GOP Does Not Extend Jobless Benefits - Page 2

From The Onion:

Report: Poor People Pretty Much Fucked

WASHINGTON—According to the results of an intensive two-year study, Americans living below the poverty line are "pretty much fucked," Center for Social and Economic Research executive director Jameson Park announced Monday.


"Although poor people have never had it particularly sweet, America has long been considered the land of opportunity, where upward class mobility is hard work's reward," Park said. "However, our study shows that limited access to quality education and a shortage of employment opportunities in depressed areas all but ensure that, once fucked, an individual tends to stay fucked."

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 34.6 million Americans were living below the poverty line in 2002.

"Not only are the down-and-out fucked, but the number of down-and-out fucks is growing," Park said. "Conditions of disadvantage are often passed from one generation to the next, making it especially difficult for young people to emerge from the cycle of poverty."

"Man, my heart goes out to those poor fuckers," Park added.

America's increasingly rigid class system worsens the situation for the poor.

"After analyzing the economic performance of U.S. households over the past several decades, we concluded that class mobility, while steady in the '70s and '80s, declined in the '90s," Park said. "About 40 percent of families ended the decade in the same economic strata in which they began it. That's up from about 35 percent in the '80s. That's good news for those sittin' pretty, but it spells 'fuck you' to the poor."


Above: Americans like 12-year-old Tamara Agguire (far right) of Ponca City, OK, are pretty much fucked.
As a result, Park said, there are more poor people, and those poor people are much more screwed than poor people were a decade or two ago.

"As the split between the upper and lower classes grows, and the middle class continues to shrink, we're moving closer and closer to what can only be called a 'no way out, dude. Sorry, you're fucked'-type situation," Park said. "Not only are the poor fucked at the moment, but any chance they once had of changing their miserable lives is pretty much gone, too. Essentially, they're fucked for all time."

The CSER study identified four major poverty groups within the U.S. The first two groups—one composed of disenfranchised blue-collar workers, the other made up of members of poor rural populations—have been adversely affected by the nation's gradual shift to a technology-based, global economy. Researchers have dubbed disenfranchised blue-collar workers the Factory Fucked, while members of poor rural populations are called the Farm Fucked. Park characterized the individuals in these two groups as "fucked from the get-go."

The other two rapidly expanding groups of poor fucks are the suburban poor, whose members can't afford the rising cost of such basic necessities as healthcare, and the urban underclass, whose members are found in the nation's troubled inner cities. Researchers termed these groups the Recently Fucked and the Utterly Fucked, respectively.

Economist Harold Knoep said there's little reason for sympathy.

"In a healthy capitalist economy, some people are going to be out-competed," Knoep said. "I'm sorry, but some of those fuck-ups have fucked themselves. I am not condoning an anarchic 'fuck or be fucked' ethos, but I can hardly get behind a welfare state that punishes the unfucked by fucking all equally."

While he expressed concern for the nation's poor, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said increased funding for social programs isn't the answer.

"Nobody's saying poor people aren't fucked," Hastert said. "But what about all the people in this great nation who are not fucked? If the financial resources of the economically stable are diverted—through some well-intentioned but fiscally irresponsible social-service program—to the people who are fucked, where does that leave those who were sailin' along fine? Fucked."

Ed Cranston, an under-employed, Detroit-area machinist who made $14,000 last year, said he was not surprised by the report.

"They say I'm fucked?" Cranston asked. "Shit, man, tell me something I don't know."


© Copyright 2003, Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.
The Onion® is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

Hmmm....there are literally hundreds of stories about people being born with nothing, or coming to this country with pennies in their pockets and no understanding of this land or language and making SOMETHING of themselves. It is the land of oportunity, folks. Nobody is left out. I'm tired of hearing pissy little assholes whining about how the government isn't giving them money for free. There are always jobs out there. It is literally impossible for anyone to say there isn't work for them. It's just pride that's holding them back. Believe me, I know. I've been there before. Take that hand that's been sticking out waiting for money and use it to openthe fucking want-ads.

