Video: Limiting jobless benefits leads to Third World status

posted at 6:02 pm on July 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Breitbart TV and Mediaite snag this clip of MSNBC host Ed Schultz acting somewhat less hyperbolic than usual, which as you’ll see in this clip, isn’t saying much. Congress has extended jobless benefits out to two full years in this session, but they did it spending money we don’t have, and Democrats refuse to use Porkulus money to fund more extensions, preferring to expand the deficit instead. Colby Hall says that this is a “semi-unhinged rant,” which just proves that Colby has blessedly avoided Schultz in the past. This is tame by his standards:

I can tell you what the problem is, it’s with the Democratic party. It’s not just Ben Nelson who voted against extending unemployment benefits. it’s Harry Reid. I have never in my life seen a Senate Majority Leader all of sudden become so obscure and isolated.

Harry, you are blowing it, buddy. You’ve got to get out there a fight for these folks. He could reinvent himself with his authority on this issue. and come out passionately f the American people in need. Grab the moral high ground because it is a moral issue and let the American people see just who the Republicans are…and they are on the wrong side of this issue again and again.

No, I’m not running. But if I were, if I was a Senator now, I would stand up and I would be absolutely screaming in front of every camera I could find. It is unconscionable what we are putting these Americans through. And I will tell you this. This is how third world countries get started when you started ignoring people. I can’t understand why the Democrats aren’t pounding on this. And i think it will cost them in the midterms if they don’t do something drastic about it.

Joining me now is Chuck Rocha, a union political consultant and the head of solidarity strategies. Chuck, if the congress and the white house, if they’re getting the same e-mails I’m getting and if they’re having the same conversations with Americans across the country that I had on a a seven city tour. I have ask, what in the hell are they doing? How can they ignore these Americans? Where this is going down the road of a third world country. This is the issue what we’re going to do with the unemployed. tell me if I’m wrong.

Okay — you’re wrong. First, we weren’t a third-world country in the recessions of 1981-2, 1990, or during the stagflation decade of the 1970s, when jobless benefits lasted a much shorter time than they do now. Second, as the collapse of Greece shows, the surest path to third-world economics is rapid growth in deficits and debt, especially in service to an overgrown central government. Republicans don’t even want to block the extensions; they just don’t want to use deficit spending to fund them.

Of course, Harry Reid could take Schultz’ advice and openly demand for deficit spending … and then next January, he’ll be available as an analyst for Schultz’ show. Assuming, of course, Schultz still has one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So unemployment benefits should be permanent. Is this the idea now?

lorien1973 on July 9, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Tell me if I’m wrong!

You’re wrong.

itsnotaboutme on July 9, 2010 at 6:06 PM

Broken window fallacy. The money for jobless benefits doesn’t come from thin air. It has to be taken from someone else. Government is simply distributing the same money, taking it from one person to give it to another.

No overall economic benefit.

amerpundit on July 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Actually the end of benefits leads to innovation, motivation, and often it acts as a swift kick to the pants.

CWforFreedom on July 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM

So unemployment benefits should be permanent. Is this the idea now?

lorien1973 on July 9, 2010 at 6:05 PM

And unemployment benefits create jobs. So if we lay everyone off and give them unemployment benefits, we will have full employment!

Skittle pooping unicorns for everyone!

Holger on July 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Of course, Harry Reid could take Schultz’ advice and openly demand for deficit spending … and then next January, he’ll be available as an analyst for Schultz’ show. Assuming, of course, Schultz still has one.

Dang Captain Ed..that’s going to leave a mark :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM

No overall economic benefit.

amerpundit on July 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Government graft is always the benefit, though. So there’s that.

lorien1973 on July 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

amerpundit on July 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM

As the lady in Detroit said..It is coming from Obie’s stash! :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Unemployment compensation for everyone, forever! Marginal tax rates=90% after the first uhmmm, let’s say, $25,000. There you go. Fixed.

Can I be a czar, too?

ncjetsfan on July 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Of course, Harry Reid could take Schultz’ advice and openly demand for deficit spending … and then next January, he’ll be available as an analyst for Schultz’ show. Assuming, of course, Schultz still has one.

Dear God, if you are there, and you are just, please, please, read what Ed wrote, and make it so.

