It only needed restatement: "A government powerful enough to pay you for being out of work is powerful enough the screw up the process!"
Indiana's Department of Workforce Development website, where the unemployed file to get their cash cards filled back up -- and where they must file for extensions quarterly -- bogged down over the holiday weekend and was still jammed up Monday. Result? No way to tell if that magic card had so much as the price of pack of Twinkies in it without slogging to the 7-11 and finding out. Oh, and no way for extension procrastinators to file by the deadline, either. Oopsie!
Yessirree, made of win all 'round, all right. --And holding up a sign by the freeway is starting look like a less-vulnerable alternative.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
7 comments:
Last I heard there was only one unemployed bum there at RC, and her eligibility ran out about half a decade ago, so...why do I think I detect a less generic than usual tone to this particular gov rant?
AT
"There, but for the grace of G-d."
Does "AT" = "anonymous troll"?
(Sorry, particularly grumpy and short on patience this evening.)
TW= "exidian"
Citizen of Exide, big heavy-metals supplier* for the hidden frontier?
*Esp. Cu and Pb
Ah, empathy.
Admirable, but who goes "there" must still be irrelevant to matters of forced redistribution, and in any case gov's administration virtually guarantees inefficiency and fraud, as your example illustrates.
And I'll never understand (guess I'm not supposed to) how, why, or if - God decides whom to grace.
AT
"Does "AT" = "anonymous troll"?"
To the extent that "Old Grouch" = gratuitously-critical self-appointed gatekeeper with personal issues and whiny laments that nobody else cares about, then yes.
And of course not everyone chooses to use their given name as a blog handle there um, Mr. Grouch...but I'm sure the irony escapes you.
Why? There's no inconsistency between:
1. Government shouldn't be doing x.
2. If government says it's going to do x, and then doesn't, having (some) empathy for those who are now screwed because they relied on the government's promises.
IMO, telling those people "Ha Ha, You Are The Stupid!" now is beside the point. While it may give the teller a frission of superiority, it does nothing to solving the immediate problem.
Government should live up to its promises. If you'd prefer that the government didn't make them, fine; but there's no honor in changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Play nice, dammit!
The line I used was intended to point out how vulnerable we all are to the heavy hand of government.
I have never taken unemployment; had to move back home for a few months in my late 20s, though, when the gap between full-time jobs stretched too thin. Would I take it?
It's easy to have high principles with a full belly.
Would "society" be better off if the notion of state funded unemployment compensation had never taken hold? I think so. But there it is.
And there, too, are the late Senator's words: "Government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take it all away."
FWIW: My paycheck (in NJ) is garnished for Unemployment Insurance "premiums", a noticeable amount, and there's an employer contribution as well. No idea if those premiums would have paid enough for private insurance/"annuity" sufficient to pay for the time I collected on it - not knowing what my employer paid on their share. Don't know if IN collects such premiums, either. But it kept a roof over my head, groceries in the fridge, and gas in the car at a period in which moving in with my parents would have been difficult to impossible.
The fact that the premiums are dumped into the general fund and the payout comes from same (and the income and outgo aren't balanced) is neither here nor there for this discussion, just that it's not (exactly) welfare/redistribution. The payout is at least nominally proportional to what I paid in (fractional of my salary up to a fairly low cap), and requires that you have worked and paid into the system.
Post a Comment