Thursday, November 5, 2009
News The Government Dole Just Got a Little Dolier
Posted by Unpaid Intern on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Post by news intern Garrett McCulloch
Good news for all of us without (paying) jobs. Congress extended unemployment benefits today. Only 12 of the most dickish Republicans voted against it. Dicks.
The extra 14 weeks means that ye of no jobs can collect the dole for a total of 99 weeks. It gets better. In the 20 states with unemployment rates higher than 8.5 percent—like Washington, which was 9.2 percent unemployed last month—you get 105 weeks of unemployment benefits under the new law. White House spies say Obama will sign the bill into law tomorrow.
Got a job and a substantial pile of cash? The bill also extends the income-tax credit for first-time home buyers until April of next year, and it creates a smaller credit for homeowners buying a new home.
Share via
3
Unemployment extension -- Yea!
First-time home buyer tax credit -- Yea!
Any-ol' new home purchase tax credit -- WTF?!
First-time home buyer tax credit -- Yea!
Any-ol' new home purchase tax credit -- WTF?!
4
Really, someone can apply for 3 jobs a week, that's 315 places of employment, and fail at each one?
5
To be fair to the Republicans, this is actually one of the few areas left where
the neocon faith-based economics lines up with mainstream economics. You shouldn't
pay people to not work if you want them to look for a job.
I'm all for paying people welfare if they don't have a large income - or have
kids to support - but paying people purely because they don't have a job is
kind of a dumb idea.
the neocon faith-based economics lines up with mainstream economics. You shouldn't
pay people to not work if you want them to look for a job.
I'm all for paying people welfare if they don't have a large income - or have
kids to support - but paying people purely because they don't have a job is
kind of a dumb idea.
6
@5 - no, the frictional costs keep people from rising up in armed rebellion and burning the castles of the landed gentry and lords. we're probably a bit too low in coverage - and we severely undercount people using our methods.
7
anything the government subsidizes it gets more of so- sure- by all means-let's pay people not to work...
10
What's "dickish" about not paying people for not working, especially when the budget deficit is at an all-time high?
11
What you ignore is the fact that Republicans stalled this bill for two months while thousands exhausted their unemployment every week. Six job seekers for every job and some businesses now have posted signs Not Hiring because of the constant stream of people seeking work in the area. Rumor was that the Republicans stalled the bill as long as they could just to be dicks as a big fuck you for the people not voting for them in 2008. They want to make Obama look as bad as possible by not extending unemployment. Many Republicans were behind stalling the bill but they all eventually voted for the bill because not would have been political suicide.
13
@5,
Yeah, getting half what you would if you were working full time is such a deal. Or did you not even know how unemployment benefits work?
Yeah, getting half what you would if you were working full time is such a deal. Or did you not even know how unemployment benefits work?
14
"Only 12 of the most dickish Republicans voted against it."
Not that that narrows it down by much. It's like saying 12 of the most [whitish/male-ish/old-ish/closeted-ish] Republicans.
Not that that narrows it down by much. It's like saying 12 of the most [whitish/male-ish/old-ish/closeted-ish] Republicans.
15
@12: Sure, and as insurance it totally makes sense (you shouldn't lose your place to live or eat through all your savings if you lose a job), but extending the benefits to almost two years is pretty ridiculous.
@13: Oh, I'm not saying it's sufficient, just horribly inefficient.
It's much more efficient to stimulate through jobs creation, and it's much more socially conscious to dole out benefits in accordance to need, not in accordance to prior work history.
@13: Oh, I'm not saying it's sufficient, just horribly inefficient.
It's much more efficient to stimulate through jobs creation, and it's much more socially conscious to dole out benefits in accordance to need, not in accordance to prior work history.
16
Let's look at the facts, there were both Dems and Repubs not voting for, or using the correct political "Abstain" which is even more revolting, here is the list:
Republicans Voting 'Nay'
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. George Radanovich [R, CA-19]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. John Shadegg [R, AZ-3]
Republicans Voting 'Abstain'
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Democrats Voting 'Abstain'
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. David Obey [D, WI-7]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1]
They should all be part of "Throw the bums out!"
Republicans Voting 'Nay'
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. George Radanovich [R, CA-19]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. John Shadegg [R, AZ-3]
Republicans Voting 'Abstain'
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Democrats Voting 'Abstain'
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. David Obey [D, WI-7]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1]
They should all be part of "Throw the bums out!"
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
Was This On Slog Yesterday? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (16) RSS