Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (586675)	9/21/2010 11:36:19 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575181

>>> Would you abandon them after 13 or 26 weeks? I would structure the fund to provide 13 weeks, with the possibility of extending it to 26 weeks in periods of abnormal unemployment so long as the UC fund could pay it. There should be no votes to provide additional tiers. At the end of 26 weeks they could go on some other kind of assistance, sell whatever assets they have, get on Medicaid and food stamps, but not unemployment benefits because that is not what it is after 26 weeks. Because unemployment is a way of life. This is of course absurd. Your argument implies that extended benefits preceded 10% unemployment. No, it implies no such thing. What it does do, however, is to take into account 100+ YEARS OF UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACT that if you pay people not to work a greater number of them are going to choose not to work. We know this. Any person who studied Pavlov in 6th grade science knows it. When you pay people not to work you condition them to believe that they can be paid by sitting home watching Oprah.