Look, it's entirely possible I'm completely missing where you're coming from. It happened to me recently with a thread with Buck. He threw a slow ball over the plate right at the beginning of the thread, and I was looking at birdies or something.
But I've read through this thread again. Where are we crossing swords exactly? I think near-permanent unemployment benefits are not a productive way to get people back to work. You think it's essential because we're in a special circumstance.
I'm fully aware how hard it is to find a job to replace a good job you had before. And that's what people really need. If you were paid $50,000 a year, you need another job that pays about that much, and one that you're qualified for. Those jobs don't grow on trees, even in good times.
All I'm saying is it's not as hard to find a job to replace an unemployment check. If you can avoid starvation for three years living on those checks, it sure seems like you could get by on a job that brings in the same amount. Just around here I could land one of those low-end jobs in a week. Of course, I couldn't live on it. I couldn't live for three years - or even 26 weeks - on unemployment checks, either.
Current Events » in reply to Re: *sigh*
Re: haven't paid attention. Well, maybe.
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Ted Strickland doesn't understand
- Re: Re: Re: another side to it
- Re: Re: another side to it
- Re: Re: yet another side to it
- Re: "imagination and assumption" update
- It's painfully obvious you're running on imagination and assumption. n/t
- Re: shooting from the hip.
- You're shooting from the hip.
- Re: points are not lost
- No accusations, and your points are not lost. n/t (n/t)
- Re: another side to it
- Well, there is another side to it, of course
- Incidentally...