Many people have raised very valid points as to why unemployment benefits are worthwhile, valid, and deserved for certain individuals.

However, I think many of these arguments lose cite of the main focus. When discussing federal policy decisions and subsidies, using individual examples or stories are worthless at best, and misleading at worst. An individual's personal hardship or worthiness in receiving a benefit should not be considered when the federal government is deciding the merit of a program. There are ALWAYS going to be individuals who can be held up to justify ANY subsidy. Policy decisions, however, should be made to produce the greatest long term good.

I think federal unemployment subsidies have been extended long enough. There were unusual circumstances justifying a short-term intervention by the federal government, but to continue on this road is dangerous and counter-productive. People should not merely be looking for jobs, how about creating them by founding small business or taking chances? If you are so locked into a solitary profession that you cannot branch out and learn something new, then you have made a poor life choice. The federal government should not be in the business of long-term subsidies.

If your job does not exist anymore (i.e., web page designers), you chose your profession poorly and should take advantage of local re-training programs or re-enroll in school. If you have taken on the burden of a family, you have made a poor decision and hopefully you have protected yourself by investing properly in insurance programs (thousands exist) or by saving money.

I will say it again: If you subsidize an lifestyle or activity, YOU WILL GET MORE OF IT than you would if it were not subsidized. This is is an iron law of social behavior and economics. It cannot be bargained with, it cannot be reasoned with, and it is as immutable as stone. Reverse incentives IN THE LONG RUN are dangerous and perverse to the nature of capitalism.

Thus, I do not support federal governments being in the business of long-term subsidies, as it results in dangerous distortions of the free-market. (there are a few exceptions, but they are exceptions because the federal government has a greater over-riding concern, not because any of the above is not true).

As to the continuous Wal-Mart and McDonalds examples, they are tiresome and represent melodramatic efforts to sway people's emotions. What the hell is wrong with taking a management position at Wal-Mart while you re-train yourself away from your now non-existent specialty union manufacturing job into a new field? Are people entitled to public grants until they find a job that is "worthy" of them? Jobs are out there, and if the alternatives are horrific people will take them. Then they will work hard and advance, or open their own companies. Going to soup kitchens or collecting charity should be somewhat embarassing (not overly so, but somewhat). Shame is a powerful motivator (yes, I believe in realpolitick).

As for the spurious "I paid my taxes, so unemployment benefits are just a return on my investment", this is laughable. If the government simply ended such programs, they would (if the government operated correctly) cut your taxes by a corresponding amount and you could invest this money or use it productively. Besides, the money you invested years ago has been long spent, and current taxpayers are the ones footing the bill. This type of logic is used to defend Social Security, Medicare and other programs doomed to economic collapse (not because these programs don't have laudable goals or produce happiness for deserving people, but due to sheer economics).

In short: We'd all be better off if the government did not take so much of our money to "help" us, and instead let us keep more of our money to help ourselves.

Ah, I see.

Interesting to notice the offense to this "long-term subsidy" (also known as SIX MONTH extension that is taxed) that actually rightfully belongs to these people anyway based on their previous employment (which is the only way you can draw unemployment benefits). It's not some free handout, so stop the lies.

I haven't seen any of you gents protesting the LONG-TERM (as in years/decades with NO TAXES applied) subsidies of say...Iraq or corporate farms paid not to produce or Medicare or corporate tax breaks.....

Yeah.....that's real interesting.

And to say that a person who enters an industry that begins to disintegrate "chose poorly" is folly. People who've been working in manufacturing for 2-4 decades chose pretty damn well, actually, in terms of picking a stable, vital field that renewed itself for a considerable amount of time. There's no way they could have seen that by the end of the decade, these companies that demanded loyalty and hard work from them would betray them by farming their jobs out at the earliest possible opportunity.

