# Republicans are taking away my unemployment for my own good. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823 "2013-12-08T15:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/141 "2013-12-10T16:59:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Wow, Martin Hyde is quite an asshole. I was surprised at John Mace’s level of pricksmanship in this thread, but then Grand Admiral Hyde sailed out of the sunrise on a prickcraft carrier, launched wave after wave of Tomahawk Pricks, and his battleships rained smug douchebaggery with their fearsome sixteen inch pricks. If saying that unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever is being a prick, then… no, I’m not going to say guilty as charged… I’m going to say you’re a complete idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/142 "2013-12-10T17:13:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If saying that unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever is being a prick, then… no, I’m not going to say guilty as charged… I’m going to say you’re a complete idiot. I can agree that there can be reasonable disagreement on that. I, personally would rather ten moochers get a free ride before one hard worker falls into miserable poverty, but I’m a goofy leftish type. I think the argument is harder if there is high levels of unemployment, and you don’t want to extend the baseline level of unemployment benefits. It seems that when there are fewer jobs than there are applicants, you need to modify the system. I think that’s a very compelling argument, but I can just barely see where an otherwise good ideologue can fall down on the, “No extensions” side of that line. I mostly had a problem with your idea that casually starting a business, when most (or very nearly most) businesses fail, was the answer. And the sense that you implied that since you did it, the OP was somehow beneath you if he didn’t. Starting a business is a roll of the dice, but it might not be an answer, depending where you are. You mention tutoring in the other thread. What if you only get a few bites? You waste a month you could have spent searching for a job that will keep your family afloat and end up making less than a burger flipping job. Starting a business needs enough of a safety net that reaching for the ring isn’t likely to ruin you. I’m not saying you said that explicitly, but that’s what I inferred from your posting. But as I said, grading on a curve, even if what I perceived was true, you’re ten thousand times more awesome than the tyrant-prick Martin Hyde. What a small, worthless clot of gristle and feckless rage that one is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/143 "2013-12-10T17:29:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If saying that unemployment benefits shouldn’t go on forever is being a prick, then… no, I’m not going to say guilty as charged… I’m going to say you’re a complete idiot. Looking over the thread to see who is arguing for eternal and unending unemployment benefits, the position you are so firmly arguing against. Can’t find it. Advise. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/144 "2013-12-10T17:53:36Z")
If I felt ike there was a decent safety net waiting for folks who max out their UI, then I wouldn’t have a problem with setting a hard limit. But we don’t have a safety net. I’m all for tough love, as long as there is some “love” in the equation. What the Republicans seem to care about is the “tough”. As in “tough titty”. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/145 "2013-12-10T18:00:40Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It’s stupid to try and assign “fault” as to why someone needs a government hand out, instead we need to look at the desirability of the hand out and other factors relating to that individual. Unlimited uninsurance benefits just indebt States and hurt future earnings for _all_ workers, and disproportionately low income workers because of the way the tax works. Nobody said “unlimited”. But if you’re talking the desirability of handouts, let’s do some math, OK? Suppose the OP’s unemployment stops dead on December 28 and he takes a McJob. I’m going to guess that with even with 2 incomes at that level, with deductions and everything, Uncle Sam is going to get essentially nothing from them at tax time and might even have to shell out subsidies for health insurance and maybe even food stamps. But the OP was formerly making a decent salary – I think he said five times minimum wage. So let’s say a household income of $80K a year, conservatively. Even after deductions, that’s (roughly) around $9K in income taxes \* per year \*. So if the UI pays out $1500/month for the next six months and the OP gets a job that pays his previous salary, then the Feds break even in \* one year \* and every additional year is gravy. So being a Scrooge about unemployment benefits is not only dickish, but it’s actually economically counterproductive, provided we make the assumption that the job market hasn’t degraded to the point where the well-paying middle class jobs are just gone forever. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/146 "2013-12-10T19:04:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If I felt ike there was a decent safety net waiting for folks who max out their UI, then I wouldn’t have a problem with setting a hard limit. > > But we don’t have a safety net. I’m all for tough love, as long as there is some “love” in the equation. What the Republicans seem to care about is the “tough”. As in “tough titty”. Really well said. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/147 "2013-12-10T23:27:21Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Really well said. Well said indeed. And if I may add the republican ( my daddy was Ron Paul ): I Got Mine ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/148 "2013-12-11T04:16:41Z")
