As many of you know, I believe that systems that serve as safety nets to help people through tough times are a good idea and a just thing to do. No one is immune to being hurt on the job, getting sick, or losing a job for reasons out of their control. That being said, I simply cannot support extending unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. If you give someone 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, there is absolutely no incentive to go out and find work. I am not talking about the work you are qualified to do or work that pays what you think you are worth, I am talking about work. If you have been on unemployment for more than 52 weeks I have to question your determination to find work. At some point you are going to have to suck it up and either move somewhere that you can get the job you are hoping for, or lower your standards and just get a job, any job. 99 weeks is well beyond the point of deciding to take drastic action to find a job. Sitting at home waiting for something that you feel is in your pay grade to come around needs to end.
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
Email link
Read comments (44)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Might as well take what you can from the government while you can!
The Government is spending your money on trivial and frivolous things. They will keep spending until we are forced to use a one world currency.
The Government doesn't have to pay this debt back because it can't and the world bank knows it. The World Bank gets over things in return for the money Congress spends.
The biggest problem is the states asking for help from the Federal Government. This is asking for trouble. Once the Government helps the states, it (the Federal Government) has jurisdiction in the states. We never intended to give the Federal Government this kind of Power and jurisdiction over the states nor the people of the states.
The world bankers are making the states ask for help from the Government (by bankrupting the states and people) so the Federal Government can enter into the states and take over jurisdiction in the states.
Once the Federal Government (the United States Corporate Government) has control in the states we the people will have no sovereignty in this country. They can remove our arms, homes, vehicles, bank accounts, even our children and spouses.
Call me crazy if you like, but that is the plan.
Look at what they are doing right now! Causing people to lose their Homes, their Jobs, their Bank Accounts. Even forcing families to buy special uniforms for school children in violation of the 1st Amendment. Forcing health insurance on people with no guarantee the insurance company can nor will pay claims.
The Federal Government could print up our own money to pay off the debt and make our country the richest nation in the world. Other countries would trade with us because our money would become valuable in the long run.
Can't be done! President John F. Kennedy tried that and was assassinated.
Vice President Johnson became President and melted down the Silver coins, recalled the silver certificates, made it a federal crime to hoard silver enacted the Federal Reserve Notes as lawful money and passed the coinage act of 1965.
No one has attempted to pay off our debt since then.
The World Bankers want the Federal Government under their control.
The US could not pay off the debt because Congress spends money faster than they can get it from taxes.
Watch Jesse Ventura on Friday nights and see for yourself the conspiracies being exposed for what they really are. People are scared to talk about them. That in itself is proof they do exist.
There was one conspiracy I had heard of years ago that Jesse wasn't talking about. He spoke of it this past Friday night.
All the Conspiracy Theories have come full circle for me. Some are newer ones I learned of in the past few years. Jesse does a good job of trying to prove them right or wrong but Government Officials won't talk.
I wonder how many of those people that don't even bother to look for a job would stay on this program if the government made them do some type of work to collect that pay. Put them to work doing government jobs instead of just handing out paychecks to people who enjoy getting paid for nothing. Some actually need the money to tide them over until they get another job but some lazy people care nothing about working as long as they can get money for nothing.
1ukolsir, I think your on the right track! I would suggest you tell your Church congregation exactly what you said above about needing a job.
You may have to do something in which you have no experience, and not get paid much at first, AND, the congregation may look at you like of have weeds growing out of your ears, but I would bet that someone at the Church will offer you some kind of opportunity before you leave. If they don't, go to another Church and do the same thing.
God may have something in store for you that you never considered.
Be Blessed!!
I'm curious to know something- I myself have been unemployed for almost a year. I have been looking for all kinds of work from factory to maintenance to cab driving to forklift operaor to janitor and road construction... All previous experiences. My point is this: If I, among all others have been unemployed for so long, we can't pay taxes because we didn't make anything. If we don't make money and don't pay taxes, how are the politicians we trusted to run our government going to get their paychecks? I guarantee if those folks took a pay cut, they'd find a solution QUICKLY!
Furthermore, if there's no income, there's no spending money for products for the consumer to buy. That being said, the CEO's of all these companies will have to take a pay cut because you can't make money if no one buys your product. If no one buys, there's no work. It's a vicious cycle. So what to do to break it? I can't rely on stimulus packages or idiotic politicians and greedy CEO's... I can only rely on God to supply all my needs.
If the "Bush tax cuts" are allowed to expire these are the taxes that will increase.
How many here will be affected?
* The death tax returns -- at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more
* The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, moves up 50% -- to 15% from 10%.
* The next lowest bracket -- 25% -- will rise to 28%.
* The old 28% bracket will be 31%.
* The 33% bracket is pushed to 36%
* The 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.
* The marriage penalty makes a comeback
* The capital gains tax will jump 33% -- to 20% from 15%.
* The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6%
* The child tax credit is cut in half to $500 from $1,000
Check out this info from NBC about the Bush tax cuts set to expire this yr.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politi...
These are not rich people, unless you consider $85k/yr for family of four rich.
This will completely wipe out my little seven dollar cut many times over.
People need to use a little common sense. If the government passes massive spending, massive taxation has to follow. Someone has to pay!!!
Liveforlight, the tax cut you received was targeted at the lower and middle class in America. Taxes for those earning more money were bumped up.
-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Jul 22, 2010, at 8:10 AM
Thanks Nathan, I understand, the richer you are, the more tax cut you get. Sounds just like Bush to me.
On the unemployment front it seems that it was just extended without being paid for. PAYGO was big with the DEMS in the Bush yrs, but now, not so much. Where is the outrage for this kind of deficit spending from the left?
Not that the GOP is any better, but it just goes to show that there is a severe lack of integrity in Washington, that much at least is bi-partisan;)
"Americans who are working day and night to get back on their feet and support their families in these tough economic times deserve more than obstruction and partisan game-playing," Obama said in a statement Wednesday night.
Working day and night... on unemployment?
Liveforlight, the tax cut you received was targeted at the lower and middle class in America. Taxes for those earning more money were bumped up.
Each time the unemployed are given an extention,the business' have to pay an increase in their unemployment insurance then to off set the lose they have to lay off more people, that's counterproductive.
Hey, I did find the Obama tax cut information. It amounted to about $7.00/week for me. That is $364/yr. That was the largest tax cut in history? Now that is sad!
Heck, Bush sent me a $400.00 check, neither one was able to buy my vote though.
It seems strange to me that people condemn Bush for giving a tax cut and increasing the deficit, but applaud Obama for doing the same thing.
I do understand the difference between the national debt and the yearly deficit. There was never a yr. under Clinton that had no deficit.
I also understand that the Bush administration set the 2009 budget which that included TARP and had a 407 Billion deficit and that the Obama administration set the 2010 budget which has 1.2 trillion deficit.
Largest tax breaks in history to the middle class? What tax breaks? Healthcare will add tremendous costs to the budget.I agree their needs to be TORT reform to bring healthcare costs down but that is not what we got.
As far as the examples of the bad things that can happen under free enterprise, there are even more shocking things that can happen under government control as history has proven repeatedly. That is why the founding fathers established the government system we had.
It was governement intervention in the form of the Community Re-investment Act that paved the way for the banks to invest in troubled assets. So the government was obligated to back them. We have not had a free market for decades.
This did not help my neighbors nor my children and grandchildren who will be on the hook to pay for it all.
The Earth and all that is in it belong to God. That truth, and appopriate actions by everyone, is what can bring real, lasting, change.
Liveforlight,
You need to understand the difference between the overall debt (234 years worth of debt) and an annual budget deficit (the difference between revenues and expenses on a fiscal basis)...
You should also understand that the Troubled Asset Relief Program was an emergency measure enacted by Bush and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on October 3, 2008. Obama wasn't inaugurated until Jan 20, 2009. The overall cost of that program is now down to $89 billion, from the original $700 billion. Great market timing and IPOs have allowed taxpayers to see dividends from selling off shares of these companies, back to private investors.
Health care legislation, financial regulation, and the largest tax breaks in history to the middle class = money going directly to (or being saved by) your neighbor.
