Republican 'merry Christmas' to unemployed? 'Bah, Humbug!'

It gives Christmas gifts to children of jail inmates, and the child is told it is coming from the jailed parent. The parent has put the kids on the 'Angel Tree' list.

.

.

If an abusive parent is in jail, and gifts are sent in his or her name, the child is not harmed.

If the parent was not abusive, the valuable link between parent and child is strengthened, and both are helped.

... the Salvation Army does a similar "Gift Tree". It has been a tradition for us now to pick the kids who request science toys. I can make a kid's Christmas a little happier and I kinda like that kids would request such as gifts and provide me an opportunity to share/encourage love of science.

Food banks are also another great way to help out the less fortunate during this holiday season AND year round.
Evie

Is there a reason for using the upper case 't' for 'Their mouth' and 'The children'?

Dan

I'll be more careful in the future

.

No, I just,as I said , get careless. Sorry about that.

Hi, MK.

The point is that the improvement in the economy hasn't been translated to a significant improvement in the job picture, which is about the same now as when the supplemental benefits were enacted. Certainly continuing benefits for the unemployed (going into the key retail season) is a better stimulus than more tax cuts for the wealthy...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

After I had halfway agreed with you about timing.

Drat it, you trying to alienate the middle of the road gang?

I'm half joking, but half not.

roger

Hi, Roger.

As far as I'm concerned, this is another example of the Republican's heartless "trickle-down" approach, in which there are lots of goodies for the rich and powerful, and crumbs or less for the less fortunate. Reminds me of the parable of the beggar Lazarus at the rich man's gate...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

may hurt some points you're trying to make. Not saying you shouldn't point it out and your opposition. Just that blaming too much on one point too often may lessen your impact.

People get use to the same responses all the time, and they may quit paying any attention.

Of course, I probably just bore most myself, since I won't go one way or the other all the time.

roger

YOU state "Republican's heartless "trickle-down" approach" so I, a registered Republican, simply must ask:

What have you, with your oh so generous heart, done PERSONALLY about any unemployment?

Over the summer and fall I spent a bit over $3000 paying unemployed persons to do little "jobs" that I really had no need to get done so they would have some earnings without feeling any of the resentment many feel toward "charity".

What have YOU done DIRECTLY to aid ANY unemplyoyed persons or do you just look the other way (or more probably just ignore them) as they stand at parking lots with their "Work for food" signs?

Next one or two or three you see, how about stopping and offering them some temporary employment or would you rather continue BEING HEARTLESS while calling others heartless?

... the unemployed can take jobs IN the retail industry which is looking for temporary workers at this time of the year! Who knows, it might even lead to a permanent job!

Evie

Hi, Evie.

I was listening to the Sam Donaldson talk radio show on the way in to work this morning, and he was interviewing a well known (Republican) investment advisor. After saying the recovery is for real and giving the usual spiel about jobs being a lagging inicator (which is true), he said that things are different this time, because $80,000 manufacturing and high-tech jobs with benefits will be replaced by $20,000 service sector and retail jobs with few if any benefits. (Another reason we need national health care, btw). Such jobs won't keep the recovery going for long...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... the shift in jobs is a function of the economy and technology and has been going on for quite some time, even during Clinton's two terms.

If indeed all these high paid jobs are replaced with low paid jobs then Dave there won't be anyone to foot the bill for healthcare and your socialized utopia.

The point is that extending unemployment bennies does little to help the job market and actually can harm it. The fact is that the unemployment picture is varied across this nation. Unemployment is funded by employee and employer contributions (actually, it's only a feel good thing to make it seem like the employer pays, when in actuality that would be money paid to the employee in wages ... same as with SS).

I see no reason to extend benefits in an improving economy just because it's the Christmas season. There is no reason that the unemployed cannot take the temporary jobs that abound during the season to supplement their incomes.

At some point people can't just stomp their feet and say they are not moving, not taking a job outside their "field" even when that industry is contracting with no signs of recovery, not taking a lower paying job, etc. And don't think I'm just talking about other folks because my sister was laid off from her job of over 10 years last summer. In the interim she took a temp assignment across the country. It hasn't been easy on her and her husband, but you "do what you gotta do" when life throws you a curve.

