This topic contains 26 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Beavernewbie 2 months, 2 weeks ago.
Apr 22, 2014 at 1:19 am #200839
(waiting for beavernewbie’s answer)Apr 23, 2014 at 12:36 pm #201592
I’ll start by repeating what I already said:
[Start Quote]I personally believe that we can’t extend benefits forever but we likely will. Until the benefits are seen as finite, a percentage of those receiving them will continue to hold out for jobs and pay levels that might not even exist anymore. [Snip]
One interesting solution would be to extend unemployment benefits but on a sliding-scale of reducing compensation over time. This could set up a situation where as the benefits are reduced, the beneficiary will have to accept a wider range of potential jobs to continue to live. At a minimum, it would still be better than just slamming the door shut and reducing the benefit to zero immediately…
I never said what I think the timeframe should be based on because I don’t know. …I don’t like having an opinion without a reason so I started the thread. I have been repeatedly attempting to get posters to give me their opinions to help me form mine, but I guess focused dialog is asking too much? Are there any people here that can give me their opinion and the basis for why to help me form mine instead of going straight into attack mode?
To further describe my current opinion – I don’t think that benefits should end according to *reported* unemployment percentages because I think they are doctored for political purposes. I don’t think it can be based on GDP because it can be irrelevant. I don’t think “I have a job so benefits should end” and I don’t think “my buddy got a job so benefits should end” either. Should it be based on the gov’t’s ability to cover the cost? If not, should we be jacking up the taxes to cover the cost? If so, should there be a limit on the increase or should it be limitless? If not taxes, do we make the spending deficits larger to cover the cost? If so, how much should we go into debt to cover the cost? Or is this limitless too?
So, I will repeat what I have already said and asked – if you have a strong opinion about when to extend or end unemployment benefits, what do you think should be the basis of duration? If you have a strong opinion but don’t have an answer yourself, how can you evaluate another person’s position, politician or not?Apr 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm #203236
More crickets at the daring request for a real response to the real topic.
…and so my search for mature people willing to engage in responsible dialog (and possible respectful disagreement) in Beaver County continues…Apr 29, 2014 at 11:14 pm #204966
Stall tactics…talk…questions…no answers…no help…no heart… that’s OUR Keith Rothfus we voted for.
House Republicans had demanded that any unemployment extension must be paid for by cuts elsewhere. It was done by the Senate bill.
Republican Heller and Democrat Reed crafted legislation that pays for the unemployment extension by changing pension laws and Customs fees. But even though the bill meets the House Republican requirement, Boehner Tuesday still turned away Heller’s pitch due to no new job creation in the plan. House Republicans themselves, (including our own local republican rep that is insensitive to the unemployed – Keith Rothfus) however, have not proposed any job creation measures to go along with an unemployment extension to help the unemployed in America. They don’t want to help the people! They see people as numbers – NOT PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED HELP!
As politicians returned to Washington on Monday, leadership in the House of Representatives had the ability to bring the extension of emergency unemployment compensation to the floor for a vote. The benefits would assist more than 2.5 million Americans who are actively looking for jobs but are unable to find them in a rough job market.
But Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is unlikely to bring the bill to the floor at all. (When will Rothfus call him and ask him to put it up for a vote?) While speaking to an audience after the Senate passed a bill to extend the EUC program, Boehner insisted that a new proposal be brought forward. Essentially, he told the Senate to start over. He also echoed previous comments that the package must be paid for (it is) and insisted that it include “things that would help get our economy moving” (without the bill’s passage, 240,000 jobs could be lost). Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are reportedly planning to meet with Boehner to discuss the bill. Boehner is a politician – he’s not for the people. Much like Keith Rothfus our representative here in Beaver County. He is just like Boehner.
So what legislation will the House be working on next week instead of the unemployment extension bill? I will tell you.
TAX EXTENDERS. An expensive collection of tax give-aways that overwhelmingly benefit corporations is expected to be the first matter of business for the House on Tuesday. These tax breaks include incentives for corporations to move profits and jobs overseas. Included in this package is the “GE Loophole,” which helped General Electric – a household name in the United States – to avoid paying taxes on$27.5 billion in profits between 2008 and 2012 by moving profits offshore.
