Do you think unemployment benefits should keep getting extended?

What are your thoughts on that. I feel bad for people who are out of work, but it has been extended, and is now getting extended again.

Do you think some people don't actively pursue employment if they know their benefits are going to keep getting extended?

It used to be in most states you got 6 months,now some of them are getting a year, and now an additional 20 weeks.

That is 72 weeks of checks.

Joanne wrote:

What are your thoughts on that. I feel bad for people who are out of work, but it has been extended, and is now getting extended again.
Do you think some people don't actively pursue employment if they know their benefits are going to keep getting extended?
It used to be in most states you got 6 months,now some of them are getting a year, and now an additional 20 weeks.
That is 72 weeks of checks.

What is the alternative? Put them on welfare or let them starve?
Which do you propose?

I don't know what the answer is. But I do wonder if there are some who "milk it". If you know you're getting 6 months of unemployment vs. a year or more there is more incentive to actively look for work.

FL pays near the bottom($275 a week) but there are states that are paying $400 a week or more.

My question was do you think that by continuing to extend the benefits get some people thinking why should I look for work?

It used to be 26 weeks, and that was it, now it is getting up to 72 weeks, so there is less of a rush to find employment.

If you know you have 26 weeks and that is it, you'r going to make an effort to find work. If it is never ending......why look???

I do feel it encourages people to not look for work. And yes it becomes a form of welfare.

Could you live on $275.00 a week? I am sure that someone who made more than $275.00 a week, which should be easy because that breaks down to 6.87 an hour (then you have to pay taxes on it), would rather be working making a living rather than getting 6.87 an hour.

You would have to be out of your mind to "milk" $6.87 an hour.
Surely its done.$275 is the max. If someone were working at minimum wage then they would be getting a lot less from unemploymetn.

Less rush to find employment? For what jobs?

Joanne wrote:

I don't know what the answer is. But I do wonder if there are some who "milk it". If you know you're getting 6 months of unemployment vs. a year or more there is more incentive to actively look for work.
FL pays near the bottom($275 a week) but there are states that are paying $400 a week or more.
My question was do you think that by continuing to extend the benefits get some people thinking why should I look for work?
It used to be 26 weeks, and that was it, now it is getting up to 72 weeks, so there is less of a rush to find employment.
If you know you have 26 weeks and that is it, you'r going to make an effort to find work. If it is never ending......why look???
I do feel it encourages people to not look for work. And yes it becomes a form of welfare.

That is in Florida, the $275, some states are paying out over $600 a week in unemployment.

And yes why would someone take a lower paying job if they can make the same or close to the same by not working.

Do you think someone who is getting $628 a week(MA)and knows they can get unemployment for another 20 weeks on top of the 52 they just got is going to knock themselves out looking for work.

Only Alambama and Louisana pay less than FL. Most states are paying around $400 a week. That is better or the same as some jobs.

If you keep getting extensions, where is the incentive to look for work?

In NJ their getting a max of $560 a week. You can live on that, and live quite well.

It is tough out there but are we creating more people who have become dependent on the govt. to support them.

Where is the money coming from???????

Just because the maximum is $400 a week in some states that is not what you get if you made less than $400 a week. You get a percentage of your income with a maximum benefit of $400 a week.
So if you made less than $400 a week ($10 and hour) you are not getting $400 a week in unemployment benefits.

If you made say $8.00 an hour in NJ, you would not be getting
560.00 a week.

Ask Bush where the billions of dollars to bother Iraq came from.

Joanne wrote:

Only Alambama and Louisana pay less than FL. Most states are paying around $400 a week. That is better or the same as some jobs.
If you keep getting extensions, where is the incentive to look for work?
In NJ their getting a max of $560 a week. You can live on that, and live quite well.
It is tough out there but are we creating more people who have become dependent on the govt. to support them.
Where is the money coming from???????

