Those of you that wanted Welfare stopped have been granted their wish

I was having a conversation with a buddy last night regarding the presidential executive orders that have been crammed up our rear ends over the last couple of years. Apparently, he's been studying the economic trends, and he's spotted a pattern remarkably similar to that directly preceding the market crash of...1929? I think that was the year. So he's claiming that 2014 will mark a similar crash in the economy, which is why the NDAA was prepared and put on standby. The government is anticipating a major crash in our markets.

Seems like this is just one of the processes leading to it.

reply to post by irishchic


Hi

I read that 7 million will be affected by this by Feb 2014 there are 3.8 million jobs in total in the whole USA which leaves 3.2 million and I also read that unemployment is expected to rise by 1 million in Jan 2014.

So it does not add up.

The safest thing that will happen is that someone on $9 an hour, someone will offer to do it for $6 then someone will do it for $5 as they will be desperate for food.

Police will move the jobless on and they will be begging for work, would not be surprised if people offer their services for $10 a day, hunger is a terrible thing.

reply to post by Xtrozero


#5 is the only one i need to explain.....the job numbers only count those on UE. Just because benefits for a person runs out dont mean that they have work....just that they are no longer on unemployment.

There are more people than ever without jobs, the UE numbers dont reflect anything accurately other than current recipients.

reply to post by pavmas


Sorry for your circumstances. A society that does not care for its citizens is doomed to failure. Thankfully neither of us lives in a country where they don't care.

Wrabbit2000
Well, last year we had the Cliff, Sequestration and threats of Food Stamp cuts as I recall.

This year, we'll have over a million people off assistance cold turkey, at the height of the Holiday season, and with no real way to obtain more after the shock treatment termination.

It's always a Happy New Year these days eh? ...I'm starting to dread the Holiday Season and that's just wrong in every way.

Remember when leaders actually used to care if we enjoyed things like that as a nation? Now it seems to piss them off if we do.

Mr. Wrabbit,

Don't forget to ADD that ... "$95.00" ... ( "FINE" or "TAX" ) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Under the ACA every individual in the country must have insurance by the end of open enrollment period, on April 1, 2014, or they will face a fine of $95 a year, or 1% of their annual income for failing to comply with the law.

Sentiment: Good? ... Grief !!!

reply to post by FarleyWayne


Thats only applicable if you make enough that you have to file taxes....at least here anyway.

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

#5 is the only one i need to explain.....the job numbers only count those on UE. Just because benefits for a person runs out dont mean that they have work....just that they are no longer on unemployment.

There are more people than ever without jobs, the UE numbers dont reflect anything accurately other than current recipients.

But unemployment benefits were never a long term program and they are not going away as the OP's and others suggest. At some point a person drops off of unemployment and on to welfare. We can debate the number of weeks but in either case there is an end to unemployment benefits.

AfterInfinity
I was having a conversation with a buddy last night regarding the presidential executive orders that have been crammed up our rear ends over the last couple of years. Apparently, he's been studying the economic trends, and he's spotted a pattern remarkably similar to that directly preceding the market crash of...1929? I think that was the year. So he's claiming that 2014 will mark a similar crash in the economy, which is why the NDAA was prepared and put on standby. The government is anticipating a major crash in our markets.

Seems like this is just one of the processes leading to it.

You are spot on with that mate, what they want is a massive workforce who will wait outside factories for the chance of a morning or afternoon shift to feed their familes.

That worked in 1929 it wont work now, and people wont kill themselves either..

You have idiots in power idiots in the police and idiots in the army who would not last an hour going into some neighbourhoods.

We were talking about aliens invading and laughing that if they invaded our area the kids would steal their ufo and fly around to get some street cred.

A well known gangster in London said we used to go round and put the frightners on people to get them to pay up, but not now as there is a different set of people now, some 16 year old kid would blow your head off just to get a name for himself.

Xtrozero

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

#5 is the only one i need to explain.....the job numbers only count those on UE. Just because benefits for a person runs out dont mean that they have work....just that they are no longer on unemployment.

There are more people than ever without jobs, the UE numbers dont reflect anything accurately other than current recipients.

But unemployment benefits were never a long term program and they are not going away as the OP's and others suggest. At some point a person drops off of unemployment and on to welfare. We can debate the number of weeks but in either case there is an end to unemployment benefits.

Your correct, they were never intended to be long term. The UE system was put in place years before NAFTA.

Weather they expected this to happen or not is anyone guess.

NAFTA caused major outsourcing of American jobs and heavy reliance on imports.

The problem is since 2008 nothing has gotten better, they have just canceled benefits steadily onwards.

Thats why OBAMA says we are on the mend.

