Unemployment benefits to be extended.

• Mr. 300

  

  The senate moved forward with extending unemployment benefits to those who had them expire. Republicans said no to this unless there were cuts made to offset the spending. Why is that such a bad thing??? Strictly from a business standpoint it makes sense to offset expenditures with cuts when you are deficit spending as far as the eyes can see.
  
  But the real problem is not the extension given to those out of work. It's the lack of jobs being created. I seem to remember the left bashing Bush about a jobless recovery years back. Wonder where that mantra is today??
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/22/news/economy/unemployment_benefits/index.htm?hpt=T1
• jhay78

  

  The debate over extending unemployment benefits comes roughly 18 months after the supposed economy-saving stimulus bill was passed, and by itself proves beyond debate that the "stimulus" bill 1) was nothing more than the largest spending bill ever and 2) failed miserably.
  
  Maybe a Republican member of the House or Senate mentioned that, but I haven't heard or read anywhere that they have.
  
  Read where Max Baucus said extending unemployment will stimulate the economy. He's either the stupidest elected official ever, or he knows he's wrong and thinks we're all the stupidest people ever.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  jhay78;430325 wrote:The debate over extending unemployment benefits comes roughly 18 months after the supposed economy-saving stimulus bill was passed, and by itself proves beyond debate that the "stimulus" bill 1) was nothing more than the largest spending bill ever and 2) failed miserably.
  
  Maybe a Republican member of the House or Senate mentioned that, but I haven't heard or read anywhere that they have.
  
  Read where Max Baucus said extending unemployment will stimulate the economy. He's either the stupidest elected official ever, or he knows he's wrong and thinks we're all the stupidest people ever.

  
  
  That was Nancy Pelosi.
  
  And yes, she is wrong and thinks we're all the stupidest people ever.
• queencitybuckeye

  Someone mentioned in the debate that for every dollar spent in unemployment benefits, something like 1.9 dollars are generated to stimulate the economy.
  
  Hell, if that's true, why don't they just pass a law requiring employers to lay off everybody? We'll all be rich.
• tk421

  

  How long exactly can we still call these unemployment benefits? How long until they reach the area of welfare? I'm all for helping those who get laid off, but they've been extending these benefits for almost two years, haven't they? How long are they going to keep paying these people?
• Swamp Fox

  I understand those that question the extension of unemployment benefits again. It seems to be an extremely high price to pay when the deficit is as it is, however, whether a person is unemployed due to overseas competition, due to down-sizing, due to factories picking up and moving, either out of town or out of country, due to businesses going belly up, or for whatever other reasons, a person out of work is out of hope. A nation out of hope is a very dangerous thing. I agree that cuts should be made. Let's end the war in Iraq. Our business there is finished. I think it's pretty clear that there are no wmd's there, there are virtually no AlKaeda there, there is, to be sure, no reason for us to be there at all. think of the massive amounts of money we could save and enable us to better insure that those looking for work and not being able to find it would still be able to maintain their families at some level of decency and self respect and self worth. There are other things we could spend less on also, but I think you know what I think those things could be.
• majorspark

  

  The thing that many are forgetting is congress passed "Paygo" legislation early this year. To bring deficit hawks on board to increase the federal debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion the law requires the government to fund any spending increases in entitlement programs by spending cuts or tax increases, not by increasing the deficit. Obama trumpeted this legislation in his state of the union address in order to show himself and his party as ones who care about the deficit. Actively working to reign in federal spending.
  
  Today we see the full truth. They will violate their own laws with impunity. Anyone who calls them on the carpet and demands the law be followed and the monies taken from some other area of the budget or raise taxes, are labeled heartless pigs who want the unemployed and their children to be starving in the streets.
  
  Why do the American people continue to be fooled by these idiots?
  
