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.

(Roll Call)   Boehner on temporarily extending emergency unemployment insurance benefits: "How about no? Does no work for you? Noooooooo"   (blogs.rollcall.com) divider line 161
    More: Fail, Boehner, unemployment benefits, Senate, emergency unemployment, unemployment extensions  
•       •       •

972 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2014 at 4:21 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 03:10:09 PM  
Boehner wants more hiring from the private sector?

The stock market is doing great, profits are high, companies are sitting on piles of cash, why don't you ask them why the private sector isn't hiring?
 
2014-03-19 03:20:11 PM  
he should reconsider, since he'll probably be unemployed in a few months anyway.
 
2014-03-19 03:25:51 PM  

vernonFL: Boehner wants more hiring from the private sector?

The stock market is doing great, profits are high, companies are sitting on piles of cash, why don't you ask them why the private sector isn't hiring?


hint: because trickle-down theory is bullshiat.
 
2014-03-19 03:33:09 PM  
"We have always said that we're willing to look at extending emergency unemployment benefits again, if Washington Democrats can come up with a plan that is fiscally-responsible

The guy who voted for two tax cuts, two unpaid for wars, and unpaid entitlement spending is concerned about fiscal responsibility. Neato.
 
2014-03-19 03:33:11 PM  
Anything that requires Congressional action is pretty much hopeless this year

/except another 50 attempts to repeal Obamacare
//as if this year is different from the past 4
 
2014-03-19 03:36:14 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "We have always said that we're willing to look at extending emergency unemployment benefits again, if Washington Democrats can come up with a plan that is fiscally-responsible

The guy who voted for two tax cuts, two unpaid for wars, and unpaid entitlement spending is concerned about fiscal responsibility. Neato.


it's different when the guy in the White House has a D next to his name.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "We have always said that we're willing to look at extending emergency unemployment benefits again, if Washington Democrats can come up with a plan that is fiscally-responsible

The guy who voted for two tax cuts, two unpaid for wars, and unpaid entitlement spending is concerned about fiscal responsibility. Neato.


fark these guys.
 
2014-03-19 04:24:54 PM  
Republicans who lost unemployment insurance will likely still vote Republican and end up feeling shame for getting welfare insurance payments.
 
2014-03-19 04:25:30 PM  
meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.
 
2014-03-19 04:25:48 PM  

vernonFL: Boehner wants more hiring from the private sector?

The stock market is doing great, profits are high, companies are sitting on piles of cash, why don't you ask them why the private sector isn't hiring?


Because of regulations that make it impossible to hire anyone. We can't help the unemployed by hurting those that could employ them.

We're tired of empty promises.
 
2014-03-19 04:27:39 PM  
We get it: HE'S ORANGE!
 
2014-03-19 04:28:00 PM  
Why should these people get unemployment continued when there are many others that got kicked off it a long time ago and are still having trouble finding work? fark off.
 
2014-03-19 04:28:27 PM  
Cantor stands ready with his metaphorical knife.

//Brutus is going to look merciful if Cantor has his way with Boehner.
 
2014-03-19 04:28:49 PM  
Should there be a any limit at all on the time you can collect unemployment benefits? It currently seems to be a moving target and political fodder for both sides.
 
2014-03-19 04:29:32 PM  
Is there some reason why someone doesn't sit/stand next to him for all his interviews and monologues and just scream "BULLSHIAT!" at everything he says?

Maybe not scream, but have a laptop with internet connected to a projector to prove his hypocritical statements on the spot?
 
2014-03-19 04:29:34 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Why should these people get unemployment continued when there are many others that got kicked off it a long time ago and are still having trouble finding work? fark off.


There are times
When you find
Lobsters in a bucket
Can't climb out
Why won't they
Climb away?
Because other lobsters
Pull them down
 
2014-03-19 04:29:56 PM  
These guys have a job similar to George Jetson's at Spacely Sprockets - come to work, push a button to vote no, sit around, go home. Reince, repeat.
 
2014-03-19 04:30:18 PM  

magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!


HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.
 
2014-03-19 04:30:47 PM  

impaler: Dusk-You-n-Me: "We have always said that we're willing to look at extending emergency unemployment benefits again, if Washington Democrats can come up with a plan that is fiscally-responsible

The guy who voted for two tax cuts, two unpaid for wars, and unpaid entitlement spending is concerned about fiscal responsibility. Neato.

fark these guys.


UI *is* fiscally responsible.

"Extending the programs for a year would also boost the economy $1.10 for each dollar of cost since the recipients would soon spend those funds. GDP would rise by 0.2% and 300,000 jobs would be added, according to CBO." (from November 2012, but the math on the economic benefit being greater than the dollar cost hasn't changed).
 
2014-03-19 04:30:52 PM  
Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

www.aei-ideas.org
 
2014-03-19 04:31:49 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Why should these people get unemployment continued when there are many others that got kicked off it a long time ago and are still having trouble finding work? fark off.


Some get screwed, therefore all should get screwed.

Fantastic logic you got there, chief.

