On Aug 16, 1:06*pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Why not post where you ARE on topic! You're the only turd involved here.

,
typed:



On Aug 15, 11:13 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
:

On Aug 15, 9:37 am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:

On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han
wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and
do you want the government to give you money to
support yourself or do you work at a government
job and want to insure you never get laid off or
have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a
handout. Wish that was simple. Getting
unemployment because you don't want to work should
n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job
available was one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy
should be available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with
it? Let us suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because
they interviewed extremely well and had an
impeccable resume but they were totally
unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his
incompetence, arrogance and corruption and someone
qualified was given the job. It shouldn't be the
government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that
persons hand when things get rough, that's what
relatives, friends and charities are for -- not my
hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit
above which salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented.
Also supplementation of reduced wages needs to be to
75% (WAG number) of previous salary, with a 2 year
(another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think
every possible issue they can identify as needing to
be fixed requires another law, another regulation,
another federal program, another handout. *And who do
they turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress,
that showered benefits left and right so the critters
could get re-elected left and right alike. *If you
think that by abrogating unemployment benefits we will
get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start
spending more money on a new unemployment program where
we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. *It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that
has got us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. *There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. *Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. * Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. *Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. *And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was
proposing. *What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of
his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find
a job that paid 25K. *Normally one wouldn't take that if
the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. *But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the
25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him.
There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The example I gave you is exactly the same thing. *I just
used
a guy with a $50K job. *You think people aren't smart
enough to
figure
out how to get fired and make it look like it's not their
fault if
they
want to take advantage of some federal program? *This
would
just cost the rest of us more money. *And studies have
shown
that when people lose their jobs, there are two periods
when
most of them find new ones. *The first period is
immediately
after they are laid off. *The second is when their
unemployment
benefits expire.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you just go **** yourself. Not only are you an
idiot who usually posts wrong advice, but now you jump on
me? I challenge you to find a single off topic post that I
started here. I never have, but once someone else does
I am as free to comment as you just did above, dickhead.