As for your problems with "the Wal-Mart examples," you posit an even more ludicrous counterexample when you say "What's wrong with taking a management position?" as if even Wal-Mart just took whoever off the street with no retail experience and made them managers on the spot.

Maybe you're not aware of this, but the reason that so many teenagers work non-management positions at McDonalds and Wal-Mart is because it's very hard to live off those salaries unless you're living with parents and have your major expenses taken care of. And that's assuming you get 40 hours a week, which a lot of these people do not.

I wonder how long it before we hear the return of the "Lucky Ducky" chants from the WSJ Op-ed crowd....

I didn't know being a Walmart "greeter" was considered a management position.

Yeah, you know why you hear those stories? Because they're remarkable. If this sort of thing happened more often, you wouldn't hear about it, because it would be much less interesting. Don't cite the exceptional when trying to prove a point.

I have protested the long term subsidies to farming, pharma, etc. That wasn't in the scope of this thread, so that's why you haven't heard it here. While this bill was just a six month extention, it is on top of a year and a half of previous extentions. At some point in time you need to say "we've extended this long enough," but nobody wants to be the scrooge to end welfare programs once they have been started.

Again, not every job in America is at Wal-Mart and McDonalds. I looked at the want ads in my local paper, and there were 10 pages of ads for companies looking for employees, mostly small businesses. Jobs are out there, but are the people qualified? If they aren't, what are they doing to get qualified? A lot of this does have to do with pride (e.g. "I was making $100,000 two years ago at freestuff.com, so I'm not going to lower myself to data entry duties at $11/hr). Swallow it, and get back in the workforce.

It's not welfare. At all. There are very specific qualifications you must meet to get your unemployment benefits. You have to login details of your weekly job search on a regular basis. You have to report for job market seminars. It's not some handout. It's EARNED based on your previous employment.

And I promise you...pride is not that big an obstacle. There are a lot of people who use to work at dotcom firms who are scraping by in lower positions right now. What you forget is that the same bazillion people are going out for that $11/hr. position, many of whom have been doing $11/hr. work for a while, and are a lot more likely to get that job than the $80,000/yr. VP who's slumming. Even if these guys WANT to "lower" themselves, their previous experience and salary work AGAINST them.

Also, a lot of those postings you see....don't believe the hype. You go on the ComputerJobsStore.com site right now, for example. They seem to have a lot of positions for every discipline imaginable, but a lot of those are from staffing companies advertising for the same position OR it's a repeat ad from a month ago that just hasn't been revised or deleted. That's a considerable percentage of what you see in nespaper and online postings (I know from firsthand longterm job searching experience).

Exactly. No Personnel Manager is going to hire a former $80,000-a-year programmer for an $11-an-hour tech support job because they know he's always going to be looking for other work, and there are plenty of people already at that skill level who will also be applying for the same job.

If you are lucky enough to be in a job were they pay for your education, why in the world do you get taxed for this? If there's so much value into job retraining, why is this done at all? Taxes for benefits on some expensive masters degrees really discourage this.

Just got to add something about the "I came from nothing thing", I have yet to have that story told and find it actually true.

More time than not the person came from lower-middle class or moved in with family members he knew, the person may not of had much, but not nothing.

I have a cousin who is the perfect example of this. Never knew his father, lived in poverty in central america, was always very smart though. Came to the US, gradudated first in class, president of the student body. I've lost count how many degrees he has so far.

BTW, when I say poor, I'm not talking about US like poor, I'm talking Central American poor. Barely a toilet in the house, no doors inside, just curtains, etc.

There are many, many stories like this, that are true.

Micah, if you wish to discuss other's positions on other long-term subsidies, start a thread on them.