I am all for free enterprise, but when free enterprise nearly brings down the economy, when free enterprise sells 9 million cars with a defect (and knew about it for two years), when free enterprise blurs the fine print of insurance policies to deny payees fair coverage, and when free enterprise destroys our environment (be it, sky, ocean, beaches, whatever), then I am also for government regulation.
My apologies, I see what else is at work here. MY BAD MATH!!
It would be 163 dollars per person. Anyway, my point is that I would rather see my money go dierctly to my neighbor that to these poorly managed banks.
Regarding TARP, if the purpose is to buy up troubled assets, the money would have better spent just paying off all the home loans that were in default. Apparently the cost so far has been 49 Billion. If my math is correct, then each of the 325 million citizens of the US could have received 163 million dollars. That would certainly paid off some bad debt.
Just 1 million each would be just 325 million, still far less than 49 Billion.
Maybe I am wrong, but I bet that would have stimulated the economy a great deal. Of course, it is the taxpayers that pay the bill and we don't have the money so I don't see how that can work in either scenario.
Common sense tells me there is something else at work here.
The presidents from 1980-2008, and how much the debt increased during their terms...
Bill Clinton, 8 years, 36% increase
Source: http://presidentialdebt.org/
Obama's numbers are astronomical due to carryovers from the prescription drug plan, two wars, and the largest tax cut for the wealthiest American's in history (all unpaid for), the TARP program, and the stimulus package.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 8:53 PM
you forget to mention that Bush inherited budget surpluses and subsequently turned them into deficits
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Jul 21, 2010, at 1:28 PM
Something doesn't add up here. The debt increased while there was a surplus?
Accoring to this article http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 there never was a surplus under Clinton. The lowest the DEFICIT ever was under Clinton was 17.9 Billion. That sure beats Bush but it is still a deficit and a far cry from a surplus.
However, "entitlement" spending is far more than we spend on defense.
A return to the constitution (especially the 10th) is what is needed to save the country.
-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Jul 21, 2010, at 1:28 PM
Agree but we also spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined... TORT reform is what we need.
I am curious, what is an "UNPAID for tax-cut"?
Bush's deficits were roughly 400 billion, UNACCEPTABLE!! Obama's is 1.6 TRILLION! Roughly four times more.
How does the poor budget handling of Bush equate to 4 times more deficit for Obama?
-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Jul 21, 2010, at 6:00 AM
To the first point; one that isn't offset by spending cuts --- most, but not all companies offset declining revenue with spending cuts, i.e. eliminating R&D, reducing marketing, inventories, and overhead... which subsequently results in 8 million jobs lost.
To the second and third point; you forget to mention that Bush inherited budget surpluses and subsequently turned them into deficits...Obama inherited deficits, which comprise 70% of the current deficits now. Yes Obama's deficit numbers look terrible, nobody refutes that; but the difference lies in understanding WHERE the numbers come from.
The Clinton tax increases were easily absorbed because real wages also increased during his tenure, which was not the case during the Bush years. Clinton also, enacted "pay-as-you-go", which Bush immediately got rid of, and Obama is hoping to reinstate. Obama, and the Democrats passed the largest middle class tax CUTS (in history) to 95% of Americans; but they will have to also CUT spending or raise revenue... this is not bias, this is fact; please refute or "refudiate" if you can :)
We are in a fiscal mess, and it will take collaboration, not constant obstruction, from both parties to clean it up. End of story.
Nathan I agree both parties are to blame and we need a good housecleaning of all the "old guard".
However, "entitlement" spending is far more than we spend on defense.
A return to the constitution (especially the 10th) is what is needed to save the country.
The Republicans think that they can cut everyone's taxes which is fine, but they never decrease the amount of money that they spend and every year spend more. The Democrats think they can tax everyone more and more to create programs for people that benefit people that don't pay taxes. Either way you go, your screwed. I really hope someone will stand up and defeat both of these parties full of losers, hypocrites, and liars, because no matter which way you vote now, you lose. At this point it appears that each party is trying to sabotage each other at the expense of the citizens of the United States.
Liveforlight, the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are the two major contributors to the deficits of today and tomorrow.
