Are you OK with people losing their unemployment benefits?

[ecstatic]

Poll question: Are you OK with people losing their unemployment benefits?

Very simple question.

[Catherina]

1. Here. We threw you a crumb while we robbed the bank. Do you wanna starve or not? Unrec n/t

[ecstatic]

4. Yes or no? Why all the drama? nt

[aquart]

23. Because it isn't yes or no.

This deal PROLONGS JOBLESSNESS BECAUSE IT ENSURES THE ECONOMY CANNOT RECOVER.

If you expect to die real soon, not a bad deal.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rurallib]

2. are you ok with unemployed being used as hostages?

[ecstatic]

6. Of course not. Why would I be?

But you are aware that next year repugs take over, right? And wouldn't you want a deal done NOW instead of next year?

[leftstreet]

3. Wrong question. R U ok with Rich People getting fat while U Starve?

Let's do a poll !

[ecstatic]

7. No, it sickens me that the rich will get another tax cut, but that's not

the question that was posed.

[xchrom]

5. Unrec

[ecstatic]

8. This is so typical of DU. So much drama without anyone being

able to answer a straightforward question.

[leftstreet]

9. It's kinda dramatic to ask peons if they wanna see other peons hurting

It's a reframing of the issue that's really lame

[ecstatic]

11. No it's not reframing, it's reality: The options were to kill tax cuts for everyone

and end unemployment benefits, to compromise, or to wait until repugs take over next year-- in which case, the tax cuts would be extended and the unemployment benefits ended. Now which option do you prefer?

[leftstreet]

14. What difference does it make? There are no jobs. 13 mos emp is like chemo

For some it'll help, for some it won't.

Then those unemployed will fall into the arms of the 99ers, who have nothing. Then the swelling ranks of peons can all link hands around the dumpster and sing kumbaya.

While rich fat fucks laugh their asses off at us

[MadHound]

34. NO, those aren't the options

Obama could pay for the UI extensions out of the stimulus, and thus make this debate a straight up question about whether the rich should get their tax cuts or not.

There are other options. Obama just picked the worst of them.

[walldude]

46. Only two options.... that was it, there was nothing

else? Those were the only two ways to solve this problem? Really? t was a yes or no thing? Ok. Well thanks for playing.

[patrice]

10. You should see all of the nasty cracks made about this over at HuffPo comments.

[HelenWheels]

12. Yes or no not the only choices

The answer is to hang in there and wait for the repukes to cave on unemployment extensions like they have in the past. Another choice is to have an up or down choice on this and let the repukes hang themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. When Did They Cave?

Last time it passed in July it passed with two Republican votes..

[whatchamacallit]

13. "I for one welcome our new political extortionists!" (nt)

[stray cat]

16. Are you willing to sacrifice or do anything to prevent it is a better question

[lame54]

17. No I didn't stop beating my wife...

wait, ask me that again?

[uppityperson]

18. No. Politics suck because things get combined, good and bad things

meaning no matter what, you are screwed. Rock and a hard place.

To answer your question, no I'm not.

[defendandprotect]

32. They don't have to be done this way ...nor in back room deals with GOP ...

It's done this way for the benefit of politicians --

not the public!!

[uppityperson]

42. Rather like sticking unrelated things in bills. Indeed it is done for politicians

[defendandprotect]

58. And Americans don't seem to understand how much has been taken into "back room" ....

We have millionaire and multi-millionaire members of Congress who want

to be able to argue out of both sides of their mouths -- not always possible

with C-span covering Congress. Even taking these issues into the back rooms

in Congress isn't any longer sufficient as word seems to leak out --

And now we're seeing direct selling out by the president directly to the GOP in

back room deals --

WAIT? Where's Congress?

If there are any liberal Democrats left in Congress, they're not going to get a

chance to protest. They cut Congress out of the negotiations!!


This is also true of economic policy which is now so overwhelmingly biased towards

corporate interests -- you have only to look at FED's undermining of labor over

last decades to see this -- a policy of inflicting "labor instability" by the FED.

Congress should be setting and debating our economic policy and discussing all of

these issues openly so Americans can hear and weigh the debates --

Rather, it has all been passed on to the FED -- a bank we didn't elect -- and which

we cannot unelect!!

More and more of what was once our "people's" government has been taken out of our

hands -- and out of the hands of our elected officials.

Anyone think this is all being done for the good of our our citizens?

If you agree -- pass it on --

[Coyote_Bandit]

19. We need to do somethig meaningful to create jobs

I also think that 3 cumulative years of available unemployment benefits is a bit excessive.

After three years of unemployment these folks are unlikely to return to their previous careers. Significantly earlier intervention providing career counseling and job retraining would be a better alternative IMHO. And it should be taxpayer subsidized.

