"they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and not depend on govt. aid" - now, how many of those who are suffering do you think are CONS? and out of those, how many are willing to identify as such? :)

<link>

I read the linked story and it said nothing about cons nor "shrugging it off". Hell, truth be told, it didn't even insinuate anyone felt "they should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and not depend on govt. aid" either.

You know, on an opinion board like this, you can just post that cons suck, you don't have to make yourself look so shallow and petty by offering up some shit like this as "evidence" or "proof" of your assertations. As happened here, doing that weak shit often times harms your promotion of your personal agenda far more than not offering anything at all.

I had a feeling that would get to you....seriously, you are right, that part about "cons shrug" was just added for my personal benefit - but c'mon, that really is what cons have been saying all along, both on this board and in public everywhere - so why deny it? are you saying you might be for, say, unemployment benefits or extension thereof?

Unemployment insurance isn't welfare, employees pay into the system from their first day of work for just these kinds of emergencies.

Your statements that cons have been saying we don't need it are false.

I don't know about other states but in Arizona employees do not pay into the system, only the employers pay unemployment insurance.

I am, and always have been.

I am also for welfare.

Surprise.

However, I am ALSO for revamping each because I believe they are too corrupted to "fix". I AM for making both, shall we say, "undesirable" enough that doing for one's self by getting off as soon as possible looks good compared to remaing on them and even passing it down from generation to generation like a family business.

We could ALL need help at some point and we should all be willing to help but we should none be expected to redefine "help" as total support for life.

There must be a middle ground for this to work and dems are not free from contributing to this, even though they ARE, and long have, benefitting from exploiting it, claiming that they "care" more and promising to "give" more, all to buy a voter base.

And it works.

You have people living off the monies our government confiscates and redistributes to others. They can vote for either a politician who "feels their pain" and promises to give them even more, OR they can vote for a politician who tells them that aid and help are intended to get them by until they can provide for themselves....................­who you think they will vote for, seriously?

But as I said, I believe in helping others. I would just like to see my help be appreciated, not expected and damned sure not demanded.

Each state is set up differently. And there are different eligibility requirements in each state as well.

In Wisconsin, it's a split. Employers pay half.

WHAT?

"in Arizona employees do not pay into the system, only the employers pay unemployment insurance."

" only the employers pay unemployment insurance." ????????

"Employers", as in those evil "rich" folks who hire others? In Arizona only the evil "rich" are paying for something others may benefit from? What in the hell is that?

Anyway, please refrain from telling people this, we need everyone to be convinced the "rich" don't pay for anything, only the poor people, 'k?

you'd think both houses would drop everything else and concentrate all their efforts on solving this national disaster.

<link>

Terrortoon:

Each state is set up differently. And there are different eligibility requirements in each state as well.

In Wisconsin, it's a split. Employers pay half.

Eh, and where do employers get thier money? From the production department, that's where. And who adds the value in the production department? Workers.

I have no problem with this arrangement so long as its equitable...someone has to organize things, and that includes profits and investment...but if you are going to introduce morals into this, then know what you are talking about, because ALL employers get their profits from workers, so who pays the unemployment INSURANCE is merely an accounting or other mundane issue, not a moral one.

Look around you, this second, and you can see that workers made your office, including your keyboard that says some brand!

Put it this way; the workers in a coal mine could get along alright without their employer, but not the other way around.

Actually, you're wrong.

Employers get their profits from sales. And where do people get the money to buy stuff? Why, their employers.

It is a symbiotic relationship. A company supplies an item or service that people want, and people pay for it. With the money that the company gets, it hires workers so that it can supply more of its item or service to more people. The people who are employed by the company earn money so that they can partake in whatever item or service is being sold, so the relationship is circular. Screw with any part of that circle, like the Obama administration is doing and it throws the whole thing off, destroys the employer, employee, consumer relationship and causes what we are seeing now.

Sorry, but without an employer there is no job and with no job the workers would have nothing to do.

donnamp:

Sorry, but without an employer there is no job and with no job the workers would have nothing to do.

And what employer could do every job in the company? Workers are needed they're just not respected by some.