Not really sure where you are going with this? UE benefits were in existence prior to Obama, and they will be post Obama as well. There will always be people on UE. They lose their job through no fault of their own to qualify and it's meant to sustain them until they can find another job. You can't get UE benefits unless you were working and qualified for them. Seems some on here are confusing welfare with UE, big difference. Currently, the 76 weeks of federal extensions have taken people to a max of 99 weeks. Once they exhaust their 99 weeks, they fall off of the UE benefit mountain. There are NO extensions beyond 99 weeks. The 76 weeks that were added are high due to the current economic conditions that were caused by lots of irresponsibility on lots of different levels. So to answer your question..............yes, UE benefits will last during Obama's term, just like they did with Carter's, Ford's, Reagan's, Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, and now Obama.

Guess I should be more clear,thought everyone understood what I meant. Will there be extensions from the 99 weeks all the way through Obama's term, which will mean millions could actually receive benefits for close to 4 years. I say Obama will extend and extend and extend. UE is the new welfare. The benefit mountain you mention is a beanstalk just growing and growing

Guess I should be more clear,thought everyone understood what I meant. Will there be extensions from the 99 weeks all the way through Obama's term, which will mean millions could actually receive benefits for close to 4 years. I say Obama will extend and extend and extend. UE is the new welfare. The benefit mountain you mention is a beanstalk just growing and growing

 

Then the answer is no. There will not be benefits beyond 99 weeks. People are falling off of the 99 week mountain daily, and when it reaches epic proportions, that's when things will really get interesting. The 99 weeks is a very unusual situation that is meant to deal with very unusual times that this country is going through.

As much as you want to say it, we are not TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. -- Winston Churchill

You have any statistics as to how many people you are talking about? How does living in blight "take full advantage of the American system." In one of the HUD developments in my community, most of the people there are older folks and have some type of disability. But I absolutely know that many don't have cars, they are not travelling on the interstate or flying out of our airports, or benefitting from the stock market. So they absolutely are not taking full advantage of the system. They are eking by.

 

In 2009 it was almost 50 percent that had zero income tax liability.

Have you looked at who that 50% includes?

Why hasn't this ever been brought up by any president or congress? Including when republican presidents enjoyed a republican congress?

 

FWIW, I would have no trouble supporting it.

 

The Michigan Governor (and I think Wisconsin as well) tried this (public service work for your unemployment or welfare) several years ago, but it didn't go over too well in Detroit or with the unions--Imagine that??

This is so absurd it's hardly worth arguing.

 

How do you balance your household budget when times get tight… by spending more money than you can reasonably take in? Not if you enjoy your freedom.

 

How is 50% of someone’s entire sweat and earnings not enough in taxes? If the government wants more than that... its wants are too big.

 

Between federal, state, county and city income taxes, workers comp, social security, Medicare /Medicaid, 46 cents a gallon gasoline taxes, sales taxes, tanning bed taxes, cigarette and alcohol taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, taxes that add up to 37% to phone bills and 28% of electric and natural gas bills… etc., etc., etc.

 

When you consider that most of these taxes are added after the Feds, State and Locals take their cut of our income, and we are taxed further on what money is left that has already been taxed… I’m not sure 50% is a big enough number to cover every area our incomes are sucked away by taxation.

 

While your job and income may not presently rise to the 50% level, speaking on behalf of a significant segment of those who now work six months out of the year to pay for our bloated government and programs instituted by Congressional prostitutes that apparently cannot say no to anyone or any cause, and just keep writing bigger checks…

 

For those of us who actually pay our share of these taxes for the services you outlined, so that everyone in this great land can use them and benefit from them... this is incredibly offensive.

 

It is time to start cutting...

 

Fastbreak, over the years I've become a bit too lazy to offer lengthy posts in P&R defending my position. But, man oh man, your above post might have well been typed by my fingers because it is exactly my view. As you said, the income taxes (at all levels government) are just the beginning. Once you have satisifed those tax bills, the remaining taxes (as you outlined above) continue to eat away at our purchasing power. It is little wonder why the average national savings rate is so pathetic.

Fastbreak, over the years I've become a bit too lazy to offer lengthy posts in P&R defending my position. But, man oh man, your above post might have well been typed by my fingers because it is exactly my view. As you said, the income taxes (at all levels government) are just the beginning. Once you have satisifed those tax bills, the remaining taxes (as you outlined above) continue to eat away at our purchasing power. It is little wonder why the average national savings rate is so pathetic.

I consider this a huge compliment Sir... Thank You!

 

I've wanted to be able to post "Don't be so Petty" for some time now, but you've never given me the slightest reason to pun your avatar. :thumb:

Have you looked at who that 50% includes?

