ptown_trojans_1;591411 wrote:I guess also, I can't foresee the Democratic base throwing aside their sitting President for another person. It hasn't happened really since 1980 (Ted Kennedy,Carter) and even that failed.

But, not without precedent. And your first point is why no one is whispering publicly at this point. Obama has 2 years left, they are not going to break ranks this early. It will only come after it becomes obvious he can't win. Hillary does not need to get out there and campaign from Day 1. She can come late to the party and make-up a ton of ground. I don't expect another strong alternative to emerge in the Democratic party. Hillary wouldn't have to do much to get the nomination other than throw her hat into the ring, assuming the polls are spelling doom for Obama. The tricky part comes on the fundraising front, but I don't think that's a deal breaker.

iclfan2;591052 wrote:After 6 months it is Wefare imo. I don't care if they can make more on unemployment, they should be forced to go find jobs at Walmart, McDonalds, whatever. Sending out resumes sitting at home isn't going to cut it. I'd even be ok with them having to work, and the gov. pay the difference between the job they have and what the unemployment benefit would be. Getting something for nothing is getting ridiculous in this country. I have a buddy who didn't get fired, just didn't re-up for the military and got unemployment from July 09 to now, and will be running out in December. Now I feel since he was serving our country that it isn't that big of a deal, but how can people get gov. money for this long?

See, these kinds of statements here express an idea that people out there on unemployment do not want to work. Yes, yes, I get it. There are abusers of the system. But, if you have any faith in your fellow Americans, that they were raised to believe in the same things that you do, hard work leads to the American Dream then we have to take a step back and realize that in this horrible financial crisis, a lot of these people cannot find a job. Just as an anecdotal example; My current GF made close to $100k a year at Quicken Loans slanging loans for Dan Gilbert. She was let go last may. She went on unemployment and applied for jobs all of the time. She has a business degree from tOSU. she applied everywhere. She even started applying to be a Nanny and cleaning houses for people off of craigslist. We actually had the conversation about how much money she could make as a stripper. A girl with a business degree from OSU contemplating getting on the pole at Christie's Cabaret. She complained endlessly about "feeling like a loser" "like a nobody." and for heaven's sakes started talking to the Shoes about having a baby! Gaaahhh!

She started working at Subway when she was 14 and has always had a job. She said she would never be a server again but nevertheless, she went to Barley House and tried on their school girl outfits and had to walk around in front of the manager to see if she looked good enough in the skirt. Yet, they didn't even have enough shifts for her. She applied for all kinds of serving jobs, etc. People think you can just waltz into McDonald's or Arby's but the second they see all of that education and former "careers" on an application, they know they're going to lose you and have to re-train someone else at the first chance.

She finally get a job at PNC bank for $30,000 a year and started on November first.

Now that was just my experience and I don't mean it to be indicative of everyone. But, most Americans don't want to sit on their asses and collect a check for years. But, at the same time, they don't want to have to look their kids in the face and say that they can't get their daughter a Barbie for Xmas in the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth because they lost a job through no fault of their own.

I hope unemployment on nobody. But, we need to step back and realize that talented and smart and hardworking people want to find a job, can't find a job, feel bad when they don't have a job and are scared they won't find a job right now and get away from "lazy people just livin off the gubment."

Did she get to keep the outfit?

BoatShoes;591454 wrote:She said she would never be a server again but nevertheless, she went to Barley House and tried on their school girl outfits and had to walk around in front of the manager to see if she looked good enough in the skirt.

Got any pics? I kid, Boatshoes.

But I know what you're saying. I'm in my 50's now and have never drawn an unemployment check. But if I ever find myself in that situation, I'm certainly not going to feel like I'm lazy nor living off the government. I've been paying into the system since I drew my first paycheck when I was 15 so I've more than paid my dues.

Still, when unemployment begins to be another form of welfare, we have to step back and say, "wait a minute."

Most people would rather have a job than draw unemployment...this is true. Yet there are still plenty of folks out there who would rather collect the unemployment check than stoop to making sub sandwiches to put food on the table.

believer;591482 wrote:Most people would rather have a job than draw unemployment...this is true. Yet there are still plenty of folks out there who would rather collect the unemployment check than stoop to making sub sandwiches to put food on the table.

I think part of the problem is, to some extent, unemployment can be an enabler. By that I mean some hold out for an equivalent job or equivalent pay or refuse to relocate where there are jobs. That is partially a good thing, because we don't necessarily want everyone to uproot and we want them to find appropriate placement.

But does that mean there should be no limits? In the olds days people who fell on hard times would move in with family or friends, and while some of that is going on perhaps not enough. To me the big question is how do you define a safety net? I feel that after time there needs to be additional belt tightening on both sides. We shouldn't keep funneling money in perpetuity so you can keep your house or apartment and eat well, etc... I don't want you to starve, but after a time the incentive to further reduce ones expenses and/or possibly relocate has to increase.

The other problem here that is much less subtle is that such programs/policies reduce incentive to save. Americans have a history the last decade or so of spending far too much. People need to prioritize putting money away for a rainy day. I realize in some (many?) cases people have been out of work for 2 years or more and that's a lot to have to have saved. Or is it? People should have cash for a year of living expenses, maybe more now. They also should be saving for retirement which is another reserve that, while unfortunate, could be tapped. Reality is most Americans don't have those kind of resources because they live beyond their means. Those raised in the depression era would be shocked and disgusted by the fiscal irresponsibility displayed by the majority of Americans.

Excellent post there gut, I could not agree more.

gut;591505 wrote:The other problem here that is much less subtle is that such programs/policies reduce incentive to save. Americans have a history the last decade or so of spending far too much. People need to prioritize putting money away for a rainy day. I realize in some (many?) cases people have been out of work for 2 years or more and that's a lot to have to have saved. Or is it? People should have cash for a year of living expenses, maybe more now. They also should be saving for retirement which is another reserve that, while unfortunate, could be tapped. Reality is most Americans don't have those kind of resources because they live beyond their means. Those raised in the depression era would be shocked and disgusted by the fiscal irresponsibility displayed by the majority of Americans.

I agree. Unfortunately I have to admit that I'm one of those Americans. A couple of divorces will do that to you.

believer;591550 wrote:I agree. Unfortunately I have to admit that I'm one of those Americans. A couple of divorces will do that to you.

Sorry to hear that. The whole idea of alimony may be an antiquated notion now that so many women work, and have been working. But that's another topic.

gut;591505 wrote:I think part of the problem is, to some extent, unemployment can be an enabler. By that I mean some hold out for an equivalent job or equivalent pay or refuse to relocate where there are jobs. That is partially a good thing, because we don't necessarily want everyone to uproot and we want them to find appropriate placement.

But does that mean there should be no limits? In the olds days people who fell on hard times would move in with family or friends, and while some of that is going on perhaps not enough. To me the big question is how do you define a safety net? I feel that after time there needs to be additional belt tightening on both sides. We shouldn't keep funneling money in perpetuity so you can keep your house or apartment and eat well, etc... I don't want you to starve, but after a time the incentive to further reduce ones expenses and/or possibly relocate has to increase.

The other problem here that is much less subtle is that such programs/policies reduce incentive to save. Americans have a history the last decade or so of spending far too much. People need to prioritize putting money away for a rainy day. I realize in some (many?) cases people have been out of work for 2 years or more and that's a lot to have to have saved. Or is it? People should have cash for a year of living expenses, maybe more now. They also should be saving for retirement which is another reserve that, while unfortunate, could be tapped. Reality is most Americans don't have those kind of resources because they live beyond their means. Those raised in the depression era would be shocked and disgusted by the fiscal irresponsibility displayed by the majority of Americans.

tell me this how many people that fell on hard times have you taken in? and if you worked job that paid 30,000 anually for ten years and were raising a family, paying a mortgage then lost that job how long would it have taken you to save up 2 years of income?

Those are all good examples of how long-term unemployment can really devastate an individual or family. I'm fortunate in that I collected unemployment compensation once, during the '81-'82 recession. My wife was pregnant when I was laid off, so you can imagine my concern back then. I was prepared to take a $5 per hour temp job with our city street crew when my umemployment was running out (I think I got around $125 per week then), but I was recalled to work before it started. I can't begin to imagine the feeling of helplessness some of these folks are feeling today.