Some states are getting 92 weeks of unemployment, I know some seniors who live on less than $275.00 a week, thats $1,100 and if your a women with children here in Florida you get cash assistance up to $280.00 a month to do as you please your now at $1,380, add in food stamps know a gal with 2 daughters she gets $700.00 a month, add in section 8 for rent assistance.......I'd say their doing pretty darn good. And if they get a job, they can get cash for babysitters so they can keep their job. Meanwhile, if regular Joe Blow can't pay his electric bill they shut him off, if senior citizen Mary Smith can't pay her taxes, the county will put her house up for taxes lien. Meanwhile, your tax money, my tax money pays for all these wonderful people to sit home and wait for the checks to come in.

Yep. What a lovely country we live in.

I never voted once in my life. I do not believe in the democractic system. It is set up to make the rich richer.
They do take really good care of the poor. This is proven.
That is why these kids are having kids, as many as they can, as soon as they can. Get that gravy train rolling in.

Meanwhile the poor slob who cant find a job is screwed.

HC resident wrote:

Some states are getting 92 weeks of unemployment, I know some seniors who live on less than $275.00 a week, thats $1,100 and if your a women with children here in Florida you get cash assistance up to $280.00 a month to do as you please your now at $1,380, add in food stamps know a gal with 2 daughters she gets $700.00 a month, add in section 8 for rent assistance.......I'd say their doing pretty darn good. And if they get a job, they can get cash for babysitters so they can keep their job. Meanwhile, if regular Joe Blow can't pay his electric bill they shut him off, if senior citizen Mary Smith can't pay her taxes, the county will put her house up for taxes lien. Meanwhile, your tax money, my tax money pays for all these wonderful people to sit home and wait for the checks to come in.

HC resident wrote:

Some states are getting 92 weeks of unemployment, I know some seniors who live on less than $275.00 a week, thats $1,100 and if your a women with children here in Florida you get cash assistance up to $280.00 a month to do as you please your now at $1,380, add in food stamps know a gal with 2 daughters she gets $700.00 a month, add in section 8 for rent assistance.......I'd say their doing pretty darn good. And if they get a job, they can get cash for babysitters so they can keep their job. Meanwhile, if regular Joe Blow can't pay his electric bill they shut him off, if senior citizen Mary Smith can't pay her taxes, the county will put her house up for taxes lien. Meanwhile, your tax money, my tax money pays for all these wonderful people to sit home and wait for the checks to come in.

That is what I am talking about, I went on a forum where a lot of people who were unemployed were talking about getting their extensions and when the checks would arrive.

No mention of looking for work or how hard it is, or anyone asking about job leads, just how do I get my money.

How is that really any different than someone collecting welfare?

92 weeks is almost 2 yrs, as I said you can't tell me there aren't people who aren't "milking it".

It is common logic if you have 26 weeks of benefits you are going to look harder to find a job, if you have a year or more many will think why not sit back and relax.

It becomes yet another govt.handout.

Yeah, if I was unemployed I would be worrying when my next check is coming too. There are bills to pay, rent, mortgage, utilities, food, health insurance. If you want to read about people getting work, try a job search forum. If you read Playboy you are going to see naked women. If you read Popular Science you wont.
So go to the right web site for the information that applies, not what you want to apply. I just could not see "milking it" unless
I had substantial back up and the unemployment checks were just gravy but that is not the real world. Those people depend on working and earning a living. Not like the "single moms" who get checks whether they work or not.

Benefits have to be extended since we are in a depression and work is hard to come by especially for the blue collar workers.

Joanne wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what I am talking about, I went on a forum where a lot of people who were unemployed were talking about getting their extensions and when the checks would arrive.
No mention of looking for work or how hard it is, or anyone asking about job leads, just how do I get my money.
How is that really any different than someone collecting welfare?
92 weeks is almost 2 yrs, as I said you can't tell me there aren't people who aren't "milking it".
It is common logic if you have 26 weeks of benefits you are going to look harder to find a job, if you have a year or more many will think why not sit back and relax.
It becomes yet another govt.handout.

If it were so easy to find work, we wouldnt have the problem of high unemployment in the first place. Start thinking about the people, not the money. That is the republican party problem. They worry about the money but dont give a rats ass about the people.

That is where Obama is different. Its PEOPLE FIRST.

Joanne wrote:

I don't know what the answer is. But I do wonder if there are some who "milk it". If you know you're getting 6 months of unemployment vs. a year or more there is more incentive to actively look for work.
FL pays near the bottom($275 a week) but there are states that are paying $400 a week or more.
My question was do you think that by continuing to extend the benefits get some people thinking why should I look for work?
It used to be 26 weeks, and that was it, now it is getting up to 72 weeks, so there is less of a rush to find employment.
If you know you have 26 weeks and that is it, you'r going to make an effort to find work. If it is never ending......why look???
I do feel it encourages people to not look for work. And yes it becomes a form of welfare.

Funny ABCD when the stats on the unemployment rates on HC was listed here....you disputed it....LOL..HC had the second highest unemployment rate in the state...and you didn't want to hear it.

It was up over 13% and you said it wasn't true.

I started this thread to start a discussion, which we can't seem to have here...

Of course unemployment is high, however before someone keeps getting extensions they should show they're making an effort to look.

Nowadays they fill out a form or call into a system and just say "yes I looked for work".

Hi Joanne: I'd like to see the posting that I said the unemployment rate in HC was what it was. Its publish fact.
We may have the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the state, maybe
still do, but what is the reason? Because the people who could do nothing went into construction and now that construction is down they cant find another line of work. So that makes it a ghetto
or something? I dont think so.

It seems we ARE discussing unemployment benefits. Your position is "to hell with them" and my position is help them. Dont people have to turn in "job search lists" showing where they looked for work to get benefits? But that would be hard because nobody is hiring unless you have some skills or some training in something besides "I hammer nails". Can you read a blueprint? NO. Can you
manage a crew? NO. Can you read a tape measure? NO. Those are the people who will not find work until construction picks up which I dont see happening soon here. They need to get retrained into something more marketable.

They should have mechanisms in place to follow up on job searches.
If not the system is failing, again.

Joanne wrote:

Funny ABCD when the stats on the unemployment rates on HC was listed here....you disputed it....LOL..HC had the second highest unemployment rate in the state...and you didn't want to hear it.
It was up over 13% and you said it wasn't true.
I started this thread to start a discussion, which we can't seem to have here...
Of course unemployment is high, however before someone keeps getting extensions they should show they're making an effort to look.

Nowadays they fill out a form or call into a system and just say "yes I looked for work".

That is not my position at all. I started this thread to try and have an intelligent discussion as to whether or not constantly extending unemployment benefits to 92 weeks isn't encouraging some people to stop looking for work.

Don't twist my words, I believe people who get laid off should get help.

I am getting tired of this board again. I go on other boards where people can have a different viewpoint and be civil.

Here we have to have "attacks".

I read through several posts on another forum and no one mentioned even looking for work, just how do I continue to get unemployment.

Not even how tough is is to find a job, just how do I continue to get my check.

It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out someone getting 92 weeks vs 26 weeks is more likely to sit around and just collect a check.

Years ago you had to go down to the unemployment office and show proof you looked for work, now they fill out a form or do it through an automated system.

There is nothing in plave to show that they are even looking for work.

That was my point, if someone is looking, or goes back to school, by all means help them.

Funny,you have a lot to say about unwed mothers and welfare, well 92 weeks of unemployment without a system of checks and balances is welfare.

Again don't twist my words, I think I will take a break or just stay away from this board all together.

It is pointless to try and be civil here.

So then if you think people who get laid off should get help, you should back the 92 weeks since it takes a long time to get a job in this economy with the competition so hot for any job that comes up. I dont think it encourages people not to work. Unless you like living like a pauper. Attacks? Where did anyone attack you?
Is it if they dont agree with your side it is an attack?
No, it is a difference of opinion.

If you read a cook book you learn to cook. If you read a
repair manual you learn to fix something. You go to a unemployment benefits website and they arent going to be talking about finding work there. That would be found in a job seeking web site.

It is not the unemployed persons fault that their company went broke, got laid off in a massive lay off, company closed the doors, etc. You cant just leave them to starve or beg, so they have to have some unemployment benefits. Like I said yesterday, just because the max rate in some state is say $400 a week, that only goes to people who made substantially more than $500 week.
Not the guy who was working for $8.00 shoveling horse crap in Brooksville.

Forget what it was "years ago" because the whole world has changed in the past 20.

So as long as the opinions agree with you it is civil. When someone else has a thought its an attack and being uncivil.
So much for open discussion.

Joanne wrote:

That is not my position at all. I started this thread to try and have an intelligent discussion as to whether or not constantly extending unemployment benefits to 92 weeks isn't encouraging some people to stop looking for work.
Don't twist my words, I believe people who get laid off should get help.
I am getting tired of this board again. I go on other boards where people can have a different viewpoint and be civil.
Here we have to have "attacks".
I read through several posts on another forum and no one mentioned even looking for work, just how do I continue to get unemployment.
Not even how tough is is to find a job, just how do I continue to get my check.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out someone getting 92 weeks vs 26 weeks is more likely to sit around and just collect a check.
Years ago you had to go down to the unemployment office and show proof you looked for work, now they fill out a form or do it through an automated system.
There is nothing in plave to show that they are even looking for work.
That was my point, if someone is looking, or goes back to school, by all means help them.
Funny,you have a lot to say about unwed mothers and welfare, well 92 weeks of unemployment without a system of checks and balances is welfare.
Again don't twist my words, I think I will take a break or just stay away from this board all together.
It is pointless to try and be civil here.

ABCD "Your position is "to hell with them" and my position is help them."....lol

Exactly what I'm talking about...so much for being civil.

Joanne wrote:

What are your thoughts on that. I feel bad for people who are out of work, but it has been extended, and is now getting extended again.
Do you think some people don't actively pursue employment if they know their benefits are going to keep getting extended?
It used to be in most states you got 6 months,now some of them are getting a year, and now an additional 20 weeks.
That is 72 weeks of checks.

You can tell by this post"I said the hell with them"....lol...you can't have a discussion around here.

Tried to open up a discussion and it just can't be done here without nasty comments.

Which is why no one comes on this board.

Some of these threads are so nasty I skip them all together.

Enjoy it, I'm done.

Looks like some here have their girdles on too tight.
I've read this forum before and it's like abcd says.
If you don't agree with the party line you are branded as nasty and rude. Seems to me that
Joanne is simply a prude. She's hiding behind her curtains with her robe tied tight at the top.
This is not a discussion board, it is either a place where nutcases inhabit or those so wrapped up in themselves that they can't stand a differing opinion.

You all need to find lives.

Joanne wrote:

<quoted text>
You can tell by this post"I said the hell with them"....lol...you can't have a discussion around here.
Tried to open up a discussion and it just can't be done here without nasty comments.
Which is why no one comes on this board.
Some of these threads are so nasty I skip them all together.
Enjoy it, I'm done.

Goldfarber wrote:

Looks like some here have their girdles on too tight.
I've read this forum before and it's like abcd says.
If you don't agree with the party line you are branded as nasty and rude. Seems to me that
Joanne is simply a prude. She's hiding behind her curtains with her robe tied tight at the top.
This is not a discussion board, it is either a place where nutcases inhabit or those so wrapped up in themselves that they can't stand a differing opinion.
You all need to find lives.
<quoted text>

Try looking in a mirror before you judge those that come here, of course, abcd is always right, sure right and everyone else is wrong all the time.......truth is a certain someone wants this forum for herself to rule as she sees fit and anyone who disagrees is called a troll, or worse. Someone else here needs to find a live besides SH Topix.