Evil Congressional Bastards!

[GePap]

Even if the dems. had passed their own version, then they would have had to negotiate with the House. Notice the vast difference in plans: the Senate 5Billion, the House 900 Million, and with many restrictions. How do we reconcile those two?

Both are guilty, but the next congress will be far less likely to go much beyond the House measure, which will do far less to help than what the dem. senate propossed (if late).

I don't think the economy will get better: not only will many people lose beneits and thus cut spending, but many states face collapsing budgets, which will mean big cuts in state spending, lay-offs of state workers, and tax hikes to meet the budget gaps, all of which, i think, will put downward pressure on consumer spending while business is unlikely to kick in their spending (still have overcapacity) and the worthwhileness of further rate cuts will be minimal, as the public is already saddled with huge debt. I mean, who's left who has yet to refinance? Or buy a car with the 0 financing deal that have been out there for months?

[chequita guevara]

I need to refinance my student loans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I guess my question is why should the government extend unemployment benefits in the first place - or have them at all?

I don't see this as an evil act, because if they did it, they would simply be forcing the average taxpayer to pay even more out of his already incredibly taxed income, and THAT would be wrong.

Uh, Davy-wavy, you might want to get out and see how da big ol' world works before you spout your knee-jerk ideological pablum.

The simple answer to your rhetorical question is the vast majority of voters don't give a dead rat's ass about your philosophy of government, and they elect officials who are more responsive to what they want.

For the details of why you should figure out how that big ol' world out there works:

(a) Employers pay both federal and state unemployment taxes. Nobody else pays them.

(b) The amounts they pay are trivial. (typically $252.80 per employee per year for state unemployment insurance, and $56.00 per employee per year for FUTA.) I'm an employer. I pay it, and it's nothing compared to the rest of my costs of doing business.

(c) The money from both state and Federal unemployment taxes is deposited in trust funds to be used solely for unemployment benefits.

(d) Despite the low level of funding per employee per year, these trust funds are rolling in dough. The feds have $25 billion, last I heard, the state of California has about 5 billion.

(e) In just about every year, both Federal and state trust funds run positive balances, so they are in no danger of running low of money.

(f) Even from an employer's perspective, I'd rather pay the trivial amount of tax and have people between jobs be at least semi-liquid (i.e. spending money and circulating it in the economy, not with their head in a bottle.)

Oh, and Floyd: If you wonder why people don't "debate" points or bother in depth with your posts, look in the mirror.

Far more often than not, you're more concerned with spouting your ideology than with understanding the factual basis underlying any issue - just like this "if your gonna argue blah blah blah entitles you to any of my money, when you've never paid a dime of ****ing unemployment tax anywhere, at any time.

Nobody takes a factually ignorant ideologue seriously.

JT's point wasn't condescending at all. There's this real live thing in the world called "experience." The fact that you can type and rant doesn't mean your point of view has any relevance or credibility, any more than if you were an eight year old. In general (with the rare exception of the 30 year old ****up trust fund kid still living off daddy's estate), people who've been adults for a while know more about how that world works than people who haven't. Don't like it? TFB, that's the way things are.

[Ming]

Yes... there is a significant difference between the two bills. But it's the Dems who said... POLITICS TIME, it's time to screw the unemployed and give them no money at all while we go home to enjoy the holidays. It's not important enough for us to get some kind of comprimise in place. Tough luck to those that will lose their unemployment insurance while we go on a paid vacation. Don't worry folks, we will discuss it again after our paid vacation... oh, while you are getting screwed in the mean time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Was there any motion in the senate to take the bill into joint committee by either party?

Republicans in the senate sure as hell wouldn't put one on the floor with any other bill, with a pending change in majority next session, and they have filibuster power.

Why the hell should the house bill get preference because they voted it out first? Hell, when bills come out of each house separately, the house votes out most bills first before the senate, because of the different internal rules in the two bodies. "We got there first so you should pick our version" has never been a basis for resolving different version of bills before, why should this be an exception?

Both sides played politics, and both sides ****ed over the unemployed. Especially when you consider the worth of the FUTA trust fund, the reluctance to use it is inexcusable.

[DaShi]

No one hires during December?

You could work at nearly any retailer during the holidays. Sure it might not be for long, but at least you'll make some cash.

[chequita guevara]

Any bill about spending has to come out of the House first. That's the Constitution. The Senate often passes differing versions, and then the two sides come together to negotiate. MtG is right, both sides screwed us.

[Adam Smith]

Just to put things in persepctive, this year's unemployment rate looks like it will come in at about 5.7 percent, up from 4.X percent last year. In the last recession, which was very mild, unemployment was 5.7 percent or more for the years 1991-1994 inclusive. Prior to that, unemployment was 5.7 percent or more for thirteen consecutive years, from 1975-1987 inclusive. This period included three major recessions, and a major restructuring of the US economy. The current 5.7 percent is still pretty low by historical standards. The unemployment funds are well financed because the economy has been good for a long time. No reason we cant pay out some benefits for people who need them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DaShi
No one hires during December?

Actually, by this point, most retailers have hired their Xmas help. I have nibble on something, but I don't want to say anything for fear of jynxing it (not that I'm superstitious )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Any bill about spending has to come out of the House first. That's the Constitution. The Senate often passes differing versions, and then the two sides come together to negotiate. MtG is right, both sides screwed us.

Only budget bills, IIRC. 98% of bills are about spending in some form or another.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
both sides screwed us.

So should I change the title of this thread in the name of fairness

[chequita guevara]

The nineties were definately a historic low for unemployment, seeing as the Feds had a policy of maintaining a 5%-6% unemployment rate to keep inflation down. 5.7% isn't really that bad.

But that's small comfort when you're looking down the barrel of a shotgun.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
So should I change the title of this thread in the name of fairness

I did write that earlier. Change Republican to Congressional.

[Shi Huangdi]

Floyd, whatever you think of unemployment benefits from the government, seeing as how the taxes have already been payes and the money has already been taken for them, and that money is now in trust funds, what is wrong with using the money what it was intended for?

[Giancarlo]

Again, another whole thread misrepresentating the right-wing posted by an inherently misled leftist. I have nothing to say to you, chegitz.