I would have no problem in extending the UE benefits.

I would have no problem in extending the UE benefits.

 

 

I'd rather see the govt money being spent on Public Works Administration type jobs. Rather than paying UE benefits, the administration needs to come up with worthwhile public projects (how many bridges do we read about that are in dire condition) and use federal money to fund renovation projects and create jobs. The Brent Spence Bridge (I-75) needs to be redone; the federal govt needs to quick screwing around with this and move it forward on an expedited manner. School buildings could be renovated; stadiums rebuilt; on and on and on. Rather than paying people to sit at home fast track projects and pay people to work. No doubt that doing it on an expedited basis will result in waste, but I'd rather that happen and at least something positive be generated while people earning the money they receive.

I'd rather see the govt money being spent on Public Works Administration type jobs. Rather than paying UE benefits, the administration needs to come up with worthwhile public projects (how many bridges do we read about that are in dire condition) and use federal money to fund renovation projects and create jobs. The Brent Spence Bridge (I-75) needs to be redone; the federal govt needs to quick screwing around with this and move it forward on an expedited manner. School buildings could be renovated; stadiums rebuilt; on and on and on. Rather than paying people to sit at home fast track projects and pay people to work. No doubt that doing it on an expedited basis will result in waste, but I'd rather that happen and at least something positive be generated while people earning the money they receive.

 

I wonder what unemployment would look like if part of the requirement to receive benefits would be to work 20 hours a week on a public works project?

I wonder what unemployment would look like if part of the requirement to receive benefits would be to work 20 hours a week on a public works project?

 

I wonder the same thing about Welfare too.

I can't "prove " what I said any more than you can "prove" what you said. What is proven is that job losses were much higher prior to the stimulus than they are now. GDP was shrinking prior to the stimulus, it is growing now. Does that prove cause and effect? No, it doesn't. I think that it does provide significant evidence that the charge that the stimulus did not stimulate the economy is at the very least suspect and is better evidence for what I said than it is for what you said. About a third of the Obama stimulus package was tax cuts. Stimulus tax cuts were also passed under President Bush. In my opinion those small individual tax cuts were the least beneficial part of each stimulus package. I think public works projects are a much better stimulus. I also think there was too much emphasis on shovel ready projects that lead to too many bike trails etc. and not enough real economic development long term projects. I'm talking about roads, sewers and water.

 

Over the long term is is very important that we get the budget under control. There are a number of things that must be a part of that. First, social security, Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed. I would be in favor of lifting the social security wage cap and raising the retirement age for social security and the eligibility age for Medicare. Second, military spending must be controlled. We are providing security to a large portion of the world that uses that security to compete against us. We will be and must be the military leader of the world but other nations must step up. If they won't, it is not up to us to defend them. Just a few places we pay a lot to defend that should be paying their own way would include, Euope, Korea and Japan. Third, ALL projects need to pass intensive scrutiny. Some obscure museum of historic balls of twine in rural Iowa may be a nice project, but we can't afford it. Fourth, we must maintain our edge in research and development in high tech. When I was in high school I spent a summer on a National Science Foundation study grant. We need to invest in educating the best technical minds in the world. Fifth, over the short term we need to increase revenues. We must be willing to pay for whatever we decide we need to buy.

 

TA, I agree with much of your post. I'd rather we be dumping billions into solar and other alternative energy R&D and subsidizing those efforts; I'd rather we be dumping billions into a national natural gas for vehicles program (start in one section of the country and install a natural gas distribution program similar to the string of gas stations we currently have in order to foster the conversion of cars to natural gas power). I think there are many positive things that the fed govt can fund and create jobs quickly. This would be a much more positive thing than paying people money who are not working (ie UE benefits). In my opinion healthcare reform, even if people think it was the right thing to do, shouldn't have been undertaken at the time it was. That political capital, effort and energy should have been spent concentrating on public works efforts to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, that costly and bruising political fight only alienated the Rs and a lot of Americans and spurned fears about the run away deficit, now making it much, much harder to get fed govt funding for needed and job creating public work administration type projects.

My parents and their generation were not too good to work at McDonald's type jobs when they needed to work. And if it was not enough money, they picked up a second job.

 

Presently, they are both retired but that has not stopped them from working. They have picked up jobs cleaning 6-8 homes and businesses in the evening and babysit 4 kids during the day.

 

There are 5 applicants for every job. How is someone going to get too jobs. 20% unemployment means that these are the people still looking for jobs. It does not count those who have quit looking. 5 APPLICANTS FOR EVERY JOB OPENING.

There are 5 applicants for every job. How is someone going to get too jobs. 20% unemployment means that these are the people still looking for jobs. It does not count those who have quit looking. 5 APPLICANTS FOR EVERY JOB OPENING.

 

Did you not read where he said he would have no problem extending the benefits?

How much did the tax cuts - THAT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - add to the debt.

 

We'll find out when they expire, I suppose.

I wonder what unemployment would look like if part of the requirement to receive benefits would be to work 20 hours a week on a public works project?

 

Perhaps vastly different. To me, with local govt's required to cut manpower and resources, it's only blooming common sense that any one on UE, unless given a physical waiver by a physician, should be required to work 20 hours a week for a local govt unit. Drag baseball fields, paint bleachers, pick up garbage, clean up abandoned sites, on and on and on. With a little thinking and some planning, society could benefit greatly from the available labor pool and receive something in return for the UE benefits paid out.

We'll find out when they expire, I suppose.

 

They have been going since 2002, where are all of the jobs they created?

Also remember not everyone on unemployment even got or is getting the 99 weeks you read about. Heck, I have a friend who only got it for 46 weeks and it stopped. They said they had applied to over 300 jobs and had 4 interviews to no avail. And BTW, they have applied for jobs that are only 50% of what they were previously making. The job market is so saturated and companies are still not hiring. Not near as easy as some seem to think. Just saying.

Also remember not everyone on unemployment even got or is getting the 99 weeks you read about. Heck, I have a friend who only got it for 46 weeks and it stopped. They said they had applied to over 300 jobs and had 4 interviews to no avail. And BTW, they have applied for jobs that are only 50% of what they were previously making. The job market is so saturated and companies are still not hiring. Not near as easy as some seem to think. Just saying.

 

Read that sentence again slowly and that is the problem. Only 46 weeks-geez.

Read that sentence again slowly and that is the problem. Only 46 weeks-geez.

 

Read the rest of it about how hard they were trying and how they were willing to make 50% less than before. I'm sure you could make it on 50% of what you currently make, right? Geez.

Have done it many times in my career. There are ups and downs, the champs get up quickly, and I have never taken a dime from unemployment.

Have done it many times in my career. There are ups and downs, the champs get up quickly, and I have never taken a dime from unemployment.

:notworthy: You must be the man. :lol: So just how long have you been in the full-time workforce? Tell us champ.