Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Redfish]

already explained it to you. The workers get exactly what they would get from UE. The farmer pays the state that same amount. So its a net zero for the taxpayers.

It is NOT a net zero for the taxpayers. They have to pay for the buses and the bus drivers. They have to pay someone to recruit employers, and they have to pay someone to supervise the workers. They have to have an enforcement procedure for those who don't show up. All of this costs money.

It is also illegal to pay people less than the minimum wage for the job being done. Unless UE pay that minimum wage, employers are getting slave labour, and it may surprise you to learn, that many people with morals and principles will NOT exploit the poor in this way.

try to pay attention, moron. The buses are paid for by the farmers. The state provides them and the farmers reimburse the state. supervision is provided by the farmers, just like with any other employees. If a UE recipient doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid for that week. No extra employees needed to enforce that.

The UE rate is what it is. It is set by the state. Minimum wage laws do not apply to UE payments.,

So the farmers will be paying for buses and supervision, plus often high unemployment benefits while receiving poor quality labor from people who don't want to be there. Sounds like a loser for all. Bye agriculture.

so in your small mind its better for the taxpayers to pay someone to sit on his ass and do nothing? Picking crops is not a high skill job. I bet even you could do it.

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

 

[Brain357]

It is NOT a net zero for the taxpayers. They have to pay for the buses and the bus drivers. They have to pay someone to recruit employers, and they have to pay someone to supervise the workers. They have to have an enforcement procedure for those who don't show up. All of this costs money.

It is also illegal to pay people less than the minimum wage for the job being done. Unless UE pay that minimum wage, employers are getting slave labour, and it may surprise you to learn, that many people with morals and principles will NOT exploit the poor in this way.

try to pay attention, moron. The buses are paid for by the farmers. The state provides them and the farmers reimburse the state. supervision is provided by the farmers, just like with any other employees. If a UE recipient doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid for that week. No extra employees needed to enforce that.

The UE rate is what it is. It is set by the state. Minimum wage laws do not apply to UE payments.,

So the farmers will be paying for buses and supervision, plus often high unemployment benefits while receiving poor quality labor from people who don't want to be there. Sounds like a loser for all. Bye agriculture.

so in your small mind its better for the taxpayers to pay someone to sit on his ass and do nothing? Picking crops is not a high skill job. I bet even you could do it.

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

 

[Dragonlady]

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

already explained it to you. The workers get exactly what they would get from UE. The farmer pays the state that same amount. So its a net zero for the taxpayers.

It is NOT a net zero for the taxpayers. They have to pay for the buses and the bus drivers. They have to pay someone to recruit employers, and they have to pay someone to supervise the workers. They have to have an enforcement procedure for those who don't show up. All of this costs money.

It is also illegal to pay people less than the minimum wage for the job being done. Unless UE pay that minimum wage, employers are getting slave labour, and it may surprise you to learn, that many people with morals and principles will NOT exploit the poor in this way.

try to pay attention, moron. The buses are paid for by the farmers. The state provides them and the farmers reimburse the state. supervision is provided by the farmers, just like with any other employees. If a UE recipient doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid for that week. No extra employees needed to enforce that.

The UE rate is what it is. It is set by the state. Minimum wage laws do not apply to UE payments.,

Minimum wage laws apply to those who are working. Busing UE recipients out to the fields to work, REQUIRES that they be paid minimum wage, under law. You're putting them to work, they are to be paid as workers.

It should be noted that agriculture on a scale requiring field workers doesn't exist near any inner cities. That's why farmers generally have bunk houses and hire crews which move from farm to farm depending on what crops are ready for harvest and when, and why farm labourers are intinerant. These people would be spending hours riding buses back and forth, not to mention that field days begin at dawn, and end at dusk. The hours are essential to the work.

Farmer's don't have the money or resources to do the government's paper work in tracking these people. They're not making big bucks. They don't pay for worker transportation, nor do the provide training. This isn't a game for the farmers.

Farmers in states which have cracked down hard on illegal immigrants are seeing crops rot in the field because the work doesn't pay enough for people to get up in the city and drive out to the fields. Some of the workers said the cost of gas was more than they earned for the day. Farmers reported that the city folk just weren't physically up to the job, and few stayed. Entire crops were lost.

Your so-called "solution" creates more problems than it solves, and it is more expensive than you will admit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes it does obviously. Who is going to tell people to go where and what to do?