The House majority seems more than willing to extend a helping hand to corporations, whose profits are at all-time highs, but for out of work families, House leadership continues to deliberately delay and obstruct needed assistance (Extended Unemployment Assistance).
I am sure Rothfus who is against helping the struggling people of Beaver County in today’s bad economy will continue to “talk and stall” and “think tank” and bullshit us with his coffee shop and ice cream social talks while the unemployed now file for welfare, food stamps, and government housing. The Rich (Rothfus) don’t give a damn about the (former working middle class who now is classified as poor due to unemployment that stripped them of their savings, homes, cars, retirements and their dignity). He is heartless. He is cold and out of touch by the people he represents in his district. He is more concerned with the illegal people (giving them American citizenship) and helping big corporations get a tax break than helping the American people who need him now in his district! He needs to have a “coffee shop talk” with the UNEMPLOYED!!! Set one up Keith – and make sure you get a BIG VENUE, lots of coffee, and be prepared to spend a whole day listening to THE PEOPLE WHO NEED YOUR HELP! HEARTLESS – GUTLESS TO STAND UP TO BOEHNER – NOT IN TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT – ALL TALK & NO ACTION TO HELP THE UNEMPLOYED WITH THE EXTENTION. That’s OUR Keith Rothfus that we VOTED FOR!!!Apr 30, 2014 at 12:59 am #204967
Like I already said in my very first post Beavernewbie… 2 years total assistance is enough of a crutch to help the unemployed (104 weeks of Federal unemployment + 26 weeks of state unemployment = 2 1/2 years off of looking for a job and now if you don’t have one, its time to go to Walmart and lower your standards and start over or get employed at a lesser paying job which may not pay the bills but at least the government gave you OPPORTUNITY in a BAD ECONOMY to find a job to pay your bills and maximize your opportunity in finding another possible good paying job. You should also be accountable for the paperwork to show that you’ve been looking for a job and if you don’t have proof of it, then you don’t get paid for that week or weeks that you did not search for a job. The Government then gets a “thank you & good job” by the unemployed people because the Government gave the unemployed a real legit chance even though unemployment don’t pay all the bills for 2 years but helps you stretch out your savings to survive for 2 years instead of being bankrupt (exhausting your total money) in 2 to 3 to 4 months while looking for a job.
Why 2 years? Did I pull that number out of my ass Beavernewbie? No. After 8 months of being unemployed your personal resume file takes a hit. No one really wants to give you an interview as they see you as damaged goods even if you are unemployed from no fault of your own. If you can not find a job in 8 months then you are going to find it tough in getting interviews.
So why give more time than 8 months of an unemployment extension you ask? Because it gives you time to re-evaluate your career path and do something about it while still managing to pay your bills, keep your house, your cars, put food on the table, thru the unemployemnt extension supplement and using your retirement savings. It gives you 14 months to learn a new trade in a new field or go to school or find another career path while still looking for a job in your past field or your current career changing field.
So in closing Beavernewbie – the businesses continue to pay into unemployment like they do now and if there is a shortfall in $$$ funding the account then the government raises taxes by 1% to fund it or make cuts to fund it, or maybe do both by raising 1/2% tax and make some cuts. (That’s when the 2 idiot parties can clash and fight over what to do.) You can only collect a maximum of 2 years off this extension system in your lifetime and only when the unemployment rate is high or the economy is bad and the government should set a “suggested” unemployment percentage number as to when you can collect off this 2 year plan and when it goes into effect. You can only collect off of this extension plan for a total of 104 weeks in your lifetime (and only when it’s in effect by the high unemployment rate). That would encourage you to find a job and keep it because if another hard time happens 10 years later and the extension plan kicks in, you may have used your 104 weeks and now you only have the state unemployment and no federal extension to fall back on. You got your 1 helping hand by the government and you get no more. That is not welfare, that is a helping hand program to the unemployed in tough economic times by becoming unemployed through no fault of their own.