Please respond to the core premises of my posts, rather than snidely picking out bits and pieces in a "sound-bite" fashion. My beliefs in this area are, in my opinion, founded on well-thought out economic and political theory, namely as follows:

If you want to encourage the economy to get moving and get people back to work, it is a bad idea for the federal government to continue to subsidize the unemployed. It would appear that you disagree with this basic premise, but are unwilling to so state. It is fun to throw Wal-Mart examples back and forth, but ultimately pointless.

SORRO, I thought your post was lucid and well-thought out, particularly when you noted the "nobody wants to be the scrooge" mentality that infects everyone when subsidy/welfare programs go on too long.

Personally, I don't see how you get more core than that. If your premise is based on "subsidizing the unemployed" being a bad idea, then Micah is addressing the very core of that premise by claiming that it's not a welfare-type subsidy.

You may disagree with that, but claiming that he's not addressing your core points seems a bit off.

Just an observation...

If you want to encourage the economy to get moving and get people back to work, it is a bad idea for the federal government to continue to subsidize the unemployed.

If it is a bad idea, why are the unemployed subsidized?

The reason is fairly parsimonious. If a person's status is marginalized by a seemingly careless society, to the point where that person ceases to care about the society in which they live, they will seek non-conventional means of obtaining income. That means is often criminal and counter productive to the function of society. Unemployment insurance exists as a preventative measure: first, it shows that a society cares about its members, and second, it gives the marginalized something to hold on with.

In nations where UI type programmes are non-existant, people neither care about 'national' society, nor do people function outside the world of blackmarkets and crime against the earning classes. As a result, a clear stratification between rich and poor is established. And one need only travel as far as Cape Town, Moscow, or Rio to witness what an utterly deplorable situation that is.

I do not comprehend why the current Administration would subsidize big corporations during the economic downtimes, for reasons that it'd spurt the economy upward, but they would not do the same for unemployed Americans, especially with the holiday season just around the corner.

Somebody forgot to tell Rove that unemployed people vote too.

He's hoping they'll be too busy looking for a job to make it to the polls.

Well, I was addressing both you and "The Iron Midget," but so be it.

I'll try this again:

The government is not subsidizing unemployed people. At least, not in the purest sense of the word, which means to bestow a grant. That's tax money paid by business based on an employee's salary and stock options. And even when you draw it, they tax you AGAIN, even though the revenue was taxed money in the first place!

Just because some people can and have abused the system or let it keep them from looking for work doesn't mean that most do. If you're a layabout simply looking for free government money, there are far more lucrative ways to get your scam on. For the vasy majority of people drawing it, it's a lifeline in a time of need. Visiting the unemployment office is not an enjoyable experience. Sitting at home getting no calls from employers after hundreds of resumes sent out (most places don't accept phone calls due to volume) is not an enjoyable experience. A VAST reduction in salary is not an enjoyable experience.

But they have been subsidizing unemployed Americans for the past 18 months. They've extended unemployment benefits three times, and they aren't getting one iota of credit for it. Instead it's just "they're cutting them off." Nobody seems to be grateful for the 18 months that they wouldn't have had if it weren't for the Administration and Congress.

Sorro,

It's the lot of government to keep the loose-ends of society together. That's why there's a bunch of people who run things. If government wasn't necassary, it wouldn't exist (some would argue that government isn't necassary). By keeping the unemployed within the margins of society, the government is doing its job. Nothing more.

Moreover, UI is by no means a system of 'handouts' people should be "grateful" for. That's insulting to people without work.

You are right about standard unemployment insurance, however, the extensions of UI beyond the standard term IS something to be grateful for. These are not part of the unemployment that you pay into as a worker and are therefore entitled to, this is something above and beyond that (and has been for the past 18 months). I wouldn't be grateful for something I was supposed to get, however, if I get more, then I would be grateful. 18 extra months of UI (again, on top of the standard benefits) is a very generous thing, whether or not people choose to see it that way.

Generosity can be necassary. Admittedly, as I am not American (nor am I a fortune teller), I wouldn't know how necassary extending UI is. This whole thing could work itself out quite nicely. Conversly, there could be a sharp increase in crime and poverty. Or, more likely, a mixture of both.

