Corbett says some rather get unemployment checks than work

Source: Philadelphia Enquirer

HARRISBURG - Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett on Friday accused some jobless Pennsylvanians of choosing to collect unemployment checks rather than going back to work, prompting swift criticism from his Democratic opponent and one of the state's top labor leaders.

"The jobs are there. But if we keep extending unemployment, people are just going to sit there," Corbett told Harrisburg radio station WITF at a campaign stop in Elizabethtown. "I've literally had construction companies tell me, 'I can't get people to come back to work until . . . they say, "I'll come back to work when unemployment runs out." ' "

Democratic candidate Dan Onorato charged Corbett with being out of touch at a time when Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent, a 26-year high.

"I don't know what world Tom Corbett is living in," Onorato said in a statement. "Our economy is struggling, families in Pennsylvania are hurting, and Harrisburg insiders like Tom Corbett aren't doing anything to help them."




Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100710_Corbett_says_some_would_rather_get_unemployment_checks_than_work.html

pays between $59 and $406 a week, depending on what you were making before you became unemployed. And to draw the $406. you had to be earning about $3600 per week before that.

Yes, cushy, much better than working, eh?

I don't know what the max unemployment is in Texas but hopefully If I was laid off I would find a job that would pay at least a little more than unemployment. I would have to actually...

Check out this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4216186

all these companies begging for workers, and these guys won't share the names of ANY of the companies.

Corbett's spokesman, Kevin Harley, said later the owner of a plumbing company, whose name he did not know, told Corbett he had workers who did not want to return until their unemployment ran out. He said other employers had told Corbett they have jobs available and cannot find people to fill them.

so desperate to hire the unemployed they have to contact their Congressperson or Senator. I don't understand why people continue to make the claim that, “There are jobs out there” when the numbers tell a drastically different story. I do not see employers running massive ad campaigns begging for workers or media coverage touting how hundreds and thousands of companies have large numbers of jobs available with few applicants…which would be something FOX would be broadcasting ten times a day. Yet, people continue to insist there is work available in such large quantity that there is no reason for someone to remain jobless.

When steel died in the 1980's, those steel workers in the Mon Valley hustled to make a buck. Corbett is an idiot in the Santorium-Toomey league.

I remember all too well 1983-85 when the steel industry died in Ambridge. Thousands of workers let go, the plants died and there were no jobs to replace them. Ambridge never recovered. It's a ghost town like all the others. And NOBODY stood up for those displaced workers.

I think some decisions to stay on unemployment make sense. But that is me. I'm probably in the minority.

And you are in the minority when you refer to farm jobs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4459394&mesg_id=4459394

The only plentiful and available jobs are the ones that will be vacated by illegal immigrants.

and that's for June

Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh still losing construction jobs



Source: Pittsburgh Business Times

contrasting Corbett's "The jobs are there" remarks -- complete with the supposed laments from anonymous heads of "construction companies" -- with this report showing the loss of 9100 construction jobs statewide in just one recent month.

Nine thousand, one hundred jobs construction jobs (221,500 jobs total) cut in one month, juxtaposed with the jobs are there, you workers are just lazy meme.

Sounds like a winner to me!

they are very, very foolish.

these jobs on their web pages so people know what jobs they are talking about. Put the proof where their mouth is.

some rich people --many of them, in fact -- would make the exact same amount of money with the top tax rate being 33%, 35%, 40%, 60% or whatever.

yet republicans rail about how we need the tax rate for the rich cut so they can make jobs.


do you EVER hear anyone complain about a RICH person taking their tax cut without having created any extra jobs?
DEADBEATS! LAZY BASTARDS!!

...was grateful to have it.
Would rather have been working and was very HAPPY :bounce: :party::woohoo: when I got another job and was able to dispense with that bi-weekly pittance.

:shrug:

But I believe the number is very, very low.

I'm sure there is a small percentage of people on unemployment who would rather have that than work. Of those, a few may genuinely be lazy. The rest may be practical. For example, if some one is getting $100 a week on unemployment and offered part time work that would get them $200 a week but necessitate putting their child in Day Care at a cost of $100 a week, at least looking at the short term numbers, they are better off on unemployment.

Years ago, I knew a woman who had worked in a welfare office. I asked her if it ever bothered her that there were people out there gaming the system. I never believed that all people on welfare were lazy, but did think the system was flawed and maybe not the best way to help people. Anyway, she replied something like that if there were nine people gaming the system but one who truly needed it and would truly be homeless/starve without it, she was okay with it.

