HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Democrats want jobless be...

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:44 PM

Democrats want jobless benefits in `cliff' deal

Source: AP-Excite

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hovering in the background of the "fiscal cliff" debate is the prospect of 2 million people losing their unemployment benefits four days after Christmas.

"This is the real cliff," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. He's been leading the effort to include another extension of benefits for the long-term unemployed in any deal to avert looming tax increases and massive spending cuts in January.

"Many of these people are struggling to pay mortgages, to provide education for their children," Reed said this past week as President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, rejected each other's opening offers for a deficit deal.

Emergency jobless benefits for about 2.1 million people out of work more than six months will cease Dec. 29, and 1 million more will lose them over the next three months if Congress doesn't extend the assistance again.

FULL story at link.



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20121208/DA31LT402.html





In this Dec. 6, 2012, photo, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, accompanied by from left, Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., gestures during a news conference the possibility of Americans abruptly their jobless benefits at the of the year on Capitol Hill in Washington, Hovering in the background of the "fiscal cliff" debate is the prospect of 2 million people losing their unemployment benefits four days after Christmas. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

9 replies, 2516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:50 PM

1. With frriends like these who needs enemies?. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:15 AM

2. What? The article is about Dems wanting to extend unemployment benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:22 AM

3. how about JOBS in this deal? There's plenty to do in infrastructure rebuilding and repair

I see the need every day going to work.

Has anyone ever traveled the roads immediately leading to the GW Bridge in NYC? Very bad shape and traveling under the overpasses makes me wonder if they'll give way while I'm waiting under them. Then there's the bridge itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:50 AM

6. I also

 

see jobs that are available, but employers are making it too hard to hire people on purpose. In order to get experience, you have to hire someone. Employers also ask people about when the last job they held. if it has been a long time, they also hold that against you. It gives them excuses when they don't want to hire somebody or pay them a decent wage. That way they don't have to promote you or give you a raise. They can always find cheaper labor from the unemployment pool, to fill the position. They can also use discrimination with those strategies too. Another reason, they can refuse to hire people, is criminal background records, even if it is a misdemeanor. So there are a lot of jobs not filled, because employers have a lot of excuses to not hire someone. They pick and choose a lot of times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:20 AM

7. IS it truly that the jobs are not being filled?

You state "so there are a lot of jobs not filled", or is it just the pool of available workers is so big that the employer can be that much more picky?
If, as an employer, you are looking to hire someone, you now have a choice between someone that is already employed, or someone that has been unemployed for more than a year. You may have a choice between someone with a criminal background, even if it is just a misdemeanor, and someone without, etc.....
I am not saying they are GOOD reasons not to hire someone (I would personally like to help that person get off unemployment), but it might be reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:06 AM

4. I Don't Want The "Cliff" Bill Being Loaded Up Like A Christmas Tree

On the other hand I don't want it to be bare bones either.

This bill, however, doesn't fit the Christmas tree criteria so it should be included. Having said that, I would hope that this is the last year that an extension is necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 02:37 AM

5. Real jobs have to be created in order to fix this long-term

And I don't see that happening in only one year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 12:44 PM

8. Better to take some of that money and pass a jobs bill, that will create jobs

 

The recipient would rather have a job than wait for extensions year after year, those who wait may lose opportunity and eventually will be dropped anyway. There are some who work under the table and collect, but they are cheating themselves, when it's time to collect social security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:03 PM

9. I've always said...

...that part of the advantage of doing business in the US is that you get access to the American market firsthand.

In order to fully take advantage of that market, that market must be made strong by access to jobs and living wage. Therefore, it is incumbent on businesses which do business within the US to provide jobs and pay which will in turn strengthen the consumer market and result in profit for them.

However, that implied contract, more or less verbalized and conceptualized by Henry Ford's highly enlightened statement of self-interest, indicating that he benefits by paying his workers enough to afford his product, has been shredded by the Randian cult of unenlightened self-interest.

However, ignorance of the contract does not obviate it or hold it in abeyance. If the corporations doing business in this country do not feel that it is important that they provide jobs at a living wage to the people whom they sell product, then they can pay for them to remain unemployed. In other words, because they don't make jobs available, they can foot the bill for their public support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread