PDA

View Full Version : GOP Proposes Drug Testing The Unemployed


Davian93
12-10-2011, 10:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gop-jobs-bill-unemployment-benefits-drug-test_n_1139325.html

Seriously guys? This is the most important issue right now? I do like the "some guy told me" story in the article that is used as the basis. That's some good empirical evidence right there.

Zombie Sammael
12-10-2011, 10:37 AM
It sometimes seems like when it comes to the unemployed, governments are willing to take any steps other than anything that might actually help people to find jobs.

GonzoTheGreat
12-10-2011, 10:54 AM
This is the most important issue right now?
The gay marriage problem has been solved*, you know.

* That's why they no longer bother screeching about that, isn't it?

Res_Ipsa
12-10-2011, 11:10 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gop-jobs-bill-unemployment-benefits-drug-test_n_1139325.html

Seriously guys? This is the most important issue right now? I do like the "some guy told me" story in the article that is used as the basis. That's some good empirical evidence right there.

Much needed. Unemployment is much too lax. I worked with a kid who just stopped showing up to work and still got unemployment, and he is not alone as it is a very common occurence. I worked in a warehouse during Undergrad and my company, Innotrac, was not allowed to do random drug tests bc of the potential lawsuits. If someone was fired for having an accident (we worked unloading trucks with heavy machinery) and they had drugs in their system (I worked w/ two such incidents) then they were still not allowed to drug screen.

Unemployment is just as abused as welfare these days and it is leftists who have made it as such in the guise of "helping people." Sorry Dav, I feel no sympathy for the poor huddled masses as you want to potray them. My last job in undergrad was working for Convergys Corp. on a Macy's project. When Macy's decided to end our project prematurely there was a sizeable portion who did not take the option to go to a different project and instead elected to take unemployment. They do not care, they like an easy life of not having to work and still get paid at 2/3 of what they were making.

And then you have the people that honestly do benefit from unemployment who have families to support and bills to pay and there is that safety net. Regardless, if a state wants to limit who can receive the benefits, that is OK by me. I live within my means, and my parents do as well. If my dad lost his job today he could support the family for several months because he and my mother are intelligent on how they spend. They didn't buy into the whole idea that you need to have everything to be happy and all that crap. I know just as many adults today on unemployment who did the opposite and bought houses they could not afford and had to have that flat screen with a nice new car. When I hear that people cannot survive on 50k a year I laugh because most of my younger friends with kids who are out of college and married do just that and are doing very well. The difference is they have good economic sense and do not look to the government to support them if they fail. Now, their families can help them and that is a separate matter.

Kimon
12-10-2011, 11:14 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gop-jobs-bill-unemployment-benefits-drug-test_n_1139325.html

Seriously guys? This is the most important issue right now? I do like the "some guy told me" story in the article that is used as the basis. That's some good empirical evidence right there.

Florida did this earlier in the year, until their program was blocked by a federal judge - on the grounds that it violated the 4th Amendment. Florida made the welfare recipients pay for the cost of the test, oh, and only 2% failed the drug tests. Considering that Florida reimbursed those that passed the test, and so few failed, how exactly this was supposed to save money is also highly questionable.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

Res_Ipsa
12-10-2011, 11:18 AM
Florida did this earlier in the year, until their program was blocked by a federal judge - on the grounds that it violated the 4th Amendment. Florida made the welfare recipients pay for the cost of the test, oh, and only 2% failed the drug tests. Considering that Florida reimbursed those that passed the test, and so few failed, how exactly this was supposed to save money is also highly questionable.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/24/2470519/florida-welfare-drug-testing-halted.html

http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

I had to pay for the drug screen when I wanted to be employed? When I was hired the company reimbursed me on the first pay check.

Kimon
12-10-2011, 11:38 AM
I had to pay for the drug screen when I wanted to be employed? When I was hired the company reimbursed me on the first pay check.

Those would seem, at least to me, to be two separate issues. It is fine for private companies, and the government for its own employees, to require drug screening, but should the government do likewise as a pre-requisite for unemployment benefits?

GonzoTheGreat
12-10-2011, 11:39 AM
I had to pay for the drug screen when I wanted to be employed? When I was hired the company reimbursed me on the first pay check.
If they only have to reimburse those they hire, then, if there are enough applicants, that could be quite a good scam.

