HSBC facing charges from Atlanta communities over predatory lending

[Llamas]

Whenever someone refers to government-provided support as "handouts", I immediately lose respect for their argument - ESPECIALLY when they're referring to anything that's not welfare (unemployment, social security, medicare, public health insurance). All those things are programs we all pay into for years and years, and then we finally get something back from what we paid into. Welfare may be an actual handout in some people's cases, but you can only get welfare for so much time before it's taken away. Overall, it just seems rather ignorant to refer to these things as "handouts" or even worse, "free handouts".

[Godxilla]

Well, as you very well know, Llamas, there are many ways to rephrase a term. If some drug addict can't keep a job, he'll be unemployed. The government then gives him an amount of money for a much longer time then I think is rational. There are many ways to phrase this. Here are a few:
Unemployment insurance
Federal pension of sorts
Handout
Free handout
Money pissing
Giveaway
Budget destruction
Rewarding drug addicts
Giving needed cash
Financing a loser
See? Many ways to say it. But it all means the same thing: the government gives money to someone who has met a requirement. And I'm not so shallow as to discredit and argument based on word choice. If some noob says that anarchy is "great like a rape on a park bench", I might distrust him, but if his arguments make sense, I might agree with him.

[Static_Martyr]

Well, as you very well know, Llamas, there are many ways to rephrase a term. If some drug addict can't keep a job, he'll be unemployed. The government then gives him an amount of money for a much longer time then I think is rational. There are many ways to phrase this. Here are a few:
Unemployment insurance
Federal pension of sorts
Handout
Free handout
Money pissing
Giveaway
Budget destruction
Rewarding drug addicts
Giving needed cash
Financing a loser

That's just flat-out not true. for one, unemployment insurance is different from unemployment benefits --- UI is purchased privately from a provider and has no relation to the government. Similar to AFLAC and other work-compensation insurance programs, where the policy holder pays a certain monthly premium, and then if the worker becomes injured or unemployed (the condition varies from policy to policy), the company will pay the worker a certain wage substitute for a predetermined period of time.

Unemployment benefits from the government, however, are actually determined by your job and how much you made, and you actually don't qualify for unemployment if you were terminated on bad terms with your employer (and in many cases, not even if you quit yourself); unemployment is pretty obviously not a "handout." It's meant for people who are in-between jobs, and the requirements attest to that:

Question: Do I Qualify for Unemployment?
Answer: Unemployment insurance benefits are available for workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. There are eligibility requirements to qualify for unemployment benefits including working a certain number of weeks for a certain number of hours each week.

...

When You Don't Qualify for Unemployment

The following circumstances may disqualify you from collecting unemployment benefits:

Fired for misconduct
Quit without good cause
Resigned because of illness (check on disability benefits)
Left to get married

...

When You Quit Your Job

Can you collect unemployment if you quit your job? It depends. In most cases, if you voluntarily left employment you are not eligible. However, if you left for "good cause" you may be able to collect. "Good cause" is determined by the state unemployment office and you will be able to make a case for why you are eligible for benefits.

In addition, if you give notice, but the employer doesn't accept the notice and terminates your employment immediately, it is typically considered an involuntary termination and you may qualify for benefits.

This makes me curious, though, as to exactly how long you think unemployment benefits should extend --- given that they're (A) based on your previous wage, and (B) limited based on how long you worked there. Do you think that your returns, i.e. benefits, should not be based on your previous wage or how long you worked there? If that's so, then what do you think they should be based on?

[Godxilla]

Actually, UI should be based on previous pay. If someone with a lavish lifestyle gets UI, he or she likely has some debts that might need to be paid. UI helps that. UI is a good thing. I know a lady in the ATL who spent a year and a half on UI, babysitting for extra cash. Misery. But she was able to live with dignity because of UI. But I tell you: UI cannot be very big, because when unemployment rates skyrocket, UI makes the Treasury empty. UI should be for a set amount of time, regardless of how long one worked at a company. The length should be something like 7 months maximum. But if one was already on UI in the past year, then their benefits should last more like 5 months max.

Ever since Otto Bismarck invented pensions in the 1870s, it has been good for people and bad for government. They will never go away, so therefore, we need to balance the good and bad better. My thoughts described above are not quite complete, nor are they foolproof. Since you, static martyr, are a number-cruncher/source-finder, perhaps you can enlighten me on the level of Draconianness of my ideas. Thank you