99 weeks? It does not matter if it is 199 or 299 weeks. Unless we retain some manufacturing jobs and strengthen the hand of labor, there will be no good jobs, with fewer and fewer bad ones offering less and less opportunity.
Obama's spending numbers are mostly comprised of UNPAID for tax-cuts
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 10:08 PM
I am curious, what is an "UNPAID for tax-cut"?
Bush's deficits were roughly 400 billion, UNACCEPTABLE!! Obama's is 1.6 TRILLION! Roughly four times more.
How does the poor budget handling of Bush equate to 4 times more deficit for Obama?
Quietmike,
After World War 1, Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created a presidential budgeting process that still exists today. The act gave the president a formal role in the process, requiring him to submit an annual budget to Congress. It also barred federal agencies from making appropriations requests directly to Congress, which they had done in the past, and established the Bureau of Budget (renamed the Office of Management and Budget in 1970) to help the president set his budget.
But in 1974, due to the cost of the Vietnam War, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which Nixon signed into law. This act called for Congress to adopt its own budget, and it established the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). With this act, Congress and the President have equal control in the budget process. However, the President has to approve of all budgets, and/or veto; unless the veto is over-ridden.
Obama's spending numbers are mostly comprised of UNPAID for tax-cuts, drug subsidies, the TARP bailout, and as you mentioned the two wars, that his predecessor failed to pay for.
The only year since 1950 that federal spending decreased was 1954...
Jax,
I didn't blame "one" anything... I listed that 836 companies needed a bailout from the government, and I listed the GOVERNMENT problem of debt from 1980-2008. Therefore, in two posts I mentioned government debt, as a burden, and how the money lenders and job creaters decided to throw their money away and stop hiring citizens. I don't hate free enterprise, nor capitalism, but unlike you, I know we have neither. Crony capitalism, no-bid contracts, and 836 companies that need taxpayer dollars is NOT free enterprise, unless of course you are the "capitalist" company receiving the money, with 0% interest.
Darrick_04 comments really make him sound as if he hates capitalism and free enterprise and that he is anti-business and that the government should take control over every corporation for the supposed good of humanity? I mean really . . . I figured he was a bit smarter than that to adhere to that kind of ideology but I have been wrong before. :-P
Unfortunately every single person is to blame in regards to the economy and the direction of the nation. The Republicans, the Democrats, the corporations and even me and you. To blame just one element is to show one's inability to see the whole problem and even we as individuals are to blame when we decided it was ok to stop saving as much money and spend more than we had. All of us are to blame at one point or another and both Democrats and Republicans are just as much to blame as these supposedly evil corporations. If these corporations are as greedy as you mentioned then what does it make us as individuals?
No, you are putting your trust, money country in the hands of COMPANIES who, because of a lack of discipline and integrity, would have collapsed without the governments loans and/or grants, ... The people who manage our financial systems and economy are COMPANIES, the government is the oversee-er, and by government I mean, WE, the people. If you want less government, then you want less YOU.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 10:52 PM
WHAT?? These companies SHOULD fail, that's the point. I don't want them propped up with my, or your money, especially when we don't have it yet (debt).
Our household income for a family of four is less than $6oK with two of us working. We own our home and have no debt. If the government was more of me, as you say, then we would be in good shape financially.
It doess't take much to see why our jobs are leaving, just go to a Walmart, pick up any product except food, and read the "Made In" statement. These products are made by companies who are trying to make a profit. Greed??
Then, they sell their product to people who want to buy it at the cheapest possible price. Greed??
The government used to protect American companies by tariffs and recvd the bulk of their finances through the tariffs. Now, we are competeing for jobs with the Chinese and government is taking on more of a Chinese style in order to compete.
GREED, my friends, is universal. The people who own these companies that seem so greedy, are the ones us greedy people vote into office because they promise us the most for our money.
When an obvious lack of integrity is not present in our leadership, then I suppose you can say the lack is in the people. Or, it just might be that the people are being lied to and don't take the time to learn the truth.
Ever hear a politician say one thing when running for office and do the opposite once elected? This is the kind of company that will fail. The question is will they take us down with them?
