On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:43:25 -0400, wrote:



Probably just the latter ;-)

I would support changing the rules to say that the recipient shows
some evidence that they are looking for work

?? WTF??

has he never been unemployed???

uh...hey genius....you HAVE TO DO THIS ALREADY!

what a freakin' moron...

and that they would
accept a change in career

now let's see...you're gonna compete against people already IN that
industry....

so the boss is gonna look at your resume and the 5 other people you're
competing against...

, perhaps to the point that they show some
effort to learn another trade. When I knew the computer business as I
knew it was gone I started learning something that wasn't (in my case
I got an electrical inspector's license).

right wing bull****. the right keeps telling us this meltdown is the
fault of america's middle class.

wall street, of course, is blameless

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:51:16 -0400, Harry
wrote:



In more civilized countries, when a job for which you have trained or
educated yourself disappears or you are injured to the point you can't
work your trade, the government sends you back to school to learn a
newer trade, and helps you support your family in the meantime.

One of my Norwegian buddies used to work on the oil rigs. He suffered a
serious injury and could no longer do the work. The government paid for
his retraining into another profession, and it wasn't flipping burgers.

We need to restructure our society.

damn straight. the right wing in this country hates the middle class,
and thinks we're lazy, so would NEVER support this.

but it works.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:21:43 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



But they must be livable jobs. Which there is but for a very few skill
sets and huge decrease in wages.

While I do feel for the middle class pillaging going on, they have to
stop vooting for idiots liek Obama that have $1.6 billion of debt spend
for corrupt banks and corrupt business but none for the middle class.

of course, the TARP program was developed by henry paulson...bush's
treasury secretary...and passed by bush.

the right just hates obama 'cuz he's black, so they dont blame
anything on the rich white guy


People need to ask what Obama and the democrats has done for the middle
class backbone of USA?... And the answer is not pretty.

and what did bush do?

oh. he socialized the risk and privatized the rewards for his rich
buddies.

cancuk just hates obama 'cuz he's black

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:34:49 -0400, Harry
wrote:


The sort of "capitalism" we now have in the United States will only make
the rich richer.

**** the rich.

just give 'em payback...do to them what they've been doing to us.

the 'new yorker' magazine had an interesting proposal...invent a new
tax structure...tax the ultrawealthy at much higher rates than real
americans. the ultra rich have seen their incomes skyrocket over the
last 10 years, so they can afford it

PLUS they engineered this mess. let them clean it up

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Charles C." wrote in message
...
While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which
he featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a
thought on how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but
his job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he,
like many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make sense for him to take the new job because he was better off
financially collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has
to do the best thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start
new careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought
was this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed
off. The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the
unemployment fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the
previous income. This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ...
sufficient time to become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in
lower unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left
or right.

This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.


Welcome back Ms Plume.
Your legion of admirers sure did miss you..................... you are all
they could talk about.
Did you buy a boat?
I probably won't see your reply until late Monday. We're taking mom and my
oldest sister to beautiful Cape Breton.
My youngest sister and her husband will meet us there as we visit my #3
sister.

Yes, I can tell they were probably hurting themselves in anticipation of my
return.

We looked at several and I think we settled on one. More details to follow,
but I've got a lot of backlog to deal with, so it might be a few days.

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:01:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



This basic concept has been talked about for a long time. I find it truly
loony that if you say you're in school, e.g., training for a new career,
you're unemployment benefits suffer. Of course, this would be unpopular,
mainly because it's a complicated explanation... not that it doesn't make
some sense.


but of course we know that, according to the right, unemployment is
caused by the lazy middle class.


Much of the current unemployment is caused by the elimination of jobs due
to outsourcing overseas. Jobs "added" so far this year don't even keep up
with the numbers of new people just entering the job market, let alone
decent jobs for those who have been laid off, a fact that the liberal
press likes to overlook.

A serious program to save existing jobs and promote the creation of new
jobs is needed to get out of this economic slump. Time for the POTUS and
congress to face facts and stop throwing money at the problem as a
temporary fix. Get tough with trade agreements and create incentives to
manufacture in the USA . Most people want to work.



I'd like to see the end of subsidies for companies that "create" jobs
overseas. That would be a nice place to start as well!

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a thought
on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life but
his
job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he, like
many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make
sense for him to take the new job because he was better off financially
collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has to do the
best
thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to start
new
careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was
this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed
off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous
income.
This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient time to
become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment
benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in lower
unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left
or
right.

How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.

How about we let your kids starve if you can't find a job? Oh wait, that's
what the Republicans want.

How about unemployment benefits that are no greater than minimum wage in
your local area.

How about we let your kids starve if you can't find a job? Oh wait, that's
what the Republicans want.

Nobody owes you a job.

