Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[CowboyBob]

Further proof of the sociopathic tendencies of the republican party is their refusal to extend unemployment benefits.

Shortly after Christmas republicans allowed over a million Americans to be thrown into the streets because they refused to even consider an extension of benefits for the long term unemployed. Leaving in December, congress scampered off to their warm homes in their districts to enjoy the holidays not thinking how their constituents would fare.

President Obama is calling on congress to extend benefits which may be falling deaf ears of obstructionist republicans. Republicans in congress recently enjoyed a tax-payer funded 3 1/2 week vacation from being the least productive congress in American history. Their cruelty knows no bounds.

It's been estimated that a failure to extend benefits could cost businesses 240,000 jobs in 2014. Didn't republicans run on a platform of jobs jobs jobs? Unfortunately they didn't say they were against jobs jobs jobs.


Will republicans do the right thing and extent benefits to long term unemployed who through no fault of their own can't find a job with a living wage? Or will they continue to do everything they can in 2014 to hand everything over to corporations and the wealthiest 1%, obstruct President Obama, limit a woman's constitutional right to choose and allow the workplace to become more dangerous and polluted like they did in 2013?



http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...yment-benefits

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-un...t-plain-cruel/

[Benvolio]

Welfare leads to dependency. At some point we need to require them to take jobs. If there are no jobs, why are 11 million immigrants the democrats number one priority? They do work that Americans don't want? Lets put the Americans to work.
.

[Orlandude]

The republican mantra of "welfare leads to dependency" is the height of hypocrisy since it never seems to apply to corporate welfare. Republicans stoled billions from taxpayers to bail out corporations, billions more for the Bush tax cuts that were suppose to create millions of new jobs and didn't and then they shut down the government over ideological nonsense. Unemployment benefits will be re-instated and retroactive for at least 3 months at a time with additional oversight. That seems to be the plan from both sides of the aisle, except for the extremist loons who won't win this battle.

[CowboyBob]

The republican mantra of "welfare leads to dependency" is the height of hypocrisy since it never seems to apply to corporate welfare. Republicans stoled billions from taxpayers to bail out corporations, billions more for the Bush tax cuts that were suppose to create millions of new jobs and didn't and then they shut down the government over ideological nonsense. Unemployment benefits will be re-instated and retroactive for at least 3 months at a time with additional oversight. That seems to be the plan from both sides of the aisle, except for the extremist loons who won't win this battle.

Republicans have no problem with corporate welfare and handouts to the very wealthy. Every tax cut they give to the rich is a government handout.

[Benvolio]

Republicans have no problem with corporate welfare and handouts to the very wealthy. Every tax cut they give to the rich is a government handout.

So the income all belongs to the government and anything the taxpayer is allowed to keep is a handout. Spoken like a true Marxist.

[xbuzzerx]

So the income all belongs to the government and anything the taxpayer is allowed to keep is a handout. Spoken like a true Marxist.

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

[CowboyBob]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

Good example. Like Wal*Mart paying their employees a non-living wage and expecting the government to make up the difference with food stamps, Medicaid, etc. All the while the majority of profits go to the offspring of Sam Walton, 5 of the richest people on the planet.

[Willie Boy]

Unemployment was never intended as a long term/permanent solution...... That is why they also have options for education, help to get the training they need to be able to find work in other fields. Too bad many unemployed individuals are more interested in just collecting unemployment checks than in improving their lives.

[xbuzzerx]

Unemployment was never intended as a long term/permanent solution...... That is why they also have options for education, help to get the training they need to be able to find work in other fields. Too bad many unemployed individuals are more interested in just collecting unemployment checks than in improving their lives.

The glut of people added to the unemployment rolls have been a result of the economic downturn since Bush, and not simply of people up and deciding they don't feel like working anymore. Perhaps in your version of reality there are millions of unfilled jobs people are simply snubbing to do.

[Benvolio]

The glut of people added to the unemployment rolls have been a result of the economic downturn since Bush, and not simply of people up and deciding they don't feel like working anymore. Perhaps in your version of reality there are millions of unfilled jobs people are simply snubbing to do.

Then, of course you agree that we should stop bringing in millions and millions and millions of uimmigrants?