Truth is FRED only reflects people on unemployment, not people that are off it.

I think its in the grand design.

FRED

Look at the steady drop off of UE claims.

What do you all think?

I was employed at a college for some time, and as an employee who worked at an educational institution, during school related breaks employees were allowed to collect unemployment benefits on the basis of what's called a 'temporary lay-off'.

Now it looks like anybody with a seasonal job might have to find a second job during those break times when their place of work isn't open for business. Eh, what can you do though. Right? - It was a luxury to have some type of 'free' money coming in for nothing, even though it was only half of what you made overall.

But this doesn't even surprise me, (nothing does anymore) Lol.
it's more money in the pot for TPTB to gamble with I guess. Haha.

I wonder if they're betting on when people are going to decide that they've had enough, and decide to revolt. (o_o)

I'm pro-government for the most part, but the way in which decisions are made is pretty flawed. Congress is one of the biggest problems in todays political system, and a source of much of the drama that comes out of Washington.

shaneslaughta
reply to post by FarleyWayne

 

Thats only applicable if you make enough that you have to file taxes....at least here anyway.

As I understand this, that isn't the case any longer. Although, I'll admit this is one of the foggy areas that isn't plain to see.

However, since the IRS is the agency in charge of determining if you've paid your insurance or not, then whether they will levy the legally required fines or not, I believe filing has moved out of the optional category.

If not, then we all have a 100% pass, it would seem... Just don't file with no income, and the requirement by law to have insurance is moot. ....See what I mean? It can't be that easy. Not when the Taxman is also the Medical man.

jjkenobi
As several people mentioned, this isn't cancelling welfare, so based on the subject line this should go to the HOAX bin.

But that aside, exactly how long should the government pay for unemployment? It's not a lifetime benefit. Should it take two years to find a job?

Its not a hoax its fact, during recession where there is little hope of getting work benefit is extended, this has happened all the time since 1929.

As a person cant work if there are no jobs, its a governments job to ensure that their is enough work for their people, if that includes banning all imports then so be it.

You cannot tax and tax and tax people and say we have nothing for you,

Lets say they stop all benefit, and a person gets a loan from family, why should he pay tax on petrol, purchase tax etc, the government give him nothing and did nothing for him so why would you pay them, you would not put up with this crap service from a cable supplier.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I dont think its that simple. Think about it ilke this. How many are on Social Security or similar?
Who pays that? The US govt.

Turn around and claim that you dont make X and you may wind up making 0

EDIT: NY State Of Health Market Place gave me that bit of info about not having to worry if you dont make X to file taxes.

Unemployment payments is not welfare. And while I'm not exactly sure how it works I do know you have to work to earn it.

I am a union sheet metal worker and make over 1000 dollars a week. I would much rather work than get the 362 max unemployment.

tinner07
Unemployment payments is not welfare.

We already got passed that aspect.

reply to post by peter_kandra


We've been collecting unemployment since only this past summer. 1st, my husband had pneumonia, which put him in intensive care for a week, then, at the age of 38, a STROKE. we still have small children, so times are super tight, the unexpected happened & we are basically still in shock over this past awful year from hell.....unemployment, isn't enough to cover anything.....very minimal. Made harder by the cardiologist telling him he doesn't recommend him ever doing physical labor anytime in the near future...geez.....

shaneslaughta
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I dont think its that simple. Think about it ilke this. How many are on Social Security or similar?
Who pays that? The US govt.

Turn around and claim that you dont make X and you may wind up making 0

EDIT: NY State Of Health Market Place gave me that bit of info about not having to worry if you dont make X to file taxes.

edit on 12/16/2013 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)

Social Security enforcement and regulation hasn't been given to the Internal Revenue Service as their exclusive area to handle that end of. The Affordable Care act DOES make the IRS not just lead, but as I read it, ONLY agency tasked with both determining compliance AND assessing penalty for failure to comply.

They chose well, too. They didn't make a new agency that could be leashed or brought into some oversight and control. They chose the one and only agency in the US Government which already operates outside traditional Due Process protections as a regular course of business. Legally, it's also the only Federal agency I know of which can take every last piece of property you own...including the shirt off your back...for failure to meet financial obligations they demand.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


You pay yourself social security. They put a little away for you every paycheck. If you never worked or had a spouse or parent that worked you don't get SSI. That's no more a hand out than unemployment is.

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


I'm sorry to hear this. Bad run of luck for a lot lately.
Hope things change for the better. Permanent disability is no way to live.

shaneslaughta

tinner07
Unemployment payments is not welfare.

We already got passed that aspect.

It can't be stated enough for those who think it's welfare or a free ride or a hand out or anything resembling those things. There are still those who look at anyone who collects this as a slacker.