JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (Mathias)

Bottom

« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#61

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Nothing reduces a debate into simplistic sound bites like the appearance of hero69.

No one is debating the need for safety nets. Who pays, who benefits, and how much is the question.

Exactly...lets cut $50 bucks a week from unemployed workers checks..those lazy bastards.

And we need safety nets because some things are just "too big to fail" So we will block Unemployment Benefits to laid off workers but pass multi billion dollar bailout packages for Wall Street Tycoons.

Who Pays, Who Benefits and How Much....under Christie the workers will pay, business will benefit and How Much will be the price we all pay as citizens trying to survive in an economy/society/polity that is too one sided towards big business

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:08

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#62

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The quoting is getting ponderous, but I will just reiterate that this tax increase will cause pain for small and mid-size businesses, sliding scale or not, and will inevitably lead to more job cuts.

That's a myth.... just like raising the minimum wage causes job cuts. Will it cost them yes, is it so over the top they will choose to lay-off workers because the increase in UI is greater than the revenue derived by that additional employee....not a chance.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:

Christie has decided to make it tougher for those fired for misconduct. You are the one assuming that lack of productivity and caring for sick family would be included. You need to prove this.

I'm not assuming...i work in the field.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Everyone lobbies.

And I can see which side you are lobbying for

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The national recession is the fault of many people, but NJ's problems are much more the fault of our prior governors and NJ's public employee unions and their pension funds, so Christie is on the right track as far as that is concerned.

Of course it is...

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:02

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#63

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
We do not compete for business with Alabama as much as we do with PA and NY. I thought that was obvious.

But PA then competes with West Virginia which competes with Kentucky which competes with Tennessee which competes with Alabama...where do you draw the line?

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:38

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#64

Home away from home

Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:

I wouldn't compare Alabama's UI rate because the cost of living there is much much lower than NJ. However, NY is a good comparison because the cost of living is the same, and many people who live in NJ, work in NY and when they are laid off, they get the NY rate.

Seriously, what country do you think you live in? The US is a capitalist driven society. If you want socialism, move to Cuba or something.

NY is a huge state encompassing many different economies...NJ is the most urban state with one of the highest average costs of living. It has been a serious problem for a long time that NYC is stuck with such a low UI benefit as a result of being tied into the larger state of NY. Their UI is way too low.

I live in the United States

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:34

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#65

Home away from home

Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
Mathias, do you not realize NJ's pension fund is underfunded by $46 billion? I am not sure how you expect things to operate as is when NJ is in a budget crisis. If something isn't done quickly, the fund will be insolvent and NJ will not have to capability to pay out what was promised to state workers. This is why Christie is advocating pension reform. The well has dried up, and there's nothing more to give.

I think it really sucks to cut unemployment insurance by $50. I don't think anyone is blaming unemployed people for this mess. However, I am pretty sure that NJ's UI rate is much higher than NY. I believe you cap out at 500 in NY and NJ is at 600.

Alabama's UI rate is even lower...lets try that. How about Mexico their minimum wage is way lower we should try that too and hell the private sector barely has pensions anymore so lets get rid of public sector pensions entirely...they can switch over to a 401K scheme that lets employers invest the money and profit off of it....and while we are at it lets take social security and invest that into the markets as well.

Pension problems exist for a number of reasons...if you want to fix it you should fix it not use it as a wedge to push for neo-liberal economic policies

Posted on: 2010/2/26 18:54

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#66

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Employers certainly do make employment decisions based on taxes, tax incentives, and tax credits, no matter the size. They also make decisions about where to locate their employees based on these incentives. They do not hire based on need alone.

What I said was that the UI tax is not significant enough in and of itself to make a difference in hiring decisions.
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Not all businesses are corporations. In fact, most are not. A tax increase of $400 per person is not small for a small or mid-size business.

UI Tax for employers and employees is done using a sliding scale not everyone is hit the same

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
If New York or Penn. are doing something that is more business-friendly (and budget-friendly) than NJ, we ought to at least consider doing the same thing, because they are our competition for jobs. Just because someone is working paycheck to paycheck, does not mean that they should be paid for regular, short-term intervals between paychecks just because they are out of work for a few days.

