Fascists - Page 7

Cyber Wolf · 07-22-2004, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

if there are low end jobs that sit empty, rather than importing labor from another country - wouldn't it make more sense to take the folks that have been on long-term unemployment and say "see here is a job" now they are earning their money.

This is a good idea. Right around where I am, I see plenty of Help Wanted signs in businesses that offer $6-8/hr jobs. There are 'support' jobs out there. However, there is an American mentality that those kinds of jobs are there for certain kinds of people, primarily non-white and/or poor and/or unskilled people. Around here, there's the "They'll do it and be thrilled about it because it's a job!" attitude. And there are plenty of migrants, legal or not, plenty of inner city/poor folk who're glad to get at least a little income and all this regardless of race. I know a couple of long-term unemployment folks from the temp agency and that's the attitude they have. To quote one of them: "Why should I stoop to fast food or janitorial when I don't have to? There are plenty of mexicans who need that job more than I do. And they'll be glad for it."

Cyber Wolf · 07-22-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

Australia has work for the doll schemes that keep most people doing something, you also have to apply for a certain amount of jobs and the employer reports to the unemployment guys if you're not really trying.

It's kind of like that in Virginia. If you go on unemployment, you can collect as long as you prove to the agency you're actively looking for a job. You have to show proof of three job inquiries/applications/contacts weekly...just something that shows you tried. Also, the amount of unemployment you get is determined by how much you made before becoming unemployed, how long you were employed there and by the circumstances of your unemployment. Example, if you were making $50,000/yr at a job you had for 4 years and you were laid off due to downsizing, you'll receive more than if you made $50,000/yr at a job you held for 6 months and laid off due to kicking your boss in the yarbles. And I think how long you were employed and your circumstances also determine how long you can collect for..like 6 months, a year, 2 years..., but I'm not as sure about that.

I couldn't tell you about the other states, though.

edit: spelling

lookout123 · 07-22-2004, 01:21 PM

unemployment is different state to state. i know that it is possible to stay on unemployment for at least a year if you work the system. all you have to do is get people to sign the paper saying you are interviewing for work. i used to get at least one person a week that would walk in all scruffy for an interview, go out of their way to point out their flaws and then ask me to sign the form - i always refused. anyone who came in and made an attempt to get the job i would bend over backwards to help though.

i seriously had a guy that was losing his home and one of his three cars but turned down a $12/hour office job because it was beneath him. he only made a little of $40k/year in his old position before he was fired. screw him, he shouldn't be getting tax money to support his arrogance or his laziness, whichever it is. i support sending him to pick oranges.

Clodfobble · 07-22-2004, 02:48 PM

In Texas, I'm pretty sure if you're fired then they consider it your own fault and you get zero unemployment. And laws are also such that they can pretty much fire you for no reason at all, unless it's obviously race, gender, or sexuality-based. So you can only hope the company that's laying you off actually designates it as a downsizing and not just a plain ol' firing.

DanaC · 07-22-2004, 03:15 PM

Mmm....I just reread this thread *chuckles* I see I was in sabre rattling mood yesterday. I do apologise for any offence to various people.

Today however I am in a blindin' mood. Several really positive things have happened this week which have all lifted my humour somewhat :P The first was Imran being released from custody on Monday. We were all very pleased to see him back amongst his friends and family. He's lost shedloads of weight his hands shake continuously and he has trouble sleeping but that's to be expected and I am sure his confidence will return soon. ....The other positive thing to happen this week is that Saaid (sp?) a colleague and friend of my mum has been granted permanent residency in the UK and can now begin the process which will lead eventually to his earning Citizenship. I am so pleased about this. I have heard of his troubles and how much he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, this gentle old professor whose crime was to be an intellectual in Afghanistan.

On a slightly darker note, the Refugee Council has begun to learn about the existence of several ( possibly many) detention facilities which are not publicised or listed or made available to them for contact and which have been purposebuilt underground for the detention of "illegal" asylum seekers ...Underground detention centres.....Underground underneath ordinary civic buildings, the city's population in total ignorance of it's presence ....I find that deeply worrying. I wonder why it is that the Home Office and NASS will work with the Refugee Council in many centres...yet not the purposebuilt subterranean detention centres.....No information has beenpassed to the Council regarding these facilities they have learned of their existence first via rumour then from people who have spent time incarcerated underground.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-22-2004, 06:36 PM

Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear.

DanaC · 07-22-2004, 06:50 PM

"Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear."

Not hundred percent sure yet but hoping to find out more ....from what the fella at the Council was saying it sounded awfully like they were purpose built

I have considered that maybe they are placed underground for "their own protection" so to speak, that is keeping then out of sight so as not to spark an anti asylum backlash at the people inside.....That explains wh they would keep it out of the press certainly but that doesnt explain why they would keep this away from the council. The Refugee Council has worked with the Home Office and NASS in the past to smooth over potentially incendiary situations. A recent example was when a group of refugees were due to come over from Sierra Leone and somewhere else ( escapes now where it was) on a special fast track system. In order to ensure the information could be out out in a positive way and in order to prevent any far right groups or the media jumping all over it and causing a lot of ill feeling the impending arrival of said refugees was kept a strict secret until they were in the country and then when the story was broken it was broken with a "feelgood" factor, pictures of smiling children with clean clothes telling the camera how thankful they are to the people of Britain for welcoming them contrasted with pitcures of the refugee camp they'd come from and in which many of the adults had spent a decade and children been born and raised....But it wasnt kept from the refugee council, instead the council and the home office worked together but maintained a silence on the issue outside of that.

It's generally the nature of the Home Office and NASS that they are obstructionist in most cases, helpful in some and incompetant in others.....This particular brand of secrecy seems a new thing. I dont believe they are being set apart to prevent upsetting the populace at large I thin they are being set aside so that they do not exist in people's minds and if they dont exist in people's minds then nobody will feel a need to protect them from the state

Catwoman · 07-26-2004, 08:11 AM

An unmitigated influx of unskilled, criminal and fundamentally 'un-useful' refugees who - regardless of their political or humanitarian plight at home - are resolutely barging through our borders - without asking?

It's downright rude. It's not because their skin colour doesn't fit, or even because they're not directly contributing. It's because their very presence means WE get less. Less money, less healthcare, more tax. We are working in our piss boring 9 to 5 head fucking jobs so that THEY can enjoy a stable reintroduction to society with a press pack and meal ticket to boot. I want MY tax to pay for MY benefits.

And before you liberals jump in with the predictable 'self-serving tax is an oxymoron'... oh. Actually, this is where my argument comes unstuck.

You see, that is the purpose of tax. The proportion of one's income is irrelevant. Tax was introduced because a society (esp. meritocratic) is inherently unequal. Tax exists to moderate that inequality and ensure people don't die because they can't eat.

High earners (and that includes anyone earning over £12,000/$19,000 - congratulations you are in the top 2% of the world's population) detest the fact that their hard-earned money should go some way to helping those who do not work for themselves.

But that underpins the very foundations of our Western, capitalist, apparently civilised society. So don't go complaining about symptoms of a society you outwardly condone. Find the root premise of your argument first and contest that.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-26-2004, 08:20 AM

$19,000 is poverty level in the US. :p

Undertoad · 07-26-2004, 08:36 AM

1) That's not really why tax was introduced, nor does it really do that much to change the situations of either the rich or the poor.

2) In the US, there are sectors of the country who desperately want as much immigration as possible so they can afford to run their farms and businesses. We have always more than absorbed our immigrant population - they have in fact built the country and often have become quite rich in the process, and at the very least they have pursued the life they choose.

If they are richer than me, that's not my money they have earned - that's their money, and it improves me as the work and energy and ideas they have brought has improved the entire country.

Catwoman · 07-26-2004, 08:38 AM

Actually, it's $9,310.

Lucky you. Zambia's is $322.89.

:p

xoxoxoBruce · 07-26-2004, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Actually, it's $9,310.

Lucky you. Zambia's is $322.89.

:p

Ok, I was using a family, which is what the media usually uses here.
So Zambia's income per cap(not poverty level) is $323, and Monaco's is $27,000. What does that have to do with me or you? Your comparing apples and oranges or kumquats.

Quote:

If they are richer than me, that's not my money they have earned - that's their money, and it improves me as the work and energy and ideas they have brought has improved the entire country.

It does affect you, however, if they increase your taxes by increased pressure on social services and law enforcement.

Catwoman · 07-26-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ok, I was using a family, which is what the media usually uses here.
So Zambia's income per cap(not poverty level) is $323, and Monaco's is $27,000. What does that have to do with me or you? Your comparing apples and oranges or kumquats.

You brought the poverty line issue up, which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument (see above). I was just correcting you, and putting it in perspective. :p

xoxoxoBruce · 07-26-2004, 09:33 AM

You called $19,000 high earners. It is not in the US, it is poverty level for a family. :p

Catwoman · 07-26-2004, 09:54 AM

*Sigh*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catwoman

High earners (and that includes anyone earning over £12,000/$19,000 - congratulations you are in the top 2% of the world's population)

High earners in comparison to the rest of the world. What do I mean the rest of the world? Oh sorry, that was like telling a child about Santa Claus. :p

sorry left off tongue

07-22-2004, 01:21 PM	#93
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	unemployment is different state to state. i know that it is possible to stay on unemployment for at least a year if you work the system. all you have to do is get people to sign the paper saying you are interviewing for work. i used to get at least one person a week that would walk in all scruffy for an interview, go out of their way to point out their flaws and then ask me to sign the form - i always refused. anyone who came in and made an attempt to get the job i would bend over backwards to help though. i seriously had a guy that was losing his home and one of his three cars but turned down a $12/hour office job because it was beneath him. he only made a little of $40k/year in his old position before he was fired. screw him, he shouldn't be getting tax money to support his arrogance or his laziness, whichever it is. i support sending him to pick oranges. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

07-22-2004, 06:36 PM	#96
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-22-2004, 06:50 PM	#97
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	"Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear." Not hundred percent sure yet but hoping to find out more ....from what the fella at the Council was saying it sounded awfully like they were purpose built I have considered that maybe they are placed underground for "their own protection" so to speak, that is keeping then out of sight so as not to spark an anti asylum backlash at the people inside.....That explains wh they would keep it out of the press certainly but that doesnt explain why they would keep this away from the council. The Refugee Council has worked with the Home Office and NASS in the past to smooth over potentially incendiary situations. A recent example was when a group of refugees were due to come over from Sierra Leone and somewhere else ( escapes now where it was) on a special fast track system. In order to ensure the information could be out out in a positive way and in order to prevent any far right groups or the media jumping all over it and causing a lot of ill feeling the impending arrival of said refugees was kept a strict secret until they were in the country and then when the story was broken it was broken with a "feelgood" factor, pictures of smiling children with clean clothes telling the camera how thankful they are to the people of Britain for welcoming them contrasted with pitcures of the refugee camp they'd come from and in which many of the adults had spent a decade and children been born and raised....But it wasnt kept from the refugee council, instead the council and the home office worked together but maintained a silence on the issue outside of that. It's generally the nature of the Home Office and NASS that they are obstructionist in most cases, helpful in some and incompetant in others.....This particular brand of secrecy seems a new thing. I dont believe they are being set apart to prevent upsetting the populace at large I thin they are being set aside so that they do not exist in people's minds and if they dont exist in people's minds then nobody will feel a need to protect them from the state Last edited by DanaC; 07-22-2004 at 06:54 PM.

