Master of diversion.

Didn't you advise me not to get personal?

I ask you a simple question....how are you paying for it?

 

Same question the GOP has asked for years yet you and the Dems I. Washington continue to ignore that and just want to continue paying for something for nothing.

Great question. How are we paying for unemployment compensation? This is the second time I've posed the question.

Didn't you advise me not to get personal?

 

I wasn't attacking you. Not in the least. You just continue to dodge answering the question. But that's your prerogative.

Great question. How are we paying for unemployment compensation? This is the second time I've posed the question.

That is part of the national budget...what isn't is the continued extensions. Since Obama has been in office he has continued to extend the benefits with no way of paying for it, why don't you have a problem with that? Especially if you don't think the time should be unlimited.

I can answer that question since two won't. It's because Boehner is Relublican, that is why two has so much angst about this.

The Repubs will give in to extending unemployment benefits because they realize saying no would be political suicide. Boehner is just posturing now to keep the Tea Party nut cases off his back.

The Repubs will give in to extending unemployment benefits because they realize saying no would be political suicide. Boehner is just posturing now to keep the Tea Party nut cases off his back.

You continue to dodge the questions....are you a politician?

 

So tea party nutcases because their basic values are to pay for something the president wants to give away for free as he continues to increase the national debt? Doesn't sound like nut cases to me.

TwoToPlace are you refusing to answer the question or are you waiting on talking points from the DNC?

 

How long should unemployment benefits continue?

 

 

NO ONE said that the program should be eliminated. Even you said they shouldn't go on forever, so how long is long enough?

Why don't you research who or what actually pays for unemployment benefits, then report your findings to the class.

Here you go

Costs are Truly Shared by Federal and State Government

Operating as a federal-state partnership, UC is based on federal law, but administered by the states. The UC program is unique among U.S. social insurance programs in that it is funded almost totally by either federal or state taxes paid by employers.

 

Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.

 

State UC tax rates vary from state-to-state. State UC taxes may be used only to pay benefits to unemployed workers. The state UC tax rate paid by employers is based on the state's current unemployment rate. As their unemployment rates go up, the states are required by federal law to raise the UC tax rate paid by employers.

 

Almost all wage and salary workers are now covered by the federal-state UC program.

 

I guess there is the answer, never fore go a chance to tax someone!

Here you go

 

 

I guess there is the answer, never fore go a chance to tax someone!

Thank you for your research, which often is sorely lacking on these boards. Now we have a basis for an answer that is fact-based, rather than opinion-based. What a novel concept.

 

To end the suspense before going to bed after taking in the CovCath-Holmes game, here's my take on continued unemployment benefits:

 

Why don't we let Congress, the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, the Department of Labor et al. do what they're supposed to do and provide guidance and direction in this area. Golly, gee ... representational government at work. What a novel concept.

 

When unemployment is low and jobs are available, then it seems logical that unemployment benefits probably can fall in the lower end of the range, the minimum being 26 weeks. However, when unemployment is high, then workers need more time to find a job, and unemployment benefits should be extended to the higher end of the range, which previously had been set at 99 weeks.

 

Unemployment benefits have never, ever gone on "forever." That's just an Uncle Remus story perpetuated by ignorant Republicans. But it fits the narrative, right?

Thank you for your research, which often is sorely lacking on these boards. Now we have a basis for an answer that is fact-based, rather than opinion-based. What a novel concept.

 

To end the suspense before going to bed after taking in the CovCath-Holmes game, here's my take on continued unemployment benefits:

 

Why don't we let Congress, the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, the Department of Labor et al. do what they're supposed to do and provide guidance and direction in this area. Golly, gee ... representational government at work. What a novel concept.

 

When unemployment is low and jobs are available, then it seems logical that unemployment benefits probably can fall in the lower end of the range, the minimum being 26 weeks. However, when unemployment is high, then workers need more time to find a job, and unemployment benefits should be extended to the higher end of the range, which previously had been set at 99 weeks.

 

Unemployment benefits have never, ever gone on "forever." That's just an Uncle Remus story perpetuated by ignorant Republicans. But it fits the narrative, right?

 

You still didn't answer how long is too long?

The Repubs will give in to extending unemployment benefits because they realize saying no would be political suicide. Boehner is just posturing now to keep the Tea Party nut cases off his back.

 

I don't think so, they wouldn't get those votes from the jobless anyway.

You still didn't answer how long is too long?

Depends on a number of factors. You're looking for an easy answer so you can play "gotcha." I don't think there is an easy answer. Is four years too long when the unemployment rate is 13 percent? I don't know. Is 26 weeks too little when the unemployment rate is 5.5 percent? I don't know. That's why we have a Department of Labor.

 

The litmus test used to be that for every $10,000 of salary one earned, it took a month to find a similar job. In other words, if one made $50,000 a year, it took 5 months to find a similar job. Can probably double or triple that formula today ... or make it read 5 months to find a job that pays half as much. Everything's changed since all the jobs started going overseas.

I don't think so, they wouldn't get those votes from the jobless anyway.

Republicans better start appealing to a broader base or they're going to go the way of the Whigs in the 1850s. Read just the other day that Georgia, of all states, is changing demographically and might even be in play for the Democrats in the '16 election.

Republicans better start appealing to a broader base or they're going to go the way of the Whigs in the 1850s. Read just the other day that Georgia, of all states, is changing demographically and might even be in play for the Democrats in the '16 election.

Or maybe just maybe politicians shouldn't be in the business of buying votes. They should be in the business of doing what is best for the country. Your idea of an endless stream of income because of failed job growth policies under this president goes against all logic. I've said it to you in other threads and I'll say it again you hate math. You obviously don't understand how the economy works. It what crazy world does having an unlimited stream of income from the government incentivize people to get a job. Sure a lot of people want to work and most are good people . They should be provided with short term help to find work . But at some point someone has to be an adult and cut the cord. Life isn't always easy and sometimes struggling incentives people to strive.

 

I have yet to hear one solution from you. You Dodge and have a single answer that anyone who thinks unemployment benefits should have a limit don't care about people. When in fact are very ideas truly show the most compassion , instead of allowing people to become complacent we incentivizes them to work.

I think it's time for the lies to stop. The candidates should be held accountable for what they say and I don't mean by not being re-elected the next term. If they can't produce then they should be recalled.