Scrooged

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Scrooged

Post by dales »

Some might say they should've studied harder in school or are just too lazy to find a job.

I beg to differ:



(12-01) 03:21 PST (AP) --

Extended unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans begin to run out Wednesday, cutting off a steady stream of income and guaranteeing a dismal holiday season for people already struggling with bills they cannot pay.

Unless Congress changes its mind, benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks will end this month.

That means Christmas is out of the question for Wayne Pittman, 46, of Lawrenceville, Ga., and his wife and 9-year-old son. The carpenter was working up to 80 hours a week at the beginning of the decade, but saw that gradually drop to 15 hours before it dried up completely. His last $297 check will go to necessities, not presents.

"I have a little boy, and that's kind of hard to explain to him," Pittman said.

The average weekly unemployment benefit in the U.S. is $302.90, though it varies widely depending on how states calculate the payment. Because of supplemental state programs and other factors, it's hard to know for sure who will lose their benefits at any given time. But the Labor Department estimates that, without a Congress-approved extension, about 2 million people will be cut off by Christmas.

Congressional opponents of extending the benefits beyond this month say fiscal responsibility should come first. Republicans in the House and Senate, along with a handful of conservative Democrats, say they're open to extending benefits, but not if it means adding to the $13.8 trillion national debt.

Even if Congress does lengthen benefits, cash assistance is at best a stopgap measure, said Carol Hardison, executive director of Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, N.C., which has seen 20,000 new clients since the Great Recession started in December 2007.

"We're going to have to have a new conversation with the people who are still suffering, about the potentially drastic changes they're going to have to make to stay out of the homeless shelter," she said.

Forget Christmas presents. What the so-called "99ers" want most of all is what remains elusive in the worst economy in generations: a job.

"I am not searching for a job, I am begging for one," said Felicia Robbins, 30, as she prepared to move out of a homeless shelter in Pensacola, Fla., where she and her five children have been living. She is using the last of her cash reserves, about $500, to move into a small, unfurnished rental home.

Robbins lost her job as a juvenile justice worker in 2009 and her last $235 unemployment check will arrive Dec. 13. Her 10-year-old car isn't running, and she walks each day to the local unemployment office to look for work.

Jeanne Reinman, 61, of Greenville, S.C., still has her house, but even that comes with a downside.

After losing her computer design job a year and a half ago, Reinman scraped by with her savings and a weekly $351 unemployment check. When her nest egg vanished in July, she started using her unemployment to pay off her mortgage and stopped paying her credit card bills. She recently informed a creditor she couldn't make payments on a loan because her benefits were ending.

"I'm more concerned about trying to hang onto my house than paying you," she told the creditor.

Ninety-nine weeks may seem like a long time to find a job. But even as the economy grows, jobs that vanished in the Great Recession have not returned. The private sector added about 159,000 jobs in October — half as many as needed to reduce the unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, which the Federal Reserve expects will hover around 9 percent for all of next year.

"I apply for at least two jobs a day," said Silvia Lewis, of Nashville, Tenn., who's also drained her 401(k) and most of her other savings. "The constant thing that I hear, and a lot of my friends are in the same boat, is that you're overqualified."

JoAnn Sampson of Charlotte hears the same thing. A former cart driver at U.S. Airways, she and her husband are both facing the end of unemployment benefits, and she can't get so much as an entry-level job.

"When you try to apply for retail or fast food, they say 'You're overqualified,' they say 'We don't pay that much money,' they say, 'You don't want this job,'" she said.

Sampson counts her blessings: At least her two children, a teenager and a college student, are too old to expect much from Christmas this year.

Shawn Slonsky's three children aren't expecting much either. The 44-year-old union electrician in northeast Ohio won't be able to afford presents or even a Christmas tree.

His sons and daughter haven't bothered to send him holiday wish lists with the latest gizmos and gadgets.

Things used to be different. Before work dried up, Slonsky earned about $100,000 a year and he and his wife lived in a three-bedroom house where deer meandered through the backyard. For Christmas, he bought his aspiring doctor daughter medical books, a guitar, a unicycle.

Then he and his wife lost their jobs. Their house went into foreclosure and they had to move in with his 73-year-old father.

Now, Slonsky is dreading the holidays as he tries to stretch his last unemployment check to cover child support, gas, groceries and utilities.

"You don't even get in the frame of mind for Christmas when things are bad," he said. "It's hard to be in a jovial mood all the time when you've got this storm cloud hanging over your head."

___

This report includes contributions from Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard, in Columbia, S.C.; Ray Henry, in Atlanta; Melissa Nelson, in Pensacola, Fla.; Lucas L. Johnson II in Nashville, Tenn.; and Jeannie Nuss in Columbus, Ohio.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z16sPi88W6

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11654
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Scrooged

Post by Crackpot »

They should extend it at least one more time (as the jobs have not yet followed the economy) but any after this one should have restricted conditions. You really cant expect people to find jobs when there is so little hiring going on.