It's easy. Next month, a note is added to the envelope your check came in.
It says, "Your June payment will require XX hours of work at the farm at XYZ.
The bus to that farm will be at ABC at precisely 8 AM on June 5th 2017.
Failure to work the required hours will reduce your check proportionately.

And how will people find real jobs

The same places they find real jobs now.
The savings realized by the failure to work the required hours, by payments received by the farms and by former recipients finding other jobs will be more than enough to cover the cost of bus transportation.

if they are working in your slave labor scheme?

These "slaves" are free to quit and forfeit their welfare checks at any time.

This has been an abject failure every time it's been tried. First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages? You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

There has to be an entire infrastructure set up to find the jobs, to match the welfare recipients to the jobs, to arrange placements with the employers, and to arrange the bus transportation. There has to be due consideration as to whether the individuals can physically perform the work required. Not everyone is physically able to do hard manual labour. Welfare recipients could sue for discrimination if they are assigned work they are physically unsuited to perform.

There also has to be someone at the employers' end who tracks which workers show up and what hours they work, and supervise them to ensure they are working. As for the employers, they aren't interesting in being sent a bunch of city people who have no idea of how to pick crops, or who do it too slowly. The profit margins these farmers work under are so small that they can ill afford a bunch of to hire a bunch of lazy, fat city people who have no idea of what they're doing.

The vast majority of people receiving Section 8 housing, food stamps, MedicAid, or other forms of federal assistance, have full time jobs, or more than one part time job, for which they are paid very low wages. These people wouldn't be available for your slave pool.

As someone who worked in the tobacco fields in the summer when I was young, I am well aware that farm labour really isn't suitable for people who aren't young, strong and very healthy.

This whole program was tried where I lived a few years ago - "WorkFare". Everyone said it was high time. Members of our church thought this would be a good way to get some needed work done on our Church building, while teaching welfare bums some needed lessons. What we discovered was that we had to hire someone to supervise the workers. This person had to be on site the whole time. By the time we paid for our "workers" and the supervisor, it would be cheaper for us to hire small local firms to do the work, and we'd get a higher quality of work if we did.

The government announced this program with great fanfare, but then quietly cancelled it a year later. There were few takers for the service. Many organizations considered it "slavery" and refused to use it. Others, like our church, discovered that the required supervision made the program too expensive to use, and that the quality of the work was highly suspect.

Most communities have difficulty coming up with sufficient work for those sentenced to "community service", much less for those receiving welfare.

First off, how do you justify paying lower wages to the welfare recipients than they would earn with minimum wages?

It's easy, you say "If you don't work the required numbers of hours, you get no benefits"

You can't so right away, there is the human rights problem of slave labour.

Only if you feel someone who is free to quit at any time, is a slave.
The rest of us will laugh at your error.

Employment is at-will. EDD should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.

You have failed to respond to who pays the workers. You send them to random businesses, do they pay for the labor? How much?

Correct.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually forcing wages up does not destroy the economy. It causing economic growth.

By doing so, FDR was able to extend the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS. How is that a good thing for America?

FDR understood the depression was not about the banks but about people suffering.

Amazing how the greatest increase in worker's wages occurred between 1950 & 1980 along with the highest taxes on the wealthy, yet those were the years of the best economic growth in American history.

Yet, wingnuts still insist that high taxes on the wealthy combined and/or increased wages cause economic downturns.

Reality never phases them!

Amazing how the greatest increase in worker's wages occurred between 1950 & 1980 along with the highest taxes on the wealthy

Explain why you feel those 2 facts are related.
Did the increase in wages cause the high taxes on the rich?
Did the high taxes cause the increase in wages?

Or did they just happen to occur at the same time?

No and No. High taxes were cause by government tax policies. High wages were caused by minimum wage laws. successful unions and government support of unions. What was common between them was liberal government policies.

The result was the best economic growth ever.

High wages were caused by minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage laws caused high wages? That's funny.

The result was the best economic growth ever

High union wages were possible after WWII eliminated much of the non-US manufacturing.
Nothing to do with liberal government policy.
They continued until foreign competition and union overreach destroyed many union manufacturers.

 

[Dragonlady]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

 

[Dragonlady]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

 

[Redfish]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

when you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you forfeit your right to be paid for your labor. You are a criminal, if your sentence requires some form of work, you do it and don't get paid.

it amazes me how ignorant some of you liberals are.

