cc_rider wrote: 
I'm sure there's a maximum but it's a percentage of what you made in your previous job, the year ending 6 months before you became unemployed.

 cc_rider wrote: 
When I lost my job about 6 years ago my UE benefits lasted a mere 5 months. The money wasn't bad - it was about 30% more than I make now. At least I ate every day...The problem with trying to find a low-wage job is that if you previously worked in a skilled or professional capacity, no one is going to hire you to sweep, dig or fry - because they consider you overqualified - likely to quit at any moment when you get back to doing what you do. They would rather hire someone with no prospects - someone more likely to accept an unfair or abusive or very difficult work environment. 

 Monkeysdad wrote:Doesn't unemployment come out to about $6.50/hour? Better off hanging around a Home Depot with a shovel, looking for a job there.

Forget the stigma of taking a low-paying job: it could really work against you whenever a 'real' job opportunity comes up.

I guess I don't know anyone who can sustain themselves on what UE pays.

 cc_rider wrote: 

I've got to admit though, former colleagues that were laid-off with me last Feb. are still turning down jobs because they make more $ on UE. At some time the cycle has to break. I believe that's what some of the comments refer to. Not an easy topic, but at some juncture one has to take the job, waiting for another $25/hour job like they had could take a while!
Again, not an easy topic......

 black321 wrote: 
I think you're right, it's about extending benefits. I'd rather see a different sort of solution, like you're saying. My beef is with the attitude those people display, as if everyone who's ever gotten laid off is a druggie slacker baby-makin' machine. That mindset shuts off constructive solutions from the start.

 cc_rider wrote: 



stupid comments aside, but isnt the new legislation aimed at extending unemployment benefits, not eliminating the current benefits? Without understanding all the pros and cons, I'm not sure a blind extension of benefits is the best way to go...why not put more money towards more jobs and helping rebuild our infrastructure, particularly our energy needs.

As long as there are politicians, folks like Ms. Maddow will have a job:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/25/4560854-conservatives-hate-the-unemployed

Now, I know there are plenty of folks who dislike Rachel Maddow for her apparently extreme-left-wing views. But this is not her editorializing, these are quotes directly from Republican leaders. I'm pretty sure none of those people have ever been laid off before.

 hippiechick wrote: 
I really dislike the Howdy Doody looking MFer!  And it's not political, purely personal.

                  

Amazing stuff:

This is no fluffy entertainer this one.

 Mugro wrote: 
All of this, of course, stands in stark contrast to the Cons and NeoCons who are nothing more than their appellation denotes.

 Mugro wrote: 
See, that's the answer to your own question about the leftward lean. I think she's not news, but commentary. She's entertainment. But, smart entertainment with the topic being politics.

 Mugro wrote: 

Give up the inside info!

 sirdroseph wrote: 


I plead the Fifth.

 Mugro wrote: 

I know right? He is a bit of a weirdo too, donthca think?

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Brown is so vain he could not resist.

 hippiechick wrote: 

That's pretty humorous. Snuffalopagus was Bill Clinton's Press Secretary for chrissakes! He is about as "objective" as Tip O'Neil's former staffer (Chris Matthews).

David Gregory is what we call a Smug Liberal*. He's liberal and looks down his nose at anyone who isn't as enlightened as he is. He is far from objective and his bias shows every time he "interviews" a guest on his show.

(Smug Liberals are Generation X's answer to Armchair Liberals who were of the generation that preceeded them. Armchair Liberals sat in their highbacked chairs, snifted their brandy and pontificated on what other people should do with their lives. Fun huh?  Of course, these should not be confused with the folks Howie Carr likes to call Limosine Liberals, who are rich liberals who have fun spending other people's money, like the Kennedy family).

 Mugro wrote: 

Yea, my thing is though that as you have said, both benefitted from all the brouhaha. The difference is Maddow is an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less and Brown is an elected representative to Congress, just seems kinda trifling for him to be so involved in this and nothing but good business policy to promote her show on Maddows part.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Sure it is, my motto is if it is funny, it is funny. I don't mind, I don't sweat the small stuff like this especially when it is funny.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Television ratings and political elections depend on the same thing: popularity. That was the comparison. If Rachel Maddow is watched by less people across the country than Scott Brown got to vote for him in a special election in January in MASSACHUSETTS, then that means that she isn't very popular and probably would not get elected in a race against Brown. I think that was the point of the article. Make sense now?

No one is sure how this strange media dustup got started, but most media and politics watchers say that the feud was good for both Brown and Maddow. Brown was able to use the threat of a lefty MSNDC from western Mass. running against him to raise millions of dollars, and presumably Maddow used Brown's rising star popularity to bring some much needed attention to her ratings-starved show.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Tell that to Gretchen Carlson.