23 Jul 03 12:06, Roy J. Tellason wrote to Roy Witt:

 RJT>> Does it never occur to these people that one other way to deal with
 RJT>> it is to spend less?

 RW>> LOL! That's what they were told when they sent emmisaries from the
 RW>> legislature to the cities to tell them they need to get behind the
 RW>> tax increases. That and 'isn't it about time you filed bancruptcy?'

 RJT> Emissaries...  They had to come up with something else to spend more
 RJT> on...!

Those who visited the mayor and city council members were from San Diego
and probably headed home for the weekend anyway. That may also be true of
the other 'emmissaries' too. Probably one of the perks of those offices is
travel pay.

 RJT>>   I never see any of them mention that possibility,  not ever...

 RW>> The Republicans have said it all along. Even as a minority in
 RW>> California legislatures, the pubs have been able to stymy any tax
 RW>> increases, since the law requires a 2/3s majority vote to pass. Now
 RW>> the democraps have put an initiative on the ballot to make it 55%
 RW>> to pass. I sure hope these dummies who elected this group don't
 RW>> fall for that one.

 RJT> Yeah,  if they can't work the system to do what they want,  they
 RJT> change the system?!

Well, we got a budget yesterday and thanks to the republicans, there are
no new taxe...course, this came about right after the democrats were
overheard in secret session, discussing plans on how to keep the budget
issue alive and blame it on the republicans.

 RJT>> Our governor,  having been a DA and then mayor of Philly,  is
 RJT>> making more in retirement pay from that stuff than I make while
 RJT>> working! But I get to contribute to it.  Grr...

 RW>> Welcome to the club.

 RJT> At least right now I'm collecting unemployment,  and not paying into
 RJT> all that stuff at the moment.

Is PA like CA in that you don't pay income taxes on unemployment benifits?
It used to be that the feds didn't collect taxes on it either, but then
they got greedy and said piss on the unemployed...

 RW>>> In January, the employer's unemployment taxes go up 51% to fill
 RW>>> the caufers, which are going to have a much bigger demand because
 RW>>> of the state jobs going down the drain. California should file
 RW>>> bancruptcy, but that'll never happen.

 RJT>> Nope,  that'd be too like the politicians admitting that they
 RJT>> screwed up.

 RW>> There're no secrets in this state. That's exactly what they did.

 RJT> They do it all the time.  AND GET AWAY WITH IT.  Grr.

Unfortunately.

 RJT>> And I have a new wrinkle to contend with while collecting
 RJT>> unemployment, which I've been at a whole couple of weeks already.

 RW>> I did that last year.

 RJT>>   I apparently fit some sort of a "profile" that
suggests that I'll
 RJT>> go the whole way through all of my benefits before getting employed
 RJT>> again.  (And if I should choose to do so,  what of it? It's my
 RJT>> choice,  right?)

 RW>> Not if you look at the law and how you must keep up your efforts to
 RW>> find a job. Of course, it's no big deal that you can't find one,
 RW>> that's what the money is for. They keep changing the system so
 RW>> that you can never get a foot up. In 1970, I took off a whole year
 RW>> on unemployment; all I had to do was lie about the effort I put
 RW>> into finding a job. I tried that again in 78, but they required an
 RW>> interviewer or receptionist to sign a sheet of paper that I had to
 RW>> turn in to get my money.  And again in 85. Last year, I found out
 RW>> there's no unemployment office to file a claim with, just a
 RW>> telephone number.  I didn't have to provide proof, nor did I have
 RW>> to report anywhere, accept by mail.  I'd lie on the form and get a
 RW>> check in the mail, just like clockwork.

 RJT> I found out yesterday that the reason for all this is because too
 RJT> many people were doing that sort of thing.  And because the feds
 RJT> have their fingers in it.

Sounds about right.

 RJT>> But I had to go in there today, and have to go back again next
 RJT>> week,  and when I asked today what the deal was with all this
 RJT>> stuff I found that it has to do with the feds getting involved in
 RJT>> it,  since they've gone and extended things they're apparently
 RJT>> putting some more conditions on getting that money...

 RW>> Yeup. That's the worst case scenario too.  The government screws up
 RW>> the economy and puts you out of work, then the government makes it
 RW>> harder for you to collect what's yours while you look for work.
 RW>> California doesn't levy taxes on 'unemployment compensation', yet
 RW>> the feds do...bend over, here's the shaft..

 RJT> This one local talk radio guy happens to be fond,  when talking
 RJT> about that sort of thing,  of saying "grab your ankles"...

Just once I'd like to see the tables turned...

 RJT>> Nothing like getting the feds involved in a state matter to make it
 RJT>> much more fun!  :-S

 RW>> Yeup.

 RJT> Oh yeah...


... A butterfly is a self-propelled flower.
--- Fidonet's Zone 2 is full urapeonz