[Benvolio]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

This is really irrelevant to the question of whether we should allow unemployment welfare to last a lifetime.

[CowboyBob]

President Obama wants congress to focus on the unemployment benefits when they return. They've hinted they may consider it but only with cuts elsewhere. That may be a good idea. Start by cutting the bloated defense program and eliminating oil company subsidies.

[White Eagle]

I'm hoping they will not extend benefits. This will insure that a Democrat Congress will be elected in ought 14 and ought 16.
Oh wait, that's not right. The ought goes before a single date not 14 or 16.

[CowboyBob]

I'm hoping they will not extend benefits. This will insure that a Democrat Congress will be elected in ought 14 and ought 16.
Oh wait, that's not right. The ought goes before a single date not 14 or 16.

You have a point there. Let the republicans act like the sociopaths they are and voters will remember it. The closer they get to the elections the angrier they'll become. We will need to remind them about the republican government shutdown too.

The right wing will carry on about the ACA, but by then millions will have health insurance so they'll be shooting themselves in the foot with their unregulated guns.

[xbuzzerx]

Then, of course you agree that we should stop bringing in millions and millions and millions of uimmigrants?

No, I don't, because banning illegals isn't going to bring back jobs college-educated Americans lost in the last 10 years, and it's another topic even though you bring it up in every single thread.

[xbuzzerx]

This is really irrelevant to the question of whether we should allow unemployment welfare to last a lifetime.

Making up an arbitrary time limit for unemployment benefits based off our magical internal impression of how much these "abusers" "deserve" is irrelevant to what's best during a severe economic downturn to try to help people trying to get jobs and struggling to get by.

I get that you think everyone ever on any form of assistance is a leech and that the correct amount of time to support them is 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days, 0 years. But since that's not a sensible or adult position let the grownups discuss the issue.

[xbuzzerx]

You have a point there. Let the republicans act like the sociopaths they are and voters will remember it. The closer they get to the elections the angrier they'll become. We will need to remind them about the republican government shutdown too.

The right wing will carry on about the ACA, but by then millions will have health insurance so they'll be shooting themselves in the foot with their unregulated guns.

Except that Republicans are professionals at taking situations THEY created or the non-passage of measures THEY filibustered and then turning around and blaming Democrats for not having done it. So you can be sure that if there are bitter, disaffected unemployed people as a major consideration in the next election the Republicans will be talking disingenuously about how little Obama did to help them.

[CowboyBob]

Except that Republicans are professionals at taking situations THEY created or the non-passage of measures THEY filibustered and then turning around and blaming Democrats for not having done it. So you can be sure that if there are bitter, disaffected unemployed people as a major consideration in the next election the Republicans will be talking disingenuously about how little Obama did to help them.

Just like last year when the National Parks were shuttered because of the republican government shut down. They went to the parks and blamed everyone else for it.



Scumbags.

[cityboy-stl]

Then, of course you agree that we should stop bringing in millions and millions and millions of uimmigrants?

Then, of course YOU agree that we should stop sending millions and millions and millions of jobs out of the country?

[xbuzzerx]

Eg-fucking-zactly like that.

[Benvolio]

Then, of course YOU agree that we should stop sending millions and millions and millions of jobs out of the country?

We need to recognize that placing more and more burdens on employers pressures the employer to more jobs oversees and often compels the move. The democrats pride themselves in being in favor of workers and against industry, and impose burdens with no thought to the effect on the employer. Obamacare for example requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25. That raises labor costs with no benefit to the employer. Just a gift to the worker.
But, not every job can be outsourced and I think that most of the jobs which can be outsourced have been so.

[Benvolio]

No, I don't, because banning illegals isn't going to bring back jobs college-educated Americans lost in the last 10 years, and it's another topic even though you bring it up in every single thread.

You cannot logically discuss unemployment without discussing immigration, which clearly causes some unemployment. Here, liberals say we need to extend unemployment benefits again and again, because the people cannot find jobs BUT they say, we need immigration, because Americans don't want any work that an immigrant could possibly do: taxi drivers, truck drivers, waiters, construction, etc. Liberals are very wrong on both counts. We need to end immigration and give the jobs to Americans.