Nathan, for the first time...I agree 100% with your opinion as to lengthening unemployment benefits. That being said, there is plenty of blame to go around and that's just the problem. Our elected officials on both sides of the aisle spend far more time blaming than they do solving problems. It seems that the only way anything can be accomplished is for one party to have an overwhelming majority in power. That is not the manner by which our founding fathers intended for the people to be governed. I'm an admitted conservative, yet am well versed in the art of compromise. Until politicians of both parties remember who pays their salaries, I'm afraid we are only going to get more of the same garbage, no matter who is in power. Sooner or later the proverbial well is going to run dry. One need look no further than the states of California and Michigan to see blatant examples of governments that have been absolutely bankrupted by policies of giving everything to everybody. It's way past time to stop paying people to sit on the couch. Punishing success and rewarding failure is not a system by which any free nation can survive.
Defecit spending doesn't necessarily make a bad economy, as anyone who remembers the '80s can attest to.
The truth is that any time taxes a cut across the board it will disproportionally affect the wealthy, since the wealthy pay the vast majority of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners effectively pay no income tax.
How many jobs have either of you gotten from poor people?
At what point does a current president take responsibility for the status of the country? Has Obama stopped the war in Iraq/Afghanistan? Closed Gitmo? Basically done anything differently than Bush did, beside spending even more than Bush did?
Nathan-obama's effect hasn't been fully felt yet (GOD help us all) since obamacare spending hasn't taken effect yet, even though he was saying something needed to be done NOW, it doesn't take effect until 2014.
Darrick_04
You might want to review Article 1 section 7 of the constitution, as to how spending bills must proceed.
I'll make a wager with the both of you. I predict there will be a massive change in the makeup of congress after the November elections. When that happens there will be a marked upturn in our economy. There will be an even further upturn after the presidential election.
Any takers?
We are placing our trust, our money and our country in the hands of politicians who lack the discipline and integrity to balance a budget. These are the people we choose to manage our financial systems and economy??????
-- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 10:28 PM
No, you are putting your trust, money country in the hands of COMPANIES who, because of a lack of discipline and integrity, would have collapsed without the governments loans and/or grants, ... The people who manage our financial systems and economy are COMPANIES, the government is the oversee-er, and by government I mean, WE, the people. If you want less government, then you want less YOU.
There is plenty of blame to go around, that is for sure!
WOW! and I thought the reason we had deficits is because the government can't balance a budget.
No matter who is in charge they just can't live within their means whether in war or peace. Greed? Yes indeed, it is alive and well in the human race today.
Businesses have their faults no doubt, but when the governments stops a bank with poor business practice from failing with a bailout, that is not free market.
That is a sweet deal if you are a banker, there is essentially no risk! That is the lie of it all. The risk is still there, just the consequences have been shifted from where it belongs to the taxpayer.
We are placing our trust, our money and our country in the hands of politicians who lack the discipline and integrity to balance a budget. These are the people we choose to manage our financial systems and economy??????
The reality of it is that we can't keep going to the well when it goes dry,,, and it will, it's just a matter of time. The U.S. can, and will, go bankrupt if we continue on this course, just like Greece.
Quietmike,
The president SUBMITS his budget to Congress, and Congress, then has the ability to add/edit to their liking; and then send the final budget back to the president for signage.
Nathan,
That is what I was trying to say. The stimulus is really not what everyone's "grandkids" will pay for...those tax cuts for the rich netted us job losses during the Bush years.
Actually the majority of the problems we are experiencing today with the incredible deficits are primarily the fault of the Bush tax cuts, not Obama's stimulus.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...
Darrick, congress writes the budget, so review the debt percentages while keeping in mind who controlled congress.
Interesting facts for those who worry about the National Debt:
The presidents from 1980-2008, and how much the debt increased during their terms...
Jimmy Carter, 4 years, 42% increase
Ronald Reagan, 8 years, 189% increase
George H.W. Bush, 4 years, 55% increase
Bill Clinton, 8 years, 36% increase
George W. Bush, 8 years, 89% increase
Source: http://presidentialdebt.org/
Obama's numbers are astronomical due to carryovers from the prescription drug plan, two wars, and the largest tax cut for the wealthiest American's in history (all unpaid for), the TARP program, and the stimulus package.