No it means that smart societies recognize the fact that there is a such thing as involuntary unemployment and that the costs to a society of no social safety net are far greater than the cost of taxing workers and employers specifically for a fund to help workers in transition.

And what does business friendly mean? What kind of bullshit philosophy is business friendly? Is Bangladesh business-friendly because they allow children to work 12 hour days in factories? At what point do you stop and say limits need to be put on competition before we all race to the bottom?
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Caring for a family member and lack of productivity would not fall under misconduct. Christie wants to make it tougher for those fired for misconduct.

Where did you read that? Find me the Chris Christie definition of employee misconduct or are you just assuming? Employers regularly try to challenge unemployment benefits for workers who are fired for things such as calling out sick or productivity...Christie is proposing to make it easier for employers to win those kinds of claims

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
I know that all business owners seem like Montgomery Burns or Henry Potter to you, but they are not. The only folks trying to please the crowd are the ones who are against this bill.

No, they seem like people who are passionately driven to make a profit by any means necessary and who are willing to spend a lot of money to lobbying politicians to make things easier to do that...either by exploiting workers, the environment, public perception etc. And I guess under Capitalism that is fine...as long as you have strong workers' and citizens organizations to balance that out...
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
And do you really think that most people blame this recession on immigrants and unions? Please. Most people blame George Bush and Congress (both Dems and Repubs) and big banks and Wall Street. They are not incorrect, either.

Lets see of the Big Banks and Wall Street are the problem why is Christie attacking labor unions, workers pension funds and the unemployed?

Posted on: 2010/2/26 18:06

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#67

Home away from home

Quote:

Lafayette wrote:

Unemployment is not welfare, blame the banks and the big wigs for throwing this country into a place where the educated middle class can't get a job and if they do they have to make the same amount of money as people who are unskilled and uneducated!It's a scary situation....

Because the majority of workers do not belong to unions therefore the working people of this country have very little voice so you get a fat cat republican like Christie bought and paid for by big business attacking the people with no power, no voice and who really have nothing to do with the mess we are in. Meanwhile Wall Street is taking home huge bonuses and the Dow is again above 10,000.

And unfortunately there are tons of hard working people out there who have been tricked and bamboozled into thinking they and their neighbors are the problem

Posted on: 2010/2/26 16:54

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#68

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Christie is proposing reducing the maximum payout from $600 to $550. He is not reducing it by $50 across the board. NJ will still have the 3rd highest weekly benefit in the country with this cut. What incentive will corporations have to hire more workers if they have to pay more in taxes ($400 per employee) to the unemployment insurance fund on July 1?

Employers won't be making hiring decisions based on the lowering or raising of UI tax...its a relatively small tax for most employers. Firms will start hiring when they need workers to do the job. You can cut all the taxes you want to a firm isn't going to hire more workers than they need at the time.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote: is also proposing a 1-week waiting period before collecting unemployment to keep workers from collecting for a few days of a short-term layoff. Pennsylvania and New York do this already, as do most other states.

Just because NY and PA do it doesn't mean it's a better way of operating. What is saved by forcing workers, some who live paycheck to paycheck, to wait a week? Our economy is pretty much consumer driven...every dollar you take out of a check or the longer you make people wait you are slowing down spending. It makes no sense...it's just another crowd pleaser from Christie to the uninformed.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
And why should a worker fired for misconduct have an easy time collecting unemployment?

Because in a system where a firm pays a higher UI tax on all its employees anytime 1 employee is laid off you create a perverse incentive structure to fire employees instead of laying them off. As it stands now anyway most employees who are fired for just cause do not get UI benefits Christie just wants to toughen the standard. So for example an employee fired for theft probably wont get UI but an employee fired for something subjective like productivity or because they took too many sick days to care for a child etc would still get it. Christie would deny UI regardless of the reason they were fired.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 16:49

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#69

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
I have collected unemployment and I was terrified. I had no idea how long it would take to find a job and I knew unemployment would not last forever. Fortunately, it only lasted 6 weeks. I do not get these stories about people who chill out while collecting unemployment. I am sure that a huge majority of unemployment collectors are busting their humps to get a job. Or maybe I am naive.

