Can a Republican complain that they don't qualify for unemployment benefits?

[wasteofo2]

I know a Republican. He lives in a "Red State." He has a wife and two babies. He was employed until just recently, when he was laid off due to downsizing. He attempted to get unemployment checks, and they rejected him for whatever reason. He is bitter about this and thinks he should have qualified for unemployment, and is now at a total loss for income until he finds a new job.

I'm sure we can all agree that if there were more Democrats in power, that there would be much lower criteria for receiving unemployment benefits, and much greater "government handouts" to the poor in general, and that they would be paid for by taxing the rich. Republican politicians almost uniformly reject the idea that the Government should do such things, and it's Republicans who have recently pushed through things such as Bankruptcy reform to make it harder for people to declare bankruptcy. Republican politicians are the ones who tighten up the criteria for receiving government handouts, wheras Democrats want to essentially take money away from rich people and give it to poor people.

So, by being a Republican, he helped create the situation he is currently in; where it is very hard to get the government to give you money when you have fallen on bad times, and in which you're supposed to take personal responsibility for your situation and go out and fix it yourself. Again, I think everyone can agree that if Democrats had more power, they would gladly tax the rich and make government handouts to the poor greater in value and easier to obtain.

So, is it just me, or does this seem like a rich Democrat complaining that his tax rates are too high? This fellow was a fervent Republican until recently (perhaps his new experience has changed his politics, I'm unsure), and now he's complaining that the government won't give him free money becuase he was no longer a cost-effective employee. What of Republican faith/trust in market forces? What of the "Do it yourself" attitude, and the mindset that all problems can be solved by personal resolve and self determination? I'll bet you anything that if you ask any prominant Republican politician about unemployment benefits, the vast majority will say that they should be cut and made harder to receive so as not to give people encouragement to try to live off of unemployment and get back out into the marketplace, and/or that they should be cut so as to be able to lower tax rates.

 

[Pengwuino]

Did an entire paragraph get edited out? Because all i can see is the hugest jump in logic/topic I've seen in a while...

 

[wasteofo2]

Did an entire paragraph get edited out? Because all i can see is the hugest jump in logic/topic I've seen in a while...

Perhaps now it'll be more clear to you what I mean.

 

[Pengwuino]

You mean a rich republican complaining? (last paragraph). If he's rich, what's he doing on unemployment. I am a republican and i'd demand unemployment because of these bull**** taxes. I mean this idea of capital gains is the most arbitrary and devastating idea to small businesses (the "rich"). Same with taxing inventory, that's going to rip me in the ... you know where, once i get my business running. But then again its a business so why would i be unemployed...

Ok let me change that. If i was a normal worker and a republican, id still demand money because we're on the stance of low-taxes and oru taxes have been going up for over 150 years :-/. Its entirely fair that we should demand unemployment because we lose money to a screwed up government and get nothing in return. Maybe against our beliefs, but we can't seem to get much real representation for the last 60 years so its more then fair.

I still don't understand the democrat motto of take from the rich and give to the poor. A dirty little hollywood freak who works 9 months and get $20 million is trying to tell small business owners who most likely didnt take a salary for up to a few years that they arent being taxed enough and that they didnt work for their money (the "rich" small business man). Then of course they complain when prices are too high even though they demand higher taxes.

But then again people are pretty much inherently hypocritical in the US if they define their beliefs based on a buzz word ideology.

 

[wasteofo2]

You mean a rich republican complaining? (last paragraph).

No, he's not rich, I was comparing his situation to that of a rich Democrat complaining that his taxes were too high. Democrats believe that you should tax the rich and use the money to help the poor, so a Democrat who is rich and complains that his tax rates are too high is a hypocrite. Simmilarly, Republicans believe that you shouldn't give people government handouts and that they should fend for themselves, thus, one complaining that he can't get free money from the government is hypocritical.

Ok let me change that. If i was a normal worker and a republican, id still demand money because we're on the stance of low-taxes and oru taxes have been going up for over 150 years :-/. Its entirely fair that we should demand unemployment because we lose money to a screwed up government and get nothing in return. Maybe against our beliefs, but we can't seem to get much real representation for the last 60 years so its more then fair.

So buy into the system and demand its benefits until it's reformed to your specifications and benefits aren't offered, but detriments are removed? But if you do that, and all the unemployed Republicans demand unemployment until the tax system and whatnot is totally overhauled, it could never happen, becuase you'd need to steal lots of money from the rich to begin with in order to keep paying that unemployment. You've got to cut expenditures before you can cut income, otherwise you go into even worse debt than we're already in. Plus, Republicans are now in control of the entire government (give or take a few votes in the Senate), and I would be willing to bet that this cut in unemployment benefits was brought on by Republicans looking to keep taxes low and destroy incentive to live on unemployment without looking for new employment.

 

[Pengwuino]

Unemployment is run by the state governments i thought? But anyhow yah, i get the comparison and yah, pretty much both hypocrits.

