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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

YukonBound wrote:


"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.
Gag

"Larry" wrote in message
...
YukonBound wrote:


"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.
Gag


Really.

--
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.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
YukonBound wrote:


"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.
Gag

We don't want to know what you're gagging on... really!

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.

"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.