|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan
You don't find two years of UI a bit excessive? Most people could find a fast food job within a few weeks if they tried.
|
On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan
Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work.
|
On December 09 2013 02:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work.
Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury.
|
On December 09 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work. Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury.
Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch.
|
Come on guys, there's a balance somewhere in the middle.
Over the summer I worked for $9/hr in a lab for around 40 hours a week. It wasn't the most glorious job, but I paid for my apartment, my food and miscellaneous things and came out with a decent amount of cash at the end of the summer. I made maybe $1500 a month. Rounding up, I subtract about $600 for the apartment, $400 for food, $100 for miscellaneous and end up with $400 left over. I did not have a car or pay for insurance. It would be difficult working up to a car or house, but it would be perfectly possible to live with that hourly wage.
|
On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 09 2013 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work. Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury. Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch.
ah but there's the rub
let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better
the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution
|
Even if you do get a job at wal-mart or mcdonald's you probably still need foodstamps just to survive.
|
On December 09 2013 07:19 SnipedSoul wrote:
Even if you do get a job at wal-mart or mcdonald's you probably still need foodstamps just to survive.
and lots of consumer credit
|
On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 09 2013 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work. Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury. Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch. ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution
You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy.
|
it might get harder if everyone that was currently on that 300 dollar benefit started fighting for jobs...
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 09 2013 07:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On December 09 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 05:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 09 2013 02:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 02:34 Paljas wrote:On December 09 2013 01:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he opposes extending unemployment benefits for workers, arguing that it would be a "disservice" to jobless individuals.
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
About 1.3 million long-term jobless Americans will lose federal benefits if Congress fails to reauthorize the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which expires at the end of December.
Without congressional action, the most time that people could get would be six months of state unemployment benefits.
"When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy," Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday." Source so, instead of supporting people who suffer from long time unemployment, he proposes to cut the benefits without some sort of compensation, so they become even more isolated and left alone from society and nation. great plan Yeah, I'm all for giving lazy people handouts in perpetuity. Getting a job isn't hard. Getting a job that you like can be hard. Waiting for the latter isn't an excuse not to work. Cause $300 a week is just living a life of luxury. Yeah, and people can go earn that on their feet working somewhere instead of just collecting it on their couch. ah but there's the rub let's just wave our hands in the air and say that structural unemployment is due to the laziness of individuals and that it would all go away if people would just get up off their couches. that will all make us feel much better the problem is that americans can't compete with southeast asians in special economic zone police state factory compounds. but YOU try to tell americans that they're worth about 1.50/hr and enjoy yr revolution You are missing the point. We are only talking about replacing $300 per week in unemployment benefits. Getting a job that does that is pretty easy.
An awful lot of the kind of jobs you're suggesting they get will give irregular part time hours that demand total availability (so if you need to pick kids up from school or whatever daily then you can't just work 8 hour evening shifts after that) and will hire on 16 or so hour contracts and then give extra hours as required. It's not as simple as you're suggesting, the jobs that are easy to pick up for the unskilled tend to take advantage of them because they know they can get away with doing all sorts of bullshit. I know from personal experience how shitty employers can be if they think you're replaceable and that you need the job.
|
On December 09 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
it might get harder if everyone that was currently on that 300 dollar benefit started fighting for jobs...
We aren't talking about getting everyone off of the dole. Just those that have been there for longer than 26 weeks.
|
just give up and let's have a minimum income and we can save the administration costs. we can pay for it by taxing all the cocaine that goes into wall st
|
mcdonalds doesnt WANT to hire unemployed plumbers, office workers, construction workers, and utilities workers.
|
maybe they can stay home and put some effort into raising their children, or something like that, you know
|
that sounds too subversive
|
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.
The memos, which come from a government involved in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations, detail continued disputes in the talks over the deal. They reveal broad disagreement over a host of key positions, and general skepticism that an agreement can be reached by year-end. The Obama administration has urged countries to reach a deal by New Year's Day, though there is no technical deadline.
One memo, which was heavily redacted before being provided to HuffPost, was written ahead of a new round of talks in Singapore this week. Read the full text of what HuffPost received here. (Note: Ellipses indicate redacted text. Text in brackets has been added by a third party.) Another document, a chart outlining different country positions on the text, dates from early November, before the round of negotiations in Salt Lake City, Utah. View the chart here. HuffPost was unable to determine which of the 11 non-U.S. nations involved in the talks was responsible for the memo. The Obama administration was not available for comment Sunday evening.
Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents.
Source
|
Gee who would think that the rest of the world doesn't like increased costs, less control of banks and more power to corporations. Its almost like they have a brain...
|
On December 09 2013 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.
The memos, which come from a government involved in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations, detail continued disputes in the talks over the deal. They reveal broad disagreement over a host of key positions, and general skepticism that an agreement can be reached by year-end. The Obama administration has urged countries to reach a deal by New Year's Day, though there is no technical deadline.
One memo, which was heavily redacted before being provided to HuffPost, was written ahead of a new round of talks in Singapore this week. Read the full text of what HuffPost received here. (Note: Ellipses indicate redacted text. Text in brackets has been added by a third party.) Another document, a chart outlining different country positions on the text, dates from early November, before the round of negotiations in Salt Lake City, Utah. View the chart here. HuffPost was unable to determine which of the 11 non-U.S. nations involved in the talks was responsible for the memo. The Obama administration was not available for comment Sunday evening.
Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents. Source
Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents.
How the fu*k bypassing the constitution of pretty much every country on planet earth, shitting on consumer interests and giving corporate blowjobs en masse ain't news 24/7 is beyond me. The only place I regularly read about it is twitter.
When government has "something to hide", you know _something_ is up.
|
On December 09 2013 07:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
Come on guys, there's a balance somewhere in the middle.
Over the summer I worked for $9/hr in a lab for around 40 hours a week. It wasn't the most glorious job, but I paid for my apartment, my food and miscellaneous things and came out with a decent amount of cash at the end of the summer. I made maybe $1500 a month. Rounding up, I subtract about $600 for the apartment, $400 for food, $100 for miscellaneous and end up with $400 left over. I did not have a car or pay for insurance. It would be difficult working up to a car or house, but it would be perfectly possible to live with that hourly wage.
Well it would be perfectly possible to live with said wage if you would never get sick, agree to shoot yourself as soon as you had to go into pension, and never want to raise kids or if you never had to care for other people/members of your family. What are people even complaining about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