You see, I would take action on this, unlike Rothfus who talks and does nothing and could care less about the unemployed people. These are not welfare recipients/leaches. They are PEOPLE who WANT to WORK a good paying job equal to or a little under like the one they had. When the clock ticks to zero after 2 years, then its on them for not doing the things necessary to find a job either in their field or out of their field as I explained above in a bad economy. It encourages them to find work quickly just in case they become unemployed again in a bad economy…because that 2 years government extension is like sands in an hour glass, when it’s all used up, it’s all gone forever.
YOU’RE WELCOME!!!Apr 30, 2014 at 1:44 am #204968
let me add… that way (104 weeks lifetime total) no one can abuse the system!Apr 30, 2014 at 10:48 pm #204970
The great thing about when they get low wage jobs at WalMart is that they give them lots of information about where to go for food stamps and other government help costing taxpayers millions No complaints about that from you is there Newbie? They’re just smart business people That’s how six people can amass a fortune greater than the combined wealth of the bottom 140 million.
If we really want to get people off of unemployment let’s start by paying these employees livable wages. Let’s have them out purchasing homes automobiles and buying there own groceries.Let that demand create more jobs for those unemployed unable to find work. Employment is created from the bottom up by demand .When workers have money in their pockets to spend jobs are created.Apr 30, 2014 at 11:05 pm #204971
Thumbs up to Jackson!May 3, 2014 at 11:21 am #205077
OK, if I understand your position correctly, you are saying that there should be lifetime 2 year unemployment benefit. Previously you said it should be based on reported unemployment percentage and I don’t know how this fits into it. If it is based on unemployment percentage then there would be no cap on time.
Are you saying that the benefit should be 2 years (lifetime limit) independent of unemployment rate?
You also suggest that this be funded by tax increases (I am not a big fan of tax increases) and/or reduction of tax breaks for companies (which I am OK with as long as it doesn’t make it less likely that a given business will stick around).
Overall, I think the way ahead is creating an advantageous business environment and a welcoming business environment. As Jackson says, this creates economic activity bottom up via demand.
Things like the cracker plant are a good start. It just doesn’t appear that many are really on board with encouraging investment in the area. I’ve seen quite a bit of loud opposition to this plant for reasons I can’t understand. Are you two in favor of this cracker plant? If so, why? If not, why not?May 6, 2014 at 4:26 am #205135
Don’t get yourself confused Newbie… Unemployment Extension is “kicked in” when the Unemployment rate and GDP numbers are bad. When it kicks in, the clock starts ticking and you have a 2 year lifetime time frame to find a job (which starts when the state unemployment ceases after 6 months). What you fail to realize Newbie, is that if a person who had a $50,000/ yr. job collects UIC for a year, they bring home $23,000 and that number also gets taxed at tax time. So that money is to help supplement them while spending their life savings while they look for a job. Giving them ZERO and a middle finger just puts them in foreclosure, cars repossessed, ruins their credit and thus they can NEVER get a car or a house for an affordable price ever again. It pushes them into the welfare system quickly…all because of no extension while they look for a good paying job. I don’t need to go into all that and the reasons because I covered that in previous posts. It’s too bad that you never had been in a job unemployment crisis that ruined you financially or you’d understand what the hell I’m talking about…but somehow, I just know you’ve never been in that position and you look down at people and have no care in the world for people being in that position. Your numb to the people’s pain.May 6, 2014 at 4:38 am #205136
I am in favor of this cracker plant if it hires LOCAL WORKERS not workers transfering in from another state to work here. To me, that would be like a slap in the face. I am in favor of employing LOCAL PEOPLE. It’s no benefit to the PEOPLE here if they don’t hire the local people. Let them go somewhere else if they don’t. It’s an explosion accident waiting to happen anyway.May 6, 2014 at 1:14 pm #205153
OK, I understand your position now.
You might want to get that crystal ball checked out – you seem to think it is telling you accurate things about me. The crystal ball is defective.