Saturday, October 22, 2011

Winston-Salem Journal LTE's SA 10/22/11

A few good things
The president has presented a "jobs plan" that he says needs to be passed. I personally believe that this guy doesn't have a clue about how to help this economy, but there are a couple good things in this bill.
A reduction in employer contribution to Social Security would be the first good thing this administration or the last one has proposed to help small businesses. We have 20 employees, and that proposal would save our company around $30,000 over the next year. That could be used to hire a new employee, if business picks up.
He also proposes spending for infrastructure, which is never a bad thing to spend money on.
But the $4,000 tax credit to businesses hiring people off the unemployment rolls does nothing to help. I am not going to hire a $30,000-a-year employee just because I can save $4,000 in taxes. If you want to increase hiring, then switch the unemployment payments of $360 a week on average from the hands of people not working to the businesses doing the hiring. That could be used to pay half the salary of new hires off the unemployment rolls, thereby benefitting business, the government and the unemployed.
Also, the renewal of unemployment benefits should not be part of a jobs bill. That is actually a disincentive to work and will cause a continuation of high unemployment.
Some tax increases to offset benefits are OK, as long as they're not too radical and hurtful to small business.

DAVID F. MOSER
OWNER, TRIANGLE WAREHOUSE
Winston-Salem

Childhood hunger
There are hungry children in the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County schools who will have no food to eat from Friday's school lunch until Monday's school breakfast (if it's a five-day school week). Longer school vacations mean longer periods of time they go hungry. These kids literally lick their trays clean and then look around to see if someone has left food on his tray.
Recent articles in the Journal have touted this area as one of the best in the nation in which to live, while others announce that this area is number one in the country for hungry children. What a disparity in our number ones!
An article in the Journal ("A 'backpack' hunger fight" Sept. 24) talked about the Backpack program in some schools that provide weekend food for hungry children. Other schools need the program but don't have the funds for it. Some schools run the Backpack program through Second Harvest Food Bank, which provides prepackaged meals (four meals and two snacks) while other schools use food donated to them. Approximately $175 can feed one child for a year through the Second Harvest program. How can we not afford that? Schools needing help providing food were named in the Journal, but it doesn't matter what district the schools are in, there could be hungry children in every school.
Children are our most important legacy, and we are not, as Jesus would have us do, taking care of the "least" among us. Call a neighborhood school and ask how to help.

BETTY G. BEWLEY
Winston-Salem


14 comments:

  1. "Also, the renewal of unemployment benefits should not be part of a jobs bill. That is actually a disincentive to work and will cause a continuation of high unemployment."

    David Moser
    ____________

    Mr. Moser, you are right on the button with that statement. One only has to visit various restaurants and bars around Winston Salem to find out many of the people frequenting these places during the day are unemployed and receiving unemployment checks from the federal government.

    We already know that the federal government's welfare program was not motivational. Yet, the federal government, under Obama's leadership, has fueled the fire to not seek a job utilizing an existing 'stay on the government dole' program.

    Make no mistake, these people are not black, and they are not undereducated. These are people that are purposely staying out of the job market because it's easier than getting a job and working.

    If it's screwed up, the liberal Democrats will think of it, and fund it. I say thanks, but no thanks to President Obama's 'jobs' bill.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Bucky, you hang out in bars in the middle of the day?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I go and have lunch, and sometimes I sit at the bar and strike up a conversation with people sitting next to me. Many are out of work collecting federal unemployment checks.

    For the record, I don't drink.

    The fact that they drinking really doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is that they say they are not looking for work, because they say that they are making more money unemployed than they could if they were working.

    Now, 'Wordly' are you ready to play twenty questions about your life?

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all it's a state check. The program is a federal/state program, but the rates vary state to state. The maximum weekly benefit in NC is $505.00/week and amount and weeks eligible is determined by one's wages and amount of time worked. The highest jobless benefit is still about 33 percent below North Carolina's average wage of $758 a week, or about $39,500 per year. But commission says the benefit is also the highest in the Southeast.

    The benefits a laid-off worker receive depends on his or her income in the 15 months before losing employment.

    so a banker who lost his job might be eligible for 505/week, meaning any job paying less than 12.65/hour after taxes would be less than his unemployment check.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since payment is based on previous pay, one does not get more than one's previous pay, but may be getting more than from any job available.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The average unemployment insurance benefit in North Carolina for the past year is $282.35

    ReplyDelete
  7. The minimum weekly benefit is $45

    ReplyDelete
  8. They are still being incentivized by unemployement benefits not to return to work. That's my point.

    The funds are being sent to the states by the federal government for the unemployment checks.

    I realize most liberals try to change the subject or the topic of the conversation in order to divert people away from the real subject. However, that tactic is getting real old, and most people are onto it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Bucky's 0947hrs: Bucky, you ARE a tool. @Everyone else: No, I don't mean FOOL; he's far from that.

    Bucky, unless you C&P'd the comment I'm responding to, I commend you on the turn-around. I knew you had it in you. ¡Bien hecho, Amigo!

    Please allow me to point out some inconsistencies in your comment. First of all, unemployment benefits are doled out by state gov't, not Federal.

    Secondly, even IF the unemployed you were speaking of was earning minimum wage, UNEMPLOYMENT checks would still be LESS THAN the weekly PAYROLL checks he/she would receive. And unemployment checks are still subject to federal taxes so depending on whether one chooses to have the taxes withheld from aforementioned unemployment check, those checks could be less. Things MAY HAVE changed in the year prior to me having been unemployed. Anyone out there, hopefully, will let me know if it has.

    Do you perhaps mean that it takes LESS effort to sit back and collect an unemployment check than it does to ACTIVELY look for a job?

    Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Bob: sorry, I had just gotten home and had not realized you had responded to Bucky's comments. But I have one more thing to add to my response to Bucky: If you DO work for FCSO, let's just hope you don't become one of those on the RECEIVING end of the jobs bill YOU OPPOSE.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LaSombra......I guess you don't read that well. I agree that states administer the unemployment benefits program, but the money comes from the federal government.

    That's what Mr. Moser was indicating in his LTE.

    Again, I was reiterating what people have told me as to the amount of benefits compared to getting a job. I do not know the exact figures. It is apparent that the benefits are significant enough to make people not look for a work though.

    It's much like some women and welfare. They can lie on their backs and pop out babies and get more in welfare benefits with less effort than actually working.

    Both activities are problematic for the economic future of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Bucky. Sounds like stereo.

    ReplyDelete