Obama Wouldn’t Have Done This for You

I’ve been accused of blindly blaming the Republican Party for too many things. But this is one even my most conservative friends agree on. Both parties have always agreed to extend unemployment benefits during recessions. It makes economic sense, and it’s the most humane thing government can do when its citizens are economically stressed. First of all, the money goes immediately into circulation–it gets spent, both alleviating the pain of the unemployed, and acting as an economic stimulus to the broader economy. This Republican Party, though, either can’t understand the benefits, or more likely, is quite willing to inflict untold pain on the people of this country if it sees an electoral benefit. The economy will get worse, Obama will be blamed, and the Republicans will reap the gains in November. Never mind the suffering. The cynicism is staggering, and shameful.

Some of the rhetoric is beyond belief. The new talking point is that extending unemployment benefits will only discourage people rom looking for jobs. Oh, we lazy Americans. Fifteen million of us thrown out of work since the recession began, and we just don’t want to go back on the job because of those cushy benefits. Unemployment is our fault. And there are all those high-paying jobs out there just going begging because Obama is too generous with our tax money. Give me a break!

16 thoughts on “Obama Wouldn’t Have Done This for You”

  1. Ed. I love your work. I just had an opportunity this afternoon to talk to a rich person. The prevailing attitude seems to be, “We Republicans are smarter than those dumbass Democrats.” “They support the country while we people with money reap the profits. Hey, it doesn’t get any better than that does it?” I was thinking about stuffing his stack of twenties down his trough. I have no qualms with self-made millionaires, but I do have a problem with jerks who flaunt family money. The apple seems to fall off the tree doesn’t it? People with money don’t pay taxes, they just spend a few bucks to make sure their butt is covered. I can just see George W. sitting on the front porch with George Sr. and dad saying, “Good job son, I finally got even with Hussein and we have tons of oil money rolling in.” “Well, Dad, didn’t that cost the American public something?” “Son, you’re a politician now. Who in the hell is the American People?”

    1. Chuckmakela–am not writing to “reply”, actually.

      What is becoming more and more clear is that the Republican Party, and it’s strategists like Rove, et. al., have embarked on a strategy for getting elected in the upcoming cycle that even involves dirty political moves designed to throw and keep even more people out of work through the upcoming election cycle.

      Forget the Republican (Joe Barton) sucking up to the polluters and destroyers of the ecology and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico. The blocking of benefits to unemployed Americans might represent the nadir of any idea of “ethics” on the part of political opportunists in our history. it is in no way surprising that it is Republican political opportunists and current Republican office holders who are doing it.

      1. wacobloke. Thank you for responding. Republicans are sore losers. You talk about strategy, they didn’t have one in the last election. Palin was a last ditch effort. Fortunately, for her, she made millions in the process. I just don’t want her coming close to anything nuclear. The plot of the GOP is very obvious: block Obama at every stage of the game. “If we can keep him from accomplishing anything, we look good, right?” “I know we spent all the money, but let’s blame it on his sorry butt. Election time is coming up again and we need to ride the public gravy train.” The process is simple: extract money from people who really can’t afford you in the first place, get elected, and then concentrate on soliciting special interest groups so you can get re-elected again. And, then, the question comes up in the mean time, “Sir/Madam, what exactly have you accomplished sinece you’ve been in office? “Ah, what was that question again? Are you trying to make a donation?”

  2. Just thought you should know, the unemployment figure is not defined by the number of people receiving benefits.

    “Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.”

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where

    1. Actually, what Ed is trying to convey is that the number the government uses when they report the number of unemployed is Not the True number of people unemployed but only the number of people receiving benefits. So when the Republicans Deny benefits the Reported number goes down making it look as if those people are no longer unemployed. It is a numbers game and the Republicans are trying to use it to their advantage at the expense of the public.

      I think it was a Great comparison to the strategy of the Republican Party.

      1. If that was the case, then wouldn’t it ultimately be beneficial for the Democrats as they could tout lower unemployment numbers as we get closer to the November elections?

      2. Actually, I was just pointing out how the government complies the percentage of unemployed. It’s not just based on those that receive benefits.

        As benefits are lost by the long term unemployed or by a “strategy of the Republican Party”, their numbers will still be represented in the unemployment percentage released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

        1. I think Most people understand what the True numbers are. I still think that Ed’s piece is a Great comparison to the Republican Strategy, regardless of the True numbers, (reported or not).

          1. Actually, I don’t think most people understand where the numbers come from. This cartoon is factually inacurate and it advances ignorance. Someone can make fun of Repubulicans and not mislead people and foster ignorance.
            The republicans are trying to block and extension for the long term unemployed. It is certainly bad politics, and might be bad economics. But they are not redefining people as not unemployed anymore. And this fact makes the cartoon rather stupid.

  3. Actually, those who have stopped looking for work because of being discouraged after trying for a very long tiime to find a job DO drop off the reported stats eventually. Some of the increases in unemployment numbers have been attributed to people who had given up looking for work finally returning to looking for jobs. So it was an excellent analogy.

    In MN, GOP candidate for governor Emmer suggested that the minimum wage for hospitality wait staff – bartenders, waiters and waitresses, should be reduced to $2.13 an hour, and let them rely on tips to make up the aprox. $5 difference an hour between that and minimum wage for other jobs. He thinks it would boost the MN economy, with more wait staff jobs — because a restaurateur could hire three waiters for the cost per hour he or she pays one now. Except……….that doesn’t put any more money into the economy, and it produces more people who are working impoverished. Although it might put more money in the business owner’s pocket, which is Emmer’s sole interest – helping the rich get richer.

    This is a brilliant cartoon in reflecting the Republican’s priorities — and it isn’t jobs for people, it’s playing numbers games.

  4. Forgot to add – Emmer belieeves there are some wait staff earnin $100,000 a year. Bet he can’t produce even one for a campaign ad. Those pesky numbers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>