Have 500 applicants pay for a drugs test. Repay one, and then fire him again.
Would it be economically viable to resell the cocaine they can distill from the samples, or wouldn't it be better to have them "tested" by simply throwing the sample away?

Zombie Sammael
12-10-2011, 01:27 PM
If they only have to reimburse those they hire, then, if there are enough applicants, that could be quite a good scam.

Have 500 applicants pay for a drugs test. Repay one, and then fire him again.
Would it be economically viable to resell the cocaine they can distill from the samples, or wouldn't it be better to have them "tested" by simply throwing the sample away?

I would think that having a medical is something you would be required to do once at the "job offer" stage. There are probably regulations regarding anything prior to that, I would hope. Not that it would matter in a state which offered nationalised healthcare, free to all at the point of use. That's certainly one way of avoiding such scams.

Zaela Sedai
12-10-2011, 06:52 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/gop-jobs-bill-unemployment-benefits-drug-test_n_1139325.html

Seriously guys? This is the most important issue right now? I do like the "some guy told me" story in the article that is used as the basis. That's some good empirical evidence right there.

Yeah...like drug testing those on welfare...:D

Davian93
12-11-2011, 10:03 AM
Yeah...like drug testing those on welfare...:D

Common misconception here: Unemployment Insurance DOES NOT EQUAL Welfare...despite comments from Res and others that imply that they are one and the same.

Res_Ipsa
12-11-2011, 04:53 PM
Common misconception here: Unemployment Insurance DOES NOT EQUAL Welfare...despite comments from Res and others that imply that they are one and the same.

I believe I said that unemployment insurance was just as abused as welfare in order to strike a comparison . . . not that they were one and the same.


However, in effect, they are the same because it boils down to other people paying for you (not you) being unemployed and is part of an entitlement system. So your point is somewhat correct in that to me they are the different parts of the same problem, but that is not what I was saying in the first place when drawing a comparison.


I know you disagree, lets chalk it up to differing views of the role of government.

Zombie Sammael
12-11-2011, 05:23 PM
I believe I said that unemployment insurance was just as abused as welfare in order to strike a comparison . . . not that they were one and the same.


However, in effect, they are the same because it boils down to other people paying for you (not you) being unemployed and is part of an entitlement system. So your point is somewhat correct in that to me they are the different parts of the same problem, but that is not what I was saying in the first place when drawing a comparison.


I know you disagree, lets chalk it up to differing views of the role of government.

Don't you think there would be a greater cost to society if people were not supported through unemployment and given assistance to find work? (I know you don't, I just can't stand to see the right wing idealism spread under the guise of practicality)

Res_Ipsa
12-11-2011, 06:21 PM
Don't you think there would be a greater cost to society if people were not supported through unemployment and given assistance to find work? (I know you don't, I just can't stand to see the right wing idealism spread under the guise of practicality)

Spare me the pathos based argument on how you feel ("I just can't stand to see . . .") and instead present your argument as to why one should pay for entitlements. Otherwise, I really have no interest in arguing with you further because you have not demonstrated any intelligence in legal matters which you purport to have some experience in.

ShadowbaneX
12-11-2011, 06:54 PM
Here's a point then: who's going to pay for the drug testing? Are you going to make all those people who are already in financial difficulty because they don't have jobs have to pay for their own drug tests?

Who's going to be doing all the testing? Private labs? No possibility for corruption there, no sir.

What about potential problems? Tests are going to get screwed up, there will be false positives, I seem to remember an episode of Seinfeld in which Elayne ate some poppy seeds which caused her to test positive for opiates. If some poor sob eats the wrong kind of bun they get denied their EI/UI.

In theory, I can agree with this idea, while I'm all for supporting people that don't have jobs, the idea that those people are just sitting at home doing drugs does sorta bug me, but in practice, more than likely a system like this would just be so awkward & clumsy to implement and so prone to abuse, that the US would be better off not doing it.

Here's a fun idea, instead of just making it 'drugs' why not extend it to include tobacco & alcohol as well. I'm sure that'd really 'encourage' people to stop abusing the system. Heh, I wonder how the tobacco lobby would react to someone trying to do this.

Sei'taer
12-11-2011, 07:51 PM
Here's a fun idea, instead of just making it 'drugs' why not extend it to include tobacco & alcohol as well. I'm sure that'd really 'encourage' people to stop abusing the system. Heh, I wonder how the tobacco lobby would react to someone trying to do this.

