[von949]

Originally Posted by las vegas drunk

The guy should have let the house go and moved into his car. I am being serious too as I have had to do it myself back in 2004 when I lost my house. I have since cut my expenses to the bone to live on the tiny amount I make now, but these entitlement queens still expect to have a house and car payment on the government's dole. 6 months of unemployment insurance is acceptable. After that, it is welfare. People can debate all they want, but we are going into a huge depression. Only the fittest will survive, not the bums begging for government help. What are we going to do, extend unemployment for 5, 10, or 15 years? This has to stop.

I dont know about the guy living in his car but he should have at least moved in an affordable apartment/condo, rental home etc. Why keep something that you cant afford? When you lose your job/stable income, it is time to downgrade to the expenses you can afford. I dont understand why someone would want to use unemployment benefits to keep a house or car that they cant afford. Especially after a year or two.

Im not saying that we should just cut off 100% of benefits from people but those people that are collecting from the government have a responsibility to cut their living expenses back a little also. That is the only way they will be able to adjust accordingly to their limited new wealth.

When gas prices start to go up= I cut back on unnecessary driving.
WHen COX cable company threatens price hikes=I cut back on premium channels
When Nevada Energy prices shoot through the roof=I change the thermostate to live a little less comfortable
When me and my wife found out we were expecting another child=We immediately started cutting back and saving more for the future.

So...................

When someone loses their job and begins to collect benefits, why cant they cut back on the their personal lifestyle??? Sounds like some people are trying to live the exact same way they did BEFORE they lost their job. Where is the adjustment? Just does not make any sense.

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by KevK

Unemployment is a funny thing. Here where I live the high school kids get unemployment. My daughter got it in her last 2 years of high school. They go to work for Six Flags Over Georgia when it opens in April and work until it closes on Halloween. Then they collect 5 months of unemployment checks all winter and don't work at all. It is a sweet deal indeed. My daughter loved it.

I am not trying to doubt you or say you are wrong, but...

Even though many states have laws that may be more liberal for seasonal workers, in all states you are required to look for a job while collecting UI, unless you have a promise from the employer that laid you off to return on a specific definite date that is within a certain number of weeks from the day of lay off. I'd have a hard time believing that your state would allow anyone to collect for five months without looking for work elsewhere. At that point it would almost become welfare, and UI is group INSURANCE, not welfare.

Another problem I see is that being a full-time student is disqualifying unless they show that they can still look for work, and sign an affidavit that they are willing to quit school if their class schedule conflicts with the work schedule. If one is in Approved Training they may be excused from the work requirements during that time, but high school isn't Approved Training in any state that I'm aware of.

Not saying your daughter did this, but to collect UI and not do the work search, and not report going to school, is fraud and can lead to a whole lot of trouble.

Then there is the problem of qualifying earnings. Even if it is full-time work at Six Flags, it is not likely anyone would earn enough in less than six months to qualify for five months of benefits. And I would imagine it would be part-time anyway for students.

Keep in mind that states must follow Federal Guidelines when it comes to UI, as UI is funded 100% by the Feds. I'd have to see where in the laws of your state, high schoolers working at a seasonal job are excused from the rules everyone else has to follow.

[MadManofBethesda]

Originally Posted by LIS123

With the (D)s in control of the Federal Government, the UE rate will NEVER go below 7%. Everything they do kills jobs. 99 weeks is enough.

ROFL. When Obama took office the US was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. (The Feb. 2009 report was a loss of 651,000.) Now, not only is the US no longer losing jobs, it is gaining jobs every month.

But that's okay, don't let facts get in the way of your rhetoric, lol.

[MadManofBethesda]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

Hmmm, so the jobs are out there, but people just don't want to work, huh? What about this post of yours showing that there are many more unemployed people than there are jobs available:

Originally Posted by LIS123
I think the ratio of unemployed:job openings is at (or near) an all-time high, somewhere around 5.5-6:1.