However, if the jobless rate is 'decreased' as the result of greater employment in low-mid paying occupations, and that situation does not change, the result of the entire exercise has been a further stratification of the wage gap. Not a step in the right direction.

Personally, I think it is the PRIMARY job of government to care for all citizens. Thus, my perogative would be to extend UI indefinately — that is, until the job market improved, and the unemployed ceased to exist.

The money comes from the same place, Sorro: Unemployment insurance taxes on businesses. You don't think it's odd that people can work at firms for years...even decades, and they only have 26 weeks of unemployment insurance due to them....which yet again...THEY GET TAXED ON, even though the income has already been taxed?

Dirty little secret: Most times they tax way more than they need and there are usually massive surpluses of unemployment taxes sitting around. Where does that money go? It gets soaked up by other government programs and pork projects.

So, no, it is NOT some grant or entitlement or subsidy. For most people, not even two years covers what they've generated with their years of salaried working and stock options and what have you. And again, THEY ARE TAXED on these "subsidies," so as the government giveth, it taketh right back away.

We're getting a little far afield here. Remember this thread is about whether the FEDERAL government should continue funding unemployment grants/refunds/subsidies/welfare...(whatever you want to call it).

Again, the federal government needs to do more, not less. If the state/local communities wish to take care of the needy or unfortunate among them, more power to them, then that is their prerogative. I think the federal government should get out of the business.

If you want to hear my opinions on corporate subsidies and the like, post an article on that topic. You'll find I'm pretty consistent that the government should do as little as possible to artificially inject itself into the economy. Obviously there are exceptions, and the past year and a half qualifies, but this type of program should not go on forever! It will eventually become counterproductive. Remember, there is nothing more permanent in Washington than a temporary emergency measure. For example, federal withholdings of income tax. That was a temporary World War II fund-raising change that has stuck forever.

From Adam Warren: "Personally, I think it is the PRIMARY job of government to care for all citizens. Thus, my perogative would be to extend UI indefinately — that is, until the job market improved, and the unemployed ceased to exist."

I like the fact that you are honest about your opinions, and state them clearly rather than simply attacking someone else's posts. However, I strongly disagree with your position. I would state the NATIONAL government's primary task in regards to the welfare of its citizens is as follows:

Foster a national environment that allows every citizen the opportunity to care for oneself and one's family.

There will always be exceptions when the government should step in and directly take care of people, or even industries, but exceptions do not make the rule.

How many times do I have to say it? The federal government is NOT funding anything at all.

Businesses that pay unemployment taxes are. The government just collects, steals from it, and then distributes the rest with "unemployment benefits" for 26 or however many weeks. They do this based on income and benefits you EARN. Period.

You keep complaining about where the discuission is going and whatever, but you can't get anywhere if the foundation of the discussion is an utter lie.

Sorro, how is the unemployment rate calculated in the States? In Canada, people who are not looking for work/given up looking or are on unemployment are not 100% counted in our stat. If you are on UI and your work is seasonal here (i.e. you are a fisherman) you do not get included when the stat is created. They get the "people not looking for work" figure through polling and statistical analysis.

I ask because of your original statement:

Economists have proven that the longer unemployment benefits last, the longer unemployment also lasts, because there isn't as much of an incentive to get back to work. As a result of this, you will probably see unemployment drop faster over the next few quarters than it would have otherwise.

This statement is false in Canada, as we don't even include most categories of unemployment insurance recipients in the unemployment rolls. I have yet to see a direct co-relation between length of benefit period and national unemployment rates. Our UI is harder to get now and only lasts between 4-6 months, yet our national unemployment rates have generally climbed substantially this last decade.

Mind you, we get more in Canada than you guys get, but still, I couldn't imagine what it would be like to get 18 months of UI! I think it would not have killed the administration to extend the benefit to January 1st, just so Christmas could be better for those families depending on this money.