Taxes really... i dunno, they seem so arbitrary in the US. The more logical of a person you are, the more confused you feel when your told about what kind of things are taxed. I learned about inventory a few months ago being taxed and currently I am thinken about having an inventory for my business and I am just lost as to why I would have to pay taxes on inventory. Its like going "how dare you try to contribute to the economy and expand your business, you need to give us more money"

 

[wasteofo2]

Taxes really... i dunno, they seem so arbitrary in the US. The more logical of a person you are, the more confused you feel when your told about what kind of things are taxed. I learned about inventory a few months ago being taxed and currently I am thinken about having an inventory for my business and I am just lost as to why I would have to pay taxes on inventory. Its like going "how dare you try to contribute to the economy and expand your business, you need to give us more money"

You could try moving to Russia - they have a 13% flat tax, and I tell ya, you could get in on the ground floor there, cause business is going to be BOOMING in Russia soon, just you see.

If you don't like Russia, nearly every European country between it and Germany has a flat tax as well; Estonia, Latvia, Bosnia, take your pick, all flat tax paradises without the startling complexities of the US tax system.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah but... id be in russia... why live in hollywood when you could live in... well... the rest of LA lol. Much more money flowing aroudn the US and i doubt id ever be able to handle the weather. And eastern europe...i dunno, all pipe dreams, I am not leaving the US lol. Too lazy and spoiled by the US system to leave.

 

[wasteofo2]

Yah but... id be in russia... why live in hollywood when you could live in... well... the rest of LA lol. Much more money flowing aroudn the US and i doubt id ever be able to handle the weather. And eastern europe...i dunno, all pipe dreams, I am not leaving the US lol. Too lazy and spoiled by the US system to leave.

Suppose that's why we can support such a nonsensical tax code eh?

 

[Pengwuino]

Seems like that's why we wouldnt be able to support hte tax code. We're so lazy yet we're in a horribly complex and involved tax system.

lol oh man, i have my signature in another forum as that joke that goes like "A scientist asks "why does it work"; an engineer asks "how does it work", and a liberal arts major asks "would you like fries with that"" and this guy goes "Your sig is so ignorant, liberal arts encompasses every major from chemistry to english. Just because it contains the word "liberal" which I might add means peaceful and tolerant doesn't mean it's some form of satanisim."

Very political forum might i add. I was about to just kinda not reply and have everyone else laugh at him but i thought i might as well put the kid in his place.

 

[Grogs]

Two things I see. First, my understanding of Republican philosophy is not 'unemployment is evil,' it's 'let's get these people jobs and get them off of unemployment.' If they had protected his job better or created new jobs he could have gotten, he wouldn't have needed to apply for unemployment. Secondly, I think very few people agree with everything any party stands for. I agree with some things the democratic party says, and I despise others. I can say the same thing about the Republican party. Congress has a tendency to vote along party lines because of political reasons. I think most individuals are closer to the middle most of the time.

 

[BobG]

Neither the Republican nor the Democrat are being hypocritical.

First, being a Democrat doesn't mean you agree with every Decmocrat policy - it just means you agree with more of the Democrats' policies than the Republicans. Same goes for Republicans (especially given recent trends in the Republican Party :grumpy: ). I think bickering within a party is allowed and is not hypocritical at all.

Second, whether he agreed with the idea of unemployment or not, he had to go with the majority and pay for it. Unless the folks who disagree with unenmployment are exempt from paying for it, there's nothing hypocritical about them expecting to see the same benefits anyone else in their position would receive.

 

[loseyourname]

Personally, I wouldn't complain. I was eligible for unemployment a couple of years ago after being laid off from a job and I didn't even apply for benefits. Then again, I don't support a family and, unlike middle-class professionals, I'm perfectly willing to take a minimum wage job for a month or two until I can find something better. It pays no worse than unemployment.

That said, I'd cut the guy a little slack. If he meets the eligibility requirements, he is entitled as a taxpaying citizen to whatever benefits he qualifies for. If not, then sure, he has no place to complain. Even so, he isn't exactly at the easiest point in his life, so let him vent.

 

[Moonbear]

Taxes really... i dunno, they seem so arbitrary in the US. The more logical of a person you are, the more confused you feel when your told about what kind of things are taxed. I learned about inventory a few months ago being taxed and currently I am thinken about having an inventory for my business and I am just lost as to why I would have to pay taxes on inventory. Its like going "how dare you try to contribute to the economy and expand your business, you need to give us more money"

Didn't you ever wonder why all those stores have huge pre-inventory sales? It's so they can clear their inventory before it's counted for tax purposes; cheaper to cut prices and not make quite as much profit than to pay the taxes I guess.

As for the OP, it's only hypocritical if your friend personally supported cuts in unemployment. Just because he's Republican doesn't mean he supports everything on the Republican agenda. If he previously did support cuts in benefits, maybe now he'll see why they are important to help bridge that gap between jobs when you have mouths that need feeding at home.

I also agree with Grogs' point regarding the Republican view of unemployment. The idea is to use it as a bridge between jobs, not as an excuse to remain unemployed or to be too proud to accept a job that's available in the hopes of finding something better.