Good thing you're not in charge and I didn't accept unemployment. I had a smoke 20 minutes ago and a margarona last night. I'd be screwed if you were in charge and I was a monkey on the dole.

ShadowbaneX
12-11-2011, 08:56 PM
You know me, my goal is to piss off as many people as humanly possible. I figure the tests in and of themselves will piss of the lefties and the booze & smokes added in will piss of the righties.

Davian93
12-11-2011, 10:24 PM
Its a BS smear job by the GOP to paint all unemployed people as drug addicts. If they're so worried about drug use, they should have to randomly pee in a cup too. For one, there is zero actual evidence that this is a real problem. Hell, in Florida when they did such testing on welfare applicants, the positive rate was less than 2%...which is lower than the estimated drug use in the US anyway.

Its all just part of a continuing pattern by the GOP to make it look as if anyone who is unemployed deserves it and if they really wanted to work, they would.

Davian93
12-11-2011, 10:31 PM
Spare me the pathos based argument on how you feel ("I just can't stand to see . . .") and instead present your argument as to why one should pay for entitlements. Otherwise, I really have no interest in arguing with you further because you have not demonstrated any intelligence in legal matters which you purport to have some experience in.

Economically, its one of the most direct methods of stimulus for the economy...something like double that of tax cuts. You see, when Corporation A makes widgets, it actually needs these things called customers to buy said widgets. When nobody has money or they're using their savings for ramen noodle to feed their family, they dont often buy many widgets...so the widget factory has to lay off more employees and the factory that makes the conveyer belts for the widget factory has to cut back too as do the automobile corporatoins because Joe Citizen doesnt need to drive to the widget factory after he's laid off and he cant afford a car payment anyway. Though there is the distinct possibility that he might end up living in that car in lieu of paying his mortgage. One way or another, he's gonna just bust on oen of those loans which means Joe Loan Officer also likely gets laid off as the bank doesnt need him around anymore either. You see, the middle class actually drives the economy...so its smart to have social nets that keeps them in the middle class in times of hardship. Its good for them, its good for the widget factory owner, its good for the country. Also, in times of extreme economic distress, Joe Citizen will sometimes get really desperate and end up going to Joe Widget Factory Owner's house and bust open his skull with a bat to eat the chewy stuff inside...because fvck it, there's nothing left to lose at that point and then you see societal collapse.

Good enough?

ShadowbaneX
12-11-2011, 11:08 PM
Economically, its one of the most direct methods of stimulus for the economy...something like double that of tax cuts. You see, when Corporation A makes widgets, it actually needs these things called customers to buy said widgets. When nobody has money or they're using their savings for ramen noodle to feed their family, they dont often buy many widgets...so the widget factory has to lay off more employees and the factory that makes the conveyer belts for the widget factory has to cut back too as do the automobile corporatoins because Joe Citizen doesnt need to drive to the widget factory after he's laid off and he cant afford a car payment anyway. Though there is the distinct possibility that he might end up living in that car in lieu of paying his mortgage. One way or another, he's gonna just bust on oen of those loans which means Joe Loan Officer also likely gets laid off as the bank doesnt need him around anymore either. You see, the middle class actually drives the economy...so its smart to have social nets that keeps them in the middle class in times of hardship. Its good for them, its good for the widget factory owner, its good for the country. Also, in times of extreme economic distress, Joe Citizen will sometimes get really desperate and end up going to Joe Widget Factory Owner's house and bust open his skull with a bat to eat the chewy stuff inside...because fvck it, there's nothing left to lose at that point and then you see societal collapse.

Good enough?

Now, now Dave, don't go making it look like those lowly middle class types have any actual worth to the big people. They're just there to be made fun of and to get coffee for the rich, executive types that really run the world.

If Joe Citizen does get desperate it's really he's fault because he didn't make enough money to be his own Widget Factory Owner...or you know, perhaps he was just smoking too much of The Pot and that's why he got all violent. All drugs lead to eating babies, violent video games, atheism, rape & terrorism.

How dare you suggest that anything other than cutting taxes on people that already avoid paying them is good for the economy? Corporations & the uber wealthy are what makes America great. Next you'll be saying that they aren't people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IguPcBDS00#) and shouldn't get to donate billions of dollars to get people who'll institute polices that only benefit them get elected.