Back to the topic, however. For quite some time we've been hearing Bohener and McConnell talk about the "uncertainty" employers were feeling regarding what their taxes would be in the new year and how that forced them to hedge bets against hiring new workers. Now that the "uncertainty" is gone, will it lead to a spike in hiring, or do you expect nothing to come of this?

gut;591551 wrote:Sorry to hear that. The whole idea of alimony may be an antiquated notion now that so many women work, and have been working. But that's another topic.

It's not alimony. It's child support, 50/50 split of assets (and liabilities), retirement, savings, attorney's fees, etc. It adds up and sets you back.

Either way life happens to millions of us and things like unemployment benefits help. It's when they become a way of life that they become a problem.

stlouiedipalma;591644 wrote:Back to the topic, however. For quite some time we've been hearing Bohener and McConnell talk about the "uncertainty" employers were feeling regarding what their taxes would be in the new year and how that forced them to hedge bets against hiring new workers. Now that the "uncertainty" is gone, will it lead to a spike in hiring, or do you expect nothing to come of this?

I think it will help but keep in mind it's only good for two years. If it were a permanent proposition I think you'd see far, far more benefit.

BoatShoes;591454 wrote:But, if you have any faith in your fellow Americans, that they were raised to believe in the same things that you do, hard work leads to the American Dream then we have to take a step back and realize that in this horrible financial crisis, a lot of these people cannot find a job.

The problem is I don't. Middle America, who have had a good job yes, but even still I think many live off of unemployment until they can find a job paying as much, which I think is the problem. Also, I don't think ill of people on unemployment and pray I never am, but after a certain amount of time, (6 months, MAX a year) the cord needs to be cut. OR, make them do litter patrol or even volunteer 25 hours a week. I despise the "free rides" people get in this country.

iclfan2;591663 wrote:The problem is I don't. Middle America, who have had a good job yes, but even still I think many live off of unemployment until they can find a job paying as much, which I think is the problem. Also, I don't think ill of people on unemployment and pray I never am, but after a certain amount of time, (6 months, MAX a year) the cord needs to be cut. OR, make them do litter patrol or even volunteer 25 hours a week. I despise the "free rides" people get in this country.

You say you "don't think ill of people on unemployment", but your "free ride" comment, among others, says otherwise.

iclfan2;591663 wrote:The problem is I don't. Middle America, who have had a good job yes, but even still I think many live off of unemployment until they can find a job paying as much, which I think is the problem. Also, I don't think ill of people on unemployment and pray I never am, but after a certain amount of time, (6 months, MAX a year) the cord needs to be cut. OR, make them do litter patrol or even volunteer 25 hours a week. I despise the "free rides" people get in this country.

so that what it comes it comes down to , you hate "free rides" i wonder how much you would hate them if you were the one suddenly out of work? is it the fact that some one is getting something for free and it it isnt yourself?

Ha I said I think it is good temporarily. I despise people living off of the free ride because they can. I guess I could have explained that better. And I know many people who have been on unemployment, and there are some who actively look for work, and others who plan on milking it until the government says no mas. BTW Knight Rider, if I can't get a job after the unemployment is up then I have no one to blame but myself. But again, I think unemployment is a great relief tool, but not something people should be able to live off of for as long as the government allows. And Stlouie, it is more of hating the system than the people on it. If I lose my job your sure as hell right I'm going to take unemployment, but I'll be working my ass off getting interviews, applying everywhere, and would move or join the military, if it really came down to it.

This pissed off people on both sides. Democrats think Obama caved and Republicans think that unemployment benefits being is enabling laziness.

If it makes both parties angry it's probably the right thing to do.

I believe that this was the best thing for both sides and am glad to see that Boehner and McConnell are willing to work with the President and vice versa

I'm not too upset with the outcome. I'm glad that there was actually some give and take here.

KnightRyder;591613 wrote:tell me this how many people that fell on hard times have you taken in? and if you worked job that paid 30,000 anually for ten years and were raising a family, paying a mortgage then lost that job how long would it have taken you to save up 2 years of income?

1) Not my responsibility and no one has asked. If a friend was down on their luck and asked for help I would most likely say yes.

2) It takes money to raise a family. If a family takes in $30k annually they probably can't afford to have 5 kids.

