Posted on 02/27/2010 4:19:44 PM PST by mwjn
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) should be ousted from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his block on extending unemployment benefits, according to a group that advocates for the unemployed.
The benefits expire Sunday.
“The most obscene thing he can do is prevent jobless Americans from getting their $350 a week unemployment check,” Rick Sloan, acting executive director of Ur Union of Unemployed, a grass roots organization for unemployed Americans, told The Hill.
Sloan’s group is creating an online petition to remove Bunning from Baseball’s Hall of Fame. The list is expected to be operational by the weekend.
“His legacy as a great ball player is about to be surpassed by his reputation as an obstinate and uncaring ideologue,” Sloan said in a statement.
Efforts to reach Bunning’s office were unsuccessful.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has tried for three days to extend the expiring employment provisions, only to be rebuffed by Bunning who demands the bill’s $10 billion cost be offset. Reid has argued the legislation is for emergency reasons and therefore offsets are not required.
More than 1 million people will lose unemployment benefits in March if Congress does not approve legislation to extend the payments, according to an estimate from the National Employment Law Project.
“His heartless actions mean millions will not receive their unemployment checks. For his stance, he should be ejected from the Hall of Fame and installed in the Hall of Shame,” Sloan said.
To overcome Bunning’s roadblock, Reid could add a list of expiring tax breaks to the measure in hopes he will curry favor from the Kentucky lawmaker. It is unclear if this strategy will work.
Lobbying sources say legislation extending tax and unemployment benefits could be debated Monday.
So then they move so he can get a job only to have the wife now out of a job?!?!
I know hard decisions must be made, but that is different from making foolish decisions.
(your scenario does not even account for the tens of thousands it would cost to move)
Maybe the wife looks for a new job in the same area he is looking too while still working. In the meantime he is at a job somewhere and eventually she join him or he comes back at some point. Maybe he commutes the long distance so they can stay together. They have to work it out.
If it cost prohibitive, then he should take the pay cut and get something where he is at.
Part of the reason many people dont take a job beneith them is that it isnt reccomeneded.
Many career counselors say that a lower job pollutes your resume more than unemployment would.
Employers get weird opinions when they see someone had a very good job and then suddenly see the next job they are working at McDonalds. They look at that resume negatively. They look at that cadidate as being confused as to what work they want to do.
It’s wrong, but that’s what they do. HR departments are typically a joke. But that’s how they operate.
Maybe don’t move everything and get rid of junk. Do they really need all of their stuff? Most likely not.
They have to cut their spending regardless what they do because they cannot live like they did before.
And Ty Cobb should go, too ‘cause, well...mean people suck!
Given the product issuing forth from a lot of today's higher education, that certainly seems like a vocation that would minimize the damage they might do....
People here really have all the answers!
At this point, I want Pete Rose and Joe Jackson in, but I don’t get to make that call, do I?
Assuming he even gets hired. I can’t count the times I’ve been turned down because of a ‘poor fit’, meaning overqualified.
And don’t get me started on the HR folks!
Yeah, I’ve worked lots of jobs. They seem not to like the fact that I’ve done so many different ones.
I’m not confused at all about what I want to do with life. Last I checked it’s called ‘initiative’.
What if they move because the husband gets a new job and the wife is not working but now looking for work? But because of the economy, he loses his job yet again! Then BOTH are out of work.
There are too many possible hypotheticals to mention.
Maybe she stays and still works in the same city and he leaves to work in the new city.
Overall, are you still suggesting that the person wait and collect unemployment until the person gets the $80,000 year job back?
That job is gone and will most likely not come back. It is foolish to wait a long time. The persons competition will grow and get younger as well (making it more difficult to get the job).
|
I love how people rightfully blast Obama for this horrendous economy which has seen MILLIONS of jobs lost, and then turn around to blame the unemployed for being unemployed.
I also love the simplistic solutions people offer. Move! (Who’s going to buy my house? If I could sell it, I probably wouldn’t get what we owe, since we’ve only been in it for 3 years. And we put over a third down. That’s how much our property values have dropped.)
The thing is-—it’s the government that’s caused this mess we’re in, so yeah-—I have no problem with my husband getting his unemployment check. (My husband, who, until six months ago had been continuously employed since the age of 10-—38 years. Boy, he’s a real malingerer.)
Could not agree more. I never wish people ill, but allot these people who are against benefits for the unemployed (people who WORK!) need to walk a month or so in their shoes. My guess is not a one would hold those same opinions.
It’s all too easy to be sanctimonious when you have a paycheck coming your way.
So what if he take a loss and sells the home and moves to anew city for a job.....only to see that economy tank?
You people who have all of the solutions in reality have none.
Bunning is forcing Reid to use these expiring tax breaks here, which means he will not be able to use them to “offset” something later. This will prevent future spending that would be financed with this “found” money.
So what if he take a loss and sells the home and moves to anew city for a job.....only to see that economy tank?
You people who have all of the solutions in reality have none.
You are suggesting that he do nothing at all. That is what I gather from your reply.
If you are unemployed, keeping expenses low is Priority #1. In fact, it’s Priority #2 and #3 too. This means NOT incurring expenses if you do not need to, such as moving. Got it?
Who is to say the job you move across the country for will even be there in 6 months in this economy? The fact that people like you even ask these types of questions show you really have no clue as to how bad ift is out there now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.