Subject: Re: Kerry AWOL again, dooms jobless from getting more bennies
From: "Bob" no@email.address
Date: 5/13/2004 10:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <JNLoc.6808$z41.2697@bignews1.bellsouth.net>

"InsuranceBroker" <insurancenj@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040513102920.08632.00001204@mb-m11.aol.com...

WASHINGTON - A push by Senate Democrats to extend jobless benefits lost
by a single vote yesterday - as their nominee-to-be, John Kerry, missed
the vote while campaigning in Kentucky.

So what? The bill would never become law because of opposition in the
House and by the President.

I guess you're right. Kerry has so little influence
on his fellow lawmakers it probably would have
made no difference.

Bob:
Is this was the overtime law that the president tried to sneak past

congress

until somone blocked it?

No.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:32:22 +1000,
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Dionisio wrote:

[ ... ]

WASHINGTON -- A push by Senate Democrats to extend
jobless benefits lost...

Wow. Like we should support those who can't get, or make their own
job in six month's time. Puh-lease. This is America, homeland of Capitalism
and Entrepreneurship. Either participate in the economy, or bury
yourself. I mean, even Steven Hawking, confined to a wheelchair,
suffering from a devastating and debilitating disease, unable to even
dress himself, communicating with only his eyes, managed to make a
living, write a few books, and be financially self-supporting.

Are the current crop of jobless individuals *really* so in need of a
handout, or a swift kick up the patoot?

(Disclosure: I was sans job for 8 months once. I quit. Lived off of some
saved cash for a while. Then 9/11 and the sudden dramatic downturn in
employment opportunities. Yet I still managed to find employment in a
personally satisfying line of work only three months after I started
applying myself to the problem; Even with that level of difficulty. I
don't buy the *****. (Um, well, actually I have bought ***** from
time to time. But that's just my organic gardening side showing.))

Australia has unemployement at 5.6%, I've got a part time job whilst studying,
my employer can't get enough people. He employs people and they quit after a
month. I'm here in the current job for little over a year, and I'm seen more
people come through the door than I can count on my fingers and toes.

As for the pay, it isn't crap, heck, I'm getting paid $16.98 a hour! I'm not
moaning ;-)

Assuming that you stated your income in your own
nation's currency ---

In US dollars, that's $10.19, if you're in NZ, Which works out to
US $21,195/year, based on a 40-hour work week and 52 paid
weeks/year. In Australia, that would be $11.70 US dollars'/hr.
equivalent per year, and US $24,336/yr.

Currently, in the USA, median income ranges from $46,596 in
New Mexico to $82,517 in Connecticut. (The latter being as high
as it is, no doubt, due to the many who live there, and hop on
commuter trains every day to wok in such places as Masison
Avenue, in New York City.)

Of course, all of the above figures are before deductions are
taken out.

So that leaves the question of cost of living as a possible
mitigating factor. Is the cost of living substantially less in New
Zealand or Australia than it is here? Since you're comfortable
with the income you cited, I'm guessing that this is the case.
Which then causes me to wonder: What is New Zealand and
Australia doing RIGHT, to keep the cost of living at manageable
levels, that seems to be eluding us here in the USA? Any
theories?