Look, it's not that I disagree with Bunning that there shouldn't be a plan in place to pay for the extended benefits.

 

My issue is that while Bunning is either exacting revenge on Reid or taking some sort of "stand" millions of unemployed people AND their families are going to suffer. The system sucks. Period. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, or if this were even an issue, unemployment as a system sucks because it's only intended to be a stop-gap measure. The fact of the matter is that while the economy is in the shape it is, and people aren't able to find work, or find work that will pay the bills, it is needed.

 

Bunning's stand is going to have a profound negative effect on these families, and as a consequence, our welfare rolls are going to swell. The people will qualify for a different kind of aid, and as is in evidence throughout this forum, no one wants that.

 

I agree funding needs to be determined. I don't agree that taking a stand on this particular point in anyway points to any integrity on the part of Bunning, who's state is among the leaders in unemployment.

 

As opposed to permanent unemployment? I'm not following you on this.

As opposed to permanent unemployment? I'm not following you on this.

 

Meaning that the it is intended to only be for a short-term, and when people face prolonged, unexpected unemployment, it unfortuantely becomes a long-term situation. The method of collecting the funding for this isn't designed to provide those sorts of sustainable revenues.

And in the meantime, just how many people are getting squeezed just so Senator Bunning can provide us with an object lesson? And did I also hear that there was some kind of federal employee layoff that's part and parcel as well, or did I mis-hear?

Meaning that the it is intended to only be for a short-term, and when people face prolonged, unexpected unemployment, it unfortuantely becomes a long-term situation. The method of collecting the funding for this isn't designed to provide those sorts of sustainable revenues.

It should only be for short term. At some point a person has to suck it up and take a job they understand normal circumstances wouldn't take. At least until they find something else.

It should only be for short term. At some point a person has to suck it up and take a job they understand normal circumstances wouldn't take. At least until they find something else.

 

 

Duh...I know it should be only for short term. What do you propose that people who ARE applying but are still without jobs do? I mentioned in another thread the number of people who are being turned away at my place of employment alone and why. It's not as if there are an unlimited number of ANY jobs out there.

 

Everyone acts like you can just go out and get any job as long as you apply. That's simply not the case. There are dozens of applicants per opening. People are applying and being passed over.

Duh...I know it should be only for short term. What do you propose that people who ARE applying but are still without jobs do? I mentioned in another thread the number of people who are being turned away at my place of employment alone and why. It's not as if there are an unlimited number of ANY jobs out there.

 

Everyone acts like you can just go out and get any job as long as you apply. That's simply not the case. There are dozens of applicants per opening. People are applying and being passed over.

Then I am totally confused on the meaning of your previous post.

Duh...I know it should be only for short term. What do you propose that people who ARE applying but are still without jobs do? I mentioned in another thread the number of people who are being turned away at my place of employment alone and why. It's not as if there are an unlimited number of ANY jobs out there.

 

Everyone acts like you can just go out and get any job as long as you apply. That's simply not the case. There are dozens of applicants per opening. People are applying and being passed over.

 

6 applicants per 1 opening is an average I saw.

Non-farm Jobs Payroll will be out Friday. We have already been warned the number will be distorted by the February weather. I would read that as someone at the Labor Department saying 'the record NE blizzards will give a snow-screen to hide behind for one more month.'

 

Here is outlook:

 

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/market-analysis/usd_jobless-recovery-poses-threat-to-sustainability-810580.html

 

Interesting tidbit at the bottom (Friday):

 

In January, the U.S. economy lost 20,000 jobs in January, with the recent month's job losses taking the total contraction in payroll employment since the recession started in December by 8.4 million. Economists estimated a gain of 15,000 jobs in January.

The change in total non-farm payroll employment for December was revised to -150,000 from the -85,000 estimated earlier.

 

So nameless "Economists" missed the January number 35,000 based on propoganda from the administration. AND the job REDUCTION in December was raised 65,000 after the initial number was probably manipulated by the administration.

