohn profile image79
    seanorjohnposted 5 years ago

    Well done Deborah for exposing charlatons. Jim, will you answer Deborah's post and explain yourself?

  34. thisisoli profile image65
    thisisoliposted 5 years ago

    For those having trouble finding work, I have picked up two clients paying $15, I found them both within 2 weeks of looking for clients in the Austin area after my work permit came through.

    For the record, I have no degree. If you can't find work then you need to figure out how to market yourself, and when it comes to that my best suggestion would be to market what you learned from your degree, not just that you have a degree. Break down every single skill you picked up while doing your degree and show it as an asset, and why each individual place you apply for would benefit from those assets.

    1. seanorjohn profile image79
      seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good practical advice from thisisoli. This is the type of advice that helps and doesn't lecture. We need this sort of positivity not Jim's negativity.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image77
        Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jim was far from negative.  He was basically saying that if people want to work, they'll take a job that comes their way or look for it, just as Olli has been proactive.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals, flightkeeper think anything that doesn't praise or fit into what they consider fair is negative.

        2. seanorjohn profile image79
          seanorjohnposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Jim, is a deluded fantasist.

  35. seanorjohn profile image79
    seanorjohnposted 5 years ago

    Think about this Jim. If you are capable of thinking.

  36. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Instead of being concerned about unemployment checks,lets offer solutions to a new way (or going back to an old way) of creating new incomes.

    Just off topic a little ,doesnt most taxes go toward  the Military
    budget anyway?

    1. Flightkeeper profile image77
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually in the US, 20% goes to defense and security - which means not only our military but the Department of Defense and Homeland security expenditures.  Another 20% is spent on Social Security, another 21% goes to medicare, medicaid and children's health insurance program, 14% goes to safety net programs (other than medicare, medicaid and chip), 6% goes to paying interest on our debt, and the remaining 25% is everything else.  So if you look at it, 55% of our budget goes to social services type of expenditures. I'm estimating that actual military expenditures are less than 10%.  These figures come from the Center of Budget Policy and Priorities.

  37. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    My, my. Isn't this refreshing and innovative?
    The same-old, same-old "I know you are an idiot but what am I?" arguments moved from the usual liberal/conservative arena to the medical arena.
    And this tit-for-tat tossing of acronyms is supposed to help/encourage unemployed people to find work in the medical field exactly how? By totally confusing them on job titles and responsibilities and training required and payment options for the training?
    Great. Sign me right up!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do unemployed people need to be encouraged to look for work?

      Maybe not having 99 weeks of unemployment money would encourage them more?

      Yeah, that was kinda my point.

  38. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Yes, Jim.
    I understand that was your original point.
    I don't think there is anyone suggesting that anyone collecting unemployment should sit back and live fat and happy and NOT look for a job.
    My dismay came from logging into this forum and seeing the ridiculous turn it had taken. With you being one of the steerers.
    That is all.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It only took a ridiculous turn when someone thought they had a gotcha moment and then proceeded to expose themselves.

      In all fairness Deborah may be a nurse, I don't care if she is or not.

      But not knowing that States have different terms for occupations and claiming nobody but an RN and above can dispense medication is a little strange.

  39. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Hey friend,
    No need to get all defensive with moi.
    As far as I know (or care) you are both right.
    And both employed. So hooray for that!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image59
      Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thats not defensive its factual.

  40. Eaglekiwi profile image76
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Actually there are SOME unemployed people ,who are lazy...

    And there are employed people who are lazy workers...

    Neither one is all that productive (or helpful) IMO smile

 
working