 

You asked for a number, I told you. Every one one of the 50% lives under the umbrella of our government. Every one enjoys the protection of our military. Every one in some way or another benefits from our national infrastructure. That's just 3 without thinking hard about it. They should all pay something. No one should live in this country for free.

The Michigan Governor (and I think Wisconsin as well) tried this (public service work for your unemployment or welfare) several years ago, but it didn't go over too well in Detroit or with the unions--Imagine that??

 

Wisconsin Works, a Gov. Tommy Thompson initiative, has been law in Wisconsin since 1997. Basically, W-2 did away with the state's entitlement program and replaced it with a program that employed people through public works projects and subsidized private jobs. There is a process of evaluation and assessment to qualify those who cannot work, so they can still get assistance, but those who can work, must work to get help.

You asked for a number, I told you. Every one one of the 50% lives under the umbrella of our government. Every one enjoys the protection of our military. Every one in some way or another benefits from our national infrastructure. That's just 3 without thinking hard about it. They should all pay something. No one should live in this country for free.

I generally agree with you 75. Your logic and common sense tend to be right on the mark... at least from my POV. (Sorry... kinda scary I know.)

 

I offer my amendment to your statement that "No one should live in this country for free." You may accept or reject it... :thumb:

 

I suggest that there are many who should live here free:

 

Children too young to work and earn.

The elderly that have worked their entire lives and paid into the system that supports us all... (I guess technically, that's not free because they have paid into and sacrificed to "earn" their keep during their less productive years.)

And those pyhsically or mentally unable to labor, earn and pay their fair share of taxes.

 

That's it... everyone else should have some "skin in the game" as B.O. says.

 

Felons in prison should have to labor at some useful task, craft or service to at the very least help offset the expense of their upkeep.

 

Illegals should not be permitted to work "off the grid" for "cash under the table" and "outside of the tax system".

 

Those willing to park at the bottom of the Welfare ladder, making no legitimate effort to improve themselves or their circumstances may need to be viewed as adult children of the state. As dependents, perhaps they should not merit the "right" to vote and select policy makers. This has nothing to do with discriminating against the poor, but actually quite the opposite. It prevents self-serving politicians from further enabling (rewarding) wrong behavior.

 

Punishing achievers and success while rewarding lack of effort or failure is a recipe for disaster.

You asked for a number, I told you. Every one one of the 50% lives under the umbrella of our government. Every one enjoys the protection of our military. Every one in some way or another benefits from our national infrastructure. That's just 3 without thinking hard about it. They should all pay something. No one should live in this country for free.

 

Not disagreeing with you at all but here is something I found, perhaps a bit simplistic, that defines how 47% went without having to pay INCOME tax for 2009:

 

The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

 

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

 

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

 

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

 

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax.

 

Another point the article made is:

 

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

 

That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

 

"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.

 

Just food for thought.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

I generally agree with you 75. Your logic and common sense tend to be right on the mark... at least from my POV. (Sorry... kinda scary I know.)

 

I offer my amendment to your statement that "No one should live in this country for free." You may accept or reject it... :thumb:

 

I suggest that there are many who should live here free:

 

Children too young to work and earn.

The elderly that have worked their entire lives and paid into the system that supports us all... (I guess technically, that's not free because they have paid into and sacrificed to "earn" their keep during their less productive years.)

And those pyhsically or mentally unable to labor, earn and pay their fair share of taxes.

 

That's it... everyone else should have some "skin in the game" as B.O. says.

 

Felons in prison should have to labor at some useful task, craft or service to at the very least help offset the expense of their upkeep.

 

Illegals should not be permitted to work "off the grid" for "cash under the table" and "outside of the tax system".

 

Those willing to park at the bottom of the Welfare ladder, making no legitimate effort to improve themselves or their circumstances may need to be viewed as adult children of the state. As dependents, perhaps they should not merit the "right" to vote and select policy makers. This has nothing to do with discriminating against the poor, but actually quite the opposite. It prevents self-serving politicians from further enabling (rewarding) wrong behavior.

 

Punishing achievers and success while rewarding lack of effort or failure is a recipe for disaster.

 

I think that's a good post. :thumb:

 

Would offer an amendment to the bolded:

 

Employers should not be allowed to offer "cash under the table" to illegals which keeps the Employer from paying certain taxes and utilize labor at a less than market price. :thumb:

I agree with Fastbreak and Hatz as to the amendments to my statement. I was thinking of those who are working when I said everyone should pay. I myself would not exclude seniors if they still have income from investments or earnings. I also abhor the under the table economy.

I think that's a good post. :thumb:

 

Would offer an amendment to the bolded:

 

Employers should not be allowed to offer "cash under the table" to illegals which keeps the Employer from paying certain taxes and utilize labor at a less than market price. :thumb:

Not only can I live with this amendment... I endorse it wholly. :thumb: