Please don't be surprised that we feel this way. There are many of us out here that have had enough and are finally speaking up. Even if it makes us seem uncaring. Yes, we care about those people who really need help, are good workers and aren't playing the system for all that it is worth. And I am right there for the guy that really is trying, but enough is enough with the rest of these dead beats. There comes a time where you have had your time and then they got an extension and maybe another, but sooner or later the free ride is over my friend. Except that my friend. How about moving to where the jobs are? Or going to your family members for help or maybe living back with Mom and Dad if needed. Excuses, excuses, excuses there are a million out there for lazy dead beats who are working the system.

And then there are those that think everyone is honest and nothing is wrong and if you don't feel the same way then they must "have an unresolved yet indefinite anger toward something in your life." I don't think so!



Sitting at Rotary on Friday and the table was talking about something similar. How many people will try to get money from PB with this oil spill? How many fake requests, con people and people who will come out of the woodwork for handouts even if there should be no real claim.

Please answer me this before you swear up and down that only good people get the money that they deserve.
What happened to all those billions raised for 9-11 in New York?
and the Billions for Katrina?

then why does 60 mins have so many stories on people and so much fraud?

Why weren't people watching while all this was going on?

The 'milking' and abuse of unemployment benefits began long before the current "9.7% unemployment rate". Nobody's taking the benefit itself away...but the extensions courtesy of the taxpayer's dime have to end some time.

It is interesting though, that President Obama and his Democratic majority tried to get this bill through after vowing to 'create jobs' and bring unemployment down. Are gov't workers (and their benefits) paid by the taxpayer as well?

Courtesy of olivant:
"The rejected bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states, preserving the jobs of thousands of state and local government workers and providing what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession. It included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers."

Insurance policies against double-dip recession - I guess that means they see one coming...is that the kind of hope & change y'all voted for in '08?

November awaits.

Apple

ps - WAY TO GO, fathersson!!

Do the Tea Party actually have ideas outside of rhetoric?

There are days when the answer seems to be:

Throw Money at the problem!

Keep the numbers looking good or improving no matter what. Thrill them with smoke and mirrors! and if all fails blame the other guys or shout:

at least we are trying! and if you can't come up with a better plan then ours is golden!


How do you keep the old dog happy- throw them a bone!

Been that way especially for the last decade.

A trillion bucks for two wars, each!



Sounds like politics 101. Again where was this complaint from you fearless leader in the last administration? At least Pizzaboy is consistent, I'll give that Yankee credit.



They use that jargon alot because it works. Hell with a shakey economy, two endless wars, Dubya beat Kerry in 2004. Why did Dubya win? Asides from Kerry being a liberal afraid of acting too liberal and in general a terrible candidate...

Well remember Dubya famously saying that doesn't matter if he's right or wrong on Iraq, he was staying the course? Apparently people loved that, and Kerry unwilling to break his straddling in being both dovish liberal and mean hawk, couldn't exactly retort as simple and effective as that.

"I voted for it before I voted against it" certainly represented his campaign.

I've noticed too the thing you point out, Obama White House has deployed that logic too in Afghanistan. Shit even Capo the snarky self-wanking Marxist is right about that whole campaign, yet its become a collective truth it seems that a public might agree with in private, but none the less suppress in public or even to themselves.

Then again not like the Right have actually said anything of substance to offer on that issue in contrast for alternatives. Not when Fucking Kristol at FNC always saying "Stay the course!" or "More troops! More dead terrorists! More Drones!"

Or what am I kidding? The public doesn't give a shit about that issue. Page 5 fodder.



Fixed.

I'm not naive. Of course there are people who will work the system, but I doubt those people had jobs to lose. They probably weren't working to begin with.

I don't know where these freeloaders are, or what kind of people you associate with that you know so very many of them. The people I know who lost their jobs have been devastated. They lost lucrative jobs and haven't been able to find anything close to what they had. Their benefits are long gone, and they work two and three jobs to make ends meet.

My husband's company got rid of 14 people in his dept. and outsourced their jobs. He's kept in touch with his former coworkers. Two of them have found jobs in their fields and are making similar money. The rest haven't been able to find anything close. One is working at Sears, another tried his hand at real estate. These are people who once had technical and/or executive positions with very high salaries.

