A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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

Nobody owes you a job.

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

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

Get off your ass and get to work.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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

Nobody owes you a job.

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

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

Get off your ass and get to work.


Unemployment pays better.
Why work?
It's the new American way.



--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

Charles C. wrote:


"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.


"Liberal press" my ass. What does the mighty Wall Street Journal have
to say?
All working journalists are working. They have jobs and income.
Money to buy cheap imported goods.
They are part of an elite. Why should they upset the applecart?
Same with the pols.

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.

"Most?" How about damn near all.
You have an obvious answer - balancing trade - but both political
parties are tied to the free trade/consumerist mentality.
They are owned by Wall Street and the Chambers of Commerce.
And their answer is to lower taxes and keep offshoring jobs.
After all, the current bosses who have managed the economy are the
experts. Right.
Run your unemployment compensation idea by them and the first thing
they'll say is you're giving gov handouts to bums.
Get it past them and they'll lower wages to scoop up gov gravy.
Bums all over the place.
Rather squawk than think and sacrifice for the future and greater good.
Call them the "Me Generation" or whatever you want.
I call them the "Never Been Hungry Generation."
Then you've got the WTO to deal with, another organization controlled by
wealth.
Nope, nothing much will happen until the situation gets much worse.
If those in power can keep the "downtrodden" off the streets and avoid
"10 Million Homeless March on Washington" events, we will continue
to decline.
Just have to maintain some minimum level of subsistence for the folks,
and blame them for their own poverty.
There's some element of truth to that.
And the rich will get richer while the poor get poorer.
The right will say it's all good, and the left will whine but do nothing.
Barring something seriously shaking up the status quo, that's how it
will transpire.
Some serious turmoil is the only thing that can change our direction.
Always is.

Jim - No guts, no progress. No blood, no progress.

Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care.
Jimmy Buffett

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:00:46 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:





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.


traditioal economic solutions in the US have focused on incentivizing
the rich to invest in capacity...supply side economics.

this doesnt work. it'a myth that the american right has drummed into
the cultural life of america's politics so that most people believe
it.

we have a collapse of demand in this country since the middle class is
tapped out. and the right simply can not believe the mddle class
hasnt lived up to its obligations to support the rich.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:13:55 -0400, BAR 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

again and again the right penalizes the middle class. we bankroll the
rich with bailouts, then the right comes along and says the middle
class is lazy.


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

Nobody owes you a job.

more of the right wing bull****...we socialize risk for the rich, then
privatize rewards for the rich and the middle class pays for both



Get off your ass and get to work.

more right wing bull**** mytholoogy

where are the jobs? notice he doesnt ask THAT question?

the right has their bull**** mythology. and it's centered around the
idea that the US should be a prison camp for the middle class

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On 8/14/10 10:24 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:13:55 -0400, 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

again and again the right penalizes the middle class. we bankroll the
rich with bailouts, then the right comes along and says the middle
class is lazy.


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

Nobody owes you a job.

more of the right wing bull****...we socialize risk for the rich, then
privatize rewards for the rich and the middle class pays for both



Get off your ass and get to work.

more right wing bull**** mytholoogy

where are the jobs? notice he doesnt ask THAT question?

the right has their bull**** mythology. and it's centered around the
idea that the US should be a prison camp for the middle class


Well, you could apply for BAR's job. Anyone could, as the job
requirements are minimal. Well, maybe Little Man Tosk couldn't...



--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 8/14/10 10:24 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:13:55 -0400, 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

again and again the right penalizes the middle class. we bankroll the
rich with bailouts, then the right comes along and says the middle
class is lazy.


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

Nobody owes you a job.

more of the right wing bull****...we socialize risk for the rich, then
privatize rewards for the rich and the middle class pays for both



Get off your ass and get to work.

more right wing bull**** mytholoogy

where are the jobs? notice he doesnt ask THAT question?

the right has their bull**** mythology. and it's centered around the
idea that the US should be a prison camp for the middle class


Well, you could apply for BAR's job. Anyone could, as the job requirements
are minimal. Well, maybe Little Man Tosk couldn't...



--
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.


Anyone with half a brain can tell you are a spoofer. You can't write and you
are stuck on stupid. ESAD

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On 8/14/10 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.


So you *agree* that unemployment benefits should be reduced to three
months because there are plenty of good jobs available, eh? Or are you
just presenting one of your famous contrarian views?