Being the socialist pig dog that I am, I have no problems with people being on UI. YOU PAY INTO IT, for heavens sake. 3.4% of every paycheque I get goes to my UI benefits. In return, I get 60% of my wage for a minimum of 4 months to a maximum of (I believe) $1600.00 per month IF I LOSE MY JOB. I get NOTHING if I quit my job, I have to be laid off to collect. That money, if you are a good budgeter, is enough to live in a small/medium sized city. For people living in Toronto or Vancouver, this is not enough to pay rent/mortgage let alone food/family/etc. I would gladly pay a higher percentage of my pay to ensure more money was available if I got laid off.

As much as retrianing to find different work sounds good on the surface, I think you will find that, especially in the States, it is far too costly for people to change vocations unless they are the poorest of the poor and qualify for grants to go to school. I went back to school after getting my Bachelors of Science, Maths to learn more programeration skillz, and apparently I made too much money being ex-Navy to qualify for anything other than massive student loans. I make good money now, but it's like I am working for minimum wage some months because the payments for the loans are almost unservicable. Loans aren't so plentiful in the States from what I hear. And even then, does being a nurse justify/pay for the $60,000.00 in debt you would need to incur to go to college for 3 years? You guys make it sound like it costs $5.00 and 3 cereal box tops to get an education!

[edited for spelling]

Would it not be better if instead of paying into programs, which absorb so much money into bureaucratic overhead and waste, you simply got to keep that much more of your own money!

It seems to me that socialism's big flaw is that it assumes people will work hard and be diligent and committed, but it does not reward those who exemplify those traits, and does not punish those who are lazy.

Could be that I'm mistaken about human nature...but I think we respond to the carrot and stick quite well.

I would state the NATIONAL government's primary task in regards to the welfare of its citizens is as follows:

Foster a national environment that allows every citizen the opportunity to care for oneself and one's family.

There will always be exceptions when the government should step in and directly take care of people, or even industries, but exceptions do not make the rule.

Oneself. Quick editing. My elves are fine, by the way.

As to your post:

The first part is near-tautological, as the government's "job" certainly involves producing a healthy environment for its citizens. Failure to do this would result in a collapse of society, and thus governement. The two are interdependant (to the point at which no anarchists exist in this discussion).

Of course, this debate of degrees. Which is were your second point fits-in. Granted, a government should not function as a "nanny" for citizens and industry. However, the subject of this debate is the point at which, "creating an environment of opportunity" becomes "unnecassary nannying." (I hope.)

I hold that all persons have a right to facilitate their own existence within the confines a society (administered by a government). If, for some reason, a person is unable to facilitate his or her own existance (food, shelter, clothing, provide for children, and so on) it is the perogative of government to provide assistance. Such a government provision should allow for a degree of comfort acceptable relative to the living standards of the rest of society.

An immediate reply to this is: why would people work? There is an easy answer to this. So long as means achieving better living standards exists, people will be inclined to pursue that mean; conversly, they will not sit around obliterating their lives on government bucks. Granted, there are people who are inclined to do nothing. These people are, by in large, already suffering from some affliction (terminal laziness?), an affliction that would put them at societie's margins no matter what the situation. That is, if society was about getting a job or starving, these people would get jobs stealing, or find other systems to take advantage of.

Economists proving things. That's rich.

Maybe, maybe not, but the ELIMINATION of unemployment insurance altogether is not what anyone is discussing here.

Unfortunately, American capitalism has the same flaws. Minimum wage people work their asses off with no guarantee of elevation above that status. Rich people use tax loopholes and politicians to protect their wealth so they do not have to work. HARD work doesn't neccesarily give you any advantage, but SMART work does and that's true in any economic system.

Ecomomists observed something. Given the generally bullshitty nature of ecomomics as a science, that isn't saying much. Any how, proof is best applied in the worlds of math and logic.