BTW, you are sounding a lot more conservative than usual, 99 weeks to most liberals is just a good start on a career of government dependence.
-- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 12:26 PM
I think 99 weeks is incredibly too long; but in this jobless recovery why do we NEVER blame business? Pick up any financial magazine, read the reports, watch the stock market. The only people who benefit from jobless citizens are the companies who choose to lay them off, and then refuse to hire.
For far too long, "free" markets were allowed to take extreme risk at the expense of taxpayers. In all, 836 companies received or can still receive federal funds from the "TARP" program (a.k.a. bank bailout) passed by in 2007/08. The federal government essentially saved 836 companies from liquidating their assets so the least they could all do is begin to loan money to people who need it, hire people who need work.
It always baffles me how we claim to be a "capitalists" society yet when the corporations aren't hiring, we somehow blame our government. It is the sickening cycle that the corporate world has brainwashed you all into believing. Greed, at all costs, no matter how many jobs are lost.
IMHO, most of the "entitlement" programs exacerbate the very problems they are trying to solve.
A businessperson makes a set amount of money. He will invest that money into new employees, more equipment, advertising, or expanding his product line. All of these add work (jobs) to the economy.
However,when taxes are raised, that businessman no longer has the resources to make those investments, and jobs are lost.
This year over 50% of the federal budget will be spent on "entitlement" programs.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...
How many jobs could be created with this money?
Would the people feeling the crunch right now be better served with employment or a program?
Yes, I agree that 99 weeks is more than enough time to find a job. However, have you tried to find a job lately? It is easy for people who are employed or aren't looking for work to say that "people can find a job anywhere". It is getting really hard to find jobs, and what jobs around will not feed your family, but it's a start.
But for anyone who is looking for a job, Wal-Mart is always hiring. It may not be the shift you want or a dream job, but it's a pay check that can help you out until you can find something. And schools are often needing Substitute Teachers. Again, it doesn't pay alot, but every little bit helps out. Also the prison systems are sometimes looking for officers. CCA gives you a 6 week training at the Harding Rd, location. The state prison I believe that they send you to Tullahoma to train for 6-8 weeks. It's hard work, but at least you will have a job, insurance, etc.
Maybe we should also revisit HOW we wean people off the help. Just because they get a job, it may not be enough to stand back up and run on their own, so maybe we could reward them by weaning them from the assistance, even after they have a job.
Of course, not if they get a job as a wall street banker but if they are making minimum, maybe we could help them until they get a raise or find a job above minimum, but have a definite ending point.
I know, I know that is liberal for me but I always liked that term "compassionate conservative".
okay 99 weeks...then how about the benefits decrease by 1% each week.
Jax has hit it on the head, they foster a mentality that allows people to become dependent. And with dependence comes control. Cue the evil laugh.....
I agree Nathan . . . I do believe that people need help from time to time and especially during extreme times likes job loss. I however can not see someone not finding some kind of job after 52 weeks of actively looking and searching. Yes, you might have to take a less appealing job but it serves the purpose until you can find one that is more suited to one's taste. Unfortunately our government and society fosters a mentality sometimes that allows people to become dependent on such assistance.
I agree Nathan, everyone needs a hand-up at sometime or another but anyone can find some work to do if they want to. It may not pay much, but work is out there, that's one reason illegal aliens are pooring into the U.S.The other reason is the hand-outs.
I always thought anyone recieving sustained payments from the taxpayers should be serving the taxpayers that pay them somehow. Even a wheelchair bound person has something to offer society and is usefull as an individual. Such a valuable resource such not be wasted.
To use a one liner; A hand up, not a hand out.
An empty stomach is a powerful motivator. I just hope the morality of this country hasn't sank so low that people resort to theft instead of honest work. If so, they are likely to spend most of their working hours soliciting Robin Hood (Government) to do it for them.
BTW, you are sounding a lot more conservative than usual, 99 weeks to most liberals is just a good start on a career of government dependence.