I've been reading about people being unable to put food on the tables and going to food banks, but the current system implemented by Trump provides that:

• A person will on average across all states receive around $1200 per month in unemployment benefits monthly, which Trump has raised by $600 per week to $3600 per month.
• In addition, a one off check for $1200 was sent out to everyone in the US registered as a income tax payer

$3600 per month is a fairly large amount of money in relation to usual welfare payments, higher than the overall average salary in many states, and certainly higher than minimum wage.

Furthermore, other countries appear to have worse coronavirus unemployment systems, such as Canada which offers $1488 USD per month for people made unemployed, whereas the UK only gives 80% of existing salary up to $3000 or a welfare payment of $500 + reasonable rent expenses (still far below even $2000 from what I understand).

airhansa wrote:

The current system implemented by Trump provides that:

• A person will on average across all states receive around $1200 per month in unemployment benefits monthly, which Trump has raised by $600 per week to $3600 per month.
• In addition, a one off check for $1200 was sent out to everyone in the US registered as a income tax payer

$3600 per month is a fairly large amount of money in relation to usual welfare payments, higher than the overall average salary in many states, and certainly higher than minimum wage.

Furthermore, other countries appear to have worse coronavirus unemployment systems, such as Canada which offers $1488 USD per month for people made unemployed, whereas the UK only gives 80% of existing salary up to $3000 or a welfare payment of $500 + reasonable rent expenses (still far below even $2000 from what I understand).

I am not sure where you get those numbers. In Oregon, unemployed people are getting about $700 per month for six months but if they are told they can go back to work and refuse, they will not receive anything. That "one-off check for $1200" was just that. Those people who had already exhausted their unemployment got just that and not a dime more.

Also, keep in mind that unemployment counts the people who are receiving unemployment checks and not those working under the table or who have simply given up looking for work or unpaid internships. Other people who are not eligible for unemployment are those LEGAL Americans paid under the table. Also, there is rent and food and medical care which are all out of pocket. In other countries, IIRC, housing payments were suspended and food banks were giving out food and medical care is already covered.

Also, the Stock Market is not the economy for those of us who work.

The answer is much more complicated. Those are the highlights I see.

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

You're getting short changed in Oregon if its only $700 per month. Are you sure about as just across the state line in Washington it can be as high as $650 per week. Not sure what the stepping stones are to reach that number but I don't think its that stringent.

If you are working and have a 401K, your in the stockmarket one way or another.

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

So far, the only thing I saw economy wise is that the rich get even richer, while the poor are hurt the most.

"Frontline" service industry (i.e. restaurant/retail), tourism (including airline and hotel, etc) are hurt the most. Small restaurant owners are screwed but big biz can get all the freebie money.

But "white collar" industry? It is barely affected other than the fact that more people are working from home.

Then there is manufacturing, which is affected but can bounce back quickly once things reopen.

The bottom line is, those one minimum wage are really screwed, and those are the story where "can't put food on table" came from.

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

I agree that in normal times, the welfare system of the US is weak, but currently it appears to be paying out quite well. I don't understand why there is discussion about food banks being "overrun" and people finding it hard to put food on the table.

airhansa wrote:

I've been reading about people being unable to put food on the tables and going to food banks, but the current system implemented by Trump provides that:

• A person will on average across all states receive around $1200 per month in unemployment benefits monthly, which Trump has raised by $600 per week to $3600 per month.
• In addition, a one off check for $1200 was sent out to everyone in the US registered as a income tax payer

$3600 per month is a fairly large amount of money in relation to usual welfare payments, higher than the overall average salary in many states, and certainly higher than minimum wage.

Furthermore, other countries appear to have worse coronavirus unemployment systems, such as Canada which offers $1488 USD per month for people made unemployed, whereas the UK only gives 80% of existing salary up to $3000 or a welfare payment of $500 + reasonable rent expenses (still far below even $2000 from what I understand).

Those numbers are off, but in any case one problem many are facing is that it is taking so long for the government to actually process and approve unemployment claims due to the extraordinarily high volume. Granted they will get back pay once approved, but in the interim this can cause hardship.

If you think welfare is strong in the US, you really don't know European countries system.

sebolino wrote:

If you think welfare is strong in the US, you really don't know European countries system.