[Jack Springer]

Not extending unemployment benefits was passed by both houses of Congress before Christmas by both democrats and republicans in the budget deal.

The budget deal also reduced benefits to wounded veterans and other veterans.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like last year when the National Parks were shuttered because of the republican government shut down. They went to the parks and blamed everyone else for it.



Scumbags.

The bullshit is so deep.

[Benvolio]

I realize liberals are not supposed to think for themselves or to read non-liberal sources, but here is an economist explaining how extending unemployment benefits actually extends unemployment:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...54431457720188

- - - Updated - - -

[CowboyBob]

The bullshit is so deep.

So the video isn't real?

[opinterph]

Obamacare … requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.

I don’t think so.

We need to end immigration and give the jobs to Americans.

Why give the jobs? Why not let each group compete for the jobs in accordance with our great American tradition?

[xbuzzerx]

We need to recognize that placing more and more burdens on employers pressures the employer to more jobs oversees and often compels the move. The democrats pride themselves in being in favor of workers and against industry, and impose burdens with no thought to the effect on the employer. Obamacare for example requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25. That raises labor costs with no benefit to the employer. Just a gift to the worker.
But, not every job can be outsourced and I think that most of the jobs which can be outsourced have been so.

Yet you support this position of end all immigration and force domestic wages to rise. Which places pressure on employers, which by your own admission in this post, pushes them to outsource whatever jobs they can out of the country.

When holes are pointed out in your position (there are many), it doesn't matter, you simply go on persisting with the same position in every thread, even when it has almost nothing to do with immigration.

[HenryReardon]

. Every tax cut they give to the rich is a government handout.

That is bovine excreta in its most virulent form.

Allowing someone to keep more of that which is his or hers, is NOT a handout.

[HenryReardon]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

[HenryReardon]

The bullshit is so deep.

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

[xbuzzerx]

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

Oh really?

Also this chart doesn't show 2011 where effective corporate tax collection fell to the lowest level since WWI.

Of course, it's entirely coincidence I'm sure that many corporations had gut-busting profit margins in the last decade or so, often even while claiming that the economic downturn forced them to lay off employees or cut their benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

All the right does on this topic is make unsubstantiated claims that are in the complete inverse of reality. Your posts being no exception.

[HenryReardon]

Oh really?

[]

Also this chart doesn't show 2011 where effective corporate tax collection fell to the lowest level since WWI.



.

You need to actually READ a post before your knee-jerk, or is that just plain jerk, reaction kicks in.

My post referred to county tax rolls at the local level, ie, property taxes. It had nothing at all to do with income taxes, corporate or otherwise.

[xbuzzerx]

You need to actually READ a post before your knee-jerk, or is that just plain jerk, reaction kicks in.

My post referred to county tax rolls at the local level, ie, property taxes. It had nothing at all to do with income taxes, corporate or otherwise.

Then in a world where property taxes are the only tax, your response would have made the least bit of sense in a discussion about overall tax burden.

[CowboyBob]

That is bovine excreta in its most virulent form.

Allowing someone to keep more of that which is his or hers, is NOT a handout.

Look who stopped in for a cheery visit! Please explain why is is bullshit.

But of course. Since liberals possess neither reason nor logic, all they can do is keep moving the same pile of shit from one place to another. They don't seem to realize how pathetic they are.

Oh? Just how pathetic are liberals?

Is everyone who isn't an extremist right wing tea party right a liberal?

[HenryReardon]

Then in a world where property taxes are the only tax, your response would have made the least bit of sense in a discussion about overall tax burden.

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

[xbuzzerx]

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

A side-step of what? The discussion is corporations benefitting more than an individual taxpayer from tax-funded services, while often paying less (a huge amount of U.S. corporations file 0-returns, or funnel profits overseas, or issue out benefits to executives and shareholders in tax-deferred formats to absorb profits, or receive and use tax subsidies) per cap for those benefits.

These same corporations also generally paid the lowest wages they could get away with and as few benefits as they could get away with to people who are now on unemployment due to not being able to find work. Many corporations were busy hiding profits in the last 10 years while people were losing their jobs due to "the economic downturn."

