Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
GOP to the Unemployed: Drop Dead (You Bums)
On Sunday, unemployment benefits officially ended for hundreds of thousands of Americans, thanks to maneuverings by Senate Republicans to prevent a vote that would have extended those benefits. Unless the extension is passed soon, some 1.1 million of the nation's unemployed will see their unemployment expire in the coming month, and 5 million will lose benefits by June.
The House finally voted to extend benefits on Thursday, after several days of stalling and posturing. But in the Senate, the measure was blocked by Kentucky's Jim Bunning. Politico reported that late into Thursday night, Bunning held out against repeated Democratic attempts to pass the extension by unanimous consent. In response to entreaties from colleagues across the aisle, other Republican senators rose to defend Bunning's right to obstruct the vote, and Bunning himself was heard to utter, "Tough shit."
Bunning said he wanted to see the cost of the benefits offset by other savings, to keep from adding to the deficit. But earlier in the week, Nevada Republican Congressman Dean Heller offered another objection to extending unemployment benefits: He believes it might create a nation of bums.
Think Progress relayed Heller's remarks, which were made at a Republican Party function in Elko, Nevada, and reported in the local paper:
Heller said the current economic downturn and policies may bring back the hobos of the Great Depression, people who wandered the country taking odd jobs. He said a study found that people who are out of work longer than two years have only a 50 percent chance of getting back into the workforce.
"I believe there should be a federal safety net," Heller said, but he questioned the wisdom of extending unemployment benefits yet again to a total of 24 months, which Congress is doing. "Is the government now creating hobos?" he asked.
Heller doesn't seem bothered by the fact that he hails from a state with one of the nation's highest unemployment rates-now more than 13 percent-as well as its highest foreclosure rate. In his speech, he managed to blame everything on the Democrats. "Six percent of Americans believe the stimulus package created jobs. More Americans believe Elvis is still alive," he said. Never mind that the extended unemployment benefits Heller derided are in fact among the most effective components the stimulus package, according to the Congressional Budget Office, producing $1.90 in growth for every $1 spent.
What makes Heller's statement really stupid, of course, is that people could become hobos if Congress doesn't extend unemployment benefits, rather than if they do. Modest as they are, these weekly benefits are what's keeping thousands-and perhaps millions-of families out of poverty. The benefits that expire first are for people who have been out of work the longest, and are most likely to be living close to the edge already.
The same is true for the other social safety net programs that Republicans tend to despise. For example, without Social Security, according to the Alliance for Retired Americans, "55% of severely disabled workers and their families would live in poverty; 47% of elderly households would live in poverty; another 1.3 million children would fall into poverty; and 2.4 million grandparent-headed households caring for 4.5 million grandchildren would be deprived of [their] most important source of income." Yet Social Security, too, has long been under attack by conservatives-a position that's lately gained bipartisan ground, as reflected in Obama's bipartisan "debt commission," which is aimed at reducing entitlements.
The heydey of hobos was during the Great Depression, before the New Deal began to weave the social safety net. If Nelson and his fellow Republicans want to see Americans riding the rails, living in tent cities, and lining up at soup kitchens (even more than they already are), all they have to do is keep tearing that safety net apart.
- Posted in
167 Comments so far
Show AllWhy do we have these sorts of elected officials who seem to actually hate Americans? And why do Americans keep voting for them? It must be some kind of follie a deux hundred million.
It's called the "Protestant Hate Ethic" :)
Keep electing/re-electing pricks and you'll get screwed, every time.
I think that many, if not most Americans are gluttons for punishment; they WANT to get screwed, which is why they keep electing and re-electing pricks into office.
It is like reality TV.
They spend Billions of Dollars a year, Both Parties, the Dems and Repubs.
They pay for the slickest campaigns and Advertisements, etc.
In fact, Obamas campaign Won Some kind of award after the election, like some greatest marketing/PR award or something you would normally think would go to coca-cola or sony or something like that, some product.
Oh, did I say Product? I most certainly did.
Obomber is a Branded Product, CHANGE and HOPE are slogans, catch phrases.
They know how to work it.