 

[Big Papa]

Back from fighting death

The last time I was on unemployement was from a temp job. There was a chemnical fire which involved Benzine in a 33 inch pipe. I stuck my head in there to get the workers out. For many hours later I saw the gravel form into lava lamps. That was in October of 2003. In March of 2004 I was in the hospital dying. After $17,000 worth of tests and bills later they found out I had a rare lung disease called Sarcodosis. When I come into contact with the same chemical Benzine, like when roof work is being done, at my current job, I have to go back to undergo treatment. Now, when I was laid off from my construction job, I had to fight to get my benifits. (I've been on unemployment so much that the State Workers in this department considered putting me on some of their Christmas card lists.) When I was dying at the last job I had (Pizza cook) before going into the hospital becasue my lungs were litterally burning themselves out, that employer tried to fight my unemployemt. There are other people who were permanentlay damaged from say "Sprawl Mart," and they could not get workers compensation or unemployment.


Now that I have a job in which I do not breath in Chemicals I can survive. This was not easy. My father stopped talking to me because I refused to go onto Social Security Disability. I took a risk because the job I have now did not even exist. I had to go to an informational City Council meeting and make a speech advocating that a sort of Back up insurance was given to this company. ( That is a $400,000 telecommunications switch for telemarketing. The company had the check, but by law the local government had to garentee it could come up with a check. That is is the company hired a certain percentage of people living in poverty.) I didn't think I was going to get a job there, but surprisingly I did. One of the reasons why I did and was hired at a higher hourly wage was because I have supervisroy experience with my own failed business. ( see my post in the future a question of opinion.) The reason why I will always hae a business, even if it doesn't make a profit is as a safty net. That is there in case I can not collect unemployment insurance. If I am able to make a profit next year and my company closes it's dorrs I can survive. Granted I do not have a wife. I have been married and engaged but the deal was I will never have kids. I will not have kids becasue i have the equivalant: Employees.

There is the impossible measure of finding oneself unemployed and having a compensation worker deny your claim. Then it is up to the person to seek legal advise from an expert Citizens Advocate free of charge. (That was the case from the "in your face with a slow death,' gig.) Granted I do have a low standard of living so I could pick $85 worth of empty returnables and eat out of the soup kitchen and food bank to get by, but again I'm prepared. Only people like my who has been out of work so many times are preopared for the possibliliity of being denied benifits. As for anyone else who does not have an already exsisting expeirmentation going on as a "spare tire." in case they do lose their job, then they will learn the hard way what others have expeirenced.

So in conclusion, prepare for the worst and expect no unemployent. If you do receive it, still study the web-sites, lw books and etc, in case your next job lays you off or fires you and fights for your ablitity to collect.

In conclusion,

 

[1123581321]

I know a Republican. He lives in a "Red State." He has a wife and two babies. He was employed until just recently, when he was laid off due to downsizing. He attempted to get unemployment checks, and they rejected him for whatever reason. He is bitter about this and thinks he should have qualified for unemployment, and is now at a total loss for income until he finds a new job.

I'm sure we can all agree that if there were more Democrats in power, that there would be much lower criteria for receiving unemployment benefits, and much greater "government handouts" to the poor in general, and that they would be paid for by taxing the rich. Republican politicians almost uniformly reject the idea that the Government should do such things, and it's Republicans who have recently pushed through things such as Bankruptcy reform to make it harder for people to declare bankruptcy.

That is a good idea, because many people run up their debt buying things that they know they cannot afford, and then declare bankruptcy to get an easy way out. Republican politicians are the ones who tighten up the criteria for receiving government handouts, wheras Democrats want to essentially take money away from rich people and give it to poor people. If you give someone money, they will become dependent on it in most cases. they will rely on that money. There is a lot of jobs that he can do while he is looking for another job more suited to his skill level, and the government should not give him someone elses money. many people work hard and smart for the money that they have earned, and that should not be taken away from them. my father has a good paying job, and looses about 40 or so % to taxes, and he workes very hard for the money. it is not fair to the other person.

So, by being a Republican, he helped create the situation he is currently in; where it is very hard to get the government to give you money when you have fallen on bad times, and in which you're supposed to take personal responsibility for your situation and go out and fix it yourself. Again, I think everyone can agree that if Democrats had more power, they would gladly tax the rich and make government handouts to the poor greater in value and easier to obtain. like i said above, that would make your friend dependant on the money, and less likley to get a job that would help the nation, not hurt it.

So, is it just me, or does this seem like a rich Democrat complaining that his tax rates are too high? This fellow was a fervent Republican until recently (perhaps his new experience has changed his politics, I'm unsure), and now he's complaining that the government won't give him free money becuase he was no longer a cost-effective employee. Remember the company, if he is cost-inneffective, why should they keep him. the company should not be forced to go under for one person. What of Republican faith/trust in market forces? What of the "Do it yourself" attitude, and the mindset that all problems can be solved by personal resolve and self determination? I'll bet you anything that if you ask any prominant Republican politician about unemployment benefits, the vast majority will say that they should be cut and made harder to receive so as not to give people encouragement to try to live off of unemployment and get back out into the marketplace, and/or that they should be cut so as to be able to lower tax rates.

look, people should be paid atleast 60% of their former wages for 4-6 months after unemployment, unless they did something that made them deserve to be fired.

Fibonacci