Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...
Understandable, but being pro-life does not make you anti-choice. It means you believe the baby is a life and it should not be "killed".
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
i am not turning this into an abortion debate. but i can blame the republicans for holding up voting on the healthcare bill due to these "pro-life" republicans and a few blue dog dems....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
pro choice does not equal anti baby....they are for the woman having a right to decide what happens in their own body, and they are for the freedom from the zealots who would impose their will on them....at least that is what i believe...
Understandable, but being pro-life does not make you anti-choice. It means you believe the baby is a life and it should not be "killed".
No, being pro-life doesn't make you anti-choice. Being anti-choice makes you anti-choice.
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
Of course not...it's their silly little way to try and belittle those that have a difference of opinion with them.
Dude - at the risk of briefly hijacking the thread, we need to get this settled once and for all. The term anti-choice is NOT belittling. To the contrary, it is precise.
Pro-life vs. anti-life is a DIFFERENT QUESTION than pro-choice vs. anti-choice. If someone asks the question, "Do you think any woman should ever have an abortion?" and you say no, you are pro-life. If someone asks, "Do you think all women should always have abortions?" and you say yes, you are anti-life (though I have never ever heard of a person who falls into this category). If you are asked, "Do you think women should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE of whether or not to have an abortion?" and you say yes, you are pro-choice. And if you are asked the same question about choice and you say no, you are anti-choice. If you say you don't believe abortion is right but you think women should be able to decide for themselves, then you are pro-life AND pro-choice. If you say women should not be able to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion, but should all be required to have abortions, then you are anti-life and anti-choice.
People use the term anti-choice out of respect of the varying opinions of pro-life people. Don't accuse me of belittling people just because you can't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
There's a difference between throwing someone a crumb and throwing them a loaf of bread and Obama is throwing crumbs. Ie no jobs
Why don't you read S Alinsky's rules for radicals and just maybe you might start to understand how Obama thinks.
My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.
To me, this is all common sense
What you may not understand about this is that there are so many people unemployed there aren't enough DUA workers to check on what people are doing. The times that I have gone to the unemployment office I have found them to be less than helpful. I have done everything on my own. This includes paying for my own training programs that are government supported. The only time I have seen DUA workers check up on people is if they have got money through Section 30 to go back to school.
The job market is AWFUL. I feel lucky that it only took me 10 weeks to find a job after my training was completed at the end of April. I go back to work on Monday after 59 weeks of unemployment.
I do understand. The system is what needs to be fixed and you supported that idea. Those abusing the system need to be punished, and those not doing their job need to be fired. The system needs to be fixed.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I read somewhere that this government is spending $11,000,000,000 a day.
These people who are off needs jobs. I wonder if they ever thought of buying things made in this country, because there would be some nice jobs for them building things. Of course the only things we make anymore are Big Macs and Whoppers.
I read somewhere that this government is spending $11,000,000,000 a day.
These people who are off needs jobs. I wonder if they ever thought of buying things made in this country, because there would be some nice jobs for them building things. Of course the only things we make anymore are Big Macs and Whoppers.
I don't discount this commentary polaris, but aren't the majority on these assistance programs merely a reflection of the society failing the people more so than the reverse? Of course there will always be a portion of people who take advantage and exploit, but I think more than anything, in general terms, we try and view these programs and people as taking advantage of the system, when in many respects, it's merely a scapegoat tactic instead of addressing the reality of a broken system failing the citizens. Unemployment is a great example right now, how many people lost jobs or were negatively effected by the economic down turn which was basically caused by lack of government oversight, big business's greed and a portion of society living outside of their means taking advantage of the offers? Now with that stated, how many are merely bystanders or casualties of this occurrence compared to being active participants which led to there own despair? People sooner blame the program because of overstated bias when it generally has good intentions and the table is set in a can't win atmosphere by government, business and a sub-par labor market.
i think most programs do not work because of the exploitive nature of people and society in general ... we are so hell bent on taking as much as we can that we lose sight of the greater purpose ... these unemployment benefits are a temporary measure to keep people afloat and contributing to the consumer-based economy that is established ... is it a shock to see people (from all sides of the political spectrum) take advantage of it? hardly ... is it only a few? ... i doubt it ... it may not be everyone but it doesn't take a lot of people to exploit a program to render it a failure ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
My old neighbor was on unemployment after being fired from a job where she worked 20 + years. All she had to do every week was fill out a questionairre online - 5 questions - to collect. This is a joke and an invitation to scam the system. No meeting with a counselor, no proof that she was looking for a job. The system needs to be heavily regulated so people cannot take advantage of a good system. And, if the system is better regulated, this will demand more jobs to work for the regulation agency.