Eat any good books lately?
 
2014-03-19 04:32:23 PM  

vernonFL: Boehner wants more hiring from the private sector?

The stock market is doing great, profits are high, companies are sitting on piles of cash, why don't you ask them why the private sector isn't hiring?


At any moment, president Blackula could institute global socialism.
 
2014-03-19 04:32:36 PM  

Serious Black: Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

[www.aei-ideas.org image 626x334]


Is there a way to get a finer picture of the 27 weeks or more?
 
2014-03-19 04:33:01 PM  
Citing a letter from state workforce agencies, who complained a bipartisan Senate deal would place too much of a burden on state labor agencies to churn out checks due to the 2 million eligible jobless, Boehner indicated he would likely choose not to consider the deal in the House.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Boehner-has-serious-concer n- with-unemployment-insurance-extension-deal/4571395250220/
 
2014-03-19 04:33:18 PM  

MFAWG: magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!

HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.


Unemployment like all other lifesaving measures should be cut off at 23 months. It's why I kicked my toddler out. Get a job ya bum.
 
2014-03-19 04:33:32 PM  

meat0918: Serious Black: Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

[www.aei-ideas.org image 626x334]

Is there a way to get a finer picture of the 27 weeks or more?


Guy who made the charts was laid off.
 
2014-03-19 04:33:41 PM  

Cletus C.: Should there be a any limit at all on the time you can collect unemployment benefits? It currently seems to be a moving target and political fodder for both sides.


the limit should be when companies don't have record profits while cutting employment. If companies refuse to hire the shareholders can pay their federal income taxes at their nice low rate and support the people the companies they are invested in refuse to hire. If they want to continue this trend the 99% can  vote in a GMI instead.
 
2014-03-19 04:33:45 PM  
I can sort of see his point. We certainly wouldn't want to do anything to encourage economic growth.
 
2014-03-19 04:34:17 PM  

Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.


Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.
 
2014-03-19 04:34:48 PM  
he doesn't want to bring it to the House because then the dirty Liberal media would be able to print that the (R) controlled house voted against unemployment extensions (again?).

so in a sense, he's just controlling the narrative.

Fark the Republicans as they fark the unemployed.
 
2014-03-19 04:35:32 PM  

magusdevil: MFAWG: magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!

HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.

Unemployment like all other lifesaving measures should be cut off at 23 months. It's why I kicked my toddler out. Get a job ya bum.


Time limits should be arbitrarly set with no consideration of current economy and employment factors!
 
2014-03-19 04:35:51 PM  
That's right!  Get a job you deadbeats!
 
2014-03-19 04:36:58 PM  

Shryke: Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.

Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.


If we are going to do away with everything that has a deleterious effect on overall employment Republicans better watch their backs.
 
2014-03-19 04:38:54 PM  

Shryke: Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.

Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.


yeah, middle class and poor people able to buy food and pay rent or their mortgage hurts employment and stuff, it'd be better if they were not putting any money into the economy instead.
 
2014-03-19 04:39:17 PM  

magusdevil: If we are going to do away with everything that has a deleterious effect on overall employment Republicans better watch their backs.


In November? Hrm, you know, I don't think it's the GOP on high alert.
 
2014-03-19 04:39:42 PM  

Testiclaw: magusdevil: MFAWG: magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!

HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.

Unemployment like all other lifesaving measures should be cut off at 23 months. It's why I kicked my toddler out. Get a job ya bum.

Time limits should be arbitrarly set with no consideration of current economy and employment factors!


A month shy of 2 years. That's not arbitrary, it's half of a college education.

If you're unemployed for 2 years you may actually be a lazy bum, or you may need to reexamine your expectations.
 
2014-03-19 04:40:28 PM  

Testiclaw: meat0918: Serious Black: Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

[www.aei-ideas.org image 626x334]

Is there a way to get a finer picture of the 27 weeks or more?

Guy who made the charts was laid off.


LOL.

Seriously though, to meat0918, the BLS does report down to the below distribution:

- < 5 weeks,
- 5 to 10 weeks,
- 11 to 14 weeks,
- 15 to 26 weeks,
- 27 to 52 weeks, and
- 53 weeks and over.

At the end of 2013, almost 3 million people in the workforce reported being unemployed for over a year. That's more people than have been unemployed for less than 5 weeks.
 
2014-03-19 04:41:28 PM  

Headso: Shryke: Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.

Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.

yeah, middle class and poor people able to buy food and pay rent or their mortgage hurts employment and stuff, it'd be better if they were not putting any money into the economy instead.


Answer my question, please. Do you grasp the issue?
 
2014-03-19 04:41:49 PM  
How about a nice compromise? End all unemployment at 23 months and recreate the Civilian Conservation Corps.
 
2014-03-19 04:41:57 PM  

Shryke: Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.

Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.


There are almost 3 million people in the workforce who have been unemployed for over a year as of December 2013. You think those guys are just happily sitting on their asses and mooching off of Uncle Sam?
 
