It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
pavmas
reply to post by uncommitted
no it says 1 million i think i corrected that.
Listen its a lot more than people think, they are not paid poor, they are on boards where and comittees that earn them fortunes for a few days work a year, its a gravy train
Not this president, you can thank nafa and bush for this mess.
uncommitted
Bilk22
That's not Mel Gibson. That's William Wallace
uncommitted
Bilk22
He seems to make laws and or break them when it suits his agenda. He pushed the last debt ceiling issue down our throats.
theantediluvian
reply to post by pavmas
White House to allow jobless benefits to expire for 1.3 million
Not to be critical, but it's not the "White House," it's Congress. The President can't extend jobless benefits.
No, you are just making this anti Obama (yet again). Congress is a debate between two parties, would you like to show which is voting on what in this? Or is that too much to ask and you are going to route back to the birth certificate question rather than answer?
Mel Gibson is your avator, another person who likes to misconstrue facts to match their personal belief. Deny ignorance means face facts or find new ones that stand up to scrutiny, harder than it looks, isn't it.
Now do you really think there's two parties in all of this? LOL Maybe you're not old enough
Now that is amazing, who went back with a camera and took the picture of Wallace? I think I could probably beat you on the age thing.
Yes, so? That MP pension would not be payable at 34, it would be payable at retirement age unless you retired through ill health and had an insurance policy in place.
uncommitted
reply to post by pavmas
Yes, so? That MP pension would not be payable at 34, it would be payable at retirement age unless you retired through ill health and had an insurance policy in place.
The whole current IPSA agreement is to reduce an MP's pension payout, with the 11% while they are in seat being a balancer - which do you think makes most sense?
edit on 16-12-2013 by uncommitted because: changed the word salary to pension in first line
uncommitted
pavmas
reply to post by uncommitted
no it says 1 million i think i corrected that.
Listen its a lot more than people think, they are not paid poor, they are on boards where and comittees that earn them fortunes for a few days work a year, its a gravy train
You know what, stand up for what you think, get enough people to believe in you, put yourself forward to work for your council and then as an MP. The final salary for an MP at best would be less than two thirds of the current £66K a year they get now, that is logic, you want to moan, moan about something it's in your control to change or at least understand.
Sorry if that seems hard, it's the festive season and I'd like to wish you and yours all the best, but coming on this board expecting to throw figures around without the facts is like a red rag to some people.
peter_kandra
Aren't people allowed to collect for something like 99 weeks maximum?
Seriously...almost 2 years of collecting unemployment and people still want more? It's a safety net, not a lifetime income stream.
Yes, they did pay into the system. In the states I've lived in, I paid in about $200 a year, plus whatever my employer did. 99 weeks of benefits uses much more than gets put into the system.
So how many times must they keep doing it? Obama was supposed to have all this fixed by now. I mean it's going on 6 years.
pavmas
reply to post by Bilk22
But they passed it last year, this year they have broke up for Christmas and not passed it.
AutumnWitch657
Unemployment is not welfare but thanks for insulting a few hundred thousand who used to have an income they paid taxes on to support the unemployment program and are now unfortunatly are out of a job due to a crappy economy. Way to go on tbat pride building statement.
Truth: Unemployment insurance is paid for primarily through employers' contributions. You, as an employee, do not pay into any unemployment compensation fund directly.
phishfriar47
Real simple solution.
Put tariffs on EVERYTHING imported to make them priced they way they should be and stop taking advantage of cheap labor.
This gives the US companies the incentive to move back and provide jobs for our people. If the companies all complain about the high tariffs, cut them off cold turkey and see how well they survive with no base to sell to. Then if they fail from their own unchanging and stupidity, another company will pop up to provide the service the way we need it handled.
Then once a majority of the companies are manufacturing back in the US, and everyone has decent jobs and a little extra money, just slightly increase the prices so you have a little bit larger profit margin, and everyone wins.
The Government wins because we now have a bigger, better taxation base both from the companies and the working citizens.
The Companies win, because now folks can actually afford their useless products and they have a happier work base
The Citizen wins, because now they have a decent job and money to buy foolish things with.
Do you know how crazy it sounds to hear that our government shipped our jobs out of country. They cut their ownselves by doing so. The tax base reduced from fewer workers and fewer companies here paying any taxes. Make it to where its PROFITABLE to have the company here and alot of this will go away. It may mean higher prices initially to get readjusted, but more people will have jobs and can afford it after a short time. Sheesh, its not rocket science people, and we should be DEMANDING this solution and holding anyone inhibiting said outcome accountable. They are traitors to our country, themselves, and our all of our great citizens. Screw the folks in China or Mexico or Japan if it means taking care of own. we cant help them if we cant help ourselves.
ProfessorChaos
shaneslaughta
Not this president, you can thank nafa and bush for this mess.
NAFTA was Clinton's baby, not Bush's. Just sayin'.edit on 12/16/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: messed up quote
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.