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On 8/14/10 1:21 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 8/14/2010 8:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.

I think you are right, but you are not giving the full impact of the
quality of jobs. There are always jobs at minimum wage, must have car, 4
hours a day 50 miles away.

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.

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



You think that old fart and his crazy, simple-minded running mate would
be doing better? We'd be in a "Great Depression" right now, not a Bush
Recession.

We need to bury the concept that we should "protect" the wealthy because
someday we'll be rich and when we are, we'll want to enjoy all the
benefits of being wealthy.

We need to rebuild our social safety nets so that when economic or
medical disaster devastate families, we don't simply discard them on the
side of the road.

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

**** the rich.


--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On 8/14/10 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:01:29 -0400,
wrote:

On 8/14/10 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.


So you *agree* that unemployment benefits should be reduced to three
months because there are plenty of good jobs available, eh? Or are you
just presenting one of your famous contrarian views?

Probably just the latter ;-)

I would support changing the rules to say that the recipient shows
some evidence that they are looking for work and that they would
accept a change in career, 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).

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.

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.




--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On 8/14/2010 8:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.

I think you are right, but you are not giving the full impact of the
quality of jobs. There are always jobs at minimum wage, must have car,
4 hours a day 50 miles away.

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.

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

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

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"Harry" wrote in message
...
On 8/14/10 1:21 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 8/14/2010 8:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.

I think you are right, but you are not giving the full impact of the
quality of jobs. There are always jobs at minimum wage, must have car, 4
hours a day 50 miles away.

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.

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



You think that old fart and his crazy, simple-minded running mate would be
doing better? We'd be in a "Great Depression" right now, not a Bush
Recession.

We need to bury the concept that we should "protect" the wealthy because
someday we'll be rich and when we are, we'll want to enjoy all the
benefits of being wealthy.

We need to rebuild our social safety nets so that when economic or medical
disaster devastate families, we don't simply discard them on the side of
the road.

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

**** the rich.


--
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.


What I mean is........... **** everyone except me.

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:01:29 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 8/14/10 11:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:24:02 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons. The job you used top have may be gone but that doesn't mean
all jobs are gone. The gate kid has an accounting degree and a
business degree but he found there is more money in fixing gates. It
beats working in a car wash, where he was when my wife first hired
him.


So you *agree* that unemployment benefits should be reduced to three
months because there are plenty of good jobs available, eh? Or are you
just presenting one of your famous contrarian views?

Probably just the latter ;-)

I would support changing the rules to say that the recipient shows
some evidence that they are looking for work and that they would
accept a change in career, 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).

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


Like Govt Motors? I agree

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:53:19 -0400, 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.
The kid she mentored up from a $10/hr handyman is now working for a
gate company making $50k with benefits.
That may not sound like much money up north or in California but it is
good for SW Florida.
There are still opportunities out there. You just need to expand your
horizons

actually there aren't. since there are 5 applicants for every job,
it's ridiculous to pretend there are jobs out there.

there aren't. if there were people would be filling them. people want
to work.

denial of the obvious is a fact of life for the right wing

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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!

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

"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!

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

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?

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

In article ,
says...

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

Harry just demostrates that the entitlement mentality is alive and well
in our society.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:22:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:37:20 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

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!

Bull****, they just have to say they looked in the paper and didn't
find anything.

i was on unemployment at one point. so you're full of ****

I mean they should have to show real effort. Some do, a lot don't.
Plenty cheat. (work a cash job and still collect)

more bull****. he thinks people like being unemployed but he hasa
faith in the rich to do the right thing


If you want to blame wall street you better be blaming our parents who
needed all of that wall street money for their pensions.


more bull****. do you get a volume discount?

wall street DESTROYED this economy. you right wing bull****ters wont
admit it because you'd have to admit the rich **** the middle
class...are waging class warfare.

You like to demonize the money changers for making money with money
and then bitch because they are not making you enough money in your
401k that you just put on autopilot and refuse to manage. What a
hypocrite.

uh no. you excuse the rich for plundering the middle class...you
excuse them for inventings CDOS that screwed the economy

THEN you blame the middle class for all t his. typical right winger

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:19:46 -0400, Harry
wrote:

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.


You would have to start with Government Motors. They took some of our
bailout money and started up a research department in China with it.