SB, I wouldn't call you naive, but I am sure that you have had to work before you can collect unemployment which is what they didn't renew the time people could receive.

and to answer your question about what kind of people someof us associate with let me shed some light on that for you, so you know where I may get my information that shape my views on things. Following my father into the family business also took me into many civic groups. After all, you have to give back to your community as my fathers always says.
Great views can be heard from other business owners or managers in Rotary (International)
and then you get to meet so many CEO and goverment divison heads in the Early Morning round table meetings that are held here in our area if you take the time to go. Great place to hear what is happening from the city/state and Federal points of views and the problems they have.
Everything effects our community and our such our business.

Dad has been asked to sit on a number of boards for all types of groups. Church, hospital, civic groups and such. and boy does he like to share what is happening around town. If you listen you can hear common problems every place. No dead beats hanging here.


The people I know who lost their jobs have been devastated. They lost lucrative jobs and haven't been able to find anything close to what they had. Their benefits are long gone, and they work two and three jobs to make ends meet.

All job losts are tuff. They were lucky to have had such a lucrative job once. So many never had such luck and have always had to work three jobs to make ends meet. and I them for going out there and finding some way to make ends meet rather then sitting home and saying woe is me! I will just sit here and until someone helps me get another top paying job. Everyone should not take for granted what they have, they may be next to lose their way of life.

and I am sure that many Avg, paid hard working people trying to stay afloat will say " WELCOME TO MY WORLD!

Cutting an automatic stabilizer like unemployment benefits at a time of official 9-10% unemployment is without sense.

There are about 5 unemployed people for every job opening-not that there are many job openings in the US.

This is not about lazy loafs leeching off of productive people. This is about people who are living in the worst economy since the Great Depression. I don't think people suddenly got lazy in the past two years.

In most states unemployment benefits max out somewhere between $300-400/week. I don't know about others but for me that's not much money at all-certainly not enough to sit around on easy street were I unfortunate enough to lose my job.

One of the driving factors in the current crisis has been the transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. When Wall Street was on the verge of collapse it screamed for government assistance and got it-billions of it. Few of the usual suspects in public discourse were speaking about deficit reduction or free market orthodoxy then. Now that the finance sector has been stabilized they are refusing to lend to small businesses or bankroll new startups-which has the impact of shrinking the economy. In addition there are only so many jobs to go around. The movement of capital to China, Mexico and other low-wage, low-investment type markets has devastated the American worker. Chinese refusal to let go of mercantilism is destructive. And the constant influx of illegal immigrant labor in the country just makes matters worse.

Certainly there are some individuals in a nation of 300+ million who do try to game the system. But I don't think such people are anywhere near the majority. Every time there is a job opening or job fair the area is swamped with applicants. People want to work.

Finally it's a matter of pure self-interest. Unemployed people-especially at the lower income/wealth levels tend to have to spend their benefits ASAP. They can't afford to save. This helps prop up aggregate demand-which remains weak in America. Without this stabilizer, demand is going to fall even further and we may wind up looking like Japan, with a lost decade or more of low interest rates, low wages, low inflation and high unemployment. And having large numbers of jobless people with no money and no chance to find work is not a good thing for any society. It can increase the possibilities of extremism. People with nothing left to lose are dangerous.

Lilo, I often find that you are able to eloquently and intelligently summarize what I am unable to express. Excellent thoughts.

Thx, SB

As the site below illustrates, the maximum weekly unemployment payment for a single individual is $230 in Mississippi, $628 in Massachusettes, and averages $293 nationally. All payments are subject to federal income taxation and each state determines its own qualifications within broad federal guidelines.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Sav...ld-you-get.aspx

Fun Fact: The biggest employer in America is the government. An estimated 25%. Biggest government employer? The military.

Down with big government!

hahahhaha add in everyone who is getting a SS check or who are in jail and you can double that!

Now add in everyone who's paycheck comes from a company that get some money from the Goverment for things that the Goverment buys, or has produced, that the goveremnt uses and you have close to a 80 % rate.