  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/80981-obama-pay-as-you-go-rules-necessary-and-now-law-along-with-higher-debt-ceiling
• I Wear Pants

  ccrunner609;430390 wrote:Every person I know that is unemployed is abusing and taking advantage of the handout, they arent even looking to work. There are jobs out there, my nephew got a$10 hour job in a very good place the first day he was off for the summer.

  Which is great if you're in college or something like me. But paying rent/mortgage and supporting a family is almost impossible at $10 an hour. I imagine that's why a lot of people "aren't looking for work". They are looking for work just they aren't willing to take every job offered.
  
  Although at some point you do have to bite the bullet and just take any job.
• Footwedge

  Implementing fair trade laws and incentives to bring back the manufacturing base would solve a whole bunch of these problems. As for UC bennies themselves....for a finite time interval, they are self supporting like the FDIC is.....like an insurance pool Unfortunately, the fed has to kick in when things drag on like this.
  
  I would like to see a program put in place similar to the one they have in the Netherlands....a very socialist country that enforces a law that if downsized and receiving benefits, you must either go to school or work for the government. In our country, there is a ton of work that could be done in infrastructure repair, cleaning up parks, or even patrolling the southern border for that matter.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;430504 wrote:Implementing fair trade laws and incentives to bring back the manufacturing base would solve a whole bunch of these problems.

  
  It would also create a lot of problems. Higher wages equal higher prices meaning inflation. It also initiates a trade wars which have, in the past, been the catalyst for bloody wars.
  
  Right or wrong American companies have shifted jobs offshore at least in part due to arguably inflated labor rates.
  
  If we implement "fair" trade laws and incentives, then organized American labor needs to be on-board with it or you might as well shit can the idea right now.
• Swamp Fox

  I have to agree with you, I Wear Pants. I also do not disagree with you, ccrunner609.. I'm sure there are some jobs out there that will pay you 10 dollars an hour but it won't even come close to supporting a family and child care, and rent and insurance and the 10 dollars would end up costing you a lot more than it would pay and you would be further in the hole than ever. I think that is why a lot of folks have given up. I know it sounds much better to people if the unemployed take any job rather than "sitting on their hands and being lazy" but it's just not an accurate description in a lot of cases of what's happening out there. I used to make 12-13 dollars an hour in the Summer painting classrooms and doing various custodial duties for my school district until a levy failed and the Board felt the necessity of cutting those Summer positions. I used the money to put gas in my car and take my wife out to an occasional matinee at the local cinema. since those jobs have now been cut, I simply drive less and we stay home more. I'm lucky. I still have a normal retirement salary to fall back on and to live on. How does 10 dollars an hour create a better situation for a person who has no other income and is trying to support him or herself solely on that? I think the obvious answer is it simply doesn't.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  In 2003 I bought the very sucessful business that I worked for and I was making alot of money. Unfortunately the housing market dumped toward the end of 2006 and by June of 2008 there absolutely no work in sight. I was forced to shut the doors of my business in order to collect unemployment for a whopping $225 per week, that's not even minimum wage.
  
  When I shut down the business I went to flight school for about six months and still was unable to collect this unemployment simply because I was in school.
  
  There are a few things I don't get. Why should someone be forced to close down a business in order to collect these benefits? Why should a business owner be ruled out simply because they own a business? Why should someone who lost their business or their job be exempt from unemployment for trying to better themselves by going to school?
  
  Extending these benefits just prolongs the denial of some that they have to work for low wages, and still not have enough to meet their budget.
• QuakerOats

  This 8th extension of UC benefits is simply an iconic indication of the complete and utter failure of the economic policies of obama/pelosi/reid. Socialist/marxist policies do not work (here or anywhere else), but until this group of radicals is kicked out of office, you can expect more votes on extending UC because there will be no real jobs being created.
• isadore

  news of factory expansion brings thousands of applications for dozens of jobs, jobs fairs are flooded with hopefuls, but of course on here so many love to attack these idle loafers. the cup of human compassion never runneth over on this site.
• IggyPride00

  

  If people thought the fight over adding 30 something billion to the debt was bad, wait until the blood bath that will occur around the time later this year discussion over extending the Bush tax cuts will be. The cost will be many many hundreds of billions over whatever period they are extended for, but I suspect not word one will be uttered about paying for them.
  