To me, this is all common sense
What you may not understand about this is that there are so many people unemployed there aren't enough DUA workers to check on what people are doing. The times that I have gone to the unemployment office I have found them to be less than helpful. I have done everything on my own. This includes paying for my own training programs that are government supported. The only time I have seen DUA workers check up on people is if they have got money through Section 30 to go back to school.
The job market is AWFUL. I feel lucky that it only took me 10 weeks to find a job after my training was completed at the end of April. I go back to work on Monday after 59 weeks of unemployment.
when i was on unemployment i was on it in a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. sooooo many people going in for your eligibility review was pretty much a rubber stamp process. you had a sheet you had to give the name of 1 place you contacted for work for each week you draw and a form attached to the notice of the review mailed to you with basic things like what hours/shifts are you willing to work, how far will you travel (this you had to say that county), how would you get there, are you going to school or in a training program....? it progressed as i was on it. at first you waited for your turn and they would glance it over, staple it and tell you the job seeking form is on the table by the door and to continue to call in or submit the claim online as i have been.
then more and more people were losing jobs and you had to sit and make small talk as they looked over your papers then directed you to the job seeking forms.
then even more people were laid off and the line was out the door and around the corner of the building with the same review process as above, thankfully if you were there just for a review you didn't have to wait in these lines, they had a room with set times and you just went there.
the last time i was there they had a male employee of the employment securities commission and a security guard inside the atrium asking you why you were there, if you were there for a review you go to the room and wait for the small talk and computer typing, if you were there for something else you took a number. i looked at the ticket thing and it was in the mid 700's, when i went in it was kind of like the dmv where a bunch of people were waiting for their number to be called, which was currently in the low 500's) with a led sign in the back displaying the numbers.
it seemed like they had the reviews pretty often but unless you were going to school or some sort of training or had questions there was nothing to it other than having to drive down there.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
As an insider in the Norwegian Labour and welfare agency, I can tell you that what we do here pretty much:
First time you come in the door, you are basically handed a form to fill out and are asked to provide documentation of work and the wage you had for the last year for collecting unemployment benefits. Then you'll be shown the hiring ads and that's it.
If after 3 months, you're still there, they will try to put you in a group session of some sort. Like training in writing job applications, gatherings with potential employers and the like.
If after 6 months you are still there, then you get to sit down and talk with a person who will try to find something individually suited for you, like a training program or something if you need it or it is deemed useful.
This is rational and effective since we know that many that come in the door, aren't there in 3 months, not to mention 6, as they find jobs themselves. That reduces the amount of people that needs close monitoring to a managable level for the employees, without doubling or tripling the manpower of the office to service people that is going to find jobs themselves regardless. It sounds like they have something like this in the US too according to your experiences Pepe.
Now what I imagine is happening in the US is that the number of unemployed has soared and is now at 10% or something up from the stable level of 3-5% that the institution was built to handle. When suddenly at least twice as many people are flooding in the doors, you can bet that they haven't doubled their staff. It's a public agency and that money must come from congress as an extra spending bill. Now this wasn't just a flood wave either, they stay out of the labour market for long periods of time, which further adds to the load. It is enormously time and staff-consuming with face to face meetings which will be needed when people have been out of it for a long time.
So the same number of people (maybe they get some funds to hire 1 or 2 extra) are doing a lot more work, so give them a break. Also realize that closer monitoring has a high price-tag on it as you need to hire a lot more people to do the job.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't discount this commentary polaris, but aren't the majority on these assistance programs merely a reflection of the society failing the people more so than the reverse? Of course there will always be a portion of people who take advantage and exploit, but I think more than anything, in general terms, we try and view these programs and people as taking advantage of the system, when in many respects, it's merely a scapegoat tactic instead of addressing the reality of a broken system failing the citizens. Unemployment is a great example right now, how many people lost jobs or were negatively effected by the economic down turn which was basically caused by lack of government oversight, big business's greed and a portion of society living outside of their means taking advantage of the offers? Now with that stated, how many are merely bystanders or casualties of this occurrence compared to being active participants which led to there own despair? People sooner blame the program because of overstated bias when it generally has good intentions and the table is set in a can't win atmosphere by government, business and a sub-par labor market.
the system has been fucked for a while ... the unemployment, condemned buildings and urban wasteland has been happening for a long time now ... the financial meltdown only made it worse ...
