Reality Check

United States

#24 Jan 2, 2014
Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I'm 100% for helping people get on their feet. But against supporting them from the cradel to the grave. If a person is in school getting retrained, then I could support more than 26 wks unemployment.
There is to many people that waits until the last three wks before their unemployment runs out before they start looking for work. 26 wks or 99 wks they still wait until the last 3 wks.
By definition, in order to collect unemployment, a person has to have been employed, so no one's been supporting that person from 'cradel (sic) to the grave'. I also challenge you to cite proof that 'to (sic) many people that waits (sic) until the last three wks before their unemployment runs out before they start looking for work'.

We are emerging from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, and job growth has been unusually and painfully slow. Only in the past few months has the economy shown real signs of life. Job growth is improving but still sluggish, with unemployment is still hovering at 7 percent, not counting the millions of Americans who have completely given up looking for work.

Once again, the US Department of Labor itself says that there are three job seeker for every one job available, at this time. What rationale is there in cutting unemployment benefits to 1.3 million long-term unemployed when, at BEST, there are only 433000 available to that group of people? Not only is it a stupid economic move, because the long-term unemployed can't even pay basic bills or buy goods and services, but it's also cruel, on a human/moral level.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending long-term unemployment for a full year would cost about $25 billion, which would add to the deficit. But the measure would also boost economic growth by two-tenths of 1 percent and create 200,000 jobs. Given that interest rates are at historical lows, and given that the imperative right now is to create growth and jobs, refusing to extend the benefits is counterproductive as well as cruel.

Can you hear me now?
Really

Saint Louis, MO

#25 Jan 2, 2014
This guy is a so called good liberal. Look around in this county and see how many are really searching for a job.you would have to be stupid to think these people are are not using the system. Call the doctor.
La la

Saint Louis, MO

#26 Jan 2, 2014
Check must be living in la la land.
working

Columbia, IL

#27 Jan 2, 2014
Dear Mr. Reality, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time to be collecting unemployment?
Cowboy

Christopher, IL

#28 Jan 2, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
By definition, in order to collect unemployment, a person has to have been employed, so no one's been supporting that person from 'cradel (sic) to the grave'. I also challenge you to cite proof that 'to (sic) many people that waits (sic) until the last three wks before their unemployment runs out before they start looking for work'.
We are emerging from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, and job growth has been unusually and painfully slow. Only in the past few months has the economy shown real signs of life. Job growth is improving but still sluggish, with unemployment is still hovering at 7 percent, not counting the millions of Americans who have completely given up looking for work.
Once again, the US Department of Labor itself says that there are three job seeker for every one job available, at this time. What rationale is there in cutting unemployment benefits to 1.3 million long-term unemployed when, at BEST, there are only 433000 available to that group of people? Not only is it a stupid economic move, because the long-term unemployed can't even pay basic bills or buy goods and services, but it's also cruel, on a human/moral level.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending long-term unemployment for a full year would cost about $25 billion, which would add to the deficit. But the measure would also boost economic growth by two-tenths of 1 percent and create 200,000 jobs. Given that interest rates are at historical lows, and given that the imperative right now is to create growth and jobs, refusing to extend the benefits is counterproductive as well as cruel.
Can you hear me now?
Quoted like a true democrat looking to buy votes. Just like Obama defending the ACA. Good news 2.1 million people has now signed up for Obamacare that didn't have health insurance lol.
It's the same people that signed up for the ACA, that the democrat party caused them to lose their health insurance. Now the bottom line is there is more people uninsured today that there was before Obamacare. Yep the democrat party done big!! Big at screwing people out of their health insurance and into the unaffordable health care act.
La la

Saint Louis, MO

#29 Jan 2, 2014
We have people in this county on some kind of aid and have been for generations. I know people on unemployment who have stated they
Will only seek work when their checks run out.
Sick of dead beats

Saint Louis, MO

#30 Jan 2, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
By definition, in order to collect unemployment, a person has to have been employed, so no one's been supporting that person from 'cradel (sic) to the grave'. I also challenge you to cite proof that 'to (sic) many people that waits (sic) until the last three wks before their unemployment runs out before they start looking for work'.
We are emerging from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, and job growth has been unusually and painfully slow. Only in the past few months has the economy shown real signs of life. Job growth is improving but still sluggish, with unemployment is still hovering at 7 percent, not counting the millions of Americans who have completely given up looking for work.
Once again, the US Department of Labor itself says that there are three job seeker for every one job available, at this time. What rationale is there in cutting unemployment benefits to 1.3 million long-term unemployed when, at BEST, there are only 433000 available to that group of people? Not only is it a stupid economic move, because the long-term unemployed can't even pay basic bills or buy goods and services, but it's also cruel, on a human/moral level.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending long-term unemployment for a full year would cost about $25 billion, which would add to the deficit. But the measure would also boost economic growth by two-tenths of 1 percent and create 200,000 jobs. Given that interest rates are at historical lows, and given that the imperative right now is to create growth and jobs, refusing to extend the benefits is counterproductive as well as cruel.
Can you hear me now?
Whatever left wing political garbage website you copied and pasted that bs ramble from. No one can " hear you" because facts are facts. Get off your lazy ass that you have been sitting on for 5 months, and get A JOB. If your bullshit statistics are right, and if you are actively looking EVERY DAY for a job like you should be instead of waiting for something to fall in your lap, then you would be the 1 in 3 people who gets the job.
Copy and paste copy and paste your only making the unemployed look worse
La la

Saint Louis, MO

#31 Jan 2, 2014
A a a men.
Pinky

Saint Louis, MO

#32 Jan 2, 2014
Check must have run out of stats.
Stupid Should Hurt

United States

#33 Jan 2, 2014
Reality's stats are correct, regardless of your opinions. They come from the US Department of Labor, as he's written more than once. You're the ones who are clueless.