Because these stories aren't true...it's bullshit blabber and story lines sold by big business through blowhard columnists and talk radio show hosts who pretend not to be millionaires but regular folk who are getting "screwed by the man."

Do some people say this...yes of course. It's tough to find work and people are embarrassed so instead of telling people no one will hire them they say things like "oh I'm going to collect for a while" etc so they seem in control.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 16:09

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#70

Home away from home

Another change Christie is trying to make to unemployment is to make it tougher for workers who are fired to collect......this ends up being a financial incentive for employers....why layoff a worker when you can look for a way to fire them instead...thereby not having your unemployment tax raised.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 13:03

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week

#71

Home away from home

Keep in mind that Unemployment is based on where you work not where you live. So if you live in NJ but work in NY you are going to get NY Unemployment.

As workers we pay into the unemployment fund of the state we work in, our employers do the same. The amount our employers pay is based on something called an "experience rating." The more frequently an employer lays off workers the higher the experience rating and the higher the tax....the reason for this is to discourage EMPLOYER abuse of the unemployment insurance program.

How does EMPLOYER abuse happen? Through the use of temporary layoffs employers could switch to an on-call type of employment where whenever there was a dip in available work they could temporarily layoff their employees knowing full well their employees will return to work and not look for another job because the state would pay them for the couple of days or weeks of layoff.

Chris Christie's move to reduce unemployment benefits is one of those crowd pleasing moves for the morons out there who believe the blowhards on talk radio and think that the "great recession" is being cause by poor people, immigrants and labor unions. He gets away with it because a lot of people never take the time to critically think about these issues.

So Christie will take $50 a week away from a person who has lost their job and pass the savings along to corporations in the form of an unemployment tax cut. Rob the poor give to the rich.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 12:44

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Read Any Great Books Lately?

#72

Home away from home

K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain - By Ed Viesturs w/ David Roberts

Posted on: 2009/12/1 11:53

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What location was your bike stolen from (time, type of lock, etc)?

#73

Home away from home

If you must run in a store and do not have a bike lock this trick works really well.

Shift into the bike's lowest gears (easiest to pedal) and loosen the back wheel. The thief will jump on the bike and even if he/she spins at 200rpm they won't get far at all (and if by chance they do the back wheel will fall off). Just remember to re tighten when you get back on the bike.

I caught a young punk 10 seconds after leaning my bike to go into a store in Hoboken. He was shocked when trying to pedal and wasn't going anywhere. I grabbed him and he said "hey man I only wanted to test ride it."

Posted on: 2009/7/4 13:06

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Bike Security

#74

Home away from home

Quote:

croft wrote:
I have a 94 Schwinn Criss Cross that I rode back and forth to and from Hoboken for the last few weeks while my car was in the shop. I would park it and chain it in front of a client's house for sometimes 5-6 hours at a time. I have an old Bike Club lock and a bunch of Kryptonite cables that I have bungee corded to the back rack. I make sure to run the cables through the wheels, gear, frame, and any other area to prevent someone from being able to ride it, while locking the bike lock through the frame and rear wheel to a secure post or fence pole. A cheap carabiner clip can be placed in other areas of the wheels/gears and be barely noticed, so even if they do cut the locks, it will make the getaway harder if the clip matches the bike's color. Also, I usually pull the brake cables out so the brakes are non functioning, and have at times loosened the back wheel to disengage the chain and derailleur. It's a shame I had to do all of those things, but in the past I've had BMX bikes chained up and people eyeing them and tampering them right from the window of my old office.

That's an A++

Posted on: 2009/3/29 22:03

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Bike Security

#75

Home away from home

One other trick to keep in mind. If you need to stop into a store or something and do not have a lock with you do the following:

1. Keep the bike parked where you can see it from inside the store.

2. Put the chain onto the easiest gears your bike has (if someone tries to jump on and ride away they won't get far)

3. If you have quick release wheels.. loosen the back wheel (it will fall off)...just remember when you get back on to tighten it.

