[Guest post by DRJ]
The Senate cleared the way to extend jobless benefits, with a little help from former Senator Robert Byrd’s replacement and the GOP Senators from Maine.
Meanwhile, Senator Jim Bunning was ahead of the curve on this issue, and all it got him was bad press.
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Powered by WordPress.
You’re right about Bunning but it was a very late in the game flash of backbone from that loser.
Team R should be very glad this is over cause it was killing them I think. They utterly failed to get their message out. There should be a lessons learned session.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 7/20/2010 @ 8:30 pmShame on them.
A woman I know got laid off two weeks ago and is taking a vacation and won’t look for work until fall. Funemployment!
Patricia (358f54) — 7/20/2010 @ 8:45 pmPatricia – The press will not report it (possibly because they do not have this experience) but every person who is now or has ever (in the modern era) worked in a blue collar field or even just as an hourly employee has ether been on unemployment themselves or known other people who have been on unemployment. And most of those people know that they and their acquaintances did not go back to work as quickly as they could have or would have absent these benefits.
I have seen people game the system for years, some who work for the bare minimum period to qualify for benefits before they get terminated for non-disqualifying reasons. I have seen others trade with each other the identities of businesses where they could apply and not be hired in order to continue to qualify for benefits. (This was when people had to actually show documentation they were actively searching for work in order to qualify.)
Here in Connecticut they were having a problem with the system because the state could not find enough people to staff the centers to interview and process the applicants. The irony of not being able to find enough people to hire to assist the out of work apparently escaped many people in the press and state government.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/20/2010 @ 9:30 pmPayGo ? PayGo ! How many times are the JournoLists going to let the Dems ignore the law they just passed?
JD (0ce0dc) — 7/20/2010 @ 9:37 pmThe Dems could not give a flying f#ck about the laws that they passed, so why should anyone else?!
JD (0ce0dc) — 7/20/2010 @ 9:47 pmIf you can’t get a job in two years, even in this economy, you are simply mooching off the taxpayers. It may not be the job you want and it might not pay what you want but the job is out there. Its time to end taxpayer funded unemployment insurance and let those who want coverage be able to buy it in the private sector. Just like life insurance, car insurance or a homeowners policy.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 7/20/2010 @ 10:03 pm“I work for the government.”
Icy Texan (fdba61) — 7/21/2010 @ 2:15 am“What type of work do you do?”
“I sit at home, waiting for the checks to come in.”
I work for the government.”
“What type of work do you do?”
“I sit at home, waiting for the checks to come in.”
What is the difference – actually employed by the govt or drawing unemployment?
Joe (a682f6) — 7/21/2010 @ 6:01 amOn a more serious note, the employers state unemployment tax rate is based on 1) the states unemployment fund, the more unemployed drawing benefits, the more the fund is depleted and then the more the tax rate increases, and 2) the individual employer’s charge back rate, the longer a terminated employee is drawing unemployment, the higher the charge back the the employer and the higher the employer tax rate to that former employer.
Overall effect. 1) lessens the incentive to get a job and 2) lessens the employer’s incentive to hire new employees.
Creating a larger permanent dependent class that votes democratic.
Joe (a682f6) — 7/21/2010 @ 6:08 amIts time to end taxpayer funded unemployment insurance and let those who want coverage be able to buy it in the private sector. Just like life insurance, car insurance or a homeowners policy.
Not that I disagree, but let’s call it what it is–welfare. Actual unemployment insurance only lasts the first 26 weeks. That said, we’re getting to a point where we have to actually consider that some of the jobs we used to associate with middle class lifestyles aren’t coming back. We simply can’t run a country where most of the workforce consists of paper pushers, and global competition in the manufacturing sector means factory workers are going to get squeezed regardless of any tarrifs Congress passes. Given the ridiculous amount of consumer debt that’s been racked up the last 35 years, those “middle class lifestyles” were obviously built on a false foundation of easy credit anyway and were not sustainable. This unemployment situation was, to be blunt, inevitable.
It’s a lot easier for the government to keep passing these bills and play “extend and pretend” than take the medicine and admit that the economy is trying to go into a massive deflationary mode.
The amount passed is the biggest joke. Why stop at $34 billion? $34 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion, what’s the point anymore?
Another Chris (2d8013) — 7/21/2010 @ 7:06 amIf you can’t get a job in two years, even in this economy, you are simply mooching off the taxpayers
You’re wrong, CB – try applying for the jobs you just described as being available and see how far you get; the amount of overqualified applicants that are never considered because of their qualifications is immeasurable. I don’t agree with the extension of benefits, but that kind of attitude is pure bullshit.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 7/21/2010 @ 7:08 amExactly, Cubanbob. If you are out of work after six months, you need a Plan B.
Patricia (358f54) — 7/21/2010 @ 7:42 amWhere are all of those jobs created by the healthy Republican economy, created by all of those unpaid for tax cuts for the very wealthy? Where is the booming business created by deregulation? Shouldn’t we be doing better than we are now, if those ideas actually worked? Got any new ideas? Oh, “screw the unemployed.” Nice message! Create an economic disaster, and then blame the victims, the unemployed. Nice!
Chris Hooten (b6e72d) — 7/21/2010 @ 3:38 pmPayGo? Ring a bell? It is not like it is a law or anything.
Buuuuuuuuuusssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!
JD (3399c0) — 7/21/2010 @ 3:42 pmChris Hooten, you seem to lack any new talking points. “Deregulation” is sooooo old. Not least because it had nothing to do with the current economic situation.
And claiming that the GOP is sayin “screw the unemployed” is just more Democratic lies. The GOP said “spend the unspent stimulus pork money on this unemployment benefits extension” and the Democrats said “Democratic Pork is more important than unemployment benefits”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2010 @ 3:46 pmI’m not sure Hooten is an actual person. It sounds more like a bot, especially those comments that have nothing to do with the story.
Mike K (0ef8c3) — 7/21/2010 @ 5:10 pmAs an aside, Hooten echoes a common Democratic talking point lately – that the deficit was caused by the Bush administration tax cuts.
This chart here shows just how incredibly stupid that claim is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2010 @ 5:40 pmSPQR, that foundation is quite controversial and considered to be an unreliable source of information by many.
Chris Hooten (327a86) — 7/21/2010 @ 5:49 pmNo, Hooten, the Tax Foundation is considered “unreliable” only by those who are attempting to mislead people about our tax laws.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2010 @ 5:52 pmI’m not sure why I even bothered to respond to Hooten’s BS … it is clear from his comment that he has no clue about the Tax Foundation and never heard of them before this moment.
Even though I’ve used their materials to debunk Hooten’s claims before. It is just so obvious that he is off his talking points and making up stuff randomly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/21/2010 @ 6:12 pmIn 2002 indirectly as a result of 9/11 I lost my job. I recall getting 13 weeks of unemployment that was extended once to a total of 26 weeks. My husband had lost his job in July of 2001 the day after his birthday and the day before before the company he worked for had their IPO. He also had only the 13 extended to 26 weeks of benefits. It took a long time for him to find a permanent position. I never did.
I was temping at a company that was looking for a permanent employee in my husband’s field. I talked to the hiring manager about his resume. She had put him in the over-qualified pile and wasn’t even going to contact him. I asked her to talk to him and he did get hired even though he was overqualified. He guaranteed her that he would not seek other employment for at least one year.
In between we both had done some temp work and we used up all our savings to make sure we could keep paying our bills and our mortgage.
They keep saying the GOP was hindering emergency benefits. NOT. Extending these benefits to 99+ weeks isn’t emergency anymore, it’s a way of life. Those that are new to the unemployment rolls aren’t being denied benefits. It’s the “long term” part that kills me.
If I hadn’t had to use up my savings I might be in a bigger house now.
kimsch (2ce939) — 7/21/2010 @ 7:32 pmAnd the economy was much better then. Think how impossible it would be for you to get jobs now.
Chris Hooten (327a86) — 7/21/2010 @ 9:11 pmChris Hooten:
Did you ever stop to think that the argument may be that in a multi-billion dollar federal budget, there may be a few cents of savings through simple efficiency to offset the extension of unemployment benefits?
I know a few billion dollars do not mean that much to you, but every penny you want to spend now, for noble reasons, means less for my children and grand-children and great-great grandchildren and great-great-great grand-children.
Is every dime the government spends in deficit right now so valuable that it must be expended on the present regardless of its impact on the future?
Sure, it’s double-fun-plus-good blaming everything on the past, and I can agree with you. But all that self-satisfying finger-pointing doesn’t do a damn thing for the future.
What’s the solution?
Ag80 (363d6e) — 7/21/2010 @ 9:55 pmHooten – What was the unemployment rate in January of 2007 when pelosi took over as speaker? What was the deficit in the last budget passed by a Republican congress?
As to the “tax cuts for the rich”. In January of 20011 the tax rate for the top rate will go from approximately 36% to about 39.somthing% (about a ten percent increase. the tax rate at the bottom rate will go from 10% to 15% (a jump of fifty percent) and far more people at the bottom will go back to paying income taxes.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/21/2010 @ 10:40 pmYes that’s right Chris, Bush cut taxes for the poor far more than he cut them for the rich.