Zombie Sammael
12-12-2011, 03:49 AM
Spare me the pathos based argument on how you feel ("I just can't stand to see . . .") and instead present your argument as to why one should pay for entitlements. Otherwise, I really have no interest in arguing with you further because you have not demonstrated any intelligence in legal matters which you purport to have some experience in.

I don't think we've ever had a legal discussion on here with which I've been able to fully participate. We've had several political discussions, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

As for the law, you may have noticed that I don't live in the same country as most people on here. The law of England is not the law of the United States of America. I can't discuss cases and precedents with the same confidence I would when talking about the law of the country in which I live, and in which I have studied the law, and in which I still work in the legal sector of. Points of procedure are very different between the two countries, and in fact the entire constitution of the two systems is different, even though both countries use the common law system (and thus precedent from one may be persuasive in another).

But really, attempting to call me out over my legal experience is entirely beside the point. It's little more than an attempt to distract from the issue we were discussing, and implies a lack of faith in your own arguments. I won't stand for you insulting my intelligence or qualifications, but neither will I argue with someone who has no grasp on logic and reasoning. For much the same reason I don't read Ayn Rand.

GonzoTheGreat
12-12-2011, 04:10 AM
For much the same reason I don't read Ayn Rand.Didn't Rand rip off Goodkind?

Zombie Sammael
12-12-2011, 04:16 AM
Didn't Rand rip off Goodkind?

Exactly. ;)

maacaroni
12-12-2011, 07:06 AM
Right, being in the same old UK myself, even I know the game when it becomes to the Republican primaries.

Essentially, when attempting to win the nomination, the potential candidates trot out all manner of crackpot policies that appeal to the core vote. Very extreme policies on anti-abortion, free trade, pro-Israel, taxation to whip up fervour and get the GOP to vote for them.

What then happens is when a person wins the nomination, their views soften to win independent voters and to win the general election.

It is the same with Democrats, just in a different direction. Obviously, as they have an incumbent president, this is not a process you will see.



As for my view, it is easy to denigrate and generalise those without work as lazy good-for-nothings who just need to get up off their asses etc. The truth is that being on welfare sucks and most people want to work to get the nice things in life. Unemployment has risen because of the largest economic crash since the great depression. We could go into the causes but I doubt they're relevant to this conversation. With this crash has meant massive joblosses which equals higher unemployment. Are they lazy? You'll say no, I imagine.

You will most likely say that you are not referring to them, which pokes a massive hole in any generalisation.

Being out of work is sh*t. I've been there a long time ago, I spent two hours a day looking/applying for work. Two hours in the gym. Four hours spent retraining as the UK didn't value trained biochemists back then. Having no money is not the worst thing, it's the sanctimonious fools who think you're either lazy or looking in the wrong places.

(As a sidenote, I earn more than those asses now. hahaha)

Res_Ipsa
12-12-2011, 11:48 AM
Economically, its one of the most direct methods of stimulus for the economy...something like double that of tax cuts.

That's a Paul Krugman theory of economics, if you throw a brick through a window of a store that is economic stimulus according to him just like the Tsunami was good for Japan. (Again, according to him.)


You see, when Corporation A makes widgets, it actually needs these things called customers to buy said widgets.

Customers buy widgets, check.

When nobody has money or they're using their savings for ramen noodle to feed their family, they dont often buy many widgets...

Not really, in the United States sale of necessities may have dropped off but since 08 and before sale of non-necessities have skyrocket. Everyone has to have the Xbox and Flat Screen. Granted those industries are not inflation proof but it is still a problem.

so the widget factory has to lay off more employees and the factory that makes the conveyer belts for the widget factory has to cut back too as do the automobile corporatoins because Joe Citizen doesnt need to drive to the widget factory after he's laid off and he cant afford a car payment anyway.

I thought you didn't believe in trickle down economics? Not as it is applied to the rich hoarding money but rather demand drives need for an industry which in turn employs other industries. It happens in 1 trick towns all the time where say for example car manufacturers are and there are a whole host of other type of jobs that spring up as a result. When the car manufacturer leaves the entire economy dries up.


Though there is the distinct possibility that he might end up living in that car in lieu of paying his mortgage. One way or another, he's gonna just bust on oen of those loans which means Joe Loan Officer also likely gets laid off as the bank doesnt need him around anymore either.

Mhm. What is busting an "oen" btw?


You see, the middle class actually drives the economy...

