If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   How bad is Obama's economy? Even our millionaires are being forced to collect unemployment benefits   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 60
    More: Sad, unemployment benefits, Oklahoma Republican, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, discouraged worker, United States House Committee on Ways and Means, adjusted gross income, collects, u.s. taxes  
•       •       •

2229 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Oct 2012 at 2:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 02:14:53 PM  
FTA...Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Internal Revenue Service reported that 2,840 millionaire households, or 0.03 percent of tax filers, received unemployment benefits in 2008. Another 816,700 beneficiaries earned between $100,000 and $1 million in 2008, the report said.



You were saying, submitter?
 
2012-10-02 02:22:50 PM  
FTA:

"Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. "Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt."

Because if there's two things Republicans care about it's welfare recipients and senseless debt.
 
2012-10-02 02:24:29 PM  
Was the person in question working? If so that's fraud but if not he/she is due unemployment benefits regardless of what his/her spouse is making. It's also my opinion on welfare.. If I lost my job I would immediately sign up and get back some of the $100k in taxes a year I've been paying the last decade.
 
2012-10-02 02:50:41 PM  
3.796 trillion dollars in the US budget for 1 year. That's 37.96 trillion dollars in a decade, assuming 0% growth in any spending - inflation and cost of living be damned.

By contrast, the article says reforming the system to eliminate that minor issue will save up to 20 million dollars over a decade. Hell, let's be generous and double that amount, because waste is so massively unreported.

Money being spent: $37,960,000,000,000 over 10 years
Money being saved: $40,000,000

Total savings: 0.000001%

To put that savings in context, the Department of Agriculture's Departmental Staff Offices budget (building rent, office supplies, equipment, etc) is 83 million dollars for fiscal year 2012. A 5% cut in THAT area alone provides MORE savings to the budget hawks.

So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.
 
2012-10-02 02:58:18 PM  
I say we mindlessly rabble against republicans. Surely they're to blame for whatever slights democrats feel emotional about.
 
2012-10-02 03:00:22 PM  
Millionaires getting unemployment benefits just increases the welfare state. So let's give them tax breaks whose revenue loss approximates the spending increase, but at least our tender GOP sensibilities aren't disturbed.
 
2012-10-02 03:01:26 PM  

Spad31: I say we mindlessly rabble against republicans. Surely they're to blame for whatever slights democrats feel emotional about.


One sentence could have just been "BSABSVR", but obviously you're not into that whole brevity thing.
 
2012-10-02 03:02:05 PM  
Is this gonna be one of those type I error things where instead of a few modifications here and there to fix the problem, the GOP would rather do away with all unemployment programs?
 
2012-10-02 03:02:08 PM  

coeyagi: Spad31: I say we mindlessly rabble against republicans. Surely they're to blame for whatever slights democrats feel emotional about.

One sentenceTwo sentences could have just been "BSABSVR", but obviously you're not into that whole brevity thing.


FTFM
 
2012-10-02 03:02:15 PM  
 
2012-10-02 03:02:20 PM  
"Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The reported benefits may include those received by spouses or dependents of people who made high incomes, or benefits received earlier in the year before a household member got a high-paying job."
 
2012-10-02 03:02:35 PM  
$550 every TWO weeks is gay.
 
2012-10-02 03:02:57 PM  
It's not welfare, it's insurance. You don't complain if a millionaire files a home insurance claim when their summer house burns down, do you?
 
2012-10-02 03:03:52 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: You were saying, submitter?


He was saying a joke you psychopath
 
2012-10-02 03:04:13 PM  
""Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican"

I think he missed the idea of the unemployment insurance program; it was designed so people would not have to endure financial ruin because they lost their job.
 
2012-10-02 03:04:26 PM  
Maybe that's why Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns. He's also unemployed...

Link
 
2012-10-02 03:05:03 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.


This is always how their math works. They don't like X, so even if X is .001% of Y, they hate Y on principle because Y includes X.

Rush has been biatching about Fast and Furious this week. He says these numbers without a hint of irony, 96 of over 6000 weapons confiscated by Mexican and American authorities were found to have been supplied by Operation Fast and Furious.
96..... of 6000. 1.6% Then Rush proceeds to blame F&F for every evil the drug cartels have ever committed. The math he's using doesn't even justify that.

To the conservatards, a 3% Medicare fraud rate is grounds to end Medicare, nevermind that they're against a rule that requires private health insurers to spend 80% of premiums on care services. They don't make sense.
 
2012-10-02 03:05:24 PM  

xynix: Was the person in question working? If so that's fraud but if not he/she is due unemployment benefits regardless of what his/her spouse is making. It's also my opinion on welfare.. If I lost my job I would immediately sign up and get back some of the $100k in taxes a year I've been paying the last decade.