 

The facts are the facts and as I have posted before the bottom is not yet reached - though that is the spin.

 

As for one more datapoint - my spouse was given notice yesterday. From a large company. Not totally unexpected. So I have a possible personal interest in Mr. Bunnings tactics. I think he has made his point and could 'undig' his heals at this point. But the fact is that the national government and state governments need to come to grip with this recession that is still deeping. The road is not yet one to recovery and will not be until at least the end of the year.

Meaning that the it is intended to only be for a short-term, and when people face prolonged, unexpected unemployment, it unfortuantely becomes a long-term situation. The method of collecting the funding for this isn't designed to provide those sorts of sustainable revenues.

 

Got it. That shouldn't mean the system is bad. It performs quite well for what it was intended.

6 applicants per 1 opening is an average I saw.

What was the average 3 years ago? How about 5, or 8. Any time we have an opening we get 20-30 applicants.

6 applicants per 1 opening is an average I saw.

 

 

I would think that's a fair national average. My stat was my own little world, so it's fair to think that there would be fewer people applying for certain skilled jobs or jobs that required a certain level of education as a qualification, than there would be entry level jobs. :thumb:

Non-farm Jobs Payroll will be out Friday. We have already been warned the number will be distorted by the February weather. I would read that as someone at the Labor Department saying 'the record NE blizzards will give a snow-screen to hide behind for one more month.'

 

Here is outlook:

 

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/market-analysis/usd_jobless-recovery-poses-threat-to-sustainability-810580.html

 

Interesting tidbit at the bottom (Friday):

 

In January, the U.S. economy lost 20,000 jobs in January, with the recent month's job losses taking the total contraction in payroll employment since the recession started in December by 8.4 million. Economists estimated a gain of 15,000 jobs in January.

The change in total non-farm payroll employment for December was revised to -150,000 from the -85,000 estimated earlier.

 

So nameless "Economists" missed the January number 35,000 based on propoganda from the administration. AND the job REDUCTION in December was raised 65,000 after the initial number was probably manipulated by the administration.

 

The facts are the facts and as I have posted before the bottom is not yet reached - though that is the spin.

 

As for one more datapoint - my spouse was given notice yesterday. From a large company. Not totally unexpected. So I have a possible personal interest in Mr. Bunnings tactics. I think he has made his point and could 'undig' his heals at this point. But the fact is that the national government and state governments need to come to grip with this recession that is still deeping. The road is not yet one to recovery and will not be until at least the end of the year.

 

 

I don't say this very often, but I agree with you! :thumb:

Got it. That shouldn't mean the system is bad. It performs quite well for what it was intended.

 

 

It does. But now that we're in a state of prolonged unemployment, it's reasonable to expect that either we are going to need to continue unemployment benefits for many, or that we'll fully absorb them into the welfare system somehow. Either way, it's an expense that is probably going to be difficult to find the money for. Keeping people on the unemployment at least gives the opportunity for them to pay their bills to some degree, and if they do qualify for welfare benefits, it's less than if they weren't getting any unemployment. Maybe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. But with so many people concerned that people are milking the unemployment system, how do they feel it would be if those same people were fully vested in the welfare system?

I don't say this very often, but I agree with you! :thumb:

 

Oh, except for the honesty and integrity of this current administration, we agree on a lot.

Edited March 2, 201016 yr by Bluegrasscard
spelling

The legislation proposed does not affect a current job loss from the right, if applicable, to collect up to 6 months of unemployment payments. The legislation wanted to EXTEND the period on which unemployed workers whom have been collecting benefits since the "retroactive" recession period began, November 2008.

 

The proposed legislation was crammed with pork and earmarks for other items.

 

I applaud the senile Senator on this one, whether he is a lame duck or not. There are times when the baby needs to be thrown out with the bath water, and this was one. I feel sympathy for those out of work, and this is the time to rally churches and charities to their aid, and rein in government spending. It has got to hurt bad, real bad, so we do not repeat this behavior. And yes, libs, I toss President Bush into that mix, too.