English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

Republicans send them to China?????? o.k.........

Why do libs not know that Clinton granted China Permanent Most Favored Nation Status right before leaving office? Why do they not know that the Clinton used Wal-Marts corporate jets to circle the nation during his first presidential campaign and Bill renewed and expanded China's temporary trade status immediately after 1st taking office?

Lack of education, I guess....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_2000_Sept_18/ai_65346076

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html

Yes, it should be mandatory in all states. One never knows what life is going to throw at them and UI isn't enough to sustain a normal household, but will allow one to make the mortgage before settling into a new position.

Being single and traditionally having worked in an offshoot of the real estate industry in California, it has proven invaluable to me in recent years, what with lay-offs, closures and dwindling profits.

2007-10-28 16:11:40 · answer #1 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0 1

I remeber when I got crushed on the job I was paying for long and short term disability and it was not that much, but got fired when they knew I was hurt and went on Workers comp ride. Unemployement insurance here is 90 a week, but friend in Cal got 330 aweek, ex-actor.

Sure if it's not out of the question we need it. I used to have my company, if I had to lay someone off or even fired them (rare) want me to fight it, but would always tell owner or vp that I had made a mistake. Any amount coming in is better than being left in the cold, I have been there and it is not a good feeling.

Some people take up new job immediately and go in and say "Fill the bag".

2007-10-28 08:41:04 · answer #2 · answered by R J 7 · 0 0

To the guy Dem2008.. it could not be a waste. I've been deducted a certain amount from my paycheck. I think it's a good idea to have a "safety net" like that to help in the transition period of an unemployed.

2007-10-28 08:31:20 · answer #3 · answered by foxy123magenta 3 · 0 0

Funny how they complain about these safety nets but line up in droves to use them. Red states consume twice as much tax money as blue states.

2007-10-28 08:42:16 · answer #4 · answered by God 6 · 1 0

Yes, since the tax is paid by employers, and the rate to each employer is mainly based on employee turnover, it acts as an incentive to employers to retain their workers.

Also, unemployment benefits are limited and help workers who are transitioning to new jobs.

.

2007-10-28 08:51:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am for safety nets, bad luck can happen to anyone.

2007-10-28 08:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 1 0

Unemployment is vital in today's employment crisis.

2007-10-28 08:36:08 · answer #7 · answered by MY NAME MICHELLE I HATE AMERICA 5 · 0 0

I support limited safety nets.

I don't support cradle to grave entitlements. Therefore I don't support the Democrat Party.

2007-10-28 08:34:04 · answer #8 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 0 2

Of course it should

2007-10-28 08:48:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers