User Controls
Poll: Should we open the country now?
-
Yes
- Cathay Coof ,
- Zanick ,
- A College Professor ,
- Archer513 ,
- -SpectraL ,
- Nil ,
- trippymindfuk ,
- AngryOnion ,
- Misguided Russian ,
- tr1pl3_thr3@t ,
- Splam ,
- Dfg ,
- Netflxchillr
-
No
- Technologist ,
- itybit ,
- mmQ ,
- Sudo ,
- STER0S ,
- risk ,
- MexicanMasterRace ,
- šæ ,
- BeeReBuddy ,
- Sophie
Should we open the country now?
-
2020-04-25 at 1:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist Considering that these bills are only temporary measures, itās highly unlikely that it would ākeep Americans unemployedā. Thatās taking it a bit far.
Was it a dumb? Donāt fully know their motives, so I canāt say. From the surface it seems dumb.
But it takes a two party system to balance things out, which is exactly what we have, (barring the few independents).
I guess you totally "skipped" over what Senate DemoCRAP Ron Widen said. Nor, does it anywhere in the provision/AMENDMENT did/does it say/s it's "TEMPORARY." If it does? find it for me. {I'm, certainly, interested in "seeing" it.}
Quote:
Senate Democrat Ron Widen: āSupercharging unemployment has long been a priority for Senate Democrats. It was not a drafting error.ā -
2020-04-25 at 1:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Netflxchillr I guess you totally "skipped" over what Senate DemoCRAP Ron Widen said. Nor, does it anywhere in the provision/AMENDMENT did/does it say/s it's "TEMPORARY." If it does? find it for me. {I'm, certainly, interested in "seeing" it.}
Quote:
Senate Democrat Ron Widen: āSupercharging unemployment has long been a priority for Senate Democrats. It was not a drafting error.āThose eligible to collect unemployment in their state would get an extra $600 a week in benefits for up to four months.
So donāt go gettin your panties in a wad. š
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get-more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.htmlWhereas unemployment isn't typically so generous in normal times, the current public health emergency necessitated richer benefits, the document said. Inadequate wage replacement may have forced workers, especially those who earn low benefits, to continue searching for jobs or working in violation of public health orders.
-
2020-04-25 at 1:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Netflxchillr If you are single & w/o dependants- you are probably going to "wait" until Families or Head of Households with Dependant Children get paid.
*just how the ball rolls… You're gonna wait in line.
Not true ... what really pissed me off was a news article I read last week - people who make minimum wage as servers, single living with several roommates (cause thatās what they had been doing before all of this) bitching on the news that they were only receiving their unemployment checks that were not calculating wages that included their tips.
They were bitching because the 600 extra fed money was not being distributed yet. -
2020-04-25 at 1:31 PM UTCGod forbid we help the low wage earners for 4 months. I mean 82% of the elites got the rest, right?
If anyone should be pissed itās someone like me who has to work, and make my regular earnings. But I donāt mind one bit. -
2020-04-25 at 1:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist So donāt go gettin your panties in a wad. š
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/27/how-unemployed-workers-could-get-more-than-100percent-of-their-paycheck.html
Amendments: H.R.748 ā 116th Congress (2019-2020)
2. S.Amdt.1577 to S.Amdt.1578 ā 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Purpose: To ensure that additional unemployment benefits do not result in an individual receiving unemployment compensation that is more than the amount of wages the individual was earning prior to becoming unemployed.
Sponsor: Sen. Sasse, Ben [R-NE] (Submitted 03/25/2020) (Proposed 03/25/2020)
Latest Action: 03/25/20 Amendment SA 1577, under the order of 3/25/20, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 48. Record Vote Number: 79.
oh, yes... take the word of/from FAKE CNBC news... rather, than from the fuq'ing information on the HB itself?????? Erm... Yeah, O-kay!!
-
2020-04-25 at 1:36 PM UTC
-
2020-04-25 at 1:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist God forbid we help the low wage earners for 4 months. I mean 82% of the elites got the rest, right?
If anyone should be pissed itās someone like me who has to work, and make my regular earnings. But I donāt mind one bit.
But as the Amendment stands... because the Senate Democraps quashed the vote...just who will "want" to come off unemployment??? if there is no CAP?? Most Lazy slags- will just keep on collecting "FREE" money instead of wanting/gaining employment.
So, You're saying this isn't likely to happen??? People will most likely-do the right thing... by NOT taking "free" $$$ and go back to work?? -
2020-04-25 at 1:41 PM UTC
-
2020-04-25 at 1:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist God forbid we help the low wage earners for 4 months. I mean 82% of the elites got the rest, right?
If anyone should be pissed itās someone like me who has to work, and make my regular earnings. But I donāt mind one bit.
Nothing wrong with "helping" the poor... however, "helping them" is a far fuq'n cry from "enabling" them to stay unemployed, now isn't there/it??
-
2020-04-25 at 1:45 PM UTCDirectly from the amendment:
āā(iii) the term ācovered periodā means the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on June 30ā,
Gosh donāt make me do your homework for youš
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr748/BILLS-116hr748eas.pdfThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-04-25 at 1:48 PM UTC
-
2020-04-25 at 1:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Netflxchillr Nothing wrong with "helping" the poor… however, "helping them" is a far fuq'n cry from "enabling" them to stay unemployed, now isn't there/it??
Lol enabling them
When they legally cannot go to work
It's not like people are lazy. They're not working because they have no choice. 30% of Americans. -
2020-04-25 at 1:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Stopffs Not true … what really pissed me off was a news article I read last week - people who make minimum wage as servers, single living with several roommates (cause thatās what they had been doing before all of this) bitching on the news that they were only receiving their unemployment checks that were not calculating wages that included their tips.
They were bitching because the 600 extra fed money was not being distributed yet.
If they "claimed" them all (tips) it should show all said income on their income/pay/wage stubs or have kept a personal record of them. If they "didn't" claim all their tips- so, they can't prove they made them(tips)... they're probably going to be screwed for, possibly, cheating to begin with- or piss poor record keeping...is what runs through my mind. don't rightly know.
-
2020-04-25 at 1:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace Lol enabling them
When they legally cannot go to work
It's not like people are lazy. They're not working because they have no choice. 30% of Americans.
is that what we're talking about here? People not being able to go to work during the shutdown... and rightfully, getting unemployment to help through hard times???
or
about being able to collect Unemployment $$$ above and beyond a person's earnings that enables them to stay on benefits, possibly, long after they've reached what they earned and would have to go back to work??
which?? because last I checked, I was talking of the latter. Stay on track, hobo.
-
2020-04-25 at 2 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist Directly from the amendment:
āā(iii) the term ācovered periodā means the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on June 30ā,
Gosh donāt make me do your homework for youš
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr748/BILLS-116hr748eas.pdf -
2020-04-25 at 2:16 PM UTC
-
2020-04-25 at 2:21 PM UTChere are my thoughts:
If you know, based on the statistics, you can work and do not live in fear
By golly let's get you back to work
If you know, based on the statistics, that you are more susceptible to the illness or actively care for someone who is
Stay the fuck home
If you can't be a damned grown up and make an informed decision for you and yours, you deserve to consequencesThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-04-25 at 2:26 PM UTCOh, hey.. Pzzl
-
2020-04-25 at 2:27 PM UTCPzzl šš„°
-
2020-04-25 at 2:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by tr1pl3_thr3@t here are my thoughts:
If you know, based on the statistics, you can work and do not live in fear
By golly let's back to work
If you know, based on the statistics, that you are more susceptible to the illness or actively care for someone who is
Stay the fuck home
If you can't be a damned grown up and make an informed decision for you and yours, you deserve to consequences
This is dumb as fuck. Virus doesn't care if only healthy 20 year olds go outside. They may get it and be asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms, but it's not just the elderly at risk. Healthy adults with no preexisting conditions are dying. And even if they aren't dying, a lot of people still need to be hospitalized for it.
This is serious shit and its why the scientists you pretend to listen to say that EVERYONE should stay inside. Not just certain people. We don't have immunity for this. It's not like the flu. You can have a strong immune system and still suddenly fall ill and be dead within the week. Chances are low, sure, but they're a lot higher than anything else going around.
Flu deaths in US are usually 10-30k or so per year. Corona has already hit 50k and it is rising exponentially. We all go out now and we could very well see a time where deaths are going up by thousands or tens of thousands per day. The reason its ONLY at 50k is because people ARE staying in. Things would be a lot fucking worse if we just did nothing.
