Compassion? Hardly

It is not compassionate to extend unemployment benefits and have your children pay for them, and that’s precisely what the Democrats did by extending unemployment benefits another 26 weeks to more than two years for some. The cost to your children is $34 billion dollars. Your children, because it’s been added to this year’s $3.5 trillion dollar budget and to its $1.6 trillion dollar deficit. In other words, your children will be asked to pay for today’s unemployed. Compassion? You tell me, then again, ask your kids. You’re off the hook.

The Senate went ahead and passed the unemployment extension. The Democrats version of compassion. Republicans have been the target of cheap shot after cheap shot but it is not deserved. They too wanted unemployment benefits extended, they just wanted the Democrats to pay for them.

The legislation, which was supported by President Obama, will extend benefits for those who have already used their standard 26 weeks of unemployment. The measure now faces a final vote in the Senate and must also clear the House of Representatives.

Republicans have said they also support extending the benefits but argue that the $34 billion cost of the proposal should not add to the deficit. “Of course we ought to extend unemployment,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “But we ought to pay for it.”

Ironically, one of the people standing behind the President as he took his cheap shot at Republicans yesterday (Republicans have no faith in the American people, he said), was Jim Chukalis, an unemployed auto dealer parts manager. Ironic because Jim might have a job right now had the President not shut down too many auto dealerships, too fast last year, as noted yesterday by the TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky. Barofsky told Neil Cavuto that the shutdowns cost thousands of jobs more than necessary because the Federal Government did them randomly and too quickly.

This is not compassion. But this is how liberals always portray it. What’s more, if you don’t agree, you are heartless. Listen to this exchange between Neil Cavuto yesterday and Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummings.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRlhmrpgKa0

Got that? Do what I say or people will die. The Democrats want a dependent state. Permanent. That is not compassion.

UPDATE: Unemployment compensation can be confusing. Just because benefits can be extended to two years for some, others just starting unemployment will not necessarily receive benefits for two years.

For a great explanation of this, and how many extensions have been added… here’s an article from today’s WSJ Online.

12 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Paygo shouldn't be an empty promise: it should be the law.  If you can't pay for it, you can't do/have it.  Period.  Both consumers and politicians must learn this.

     

    It used to be "do it FOR the children" for the Democrats.  Now it is "do it TO the children".  Where is the compassion there?  Sure, their kids will be fine, protected by fat, tax protected trusts, by our kids?  Not so much.

     

    Politicians always stick it to those that can't vote for them.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Does the morality of the issue change just because of where the unemployment money comes from?  The money is just as green in funds they have already stolen as it is in the money they are planning to steal.  (Did I say "steal"?  I meant confiscate….)

  3. brianh
    brianh says:

    I'm with ya on this Jim, but am inclined to question/note a few things.

    1) I understand that 99 weeks remains the upper limit, as WSJ alludes to, and that's in 18(?) states. Unfortunately, talk radio/Fox has falsely construed the bill to extend payments for a person to well beyond 2 years.

    2) The WSJ graph illustrates the "compassion" of the republicans, who paid out extended benefits for 2 years after the tech bubble while the unemployment rate hovered around 6%! ie both parties pander to the downtrodden.

    3) Some people truly need the payments while others don't. I know someone who was threatened with a 10% pay cut. He felt insulted and left his job even though the employer offered a raise when faced with losing him. He collected UI for 26 weeks and only returned to work due to the delay of the extension. He had multiple offers to choose from. [He'd worked for 30 years, did well, has another earner in the household and "needed a break"]

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Like I say, it is us (citizens) against them (politicians).  Party is not as much of a distinction as it used to be.  They all feel the need to buy votes.  Term limits and votes of confidence.

       

      If extensions become the norm (and they will), then the 99 week limit becomes moot, particularly in a high unemployment environment (back to pols trying to save their political skins).

       

      The "that job isn't good enough for me" mindset pervades this society, and it is the primary reason that immigrants, both legal and illegal, can find work so easily here.  I have no sympathy for some slob that "feels insulted" and leaves his good job to go on unemployment vacation.  Did he ever hear of a leave of absence?  A vacation?  A new job?  I don't want to pay for him to "find himself".

  4. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I think the argument is silly. Ask the children if they "mind" paying for their parents unemployment benefits? Really, should we have a "requirement" to ask that question every time we borrow money?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Sure, especially if there is a big fat pile of money they have already "borrowed" (the stimulus money) just sitting there waiting for the "right" moment to stimulate votes for Democrats.  How long do you think you will have to live before the deficit hits you in the back of the head?

    • winnie888
      winnie888 says:

      Perhaps no one is worried about the children paying for this because by the time said children go out to the real world and (maybe) find a job, they will all have been indroctinated into Obamunism and it just won't seem like a big deal…My oldest finally found a job–she, too, will learn what it means to pay taxes after telling me that she doesn't care to vote one way or the other and politics bores her.  *sigh* 

      You cannot ever expect the public school system to teach kids to think critically about their government & taxes unless of course they are in attack mode against a Republican & tax cuts.  Then text books will be written about that.  So, basically, my view is let's stop worrying about the children and assume that they don't know any better now and probably never will.

  5. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    Difficult situation.  I'm ashamed to say I misunderstood the poll (can I blame it on muscle relaxer???).  Benefits extended should come out of stimulus money already alloted (we know huge amounts will be wasted anyway. 

    Oh my, I'm so sick of politics and politicians.   There are no heroes to look up to, no models of righteousness we can turn to. I'm so grateful for faith in God and the Scriptues.

  6. brianh
    brianh says:

    Gillie28…the 80% rule applies to (bad) politicians, too.

    Give Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, et al a chance

  7. BEA
    BEA says:

    I love what Newt Gingrich said in response to Obama's comments criticizing Republicans for opposing the bill to extend benefits for the unemployed…."Obama…like a teenager with a credit card!"

Comments are closed.