Don't worry there is tons of money for everyone!

Hey if you wanna hate the troops, that's your problem.

Of course your solution to that problem would be to close VA hospitals. Because those people who go there are welfare bums and criminals, right?



You take govt. benefits, don't ya?

This is interesting to me. Not that I agree with Parker or Dowd because I don't. But I am interested by the ways in which both men and women create and enforce gender standards. And it's really fascinating that a woman wishes to insult a man by saying that he's acting like a woman. Right or wrong this is something that the President or his handlers need to be aware of and handle. Of course he could respond that these two particular critics aren't thinking logically-which would of course bring up its own set of gender stereotypes.

Two Pulitzer Prize winning columnists took aim at President Barack Obama on Wednesday. The Washington Post's Kathleen Parker called him the "first female president" and The New York Times's Maureen Dowd declared that Obama has a "humanoid" problem.

Parker posted a controversial column on Wednesday entitled "Obama: Our first female president" in which she argues that the President "displays many tropes of femaleness."

Parker explains that when it comes to dealing with crises, Obama may be be suffering from a "rhetorical-testosterone deficit" and his reaction to the BP oil crisis is "a textbook case of how Obama's rhetorical style has impeded his effectiveness." Parker argues that his style is female in nature because like women, Obama tends to act more passively and form circles to talk out problems instead of taking immediate action.

The president's actions in the wake of the BP disaster has been a case-in-point, according to Parker.

When asked about Parker's column in an appearance on "Good Morning America" Dowd told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that Obama is more of a "humanoid" than a woman. She agrees with Parker that the president has a tendency to wait and look before acting, but she says it is not really male or female trait, "it's a problem."

In the past, Hillary and Sarah Palin were criticized for their "male management traits" which take the form of a "my way or the highway" approach, Dowd said, whereas Obama turns to "consensus and compromise." Dowd said this characteristic may be a result of the way he was raised, because unlike Presidents George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, Obama did not grow up with a "rich daddy" to provide him with the confidence to make bold decisions.

There is no question that Obama's ability to communicate as president are a far cry from his oratorical skills as a candidate, and to some extent his upbringing and his background as a community organizer probably have influenced the way he continues to seek a consensus on everything.

Bottom line is the G.O.P. is out to destroy him, and he needs to drop all the "bi-partisan" nonsense.

As a staunch supporter I sincerely hope Obama can turn his very inept communications style around. He has accomplished a great deal, but there's something missing in his ego. Had Bill Clinton passed health care he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Had there been this BP thinh under Clinton, he would have been in Louisiana wiping down birds and "feeling their pain."

When we had a recession under Reagan, he simply blamed Carter for three years and got away with it.
When we invaded Iraq, Bush had that "Mission Accomplished" thing and he got away with it.

What do these three have in common? All were two term presidents.

Obama needs (metaphorically) to grow a pair, and if he doesnt, he might have to change his first name to "Jimmy."

As for policy, I think he needs to revive FDR's idea of making able bodied people work on the crumbling infrastructure, cleaning up the gulf, building rails, etc. He needs to do something big.

He can also withdraw 75% of our troops from Germany and Japan. We dont need them there.

" ...the president has a tendency to wait and look before acting,"

Wait! Someone is saying that another person actually examines a situation before acting. Oh, come on! Who does that? That's ridiculous. What if everyone did that? The next thing you know we'd all end up making a bunch of good decisions. Now, how could we possibly live with that?

Funny you should mention that DT as every single time I turn around Obama is blaming the GOP for this or for that. That's not very partisan now is it.

Now you might have a point in that the GOP hasn't been very cooperative, but it's hard to be cooperative when Obama's idea of bi-partisan is wanting the GOP to do everything his way.

See, he does it, its ok we can do it too.

I love partisanship. Only time when smart, decent rational people go absolutely stupid on the flip of a switch. Outside of a World Cup game of course.

BTW no bitching about Steele and Afghanistan? Are the BB.Net right wing all for permanent occupation? We gotta stay and fight. Forever!

Like HIGHLANDER of wars man.

