Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weird that someone so against socialism and handouts would gleefully sign up for them. Huh. Seems a bit hypocritical, no?
My husband is not working right now but he also didn't apply for unemployment. We both will always vote for a bigger safety net, but we personally don't believe in using it without a need, and since I'm still working, we haven't needed it, so we're leaving that for others who do need it.
I am shocked (not really) at how many boot-strappers have fallen over themselves in the rush to get in line for the maximum amount of government money the minute they found themselves in a less-than-ideal situation. Aren't these the same people who preach nonstop about how everyone should be prepared for every situation?
Let him be the fool. There's a difference between advocating for a policy for all versus voluntarily applying the policy to one.
So basically, "it's okay for me, but not for anyone else." Got it.
Not even remotely close to what I said. Is your comprehension that bad or did you intentionally misrepresent my statement? What I actually said was if it's okay for everyone else, it's okay for me. Meanwhile, your husband is saying "it's okay for everyone else, but not for me". His choice but he's only hurting himself.
The demand I am referring to is the extra bribe of $600 a week for people to stay unemployed. It’s designed to go until August. How are business owners going to staff their companies during June and July?
IIRC, the Ds also wanted some supervision over how the administrations part of the money was managed. They didn't get it.
They also wanted assurance that none of POTUS Trump's businesses would get any funding.
Not even remotely close to what I said. Is your comprehension that bad or did you intentionally misrepresent my statement? What I actually said was if it's okay for everyone else, it's okay for me. Meanwhile, your husband is saying "it's okay for everyone else, but not for me". His choice but he's only hurting himself.
It seems that if you (general) are so very opposed to safety nets for the masses, then you (general) should not take part in the handouts. Show everyone else how it's done by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, cutting costs, dipping into the large savings account you must have, etc.
If you're against, say, abortion, but it's legal, so you say, "well, I'm against this and don't think women should be able to make their own choices, but I also don't really want to deal with this unplanned pregnancy, so I'll just go ahead and get one since everyone else can," then that would be hypocritical, right? Even if it's okay for everyone else, someone who is staunchly against a particular benefit/decision should certainly be able to do without it, shouldn't they?
Are employers required to report the name of every person, along with their SS number, who refused a job offer?
Also, why are you ignoring the $600 a week in ADDITION to the regular $275? It’s the extra $600 giveaway that is creating the problem! That’s almost $900 a week, or close to $4000 a month. No low-level employee getting $10 an hour is going to go back to their tedious job when they can get 4 grand a month if they stay unemployed.
Eh sorry - in FL if not approved yet for unemployment you get zero-- they are supposed to be sent together- some approved, are NOT receiving but one check- not both, its a hot mess. Why? - crappy Rep. thieves- but in any case, many are still "pending" or " unjustly denied" on the website. And unjustly, because the program has glitches- it kicks you out, or you can't press some grey enter button- but they are aware of it- but nothing is being done. Now week 7?
Mind you, in FL, specially those that only make $15 hr. or less, work more than one job. That is a FACT, especially in the cities. So your additions look good on paper, but not in reality. Now the trash of DiSantis blaming the people... what an arsehole.
Ron DeSantis says unemployed are to blame for Florida application problems Although the state has made strides toward paying claims in the last two weeks, most applicants have not been paid. Barca tried to apply on March 22, but wasn’t able to complete his application until March 25. He was one of more than 260,000 Floridians who had to reapply in April after the state was unable to process their applications.
Barca created a petition in April demanding that Florida immediately start paying the $600-per-week federal benefits meant to supplement state unemployment benefits. It has more than 12,000 signatures so far.
It's my understanding that if your employer offers you your old job back and you refuse unemployment stops. One of the questions asked on the unemployment site certification is "Did you refuse any offer of work or fail to go for a scheduled job interview?"
Answering yes to this question will flag you for follow up. When they ask you why you refused your old job and you tell them "I make more on unemployment" I suspect you will lose your claim.
In Florida, you now have to prove that you're applying for jobs. That was suspended for about a month.
Actually you have to prove you have applied for 6 jobs. As for now, we have 3 million newly unemployed, and 4% of claims have been processed, because the system is designed to process as few as possible. My wife got $275 check in 1st week of March, and nothing since then.
Can you just pretend you didn't get contacted by them or is that something the company files with the folks at unemployment?
Unemployment comes from the employers- if they said you refuse, that word is taken first. You will get cut off, and then the employee has to go fight for benefits.
It seems that if you (general) are so very opposed to safety nets for the masses, then you (general) should not take part in the handouts. Show everyone else how it's done by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, cutting costs, dipping into the large savings account you must have, etc.
You play by the rules of the game as they currently exist, not how you would like them to be. There is nothing wrong or hypocritical with wanting the rules changed yet abiding by the rules as they currently stand. Playing by the current rules as they exist for all does not in any way invalidate or discredit your views that the rules should be changed. To impose a rule that doesn't exist upon yourself because you wish it existed is foolish but your choice.
To make a football analogy, when a player is flagged for a personal foul, even between plays, his team is assessed a 15-yard penalty. I could push for a change in the rule, that if it between plays the penalty should be on the player only (ejection, suspension, fine) not the team. But until the rule is changed to that, I'm not going to have my team decline the 15 yards when the other team is going to accept them.
We can argue all day long about how or if the rules should be changed, but until they are everyone plays by the same set of rules.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