Dude - at the risk of briefly hijacking the thread, we need to get this settled once and for all. The term anti-choice is NOT belittling. To the contrary, it is precise.
Pro-life vs. anti-life is a DIFFERENT QUESTION than pro-choice vs. anti-choice. If someone asks the question, "Do you think any woman should ever have an abortion?" and you say no, you are pro-life. If someone asks, "Do you think all women should always have abortions?" and you say yes, you are anti-life (though I have never ever heard of a person who falls into this category). If you are asked, "Do you think women should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE of whether or not to have an abortion?" and you say yes, you are pro-choice. And if you are asked the same question about choice and you say no, you are anti-choice. If you say you don't believe abortion is right but you think women should be able to decide for themselves, then you are pro-life AND pro-choice. If you say women should not be able to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion, but should all be required to have abortions, then you are anti-life and anti-choice.
People use the term anti-choice out of respect of the varying opinions of pro-life people. Don't accuse me of belittling people just because you can't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
Of course not...it's their silly little way to try and belittle those that have a difference of opinion with them.
Dude - at the risk of briefly hijacking the thread, we need to get this settled once and for all. The term anti-choice is NOT belittling. To the contrary, it is precise.
Pro-life vs. anti-life is a DIFFERENT QUESTION than pro-choice vs. anti-choice. If someone asks the question, "Do you think any woman should ever have an abortion?" and you say no, you are pro-life. If someone asks, "Do you think all women should always have abortions?" and you say yes, you are anti-life (though I have never ever heard of a person who falls into this category). If you are asked, "Do you think women should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE of whether or not to have an abortion?" and you say yes, you are pro-choice. And if you are asked the same question about choice and you say no, you are anti-choice. If you say you don't believe abortion is right but you think women should be able to decide for themselves, then you are pro-life AND pro-choice. If you say women should not be able to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion, but should all be required to have abortions, then you are anti-life and anti-choice.
People use the term anti-choice out of respect of the varying opinions of pro-life people. Don't accuse me of belittling people just because you can't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
Your labels amuse me. Thanks.[/quote]
i think scb made her positions quite clear. she was not labeling you or anyone else, rather she explained the the pro life and pro choice positions on the issue are debating different questions. it is abundantly clear to me. am i the only one that understands her point?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i think scb made her positions quite clear. she was not labeling you or anyone else, rather she explained the the pro life and pro choice positions on the issue are debating different questions. it is abundantly clear to me. am i the only one that understands her point?
What I should have said was this....pm me. Since it's off topic and we shouldn't derail any more than we already have.
i think scb made her positions quite clear. she was not labeling you or anyone else, rather she explained the the pro life and pro choice positions on the issue are debating different questions. it is abundantly clear to me. am i the only one that understands her point?
What I should have said was this....pm me. Since it's off topic and we shouldn't derail any more than we already have.
Comments
Don't you mean pro-life? or Instead of Pro-choice we can call you Anti-Baby?
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Understandable, but being pro-life does not make you anti-choice. It means you believe the baby is a life and it should not be "killed".
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No, being pro-life doesn't make you anti-choice. Being anti-choice makes you anti-choice.
Of course not...it's their silly little way to try and belittle those that have a difference of opinion with them.
Dude - at the risk of briefly hijacking the thread, we need to get this settled once and for all. The term anti-choice is NOT belittling. To the contrary, it is precise.
Pro-life vs. anti-life is a DIFFERENT QUESTION than pro-choice vs. anti-choice. If someone asks the question, "Do you think any woman should ever have an abortion?" and you say no, you are pro-life. If someone asks, "Do you think all women should always have abortions?" and you say yes, you are anti-life (though I have never ever heard of a person who falls into this category). If you are asked, "Do you think women should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE of whether or not to have an abortion?" and you say yes, you are pro-choice. And if you are asked the same question about choice and you say no, you are anti-choice. If you say you don't believe abortion is right but you think women should be able to decide for themselves, then you are pro-life AND pro-choice. If you say women should not be able to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion, but should all be required to have abortions, then you are anti-life and anti-choice.