07-26-2004, 08:11 AM	#98
Catwoman stalking a Tom Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: on the edge of the english channel Posts: 1,000	An unmitigated influx of unskilled, criminal and fundamentally 'un-useful' refugees who - regardless of their political or humanitarian plight at home - are resolutely barging through our borders - without asking? It's downright rude. It's not because their skin colour doesn't fit, or even because they're not directly contributing. It's because their very presence means WE get less. Less money, less healthcare, more tax. We are working in our piss boring 9 to 5 head fucking jobs so that THEY can enjoy a stable reintroduction to society with a press pack and meal ticket to boot. I want MY tax to pay for MY benefits. And before you liberals jump in with the predictable 'self-serving tax is an oxymoron'... oh. Actually, this is where my argument comes unstuck. You see, that is the purpose of tax. The proportion of one's income is irrelevant. Tax was introduced because a society (esp. meritocratic) is inherently unequal. Tax exists to moderate that inequality and ensure people don't die because they can't eat. High earners (and that includes anyone earning over £12,000/$19,000 - congratulations you are in the top 2% of the world's population) detest the fact that their hard-earned money should go some way to helping those who do not work for themselves. But that underpins the very foundations of our Western, capitalist, apparently civilised society. So don't go complaining about symptoms of a society you outwardly condone. Find the root premise of your argument first and contest that. __________________ I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.

07-26-2004, 08:20 AM	#99
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	$19,000 is poverty level in the US. :p __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-22-2004, 02:48 PM	#94
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	In Texas, I'm pretty sure if you're fired then they consider it your own fault and you get zero unemployment. And laws are also such that they can pretty much fire you for no reason at all, unless it's obviously race, gender, or sexuality-based. So you can only hope the company that's laying you off actually designates it as a downsizing and not just a plain ol' firing.

07-22-2004, 03:15 PM	#95
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Mmm....I just reread this thread chuckles I see I was in sabre rattling mood yesterday. I do apologise for any offence to various people. Today however I am in a blindin' mood. Several really positive things have happened this week which have all lifted my humour somewhat :P The first was Imran being released from custody on Monday. We were all very pleased to see him back amongst his friends and family. He's lost shedloads of weight his hands shake continuously and he has trouble sleeping but that's to be expected and I am sure his confidence will return soon. ....The other positive thing to happen this week is that Saaid (sp?) a colleague and friend of my mum has been granted permanent residency in the UK and can now begin the process which will lead eventually to his earning Citizenship. I am so pleased about this. I have heard of his troubles and how much he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, this gentle old professor whose crime was to be an intellectual in Afghanistan. On a slightly darker note, the Refugee Council has begun to learn about the existence of several ( possibly many) detention facilities which are not publicised or listed or made available to them for contact and which have been purposebuilt underground for the detention of "illegal" asylum seekers ...Underground detention centres.....Underground underneath ordinary civic buildings, the city's population in total ignorance of it's presence ....I find that deeply worrying. I wonder why it is that the Home Office and NASS will work with the Refugee Council in many centres...yet not the purposebuilt subterranean detention centres.....No information has beenpassed to the Council regarding these facilities they have learned of their existence first via rumour then from people who have spent time incarcerated underground.

07-26-2004, 08:36 AM	#100
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	1) That's not really why tax was introduced, nor does it really do that much to change the situations of either the rich or the poor. 2) In the US, there are sectors of the country who desperately want as much immigration as possible so they can afford to run their farms and businesses. We have always more than absorbed our immigrant population - they have in fact built the country and often have become quite rich in the process, and at the very least they have pursued the life they choose. If they are richer than me, that's not my money they have earned - that's their money, and it improves me as the work and energy and ideas they have brought has improved the entire country.

07-26-2004, 08:38 AM	#101
Catwoman stalking a Tom Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: on the edge of the english channel Posts: 1,000	Actually, it's $9,310. Lucky you. Zambia's is $322.89. :p __________________ I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.

07-26-2004, 09:33 AM	#104
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	You called $19,000 high earners. It is not in the US, it is poverty level for a family. :p __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)