I agree that in normal circumstances, the US pays out less than the European system, and that the US doesn't have an ready-built appropriate safety net in place for turmoil such as this one. But in the current scenario, the US system pays out more than most of the European systems due to the additional $600 per week added by Trump.

The US is currently providing universal sum that on average is more that what people usually earn ($3600 per month is higher than the average salary) to everyone, whereas the European system only provides a percentage of what you were earning prior to the outbreak (and not everyone was earning average salary, many less).

The European welfare schemes are usually only more generous than the British one because they pay a percentage of previous salary, whereas the UK one provides a universal sum and rent subsidies. But with the furlough scheme, the UK is similar to Europe, and it's only really the more expensive Nordic countries that might pay out more than the US.

Actually, you would probably see far more unrest in the USA if you did not have those emergency measures right now.

The reason there is hardship is because the USA has been in denial for decades about it's economic growth. I have said it many times here before, asset inflation should not be considered economic growth, and most growth in the US and other countries recently is simply asset inflation due to ridiculously low interest rates and massive and eternal government deficit spending.

In 2019 I really laughed when I heard people brag about how great the economy was in their country. Well, if that is so, why do you need 0% interest rates and record deficits to pump such a great economy? And even then with some leaders and presidents asking for the central banks to pump even more stimulus!

It's like someone saying "I got a strong, healthy heart", while he is on full oxygen intubation and getting pumped large amounts of morphine...

In short, recent economic growth around the world is simply a "veneer". There was little to nothing real and tangible there. So the numbers looked "great" just like a person with a beautiful house and car "looks" great, until you decide to look deeper into the numbers and see it was all credit carded and borrowed. Behind the veneer, salaries have stayed stagnant for many years, everything else has become more expensive, and only in the best of times are most people just running to keep up. As soon as there is some disruption, all the deeper problems are quickly to surface because they have not been truly addressed in decades.

Unemployment is currently $3,400 a month in my state. That's more than I make working full time!

Greed fed by cheap labor is the key, especially in the US. I get a chuckle how the Restaurants are now crying over not getting any one to take a job. One of the biggest exploiters of them all, now crying.

The weekly $600 federal unemployment bonus isn't something Trump did. Trump isn't smart or caring enough to do this.

It came from the Democratic House and was barely approved by Republicans. Republicans are now dead against extending it past July (over their dead bodies). Giving money to their rich pals is no problem, of course.

Now, from my understanding as an European, unemployment is a state thing in the US. So you must register as unemployed through your state, to get your state and federal check. Many states, especially the most Republican and poor ones (often goes hand in hand) have atrociously outdated computer systems, so bad they have to get engineers out of retirement homes to help fix them. So millions of unemployed people couldn't register several weeks after having lost their jobs. Some even called the offices more than 100 times a day, probably overloading everything big time (it's my line of work).

Couple that with the US "way of life" on the credit card, with very little if any savings, and after a couple of weeks of shutdown the world was seeings videos of people being given food on the hood of their big ass SUV/pickup truck probably costing them hundreds of dollars a month...

As an aside, before this crisis, there were calls for an EU wide unemployment scheme. Now it's back on the table. What we already have is that if you have worked in a country, and move, you can get unemployement benefits in the other country. Caused some uproar in 2008-2009 when French City bankers came back to France to claim benefits here that are much higher than benefits in the UK.

Aesma wrote:

The weekly $600 federal unemployment bonus isn't something Trump did. Trump isn't smart or caring enough to do this.

It came from the Democratic House and was barely approved by Republicans. Republicans are now dead against extending it past July (over their dead bodies). Giving money to their rich pals is no problem, of course.

Now, from my understanding as an European, unemployment is a state thing in the US. So you must register as unemployed through your state, to get your state and federal check. Many states, especially the most Republican and poor ones (often goes hand in hand) have atrociously outdated computer systems, so bad they have to get engineers out of retirement homes to help fix them. So millions of unemployed people couldn't register several weeks after having lost their jobs. Some even called the offices more than 100 times a day, probably overloading everything big time (it's my line of work).