There are so many studies on this. They market us from the second we pop out of the womb. And by the time you are old enough to vote they know how to get you to vote.
Well, that is for those of you out there who watch TV and reality shows and sporting events. I personally do not even own a television set, never owned my own. So I am not so brainwashed by ads and competitive TV, reality shows (I think reality TV is the Most disgusting invention of our time - other than nuclear weapons and the sort) And Obomber and McCain, they may as well have been characters on a Reality TV show called American Politics or something like that.
They hypnotize people into buying a product and this product was Obomber.
And now he can destroy America (well it isn't really him, he is the front man, its the Military Industrial Complex, the Too BIG To Fail friends of the Government, thats why they get the BAILOUTS and we get to discuss this on commondreams, its also the federal reserve system, the money changers who control our nation). And he can destroy the World via WAR, and no one cares, because its Obama, and they voted for him and he is so nice and he is going to CHANGE everything for us and make our lives so great, and all we have to do is sit there, mesmerized in front of the TV, and watch his BIG Pearly white smile and listen to him say HOPE and CHANGE and magically we can have all the entitlement programs and all the STATE run systems and everything will be fine and dandy - because NO there are NO WARS its Protection for you from the EVIL TERRORISTS and our benevolent loving government is here to tuck you in at night and keep you all so safe and warm.
Oh and send your children to the middle east to kill and be killed - in the name of safety of course.
So until this entire corrupt system is dismantled, we will continue to have these discussions, whether or not we agree with each other, this will be the case.
peace to you my friend in common frustration
peace. love. anarchy
They don't hate Americans. They just hate poor Americans. I mean really, look at all of the parks and things that they name after their buddies!
When the senate comes back and passes that bill will the expired unemployment benefit pick back up or is it done due to the break in service?
Benefits will be delayed for several months, and many unemployed will be cut off from COBRA benefits, which, when they have a break in payments, will become unattainable. Several months with no income (even the little that UI provides) and no insurance will be deadly for some. Thanks, Bunning. You hit a home run.....a few less unemployes bums to worry about.
So at what point do you tell people you can't keep living off the Federal Government? Don't get me wrong I sympathize with people that are out of work, but we need a limit to free benefits if not what's the point of working and being a productive member of society, which would be a tax paying member of society and allow for more benefits like free/taxed/government run healthcare for all.
FREE benefits? Ever hear of unemployment and social security taxes? Free-schmee. They are getting back a LITTLE of what they've already paid in. All but a tiny percentage of people WANT to work. But the jobs just are not there. Nor will they be for YEARS to come. We need 1.5 million new jobs a year just for new workers -- where are THEY coming from? Many retirees had their savings wiped out in the Great Recession so need desperately their tiny Social Security checks -- which they already paid for.
Jeepers-creepers.
Gary
"Congress needs strong parties, but it also needs the capacity to deal with budget and entitlement challenges that are likely beyond the reach of pure partisan exertion."
-- David E. Price
"Ever hear of unemployment and social security taxes? Free-schmee. They are getting back a LITTLE of what they've already paid in"
So lets get back to my original question then, at what point do we cut off the unemployment benefit? We can throw in social security too. I want to hear the CD view on this. The only reason I come to this site is so i can hear from the horses mouth the real views of left progessives not just take the Glenn/Rush/Hannity etc talking points on it.
Hopefully we can have a real discussion.
You cut off the unemployment benefit when all the various corporate benefits that the federal government and state governments hand out to corporations are cut. No more low taxes, tax breaks, low interest loans, etc. Nothing. You cut off the unemployment benefit when you cut off the huge amounts of money that is spent on the military.
You want to talk about productive members of society? Fine. Let's talk about how corporations, and everyone who works for one, everyone who owns shares in one, is not being productive, since they are taking handouts from the government. Let's talk about how productive the military is.
I agree with all that, too. Corporations and their wealthy shareholders are parasites, plain and simple.
It is amusing that right-wingers can't figure out why unemployment insurance and Social Security were invented. They let themselves be confused by all the Chamber of Commerce crap about moral hazards and work ethics.
Unemployment benefits exist because FDR faced up to the fact that in a capitalist system, there is never full employment. Some amount of unemployment is not a failure of capitalism, it's a built-in feature.
Social Security exists because FDR faced up to the fact that after a lifetime of hard work, many people still faced "old age poverty".
My advice to right wingers: find out if your town has a "library". If it does, go there. Those boxy things on all those shelves? Books. Go ahead and read 'em!
Q: "at what point do we cut off the unemployment benefit?"
A: When there is full employment.
Q: "throw in social security too."[?]
A: When all people have enough savings to live off of after they're too old to work.
No mystery here.
Okay now why can't I have the option to say you know what, I have enough in emergency funds that if I'm unemployed I don't need the benefit and I have saved enough for my own retirement, I don't need the government to keep taxing me for these things so why am I still paying them?
and before I hear all the usual well when we stop paying corporations I agree the government doesn't need to be giving our tax dollars to AIG GM or any bank just let them fail.
What a SELFISH, PIG HEADED attitude. I got mine, to hell with you and everyone else. GREAT! What kind of a country is it that has such selfish attitudes among it's people? It's NOT a society at all.
You were clearly raised during the Reagan era. You people were fed a total line of BS and you swallowed it whole heartedly. There is an old story about a farmer who had three sons. He tied up a bundle of sticks and told them to break it in half. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't do it. Then he took the bundle and untied it, giving each son several sticks, which they could break easily. The moral is UNITED we stand DIVIDED we fall. Or let me put it this way (which I read recently here, I believe): Collectively we bargain, separately we BEG.
We as a people are stronger TOGETHER. Alone, we are NOBODY to any big corporation, and that is EXACTLY what they wanted. The less united we are, the easier we are to crush. One or two ants are easy to kill, a whole anthill is a thing that can kill YOU.
When will you people wake up and realize that we together are SO much stronger than any of us separately? The longer we allow people to keep this selfish attitude towards everyone else in the country, the longer we will have NO chance of making ANYTHING better for any of us.
What happens if you have no health insurance and you get sick, using up your great retirement fund? Should you get back to work, your retirement is now gone. Get sick again, and you now don't even have THAT to fall back on. Try being out of work for a few years and see how long that retirement fund or your little emergency fund will last.
Honestly, I will NEVER Understand how you people think that you stand a freaking chance against a game that is set up to rob you blind. And that is EXACTLY how the "conservatives" in this country have made it out to be. And then they indoctrinate you into thinking that unless you have the hardest time possible, you somehow aren't a good American. What a freaking CROCK. The founding fathers would look at this and scream bloody murder at how we are all being screwed and some of us are begging for MORE of it. They understood the importance of community, of joining together, of not trying to to do everything by yourself.
Learn the value of COMMUNITY, of shared burden, of COMMUNITY, and of COOPERATION. I know these are annoying, disgusting words to you righties, but just look them up and see if they don't make SOME sense to you. Our "leaders" have been playing divide and conquer on us for 3 decades. YOU are a perfect example of the damage they have done.
WJM,
You talked about learning the value of community, I understand this value and I rely on my community of friends and family and others around me. I don't rely on people that aren't in this community. With that said I do believe in government and having a system that helps the community just not at a federal level. Our system was set up so we could "divide and conquer" so we could joing in our own communities states/local governments and conquer our problems that are closess to us.
"I do believe in government and having a system that helps the community just not at a federal level."
That's fine, as long as communities have a way of defending themselves against global corporations (which they don't).
When the so-called "economy" and its corporations do collapse, however, the way may be open to re-organize society on a more local basis. In fact, I think that's what is going to happen whether people like it or not.
"That's fine, as long as communities have a way of defending themselves against global corporations (which they don't)."
So could we agree that the federal government should be used to insure that the rights of these local governments inside our large society aren't infringed upon?
Yes. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. Right now, unfortunately, it is doing exactly the opposite.
One problem that crops up, though, is that occasionally a local government may permit something unusually bad like slavery, for instance. Still, I think that these problems are an exception.
So answer this how did we go from our federal governmnet making sure we all have our own personal civil rights to forced entitlements on all?
When the Great Depression hit, it became apparent that the "free enterprise" system was not going to do anything to keep poor people, their children and their grandparents from starving to death. Many did.
The federal government created entitlements to prevent the kind of chaos and famine that occurred in Russia and Germany. If it hadn't, there may have been a revolution in the US, too.
The federal government over-rode the state governments in the 1960's because of the outrageous way blacks were treated in the south (just like the 1860's).
If the current federal government acts as an enemy of the people, it's because it's no longer controlled by the people. It's controlled by rich corporations.
"Entitlements" were issued to corporations long before being alloted to the commonfolk, although there was an attempt at "political balance" with the Homestead Act versus the massive giveaways to Railroads. It appears there's a lot of the formative history of the US Empire too many missed, the period from roghly 1840 to WW1. I highly recommend Bernard DeVoto's trilogy, Zinn's "People's History", LaFeber's "The New Empire," William Appleman Williams's "Contours of American History" and "From Colony to Empire," And Charles and Mary Beard's "The Rise of American Civilization" two volumes, 1933--a nice, light 5-6,000 pages and an amount very easilly added to.
I also suggest that folks like LAH review the very large differences between the first two US constitutions and the institutions they formed--The Articles of Confederation and the 1787 constitution--and then reask their questions starting with this one: What was it that made Americans demand a Bill of Rights be included with the 1787 constitution, while they had felt no need to demand one while the Articles were in force? Yet, wasn't the Bill of Rights almost immediately made a mockery with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which predicted the "Patriot" Act, etc.?
For me, the reason is present in the fact that under the Articles there was no executive and no potential congressional hegemonical power as represented by the "Commerce Clause," to name just two. Furthermore, the Articles is made for a self-governing democracy by greatly limiting the effect of Aristocracy, whereas the 1787 constitution is its mirror opposite. By the time the popular classes and women forced their way into having a stake in governmental procedure, it was already too late as Old Money and Empire were already entrenched, and things were about to get worse with the "industrialization" of Propaganda which manufactured consent for the US entry into WW1.
LAH:
The reason that you can't opt out if you have enough money is that both Social Security and Unemployment benefits are a form of insurance.
In any insurance scheme, a big risk pool pays in, but a smaller number collects benefits. Most people pay more for insurance than they take out because they want to be covered if something really bad happens to them. If you pay for fire insurance, but your house never burns down, will you be unhappy?
If you think that insurance is unfair, you are partly right. Only the unlucky collect, but in order for it to work, everybody's got to pay in. That's just life. Or as Kentucky's Jim Bunning say's "tough shit". :)
Exactly. Insurance is the capitalist form of socialism, except that it allows a very small minority to profit heavily from it. I always wondered why capitalists hate socialism but love insurance, which really isn't all that different. Spread the risk is a socialist idea, except when you figure in the 'privatize profit' aspect. They love police and military expenditures also - which are also forms of insurance, although they are ostensibly working for all of us, regardless of race or economic status. But we know the truth about that also.
"I always wondered why capitalists hate socialism but love insurance, which really isn't all that different. "
They are *quite* different. Participation in socialism is forced. Participation in traditional insurance is not. Didn't you know that?
Good luck trying to get that point across.
Participation in auto liability insurance is required by law if you want to drive a car.
Mortgage insurance is required by the bank if you want to buy a house.
You have to get bonded and insured if you just want to work for yourself patching people's roofs or fixing windows or unclogging the occasional toilet. There are huge fines for any Mr. Fixit who doesn't carry expensive insurance.
Insurance is very much forced.
No one is required to own a car, a house, or their own business. In fact many millions of people do neither of those three as a matter their own free choice. Therefore, you have not supported your claim that "Insurance is very much forced".
You cannot "do neither of those THREE . . ." The word neither indicates only two things.
And?
While it's true that no one is required to own a car, house or business, it's also true that being prevented from having these things by an insurance company would feel an awful lot like oppression to someone who wants them.
Maybe "force" is too strong a word for the requirement to buy insurance. Maybe "duress" would be better.
It is understood by anyone going in to the car, house, or business thing that insurance is required. Paying that insurance stems from a freely made decision between going into those things or not.
Yes, and rich and poor alike are equally free to be carless, homeless and unemployed.
Don't be silly. Many people do without cars by using public transportation. Many people rent their homes. Many people have good jobs as employees.
jakenewton just swallowed both of his feet up to the knees. You really have no clue, do you? The natural state for the vast majority of human existence was in some form of socialist system. And, yes, it was forced because you DIED otherwise.
I really wonder if people actually think before they make asses out of themselves.
"You really have no clue, do you?"
It might have been interesting if you were to explain why, but I don't think you can. Instead you change the subject thusly:
"The natural state for the vast majority of human existence was in some form of socialist system. "
So what? We weren't talking about that. We were talking about if there is any difference between socialism and insurance. My comments on that stand untouched by you.
It was right there and you missed it. Insurance is provided by community, which is THE active force of socialism, which is an ism--a belief system. Where I live, we have a very strong sense of community and what it means and needs to survive. Thus, we have a lot of "socialism." The "Every child has to have its own" mentality of the USA is what's currently killing it. The ideal of Community Ethos was well put in the Jimmy Stewert christmas film "It's a Wonderful Life" when he explains to the Building and Loan's clients that each has supported and made possible their neighbor's wellbeing. That's informal Social Insurance. Social Security formalized this preexisting informal, and insufficient, Social Insurance.
A Foundational tenet for social stability is grounded in Community Ethos as it is supposed to mitigate the primary grounds for incivility, and is actually a very Conservative idea and ideal.
" you missed it."
Let's see if that's true.
" Insurance is provided by community,"
An insurance policy is written by a company or individual, and no one is *required* to buy traditional insurance. Instead they can just run the risk of loss. If you want to call the pool of insured a "community" that's fine but they are there by their own individual choice.
By contrast, in socialism you are *required* to comtribute to socialist programs through taxes fees etc.
Didn't miss a thing. My original point stands.
Just who pays the premiums of private insurance? A community of private individuals.
You have absolutely no conception of human development--None. You might as well live by yourself on an island.
"Just who pays the premiums of private insurance? A community of private individuals."
So what? That's not *socialism* unless it's mandated by law.
"You have absolutely no conception of human development--None. "
You have absolutely no conception of staying on topic-- None. Insurance and socialism are not the same, they are different. Socialism involves force, insurance does not. Now if you are going to try for once to address that point please support your argument with facts and reasoning.
"please support your argument with facts and reasoning" good luck getting that from these guys
Yes, I said they were different--one is an ism, or can't you read?
And I said they were "quite" different. What is it *exactly* about my post jakenewton March 1st, 2010 12:00 pm that prompted your post karlof1 March 1st, 2010 1:43 pm ? kogwonton March 1st, 2010 11:44 am said that socialism and insurance aren't "all that different".
"Or as Kentucky's Jim Bunning say's "tough shit". "
Did he really say it? The author of this article does not say who heard him say it or what the exact context was.
The author posted this link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33566.html
Might have to check with John Stewart or Steven Colbert to verify it.
"The author posted this link:"
That article in turn is effectively just as vague about who heard it and the context.
"Might have to check with John Stewart or Steven Colbert to verify it."
Well I'll have to tune in then. Maybe Olberman or Madow.
He uttered it to Oregon Senator Jeff Merkely while Merkley was on the floor of the Senate telling him that people on unemployment would be cut off from UI and COBRA payments if the bill (which was unanimous, sans Bunning's vote)was not passed by Friday. Then, when getting on an elevator shortly thereafter and being pursued by ABC newsmen, he flipped the bird to the newsmen and the cameraman.
"He uttered it to Oregon Senator Jeff Merkely while Merkley was on the floor of the Senate telling him that people on unemployment would be cut off"
And who heard him say this, and how do we know it was in context of Markley's comments? I'm not saying he didn't do it, he sounds like a jerk, but how do we know he did?
" When there is full employment."
What's your definition of "full employment"?
"When all people have enough savings to live off of after they're too old to work."
Do you propose any legal requirements on individuals regarding their saving of their money?