So yes, the notion that they are somehow unduly burdened compared to their benefit is ridiculous. But, by all means, continue on with irrational rants about liberals to persuade anyone otherwise.

[CowboyBob]

Yet another side-step. I'm not surprised. Liberals can't stay on point because they don't have a valid point. LOL

So you don't have anything to add to the topic other than insults. Not very good Henry.

[Benvolio]

I don’t think so.



Why give the jobs? Why not let each group compete for the jobs in accordance with our great American tradition?

p

The law requires employers of over 50 to provide coverage and the law requires policies providing dependent coverage to continue the coverage until age 26.http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

If we import immigrants to compete with Americans, the losers become dependent on welfare, including unemployment benefits, but also food stamps etc. Our law should benefit Americans. How does massive immigration of poor and unemployed benefit Americans--other than Democrat politicians.

[Benvolio]

Yet you support this position of end all immigration and force domestic wages to rise. Which places pressure on employers, which by your own admission in this post, pushes them to outsource whatever jobs they can out of the country.

When holes are pointed out in your position (there are many), it doesn't matter, you simply go on persisting with the same position in every thread, even when it has almost nothing to do with immigration.

The difference in wages is only a small portion of the burdens which are forcing emoployers to outsource, plus they end up paying part of the support of the people kept out of work by immigration, e.g. Unemployment insurance taxes.
Do you seriously believe immigration has nothing to do with unemployment? Doesn't the sand get in you eyes with your head buried down there?

[opinterph]

Obamacare … requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.

I don’t think so.

The law requires employers of over 50 [employees] to provide coverage and the law requires policies providing dependent coverage to continue the coverage until age 26.http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html

Though the word “employer” appears 19 times on the web page you linked, I don’t see where it “requires employers to pay health costs for children to AGE 25.”

If the employer offers a group plan, adding younger members to its participant pool is likely to reduce the cost of coverage for all other persons in the plan. Adding younger members also creates other benefits for both employers and employees.

While the ACA forces employers to offer health insurance to dependent children until age 26, it doesn't require them to pay for any part of that coverage. (WSJ; Sept. 18, 2013)

[opinterph]

How does massive immigration of poor and unemployed benefit Americans--other than Democrat politicians.

I don’t see any need to venture so far into the hypothetical. If, at some time in the future, levels of immigration become significant enough to adversely affect the native population – we can discuss it then. Otherwise it’s just a red herring.

[xbuzzerx]

The difference in wages is only a small portion of the burdens which are forcing emoployers to outsource, plus they end up paying part of the support of the people kept out of work by immigration, e.g. Unemployment insurance taxes.
Do you seriously believe immigration has nothing to do with unemployment? Doesn't the sand get in you eyes with your head buried down there?

I know many people around my age who are either presently looking for new jobs, or have spent at some point in the past 8 years unemployed and struggling to find a new job. All of them have college degrees. None of them are competing for jobs with illegal immigrants.

Yes, there is a competition for some jobs at the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale between immigrants and native-borns, I have said this before. Your position, however, is that nearly all economic problems come from this fight over jobs that Americans primarily don't want to begin with. You then claim that the solution to this is to terminate all immigration and force wages to rise. But if anyone even so much as mentions legal minimum wages or unions, you immediately begin talking about how adding any pressure onto employers will make the situation worse.

Do you ever bite your lip with all of this double talk?

[Rolyo85]

That's truly disingenuous. Who do you think pays the taxes that fund those things? Ever looked at the tax rolls in your county, or any county, for that matter? Corporations, and the stockholders who own them, pay more than "their fair share" of taxes.

Um, actually they pay far less than any regular individual, percentage wise. They poff politicians to do that for them, because it's much cheaper. To claim they pay "more than their fair share" is ridiculous.

[Benvolio]

I know many people around my age who are either presently looking for new jobs, or have spent at some point in the past 8 years unemployed and struggling to find a new job. All of them have college degrees. None of them are competing for jobs with illegal immigrants.

Yes, there is a competition for some jobs at the very bottom of the socioeconomic scale between immigrants and native-borns, I have said this before. Your position, however, is that nearly all economic problems come from this fight over jobs that Americans primarily don't want to begin with. You then claim that the solution to this is to terminate all immigration and force wages to rise. But if anyone even so much as mentions legal minimum wages or unions, you immediately begin talking about how adding any pressure onto employers will make the situation worse.