Couple that with the US "way of life" on the credit card, with very little if any savings, and after a couple of weeks of shutdown the world was seeings videos of people being given food on the hood of their big ass SUV/pickup truck probably costing them hundreds of dollars a month...

As an aside, before this crisis, there were calls for an EU wide unemployment scheme. Now it's back on the table. What we already have is that if you have worked in a country, and move, you can get unemployement benefits in the other country. Caused some uproar in 2008-2009 when French City bankers came back to France to claim benefits here that are much higher than benefits in the UK.

As a european, you speak like you know America better then Americans. You really don't. Not all Americans live pay check to paycheck and on a line of credit. Most Americans do have a mortgage on their house, those are their largest debt liabilities. The extra money in unemployment is attempting to trigger a deep V economic recovery. If people have significant money in their pocket when their employer brings them back to work, there's a much higher likelihood that they will spend money as soon as their job returns. Money needs to start moving, and early data is saying that its starting to move, hence the market has rebounded significantly.

N757ST wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The weekly $600 federal unemployment bonus isn't something Trump did. Trump isn't smart or caring enough to do this.

It came from the Democratic House and was barely approved by Republicans. Republicans are now dead against extending it past July (over their dead bodies). Giving money to their rich pals is no problem, of course.

Now, from my understanding as an European, unemployment is a state thing in the US. So you must register as unemployed through your state, to get your state and federal check. Many states, especially the most Republican and poor ones (often goes hand in hand) have atrociously outdated computer systems, so bad they have to get engineers out of retirement homes to help fix them. So millions of unemployed people couldn't register several weeks after having lost their jobs. Some even called the offices more than 100 times a day, probably overloading everything big time (it's my line of work).

Couple that with the US "way of life" on the credit card, with very little if any savings, and after a couple of weeks of shutdown the world was seeings videos of people being given food on the hood of their big ass SUV/pickup truck probably costing them hundreds of dollars a month...

As an aside, before this crisis, there were calls for an EU wide unemployment scheme. Now it's back on the table. What we already have is that if you have worked in a country, and move, you can get unemployement benefits in the other country. Caused some uproar in 2008-2009 when French City bankers came back to France to claim benefits here that are much higher than benefits in the UK.

As a european, you speak like you know America better then Americans. You really don't. Not all Americans live pay check to paycheck and on a line of credit. Most Americans do have a mortgage on their house, those are their largest debt liabilities. The extra money in unemployment is attempting to trigger a deep V economic recovery. If people have significant money in their pocket when their employer brings them back to work, there's a much higher likelihood that they will spend money as soon as their job returns. Money needs to start moving, and early data is saying that its starting to move, hence the market has rebounded significantly.

If the economy is so strong, why is the Fed currently keeping interest rates at 0%? Why all the deficit spending? Why the continued tax breaks for the very wealthy? Recall that that Stock Market crashed before any shut downs. Apparently, that is the one and only source for how good the economy is. Not people racked with student debt and medical bills making minimum wage if they are lucky.

LabQuest wrote:

Unemployment is currently $3,400 a month in my state. That's more than I make working full time!

So the question would be: Is unemployment to high, or regular wages too low?

If I mention all friends or acquaintances who came to the US with nothing and today have household income >$200k USD it would take a long, long time.

It is hard to live anywhere. It's hard to succeed anywhere. The human condition is quite difficult. That is something all our ancestors faced. The US is just easier than most other places. But that doesn't make it easy. You can be a roofer or a plumber and make well over 100k USD per year. You can be a wedding photographer and make over 100k per year.

Poverty is a real thing and hopelessness is real. See above on the human condition. But there are ways out.

N757ST : "not all of us are like that" isn't really a rebuttal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/the-no- ... -debt.html

Not saving enough while living in a country with a minimal safety net isn't smart, yet very common. Of course there is more money for everyone if people spend too much instead of saving.

Aesma, I wonder if our healthcare system has something to do with not saving. In our country, if you save, you face brutal healthcare and college tuition bills, say 300k-500k now. For many people, the choice is to scrimp and save 40 years, only to face stiff bills for health care and pay tuition, which are given to low income people anyway.

So it might be better for most people to maintain zero wealth, and instead rely on bankruptcy or government assistance at regular intervals throughout life.