 

[Redfish]

try to pay attention, moron. The buses are paid for by the farmers. The state provides them and the farmers reimburse the state. supervision is provided by the farmers, just like with any other employees. If a UE recipient doesn't show up, he doesn't get paid for that week. No extra employees needed to enforce that.

The UE rate is what it is. It is set by the state. Minimum wage laws do not apply to UE payments.,

So the farmers will be paying for buses and supervision, plus often high unemployment benefits while receiving poor quality labor from people who don't want to be there. Sounds like a loser for all. Bye agriculture.

so in your small mind its better for the taxpayers to pay someone to sit on his ass and do nothing? Picking crops is not a high skill job. I bet even you could do it.

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

 

[Redfish]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

the unemployed we are talking about are not in prison. Geez, try to keep up.

 

[Brain357]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

when you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you forfeit your right to be paid for your labor. You are a criminal, if your sentence requires some form of work, you do it and don't get paid.

it amazes me how ignorant some of you liberals are.

So you remove hard working immigrants and replace them with criminals. Now criminals are taking all the jobs. Your ignorance is epic.

 

[Redfish]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

when you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you forfeit your right to be paid for your labor. You are a criminal, if your sentence requires some form of work, you do it and don't get paid.

it amazes me how ignorant some of you liberals are.

So you remove hard working immigrants and replace them with criminals. Now criminals are taking all the jobs. Your ignorance is epic.

people on unemployment are not criminals. I did not start the "use criminals to pick fruit" dialog.

I also have no issue with LEGAL immigrants picking our crops. My issue is allowing people in our country ILLEGALLY to stay and do any kind of work.

the issue is enforcing our immigration laws and our borders. You libs can't seem to comprehend that.

 

[Brain357]

So the farmers will be paying for buses and supervision, plus often high unemployment benefits while receiving poor quality labor from people who don't want to be there. Sounds like a loser for all. Bye agriculture.

so in your small mind its better for the taxpayers to pay someone to sit on his ass and do nothing? Picking crops is not a high skill job. I bet even you could do it.

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

Unemployment is based on what you were making while employed. Many people who made good money collect unemployment while seeking employment. So now you are paying them great money to be bad farmers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

No, I'm in favor of booting millions of illegal aliens.
Not only because that will help raise American wages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the biggest criticism of "workfare" or use of prison inmates for forced labor is that these programs take real jobs away from those don't work for less than minimum wage - American workers. If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Americans are always willing to put cheap labor ahead of working people, so they will go for slave labour or illegal immigrants, over willing workers paid fair wages.

If you can hire prison labour for $5 an hour and the prison send guards to oversee the workers, why would you hire low skills locals and train them?

Sounds like an argument to boot 15 million illegals.

So you're in favour of slave labour?

when you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you forfeit your right to be paid for your labor. You are a criminal, if your sentence requires some form of work, you do it and don't get paid.

it amazes me how ignorant some of you liberals are.

So you remove hard working immigrants and replace them with criminals. Now criminals are taking all the jobs. Your ignorance is epic.

So you remove hard working immigrants

Nope. Just the illegal aliens. Legal immigrants can stay.

 

[Redfish]

so in your small mind its better for the taxpayers to pay someone to sit on his ass and do nothing? Picking crops is not a high skill job. I bet even you could do it.

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

Unemployment is based on what you were making while employed. Many people who made good money collect unemployment while seeking employment. So now you are paying them great money to be bad farmers.

unemployment benefits are a fixed amount that has nothing to do with what you made at your last job. In many cases a person can collect, for example, $200/week UE, or work for $250/week. most choose to forgo the extra $50 and stay home. Is that good for our country?

I guess you see your role here as someone who must disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing. I find that very stupid and a waste of time. Are you related to Chucky Schumer? you two are doing the exact same things.

 

[Brain357]

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

Unemployment is based on what you were making while employed. Many people who made good money collect unemployment while seeking employment. So now you are paying them great money to be bad farmers.

unemployment benefits are a fixed amount that has nothing to do with what you made at your last job. In many cases a person can collect, for example, $200/week UE, or work for $250/week. most choose to forgo the extra $50 and stay home. Is that good for our country?

I guess you see your role here as someone who must disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing. I find that very stupid and a waste of time. Are you related to Chucky Schumer? you two are doing the exact same things.

I'm just pointing out how disasterous your crazy idea is.