Oh really? Please explain to me how smart work is rewarded in a communist nation? The government owns the means of production, other than making your own job easier by working "smarter", what kind of monetary reward do you see?

Intelligence, creativity, ingenuity, that's what capitalism rewards, not mindless back-breaking effort.

Since you can only conceive of "monetary" grants as being any sort of reward, what point is there in answering your question?

Monetary rewards are useless if you must give up the rest of your life to get them. Smart workers find a way to get both. In any financial system.

Capitalism rewards ANY means of getting money whether it be hard work, thievery, deception, or altruism. That's its best virtue and vice.

Overlord posts: It seems to me that socialism's big flaw is that it assumes people will work hard and be diligent and committed, but it does not reward those who exemplify those traits, and does not punish those who are lazy.

[Micah replies re: socialism and how its flaws compare with those of capitalism]

Overlord alters discourse: Oh really? Please explain to me how smart work is rewarded in a communist nation?

Communism is not a synomym for socialism. Don't re-work Micah's discussion of socialism into a communist rant.

Micah, I think overlord is under the impression that you a holding a discourse on communism.

I give. If he's unable to get past the "subsidy/welfare" lie, there's nowhere else to go.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think Overlords whole point is the fact the Federal Govt should have nothing to do with UI anyway, at all. Be it subsidy, whatever.

Lie? That's pretty harsh. I don't care if it's my money, your money, or Monopoly (R) money, the point is (and I think this is where OL is going), the Federal Govt should not have it's hand in the pie, at all, in any way.

Leave it to the states, as it is intended.

If left to the states, they'd steal from it just as much, and then when times of both state budget shortfalls AND high unemployment hit (the past two years), EVERYONE would be screwed.

And as long as some say "subsidy" or "subsidy...whatever you want to call it," I call that a lie because it clearly isn't a subsidy, everyone in this thread knows that by now, and to knowingly call it otherwise is deceptive.

IF left to the states?

Micah, UI is the pervue of the states (under general Federal guidelines). You seem very up on this subject, so I can only assume you are fully aware of that.

That's why I mentioned what I did. UI should not be touched, in any way, by the Federal Govt.

In a round about way, I think that's what he was getting at.

But it's under federal guidelines, and the federal government skims from these collected taxes. What I'm saying is that if it was completely left up to the states and their various state constitutions and local laws, we'd have more problems. So while I heartily disapprove of Congress shooting down the extension and stealing from the funds, I'm glad there's SOME sort of central body to administrate this, even if it is a crappy one.

But, it IS left up to them.

From the US Dept of Labor Website

Purpose In general, the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under State law) , and meet other eligibility requirements of State law.

• Unemployment insurance payments (benefits) are intended to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law.
• Each State administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines established by Federal law.
• Eligibility for unemployment insurance, benefit amounts and the length of time benefits are available are determined by the State law under which unemployment insurance claims are established

So, aside from establishing loose guidelines, to maintain some form of parity, the Federal Govt should not have it's grubby little hand in the pie, at all. (except to collect taxes)

FUTA and SUTA taxes combine to be a grand total of only about 150 dollars per worker per year. That's an awfully small sum to be able to subsidize unemployment for 2 years. Maybe the aggregate sum is higher than I think, but I think that if we haven't already, we're close to dipping into the general funding barrel.

From what I remember, unemployment is basically those looking for work, whether or not they are on unemployment. Those who have given up are not counted (which is why, as the economy improves, we may see higher unemployment - because people will start looking again). Seasonal workers are included during the months they have jobs. When those are over, if they start looking again, they are counted.

Grift - We're in agreement. Like I said...as long as there are guidelines under a central body it should be fine, and NO, they should not be skimming from the pot.

Sorro - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they tax on EVERYTHING an employee earns, including benefits like stock options. FUTA and SUTA are payroll taxes only, aren't they?