I also think that anyone who is not working or who is underemployed should be able to access that career counseling and job retraining.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Nobody Will Get Three Years Of Unemployment Insurance

Nobody will get three years of unemployment insurance but some folks will only get twenty six months if there is no extension.

What jobs are you going to retrain people for when there is a paucity of jobs in the first place?

[Coyote_Bandit]

45. If you are not employed in my profession

for a period of 6 months or more then statistically you are not ever going to be provided the opportunity to work in that job capacity again. I suspect that is true of many different jobs in various industries. I think it is better for everyone if folks who have lost these kinds of positions - and not found new work in that capacity within 6 months or so - are retrained for other opportunities rather than strung along to seek out and wait for an opportunity that is unlikely to arise.

Of course I also happen to think that everyone should have a skill or trade that enables them to be self-employed and earn some money with a minimum investment of capital and some effort. I've known some Americans who made damn good money doing things like cutting lawns, and cleaning offices and homes. Some of them were so successful that they continued in that endeavor and now have businesses that employ a number of other folk. But that's not glamorous or desirable and, well, we just don't value all types of income producing work equally. That blue collar self-employed stuff is beneath us - especially if it involves strenuous or dirty work. Our work ethic sucks.

I've been long-term unemployed more than once. I've got nothing against providing a safety net to unemployed folks. It benefits everyone to provide them the resources and training to re-invent themselves. But they need to be flexible and proactive in embracing those opportunities.

After 99 weeks of unemployment, folks should be well on their way to acquiring new job skills and reinventing themselves.

[True_Blue]

52. Most of the long term jobless are over 50

It is extremely hard to find a job when you're over 50. My resume consists mainly of manufacturing and there are no manufacturing jobs left here. I was told by my job counselor to forget about manufacturing and apply for admin assistant jobs, and I've been applying, but I don't have experience in that area either and haven't had any luck. I've also applied for retail jobs...Walmart, Target, Home Depot, grocery stores, but there is just too much competition from people with retail experience also applying for those jobs. I'm currently taking evening & online courses trying to learn new skills and at the very least, to keep the gap on my resume from getting too long.

I've been laid off twice this decade, which has wiped out my savings. You can't depend on finding a job and keeping it until you retire anymore. I'm afraid that if they pass this bill, they'll end up cutting SS, social programs and Medicare to pay for it. Then *IF* I'm ever lucky enough to find a job again, I'll probably get laid off again and be 60+ trying to find employment.

[Coyote_Bandit]

57. .

:hug:

I'm 50ish and some combination unemployed/self-employed. Seems the desk that occupies a corner of a spare bedroom represents job creation even though it does not produce enough income to pay the basic expenses. Last time I was laid-off - earlier this decade - I collected the 26 weeks of unemployment available to me. I didn't find new employment so I went in search of a way to generate some income myself. My personal circumstances have since changed and I am responsible for caring for some aging family members. I'm not compensated for that but I do expect to eventually get a small inheritance. Because of my obligations I couldn't hold a full-time job if one were offered to me. I live cheap and try not to think about the savings I've had to liquidate.

I hate what I've seen this country and its people become during my lifetime. We are not a national community. There is no sense of loyalty to help protect the needs of others who are not like us. It's all about winning regardless of the costs it might inflict on another.

I think you're right to be concerned about SS, social programs and Medicare. Our leaders don't care whether we have meaningful, affordable access to healthcare to sustain our physical existence and well-being. Given that you can be sure that they sure as hell don't care about those programs.

Good luck.

[True_Blue]

66. I understand what you're saying though

Like it or not, I'm starting to think that I've been forced into an early retirement. I guess I'm going to have to figure out how to become self-employed or take up a life of crime. If I get caught, at least I'll have 3 squares, a bed, and health care. :just kidding:

The unemployment office is worthless as far as retraining goes. They pretty much just offer resume writing classes and basic computer skills training, and most people already know how to do both. It would be nice if they could place you in a job and you then could work for your benefits while learning new skills that you could add to your resume. There are a lot of jobs I know I could do, but in this job market employers want to see it on your resume.

[defendandprotect]

59. Unemployment is about JOBS BEING WITHDRAWN... shipped overseas ...

and has little or nothing to do with the farce or myths of the need for

"retraining" workers --

Remember when training used to be done on the job?

Now corporations want to be PAID when they have to train workers!!

Americans have to wake up to what is actually going on and it is about focusing

on the worker or labor or unions --

It's about focusing on corporate fascism now controlling our government -- including

our Congress and the WH --


And just a PS on what you think is "excessive" in three years unemployment insurance --

first, I'd suggest if you haven't experienced being unemployed for three years, you're

probably not the best judge of what is or isn't excessive.

I will agree that it is EXCESSIVE based on how long corporations/elites/government have

succeeded in keeping American labor unemployed in their own interests -- for wealth/power.