2014-03-19 04:42:05 PM  
I think this is good.  Get those lazy bums to get jobs that don't exist.  Then, with money they don't have they can go ahead and not buy things like food, shelter, or cable TV.  Then when those industries start complaining about losing profits, we can pass a bill to bail them out directly.
 
2014-03-19 04:42:36 PM  
The GOP is all about exploiting the labor base. In a different age they'd be riding around on horses and living in castles.
 
2014-03-19 04:43:28 PM  

Serious Black: Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

[www.aei-ideas.org image 626x334]


Too many people have simply given up and aren't even bothering to look because once you have a big enough gap on your resume, you're  persona non grata. And since the GOP with their laser-like focus on jobs have done everything they can to hamper the economy, the creation of jobs or the betterment of anyone but the super-wealthy, it's not looking to change anytime soon.

But I'm sure we'll be treated to another ACA repeal effort soon.
 
2014-03-19 04:43:33 PM  

Shryke: Headso: Shryke: Headso: meh, don't vote for republicans if you are poor or middle class, until people learn that simple rule we will have turds like this guy voting to hurt poor and middle class people at every opportunity.

Is it possible, just possible, that unending "temporary emergency unemployment benefits" have a deleterious effect on overall employment? You know, even Krugman admits this is true.

yeah, middle class and poor people able to buy food and pay rent or their mortgage hurts employment and stuff, it'd be better if they were not putting any money into the economy instead.

Answer my question, please. Do you grasp the issue?


I did answer it, I don't see a scenario where putting less money into an economy that relies on consumer spending magically makes employment go up.
 
2014-03-19 04:43:59 PM  

Serious Black: Testiclaw: meat0918: Serious Black: Short-term unemployment (less than 15 weeks) is basically at recent historical norms. Medium-term unemployment (15-26 weeks) is slightly higher than recent historical norms but not radically so. Long-term unemployment is still ridiculously high compared to recent history:

[www.aei-ideas.org image 626x334]

Is there a way to get a finer picture of the 27 weeks or more?

Guy who made the charts was laid off.

LOL.

Seriously though, to meat0918, the BLS does report down to the below distribution:

- < 5 weeks,
- 5 to 10 weeks,
- 11 to 14 weeks,
- 15 to 26 weeks,
- 27 to 52 weeks, and
- 53 weeks and over.

At the end of 2013, almost 3 million people in the workforce reported being unemployed for over a year. That's more people than have been unemployed for less than 5 weeks.


At least it went down from 3.6 million in 2012.

That is a huge difference between the mean and median time spent unemployed for 2013!

Mean of 36.5 weeks and a median of 17?

Well, what ideas do we have besides unemployment benefits for those people tilting the mean towards infinity?
 
2014-03-19 04:44:07 PM  

MFAWG: Testiclaw: magusdevil: MFAWG: magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!

HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.

Unemployment like all other lifesaving measures should be cut off at 23 months. It's why I kicked my toddler out. Get a job ya bum.

Time limits should be arbitrarly set with no consideration of current economy and employment factors!

A month shy of 2 years. That's not arbitrary, it's half of a college education.

If you're unemployed for 2 years you may actually be a lazy bum, or you may need to reexamine your expectations.


what if you're underemployed and dependent on the difference to be made up through UI?
what i'm saying is that i would rather those benefits be made available.
 
2014-03-19 04:44:33 PM  

MFAWG: Testiclaw: magusdevil: MFAWG: magusdevil: We get it: HE'S ORANGE!

HA! Checkmate!

23 months is plenty long to be receiving unemployment.

Unemployment like all other lifesaving measures should be cut off at 23 months. It's why I kicked my toddler out. Get a job ya bum.

Time limits should be arbitrarly set with no consideration of current economy and employment factors!

A month shy of 2 years. That's not arbitrary, it's half of a college education.

If you're unemployed for 2 years you may actually be a lazy bum, or you may need to reexamine your expectations.


Tied to college length?

Soooooo...arbitrary.

I mean, I get your point about length and that you feel it should be shorter, but check out some of the graphs posted and look into the recovery a bit. If you still feel the way you do after sifting through the evidence, by all means, share it with us.

But "it's almost two years" or "college" or "you're a lazy bum" shows us two things:

First, you're using an arbitrary method for determining length, and second, you're a huuuuuuuuge dick.
 
2014-03-19 04:45:27 PM  

MFAWG: If you're unemployed for 2 years you may actually be a lazy bum, or you may need to reexamine your expectations.


Or there may simply not be enough jobs.

/this is where you say they should work making burgers or something.
//you tried to find a minimum-wage job lately?
///hint: They're scarce too, with a giant waiting list and a ready-made bias against overqualified/older people.
 
2014-03-19 04:46:57 PM  
A liberal is outraged when people endure suffering they don't deserve. A conservative is outraged when people enjoy comfort they didn't earn.
 
2014-03-19 04:48:08 PM  
I would be interested in seeing total unemployment benefits paid from 2008 - present compared to total bailout funds dispersed over the same time period.  I suspect the former will be less than the later.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report