FUTA and SUTA only apply to the first few thousand dollars every year that people work. One of my myriad job responsibilities is doing financial work for my company, and everybody has maxed out at $56 for FUTA and $65 for SUTA (per year). This is the case with everyone from the CEO down to the cheapest student laborer.

The other taxes are standard Federal, State, Medicare, and Social Security. Other than FUTA and SUTA, we don't pay anything to the government for unemployment insurance.

Well, I don't pretend to know about the mechanics of it, but I do know that when I was collecting unemployment earlier this year they had to do some calculation to tally how much my employer had paid in to see how much I could draw per month for a finite number of months. My impression was that it was entirely dependent upon that figure.

And it's only if you're laid off, not fired. And you do have to prove you're actively looking for work, though it would probably be easy to fudge on that.

You're right Micah, each of our fundamental premises are too different for any type of real debate too occur.



Adam Warren, you posted the following:

"Micah, I think overlord is under the impression that you a holding a discourse on communism."

and the following:

"Overlord posts: It seems to me that socialism's big flaw is that it assumes people will work hard and be diligent and committed, but it does not reward those who exemplify those traits, and does not punish those who are lazy.

[Micah replies re: socialism and how its flaws compare with those "of capitalism]

Overlord alters discourse: Oh really? Please explain to me how smart work is rewarded in a communist nation?

Communism is not a synomym for socialism. Don't re-work Micah's discussion of socialism into a communist rant."



If you were diligent enough to go back and read through the posts, you would see this quote from Micah:

"Rich people use tax loopholes and politicians to protect their wealth so they do not have to work. HARD work doesn't neccesarily give you any advantage, but SMART work does and that's true in any economic system."

THIS IS THE QUOTE I WAS RESPONDING TOO. Since Micah uses the term "any economic system", I am perfectly free to shift the conversation to Communism, which qualifies as "any economic system". One of the methods of attacking an overbroad statement is to point out exceptions. This is often a useful debating tool used by myself and others. I felt Micah's statement was too broad, so I pointed that I fail to see how SMART work is truly rewarded in a communist system, at least in an economic sense (which I should have made clear. Micah shrewdly points out in a later post that there are indeed non-economic rewards to working smarter).

I'm not holding a "discourse on communism". Your posts were misguided.

Also known as proof by contradiction, in mathematics.

Ha! Um, wait, no.

Here is a primer on what you are trying to invoke:

Proof by Contradiction

A very useful question to ask yourself when you are trying to figure out if something is true or not is, "What if this wasn't true? This kind of thinking is at the heart of a proof by contradiction.
These are the steps in a proof by contradiction:

1. State the opposite of what you are trying to prove.

2. For the sake of argument, assume that this (the opposite) is true.

3. Beginning with that assumption, see what conclusions you can draw. These conclusions will be based only on the assumption you made, and things that are true

4. Try to draw a conclusion that you know is false or that contradicts something that is true.

5. If you can draw a false conclusion from the assumption and other true statements, you know that the assumption must be false.

6. But the assumption is the opposite of what you are trying to prove. If that is false, what you are trying to prove must be true. And so you have proved it.

An Example of Proof by Contradition

What I am trying to prove:

"People that go on UI actually do go back into the workforce when UI ends."

1. My opposite statement - "If people are unemployment they will always want to be on unempoyment or other hand outs."

2. I am asuming this is true.

3. My true assumptions:

a) People can go on unemployment.
b) Unemployment lasts a fairly long time.

4. My contradictory assumption:

a) People who go on UI never go back to work.

This is a falsehood. It is impossible to stay on UI forever. And once you have been on UI it is even more difficult to get onto it again. Welfare rolls have decreased, thus leading to the TRUW assumption that people who go on UI don't just go on Welfare when those benefits end.

5. My initial assumption, therefore, is false.

6. The statement I was trying to prove is therefore correct.

A primitive, but PROPER example.