In fact, if we actually had a people's government and responsive and responsible

elected officials, they would ensure that corporations paid much higher tax rates to cover

the unemployment insurance required because of their job eliminations.

[Coyote_Bandit]

62. Actually

I HAVE been unemployed for over 3 years.

Long-term unemployed folks are generally not likely to return to their previous jobs. I think we should ante-up and provide them the resources to retrain and earn a livlihood.

There are a lot of very highly skilled unemployed workers. Sometimes those skills are actually a liability in securing employment. In any event, skills have little economic value if they cannot be used to earn a livlihood.

I don't blame unemployed workers or fault them for their plight. I would like to see the resources made available to them to enable them to move on with their lives instead of living in limbo seeking and hoping to return to their former careers.

IMHO that is far more generous and humanitarian than leaving these workers in limbo - or using them as pawns in the war against corporate Amerikkka.

Of course I also think that perhaps one of the best stimulus measures would have been to make $$$ directly available to new, small and micro businesses - and to these unemployed folks - to pursue income producing endeavors. That didn't happen of course. These folks have had to depend upon trickle down economic stimulus. The dim bulbs in Washington chose to throw $$$ at the big corporations - corporations that set aside some of that in their cash coffures and threw some at their investors. Meanwhile, those unemployed folks are left waiting for the people who do have jobs to start shopping again.

[defendandprotect]

64. You're saying you're one of the '99'ers...????

My sympathies if that's so --

I'm very happy as a taxpayer to contribute to any necessary educational benefits for

workers -- but NOT directly to corporations -- and I WANT TO SEE THE JOBS THERE BEFORE

WE DO ANY SPECIFIC RE-EDUCATIONING ...

I have no problem with sending anyone back to college or university to study whatever they

wish -- but NOT to fulfill any corporate demand to train robots for them -- or to help

them escape training their own employees.

There are a lot of very highly skilled unemployed workers. Sometimes those skills are actually a liability in securing employment. In any event, skills have little economic value if they cannot be used to earn a livlihood.

First, no skill is ever a liability except in the land of right wing propaganda.

Nor is any skill to be deemed "valueless" unless it translates into money.

I don't blame unemployed workers or fault them for their plight. I would like to see the resources made available to them to enable them to move on with their lives instead of living in limbo seeking and hoping to return to their former careers.

Actually, it did look rather like you were blaming the victim.

But, again, we should insure that jobs are made available FIRST and not get involved in

training u/e for some fictitious jobs that never shows up. Guess you'd say that was only

more "valueless" skill development.

So -- as I said before JOB CREATION is where our emphasis should be.


Agree re the stimulus -- which went mainly to businesses, but not small business -- and

which economists said was only 25% of what was needed.


Believe me no one in DC is a "dim bulb" -- nor "weak" nor "spineless" --

As we can see they have backbones of steel when it comes to fighting for issues which

represent their own interests.

We have to also note that we're using an economic system based on exploitation of nature

and natural resources -- and humanity. We have pollution of the entire planet, our

oceans and Global Warming to show for it.

Capitalism is suicidal --

We need to move to a system which affords economic democracy -- and that's certainly NOT

what capitalism is all about.

[EOTE]

20. This question is pretty much akin to Bush asking "Did you want Saddam Hussein in power?"

I'm pretty sure everyone, even here would say no to that question, but that's not the question that should have been asked. The question that should have been asked was "Do you think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and all respect on the international stage." Perhaps your question should be phrased differently.

[Parche]

21. Hell YES

i would rather send the money to IRAQ instead....:sarcasm:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. Not at all.

And this is still a bad deal that didn't need to happen.

[patrice]

24. I'm thinking you need to ask a representative sample of the Un-Employed this question.

[patrice]

25. Democrats WERE trying to pass the buck to Repubs on this cause they're afraid to look SOCIALISTIC

[patrice]

26. So, you see, we have the plutocratic pot calling the plutocratic kettle black.

[patrice]

28. I'm GLAD Obama called their shit on that much anyway.

[Marr]

29. I love the way the apologists are suddenly pretending to give a shit about the unemployed again.

That concern really evaporated when people were criticizing Obama's trickle-down economic approach. We were all supposed to be adults and trust the Leader. Now it's all about the unemployed, and how Obama just couldn't sleep knowing their benefits might end (they would not-- the Republicans would cave as they did before)-- and so he just *had* to give all his wealthy pals at Goldman Sachs more tax breaks and start nibbling on Social Security. He didn't want to!

[ecstatic]

30. and the anti-Obamites have dropped all pretenses? nt

[Marr]

35. The fact is that the Republicans would've caved on that and you know it.

They've done so in the recent past. Repeatedly. They know fighting it would cost them big, politically.

Obama's apologists are pretending otherwise, saying he *had* to give away the store to get something that we could've achieved without any compromise at all-- and even cost the opponent in the process.

[defendandprotect]

31. Not any more than I am with Obama making back room deals with GOP ...!!

And 99'ers are getting nothing .... and others only 13 weeks ... !!

And much else wrong with this "deal" which took matters out of the hands of

Congress and our elected officials --

It's a matter now of "who do we trust" --

and for me it certainly isn't Obama nor the GOP!!

[True_Blue]

33. No

I'm unemployed and I need those benefits, but this bill is a lose lose situation, so no on the bill too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Just Out Of Curiosity How Badly Do You Need Them

I know an out of work contractor who used his unemployment insurance to make the payments on his QX56. Oh, his wife is a partner in a law firm.

I know another out of work woman whose benefits lapsed, and she was penniless with no place to go. She manipulated my buddy into taking her in. After awhile she was getting on his nerves. He borrowed fifteen hundred dollars from his mom to give to her to move out west with her brother.

To some the money is a supplement. To others it's a lifeline...

[True_Blue]

50. My benefits will run out in a couple of weeks

I'm a 53 yr old single female and UI is my only income. I live alone and have no savings to fall back on either. Granted I don't have any small children to take care of and I'm thankful for that.

[readmoreoften]

36. Are you okay with gay people being used by the US military and denied benefits after they serve?

Or raped and blackmailed?

[readmoreoften]

37. Framing fail.

[Overseas]

39. Are you okay with bargaining away something you would have gotten anyway?

Republicons voted for unemployment extensions before.

But I am also upset by the team of Democratic legislators who didn't push their colleagues more about doing the tax extension vote before the mid-terms and getting Republican cruelty on the record at that time.

Blue Dogs wanted to avoid that vote but they lost anyway.

Progressives who would have voted to extend middle class cuts only actually retained far more seats than the Blue Dogs.

[gateley]

40. No, but I'm also not okay with adding $900 B to the deficit over the next two years -

that hurts us ALL.

[patrice]

41. With you on that. Looks as though there some funny stuff with how state-debts are financed in it too

so, not only are we adding to the national deficit, we are crippling states in how they handle theirs . . . ?

[Bluebear]

43. The Obama/GOP plan does nothing for those whose benefits have run out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9721132

[mmonk]

44. This false choice is not our fault.

It's those who are "saving you" saying that. They don't give a damn about you. You're their political pawn.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. ecstatic.

Sorry, someone needed to make that joke.

[sakabatou]

48. Who are the 15 that voted yes?

[ecstatic]

49. I guess the people who posted snarky comebacks rather than answer

the question. :shrug: They weren't brave enough to come out and say, "yes!"

[Bluebear]

53. The Obama/GOP plan does nothing for those whose benefits have run out.

Comment?

[MrCoffee]

51. I voted yes because this is a ridiculous poll

which begged for a ridiculous response.

[GOTV]

55. As with all silly questions, it depends on the part that's not said ....

.... what is the alternative?

[ZombieHorde]

56. No. I have an idea, the don't have to pay any taxes, but we get to eat them and their children. nt

[Shandris]

60. Hell no I'm not 'okay' with it. No reasonable person should be.

HOWEVER, so long as we allow ourselves to get caught up in Hannity-style questions, we will ALWAYS be held hostage by the rich and so will the people that we are SUPPOSED to be fighting for. They've learned the Dim Mak of politics against us now - frame the debate in such a manner where you can ask a Hannity-style 'simple question' and we can't do shit because we won't appear to be reasonable people, thus losing any possible support.

Need tax cuts for the rich? TIE IT TO SOCIAL SECURITY!
"Are you okay with watching grandma die?
TIE IT TO NEONATAL CARE!]
"Are you okay with watching wanted infants die?"
TIE IT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT!
"Are you okay with police policing themselves?"

[badtoworse]

61. This is a ridiculuous poll and I voted yes

The obvious flaw is that there is no statement about when the benefits would run out.

Unemployment Insurance cannot be open-ended. If there is no limit, i.e. endate, on the benefifts, then it ceases to be an insurance program. UI is funded by insurance premiums paid mostly by employers, but in some states, employees also contribute. Without definite limits on the benefits that are paid, the program will run out of money.

I've been on unemployment a number of times in my career and once exhausted my 26 week benefit - I never expected an indefinite payout of benefits and I don't believe anyone else should either.

[marked50]

63. Remember the Labor Movement

It is never a progressives desire to have others suffer but in the progressive movement it happens. Remember the sacrifices- not only in people losing their jobs but their lives - in order to improve the working conditions in this country. Were the sacrifices worth it? I would say yes.

The actions of those organizers put people out of work in many cases but they did it- and not all those agreeded to that when it happened. Yes- people suffered. No one wants that, but if your only concern is that no-one suffers there will be no progress.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. This talking point has been going around like wild fire.

You forgot to add the punchline.

[Individualist]

67. One would think a memo had been sent out.

:shrug: