Not sure the reason Obama administration is calling for renewal of unemployment benefits. Aren't they saying the unemployment rate is sinking faster than the Titanic did? So there should be plenty of jobs to go around.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Yep, funny isn't it? They claim there are all those jobs out there, but can't explain why people can't find them.
Unemployment is down, that doesn't mean that we have 0 unemployment. What is up with you guys thinking it has to be all or nothing? Do you think that the one that are still unemployed and can't find employment will be able to make it without the benefits?
When I was laid off 5 years ago, I was on unemployment for almost 2 years. Unfortunately, my unemployment wasn't near as much as people get paid in the democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania.
I never even looked for a job while I was receiving the benefits. Had I been a little hungrier, I'd have been out there knocking on doors.
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Unemployment is down, that doesn't mean that we have 0 unemployment. What is up with you guys thinking it has to be all or nothing? Do you think that the one that are still unemployed and can't find employment will be able to make it without the benefits?
Exactly. I don't get it either. It's tunnel vision IMHO.
Unemployment benefits are still there. Just not for those that have been drawing since 2008. Why is it all or nothing with you people.
Hoob, NO ONE has been drawing unemployment since 2008. The longest anyone could have been drawing unemployment is 73 weeks. Do the math.
Originally Posted by Bamaman1:
When I was laid off 5 years ago, I was on unemployment for almost 2 years. Unfortunately, my unemployment wasn't near as much as people get paid in the democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania.
I never even looked for a job while I was receiving the benefits. Had I been a little hungrier, I'd have been out there knocking on doors.
________________
Did you lie on your weekly report? I can't imagine just being happy with a small portion of my normal income just so I could sit around the house. Whether I was hungry or not. If I could find a job, I would have a job. Maybe this is why many Republicans think those on welfare are happy to be there. If you do something yourself then you are more likely to think others do it too.
This program was started in 2008 and people have been able to draw as long as 99 weeks. The fact that this program is still needed only highlights the economic woes this country has suffered under a business hating president.
Ok we will use your numbers. Even using the 99 weeks that is no where near 5 years!
You said:
"Just not for those that have been drawing since 2008."
No one has been drawing unemployment since 2008.... How easily you want to forget what got us in this mess to begin with. I know you guys hate for anyone to bring up his name, but, the emergency unemployment fund that was started in 2008 was due to the Republican administration of George W.'s failures. Not the current Presidents.
The unemployment rate is lower today than it was when W left office. Of course we all know that in the months following his departure we saw it soar to 10%.. It is now at 7.0%
About three years ago, the Danes cut their unemployment payments from 4 to 2 years citing a study that it kept persons on the dole too long.
jank, give up... you know dang good and well that the american people prosper more under republican leadership.. like clinton... and those horrible democrats, like bush, only produce failure. 
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Ok we will use your numbers. Even using the 99 weeks that is no where near 5 years!
You said:
"Just not for those that have been drawing since 2008."
No one has been drawing unemployment since 2008.... How easily you want to forget what got us in this mess to begin with. I know you guys hate for anyone to bring up his name, but, the emergency unemployment fund that was started in 2008 was due to the Republican administration of George W.'s failures. Not the current Presidents.
The unemployment rate is lower today than it was when W left office. Of course we all know that in the months following his departure we saw it soar to 10%.. It is now at 7.0%
That unemployment rate doesn't include those who have given up looking for a job. The number is quite a bit higher, around 11.5% if the job participation rate was the same as pre-recession level.
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
jank, give up... you know dang good and well that the american people prosper more under republican leadership.. like clinton... and those horrible democrats, like bush, only produce failure.
Life was better for me under Bush. Now with BOcare taxes on the horizon and an economy that's being supported by the fed printing money, life's not as rosy. It's a house of cards.
The numerous democrat controlled cities/municipalities that are folding faster than superman on laundry day are a sneek peek at what's to come on a larger scale. Democrat economic policies are not sustainable.
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Ok we will use your numbers. Even using the 99 weeks that is no where near 5 years!
You said:
"Just not for those that have been drawing since 2008."
No one has been drawing unemployment since 2008.... How easily you want to forget what got us in this mess to begin with. I know you guys hate for anyone to bring up his name, but, the emergency unemployment fund that was started in 2008 was due to the Republican administration of George W.'s failures. Not the current Presidents.
The unemployment rate is lower today than it was when W left office. Of course we all know that in the months following his departure we saw it soar to 10%.. It is now at 7.0%
That unemployment rate doesn't include those who have given up looking for a job. The number is quite a bit higher, around 11.5% if the job participation rate was the same as pre-recession level.
_______________
Do you have a link to some proof of that statement? Where do you come up with that number of 11.5%? I have searched for it and the only place I have found that even comes close to what you are saying is from right-wing blogs that just make up the numbers as they go along. They have nothing either, just hoping no one actually bothers to question it or ask for proof.
The number you threw out there is about as factual as people being on Unemployment for 5 years. You are 0 for 2 Hoob.
I suspect he is referring to the U-6 rate -- Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. Which was 13.2 percent in November.
the u-6 rate is down from almost 18%, in 2008-2009, to just about 12%, now. thanks obama!
I was actually refering to the extended unemployment being available since 2008. I'm most definitely correct on the REAL unemployment rate. Looks like you'll have to eat crow on your fuzzy math regarding the unemployment rate. Anybody with a lick of sense knows it's higher than 7%, even crash acknowledges it.
I'm also privy to power demand data in the Tenn Valley. Demand is down, way down compared to pre 2008 levels. There is a direct correlation to power usage and the economy. It has nothing to do with the use of CFL's or conservation either as I'm referring to industrial usage. Less usage means less people working.
hahaha nice try.
You said 11.5%. So if you are talking about the u-6 rate as Crash and Dire are saying then you don't have that right either. However, if we are going to go by those numbers then that is down as well. So I agree with Crash. Thanks Obama! 
Yes! Thanks Obama.
Too bad we didn't do as Reagan did. Then, the rates would have dropped in a year and much lower.
obama tried to spend money on jobs bills, just as reagan did! the republicans in congress blocked it! what's the next tired old lie from the rt. wingnut gallery?
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by Bamaman1:
When I was laid off 5 years ago, I was on unemployment for almost 2 years. Unfortunately, my unemployment wasn't near as much as people get paid in the democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania.
I never even looked for a job while I was receiving the benefits. Had I been a little hungrier, I'd have been out there knocking on doors.
________________
Did you lie on your weekly report? I can't imagine just being happy with a small portion of my normal income just so I could sit around the house. Whether I was hungry or not. If I could find a job, I would have a job. Maybe this is why many Republicans think those on welfare are happy to be there. If you do something yourself then you are more likely to think others do it too.
I can't imagine it either, Jank. However, there are many people that are perfectly content to do just that.