That was Bush's fault.

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:34:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


actually there aren't. since there are 5 applicants for every job,
it's ridiculous to pretend there are jobs out there.

there aren't. if there were people would be filling them. people want
to work.

denial of the obvious is a fact of life for the right wing


You latch onto a bumper sticker line you heard on Olbermann and won't
let it go.

uh huh. and in your world, 15 million middle class wage earners
decided to get together and force their companies to lay them off
because they're lazy.

it had nothing to do with the run up in CDO's from 1 trillion to SIXTY
TWO TRILLION by 2007

it's the middle class, you see...

Where are those "5 applicants"? in Detroit? What job?

There are still opportunities out there, you just won't find them from
your cubicle or sitting on your mom's couch.

prove it. go ahead.

where's your data? rush iimpballs has your head stuffed with right
wing bull****

If I was really looking for a career I would get into small systems
integration

no one gives a rat's ass about you. there are millions out of work.
and you blame THEM rather than the nice folks on wall street.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

OT Solar water heaters (was unemployment)
 

On 8/16/10 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:39:40 -0500, wrote:

Maybe someone should start little regional businesses making and
installing something simple like solar water heaters. That would be
good for the workers and good for the environment.
Unfortunately the union plumbers, pipe fitters and boilermakers would
probably shut you down.

Right. The tremendous threat of the evil unions overrunning us here in
Florida - what is it, 5% union membership, third lowest of all states? -
will kill our spirit of entrepreneurship.
That's what killed Frogwatch's outfit.
Right.

This goes beyond the unions but they would be a factor. You also have
all of the other government roadblocks.

If this was a federal project, the unions would be lobbying the hell
out of it and pretty soon it would be so expensive it would fail.
That is the problem with federal solutions.

You still need the feds to shortcut the approval process by creating a
special NRTL just for these projects.

Without federal involvement creating a "Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory" to certify these systems you can't install them (virtually
every building department requires listed equipment) and it is OSHA
that certifies a NRTL. That would run you up against U/L et al,
another big lobby.
If you actually did have to submit them to U/L, ETL,TUV (or one of
the few other recognized labs) the process would take years and cost
way up in six figures for each design.
That is not going to help people who need something now and it puts a
chilling pall over innovation.
It also insures only the big boys can play.

When you look at this simple idea you start to see how regulation has
killed innovation.
You can find some great ideas for solar water heaters on Mother Earth
News but it is illegal to install one of them unless you live in an
unincorporated area in Idaho where they don't have a building
department.
I guarantee you there is no place in Florida where an unlisted water
heater is legal. Your mileage will vary on how long it would take code
enforcement to hang a red tag on your door.


So, you are also against needed regulation of potentially dangerous
equipment, and against workers making a decent living. What's your
response to, say, a few hundred sloppily engineered and installed water
heaters leaking, or the roofs collapsing?

"Well, regulation would just add to the cost."


Hey, let's get rid of drug testing, car safety testing, electrical
appliance testing, et cetera... :)






--
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.

OT Solar water heaters (was unemployment)
 

wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:39:40 -0500, Jim wrote:

Maybe someone should start little regional businesses making and
installing something simple like solar water heaters. That would be
good for the workers and good for the environment.
Unfortunately the union plumbers, pipe fitters and boilermakers would
probably shut you down.
Right. The tremendous threat of the evil unions overrunning us here in
Florida - what is it, 5% union membership, third lowest of all states? -
will kill our spirit of entrepreneurship.
That's what killed Frogwatch's outfit.
Right.

This goes beyond the unions but they would be a factor. You also have
all of the other government roadblocks.

If this was a federal project, the unions would be lobbying the hell
out of it and pretty soon it would be so expensive it would fail.
That is the problem with federal solutions.

You still need the feds to shortcut the approval process by creating a
special NRTL just for these projects.

Without federal involvement creating a "Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory" to certify these systems you can't install them (virtually
every building department requires listed equipment) and it is OSHA
that certifies a NRTL. That would run you up against U/L et al,
another big lobby.
If you actually did have to submit them to U/L, ETL,TUV (or one of
the few other recognized labs) the process would take years and cost
way up in six figures for each design.
That is not going to help people who need something now and it puts a
chilling pall over innovation.
It also insures only the big boys can play.