In case anyone hasn’t heard the news yet, the decision has been made in the new budget agreement to not include the extended benefits (although Democrats are talking about bringing them back later). > **[Absent From the Budget Deal: Benefits for Long-Term Unemployed](https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-42322)** > > The budget deal doesn't address the expiration of emergency benefits for the long-term unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/149 "2013-12-11T05:17:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It hurts them in the sense that they can make more in the marketplace. and earlier [QUOTE=John Mace] So, Rand Paul is exactly right, in your case. [/QUOTE] I notice you’ve never addressed the point I raise in #86, which was directed at you. To me, this is just more evidence that “Libertarians” are all about “I’ve got mine: Fuck You” and that their philosophic claims are just sanctimonious bullshit. HTH. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/150 "2013-12-11T05:29:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think there should be no time limits on unemployment benefits? No, there should be time limits. In fact, there are time limits now. They are just longer than time limits during periods of prosperity or semi-prosperity. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > The unemployment rate right now for people with college degrees is 3.4%. I haven’t looked at that particular data, but I’m pretty skeptical of the implication. The employment/population ratio is quite low. Unemployment is declining, but there’s no reason to believe we’re anywhere near full employment. If I was to look at the data, I’d like to see how that particular figure compares to, say, 2003-3006. 3.4% might actually correlate with high unemployment. > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Fuck you, you asshole, you have no idea how your inaction in DC affects people out in the real world. I don’t give one flying fuck what some study says. FWIW, the studies are on your side. IIRC, Rand was quoting a study based on data during times of prosperity. [QUOTE=Paul Krugman] Proponents of this story like to cite academic research — some of it from Democratic-leaning economists — that seemingly confirms the idea that unemployment insurance causes unemployment. They’re not equally fond of pointing out that this research is two or more decades old, has not stood the test of time, and is irrelevant in any case given our current economic situation. [The view of most labor economists](http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e1cc2c23-dc6f-4871-a26a-fda9bd32fb7e.%2520) now is that unemployment benefits have only a modest negative effect on job search — and in today’s economy have no negative effect at all on overall employment. On the contrary, unemployment benefits help create jobs, and cutting those benefits would depress the economy as a whole. [/QUOTE] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/krugman-the-punishment-cure.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&\_r=0#h[]](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/krugman-the-punishment-cure.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0#h%5B%5D) > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > The Keynesian multiplier doesn’t work, period. It’s false that a $1.00 spent in unemployment checks generates $1.80 in economic activity. Especially since that analysis ignores what a $1.00 spent instead by a consumer not paying ramped-up unemployment taxes would generate and fails to deduct it from the false $1.80. Balanced budget multipliers are discussed in sophomore macroeconomics. Given the disparity in marginal propensities to consume between the employed and unemployed (which follows from, among other theories, the Permanent Income Hypothesis espoused by Milton Friedman), there are solid armchair reasons to believe in the multiplier. And back in reality, extending unemployment insurance is thought to have a multiplier of 1.64 according to, you know, professional economists. [http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull\_of\_m.html](http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html) It’s amazing that two faced proponents of fiscal austerity are still taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![drew870mitchell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drew870mitchell/32/3946_2.png) [@drew870mitchell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drew870mitchell)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/151 "2013-12-11T13:42:23Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Fuck you, you asshole, you have no idea how your inaction in DC affects people out in the real world. Don’t confuse not knowing for not caring. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/152 "2013-12-11T14:58:58Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I notice you’ve never addressed the point I raise in #86, which was directed at you. > > To me, this is just more evidence that “Libertarians” are all about “I’ve got mine: Fuck You” and that their philosophic claims are just sanctimonious bullshit. Hi again, **John Mace**. Sanctimonious snark in another thread but no answer here? I’ll take this as an implicit acknowledgment of your stupidity. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/153 "2013-12-11T16:49:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You’re not providing for your family, the government is. I’m providing for your family, and I’d like you to go out and get a job at some point. I’m gonna guess you’d be a dirt farmer full of intestinal parasites if not for the government. So, bear that in mind while you’re puffing yourself up for your amazing ability. The vapid stupidity of Libertarianism never ceases to impress. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/154 "2013-12-11T16:54:39Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Sanctimonious snark Hi, **septimus** , and welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board! ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/155 "2013-12-12T00:37:21Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One has to live under their income if they want to get ahead. The OP apparently DID live under his income prior to losing his job, and his family DID have savings and resources… which are now gone. Just how many years’ income is the average person supposed to have in savings again? > [@](#): > > I also believe Food Stamps are not really helping people to save, _That’s NOT what they are for!_ Food stamps are to _keep people fed_. A laudable goal if you ask me. > [@](#): > > I was behind a woman in a grocery store that bought cuts of meat I wouldn’t buy,( because they were too expensive) then bought cigarettes and booze with the money she had on her. So… how, exactly did you know that she used food stamps? Did you ask her? Did you lean over her shoulder as she paid? Do you do this to every person you are in line behind at the grocery store? And even if that was the case, you do know that the plural of anecdote is not data, correct? > [@](#): > > During the depression we didn’t get food stamps or the food we wanted, my father also had to dig ditches for the rent of a house to live in. My older brothers had to go to CC camps. We were very glad for the food we did get. During the depression food stamps didn’t exist, so that’s irrelevant. After awhile a certain amount of food was simply given to families that qualified, if you received that, and if your family utilized the WPA or CCC work options, congratulations, you were one of the first welfare families in America. If it was good enough for you when your family needed help why aren’t needy people today deserving? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I never said you were lazy, I was talking a bout a hypothetical stay-at-home parent. But I don’t feel there is any real argument: most two parent families have both parents working. We can argue about what that means and the specifics, but the reality is most two parent families do not have a stay at home parent. Most people get it to work, if you can’t that’s tough shit. So… just completley ignore that up until 6 months ago the OP did, in fact, make things work out with a stay-at-home parent… are you jealous that they were able to do that or something? And his current plan isn’t to have a stay-at-home parent, it’s to have TWO working parents but their combined wage still has to be sufficient to support the household. > [@](#): > > Then you’re living beyond your means, simple as that. Again, until 6 months ago he was living _below_ his means. Up until now he’s been able to meet the bills due to good planning and fiscal responsibility. But, hey, go ahead and call him lazy, a freeloader, a terrible person because he lost his job, obviously anyone without an income for even a moment is scum. > [@](#): > > You either have a house that’s too expensive or some other thing. Sell your house, go onto Section 8 housing, rent etc. The services are there. You clearly have no experience with Section 8. I don’t know about where the OP lives, but where I live there is a ten year waiting list for Section 8. Yay, they apply for Section 8, get on a waiting list – where, exactly are they supposed to live for the next decade until their name comes to the top? How, exactly, does abandoning a house and becoming homeless benefit the OP and his family? And who, exactly, are you to determine that someone else’s house is “too expensive or some other thing”? Are you ready to start justifying YOUR living arrangements? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Hey moronic bitch, maybe you should actually read the thread. Translated: “I don’t have a good answer to your arguments so I am resorting to insulting your intelligence and gender”. Which is consistent with the rest of your posting here. You are quite free with slinging the mud. > [@](#): > > Maybe you should spend more time on your low income waste of a life if you can’t get your facts straight. Ah, here we go again – a low income means your life is a waste. That is, I suppose, in addition to laziness and stupidity. Hey, **Martin** , you do realize that a bank account balance and IQ are not the same thing, correct? Having more money doesn’t make you smarter, as you so amply demonstrate in this thread. > [@](#): > > There is absolutely subsidized daycare. Government subsidized? Really? Where? Certainly now where I live! > [@](#): > > If you’re not aware of that, you need to read the laws of this country a bit more before you come to the table against someone like me that actually understands the legal framework of our welfare state. Please point to what FEDERAL agency subsidizeing daycare, because I’m not aware of one. If it’s not Federal it isn’t “the laws of this country” it’s provided by a lower level unit of government or a private charity or church or something. > [@](#): > > As a poor person I would have assumed you’d be more familiar with it than I, but I guess not. Why would being poor make me an expert in childcare? > [@](#): > > [Here](http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/cc/assistance.cgi) is just one example of what I am talking about. I’ve known people who received the benefit for Virginia, while working their way through trade schools and etc and they paid little to nothing out of pocket. Oh, I see – you seem to think that VIRGINA=THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. And you called me moronic? Why should I, someone living in Indiana, be conversant with the state-level public aid in Virginia? > [@](#): > > The Keynesian multiplier doesn’t work, period. It’s false that a $1.00 spent in unemployment checks generates $1.80 in economic activity. I never said it generated $1.80, I said money given to the unemployed doesn’t stay with them, it immediately goes back out into the economy because they have bills to pay and food to buy. When come back bring reading comprehension instead of self-righteous pie. This, by the way, is far better than YOUR scheme to lock up millions of dollars in private accounts where it will sit for DECADES and do _nothing_ to stimulate the economy. Way to go, Skippy. > [@](#): > > It pays people who are unemployed. The work search requirements are part of what keeps you eligible for payments, but you are not paid to “look for work.” You’re paid because you aren’t working. Stop looking for work you stop getting paid. How is that not “paid to look for work”? The benefits are contingent on the search. When I was on UI several years ago my job search was monitored AND I was audited during the period as well. You act as if there is no oversight. There is. > [@](#): > > That money doesn’t come from nowhere to stimulate the economy. It’s coming out of the pockets of other workers, most of whom will use it on consumer discretionary purchases versus people like the OP who will probably use it to keep paying a mortgage he can’t afford. And you would force all those workers to lock that money up for DECADES in “private accounts” where it will do _even less_ to stimulate the economy. This is better… how? > [@](#): > > I’ve got no problem with the rich paying more money in taxes, both in absolute and relative amounts. But I’m talking about the current reality, where unemployment taxes are generated from payroll taxes in a regressive manner. They hit poor people where they live, and they go up automatically under current law when States do what Rand Paul is saying we shouldn’t let them do–essentially borrow from the Feds. Like I said – why stop at just the first $7k of income? Why _shouldn’t_ the wealthy pay UI tax on ALL their income, just like the dirt poor do? > [@](#): > > There is no imminent crisis. The economy is getting better, not worse. HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You so funny! Just because it’s _better_ doesn’t mean it’s _good_. That’s like saying, oh, your broken leg has been in a cast for a week, it’s better, now you have no excuse not to run the Boston Marathon tomorrow, because you’re _better_. The economy is still not healthy. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > To fully explain what I mean, is each employer would have to maintain their own private trust fund. Any unemployed employees would be able to draw from the trust fund at some statutory minimum rate sufficient to equal current employment payments and for a statutory minimum time similar to the current eligibility weeks. Employers could be more generous if they wished to bulk up their own fund, but could not be less generous. So… instead of everyone paying into a fund that is distributed to those in need, with the amount in the fund adjusted according to actual need, you propose locking up what would be millions, if not billions of dollars _for decades_ in these “private accounts” where the money will just sit, doing _nothing_ to stimulate the economy? Again, this is better… how? > [@](#): > > If an employer had an insolvent fund they would be required to both increase their contribution rate to the fund in the future and take some responsibility (shared with government) to pay for ongoing unemployment costs of unemployed employees out of their revenue. How the FUCK is an “insolvent company” supposed ot INCREASE a contribution? THEY’RE INSOLVENT!!! That’s _bankrupt_, as in _has no more money!_ What, you wave a magic wand and suddenly they discover money for this fund? And if the company is GONE then what? Around here, when that’s happened former employees saw their pensions and health care simply evaporate and NO ONE AND NOTHING stepped in to help them. Frankly, I am far more confident that the US government will continue to exist than any particular company. > [@Finagle](#): > > So someone who got laid off is living beyond their means? Does this count for rocket science amongst the conservative set? The idea is that unemployment is supposed to be a temporary condition. Your solution here turns it into a permanent trap of underemployment. Regrettably, it DOES count as genius among that set. > [@](#): > > Also – you know what the waiting lists are like for section 8 housing? Clearly, he does not. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, Rand Paul’s little scheme is just a petty distraction from the fact that our Congress, which promised to have a laser-like focus on job creation, has instead done absolutely nothing but dick around and whine about the ACA. This seems to be in line with current conservative philosophy is that if they just keep screwing the poor and middle class then somehow morale (and the economy) will improve. ^ Word. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Some people believe that if something bad is happening to you, it must somehow be your fault because the system worked for them so it should work for everyone. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > People like that are obviously narrow minded. Luckily I see no one here doing such a thing. Unfortunately… I do. > [@](#): > > But what I do know is that whether it’s luck or not, unemployment and other benefits don’t exist to put a poor person in a middle class person’s home indefinitely. Unemployment is and must be a finite benefit, and whatever other benefits we may or may not offer to the permanent under class should not be available to people with large assets like houses that they do not need. Here we go again – six months without a job and you are now part of the permanent underclass! What do you suggest, we start branding poor people so their superiors can easily spot them at a distance and avoid them? Let’s see – people who lose their jobs are lazy, stupid, permanently underclass… how many different ways do you have to declare other humans beings as less than you? > [@](#): > > The OP lives in a dream world where he thinks it’s 1950 and his precious little kid shouldn’t be subjected to having two working parents. Because of that they have poor income security. They stupidly put all their eggs in one parent’s income basket, and now that he is out of work obviously they’re paying the price for that. So… only wealthy people are allowed to stay home with their kids, now? Everyone else HAS TO work and park the kids in daycare? Oh, and everyone please note – he’s calling the OP stupid _again_. And, with the “dream world” remark, also claiming the OP is out of touch with reality. Seriously, you can’t do better than