Nas wrote:
The Hawk wrote:
Nas wrote:
It's awful to give people money to help them weather a once in a century storm, but we should definitely give money to irresponsible business owners to bail them out every decade.
No person deserves to make more money to stay at home than they would working at their job. Unemployment compensation was designed to be a HELP measure to get people through downturns to the economy. Some people have thrived on what it became and this addition $600/week is totally asinine. It is going to be a real mess when the laid off folks are going to be told to go back to work again. Many will not be agreeable to that.
Big business doesn't deserve trillion dollar bailouts every decade, but we're here. Here with you bitching about an insignificant amount that only the absolute lowest wage earners who have been laid off will benefit from for 4 months at most. As always, you're focusing on the wrong people.
Like I said. Nobody should make more money while being unemployed than when working. It is a disincentive to wanting to work for a living. I am saying that it is not the person's fault that they were unemployed but the fault of the government to pay them more money than when they are working. Mark my words. This will be a big issue when the back to work order is given particularly in liberal governed states.
Another prediction. In California, this is what will happen. The virus will subside and be virtually eliminated. Most states will go back to work. But there will be an outcry by some workers and unions that the workers should not go back to work because of the "danger" posed by an uncured virus. Liberal mayors and the guv will agree with this and the workers will continue to "make" somewhere around $50K per year by staying at home. Then the REAL SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