They drive demand certainly but as I have previously argued it is not their capital that allows for investment and retirement. Mom and pop get a loan from a bank and retire on the stock market because of the top x% of the rich's money. I am not discounting the large and powerful market that is the middle class; on the contrary, I have often argued that the middle class in this country alone would be among the richest in the world by themselves. However, the middle class is stagnating in debt (which is no ones fault but their own) and does not generally have a great deal of liquidity. Now, to the other part of your sentence . . .

so its smart to have social nets that keeps them in the middle class in times of hardship.

The one time occurrence was the great depression which became the entitlement state. Now we have the situation where the government assuming the role of provider and caretaker is in a very bad situation and states are just as overburdened because of entitlement spending principally.

Its good for them, its good for the widget factory owner, its good for the country.

So the widget owner, and the country are benefited by burgeoning debt level and the solution to which is to have higher taxes? That is the same Keynesian idea of what is good for the economy that Krugman seems to tote. Rather, it like the stimulus packages are worse in the long run because they do nothing to solve the problem now. That is why there are fiscal conservatives like myself who see no benefit in raising taxes to help cover shortfalls when there is no indication that after you do raise taxes spending will decrease and you wont need another tax hike a few years later and then another few years later.

Also, in times of extreme economic distress, Joe Citizen will sometimes get really desperate and end up going to Joe Widget Factory Owner's house and bust open his skull with a bat to eat the chewy stuff inside...because fvck it, there's nothing left to lose at that point and then you see societal collapse.

been watching The Living Dead?



Good enough?
[Russian Female Accent] Was it good for you too darling?[/Russian Female Accent]

But really, attempting to call me out over my legal experience is entirely beside the point. It's little more than an attempt to distract from the issue we were discussing, and implies a lack of faith in your own arguments. I won't stand for you insulting my intelligence or qualifications, but neither will I argue with someone who has no grasp on logic and reasoning. For much the same reason I don't read Ayn Rand.

Good one. You did not even offer an argument (and I am counting the two paragraphs before I quoted you) but once against rely on a species of argument I imagine a freshman can overhear in the college cafeteria. (See now I am just doing what you were doing in reverse. The difference being, your argument style was flawed in both instances since you have proffered no real argument) You really think I am uncomfortable with my arguments? Me, who argues with anyone even everyone because I just enjoy it that much. Your response just rings silly in my ears. I imagine mine rings jackass in yours. Regardless, I will now do us both the favor and try and only respond to you once a month. Even Gonzo gets two a month these days.

Speaking of which
"Oen" is Dutch for a castrated donkey. What you'd have to do to bust one I'll leave as an exercise for the dedicated experimentalists.
If that is true, it is rather funny.

GonzoTheGreat
12-12-2011, 11:54 AM
Mhm. What is busting an "oen" btw?"Oen" is Dutch for a castrated donkey. What you'd have to do to bust one I'll leave as an exercise for the dedicated experimentalists.

Res_Ipsa
12-12-2011, 12:14 PM
Added this content to previous post.

Davian93
12-12-2011, 12:25 PM
I dont get the sudden conservative hatred of Paul Krugman. Every time anyone says anything that contradicts one of their closely held political or economic beliefs, even when they use facts and evidence to support the claim, the nearest GOP member will scream in a shrill voice KRUGMAN BAD, SOROS BAD...as if these were demigods of the Liberals or somethings.

Apparently being an Ivy League professor with both a Clark Medal and Nobel Medal in Economics doesn't make you an expert in that field these days. The anti-intellectual movement is disturbing to say the least.

Ivhon
12-12-2011, 12:43 PM
I dont get the sudden conservative hatred of Paul Krugman. Every time anyone says anything that contradicts one of their closely held political or economic beliefs, even when they use facts and evidence to support the claim, the nearest GOP member will scream in a shrill voice KRUGMAN BAD, SOROS BAD...as if these were demigods of the Liberals or somethings.

Apparently being an Ivy League professor with both a Clark Medal and Nobel Medal in Economics doesn't make you an expert in that field these days. The anti-intellectual movement is disturbing to say the least.

clearly you do get it.

Res_Ipsa
12-12-2011, 12:46 PM
You have Michele Bachman, we have Paul Krugman, I do not see the issue. In my case I just use him to highlight that formal education is not everything. Besides is there another well known economic with his exposure with populist leanings?

Davian93
12-12-2011, 12:48 PM
I thought you didn't believe in trickle down economics?

I dont. Our problem for the last 30 years has been supply-side economics...a theory that only serves to amass wealth at the very top end of the spectrum.

