Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I appreciate your research and I believe there are some legitimate concerns. I think it's important to discuss these concerns and have a rational basis for rejecting the money. I don't really like the Buy American policy but then again I don't like the idea of the Chinese dumping cheap steel on our market when we're trying to make sure Americans are gainfully employed. You have to walk a fine line and while the free market is preferred but sometimes you have to fight back.
A lot of states are running out of money to fund their unemployment expenditures because a lot of people are getting laid off faster and staying unemployed longer than expected. If the good people of Louisiana and Mississippi have enough money to fund their unemployment expenditures I expect them to turn down the money and in the process keep their existing rules. I am curious though what these changes to their rules are and how would changes to these rules impact them negatively compared to the alternative? What is the alternative? What do they intend to do when their unemployment numbers rise? Don't employers in their states have the ability to challenge frivolous unemployment claims?
One thing I want be sure of though is that laid-off people are entitled to unemployment benefits for a reasonable amount of time. In the words of my boy Joe the Plumber "it's there to be used not abused." Bloodletting use to be cool up until late 19th century, not so much in the 21st century. You dig? |
Do you not like the buy American clause at all or because it does not do enough? They took out most of the buy American clause and watered down what was left in the bill. I think it should have been everthing purchased with this money must buy American first. If you cannot find made in the USA or its way more expensive then and only then can you buy foreign made. Its time we start buying stuff made here and this bill is a good chance to help bring back the MADE IN THE US.