Your weekly benefit amount is determined by adding together your earnings in the two quarters of the base period when you earned the most, taking 47% of that total, then dividing the result by 26. The current maximum weekly unemployment benefit in Illinois is $418 per week. For example, let's say Todd had a steady job during the entire base period, earning $20,000 per year. In the highest paid two quarters, he earned $10,000 total. The state agency will take 47% of that amount ($4,700) and divide it by 26 to come up with his weekly benefit: $180 and change.

 

[Dragonlady]

You really are not bright. It would kill agriculture. Farmers would be greatly overpaying for bad labor.

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

Unemployment is based on what you were making while employed. Many people who made good money collect unemployment while seeking employment. So now you are paying them great money to be bad farmers.

unemployment benefits are a fixed amount that has nothing to do with what you made at your last job. In many cases a person can collect, for example, $200/week UE, or work for $250/week. most choose to forgo the extra $50 and stay home. Is that good for our country?

I guess you see your role here as someone who must disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing. I find that very stupid and a waste of time. Are you related to Chucky Schumer? you two are doing the exact same things.

If the worker was making $500 a week in his/her previous job, taking a job at $200 would be counterproductive for both the worker and the potential employers.

Since the worker is unlikely to be able to live on $250 a week based on his/her former salary, if this person takes a job for less than they need to live they will either have to find higher paying work, or they will go broke. If they hire on at $250 a week, they'll leave, which isn't good for the employer or the employee.

You continue to blame poor people for being poor, and for not doing enough (in your opinion) to get themselves out of poverty. The routes out of poverty are steadily being closed off by the 1%, who are determined to keep low income workers on public assistance.

Each time the left proposes raising the minimum wage, Republicans propose increasing earned income credits. You keep blaming Democrats for keeping people on public assistance, but it's the Republicans who keep putting the bill for low wages on the back of the middle class.

The middle class needs to swallow slightly higher consumer prices, and stop subsidizing poverty level wages. If corporations can afford to pay 8 figure salaries to their executives, they don't need to be asking the middle class to subsidize wages for their workers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL, coming from one of the dumbest posters on USMB. I am quite sure that my IQ exceeds yours by many points.

you don't even try to understand the concept of having UE recipients work for their money. But you are all for paying them to sit on their ass while people in our country illegally get paid to pick our crops.

the liberal mind is really a strange thing. Must be that defective liberal gene.

Sorry, it is way better to pay them and let them look for a new job.

You want to create a huge new government program which forces farmers to over pay for bad labor. You would kill agriculture just so you can feel like you are punishing the poor. The most punished would be farmers.

And you would not remove anyone from poverty. A complete losing idea. Bravo!

if those collecting UE benefits had to do manual labor in order to collect those benefits, would that create an incentive to "look for a new job"? Of course it would.

Why would the farmers be overpaying? Are you saying the unemployment pays better than what illegal crop pickers are being paid?

Why do you condone the virtual slavery of illegal aliens? You fricken libs are all over the place on this, not a drop of consistency.

Unemployment is based on what you were making while employed. Many people who made good money collect unemployment while seeking employment. So now you are paying them great money to be bad farmers.

unemployment benefits are a fixed amount that has nothing to do with what you made at your last job. In many cases a person can collect, for example, $200/week UE, or work for $250/week. most choose to forgo the extra $50 and stay home. Is that good for our country?

I guess you see your role here as someone who must disagree with everything just for the sake of disagreeing. I find that very stupid and a waste of time. Are you related to Chucky Schumer? you two are doing the exact same things.

If the worker was making $500 a week in his/her previous job, taking a job at $200 would be counterproductive for both the worker and the potential employers.

Since the worker is unlikely to be able to live on $250 a week based on his/her former salary, if this person takes a job for less than they need to live they will either have to find higher paying work, or they will go broke. If they hire on at $250 a week, they'll leave, which isn't good for the employer or the employee.

You continue to blame poor people for being poor, and for not doing enough (in your opinion) to get themselves out of poverty. The routes out of poverty are steadily being closed off by the 1%, who are determined to keep low income workers on public assistance.

Each time the left proposes raising the minimum wage, Republicans propose increasing earned income credits. You keep blaming Democrats for keeping people on public assistance, but it's the Republicans who keep putting the bill for low wages on the back of the middle class.

The middle class needs to swallow slightly higher consumer prices, and stop subsidizing poverty level wages. If corporations can afford to pay 8 figure salaries to their executives, they don't need to be asking the middle class to subsidize wages for their workers.

Do you really want to stop all that? Then two words for you: Vote conservative.