I find it is always tempting to blame people for unsophisticated behavior. The truth usually reveals they are smarter than they look.

I can’t remember the name of the Pakistani who came to America with pennies and became a fast food entrepreneur eventually heading one of the big chains. He said, “it took me 18 years to get out of Pakistan and 12 years to put my first million in bank here”.

seb146 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The weekly $600 federal unemployment bonus isn't something Trump did. Trump isn't smart or caring enough to do this.

It came from the Democratic House and was barely approved by Republicans. Republicans are now dead against extending it past July (over their dead bodies). Giving money to their rich pals is no problem, of course.

Now, from my understanding as an European, unemployment is a state thing in the US. So you must register as unemployed through your state, to get your state and federal check. Many states, especially the most Republican and poor ones (often goes hand in hand) have atrociously outdated computer systems, so bad they have to get engineers out of retirement homes to help fix them. So millions of unemployed people couldn't register several weeks after having lost their jobs. Some even called the offices more than 100 times a day, probably overloading everything big time (it's my line of work).

Couple that with the US "way of life" on the credit card, with very little if any savings, and after a couple of weeks of shutdown the world was seeings videos of people being given food on the hood of their big ass SUV/pickup truck probably costing them hundreds of dollars a month...

As an aside, before this crisis, there were calls for an EU wide unemployment scheme. Now it's back on the table. What we already have is that if you have worked in a country, and move, you can get unemployement benefits in the other country. Caused some uproar in 2008-2009 when French City bankers came back to France to claim benefits here that are much higher than benefits in the UK.

As a european, you speak like you know America better then Americans. You really don't. Not all Americans live pay check to paycheck and on a line of credit. Most Americans do have a mortgage on their house, those are their largest debt liabilities. The extra money in unemployment is attempting to trigger a deep V economic recovery. If people have significant money in their pocket when their employer brings them back to work, there's a much higher likelihood that they will spend money as soon as their job returns. Money needs to start moving, and early data is saying that its starting to move, hence the market has rebounded significantly.

If the economy is so strong, why is the Fed currently keeping interest rates at 0%? Why all the deficit spending? Why the continued tax breaks for the very wealthy? Recall that that Stock Market crashed before any shut downs. Apparently, that is the one and only source for how good the economy is. Not people racked with student debt and medical bills making minimum wage if they are lucky.

No one held a gun to your head when you signed the loans for your degree. You CHOSE to take on student loans. Now you want those of us that got jobs in well paying sectors to bail you out. Sorry bubs. You could’ve easily gone to trade school and become an electrician or plumber. Those trades in my town and county will net you six figures, with very little student debt. Or you could use your degree elsewhere and move, but you seem unwilling to do that.

Tax breaks for the wealthy.... I pay more in taxes yearly then you’ve likely paid in a decade or more, and I hardly would call myself wealthy. Stop telling me to pay my fair share, when I pay 10+ times what you pay and use probably less services. I’m willing to obviously pay my taxes and support some welfare being given out, and I support those money’s being funneled to infrastructure, but there’s entirely to many who suck the government tit and have no intent to pull themselves up. Some of the taxes you guys want, like a death tax, is ludicrous. Double, triple taxation is all over the tax laws and at least trumps plan eliminated much of that.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aesma, I wonder if our healthcare system has something to do with not saving. In our country, if you save, you face brutal healthcare and college tuition bills, say 300k-500k now. For many people, the choice is to scrimp and save 40 years, only to face stiff bills for health care and pay tuition, which are given to low income people anyway.

So it might be better for most people to maintain zero wealth, and instead rely on bankruptcy or government assistance at regular intervals throughout life.

I find it is always tempting to blame people for unsophisticated behavior. The truth usually reveals they are smarter than they look.

If you pay 300-500k for an education and it’s not a doctorate in medicine or similar that’ll pay 200k plus then you’ve made some bad decisions. A degree from a good state school can easily be had for under 150k, but some choose to go to private universities and make terrible degree choices. If you spend 250k for a Brown or Boston College education in a subject like art, or English, what do you all expect? Get an engineering degree, a MIS degree, something that actually pays and has a career path. There are so many people that complain about student debt because they made questionable choices.

BravoOne wrote:

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

The whole “welfare queen” nonsense has been debunked time and time again. The amount of legitimate fraud is not nearly what the right wants people to think.

The more money printing by the FED and the more bailouts for Wall Street and their buddies, the more extreme the economic inequality.

maverick4002 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

Unemployment is currently $3,400 a month in my state. That's more than I make working full time!

So the question would be: Is unemployment to high, or regular wages too low?

Probably a little bit of both I'd say.

Speaking about unemployment...I think I would be in favor of NEGATIVE tax rates for the lowest paid. That is, get extra money if you work instead being unemployed.

Dieuwer wrote:

Speaking about unemployment...I think I would be in favor of NEGATIVE tax rates for the lowest paid. That is, get extra money if you work instead being unemployed.

We do that here, Earned Income Tax Credit, refundable money from Uncle Sugar

CitizenJustin wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

The whole “welfare queen” nonsense has been debunked time and time again. The amount of legitimate fraud is not nearly what the right wants people to think.

That would depend on what you define as “fraud” and a “welfare queen”. Is a Tesla owner a welfare queen? I’d say yes, you probably won’t. Is an able-bodied worker sucking up the current COVID money rather than going back to work a fraud? Again, I’d say yes.

N757ST wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Aesma, I wonder if our healthcare system has something to do with not saving. In our country, if you save, you face brutal healthcare and college tuition bills, say 300k-500k now. For many people, the choice is to scrimp and save 40 years, only to face stiff bills for health care and pay tuition, which are given to low income people anyway.

So it might be better for most people to maintain zero wealth, and instead rely on bankruptcy or government assistance at regular intervals throughout life.

I find it is always tempting to blame people for unsophisticated behavior. The truth usually reveals they are smarter than they look.

If you pay 300-500k for an education and it’s not a doctorate in medicine or similar that’ll pay 200k plus then you’ve made some bad decisions. A degree from a good state school can easily be had for under 150k, but some choose to go to private universities and make terrible degree choices. If you spend 250k for a Brown or Boston College education in a subject like art, or English, what do you all expect? Get an engineering degree, a MIS degree, something that actually pays and has a career path. There are so many people that complain about student debt because they made questionable choices.

Okay, but remember, most families have more than one child. Now add medical costs for the family to that.

Dieuwer wrote:

Speaking about unemployment...I think I would be in favor of NEGATIVE tax rates for the lowest paid. That is, get extra money if you work instead being unemployed.

Great news.. Bill Clinton introduced that into law as part of "Welfare Reform" in the 1990s. Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It's a thing.

airhansa wrote:

Furthermore, other countries appear to have worse coronavirus unemployment systems, such as Canada which offers $1488 USD per month for people made unemployed, whereas the UK only gives 80% of existing salary up to $3000 or a welfare payment of $500 + reasonable rent expenses (still far below even $2000 from what I understand).

In Canada, it’s 2000 CAD/mo, but for 4 months only. The freebie will be over soon.

WarRI1 wrote:

Greed fed by cheap labor is the key, especially in the US. I get a chuckle how the Restaurants are now crying over not getting any one to take a job. One of the biggest exploiters of them all, now crying.

And nonetheless - they aren’t eager to raise pay to their staff even by a dollar an hour.

LCDFlight wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Speaking about unemployment...I think I would be in favor of NEGATIVE tax rates for the lowest paid. That is, get extra money if you work instead being unemployed.

Great news.. Bill Clinton introduced that into law as part of "Welfare Reform" in the 1990s. Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It's a thing.

I guess I haven't been paying attention then...

Unemployment doesn't cover everyone. If the company did not pay unemployment taxes in Texas, the person who lost their job gets nothing.

Also, a significant number of people work 50-60 hours a week at two or more 'part-time' jobs. Less than 32 hours per week per job. That way the company does not have to follow state requirements for unemployment, and the person does not get any benefits. No health care, etc.

Unemployment covers only about 70-75% of the people who lost their jobs due to COVID 19.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

The whole “welfare queen” nonsense has been debunked time and time again. The amount of legitimate fraud is not nearly what the right wants people to think.

That would depend on what you define as “fraud” and a “welfare queen”. Is a Tesla owner a welfare queen? I’d say yes, you probably won’t. Is an able-bodied worker sucking up the current COVID money rather than going back to work a fraud? Again, I’d say yes.

You said "going back to work" as if you can just go anywhere and there will be work for you to work in

This is not a matter of left vs right unless you are completely clueless.
Improper welfare payments, including fraud, are estimated to be 10.6% of all federal welfare payments made and totaled $99.1 billion in fiscal year 2019 . This estimate is based on reports from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) [i], The General Accounting Office (GAO), and Inspector General reports.

BravoOne wrote:

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

Really? How much fraud? Proof please. A lot folks are rather tired of statement such as this...

bhill wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

bhill wrote:

Well, when 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, that may have something to do with it. Healthcare, including medicines are very expensive even if you have health insurance in the US...most plans are now high deductible plans to boot. The US's "safety net" is a pittance...it may put food in your belly, but not a roof over your head, hence the States having moratoriums on evictions at this time. Welfare here is NOT "strong," political parties here have tried time and time again to defund it or make it very difficult to get, even if you need it.

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

Really? How much fraud? Proof please. A lot folks are rather tired of statement such as this...

Fair enough. So, how do they plan to combat it? Making EVERYONE that truly needs it suffer is not the solution.

bhill wrote:

bhill wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

It should be difficult to get as there is a lot of welfare fraud that in turn takes way from all of the deserving families that need it.

Really? How much fraud? Proof please. A lot folks are rather tired of statement such as this...

Fair enough. So, how do they plan to combat it? Making EVERYONE that truly needs it suffer is not the solution.

Sorry but if you think here is no problem with paying out billions just to make sure that evryone is covered, there is no hope for you. At least you do realize there is a problem and sooner or later they system will implode, and no one will be a benefactor. How many billions are acceptable to society? As i said, it should be difficult, but obviously it's not difficult enough for some.

rfields5421 wrote:

Unemployment doesn't cover everyone. If the company did not pay unemployment taxes in Texas, the person who lost their job gets nothing.

Also, a significant number of people work 50-60 hours a week at two or more 'part-time' jobs. Less than 32 hours per week per job. That way the company does not have to follow state requirements for unemployment, and the person does not get any benefits. No health care, etc.

Unemployment covers only about 70-75% of the people who lost their jobs due to COVID 19.

Wouldn't they be covered under the extended benefits of the CARES act?

Eventually some were covered, but not all. My possible grandson-in-law did receive a partial payment of $350 per month because Texas Workforce Commission ruled he was entitled to a bit over 1/2 the Cares payment as a half-time restaurant worker. But my granddaughter was ruled not eligible for unemployment because her job loss was declared 'medical' not unemployment.

CARES payments in Texas now require documentation of job search. The granddaughter managed to find a 20 hour per week position. Of course, they lost their apartment May 1 because they could not make the rent payment after six weeks without a check.

They were not evicted, just the rent due keeps adding up, so they decided to move out and not renew the lease. They moved in with my daughter.

People who could not make rent payments were not evicted, but the rent is still due at some point. Had they stayed in the small cheaper apartment, they would owe the $2,220 for two months back rent, in addition to $1,100 due July 1. Texas stopped foreclosures and evictions for non-payment if the person(s) were out of work because of COVID. However, the money owed still adds up.

($1,100 is a normal 1 bedroom apt rent in a north Dallas suburb in an open, non-gated apartment community - it is not a fancy apartment or high end at that rate.)

I am wondering how this relates to the riots that happen[ed] in the United States. Are most Blacks going to be covered under the coronavirus unemployment insurance scheme or not?

Being eligible for social assistance or unemployment benefits is one thing, actually receiving them is another. You can find tons of news articles with stories of people waiting since March(!) to see anything show up in the mail or checking account.

airhansa wrote:

I am wondering how this relates to the riots that happen[ed] in the United States. Are most Blacks going to be covered under the coronavirus unemployment insurance scheme or not?

"Welfare" depends on the state. Unemployment payments, SNAP, and medical insurance are different in TX than CA than CO than AK and so on and so on. The riots have little to nothing to do with unemployment pay or SNAP (food stamp) benefits.