Davian93
12-12-2011, 12:49 PM
You have Michele Bachman, we have Paul Krugman, I do not see the issue. In my case I just use him to highlight that formal education is not everything. Besides is there another well known economic with his exposure with populist leanings?

Totally the same thing there. One is a respected professor of Economics with multiple awards including the two highest in his field (Clark and Nobel) while the other is a wackadoo Creationist that spouts hatred when she's not hiding behind bushes to spy on protesters.

Res_Ipsa
12-12-2011, 01:02 PM
Totally the same thing there. One is a respected professor of Economics with multiple awards including the two highest in his field (Clark and Nobel) while the other is a wackadoo Creationist that spouts hatred when she's not hiding behind bushes to spy on protesters.

Well there is no way I am comparing him to Milton Friedman. Krugman only started mouthing off once Friedman died. And I was more just talking about how their names seem to come up at all times not to their respective levels of education.

And meh, they gave Obama and Gore Nobel prizes too.

Davian93
12-12-2011, 01:16 PM
Well there is no way I am comparing him to Milton Friedman. Krugman only started mouthing off once Friedman died. And I was more just talking about how their names seem to come up at all times not to their respective levels of education.

And meh, they gave Obama and Gore Nobel prizes too.

The Science categories (Economics, Physics, Chemistry, etc) should not be compared to the Peace category. The Peace category has always been something of a joke (see ARAFAT, Yasser) that is handed out as much to spur action as it is to reward it.

Also, the Clark medal is usually more highly regarded than the Nobel when it comes to economic theory. Did you take many economics courses as a Pre-Law student? Is that even a pre-req for pre-law? Just curious, not trying to sharp shoot.

Res_Ipsa
12-12-2011, 01:22 PM
Also, the Clark medal is usually more highly regarded than the Nobel when it comes to economic theory. Did you take many economics courses as a Pre-Law student? Is that even a pre-req for pre-law? Just curious, not trying to sharp shoot.

No I did not beyond the basics, I really do not like the American system of pre-reqs. By the time I got done with the 90 hours required for basic stuff I had to put 48 into my major and minor so the only cross-overs I had were philosophy and history because of the nature of the degree. My main exposure to economics has been reading on my own time.

I would have much preferred the European system of studying for what you want to be.

Zombie Sammael
12-12-2011, 05:25 PM
You really think I am uncomfortable with my arguments? Me, who argues with anyone even everyone because I just enjoy it that much. Your response just rings silly in my ears. I imagine mine rings jackass in yours. Regardless, I will now do us both the favor and try and only respond to you once a month. Even Gonzo gets two a month these days.

Actually, you made me giggle. </flamewar>

Terez
12-12-2011, 10:55 PM
You have Michele Bachman, we have Paul Krugman, I do not see the issue. In my case I just use him to highlight that formal education is not everything. Besides is there another well known economic with his exposure with populist leanings?Sachs and Stliglitz, to name a couple, though the amount of exposure is, of course, debatable. It's hard to compete with a NYT columnist.

Seeker
12-13-2011, 12:32 AM
However, in effect, they are the same because it boils down to other people paying for you (not you) being unemployed and is part of an entitlement system.

Now, before I reply, one caveat. I live in Canada, so I'm not sure how it works in the States. On several occasions, I've posted about something based on what the Canadian version is only to find that the United States does something completely different even though they call it the same thing.

But, in Canada, your statement is patently false. You pay for your own unemployment insurance.

In Canada, the system now known as Employment Insurance was formerly called Unemployment Insurance. The name was changed in 1996, in order to alleviate perceived negative connotations. In 2011, Canadian workers pay premiums of 1.78%[1] of insured earnings in return for benefits if they lose their jobs. Employers contribute 1.4 times the amount of employee premiums. Since 1990, there is no government contribution to this fund. The amount a person receives and how long they can stay on EI varies with their previous salary, how long they were working, and the unemployment rate in their area. The EI system is managed by Service Canada, a service delivery network reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

While you're working, a portion of your paycheck goes toward Employment Insurance. If you lose your job, you may then collect Employment Insurance at a rate of 60% of your former salary until the fund is depleted.

This is NOT welfare.

GonzoTheGreat
12-13-2011, 04:15 AM
This is NOT welfare.
The money could also go to Wall Street fat cats, but it doesn't. So in what way is it not welfare? :D

Seeker
12-13-2011, 10:06 AM
That's true.