People use the term anti-choice out of respect of the varying opinions of pro-life people. Don't accuse me of belittling people just because you can't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.
I'm quite sure those Founding Fathers of ours were considered radicals by many many.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I do understand. The system is what needs to be fixed and you supported that idea. Those abusing the system need to be punished, and those not doing their job need to be fired. The system needs to be fixed.
These people who are off needs jobs. I wonder if they ever thought of buying things made in this country, because there would be some nice jobs for them building things. Of course the only things we make anymore are Big Macs and Whoppers.
We are fucked.
And we have no idea how much!
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
when i was on unemployment i was on it in a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. sooooo many people going in for your eligibility review was pretty much a rubber stamp process. you had a sheet you had to give the name of 1 place you contacted for work for each week you draw and a form attached to the notice of the review mailed to you with basic things like what hours/shifts are you willing to work, how far will you travel (this you had to say that county), how would you get there, are you going to school or in a training program....? it progressed as i was on it. at first you waited for your turn and they would glance it over, staple it and tell you the job seeking form is on the table by the door and to continue to call in or submit the claim online as i have been.
then more and more people were losing jobs and you had to sit and make small talk as they looked over your papers then directed you to the job seeking forms.
then even more people were laid off and the line was out the door and around the corner of the building with the same review process as above, thankfully if you were there just for a review you didn't have to wait in these lines, they had a room with set times and you just went there.
the last time i was there they had a male employee of the employment securities commission and a security guard inside the atrium asking you why you were there, if you were there for a review you go to the room and wait for the small talk and computer typing, if you were there for something else you took a number. i looked at the ticket thing and it was in the mid 700's, when i went in it was kind of like the dmv where a bunch of people were waiting for their number to be called, which was currently in the low 500's) with a led sign in the back displaying the numbers.
it seemed like they had the reviews pretty often but unless you were going to school or some sort of training or had questions there was nothing to it other than having to drive down there.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
First time you come in the door, you are basically handed a form to fill out and are asked to provide documentation of work and the wage you had for the last year for collecting unemployment benefits. Then you'll be shown the hiring ads and that's it.
If after 3 months, you're still there, they will try to put you in a group session of some sort. Like training in writing job applications, gatherings with potential employers and the like.
If after 6 months you are still there, then you get to sit down and talk with a person who will try to find something individually suited for you, like a training program or something if you need it or it is deemed useful.
This is rational and effective since we know that many that come in the door, aren't there in 3 months, not to mention 6, as they find jobs themselves. That reduces the amount of people that needs close monitoring to a managable level for the employees, without doubling or tripling the manpower of the office to service people that is going to find jobs themselves regardless. It sounds like they have something like this in the US too according to your experiences Pepe.
Now what I imagine is happening in the US is that the number of unemployed has soared and is now at 10% or something up from the stable level of 3-5% that the institution was built to handle. When suddenly at least twice as many people are flooding in the doors, you can bet that they haven't doubled their staff. It's a public agency and that money must come from congress as an extra spending bill. Now this wasn't just a flood wave either, they stay out of the labour market for long periods of time, which further adds to the load. It is enormously time and staff-consuming with face to face meetings which will be needed when people have been out of it for a long time.
So the same number of people (maybe they get some funds to hire 1 or 2 extra) are doing a lot more work, so give them a break. Also realize that closer monitoring has a high price-tag on it as you need to hire a lot more people to do the job.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
the system has been fucked for a while ... the unemployment, condemned buildings and urban wasteland has been happening for a long time now ... the financial meltdown only made it worse ...
Your labels amuse me. Thanks.
Your labels amuse me. Thanks.[/quote]
i think scb made her positions quite clear. she was not labeling you or anyone else, rather she explained the the pro life and pro choice positions on the issue are debating different questions. it is abundantly clear to me. am i the only one that understands her point?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What I should have said was this....pm me. Since it's off topic and we shouldn't derail any more than we already have.
PM sent.