Got it. It’s perfectly clear; nobody is ever guilty of any crime until they have been tried and convicted in a court of law. (An excellent legal presumption, and thanks for pointing it out.)
But your selective use of it to say that no Republican accused of anything could possibly be guilty of it, because he has not yet been brought to trial and convicted, is disingenuous in the extreme. To hear you talk, we could register everyone as Republican, then close down all police departments, the F.B.I., all prosecutorial offices, and all criminal courts, because we would hav e magically found the solution to all crime.
You are right, DeLay has not yet been convicted in a court of law. One suspects that five years after accusation and indictment without trial suggest that (a) the case against him is weak, which is belied by the conviction of his close associates, or (b) he has excellent lawyers skilled in, um, delay of the case and/or friends in the state prosecutorial system.
One of the more ignorant blanket statements i’ve seen about the economy in some time.
There might be some justification for it in a booming economy with 4-5% unemployment, but in a recession with double-digit unemployment figures, it is simply factually incorrect.
Plenty of the usual jobs-of-last-resort have seen considerable shrinkage during the current recession. What makes you think that someone can just walk into a job in lawn maintenance in an economy where people are cutting back on exactly these sorts of luxury expenses? Industries that people used to fall back on—jobs like retail, waiting and bar-tending, cleaning and janitorial, etc., etc.—have been suffering themselves over the last couple of years, laying off both full-time and part-time workers, and instituting hiring freezes. There have been news stories here in Southern California over the last year about new restaurants having lines around the block for 5 or 6 server positions, and i’m sure the same has happened in other parts of the country.
Hell, today’s Washington Post notes that the economic climate means that this year’s census is likely to be staffed by an unusually over-qualified set of people:
I’m sure there are people out there who aren’t really interested in finding work, and basic economic theory also supports the idea that providing unemployment benefits can act as a disincentive to seek new employment. But saying, in the current economic climate, that anyone who wants to work can work, is simply a sign of willful pig-ignorance.
Actually, I did lose a $50k/year job… and I’ve been humping to find work ever since. You are correct that there is SOME money to be made… but it’s not enough to live on. And on one occasion when working by “lawn maintenance” job I was threatened by two gents who felt they were more entitled to mow lawns than I was (the property owner - male, a half foot taller, and 80 lbs heavier than me) put them straight that it was MY job and not theirs. I have also had men attempt to intimidate my into giving up my painting jobs (usual excuse: go home to your man - MEN need to work, not ***** like you). Of course, I expect that to many people a woman of middle years being threatened, bullied, or intimidated by men a foot taller and 100 lbs heavier than her is either improbable or because she’s somehow asking for it or doesn’t really want to work, right? :rolleyes:
So… I’m not poor because I want to be poor, it’s because there’s not enough work to go around. Hustle all you want, you still won’t make a living wage in winter and barely that in summer. There’s precious little difference between “unemployed” and “underemployed”.
And what’s this about not looking for work while collecting unemployment? Back when I still qualified for that (I haven’t for over a year now) you had to prove you were applying for work and I got a random audit on top of it (which was no sweat because I was playing by the rules and had my records in order). Where do they NOT require this?
Having collected unemployment three different times in the last ten years I can tell you that there wasn’t one single day that I wasn’t aware that the clock was ticking on my unemployment and it would eventually end. There is a complex series of decisions to be made before you accept a job that pays less than what you are collecting on unemployment. For me the goal was always to find a stable job I could live with and get off unemployment as soon as possible. In my state, once you accept a job , you can’t just quit, because you don’t get unemployment again. You don’t want to take a job you’re not sure you can handle either because no unemployment for getting fired (usually). Actually, if you go to an interview and are offered a job and refuse it your unemployment benefits can be cancelled if they find out.
So there ARE studies of this stuff that apparently show that people will not take the first job that comes along as long as they have good unemployment payments - in that sense Delay is right. However, other studies (such as the one I linked to) show that having that extra time helps ensure that you take a good job that appropriately matches your skill set.
Both of these bits of academic genius fit my personal experience. I have collected unemployment, I knew exactly how long I had on it. I set certain goals of taking the first few months to find a great job, and I scaled back expectations over time - telling my wife I would go back to slinging drinks down the bar once I stopped getting the checks. Having those checks, however, kept me from taking some truly shitty jobs that were a poor match for me. I was able to wait it out and nail great jobs that actually advanced my career.
Delay is correct - we are not only helping people, but we are also encouraging them not to work in some situations. However, I believe that based on the studies that this is a good thing for our society, and it helps further our goals of making business strong.
I don’t see why accepting a sub-optimal job is an impediment to finding the optimal job later on. It’s not like people don’t change jobs all the time, especially in this day and age.
In general, i agree, although your new employer isn’t likely to look very kindly on it when you say, “Hey boss, i can’t be at work on time today because i need to interview for a better job.” The fact is that proper job-hunting is a time-consuming task, and not all of it involves time-flexible activities like updating your resume on Monster or sending out CVs.
Also, as i noted earlier, the very idea that sub-optimal jobs are just sitting there for the taking might be tenable in a late-1990s economy, but it’s simply not the case right now in many parts of the country.
Tom Delay was railroaded by a corrupt system that charged him and never tried him. That prosecutor was despicable. I agree with Bricker on this one. Charging someone without taking them to trial is gruesomely ugly. Same with the scum prosecuting Barry Bonds.
Now that doesn’t change my opinion that Tom Delay is a heartless bastard who chummed it up with criminal lobbyists, but he isn’t guilty of anything.
Yeah, I think they used to do that. I fell out of the job market in a previous recession, they had some kind of “emergency” extension, and if you worked 40 hours and made less than your unemployment, you still got it–they were very clear about that. And I think they’re doing that again.
But you aren’t going to work 40 hours in retail. The full-time permanent people were doing good to get in 36 hours.
I have a friend who’s been collecting UE for a little over three years. She does a stint at a temp job, then when that ends, back to UE. And they keep extending it.
Over the holidays she had TWO retail jobs, and still got her UE.
She said if she hadn’t had to declare the retail jobs and have it deducted, she could almost have paid her rent in Dec.
Yeah right. I get £64 a week (approx US$100) in unemployment benefit. I’ve a mortgage and bills to pay. You bet I’m looking for work. Unfortunately there are still 500 people going for every job.
The reality still remains that there are still more jobs lost than gained in the current economy and.
It is not that they are helpful to the economy Mr. Kyl, (some actually make the point that it would be worse for the economy if those in unemployment lose it and then there is less money going to retail and other business) it is that a safety net should be there until the crocodiles that are under it are removed.
I recall that back in my salad days a few years ago, I was downsized from a $150K/year job without much warning. I went on unemployment at $250/wk. It was so sweet that even after that trickle stopped coming in, I remained unemployed for eight months just to continue the incredible high and feeling of self-importance it gave me. People treated me with more respect and I slept like a baby.
Tom Delay is a superating sore on the ass of humanity.