The money could also go to Wall Street fat cats, but it doesn't. So in what way is it not welfare?

In America, anything that doesn't suck money away from the middle class and give it to the wealthy is an entitlement.

Davian93
12-13-2011, 10:18 AM
That's true.



In America, anything that doesn't suck money away from the middle class and give it to the wealthy is an entitlement.

In the US it is similar to the Canadian system in that its a payroll tax deduction while you are hired and it is considered as part of your overall "employee cost" by a company's payroll. However, and the GOPers should take note of my non-partisanship here, this current debate is about extended Federally-backed unemployment benefits that are above and beyond that initial cost (which is usually capped at around 6-9 months of payments depending on how long you were employeed). So this is more of a direct federal infusion of cash into the pockets of the unemployed and should be considered a form of stimulus, not a guaranteed benefit.

American unemployment is somewhat odd...it depends very heavily on what state you live in and what state you worked in. Despite Res's assertion, it is quite possible to deny unemployment to an employee that has been terminated for cause. When I worked at GE as a manager, I was specifically trained on how to go about firing an employee so that we would not be on the hook to pay those benefits. The taxes for that benefit go to the state and that money is then doled out by the state on a weekly basis. For example, when I lost my job due to an end of contract in Massachusetts, I ended up getting 26 weeks of unemployment from Mass and the payment cap was based on my annual salary. Its something like 50% up to a certain amount (It was capped at $600 a week when I was receiving benefits back in early 2007). So while I made more that $1200 a week in that job, my benefit was capped regardless. So I was living the life of luxury on less than half pay with all of my bills still coming in every month. I bought flat screen after flat screen televisions and went on several lavish vacations to places as exotic as the Sam's Club in Nashua, NH and the Market Basket grocery store in Westford, MA (closest and cheapest to my house) while on this benefit. After week 26, I received no further benefits because these federal extension programs didnt exist at that time. I ended up with my job at GE about 6 weeks after that despite desperately looking for a job from the moment I lost my old one. And I was willing to move pretty much anywhere to find employment and take any reasonable offer. In other states, the level of benefit isnt as good as its a state-based thing so progressive states tend to offer more extensive benefits than places that aren't so progressive.

Ivhon
12-13-2011, 10:23 AM
In the US it is similar to the Canadian system in that its a payroll tax deduction while you are hired and it is considered as part of your overall "employee cost" by a company's payroll. However, and the GOPers should take note of my non-partisanship here, this current debate is about extended Federally-backed unemployment benefits that are above and beyond that initial cost (which is usually capped at around 6-9 months of payments depending on how long you were employeed). So this is more of a direct federal infusion of cash into the pockets of the unemployed and should be considered a form of stimulus, not a guaranteed benefit.

American unemployment is somewhat odd...it depends very heavily on what state you live in and what state you worked in. Despite Res's assertion, it is quite possible to deny unemployment to an employee that has been terminated for cause. When I worked at GE as a manager, I was specifically trained on how to go about firing an employee so that we would not be on the hook to pay those benefits. The taxes for that benefit go to the state and that money is then doled out by the state on a weekly basis. For example, when I lost my job due to an end of contract in Massachusetts, I ended up getting 26 weeks of unemployment from Mass and the payment cap was based on my annual salary. Its something like 50% up to a certain amount (It was capped at $600 a week when I was receiving benefits back in early 2007). So while I made more that $1200 a week in that job, my benefit was capped regardless. So I was living the life of luxury on less than half pay with all of my bills still coming in every month. I bought flat screen after flat screen televisions and went on several lavish vacations to places as exotic as the Sam's Club in Nashua, NH and the Market Basket grocery store in Westford, MA (closest and cheapest to my house) while on this benefit. After week 26, I received no further benefits because these federal extension programs didnt exist at that time. I ended up with my job at GE about 6 weeks after that despite desperately looking for a job from the moment I lost my old one. And I was willing to move pretty much anywhere to find employment and take any reasonable offer. In other states, the level of benefit isnt as good as its a state-based thing so progressive states tend to offer more extensive benefits than places that aren't so progressive.

Slacker.

Parasite.

Gimme my money back.

Davian93
12-13-2011, 10:28 AM
I would but I invested rather heavily in Cheesy Poof and Mountain Dew stock during that time period...the "return on investment" was something you probably dont want me mailing to you.