Congress Nixes Extension of Unemployment Benefits (video at link)

Fox News ^ | November 22, 2010

[USALiberty]

99ers Union Co-founder Gregg Rosen on how the economy will be impacted when unemployment benefits run out for thousands of job seekers.

(VIDEO at link)

[USALiberty]

Fox News host Charles Payne schools 99er slacker Gregg Rosen. He says what needs to be said: Central planning won't save you, so GET A JOB, any job, not just the RIGHT job.

[Wayne07]

This will do more to lower unemployment than the trillions of “stimulus” dollars that were flushed down the toilet.

[Red Badger]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of..................

[RobRoy]

I’m buying stock in companies that produce:

1. Tar
2. Feathers
3. Torches
4. Pitchforks.

I think this has what has motivated the FedGov to extend in the first place. People who go on unemployment are in a bad way. People who run out of unemployment have nothing to lose.

And as Gerald Celente often said, “When people lose everything and have nothing to lose, they lose it.”

When this happens to a few thousand people, it’s not too impactive on the overall culture. When it happens to millions or tens of millions, it’s gonna leave a mark.

[DeaconRed]

Long Overdue. . . . . . . . . . .

[USALiberty]

People who run out of unemployment have nothing to lose.

Nothing to lose except all the spare time they use watching Oprah. The message should be: Get a job or create a job. Won't work? OK, then don't eat.

[montag813]

“Congress” didn’t nix it...the Democrats did. They have a larger majority now than the GOP will in January, yet they scheduled the vote as part of an “emergency” calendar, which requires a TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY to pass. Why? Just to score points against Republicans? They can schedule a debate and regular vote anytime they want to. Make sure everyone knows the truth about this classic Alinsky move.

[muleskinner]

Glad I read your post. Please point me to your source of democrat shenanigans,

[montag813]

The bill was brought to the floor under the rules of suspension, requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, but fell 17 votes short with a final tally of 258-154. (ABCNews.com)

"Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives."

My reading of this is that Pelosi arranged it this way on purpose, and can go through the regular process anytime she wants to. The House will be in session for another 3 weeks, more than sufficient time.

[USALiberty]

I like what the Fox host pointed out. At one point, we had people in this country who starved or froze to death or even resorted to cannibalism. Can you imagine people noawadays being that tough?

We have removed Americans from the threat of starvation. People know we won’t let them or their kids starve because we are too soft-hearted. The result? We have destroyed 99% of the incentive to work hard and 90% of the incentive to work at all.

I hate to say it, but we might have to go back to the old ways. A few people might starve initially. But with the work ethic restored, more people will be saved in the long run.

Social programs have been a failure. They should be ended.

[CowboyJay]

Fox News host Charles Payne schools 99er slacker Gregg Rosen. He says what needs to be said: Central planning won't save you, so GET A JOB, any job, not just the RIGHT job.

There are no jobs. None. For these people to go to. At any wage. The industries that provided the kind of jobs that allowed people willing to roll up their sleeves to get back on their feet are gone. There is nothing for these people to do once they're dropped from the roles. Unless rioting, prostitution, theft, or dealing in contraband enter into the conversation.

I don't favor extending the benefits. I think it is simply prolonging the problem and making it possible to conceal the true causes. Bread and circuses for the 21st century. But the argument that all these people are simply malingering is elitist rhetoric straight out of the Marie Antoinette playbook.

[TomGuy]

It is easy to say ‘get a job’ if YOU already have a job or are retired and don’t need to work.

During these recessions, there are too many competitors seeking the same jobs, and employers are reluctant to just hire anyone.

If you have a job or are retired, your input is moot. You are no the one out there competing with prospects who are half you age or twice as qualified.

Before I retired, I think I managed to get unemployed in every major recession from the early 70s to mid 90s. I know what it is like to be needing a job — and I didn’t have a spouse or someone else footing my billing while I was out of work.

The highest U6 type of unemployment figure that I recall were around 13.5% in the mid-80s recession in Tulsa. They claimed that the official UE was at 8.5%. Those today are finding U6 rates at nearly 25% in some cities. The competition for the few available jobs is fierce.

I empathize with those who are out of work. Been there, and it ain’t fun.

[beezdotcom]

I don't favor extending the benefits. I think it is simply prolonging the problem and making it possible to conceal the true causes. Bread and circuses for the 21st century. But the argument that all these people are simply malingering is elitist rhetoric straight out of the Marie Antoinette playbook.

Well put.

Essentially, the damage is done. If we keep preventing ourselves from feeling the pain, we risk making the damage worse before we correct it.

[USALiberty]

Even if that was true (and it isn't) the whole reason would be because Americans have gotten soft and lazy and expect too much. Americans have priced themselves out of jobs thanks to the minimum wage, unions -- and now, Obamacare. Why should an employer hire an American who "needs" $40 plus benefits when an Indian or Chinese worker will do the same work for $40 a WEEK (with no benefits)? We need to restore the free market so that employers will hire again. I say SLASH regulations, protect companies from lawsuits, eliminate the minimum wage and make RIGHT TO WORK the law of the land. See how many jobs you create then.

[happydogx2]

Yup, me too. I’ve given up and will start social security. My brother-in-law and wife were recently laid off from the same company in Central Oregon. He applied for a position that will open in March and SO FAR they have 500+ applications. Lowes in this area is already letting their temporary help (for the season) go. Whats needed is another temporary “CCC” program - there are people who want to work but to few jobs vs. too many unemployed applicants.

[RobRoy]

Yeah, but I’m thinking about the ones that really CAN’T find work. And there are quite a few.

[USALiberty]

Yeah, but I’m thinking about the ones that really CAN’T find work. And there are quite a few.

Even if that was true (and it isn't) the whole reason would be because Americans have gotten soft and lazy and expect too much. Americans have priced themselves out of jobs thanks to the minimum wage, unions -- and now, Obamacare.

Why should an employer hire an American who "needs" $40 AN HOUR plus benefits when an Indian or Chinese worker will do the same work for $40 a WEEK (with no benefits)? We need to restore the free market so that employers will hire again. I say SLASH regulations, protect companies from lawsuits, eliminate the minimum wage and make RIGHT TO WORK the law of the land. See how many jobs you create then.

[eyedigress]

An old boy in RADAR told me the truth when I was young. Seek the job, don’t wait for it to come to you. He was right.

[USALiberty]

Whats needed is another temporary “CCC” program - there are people who want to work but to few jobs vs. too many unemployed applicants.

NO! No socialism! NO MORE government spending! I am TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

[RobRoy]

Two things:
1. You said, “Even if that was true (and it isn’t)...”.

I respectfully disagree, if we are talking some sort of “living” wage. Sure, there are always openings at McDonalds, but, come to think of it, maybe now there won’t be.

2. You also said, “...the whole reason would be because Americans have gotten soft and lazy and expect too much.”

With that I agree, and why owning stock in the producers of the four previously mentioned commodities may be prudent.