Posted on: 2009/3/29 1:01

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Bike Security

#76

Home away from home

Most bikes on the street are easy prey for bike thieves. I would not recommend locking up a bike outside but if you must you will need to buy multiple locks and take special care that all removable parts are secured to the frame. Here is a a great video about locking up bikes.

Posted on: 2009/3/28 15:28

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: A tax-free reimbursement of $240 per year - just for riding your bike to work?

#77

Home away from home

Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:

1-Ride 25-30 miles over the GW bridge

I commute to midtown from Jersey City by bike fairly often, especially when it is warmer. From the Heights it is just about 21 miles.

21 miles for anyone who rides a bike on a regular basis isn't really that far. My commute time takes about an hour and 10 minutes. The biggest challenge is tackling the hill that leads up to the GWB bike entrance.

Posted on: 2009/1/7 17:06

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: Heights: Destroy ton of mozzarella cheese as illegal garage plant is shut down

#78

Home away from home

I'm more interested to find out who he was selling it to

Posted on: 2009/1/7 17:00

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What's worse for JC, Luxury Condos or Hipsters?

#79

Home away from home

Interesting take:

Hipsters: The Dead End of Western Civilization

Posted on: 2008/10/21 14:44

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#80

Home away from home

Posted on: 2008/9/27 10:24

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#81

Home away from home

No but funny enough I got this as spam today:

From: Henry Paulson, h.paulson@USTreasury.gov
Subject: PROPOSAL.
To:
Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 8:15 AM

Dear Friend,

I am introducing my self as Secretary Henry Paulson, the Secretary of US Treasury, I wish to request for your assistance in a
financial transaction., And I wish to invest in Finance and mortgages in your country.

I have 700 Billion USD($700,000,000,000) to invest in your country, and I will require
your assistance in helping me stand as my President's business
partner who he deposited the consignment on his behalf into the
security, the consignment was
deposited in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was latter lifted to Washington Mutual Bank where the consignment is now under the care of the security company
diplomat.I will be gladly to give you 15% of the total sum for
your assistance.

Please it is very important you contact me immediately on my private email
address:h.paulson@USTreasury.gov

For further explanation on the whole entire work plan.

Awaiting your immediate response

Thanks and God bless.
Hank Paulson

Posted on: 2008/9/26 18:44

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#82

Home away from home

Quote:

SLyng wrote:
The fact remains, you had nothing to say about the merits of the deal, the fact that these bonds are backed by loans and if borrowers default on them you own their house, that many of the loans will pay off and/or continue paying over time. The fact that at 50c on the dollar (or lower) very few of them have to pay off for the government to get most of their money back.

I give up.

I don't fully understand what the deal is, I doubt there are many people that do and I have a background in Economics and Finance.

In the same spirit it would be difficult to argue the points you are making because I believe your understanding of the "bailout" is completely off. These toxic assets are diced up mortgages which would be almost impossible to trace back to physical property.

This is one of the reasons Sovereign Wealth Funds and PE firms are not touching it.

Posted on: 2008/9/26 13:03

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#83

Home away from home

Quote:

SLyng wrote:
Hmm, well, he bought a $5bn preferred stock deal and got fantastic terms on it: 10% interest rate per year and deal is callable at a 15% premium over what he paid for it at any time. He ALSO got warrants to buy another $5bn of common stock at $115/share (stock was trading at $125ish at the time). That's a sweetheart deal but has very little to do with the bailout. The Oracle will do just fine on this one... Don't you worry about that!

Wall Street Journal 9.25.08

Mr. Buffett's decision to invest now in Goldman gives an indication of how the famed investor believes the financial crisis might shake out. At a minimum, he regards Goldman as a survivor, although the firm's profits could be pinched as it adjusts to life as a banking holding company, taking fewer risks and facing heightened regulation.

In a telephone interview Wednesday morning from his office in Omaha, Mr. Buffett said he believes the proposed federal bailout will be approved by Congress and that it will succeed. "The government has a great opportunity," he says. "If they buy things at market prices with the government's cheap funding, they should make a lot of money."