As I see it the only viable option to unemployment would be a federally aided relocation program to help thoe who could get jobs elswhere untie themselves from thier local obligations (read underwater mortgages) to faciltate relocation. Of course that would likly end up costing much more.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Scrooged

Post by dales »

What really chaps my hide is that tax breaks for those making over a quarter million dollars a year is OK but those living upon crumbs is up for discussion.

BTW, CP I agree with your post, the economy is slowly getting back of track but those left in the lurch must suffer the consequences thru no fault of their own. What should they do?

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Scrooged

Post by dgs49 »

Who's your daddy?

Someone please point me to the provision in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any United States law that makes ANYONE the legal dependent of the United States Taxpayers.

Millions have lost their jobs. Not to be callous but, So what? Millions never had a job, despite trying their best to find one. Who is giving them money? Millions of recent college grads have tried to jump into the world of gainful employment, only to find that nobody needs someone with a degree in Wimmin's Studies. Who's giving them money? High School graduates. Tech school graduates. Former convicts. Recently divorced people who heretofore had not worked. Is NEED the defining factor here? Is anybody advocating that we pass out cash to homeless people living under bridges?

There are a hundred million examples of people who could very well use some cash from Uncle Sugar. Why confine our Imperial largesse to those who were fortunate enough to have goods jobs, but now have lost them?

We have an institution in our Public Realm called Unemployment Insurance. Employers and employees pay what is called a "premium," (just like for any other insurance), and when a certain triggering event occurs - i.e., a layoff - the policy holder is entitled to a benefit. The benefit is UP TO 26 weeks of compensation at a rate determined by a known formula.

If I have insurance on my Corolla, worth $10,000, it crashes and I want to have it fixed for $25,000, what is the insurance company going to tell me?

The deal on unemployment insurance is NOT that it lasts until the economy picks up, or as long as it might take you to find a job, it has a fixed term. It has nothing to do with Congress being "compassionate" or "ruthless." Payment forever is NOT the DEAL, and the money does not exist to extend the DEAL indefinitely.

In some countries (e.g., Western Europe), they have made a policy decision that they will continue to pay the unemployed for as along as it takes them to find work. As a result, they have tens of thousands of people who "don't work" for year after year. In this country, we have not made that policy decision, largely because our tax structure cannot support it ($7.50/gal, etc).

When did this change?

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Scrooged

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Crackpot wrote:As I see it the only viable option to unemployment would be a federally aided relocation program to help thoe who could get jobs elswhere untie themselves from thier local obligations (read underwater mortgages) to faciltate relocation. Of course that would likly end up costing much more.
But it might be money better spent. So would money spent on retraining. Many lost jobs are not coming back, ever.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Scrooged

Post by loCAtek »

Slight tangent: Support your local toy and food drive, so folks DO have a Christmas this year!

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Scrooged

Post by Gob »

Not a tangent at all, a worthwhile addition.

It's more important what people DO about such situations than their views on it.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Scrooged

Post by loCAtek »

OK, then further plug: please help by the 13th and 14th, that's when most shelters need donations by. If you forget go to any Marine Station, they collect for 'Toy for Toys right up to Christmas Eve.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Scrooged

Post by Gob »

Image

Click on the banner folks.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Scrooged

Post by dales »

Millions have lost their jobs. Not to be callous but, So what?
A nice lump of black coal awaits you on xmas morning. :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11654
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Scrooged

Post by Crackpot »

oldr_n_wsr wrote:
Crackpot wrote:As I see it the only viable option to unemployment would be a federally aided relocation program to help thoe who could get jobs elswhere untie themselves from thier local obligations (read underwater mortgages) to faciltate relocation. Of course that would likly end up costing much more.
But it might be money better spent. So would money spent on retraining. Many lost jobs are not coming back, ever.
I didn't add that because There are already job retraining programs available (at least in my area) through or affiliated with the UIA.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Scrooged

Post by dgs49 »

For the record,I lost my job last year, and collected unemployment compensation for six months. I have previously lost jobs and collected for lesser periods.

Had the UEC run out before I found another job, it would have been a (bit of a) hardship. Not Uncle Sugar's problem. Mine.

Has no bearing on the fact that Congress has no business authorizing the payment of billions of dollars we don't have to extend unemployment benefits beyond what was promised.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Scrooged

Post by loCAtek »

Gob wrote:Image

Click on the banner folks.


I'm so stealing that ...

Big RR
Posts: 14897
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Scrooged

Post by Big RR »

The benefit is UP TO 26 weeks of compensation at a rate determined by a known formula.
Please tell me where the 26 weeks is written into any law--the duration varies as the situation does, it always has. It's quite different from having a policy limit on auto insurance.