Not going to bring out my tiny violins, but I will say that forgoing the means-testing makes it a lot easier for the remaining 99.98% of filers to sort out their affairs. Plus, benefits for 2400 people in a country of 300 million is hardly "out-of-control" spending.
 
2012-10-02 03:06:04 PM  
"Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. "Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt."
 
2012-10-02 03:07:36 PM  
combatblog.net
 
2012-10-02 03:08:53 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 3.796 trillion dollars in the US budget for 1 year. That's 37.96 trillion dollars in a decade, assuming 0% growth in any spending - inflation and cost of living be damned.

By contrast, the article says reforming the system to eliminate that minor issue will save up to 20 million dollars over a decade. Hell, let's be generous and double that amount, because waste is so massively unreported.

Money being spent: $37,960,000,000,000 over 10 years
Money being saved: $40,000,000

Total savings: 0.000001%

To put that savings in context, the Department of Agriculture's Departmental Staff Offices budget (building rent, office supplies, equipment, etc) is 83 million dollars for fiscal year 2012. A 5% cut in THAT area alone provides MORE savings to the budget hawks.

So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.


Thanks for putting that in perspective. It proves what we already knew. Republicans have been crying that waste in the budget is the reason why the national debt is so large. But every time they find some waste, it ends up being absolutely minuscule!

At what point will they get serious and start going after the game, namely defense, as well as SS and Medicare?
 
2012-10-02 03:11:24 PM  
Unemployment is not tied to household income.
 
2012-10-02 03:13:03 PM  
"Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. "Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt."

Haven't millionaires paid the most into unemployment insurance, and you want to deny them their fair coverage? I guess this is just more wealth redistribution and class warfare from the Demo...

Wait, Coburn is a Republican from Oklahoma. WTF is going on here?
 
2012-10-02 03:13:11 PM  

Rev.K: Because if there's two things Republicans care about it's welfare recipients and senseless debt.


they also have a clear understanding in the difference between liquid and illiquid assets.
 
2012-10-02 03:14:25 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 3.796 trillion dollars in the US budget for 1 year. That's 37.96 trillion dollars in a decade, assuming 0% growth in any spending - inflation and cost of living be damned.

By contrast, the article says reforming the system to eliminate that minor issue will save up to 20 million dollars over a decade. Hell, let's be generous and double that amount, because waste is so massively unreported.

Money being spent: $37,960,000,000,000 over 10 years
Money being saved: $40,000,000

Total savings: 0.000001%

To put that savings in context, the Department of Agriculture's Departmental Staff Offices budget (building rent, office supplies, equipment, etc) is 83 million dollars for fiscal year 2012. A 5% cut in THAT area alone provides MORE savings to the budget hawks.

So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.

Thanks for putting that in perspective. It proves what we already knew. Republicans have been crying that waste in the budget is the reason why the national debt is so large. But every time they find some waste, it ends up being absolutely minuscule!

At what point will they get serious and start going after the game, namely defense, as well as SS and Medicare?


Yes. When *will* the foxes finally build that wall around the henhouse. When indeed. Let's wait.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-02 03:14:58 PM  

not5am: Rev.K: Because if there's two things Republicans care about it's welfare recipients and senseless debt.

they also have a clear understanding in the difference between liquid and illiquid assets.


aaaand they got that whole female anatomy thing nailed down.
 
2012-10-02 03:16:37 PM  

BeesNuts: HMS_Blinkin: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: 3.796 trillion dollars in the US budget for 1 year. That's 37.96 trillion dollars in a decade, assuming 0% growth in any spending - inflation and cost of living be damned.

By contrast, the article says reforming the system to eliminate that minor issue will save up to 20 million dollars over a decade. Hell, let's be generous and double that amount, because waste is so massively unreported.

Money being spent: $37,960,000,000,000 over 10 years
Money being saved: $40,000,000

Total savings: 0.000001%

To put that savings in context, the Department of Agriculture's Departmental Staff Offices budget (building rent, office supplies, equipment, etc) is 83 million dollars for fiscal year 2012. A 5% cut in THAT area alone provides MORE savings to the budget hawks.

So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.

Thanks for putting that in perspective. It proves what we already knew. Republicans have been crying that waste in the budget is the reason why the national debt is so large. But every time they find some waste, it ends up being absolutely minuscule!

At what point will they get serious and start going after the game, namely defense, as well as SS and Medicare?

Yes. When *will* the foxes finally build that wall around the henhouse. When indeed. Let's wait.

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 586x446]


I realize it'll never happen, of course. I meant that more rhetorically. But it's a good point.
 
2012-10-02 03:20:15 PM  

impaler: "Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. "Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt."

Haven't millionaires paid the most into unemployment insurance, and you want to deny them their fair coverage? I guess this is just more wealth redistribution and class warfare from the Demo...