Actually SPQR the Tax Foundation is probably wrong in this case. As I asked my brother once, what would a 100% tax rate collect? How much would it collect in the second year?
If you tax someone at 95 percent then they don’t go to work. If I get to keep one nickel for every dollar I make I’m going fishing instead. And society loses everything I would have accomplished.
How many Beatles songs and albums were never created due to the obscene British tax rates?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/21/2010 @ 10:44 pmUh, really? Why is this, chris? You have an actual justification for this idiotic assessment, or did you just pull it from a place that doesn’t normally see the light of day outside of a surgery room?
ALL further substantial wealth for this nation will come from knowledge work (which is far, far more significant than the derogatory “pushing paper”) as well as various service activities, not the manufacturing sector. That’s why the notion of “shipping jobs overseas” is a ludicrous and idiotic idea. They’re going overseas because no one here wants to do them for the price that they WOULD be done by if robotics were doing things they could be doing.
The manufacturing sector is destined to become a mere 3-5% of the population, thanks to robotics, just as agriculture has become a mere 3-5% of the population thanks to mechanization.
IP and Services is the future of the national economy. PERIOD.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 7/22/2010 @ 7:08 amSPQR, Chris Hooten is quite ignorant and considered to be an unreliable source of information by many.
I have no idea if the latter statement is correct, but it’s as well founded as the former claim.
Uh, only in the sense that even IF the idea of the Dems/Libtards/Progressives, that you can tax anyone to as much as 100%, and not have your returns lowered massively by that increased taxation is “wrong” — the TF is showing that, even by THE REASONING OF THE LEFT, the job can’t realistically be done by that notion.
I’m sure they aren’t supporting the idea.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (79d71d) — 7/22/2010 @ 7:20 amHave Blue, they note that in their paper.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/22/2010 @ 10:00 amUh, really? Why is this, chris? You have an actual justification for this idiotic assessment, or did you just pull it from a place that doesn’t normally see the light of day outside of a surgery room?
Well, the current depression would seem to be justification enough for this.
46% of the unemployed workforce has been out of work for over 27 weeks. You REALLY think that 8 million Americans are going to be hired back, at mid-2000s wages, for some fantasy economy where they shuffle papers from the inbox to the outbox
Perhaps you forget that in a normal economy, not all the employees can be managers.
ALL further substantial wealth for this nation will come from knowledge work (which is far, far more significant than the derogatory “pushing paper”) as well as various service activities, not the manufacturing sector.
WHAT wealth? The last 35 years of “wealth production” were based on the Fed and the government encouraging an ever-increasing supply of credit and debt across all sectors of the economy. You really think that’s wealth? You and Pete Stark must get along famously.
IP and Services is the future of the national economy. PERIOD.
You must have bought this line of nonsense watching the late-might diploma mill commercials.
IP can be shopped out to any work center in India for half the price it would cost to employ Americans–unless Americans are willing to work, on a large scale, for $9/hr or less with few benefits.
“Services”? Yeah, that should work–just check out most of Europe where the service sector dominates and their debt-to-GDP ratios are through the roof.
http://blog.wallstreetgrand.com/tag/debt-to-gdp-ratio/
Check out Las Vegas to see a micro example of what can happen to a service-sector oriented economy when the external supports go kersplat.
As for other service-oriented professions? Forget it–it’s the same recycled propaganda message with a different twist. For about the last 20-25 years, we were told that “the supply of trained teachers is running low due to retirements! There’s a boom job market there!” Whatever–colleges churn out thousands of Education majors every year, and the teachers unions have effectively fuxored that sector by refusing to take salary cuts or freezes even in hard times. So now their pensions are threatening to bust budgets nationwide.
Now we’re hearing the same nonsense with the health sector–“healthcare workers are needed! There’s a glut of jobs available!!” Whatever–it’s nothing more than a perverted “Grapes of Wrath” handbill technique. Send out 10,000 handbills (or television commercials) when you need 2,000 workers, and when 5,000 show up you can hire them at “take it or leave it” wages. There’s still 3,000 people looking for work.
If IP and services are the “future” of this country, then Americans better get used to a lower standard of living pretty damn quick, because as things stand right now, and as the unemployment extensions attest, the jobs are either 1) not there, or 2) no one wants to work what is considered “menial” labor.
Americans are going to have to start taking blue-collar work as a profession seriously again or the country as a whole is done for. You can’t sustain a whole economy over the long run when everyone wants to sit at a desk, particularly in a nation as big and complex as this one–the last 2 years should have taught you that much.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 7/22/2010 @ 10:54 am