Ad FWIW, please show me where the law allows the government to donate unused premiums in excess of projected needs into the general treasury, as is done in most states--the same with sate-funded pensions?

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Scrooged

Post by rubato »

dales wrote:Some might say they should've studied harder in school or are just too lazy to find a job.

I beg to differ:



(12-01) 03:21 PST (AP) --

Extended unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans begin to run out Wednesday, cutting off a steady stream of income and guaranteeing a dismal holiday season for people already struggling with bills they cannot pay.

Unless Congress changes its mind, benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks will end this month.
Your Repuglican friends are, right now, voting to borrow a few hundred billions a year to give tax cuts to people like me who make > $300,000 /yr and fuck the poor sods whose unemployment will run out. I hate to break it to you, but I voted against that kind of stupidity.



yrs,
rubato

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Scrooged

Post by Andrew D »

According to the Republicans, an extension of unemployment benefits, which would stimulate the economy, must be "paid for," so that it does not increase the deficit. But according to the Republicans, an extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest approximately 3% of Americans, which would not stimulate the economy, does not have to be "paid for," even though it manifestly will increase the deficit.

Republicans. Gotta love 'em ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Scrooged

Post by dales »

Your Repuglican friends are, right now, voting to borrow a few hundred billions a year to give tax cuts to people like me who make > $300,000 /yr and fuck the poor sods whose unemployment will run out. I hate to break it to you, but I voted against that kind of stupidity.



yrs,
rubato
Yeah, that's why I started this thread.

LMAO@U :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 20023
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Scrooged

Post by BoSoxGal »

I am so grateful that my unemployment lasted only 7 months and that I currently have a good job that is for the most part stable - though depending on what becomes of the economy, I could get downsized again. Luckily, because I now prosecute crime, I have a certain degree of job security. Sadly, too.

I am also grateful that I only lost some material stuff and my credit rating in the downturn. Some are losing homes, and others are losing family members to the despair that leads to substance abuse and suicide.

It sickens me that those tax breaks for the rich matter so much to the Republicans, whilst 'unemployment benefits be damned' is the message to the rest of us.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Scrooged

Post by dgs49 »

In yet another fine example of how the Libs in the media have co-opted the English language, we find the nonsensical discussion of non-existent "tax cuts." There are no tax cuts "for the rich" or anyone else on the table. What is under discussion is a TAX HIKE for some (or most, depending on what happens) Americans. Yes, that's what they call it when you are paying one amount in one year and, because of a change in the applicable law, you are paying more the next.

If Congress does nothing and the rates go up in January, I wonder how many people will see their diminished paychecks as a matter of "having lost a tax cut," versus the number of people who will say, in effect, "Oh shit! My taxes were just increased!"

But by manipulating the language, the discussion moves away from, "Whether it is a good idea to raise taxes during a recession" (to which the obvious and compelling answer is NO!), to "Whether it is a good idea to give a tax break to The Rich," which is always a populist no-brainer: It is, by common consensus, NEVER a good idea to give a tax break to The Rich. This is why Libs constantly frame every discussion of tax policy on those terms.

And oddly, the Media never mention the fact that The Rich basically pay the lion's share of all the income taxes that are paid, so that it is well-nigh impossible to give a tax break to "the working poor," since their overall contribution is little more than snot.

The MSM also neglects to point out that increases in tax rates rarely bring about additional tax revenues, as The Rich (entrepreneurs, professionals, investors, top level executives) have many means and strategies of legally avoiding taxes in any given year, and when they feel particularly abused they tend to employ those strategies. The unfortunate fact is that people act dynamically to outside tax stimuli. It is not possible to predict what will happen when the tax structure is modified significantly. People change their behavior, and no one knows what will result.

The real pity is that gobs of additional money could be collected by switching to a very low basic payroll tax and adding a consumption tax. This would permit collecting taxes on the underground economy, and other benefits as well. But it has the downside of taking away Congress' ability to manipulate people's behavior through fucking with the tax code. And control is what it's all about.

As I stated above, I have a Big problem with the idea of dumping money into the economy through extended unemployment benefits. It take one class of people (those previously employed) and throws money at them instead of all the others who are just as needy and just as deserving, and who get nothing from government. If the objective is to take borrowed money and dump it, why not declare a targeted tax holiday: eliminate or cut payroll taxes for six months. It is still borrowing money to throw into the economy, but its benefit is spread more broadly. There are a lot of other ways to skin that cat.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Scrooged

Post by Gob »

Image

As unemployment in the U.S. nears the dreaded 10 per cent mark, it is a chart to chill the bones of any job hunter.

Comparing previous recoveries from all 10 American recessions since 1948 to the current financial crisis, the stark figures show almost no improvement in employment figures in the past year.

Some commentators have described the comparison as 'the scariest jobs chart ever', pointing to the fact that only the 2001 recession took longer to bring employment back to pre-crisis levels.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z17N4paDB6
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

Post Reply