I think it comes down to perspective. She would rather help nine "bad" people than let one "good" person suffer. I think most Conservatives would rather let nine "good" people suffer than help one "bad" person.

I know unemployment isn't welfare, but I think both show our views on helping others.

screaming meme. Keep destroying yourselves Republicans.

(last unemployment check comes this week)? There are so many people looking for jobs and not enough jobs out there. This guy has his head up his ass.

I'm one of those who was unlucky enough to only get the standard 26 weeks. I have daily looked for work for six months. I finally got over the depression of the constant rejection from companies to which I have applied, and now these jackasses are getting my blood pressure back up again. I am in northern Indiana, and there are NO jobs here. These people need to be tarred and feathered.

If he can't come up with one name of a person or a company who actually said they can't get people to come back to work until unemployment runs out, then he's a liar.

If he can name a company, spread the word so someone out there gets a job.

I'm betting that second scenario would never happen, though....

As a PA resident, I don't see that "the jobs are there" at all. And, as far as construction jobs, I don't see construction going on either. Who are his friends that have job opening that no one is interested in? Are these jobs full time with benefits that one could take and support a family with. Or are we talking seasonal, occasional work, with minimum pay and no benefits. And, his is ignorant to all the women who are out of work also. Frankly, construction is something I have no experience in. And, I would like to see if any of his "friends" would consider even hiring women for these positions.
After this ignorant comment,I will work to make sure this idiot does not get to be our governor.

nothing at all

Be unemployed? Last I checked, unemployment checks could hardly feed anyone, let alone pay the rent, electricity, water, heating etc.

Ranks up there with "SOME SAY" (And who would that BE, by the way?)

I just love right-wing "evidence." There never is any ... just a vague statement we're all supposed to buy into.

to work for it?

if you don't go back to work when the job opens up and the company calls you back. Probably the same in Penn. You must also write down the jobs you applied for every other week so they can check and make sure.

From Paul Krugman's "Macroeconomics," one of the standard textbooks on economics...

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect... In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

I'm not talking macroeconomics; I'm talking real world. Where are these millions of jobs people are not taking?

And, knowing that full employment is difficult to attain, show me 7 million jobs. The latest jobs report showed less than 500,000 new jobs and once you take out the Census, it was more like 40,000. So, show me how the math works on that.

And "generous," hardly. I guess I'm not homeless yet, so you could say I'm living large. I have no health insurance and can't afford to fix my paid-for car that I only drove two times a week anyway. I would MUCH rather have my old job and salary back.

We can talk economic theory all day, but don't give me this textbook crap unless you are living the reality of this economy every day.

supply. There is no demand for anything right now. Not jobs, not things, not houses, nothing. There is a huge supply of all of these things, however. Too many people willing to work but not enough jobs for all these people -- or even close to all of these people.

All the while more and more money is being siphoned *out* of the economy and into some very powerful peoples' savings accounts, where that money then stays, rather than circulates.

Any sources cited for that conclusion in the footnotes in the publication?

July 4, 2010 NYT Op-Ed:

"There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do.

But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?

The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=2

seeing that he is not earning his money from a private sector job. By Tommy's logic, this is the case.
It needs to be stated once again, the GOP/Tea parties may be the only thing to save the Democrats this fall.

notice how they blame the victims who are suffering but they don't go after the corporations who are not hiring and holding on to their money.

turned down for being overqualified. I fail to see where all these wonderful "jobs" are.

He just wants to live off of the state dime!

refused to take the jobs that were offered? There aren't any jobs and none are being offered.

I think this is all just BS.

Like that Repug jackass (can't remember his name at the moment)running for office in MN who said that waiters and waitresses should only get $2.16 an hour because some restaurant owner said there were a couple servers working there who make $100,000.00 a year. If that is true the business at that restaurant must be fantastic or they must have extremely generous tippers. I said someone from the IRS should look into it to see just how much the place actually takes in.

We all know that guys like that and like Corbett just pull "facts" out of their butts and, with straight faces, lie to us.

I find it hard to believe that this unnamed company wouldn't have turned them in, especially considering that they went to the trouble to contact their Congressman about all these unemployed people turning down jobs.

instead of working a shit-stain 8.00 an hour job, wouldn't that just make you a tea bag 'capitalist' of sorts?
I mean doesn't that person owe it to themselves and their family to look for at least 12/13 hr while they can on the 10/hr benefit?

What is wrong with these people who think everyone should get erections (penile & clitoral) over $8/hr??
$8 and hour was a decent wage in 1975 is SOME parts of the country. 19 fucking 75. Get real.