Do you ever bite your lip with all of this double talk?

For one thing neither minimum wages nor unions solve the problem of poverty and unemployment caused by immigration. They make they the plight of the poor and unemployed worse by pushing up prices.

[Rolyo85]

I find it interesting that according to benvolio we have to deal with immigration through government oppression, yet job outsourcing is somehow just a sad fact of life that can't be dealt with directly. I am sorry, but if we are for government intervention in one case, we should be for it in the other as well, or this just becomes so much hypocrisy.

[xbuzzerx]

For one thing neither minimum wages nor unions solve the problem of poverty and unemployment caused by immigration. They make they the plight of the poor and unemployed worse by pushing up prices.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income.

Source Link: http://www.indexmundi.com/united_sta...y_profile.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

Note the lack of even a mention of the impact of immigration. Although I'd be bemused to see your lengthy pretzel-shaped explanation as to how illegal immigrants have forced more income to be concentrated at the top, and in the form of dividends and capital gains.

[Benvolio]

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

Note the lack of even a mention of the impact of immigration. Although I'd be bemused to see your lengthy pretzel-shaped explanation as to how illegal immigrants have forced more income to be concentrated at the top, and in the form of dividends and capital gains.

Immigration, legal and illegal, increases the number of people at the bottom and the competition for jobs holds their wages down. Competition are the very bottom increases competition at the next level, as people try for jobs that they might not have attempted otherwise. That increases competition at the next level, and the next, and the next. Since the lower levels are getting much larger, the top gets smaller AS A PERCENTAGE, and thus stastically more concentrated. I do not claim that immigration increases dividend or capital gain income, but, of course an increase in population, even very poor people, causes growth in the economy as a whole.
Your article mentions the problem of stagnation of wages of low income workers. Do you doubt that immigration contributes to that?
Businesses like high immigration. Why do you suppose that is?

[xbuzzerx]

Immigration, legal and illegal, increases the number of people at the bottom and the competition for jobs holds their wages down. Competition are the very bottom increases competition at the next level, as people try for jobs that they might not have attempted otherwise. That increases competition at the next level, and the next, and the next. Since the lower levels are getting much larger, the top gets smaller AS A PERCENTAGE, and thus stastically more concentrated. I do not claim that immigration increases dividend or capital gain income, but, of course an increase in population, even very poor people, causes growth in the economy as a whole.
Your article mentions the problem of stagnation of wages of low income workers. Do you doubt that immigration contributes to that?
Businesses like high immigration. Why do you suppose that is?

This analysis is nonsense. Somebody who was a seasonal agricultural worker doesn't suddenly apply for a position requiring an MBA or a computer programming degree this year because too many immigrants are competing with him for his job. Nor do people with an MBA working in an office suddenly compete with an aerospace engineer for his job.

This reads like a stack of cards and I have no reason to believe it isn't, and you've never corroborated anything you've claimed, either.

[HenryReardon]

Any corporation successfully operating for almost any period of time is directly benefitting from a plethora of tax-funded programs, from public education to infrastructure construction and maintenance, to fire and police. And larger corporations benefit more from these things existing than individual taxpayers do.

That statement is factually incorrect. Take Walmart, for example.
There are five Walmart Stores and one Sam's Club in our county of 200,000

In 2013, they paid $1,053,059 in ad valorem taxes, which directly affect police, fire, schools, and other public services.
Their fleet of trucks pays highway taxes (which pay for roads).
And that doesn't take the amount of sales taxes they collect into account, some portion of which benefits the local county.

Three or four years ago, before the Obama Recession began, they were paying even more, but as property values declined, so have- the assessments.

In 2014, another new Walmart will add another $150,000 or so to that number.

Therefore, it is correct to say that large corporations are carrying their share of the load, perhaps somewhat more than their share.

[HenryReardon]

Um, actually they pay far less than any regular individual, percentage wise. They poff politicians to do that for them, because it's much cheaper. To claim they pay "more than their fair share" is ridiculous.

To say that corporations "pay off" officials in the more than 2,400 county governments in the country is absurdly ridiculous.