Obama: Republicans are the reason you may not get your unemployment check
Of course the premise is nonsense. But it’s political year and since the President’s ratings are in the tank, you will pretty much try anything to stir the American people against the Republicans.
It is true the Democrats have been trying to get through an extension of unemployment benefits, an extension that has grown from $20 billion to now $32 billion, for some time. It’s also true the Republicans in the Senate have refused to allow cloture on the extension bill. But two things to remember here. The first is Republicans are not against extending benefits, they just would like them paid for and not put on the credit card. And let’s face it, in an almost $4 trillion dollar budget, that should be easy to do. Republicans have even identified a source of funding, the unspent portion the $800 + trillion stimulus package.
But Democrats jealously guard that money for … well … for pet Democrat constituencies. And besides, why tap a ready source of funds when you can demonize Republicans before November?
Here’s the President this morning, apparently surrounded by unemployed people.
The President is correct on one thing. These people would rather have a job but can’t find one because the President keeps stepping on the oxygen hose. In oh so many ways, his policies are the reasons they can’t find a job. That and the fact that they don’t work for the government.
The other thing to remember here … this would be yet another extension. This would be for people who have already been out of work for at least 26 weeks or longer, in some cases, much longer. And say the folks at CATO … many will stay out of work until forced to return.
Still AP at Hot Air has a more depressing take on this whole. Unemployment benefits are no longer a temprary bridge. More like a new Government long term program.
They’re not going to turn off the funding tap when unemployment’s still in the ballpark of 10 percent; too many voters are at too great a risk of grinding hardship if they pulled the plug. The best they can do is make the Democrats sacrifice spending elsewhere in order to free up funds for benefits extensions. Like WaPo said back in March, the hard, cold fact of life is that unemployment benefits are no longer temporary. And they won’t be temporary again for a long, long, long time.
Thank you Mr President. So here’s my question my little mobsters. Continue to extend unemployment, or put a final, final limit on it … and let the market work it out?
I'm wondering why the unemployed were at a rally instead of looking for work. I've been unemployed and looked for work 8 hours a day because I figured that was my job to look for work. Must be why I was never unemployed for to long.
The Brits call it "being on the dole". And, from what I understand, it is pretty much a way of life over there.
As a retired teacher, I could never, ever collect unemployment. Even when changing job locations (city to town, town to whatever was available . . . ) I could never collect. The only way that I could ever have gotten unemployment benefits if I was RIFed — loose my job through a "Reduction In Force", essentially laid-off.
It must be nice to go get a check for doing nothing. Yes, I've heard all of the justifications from the collectors: I paid for my benefits by working for XYZ; that money is mine, XYZ took it out of my paycheck for when I would be unemployed; and, the best, its insurance, its mine!
I've known people who have made a science out of collecting: meet fellow "collectors" for breakfast, swap stories of where they looked for work, all claim looking at the same place, etc, etc.
Union workers were the slickest. They would take a job from the union hiring hall if they were about to run out of unemployment benefits. They would then work for the duration of the job or just long enough until they "qualified" for another round of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. Then they would promptly go on vacation, paid of course, and report in every two weeks that they "have had no luck finding a job!" Some people actually have the unemployment benefits transferred to Hawaii or Alaska (never during winter though) and collect from there because "they are looking for a job." And, Nancy Pelosi said that collecting is a job! No wonder we have an unemployment problem!
What's the saying? "Nice work if you can get it!" Yup, I gotta agree! It is real nice if you can get yourself "on the dole".
Let's examine Democrat logic for a moment: the got the stimulus money to stimulate the economy, the business end of which is people getting jobs. But they won't spend some stimulus money on actually supporting people without a job (or with one in Pelosispeak) as the Republicans are trying to shame them into doing, because they need to hold onto that money to spend during the pre election period to buy votes and pay off election debts to supporters (like unions) which keeps them in their jobs!
See? It is a job stimulus bill, they just aren't telling us it is THEIR jobs that will be supported!
Now you know why they call it "spin"!!
Cato, that revered Pub think tank says "many will stay out of work until forced to return".
Yes, those lazy unemployed people just are not taking all the jobs that are out there!
You are right: they are all scrabbling to get at those "3 million" jobs that Øbama has "created".