If Congress fails to approve the bailout, Mr. Buffett says, all bets are off. His investment in Goldman will "get killed, and so will all our other investments."

Posted on: 2008/9/26 12:57

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#84

Home away from home

Neo-Liberalism is a fairly known term.

Most conservatives are liberals in the economic sense...well at least they were a week ago.

Very few people are calling on the government to do "nothing" but I highly doubt you will see anything close to a sensible resolution to this crisis in such a short time frame..much less on JC List.

A large part of the problem is the lack of trust most Americans have in those running our government and economy (as well as the institutions).

Someone else mentioned it on here. These Private Equity Funds and SWF are sitting on billions of capital and they need to step up to the plate. They stand to gain the most if the "bailout" goes through so they are on the sidelines right now. In fact Buffet only put 5 billion into Goldman based on the assumption the bailout would go through. It wasn't a sign of confidence in the fundamentals of the financial system it was a bet that the bailout would pass.

Guess even the oracle could be wrong this time.

Posted on: 2008/9/26 0:50

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#85

Home away from home

"Here's my issue with you guys, if you want to make arguments against the bailout do it in a reasonable/analytical way. So far what i've seen is people arguing against something they don't fully understand..."

The average person has no grasp on the details of any of this , just a healthy and proper skepticism. In fact almost every expert (admittedly) does not fully understand this extremely complex and complicated debacle the neo-liberals have gotten us into.

How can you blame the average American for being Skeptical of the bailout when they have been told time and again by Bush, Bernanke and Paulson that the fundamentals of the economy and financial system are sound. Then a few weeks later ask for a trillion dollar check with no conditions and new sweeping powers for the Treasury Secretary?

Hank Paulson Quotes from today's WSJ

February 27th 2008

"I don't think...the American taxpayer needs to be stepping in with more taxpayer dollars..we are so far away from seeing something that would have me calling for a bailout that I don't see it"

July 20 2008

"It's a safe banking system. A sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation"

Sept 18th 2008

"If the (700 billion) bail out doesn't pass then heaven help us"

Posted on: 2008/9/26 0:16

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#86

Home away from home

I have a question for Wibbit and SLyng

1. Were you two ever supporters of investing Social Security funds into the stock market?

I don't hear Republicans pushing the privatization of social security in the last few weeks, I wonder why...

Posted on: 2008/9/24 23:50

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: What does everyone think of the Bailout?

#87

Home away from home

This is nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth and power to the financial elite.

It's amazing to sit back and watch people who have praised neo-liberal economic policies around the globe (condeming millions to poverty) and at home when it comes to labor unions, distressed industrial companies, poor single mothers now call for the largest government intervention ever in the economy which not surpsisingly will primarily benefit the financial elite.

Ben Bernanke made his name in Academia studying the great depression. I had to sit through Econ professor after Econ professor (influenced by Bernanke's research) talk about how government intervention in the economy during the great depression (legalization of labor unions, public works projects etc) actually prolonged the depression and that the best medicine for third world countries is to de-nationalize assets and allow their currencies to float...now these hypocrites are asking for a 700 billion dollar wealth transfer.

Posted on: 2008/9/24 23:48

Topic | Forum

Mathias

Re: JCPD BLACK & BLUE

#88

Home away from home

Now that the Federal Civil Rights suit has been filed I cannot comment on any of the anonymous allegations being made. I am also personally worried about my safety since my situation is tied in with the steroid scandal currently being investigated within the JCPD. This may be why people who do not know me are posting anonymously here with such vile and passion.

The Hudson County prosecutor's office investigated what happened to me for over a year and upon reviewing the facts decided i did not commit aggravated assault against officers Hill and Vargas. The Prosecutors office also refused to dismiss the criminal charges I filed against those officers.

I would have preferred the facts of the case be presented to a grand jury rather than sent down to judges within the Hudson County municipal system. However with a Federal Civil Rights suit I have a right to a jury trial outside of Hudson County where I will be able to present the facts of what happened to me and the JCPD can also present their conspiracy theories.

Posted on: 2008/9/6 18:16