Its clearly the right time to slash the social safety net

[PLATO]

Isn't the real question here "Where should the government be involved?" Is the government a "safety net" or is the government an engine for providing conditions where a "safety net" is not needed?

I think this is the fundamental question trying to be answered in Washington by the opposing policies of Republicans and Democrats. There isn't enough money to do both...in fact, there may not be enough money to do anything if things keep up like they are. Neither side is inherently evil, but they do look at governments role differently. I believe, like I think most Americans do, that we need some of both. People need help when they are down, but they also need a way out of being down...and one that is more attractive than the help.

[Kidlicious]

This is what the idiots believe; that if you cut out everything like unemployment everyone would have jobs tomorrow. Morons.

[DanS]

There seem to be much better ways of dealing with temporary unemployment. Lots of industries take advantage of unemployment insurance because they are so cyclical -- seasonal work or manufacturing. I like the idea of an unemployment account that can be drawn on while unemployed, but that pays out at retirement if unused.

99 week unemployment seems like too much, even in our current situation. Elimination of the minimum wage in addition to a reduction in the unemployment period would help the labor market clear.

[Jon Miller]

My mom's husband has basically been out of work for 3 years. He had what turned out to be a temporary job for a few months earlier this year. He had some 'consulting' (really part time for his former boss) last year?

He was making ~100k a year as an architect before 2008.

I think that he would be glad for a job making 30k right now (I don't think he and my mom can afford for him to make less than that, they have pretty much run out of all their savings/retirement/etc and have a lot of debt which they didn't 2 years ago even).

He wouldn't even be on unemployment if it was extended, just putting out the type of situation that people are in today.

JM

[rah]

Sad yes, the problem of the government, I still say no. I'm surprised he can't find a 30K job. That's only around 15 an hour. My daughter is making that while also working on her masters.

[PLATO]

Sad yes, the problem of the government, I still say no. I'm surprised he can't find a 30K job. That's only around 15 an hour. My daughter is making that while also working on her masters.

The benefits of youth, education, and potential??????

It is a far different situation for older workers out of work. I have been told by more than one source in the employment industry that if you are 49 or less than you can get a job. At 50, you are toast. So much for anti dicrimination laws....

[rah]

On that I agree. I wouldn't want to be pounding the pavement at my age. If I do get laid off, I'll be requesting the age and race of layoffs by my company over the last few years.

If I was laid off, I'd fake looking for work until my benefits ran out and then probably end up in with a job paying in the 10-20 dollars an hour range.

[Kidlicious]

Sad yes, the problem of the government, I still say no. I'm surprised he can't find a 30K job. That's only around 15 an hour. My daughter is making that while also working on her masters.

You are seriously clueless.

[rah]

I'm not that one that believes in a figment of my imagination.

[Kidlicious]

Are you sure?

[rah]

Yeah, I'm sure I don't believe in a figment of my imagination.
Fortunately there's nothing for me to actually prove since I have no beliefs in that area.

[Barnabas]

I don't think living in a trailer park is that expensive, even for poor people.

Am I right in thinking that in the USA, it is rare for someone who makes say, 70 thousand dollars per year to live as if he only made 40 or 50 thousand and save the rest with the objective of buying a few properties in a period of 15 years and then living from the rents of those properties?
Or would that be bad business there for some reason?

[giblets]

Isn't the real question here "Where should the government be involved?" Is the government a "safety net" or is the government an engine for providing conditions where a "safety net" is not needed?

I think this is the fundamental question trying to be answered in Washington by the opposing policies of Republicans and Democrats. There isn't enough money to do both...in fact, there may not be enough money to do anything if things keep up like they are. Neither side is inherently evil, but they do look at governments role differently. I believe, like I think most Americans do, that we need some of both. People need help when they are down, but they also need a way out of being down...and one that is more attractive than the help.

Is it even possible to have conditions where a safety net isn't needed? I think having the government take measures to help people who are in danger of starvation or homelessness is necessary (although perpetual unemployment benefits are probably not the best way to accomplish this).

[DaShi]

The solution is to take away SS and Medicare from the elderly and give to children. Why we have this so backward is beyond me.

[Tupac Shakur]

If you can't see the rather obvious direct connection between the GOP wanting to slash SS, Medicare, Unemployment benefits and a whole host of other safety net items at a time when we're seeing a huge rise in the number of kids without homes, then you need ****ing glasses.

There is no connection between Social Security/Medicare and homeless kids, you ****ing moron. There might be some connection between unemployment benefits and homeless kids, but the GOP supported a lengthy extension of unemployment benefits and a payroll tax holiday that benefited all workers.