  The real drama will be the big game of chicken that will be played though. Republicans will not vote for and most likely will filibuster any bill that does not include an extension of those making more than $250,000. To put them in a disastrous position(probably before the election) Queen Nancy and Dingy Harry will no doubt bring bills to the floor that extend them for all but those making more than $250,000, and put Republicans in a position to either vote for them (which would be a tax increase on high earners) or not allow them to pass (which would be massive tax increase on everyone).
  
  The Democrats will then parade around and tell the country that Republicans were willing to raise the taxes on 99% of the country because preserving tax cuts for the rich was a more important policy goal. I expect that to be the Democrat hail Mary if nothing changes the trajectory of this election between now and November.
  
  The media was starting to really hammer Republicans after Kyl's comment about being fine with adding $678 billion to the debt without offsets to extend tax cuts at the same time he was complaining about not paying for UE benefits. Just imagine the media outrage that will be ginned up if Republicans are willing to let taxes increase on 99% of the population in protest of increasing them on the top 1%. It is a liberal wet dream of a narrative, and one that will make Conservative heads explode.
  
  I fully believe that is why they are putting off the tax fight until closer to election time, to box Conservatives and Tea Party advocates into a corner in which they have really no good options because either way they will be forced to embrace a tax increase and that is not acceptable to their supporters.
• jhay78

  

  IggyPride00;430632 wrote:If people thought the fight over adding 30 something billion to the debt was bad, wait until the blood bath that will occur around the time later this year discussion over extending the Bush tax cuts will be. The cost will be many many hundreds of billions over whatever period they are extended for, but I suspect not word one will be uttered about paying for them.
  
  The real drama will be the big game of chicken that will be played though. Republicans will not vote for and most likely will filibuster any bill that does not include an extension of those making more than $250,000. To put them in a disastrous position(probably before the election) Queen Nancy and Dingy Harry will no doubt bring bills to the floor that extend them for all but those making more than $250,000, and put Republicans in a position to either vote for them (which would be a tax increase on high earners) or not allow them to pass (which would be massive tax increase on everyone).
  
  The Democrats will then parade around and tell the country that Republicans were willing to raise the taxes on 99% of the country because preserving tax cuts for the rich was a more important policy goal. I expect that to be the Democrat hail Mary if nothing changes the trajectory of this election between now and November.
  
  The media was starting to really hammer Republicans after Kyl's comment about being fine with adding $678 billion to the debt without offsets to extend tax cuts at the same time he was complaining about not paying for UE benefits. Just imagine the media outrage that will be ginned up if Republicans are willing to let taxes increase on 99% of the population in protest of increasing them on the top 1%. It is a liberal wet dream of a narrative, and one that will make Conservative heads explode.
  
  I fully believe that is why they are putting off the tax fight until closer to election time, to box Conservatives and Tea Party advocates into a corner in which they have really no good options because either way they will be forced to embrace a tax increase and that is not acceptable to their supporters.

  
  You hit the nail on the head with that political assessment of the tax cuts.
  
  Do you do the politically smart thing and let the tax cuts expire, continue to witness the economy go to hell in a handbasket under Obama/Pelosi/Reid's watch, and reap political dividends in 2010 and 2012.
  
  Or do they do the right things and support continued tax cuts to help the economy along?
• gibby08

  

  How are tax cuts for the top 2 percent helping the economy?
• queencitybuckeye

  gibby08;430767 wrote:How are tax cuts for the top 2 percent helping the economy?

  
  Ever get hired by a poor person? A dollar in a rich person's hand is far more likely to spur the creation of a job than that same dollar in the federal treasury.
• LJ

  

  gibby08;430767 wrote:How are tax cuts for the top 2 percent helping the economy?

