Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Monday, December 8, 2003; Page A24
THE HOUSE PLANS to show up today for what looks to be its sole day of work this month; the Senate will put in an appearance Tuesday. After that, lawmakers will likely leave for a long Christmas break, but unless Republican leaders change their minds, Congress will leave a major task undone: extending emergency benefits for the long-term unemployed. The emergency program will begin to phase out starting Dec. 21; as a result, an estimated half million of the nation's jobless will be without benefits by the time lawmakers come back to town Jan. 20.
Ordinarily, unemployed workers are entitled to about 26 weeks of state benefits. But in tough economic times, when jobs aren't to be found even with diligent searching, the federal government has stepped in to provide extra, temporary help. The current federal program, which was started in March 2002 and has been extended twice since, gives unemployed workers an additional 13 weeks of benefits after their state assistance runs out. It should be extended again.
Posted by P6 at December 8, 2003 09:15 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2458My benefits ran out back in September but they've been handing the federal benefits the same way since last year; I remember very well wondering if and when the federal extension was going to come through.
Jesus. Another one. Do you really think the government should be supporting every freaking individual who has a problem finding a job? Why don't we all quit work and live off the government?
I left the military eight months ago, and for a time, had some difficulty finding a job in my field. So what did I do? I swallowed my pride and took a lower-paying job in the interim. Sure, it wasn't fun. But I was paying my bills, putting food on the table for me and my daughter, and I sure as hell wasn't employing the government to steal from someone else for my benefit.
Unemployment is a TEMPORARY benefit. Thirteen weeks is more than three months. Extending it YET again would put it at a total of 65 weeks- more than an entire year (original 26, +13+13, +13 if extended again). That isn't very temporary. If someone hasn't gotten a clue by now and tried getting new skills besides the little bit of Perl and HTML they know, perhaps they are unemployable anyway.
An extension is the last thing that is needed right now. People don't need another reason to sit on their duff at home. The economy is recovering, employment is rising. The last thing it needs is a disincentive for people to work.
Wow, Brian. You don't even know me yet you feel that you are in a position to make insulting comments about me like that. Your rudeness is astonishing.
Brian:
You need to be more polite.
Let's assume the job market is improving, and the economy is improving. Never mind that we're still way behind what's needed to keep up with the new entrants into the labor market. And we won't look at people who have been unemployed so long that they've given up (though we will include those that are still looking but will be bypassed in this buyers market for employment due to their long layoff).
Never mind. I answered my own question.
As a matter of fact, I spent nine of the months since last Christmas season sitting on my duff - in a chair in a classroom, getting some career training to get a better job. Currently, I'm doing 30 hours a week volunteering for an organization that hopefully will hire me once they go through all their procedures for creating a new position and getting it approved by the board.
Yep, just sitting on my duff. Brian, you can take your attitude and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Al-Muhajabah,
I don't think I ever mentioned you, nor was I even thinking of you when I wrote that.
If you were in a classroom, then you just proved that you are not the person I was referring to. As I said, the thing to do is to seek job training and to expand skills. You were doing precisely what you should be doing. I was not condemning you for that.
I was condemning the attitude that every setback in life should be countered by a generous handout from the government, extorted at gunpoint from the rest of us.
Brian, immediately below my comment you wrote "Jesus, another one" then proceeded to go into a rant. If you didn't mean me, you need to make that a lot more clear.
Sorry Al. I didn't even read the comments before I replied. I was referring to the third of a procession of articles I had read demanding that the government use its monopoly on the use of force to take from one person to give to another who has not earned it. It was beginning to depress me that so many people believe that the use of force is a legitimate means of accomplishing one's goals. Oddly though, many seem to oppose wars that use the less subtle means of force to accomplish goals.
What's strange is when people who think that they are being forced at gunpoint to pay taxes support making war on other countries and actually forcing people to do things at gunpoint.
There are only two people who ever said anything about gunpoints. One is Phelps, and the other is me. It is probably fair to say that he supports the war, but I didn't. Now, that means your hypothesis gave you one positive and one negative. Hardly a resounding affirmation.
I don't believe that I was advancing any kind of hypothesis, just making a comment about something that seems strange to me. The comment was primarily directed at Phelps, but more generally at anybody who supports Bush and by extension his policies.
You really need to take a bit more time to read what's being written and not jump quite so hastily to conclusions.
Let's see, Al, what was it I read to conclude that I was included in your theory?
Perhaps it was the fact that you make an overly generalized assumption about people who have problems with paying taxes at gunpoint, right after I make a comment about paying taxes at gunpoint.
If Iremember correctly, you made a mistake of your own, which I could easily attack as a hastily drawn conclusion due to poor reading comprehension ("Brian, immediately below my comment you wrote "Jesus, another one" then proceeded to go into a rant. If you didn't mean me, you need to make that a lot more clear"), but I didn't. I admitted that it was unclear, and state that had I taken the time to read all the comments before I posted my own, I would have made it clearer.
A few posts above, I closed my comment with this: "I was condemning the attitude that every setback in life should be countered by a generous handout from the government, extorted at gunpoint from the rest of us." Then, after your little misinterpretation, you made a comment about how it is odd that people who have problems with paying taxes at gunpoint support war, which is a far less subtle use of the gunpoint to get one wants. To me, since it followed my comment about gunpoints, it seemed only reasonable that you were referring to me.
At this point, I will quote you: "If you didn't mean me, you need to make that a lot more clear."