Evie

Where on earth could we have found some of those ''$80,000 manufacturing and high-tech jobs with benefits''? I know several people who worked in those industries for years who have never approached the kind of money you are talking about - but would love to have had them, if only temporarily!

Ruth

Dave, in the U.S. Government it takes a GS-14 step 5 to make $80,000. A GS-15 step one makes $80,000 base.
Note, gang: GS-13 step anything is a minimum supervisor level.
Dave K., you mentioned $80,000 manufacturing jobs.
Dave, please explain to us the details those $80,000 manufacturing jobs, or was that just another desperate Democratic party political lie, hoping that the "ignorant" voters would never deign to ask their social political/"betters" for the details/proof of that statement.

Hi, J.

That includes overtime, I would think -- of course, Dubya wants to eliminate overtime pay, too. And that figure wasn't mine -- it was the Republican financial adviser's. Maybe he has an unrealistic impression of what such jobs bring?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I disagree with Dave a lot.

And the particulars here is that it is following basic policy, when unemployment is below xx level, you generally don't extend benefits.

Actually though it might not be strictly protocol, I'd have favored extensions till after the first of the year anyway.

Probably the only reason not to extend them is because of the deficeit and to make news that economy getting better.

I'm not in favor of a lot of stuff, but I'm not in favor of total hands off government with no consideration for societies ills.

roger

... why?

Economic policy shouldn't be based on emotive forces. As I pointed out to Dave, maybe it's a harder time to make it through w/o a job, but it's also the best time of the year to pick up a temporary job to make a few bucks, and as others have pointed out, it's also the best time of year to be the recipient of charity. This time of year I can't leave a store without passing a bin for toys or food or a red kettle/bell ringer, etc.

My sticking point about this is that this is a one-size-fits-all federal bennie. If you look at the unemployment rates around the country, it's nowhere near uniform. If particularly hard hit states want to apply for federal aid to extend unemployment bennies, that would make sense, but unless I'm misunderstanding something, this isn't the case.

Evie

It's also the coldest 3 months of the year, Dec, Jan, Feb. Bad time to not pay the gas or electric bill.

But yes, I would consider the holiday season a bit different because of the fact that it's already historically a high period of depression and even suicide with people that have jobs and homes. Being out of work, no more help, and the pressure of the holidays might contribute even more to the problem.

I don't have children, but I don't know how well I could handle not being able to give them a Christmas at all. Sure it's not suppose to be about the gifts and money for those who celebrate it. But for young children it's a bit hard to understand the difference between them and their better off peer group at anytime, much less a no holiday holiday season.

Yes there are more temporary jobs, and yes people sometimes turn then down because of the money they're receiving in unemployment.

I'd hate to take a temp job at the same pay I was receiving for unemployment, espcially when it might affect my future eligibilty if things continued bad for me after Dec 26.

Perhaps out step with some of my posts, but in this time frame, I'd have to consider an 13 week extension of unemployemnt benefits at least the lessor of two evils if not best thing.

roger

cindra"at"propackers.com

Thanks.

.

Hi Roger,

As for heating, I don't think the utilities can shut you off in the winter, there are many programs to help pay for this, etc.

I'm sorry, I still don't agree with extending unemployment bennies on the federal level in the absence of an economic reason.

Yes there are more temporary jobs, and yes people sometimes turn then down because of the money they're receiving in unemployment.

I'd hate to take a temp job at the same pay I was receiving for unemployment, espcially when it might affect my future eligibilty if things continued bad for me after Dec 26.

My sister received unemployment for several weeks before taking a temp assignment at a much higher pay rate than she was making on unemployment. She was told that her claim remains open, so she can continue to receive unemployment now that the temp assignment ended. A policy that encourages people NOT to work is always a bad policy. We are talking about extending unemployment past the period the person is expecting it anyway, so presumably they should be looking to line up at least something temporary.

I dunno about you Roger, but if I was laid off and during six months of searching I couldn't find something I would be considering a career change and/or a location change. When the defense industry collapsed in my area there were lots of skilled trades put out of work. Those people took stock pretty quickly because it became evident that the jobs weren't coming back any time soon. Many moved, some stayed but almost all of those were forced to change careers by the economy of the region. I think the days of working living in one place working for the same company doing the same thing for 30+ years are long gone.

For those families in dire straits due to unemployment, let's not forget there are always AFDC, food stamps and other welfare programs they may become eligible for.

Evie