Nobody owes you health coverage, so if you get TB and spread it around, it's
no big deal. Oh wait, that's what the Republicans want.


Nobody owes you a job making the same amount of money as your last job.

Nobody says that, except the many people in your delusions (and Rush).

Nobody owes you a lifestyle that you have become acustomed to.

Nobody says that, except the many people in your delusions (and Rush).

Get off your ass and get to work.

Get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself!

On 8/14/10 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:51:16 -0400,
wrote:

It is stupid to keep paying money to a guy who is sitting home waiting
for the buggie whip plant to reopen.


In more civilized countries, when a job for which you have trained or
educated yourself disappears or you are injured to the point you can't
work your trade, the government sends you back to school to learn a
newer trade, and helps you support your family in the meantime.


The problem with the federal government doing that is, by the time you
got the bureaucracy in place, the job you were training for might be
obsolete and the government would make so many of those tradesmen that
job market would be flooded.
They can't seem to do anything on a small scale and most of the money
ends up going into the pockets of a few special interests with big
lobbying budgets.
I heard the other day that lobbyists pump 1.3 million dollars a
legislative minute into our congress. (based on the number of hours
congress is in session)

The problem with the large-scale private sector is that it is
multinational and doesn't give a damn about the United States or
Americans. We need a major restructuring of our society, including any
tax laws that in any way encourage corporations to send jobs overseas.

We also need to step up our support of free trade unions for workers
overseas in slave or near slave labor countries. We have to have a world
in which there is no place for exploitative corporations to hide.





--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:13:42 -0500, Jim wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.
since there are 5 applicants for every job, how is this going to help
My wife just got cold called to go sell road signs for $70,000 a year
plus expenses and benefits so some people can still find work.
Sure she did. And I just got a cold call offering me a great
opportunity to sell phone booth services to local merchants.
Get a cut out of every call too.
Worth maybe $150k a year he said, if I hustle and I pick the right areas
with heavy pay phone traffic.
Like her I turned the offer down.
You know what they call job offers from cold callers?
Bull****.
Oh wait. You mean the cold caller found work. I get it now.

Jim - Be wary of Greeks bearing gifts.


This is a real offer. She does business with the guy now.

Well, hell's bells.
If this fellow's name is Ralph, you should do this:
Call the Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.
Say, "Hilda, Ralph called my wife and offered her a $70k job with
benefits. She didn't take it, but it tells me that there should be no
problem with the folks finding work. Stop sending unemployment checks.
The country's unemployment problem is over. Just get a hold of Ralph."

I'm sure Hilda will be very pleased with your news.

Jim - We're just drowning in jobs around here too.

On 8/14/2010 11:14 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

While watching Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show last evening in
which he
featured a segment on a couple who had lost their jobs, I had a
thought on
how the unemployment insurance programs might be modified.

The husband had worked in the auto parts industry all his adult life
but his
job was eliminated. Despite efforts to find a new, similar job he, like
many, had found that his job was gone, not to return.

He acknowledged finding a new job, requiring him to start over in a new
career and at a low starting wage. He freely admitted that it did not
make
sense for him to take the new job because he was better off financially
collecting unemployment benefits. He wants to work, but has to do the
best
thing money-wise to keep his house, etc.

Many are in the same boat.

Since many jobs are gone for good and people are going to have to
start new
careers with lower pay due to little or no experience, my thought was
this:

Rather than continue to extend full unemployment benefits during this
critical economy, structure the unemployment funding as a subsidy to the
new, lower pay scale common to a new job in which one has no experience.
Benefits would be tied to the last year's earnings before being layed
off.
The combined new job pay and the subsidized income from the unemployment
fund would equal some percentage (say 75-90 percent) of the previous
income.
This benefit would last for a period of 2 years ... sufficient time to
become trained and knowledgeable in the new job.

This would cut the amount of money currently being paid out in
unemployment
benefits, provide an incentive for new jobs resulting in lower
unemployment.

Note: This is a totally non-partisan idea. No blame cast on the left or
right.

How about you get no more than 3 months of unemployment period.

How about we let your kids starve if you can't find a job? Oh wait,
that's what the Republicans want.

How about unemployment benefits that are no greater than minimum wage in
your local area.

How about we let your kids starve if you can't find a job? Oh wait,
that's what the Republicans want.

Nobody owes you a job.

Nobody owes you health coverage, so if you get TB and spread it around,
it's no big deal. Oh wait, that's what the Republicans want.


Nobody owes you a job making the same amount of money as your last job.

Nobody says that, except the many people in your delusions (and Rush).

Nobody owes you a lifestyle that you have become acustomed to.

Nobody says that, except the many people in your delusions (and Rush).

Get off your ass and get to work.

Get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself!

You aught to take your own advice.

--
Is government working for you, or are you working for the government?