  
  You do realize that the majority of the bush tax cuts affected the middle and lower class right? The largest cut was for agi between around 30-50k and it got rid of a whole low income bracket. It's a ridiculous FALSE talking point to call them tax cuts foe the rich when the most impact was in the working class
• Mr. 300

  

  Gibby just repeats the democrat talking points without really understanding who pays taxes in theis country, and what percentage those paying people actually carry of the overall tax burden.
• Footwedge

  believer;430547 wrote:It would also create a lot of problems. Higher wages equal higher prices meaning inflation. It also initiates a trade wars which have, in the past, been the catalyst for bloody wars.

  It would cause some problems but not a lot. The alternative is to increase UC benefits, have private sector unemployment at or around 25%, and the never ending path towards national bankruptcy...which the present path absolutely guarantees. One has to ask. Do I want to collectively pay a little more for goods, or do I want my government to continually run unsustainable deficits and feed the masses through fiat money?
  

  Right or wrong American companies have shifted jobs offshore at least in part due to arguably inflated labor rates.

  I'm not OK with this at all...for all the reasons listed above. But you shouldn't blame it on inflated labor rates. The real reason is overseas deflated labor rates, and the circumvention of other mandated rules which provide safety, health, clean air/water, safe working conditions and abuse of child labor laws...to name just a few. Notice I never mentioned the word protectionism. So to your point 2 in line one, there would not be any trade law wars.
  

  If we implement "fair" trade laws and incentives, then organized American labor needs to be on-board with it or you might as well shit can the idea right now.

  I think organized labor would be fine with fair trade laws...just fine. There would be a lot less need for collective bartering...especially if the unemployment rate would be chronically running at 5%.
• derek bomar

  

  Mr. 300;430804 wrote:Gibby just repeats the democrat talking points without really understanding who pays taxes in theis country, and what percentage those paying people actually carry of the overall tax burden.

  
  while this is true...it's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black isn't it when you say it
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;430602 wrote:This 8th extension of UC benefits is simply an iconic indication of the complete and utter failure of the economic policies of obama/pelosi/reid. Socialist/marxist policies do not work (here or anywhere else), but until this group of radicals is kicked out of office, you can expect more votes on extending UC because there will be no real jobs being created.

  Well I mean some of them do. Actually I think a lot of the problem is with really broad socialistic policies. Really specific (localized if you want) socialist-esque policies can work quite well. Libraries, etc.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;430853 wrote:Well I mean some of them do. Actually I think a lot of the problem is with really broad socialistic policies. Really specific (localized if you want) socialist-esque policies can work quite well. Libraries, etc.

  
  Not even libraries anymore. They are cutting financing to libraries left and right; sometimes forcing libraries to only be open 1/2 a day or only on certain days.
• IggyPride00

  

  You do realize that the majority of the bush tax cuts affected the middle and lower class right? The largest cut was for agi between around 30-50k and it got rid of a whole low income bracket. It's a ridiculous FALSE talking point to call them tax cuts foe the rich when the most impact was in the working class

  That is why I totally see the Democrats putting the Republicans in a toxic political corner. There is no way politically the Republicans would be willing to tell 98% of the country that they are OK with seeing drastic middle class tax increases in protest because the top 2% would lose their tax cut in the process. Yet, the Republicans politically can't vote for a defacto tax increase on the top 2% (even if the other 98% of people can keep their tax cut) because it would enrage the conservative base and Tea Party crowd.
  
  It is a no win situation for them, because all the middle-low income people losing their child credits and seeing their taxes go up will not be understanding if the reason it happened was because Republicans were mad that those making over $250,000 couldn't keep theirs, so they decided to screw everyone because of it. The media narrative at that point would be devastatingly brutal in its portrayal of Republicans being so fixated on tax cuts for the wealthy they told 98% of the country to go to hell because of it.
  
  Dingy Harry and Queen Nancy are just waiting in the weeds over this, and will spring the tax cut extension bill at the most politically opportune time.