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.
Before the libs go screeching there is one exception and that is for those who due to disability, but not the disability brought on by alcohol or illicit drug use, and are unable to work. A civilized society has an obligation to care for those who can not care for themselves but what we have today is a system that enables, even encourages, poor decisions and behaviors.
With that said where in heavens name is the morality of the state taking part of my work product (my money) only to give it to someone that doesn't work because they are to lazy, feel work is beneath their dignity and station in life or made poor life choices to drink alcohol to excess, do drugs to "heal the pain of having to work" or overeating to the point of being to fat to work?
In short there is no morality it's a liberal feel good idea that does far more damage by enabling bad choices and bad behaviors.
Same with unemployment.Unemployment should be completely done away with.
I am sorry, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the idiot who had a job for 10 years earning $800 a week and due to his reckless in his spending he was unable to save 5% of his income for a "rainy day".
5% savings averaging 2% interest over 10 years gives $22,988.27 and the clown couldn't save $40 a week? The price of a Starbucks Latte, nobody can save that if they tried? Wouldn't the guy be far better off with $23k in his pocket instead of having to endure the painful ordeal of waiting in lines at the unemployment office to sign up for the $280 a week dole?
What unemployment does is encourage reckless spending by providing a "safety net" that is designed to steal dignity.
What should be done, these could be done through PSA's, is encourage working Americans to save not 5% but 10% of their income for a rainy day. Wouldn't the guy who made $800 a week be better off with $46,000 in cash... his money?
By doing away with these programs think of the billions of dollars in savings by all levels of government in not having the unnecessary expense of keeping unemployment offices open while employing hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats that produce nothing of value.
We have another case of one eyed blindness regarding corporate welfare, after an exhausting rant the OP can't seem to find it in his heart to observe the latest round of poor decisions of corporate America and the ensuing huge payout it has cost all of us. Keep on drinkin that Glenn Beck juice man and you won't be able to see out of either eye!!!!!!
We have another case of one eyed blindness regarding corporate welfare, after an exhausting rant the OP can't seem to find it in his heart to observe the latest round of poor decisions of corporate America and the ensuing huge payout it has cost all of us. Keep on drinkin that Glenn Beck juice man and you won't be able to see out of either eye!!!!!!
Weren't your heros Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank all pushing with all they could for that last huge corporation bailout? The so-called stimulus where the very same corporations that export their jobs to foreign countries received billions of American dollars? Don't forget the big banks they bailed out too.
Before the libs go screeching there is one exception and that is for those who due to disability, but not the disability brought on by alcohol or illicit drug use, and are unable to work. A civilized society has an obligation to care for those who can not care for themselves but what we have today is a system that enables, even encourages, poor decisions and behaviors.
With that said where in heavens name is the morality of the state taking part of my work product (my money) only to give it to someone that doesn't work because they are to lazy, feel work is beneath their dignity and station in life or made poor life choices to drink alcohol to excess, do drugs to "heal the pain of having to work" or overeating to the point of being to fat to work?
In short there is no morality it's a liberal feel good idea that does far more damage by enabling bad choices and bad behaviors.
Same with unemployment.Unemployment should be completely done away with.
I am sorry, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the idiot who had a job for 10 years earning $800 a week and due to his reckless in his spending he was unable to save 5% of his income for a "rainy day".
5% savings averaging 2% interest over 10 years gives $22,988.27 and the clown couldn't save $40 a week? The price of a Starbucks Latte, nobody can save that if they tried? Wouldn't the guy be far better off with $23k in his pocket instead of having to endure the painful ordeal of waiting in lines at the unemployment office to sign up for the $280 a week dole?
What unemployment does is encourage reckless spending by providing a "safety net" that is designed to steal dignity.
What should be done, these could be done through PSA's, is encourage working Americans to save not 5% but 10% of their income for a rainy day. Wouldn't the guy who made $800 a week be better off with $46,000 in cash... his money?
By doing away with these programs think of the billions of dollars in savings by all levels of government in not having the unnecessary expense of keeping unemployment offices open while employing hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats that produce nothing of value.
Sure.
I think the GOP party overall and ALL GOP candidates should make that the center of their entire platform: Immediately STOP Welfare, Social Security and Unemployment.
Make sure you revisit your post the day after you're laid off.
I am over 60 and while I am still working I have followed my own advice savings advice since I was 28 years old. No need to worry about me I would do just fine.
The savings was not part of my retirement or IRA accounts it was for a rainy day that I always knew could happen.
We have over $100,000 which should be enough to get me through a spat of unemployment but what is important to know is I never saved a lot of money. When first married it was only $10 a week but in my peak earning years we saved much more and at one time we were saving $500 a month.
I never saved very much but it doesn't take much. Just $25 a week for 5 years @ 2% is $6,825.98 or enough for weekly withdrawals of $262.53 and that is just 5 years. In 10 years you would have $14,368.12 which would be enough for weekly withdrawals of $552.62 for 26 weeks which is a lot more than unemployment.
Everyone here has internet, most likely they have cable television and one or two cell phones. I find it hard to believe anyone reading this couldn't manage to save $25 a week just by cutting back just a little on something. Thing is just $25 a week becomes real serious money ($53,339.34) at 30 years. With some premium channels we're only talking the price of cable television and if you can't afford the $25 a week perhaps you should consider doing away with the cable getting yourself a set of rabbit ears.
If Americans would once again become acquainted with the idea of saving for a rainy day we would all be better off and government could be much smaller taking less of our money allowing us to save even more.
At $50 a week, the price of a daily morning donut and Latte, in 30 years you would have $106,676.87 which would be about the time most men are most vulnerable to losing their jobs in their mid 50's.
Sure.
I think the GOP party overall and ALL GOP candidates should make that the center of their entire platform: Immediately STOP Welfare, Social Security and Unemployment.
Ah, yes - another really stupid idea.
Ken
I wish they would. Imagine reducing taxes so we could all save more.
It isn't like the GOP would lose votes... the welfare mother with 4 kids from 3 different baby daddy's living in subsidized housing on welfare would switch party affiliation.
Simply said our nation can not continue on the path we are on it can only end in destruction of our entire economy.
I wish they would. Imagine reducing taxes so we could all save more.
It isn't like the GOP would lose votes... the welfare mother with 4 kids from 3 different baby daddy's living in subsidized housing on welfare would switch party affiliation.
Simply said our nation can not continue on the path we are on it can only end in destruction of our entire economy.
Yeah, but imagine how many votes the GOP would lose if they ran on a platform of abolishing unemployment benefits and SS?
You really ought to read up on the Unemployment Insurance program before you start bad-mouthing it. For example, do you know that it's jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes? For every hour you work, a certain amount is put into the program....a lot like that 'saving for a rainy day' you spoke of.
Unemployment handouts that go on indefinitely are just about creating a new class of government dependents.
Welfare is for those who never worked.
Unemployment sounds better because it implies that those who depend on these government handouts worked at least for a short while.
These people tend to become very grateful and even loving of the same politicians who are doing all they can for the international corporations that want to import all the cheap foreign made products to sell to them.
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.