Don't get me started on housing. Most people way over-extended. Your post does nothing more than to drive home my point that Americans not only live beyond their means but think they are entitled to. There is no perfect solution for everyone. Such safety nets are good programs but there shouldn't be need for more than a year of unemployment benefits. It really is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund your poor choices into perpetuity, and again that 95% of Americans save irresponsbily it does go back to the fact that just like the person who bought too much house or the McD's worker with 5 kids, many of these people don't have the financial resources because they live beyond their means.

I empathize for someone like Believer but as I said 95% or more of people in financial difficulty can point squarely at poor decisions living beyond their means.

Most people in America (and likely other countries as well) are very poor financial planners. Speaking of that, I'm reminded of a chart from the WSJ that I posted here a while ago that I think is relevant to the whole "living within your means" theme. Of course I think it's a good chart as an outsider looking in as I do not have kids so maybe I'm wrong.

It occurs to me that, as some point, govt unemployment handouts should stop and be replaced with loans that charge a reasonable interest rate. I think when the free money stops that people can and will make further cuts on truly unnecessary expenses. This doesn't make someone go hungry or homeless nor does it penalize them for past poor financial decisions. But if does force some tough financial decisions and does impose a higher degree of fiscal responsibility going forward.

KnightRyder;591613 wrote:tell me this how many people that fell on hard times have you taken in? and if you worked job that paid 30,000 anually for ten years and were raising a family, paying a mortgage then lost that job how long would it have taken you to save up 2 years of income?

That's easy. 20 years. In the ten year time span you quoted the family would have $30,000 in savings.

gut;592128 wrote:It occurs to me that, as some point, govt unemployment handouts should stop and be replaced with loans that charge a reasonable interest rate. I think when the free money stops that people can and will make further cuts on truly unnecessary expenses. This doesn't make someone go hungry or homeless nor does it penalize them for past poor financial decisions. But if does force some tough financial decisions and does impose a higher degree of fiscal responsibility going forward.

This is an interesting idea, IMO. They would also not have to include that income under current tax norms and every dollar not spent in taxes has that much more marginal utility for persons living hand to mouth. Nevertheless, Americans don't really have a history or responsible borrowing lately either...

gut;592072 wrote:1) Not my responsibility and no one has asked. If a friend was down on their luck and asked for help I would most likely say yes.

2) It takes money to raise a family. If a family takes in $30k annually they probably can't afford to have 5 kids.

Don't get me started on housing. Most people way over-extended. Your post does nothing more than to drive home my point that Americans not only live beyond their means but think they are entitled to. There is no perfect solution for everyone. Such safety nets are good programs but there shouldn't be need for more than a year of unemployment benefits. It really is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund your poor choices into perpetuity, and again that 95% of Americans save irresponsbily it does go back to the fact that just like the person who bought too much house or the McD's worker with 5 kids, many of these people don't have the financial resources because they live beyond their means.

I empathize for someone like Believer but as I said 95% or more of people in financial difficulty can point squarely at poor decisions living beyond their means.

<standing ovation>

gut;592072 wrote:1) Not my responsibility and no one has asked. If a friend was down on their luck and asked for help I would most likely say yes.

2) It takes money to raise a family. If a family takes in $30k annually they probably can't afford to have 5 kids.

Don't get me started on housing. Most people way over-extended. Your post does nothing more than to drive home my point that Americans not only live beyond their means but think they are entitled to. There is no perfect solution for everyone. Such safety nets are good programs but there shouldn't be need for more than a year of unemployment benefits. It really is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund your poor choices into perpetuity, and again that 95% of Americans save irresponsbily it does go back to the fact that just like the person who bought too much house or the McD's worker with 5 kids, many of these people don't have the financial resources because they live beyond their means.

I empathize for someone like Believer but as I said 95% or more of people in financial difficulty can point squarely at poor decisions living beyond their means.

who are you to say what is the root for anyones financial difficulty, let alone 95% of the people. you act like you are the only person in this country that pays taxes. how do you know how much house anyone bought yet you try to speculate on the masses. and with the job situation today it can take way more than year to find another job. i have seen people lose 3 jobs in 5 years do to the economy. is that living beyond their means?