that? > [@](#): > > I’m assuming the low wage job his wife is working is something she just picked up to help them make ends meet while OP collects unemployment. Why don’t you stop making assumptions? Your track records with them has been pretty poor. > [@](#): > > What should have instead been going on is his wife should have skills and education sufficient to get a decent job in addition to his own decent job prior to all of this. This would have meant a much more stable two income family so that when he had lost his job, things would not be nearly so dire as they are now. Two points: the OP has already detailed that his wife is educated and worked prior to having a child, so she’s not some high school drop out, and second point, if it was so damn easy to find a “decent job” that a wife who hasn’t been in the job market for a couple years (because she’s raising a child) can simply find one at the drop of a hat _then the OP wouldn’t have been out of work for six months!_ ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/156 "2013-12-12T04:00:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But today’s Tom Joad has been to college. I don’t think turning us against one another is going to work this time. [For](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqiblXFlZuk) [reference](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46mO7jx3JEw), [Tom Joad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKWGAGPy_kw). > [@](#): > > Looking over the thread to see who is arguing for eternal and unending unemployment benefits, the position you are so firmly arguing against. Can’t find it. Advise. That’s because they are deploying a kind of straw man. You also see it with the example of the bum or the moocher who spends their food stamps on lobster or expensive cuts of meat. [Here’s an example.](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428597/This-way-I-want-live-I-don-t-really-changing-unemployed-beach-bum-uses-food-stamps-buy-lobster-sushi--plans-getting-job.html) Righties love to tell stories of people living in luxury off of food stamps, when the reality is that it mostly keeps the destitute fed. Meanwhile, according to this (admittedly in need of further examination) [cite](http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023974549), for a person who makes $50k/year: $6.36 in taxes goes to welfare $22.88 goes to unemployment insurance $36.82 goes to SNAP $246.75 goes to defense $4000 goes to corporate welfare Wtf is with the focus on the tax burden of food stamps? If you are like **Martin Hyde** and your gripe is along the lines of > [@](#): > > Most people get it to work, if you can’t that’s tough shit. But not at all an argument you should be able to keep your hand in my pocket for as long as you want. , shouldn’t those types be focusing their outrage on corporations/corporate lobbyists and the Defense Department instead of food stamp and unemployment insurance recipients? I mean, there _are_ more applicants than jobs in today’s economy. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/157 "2013-12-12T06:03:00Z")
Martin Hyde, you’re not just a bad poster with some bad ideas, you’re actually a bad person. Pathetic. Then again, conservatives who hold their ideology higher than other human beings often are ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/158 "2013-12-12T06:53:15Z")
Ideology is mostly things you believe but cannot prove. Right now, my ideology is that if suddenly America were made up entirely of middle and upper class professionals…lawyers, bankers, stock brokers…America would be a howling wasteland in a matter of days, populated by roving bands of cannibalistic savages. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/159 "2013-12-12T07:04:38Z")
“You’re walking the desert, Leon, when you see a tortoise lying there on its back, its belly baking in the sun. You could reach down and flip it over, but you won’t help. Why is that, Leon?” “Because I’m a Republican?” “Oh. Right. Guess that _would_ explain it…” ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/160 "2013-12-12T12:31:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “You’re walking the desert, Leon, when you see a tortoise lying there on its back, its belly baking in the sun. You could reach down and flip it over, but you won’t help. Why is that, Leon?” > > “Because I’m a Republican?” > > “Oh. Right. Guess that _would_ explain it…” And here I thought it was because you are really [Vorbis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_the_Discworld#Vorbis) using a fake name … 😛 Me, what I would like to see is instead of all the abandoned and empty buildings like the [Norwich State Hospita](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_State_Hospital)l sitting empty and then getting torn down being turned into some sort of section 8 housing where people would get assigned living space, and instead of food stamps the government opens up the cafeterias and serves them food. While out driving, I can see empty closed school buildings, hospitals, factories … sitting there - hell, there is a motel on 395n exit 80 that was being built and construction halted with it almost completed - it could easily be turned into section 8 housing. And why can’t we have community run soup kitchens instead of food stamps or in addition to food stamps? Why can’t we have “food stamp grocery stores” where the only products are the specific ones on the food stamp program so there isn’t any customer suck quibbling about what is and isn’t allowed on food stamps and the only ‘currency’ allowed is the food stamp debit card, whatever it is called in your location. Someone linked to a story about the US as an evil stratified society where the poor ended up warehoused in hives and down in Australia it was paradise… to be honest, I think most of the population would like to live in a comfortable hive room with a great TV, adequate food and no need to work sort of like pre-idiocracy, or a lot of SF novels/stories. Not that I would turn my nose up at that Australian paradise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=9)