OT: Kentucky Loser

=A0It's the liberals that want

Excuse me, but ... all due respect ... you're muscling into my turf ;-)

Ah, well. You were clearly here first, and probably have a *lengthy* history with this particular one ;-)

If that is the case, then why is the federal government allocating funds to make unemployment payments? Shouldn't those funds be there from the unemployment insurance?

... snip

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:58:29 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett" scrawled the following:

Lew, are you talking about the Puffington Host screwing up on the title of the article? You're right, it's nothing new. Bunning would have happily voted for the bill had it used stimulus money instead of adding more to the deficit. Are you opposed to his concept or to the extension of unemployment funding? WTF,O?

They were when the rate was

e:

Semi-literate, too.

Hey, now... Gordon's just making a simple mistake - he's thinking WELFARE, not unemployment. It's the same argument, really :) I wonder what he'd like the government to spend the unemployment insurance money on?

shelly

so it's an accounting problem?

shelly

maybe so. Does that mean the insurance shouldn't be paid out to a person who just lost their job (because the $$ is gone?)

shelly

No, I made no mistake. The well is dry and the only way to replenish it at the rate and duration it is being paid out is with tax dollars. In my opinion there should be no unemployment compensation at all. You and the employer shouldn't be required to pay. You keep what you earn. Unfortunately the politicians would have no way to get their piece of it so that will never happen.

I don't know where you are at but in Al, everyone pays a set percentage into an employment insurance fund until it is fully funded, when the fund drops to a certain level the the fee kicks in and you pay it until the fund is full and any money borrowed to keep it afloat in bad periods of unemployment is paid back, sure it is a complusory fee but It hasn't showed up on payroll anytime since the mid eighties and is not being collected even now.

basilsik

------------------------------------- Bunning is simply playing the "No" bit to the hilt.

Bunning was a pretty decent pitcher, but can't say the same about his politics.

Lew

so it's an accounting problem?

shelly

In Illinois the employee pays a fixed percentage into the unemployment fund and the employer also pays a fixed percentage. This fee is paid in all economic conditions in every pay period. It would not be possible for someone to ever get out what they have paid in.

Apparently living in a Republican state has even more advantages that we don't have in a Democratic state.

If that is the case (it's not), why was more debt needed to pay the "benefits"?

---------------------------------------- The question has already been answered.

Try getting up to speed before pounding keyboard.

Lew

Gettin' a little cranky aren't we.

I didn't see you answer, only the dumbass statement.

Google wasn't showing me the rest of the thread. It gets confused.

_Getting_ cranky? Hell, "Cranky" is Lew's middle name. :-)

Uh, hardly.

The current administration added more to the national debt in its first MONTH than the previous administration did in eight years. It's been a year and the situation is even worse.

Unemployment "insurance" is mandatory on businesses. In that regard, it differs little from a "tax."

When the fund is depleted, the only way to replenish it is by raising the "tax."