I don't want Joe the Plumber or Jimmy Bob Solar getting into my drinking
water.
Be my guest if you do.
You sure can find excuse after excuse not to do something.
This guy had no problem getting the job done.

http://solarroofs.com/news10video.html

According to the site they sell for Florida homes too.

http://solarroofs.com/index.html#customers
Browse at your leisure.

Just don't go looking for Skyline systems so you can report the
homeowner to the authorities trying to prove a point you failed to make.
There's other solar water heater outfits besides that one.
Many.


When you look at this simple idea you start to see how regulation has
killed innovation.
You can find some great ideas for solar water heaters on Mother Earth
News but it is illegal to install one of them unless you live in an
unincorporated area in Idaho where they don't have a building
department.
I guarantee you there is no place in Florida where an unlisted water
heater is legal. Your mileage will vary on how long it would take code
enforcement to hang a red tag on your door.

I sure as hell don't want Joe the Plumber brazing up automobile
radiators for potable water heating systems and poisoning me with lead
and anti-freeze.
If you really cared about American business one obvious argument you
could have made is that all the generous American tax-payer funded
Energy Star and other tax credits only qualify when American-made
equipment is purchased or installed.
That would be progress in job creation.
Nope. You bitched about regulations that keep folks from being poisoned
or electrocuted.
I really think you have a negative attitude.

Jim - Some strive to succeed, others to fail.

OT Solar water heaters (was unemployment)
 

"Harry" wrote in message
m...
On 8/16/10 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:39:40 -0500, wrote:

Maybe someone should start little regional businesses making and
installing something simple like solar water heaters. That would be
good for the workers and good for the environment.
Unfortunately the union plumbers, pipe fitters and boilermakers would
probably shut you down.

Right. The tremendous threat of the evil unions overrunning us here in
Florida - what is it, 5% union membership, third lowest of all states? -
will kill our spirit of entrepreneurship.
That's what killed Frogwatch's outfit.
Right.

This goes beyond the unions but they would be a factor. You also have
all of the other government roadblocks.

If this was a federal project, the unions would be lobbying the hell
out of it and pretty soon it would be so expensive it would fail.
That is the problem with federal solutions.

You still need the feds to shortcut the approval process by creating a
special NRTL just for these projects.

Without federal involvement creating a "Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory" to certify these systems you can't install them (virtually
every building department requires listed equipment) and it is OSHA
that certifies a NRTL. That would run you up against U/L et al,
another big lobby.
If you actually did have to submit them to U/L, ETL,TUV (or one of
the few other recognized labs) the process would take years and cost
way up in six figures for each design.
That is not going to help people who need something now and it puts a
chilling pall over innovation.
It also insures only the big boys can play.

When you look at this simple idea you start to see how regulation has
killed innovation.
You can find some great ideas for solar water heaters on Mother Earth
News but it is illegal to install one of them unless you live in an
unincorporated area in Idaho where they don't have a building
department.
I guarantee you there is no place in Florida where an unlisted water
heater is legal. Your mileage will vary on how long it would take code
enforcement to hang a red tag on your door.


So, you are also against needed regulation of potentially dangerous
equipment, and against workers making a decent living. What's your
response to, say, a few hundred sloppily engineered and installed water
heaters leaking, or the roofs collapsing?

"Well, regulation would just add to the cost."


Hey, let's get rid of drug testing, car safety testing, electrical
appliance testing, et cetera... :)






--
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.


PS
I really get tired of singing this same old song to you guys. Why aren't you
listening to me?

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

In article ,
says...

"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.

Are you taking your drunk son?

--
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.

A thought on unemployment benefits
 

In article ,
says...

On 8/14/10 10:24 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:13:55 -0400, 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

again and again the right penalizes the middle class. we bankroll the
rich with bailouts, then the right comes along and says the middle
class is lazy.


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

Nobody owes you a job.

more of the right wing bull****...we socialize risk for the rich, then
privatize rewards for the rich and the middle class pays for both



Get off your ass and get to work.

more right wing bull**** mytholoogy

where are the jobs? notice he doesnt ask THAT question?

the right has their bull**** mythology. and it's centered around the
idea that the US should be a prison camp for the middle class


Well, you could apply for BAR's job. Anyone could, as the job
requirements are minimal. Well, maybe Little Man Tosk couldn't...

Spoofer alert! I don't even have a job.

--
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.