Would you care to attempt to reconcile these two diametrically opposed statements?

Originally Posted by LIS123

I've heard stories of people not taking work since the increased wages they obtain from working would not be much more than their UE benefits. I'm not opposed to UE benefits, but 99 weeks is enough. What we really need is LESS government, fewer regulations, less unions and lower taxes so that NEW jobs can be created. Obama (and you) support policies that will lead to fewer jobs and the need for more and more UE benefits.

What do you think the tax rate should be? 80%?

So, I guess your answer to my question of whether you want to reconcile your diametrically opposed statements would be "no, I can't."

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

Now, not only is the US no longer losing jobs, it is gaining jobs every month.

Where are you getting this nonsense? The only reason the April jobs report was really good was because of census workers. That was even fudged because the government was constantly hiring and firing them to make the numbers look better. The new job report comes out tomorrow. My prediction is a job LOSS and another losing day in the stock market.

[Buzz123]

Just rambling:

People on UI who get work through a union hall, and aren't allowed by the union to solicit their own jobs, are excused from pounding the pavement to look for a job as long as they follow union rules, and keep their name active on the union call board. I don't know for sure if this is the case, but I'd bet most of our laid off workers in Nevada are union. I know from past experience though, that even they get tired of not working after a while, and they'll say to he** with the union and look for other kinds of jobs. Or else they do work under the table.

In my experience, most people would rather work than get unemployment. Being unemployed is a dark time in most people's lives; it's just below death in the family. So I don't believe there are that many who say I'll just lay around and collect UI. First of all, you can't live on it for very long. That's why I'm glad I'm not in Congress trying to decide on whether to extend UI benefits. I know on one hand that raising necessity level forces people to do what they have to do to survive, so they'll go out and find some kind of job, even if it doesn't pay what they are used to making. But on the other hand, having experienced unemployment personally, I'm afraid there just aren't any jobs, and to some weaker minds, that means rob a 7/11 store (no I never robbed anyone in case you're wondering).

I think the Repubs are saying "force them to take any old job" and the economy will improve and they'll vote for us; but the Dems are saying we can't take that chance because there ain't no stinkin' jobs, so give them a free ride and they'll vote for us.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

ROFL. When Obama took office the US was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month.

Unemployment Rate when Obama took office: 7.6%

Unemployment Rate 1.5 years later: 9.8%

I hold the head idiot in charge for this.

[Buzz123]

Uhhhhh, I've always been a Democrat, either an FDR Demo, or at least a Harry Truman Demo. But even I can see that the economy was doing well until my party took control of Congress while Bush was prez, and things started going down hill fast. Then when they got Osama O'Bama elected, things really fell apart. For the first time in my life I'm seriously on the verge of switching my affiliation to Independent.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by Buzz123

Uhhhhh, I've always been a Democrat, either an FDR Demo, or at least a Harry Truman Demo. But even I can see that the economy was doing well until my party took control of Congress while Bush was prez, and things started going down hill fast. Then when they got Osama O'Bama elected, things really fell apart. For the first time in my life I'm seriously on the verge of switching my affiliation to Independent.

Don't feel bad. I always considered myself a democrat too. I saw the light so no more. I guess I lean more Libertarian now than anything.

[LIS123]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

So, I guess your answer to my question of whether you want to reconcile your diametrically opposed statements would be "no, I can't."

That's not true. Nobody said there are enough jobs for every single unemployed person, but there is evidence (anecdotal and empirical) that extending UE benefits is going to lower peoples' drive to seek jobs. Allen Reynolds from Cato has discussed this many times.

I'm also not opposed to UE benefits, but 99 weeks is enough. What is most important is freeing up the Economy and placing a lower tax and regulatory burden on individuals and businesses so more jobs can be created.

What Economic recommendations do you have with respect to taxes, regulations, unions and Cap and Trade? Do you support tax increases, Card Check and Cap and Trade?