I don't give a rodent's behind what you've heard people say, or your magical thinking about there being all sorts of jobs out there, because facts are facts and facts beat opinions and hearsay every time.

As for what your daddy did, all I have to say is if your uncle had had mammary glands, he'd have been your aunt. TODAY isn't any other time period,

What a bunch of ignorant hillbillies. No wonder Chicago laughs at us.
Sick of deadbeats

Saint Louis, MO

#34 Jan 2, 2014
Stupid Should Hurt wrote:
Reality's stats are correct, regardless of your opinions. They come from the US Department of Labor, as he's written more than once. You're the ones who are clueless.
I don't give a rodent's behind what you've heard people say, or your magical thinking about there being all sorts of jobs out there, because facts are facts and facts beat opinions and hearsay every time.
As for what your daddy did, all I have to say is if your uncle had had mammary glands, he'd have been your aunt. TODAY isn't any other time period,
What a bunch of ignorant hillbillies. No wonder Chicago laughs at us.
^^^^reality moron changed his annoying name, but not his annoying comments. Anyone who spends that amount of time and energy trying to anonymously to convince people on TOPIX, no doubt , to extend unemployment benifits to deadbeats who refuse to help themselves, needs to get a freakin job and a freakin life
im just asking

Inez, KY

#35 Jan 2, 2014
Sick of deadbeats wrote:
<quoted text>
^^^^reality moron changed his annoying name, but not his annoying comments. Anyone who spends that amount of time and energy trying to anonymously to convince people on TOPIX, no doubt , to extend unemployment benifits to deadbeats who refuse to help themselves, needs to get a freakin job and a freakin life
Would you be so kind as to explain what "deadbeats" means to you?
funny

Columbia, IL

#36 Jan 2, 2014
why can't you answer the question...How long do you feel is an efficient amount of time to be on unemployment before cutting off benefits?
im just asking

Inez, KY

#37 Jan 2, 2014
funny wrote:
why can't you answer the question...How long do you feel is an efficient amount of time to be on unemployment before cutting off benefits?
If you were asking me, i would be delighted to answer as soon as you define "deadbeats"
Cowboy

Christopher, IL

#38 Jan 2, 2014
im just asking wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were asking me, i would be delighted to answer as soon as you define "deadbeats"
People that just plays the free handout system. Expect the tax payers to support them from the cradle to the grave. Is full of excuses why they can't be successful.
Yes, I do understand that good people do fall on hard times. But those hard times should be just temporary unless they are medical reasons.
im just asking

Inez, KY

#39 Jan 2, 2014
Unemployment benefits are not paid from the cradle to the grave, not now not ever. People ruled eligible for unemployment benefits must have been working, and then separated from their employment by reasons not of their making.
I think maybe you included other government programs in your post, try to keep them separate. This thread is about unemployment. You do know that if you are working a legal job, you are paying unemployment insurance, don't you?

Try separating your thoughts, and post your definition of "deadbeats" as it pertains to those unemployed.
Cowboy

Christopher, IL

#40 Jan 2, 2014
im just asking wrote:
Unemployment benefits are not paid from the cradle to the grave, not now not ever. People ruled eligible for unemployment benefits must have been working, and then separated from their employment by reasons not of their making.
I think maybe you included other government programs in your post, try to keep them separate. This thread is about unemployment. You do know that if you are working a legal job, you are paying unemployment insurance, don't you?
Try separating your thoughts, and post your definition of "deadbeats" as it pertains to those unemployed.
You are the one that said define "deadbeats" and I did. You are the one that never mention unemployment is that comment. Now you change the subject from your question like you are afraid to answer, like you said you would.
im just asking

Inez, KY

#41 Jan 3, 2014
Cowboy, take a deep breath.

Now scroll to the top of the page, what is the title of the thread? The title of the page on my phone says "UNEMPLOYMENT", i never changed anything.
I'll check back when i get home from work to see if you have posted a related definition. Have a safe warm day.
funny

Columbia, IL

#42 Jan 3, 2014
just answer the question....How long do feel one should be able to draw unemployment checks...I am not calling anyone deadbeat...There HAS to be a cut-off point.
Lady a

Saint Louis, MO

#43 Jan 3, 2014
You live in Benton and you don't know what a dead beat is?
Anyway I would like to comment. I think after 2 months of not finding a job an individual must meet with an unemployment officer, and prove they are actively looking for a job. Not this call in automated bullshit

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christopher Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
IL Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 19 min Cali Girl 2014 49,931
Ashlee Adams 29 min Duh 2
WF Football 41 min alumni 74
PleaseTop Threatening our kids 1 hr Out Of Towner 5
Bellas (May '12) 1 hr Out Of Towner 103
kody Vanfossan (Mar '14) Sun hmmmm 21
stetion dial (Mar '14) Sun hmmmm 53
•••
•••
•••

Christopher Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Christopher People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Christopher News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Christopher
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••