Pity really. Outside of the (idiotic) partisan flavor*, what Steele said in essence...was right. But see even his party wants him to resign now or go away or return to SESAME STREET.

*=When those Fox News guys have to be the smart ones and "correct" him, you're in trouble.

Election Spending

Over the past few weeks, top Democratic Party strategists have been passed a chart by a concerned, well-respected operative underscoring the daunting task they face in the 2010 elections.

On the left hand side of the chart is a list of ten Republican aligned institutions, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Family Research Council. Next to it is a column listing the amount of money each group has pledged to spend by Election Day. A third column on the right details what those groups actually spent in 2008 on federal elections.

The number at the bottom delivers the key message. If their pledges are fulfilled, these ten groups will unleash more than $200 million in election-focused spending -- roughly $37 million more than every single independent group spent on the 2008 presidential campaign combined. This time around, almost every single penny will be going to Republican candidates or causes.

Chamber of Commerce, oh yes those guys all for amnesty. Money-whoring mother fuckers.

From today's NY Daily News:

Obama would lose Presidential election to Repbulican - ANY Republican - if held today: poll

UH, O! Obama would lose to ANY Republican in 2012: poll
And Obama's approval ratings have hit an all-time low. Is the honeymoon over?

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Two-plus years before the 2012 election, a Republican candidate — any Republican candidate — has a better chance of being President than current White House occupant Barack Obama does.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll , Americans would rather vote for an unnamed Republican than Obama in 2012 by a 39% to 36% margin.

Obama's approval rating is now at an all-time low. According to the poll, 44% of Americans approved of the president, while 48% disapproved. Just two months ago, 48% of voters approved while 43% did not.

"It was a year ago, during the summer of 2009 that America's love affair with President Barack Obama began to wane," said Peter A. Brown., assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

And it is the confidence of those critical independent voters he is losing the most.

"Today, his support among Democrats remains strong, but the disillusionment among independent voters, who dropped from 52% to 37% approval to 52% to 38% disapproval in the last 12 months, is what leads to his weakness overall when voters start thinking about 2012."

It's possible that Obama could see a bump in his popularity by extending jobless benefits for 2.5 million Americans who have been unemployed for six weeks or more. The House is expected to vote on the legislation Thursday, after the Senate OK'd it Wednesday. He has said he will quickly sign the bill into law.

The poll is good news for all Republicans — but especially good news for potential 2012 Republican candidates like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin — all of whom are rumored to be considering a run.

Among the hot issues, 56% of voters said they disapproved his handling of the economy, 51% did not like his handling of the Gulf oil spill and 58% disliked his policy on illegal immigration — with 60% saying the federal government lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law was a bad idea.

American voters said 48% to 40% that Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

From July 13-19, 2,181 voters were interviewed. The poll has an error margin of 2.1 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...l#ixzz0uQUxyJEk

This is foreplay for Palin 2012.

And you said the GOP "knew better."

HA!

I refudiate that claim .

You didn't disagree with that claim.

Like Romney will stop her. That's like saying the Pirates will win the division next year.

The flaw in this poll is that he loses to "unnamed" Republicans. There is another poll out ther I forget which, but it is respectable which matches Obama against named Republicans. Of all the likely nominees the only one who comes close is Mitt Romney who is 4 points behind (within margin of error). He handily beats the rest.

It is awfully early to be polling for 2012, and for the life of me I do not understand why these polls are not done in a way that shows how the electoral college is shaking out. I think Obama has real problems in states he carried in 2008 like Virginia, N. Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania to name a few.

Bottom line is a no brainer. ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

Don't worry PB, it's just Republican stratigery.

She can't win. And she probably can't spell Pirates, either.

I think you secretly like her, Ronnie .

Exactly. The question remains to be seen if this is a "normal" downturn and by 2011-2012 the economy will have picked up again or if this is a structural shift and 7-8% unemployment is the new full unemployment number.

NEW YORK (AP) - ABC's "The View" has welcomed many notable guests, but none more prominent than President Barack Obama, who is scheduled to visit for Thursday's edition.

In making the announcement on Monday, executive producers Barbara Walters and Bill Geddie said this marks the first time a sitting U.S. president has visited a daytime talk show.