Jobs are hard to find and while I feel sorry for those out of work being on the dole too long puts an undue burden on all of us. Better some of us are at the bottom struggling than all of us losing everything. It is like a man drowning, if he is struggling too hard and you try to save him, you go down too; both lost.
I know of some that are literally getting the unemployment and just sitting around. I know of others that are taking anything just to feed themselves. To get through it you must be creative and do what you can, when any opportunity arises, if it pays, you survive.
There is enough money in all of the pork to pay for unemployment. Talk about bringing home the bacon — Obama has enough bacon built into his bills to last us a lifetime! Enough is enough, he is trying to make us dependent and if those on unemployment can see that and not give into his agenda we will be well on our way to fixing America.
Funny how the republicans become fiscally conservative if they are'nt the ones spending it. 2 pre-emptive wars, tax cuts for the most wealthy, tax cuts for drug companies. Dick Cheney's own words were "Ronald Reagan taught us deficits don't matter"
Do Dems ever become fiscally conservative? A part time conservative is better than none!
"Tax cuts for the most wealthy" is such a tired cliche. The people that pay the most taxes are destined to get the greatest return on a tax cut. The AMT is a way for non taxpayers to get a tax cut. Is that fair? Even better: define "fair".
Tax cuts for drug companies. Would that be the same drug companies supporting Martha "I love Øbamacare" Coakley in the recent election to replace Ted Kennedy?
If Cheney was wrong, how come the current administration and Democrat controlled Congress aren't doing the opposite? Small deficits may not matter, but Øbama sized ones sure will.
Jim…I couldn't call in today, but I am curious as to your thoughts on WIA (workforce investment act)….gives unemployed people in dying fields a chance to go back to school for training in something where employment possibilities are better…That's where I'm at right now…
Would like other opinions on this program as well…and yes! even those that whack WIA!
I don't think giving people endless unemployment benefits is the answer .Where is the cut off point??? The one positive thing that no one has mentioned is that (thanks to Ronnie Reagan ) unemployment benefits are taxed.So in a kind of perverse way fed and state get some back.
You are correct: there needs to be a cut off point. Otherwise, it becomes an entitlement. And the next time we have a downturn, the precedent will have been set.
And. lest we forget, it was Congressional Democrats that helped push through the unemployment tax. I guess this fits into Pelosi's belief that unemployment is a job.
Didn't Clinton tax Social Security benefits? 😉
These aren't unemployment benefits in the sense that employers paid into an insurance fund from which qualified people could draw. These payments are being made from money borrowed from the Chinese. At the very least, recipients could build public works projects like art deco city halls with marxist murals or tend golf courses so Obama doesn't have to deal with deep rough. At the current rate, these "benefits" will likely end sometime around the 100th anniversary of the Great Depression.
Speaking of the Chinese, check out this opening on Saturnday Night Live about Øbama and our Chinese debt: http://www.hulu.com/watch/110317/saturday-night-l…
I swear I almost spewed my coffee when I saw it last Saturday! The Democrats have to know that they are in serious trouble when lefty SNL comes after them.
The current SNL bunch isn't too sharp, but Obama skits practically write themselves.
"Øbama: Republicans are the reason you may not get your unemployment check"
Republicans: Øbama is the reason you may not have a job.
The Bush administration was in office when the economic collapse occured, and both sides had a hand in it but de-regulation seems to have played a major role. When Obama took office the country was shedding jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month, that has significantly slowed and seems to be headed to the positive. Ben Bernanke, who is a student of the great depression is the person who came up with the stimulis plan based on what happened during the depression. He was selected by Bush and kept by Obama. Maybe what was done kept us from 20 percent unemployment which was being predicted by some but there is no way of knowing. But one thing is certain, it is a consumer driven economy and when people like Rush and other conservative pundits ignore any good economic news and relish any bad economic news they are not helping the cause.
I would love to relish some good economic news. If I could find any that was real.
Yes, Bush was in office when the economic collapse began, but as I have said previously, presidents can only exacerbate (like now) or diminish (with Bush, sorta) what Congress wants to do. They hold the purse strings. Unfortunately for us, the Democrat controlled Congress is only adept at making silk purses out of sow's ears. The economy is really at the mercy of the dominant party in Congress. As you can see at http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/2010/03/26/every-pi… the real collapse occurred when the Democrats wrested control in 2006 (a few graphs may need to be updated, but the story will be the same). Similarly, Clinton's economy was tepid until 1994, when the Republicans took over.