Wait, Coburn is a Republican from Oklahoma. WTF is going on here?


He's a little more honest about what needs to be done to close the budget gap than a certain Congressman from Wisconsin.

/but only a little.
 
2012-10-02 03:20:25 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: I realize it'll never happen, of course. I meant that more rhetorically. But it's a good point.


Just lookin' for opportunities for end of the day snark. Shiat's gonna get real tomorrow leading in to the debate, and I suspect that the shiat circus is coming to town for the remainder of the week.

You're statement, of course, is accurate, and your suggestion prudent. At least your not delusional enough to think it possible.
 
2012-10-02 03:25:49 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So congrats, Conservatards - you're championing an equivalent cut of 5% of the Department of Agriculture's office supplies and equipment budget.

This is always how their math works. They don't like X, so even if X is .001% of Y, they hate Y on principle because Y includes X.

Rush has been biatching about Fast and Furious this week. He says these numbers without a hint of irony, 96 of over 6000 weapons confiscated by Mexican and American authorities were found to have been supplied by Operation Fast and Furious.
96..... of 6000. 1.6% Then Rush proceeds to blame F&F for every evil the drug cartels have ever committed. The math he's using doesn't even justify that.

To the conservatards, a 3% Medicare fraud rate is grounds to end Medicare, nevermind that they're against a rule that requires private health insurers to spend 80% of premiums on care services. They don't make sense.


Supplied? You are using the term wrong. 1.6% were tracked. The guns were legally purchased and legally moved out of the country. They were just illegally sold in Mexico where the US does not have jurisdiction.
 
2012-10-02 03:26:20 PM  
Obama's economy? He didn't build that.
 
2012-10-02 03:30:15 PM  
Eliminating the federal share of unemployment benefits for millionaires would save $20 million in the next decade, the congressional researchers said in their report.

Oh God, we could save $2million a year!! That would give us almost an hour and half of war in Afghanistan!!
 
2012-10-02 03:30:40 PM  

Bag of Hammers: aaaand they got that whole female anatomy thing nailed down.


of course, they've consulted doctors (probably not medical) and have well informed congressmen on the science commitee.
 
2012-10-02 03:35:36 PM  
You know, there are government benefits and tax deductions that should absolutely be means tested. For instance, I think we should throw an income cap on the mortgage income deduction.

But unemployment is INSURANCE. You and your employer pay into it in case you ever need it.

It's not like a guy who goes from $2millon a year to $600 a week is going to say "Sweet! now I don't need to bother looking for a new job!!"
 
2012-10-02 03:48:42 PM  

impaler: "Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending," U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. "Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt."

Haven't millionaires paid the most into unemployment insurance, and you want to deny them their fair coverage? I guess this is just more wealth redistribution and class warfare from the Demo...

Wait, Coburn is a Republican from Oklahoma. WTF is going on here?


Your post is beautiful.
 
2012-10-02 03:51:53 PM  

what_now: You know, there are government benefits and tax deductions that should absolutely be means tested. For instance, I think we should throw an income cap on the mortgage income deduction.

But unemployment is INSURANCE. You and your employer pay into it in case you ever need it.

It's not like a guy who goes from $2millon a year to $600 a week is going to say "Sweet! now I don't need to bother looking for a new job!!"


I'm also not sure this article* is taking on board the idea that if someone is related to a millionaire they might crash at his place while putting their life back on track. An unemployment paid to the non-millionaire in this scenario would count as 'going to a millionaire household.'

*most likely because I DNRTFA
 
2012-10-02 03:52:17 PM  
I live in a millionaires basement and collect my welfare check. And I use the dumbwaiter to get free food and booze.

/Welfare Recipient in a millionaires household
Snarf
 
2012-10-02 03:56:22 PM  

Lost Thought 00: It's not welfare, it's insurance. You don't complain if a millionaire files a home insurance claim when their summer house burns down, do you?


I've never thought about it like that before, but now that you mention it, that doesn't seem fair. Maybe when a millionaire's house burns down the insurance company should pay the money to Planned Parenthood or another worthy cause.
 
2012-10-02 03:59:12 PM  
How much you want to bet those a$$holes complain about high taxes and entitlements for poorer people?
 
2012-10-02 03:59:28 PM  

K.B.O. Winston: what_now: You know, there are government benefits and tax deductions that should absolutely be means tested. For instance, I think we should throw an income cap on the mortgage income deduction.

But unemployment is INSURANCE. You and your employer pay into it in case you ever need it.

It's not like a guy who goes from $2millon a year to $600 a week is going to say "Sweet! now I don't need to bother looking for a new job!!"

I'm also not sure this article* is taking on board the idea that if someone is related to a millionaire they might crash at his place while putting their life back on track. An unemployment paid to the non-millionaire in this scenario would count as 'going to a millionaire household.'

*most likely because I DNRTFA


Just read this part:

"Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The reported benefits may include those received by spouses or dependents of people who made high incomes, or benefits received earlier in the year before a household member got a high-paying job."
 
2012-10-02 04:01:08 PM  

xynix: Was the person in question working? If so that's fraud but if not he/she is due unemployment benefits regardless of what his/her spouse is making. It's also my opinion on welfare.. If I lost my job I would immediately sign up and get back some of the $100k in taxes a year I've been paying the last decade.


Bingo.

If you were working, and now are not, then you are entitled to the unemployment insurance you paid into while you were working. It's YOUR MONEY, regardless of how much money your spouse is earning. It's irrelevant how much you were earning before you became unemployed.
 
2012-10-02 04:03:01 PM  

CreamFilling: Lost Thought 00: It's not welfare, it's insurance. You don't complain if a millionaire files a home insurance claim when their summer house burns down, do you?

I've never thought about it like that before, but now that you mention it, that doesn't seem fair. Maybe when a millionaire's house burns down the insurance company should pay the money to Planned Parenthood or another worthy cause.


Why? The millionaire paid his insurance premiums just like everyone else...
 
2012-10-02 04:04:58 PM  
people who actually paid into the system getting money from the unemployment insurance. OMG, history's greatest monsters.

Insurance. How does it work?
 
2012-10-02 04:08:22 PM  

xynix: Was the person in question working? If so that's fraud but if not he/she is due unemployment benefits regardless of what his/her spouse is making. It's also my opinion on welfare.. If I lost my job I would immediately sign up and get back some of the $100k in taxes a year I've been paying the last decade.


There's nothing illegal here. A single guy has a job which pays him $100k a year and lives in a house worth $1.5 million with no mortgage on it. He gets laid off. He files for unemployment. He is therefore a "millionaire" (owns assets more than $1 million) who is collecting unemployment.
 
2012-10-02 04:10:50 PM  

what_now: You know, there are government benefits and tax deductions that should absolutely be means tested. For instance, I think we should throw an income cap on the mortgage income deduction.

But unemployment is INSURANCE. You and Your employer pays into it in case you ever need it.

It's not like a guy who goes from $2millon a year to $600 a week is going to say "Sweet! now I don't need to bother looking for a new job!!"


Unemployment insurance is funded by employers; employees pay nothing in. Look at your pay stub; look at your state's website.
 
2012-10-02 04:28:09 PM  
I really don't have a problem with this if they were laid off from their jobs. Your net worth should not factor into unemployment insurance benefits. I don't think we really want to go there or they will be in your business if you get laid off. I know in a lot of states a business person has to play taxes for unemployment on themselves or family members who work for them and then cannot collect if their business goes belly up.
 
2012-10-02 04:30:34 PM  

CreamFilling: Lost Thought 00: It's not welfare, it's insurance. You don't complain if a millionaire files a home insurance claim when their summer house burns down, do you?

I've never thought about it like that before, but now that you mention it, that doesn't seem fair. Maybe when a millionaire's house burns down the insurance company should pay the money to Planned Parenthood or another worthy cause.


Yeah, I really don't know what point it is you think you're making here.
 
2012-10-02 04:34:12 PM  

qorkfiend: CreamFilling: Lost Thought 00: It's not welfare, it's insurance. You don't complain if a millionaire files a home insurance claim when their summer house burns down, do you?

I've never thought about it like that before, but now that you mention it, that doesn't seem fair. Maybe when a millionaire's house burns down the insurance company should pay the money to Planned Parenthood or another worthy cause.

Why? The millionaire paid his insurance premiums just like everyone else...


Yeah, but he doesn't really need the money if he's a millionaire, right? It just seems really greedy for him to pay all those premiums to Big Insurance to just to cover his own ass. He shouldn't have bought the house if he couldn't afford for it to burn down. Let him sell one of his yachts or private jets.
 
2012-10-02 04:43:12 PM  

xynix: Was the person in question working? If so that's fraud but if not he/she is due unemployment benefits regardless of what his/her spouse is making. It's also my opinion on welfare.. If I lost my job I would immediately sign up and get back some of the $100k in taxes a year I've been paying the last decade.


Yes, unemployment benefits are not "welfare" (handouts), they are earned benefits. I'm gonna give 100% of the people drawing unemployment the benefit of the doubt and say they all deserve them.
 
2012-10-02 04:45:50 PM  
Nope.

just proof than many american eyes/egos are larger than their wallets. bigger, faster, etc is always better. also proof that rich americans will f*ck the government every chance they get even if they can afford not to.

this is what crony capitalism teaches us from day one.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report