Schadenfreude on July 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Dear God, if you are there, and you are just, please, please, read what Ed wrote, and make it so.

Schadenfreude on July 9, 2010 at 6:11 PM

From your keyboard to God’s ears. :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Newsbusters said last night Ed Shultz is by far the largest source of comic relief on MSNBC and they are so right.

Marcus on July 9, 2010 at 6:14 PM

If you didnt know who this ass clown Ed Shultz was, you should have changed the channel when you heard: “Joining me now is a union political consultant…”

Jussi on July 9, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Don’t panic folks! This lady has a plan.

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Second, as the collapse of Greece shows, the surest path to third-world economics is rapid growth in deficits and debt, especially in service to an overgrown central government.

Imagine Greece with 20 million illegal Mexicans.

repvoter on July 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Ed Shultz took too many blows to the head playing ball.

Dude is truly an idiot.

jake-the-goose on July 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

‎”On the face of it, the idea that higher unemployment benefits won’t lead to more unemployment doesn’t make much sense. Imagine what the unemployment rate would look like if unemployment benefits were universally $150,000 per year. My guess is we’d have a heck of a lot more unemployment.” whaaaaaaat?

joeindc44 on July 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Really, really OT, but this video is an eyeblast: Malik Shabazz is celebrating Osama bin Laden post 9/11:

http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/07/new-black-panther-chairman-malik-shabazz-praises-osama-bin-laden/

onlineanalyst on July 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

I s there really such a thing as a more bombastic, factually challenged, delusionally dhim-witted example of a hyper-ventillating hackery posing as a host as Ed Shultz?

Archimedes on July 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

So just where do i sign up for early retirement.

heshtesh on July 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Ha! How’d we ever miss that audio around here? That was about the time Obama was warning all the business leaders “the only thing standing between you and the public with pitchforks is ME”.

Marcus on July 9, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Schultz: “I know nothing!”

rbj on July 9, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Democrats refuse to use Porkulus money to fund more extensions

Does it matter? There was no money for porkulus anyway.

tommer74 on July 9, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Has Schultz been hitting the Schlitz?

Holger on July 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM

Actually the end of benefits leads to innovation, motivation, and often it acts as a swift kick to the pants.

CWforFreedom on July 9, 2010 at 6:08 PM

We have a winner!

The only time I had to briefly collect unemployment – I moved – to a better market area and took a job starting at waaaaay less than I had been making – but it was a starIt turned out to be a great job and the change to a new city was wonderful.

Geez. You’d think that making sacrifices is a bizarre concept anymore.

tru2tx on July 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Marcus on July 9, 2010 at 6:24 PM

You are correct on all accounts. I don’t know how Allah let this classic slip away.

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Has Schultz been hitting the Schlitz?

Holger on July 9, 2010 at 6:28 PM

If that were the case Ed would be on the toilet as well as in it.

heshtesh on July 9, 2010 at 6:32 PM

onlineanalyst on July 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Wow. Just wow.

lorien1973 on July 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM

No.. it leads to a bunch of slackers back to looking for work. If you can’t find a job in your field, then you need to find something,even if that means you gotta work at Wal-Mart or flip burgers till you find something more suited to your talents. I had to take a job I didn’t like at the end of the tech bubble when I got laid off so I wouldn’t be on unemployment for longer than absolutely necessary and I am not the most motivated of individuals.

Wolftech on July 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Hooooooo-ray! Obama gonna pay mah morgiz!

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Bo Bo da clown!!!!!

Hummer53 on July 9, 2010 at 6:37 PM

No overall economic benefit.

amerpundit on July 9, 2010 at 6:07 PM

That’s debatable since economics (as conservatives often don’t realize) is about more than just dollars. More important than the econometric analysis side of it, which I haven’t seen or done so I’ll leave it at debatable, is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

As much as conservatives may like to think so, economics can’t be divorced from society or politics and as conservatives should know, the perfect shouldn’t be allowed to be the enemy of the good.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 6:37 PM

That’s debatable since economics (as conservatives often don’t realize) is about more than just dollars. More important than the econometric analysis side of it, which I haven’t seen or done so I’ll leave it at debatable, is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

This has to be satire. Has to be.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM

In the end…

… Congress will always find it easier just to extend unemployment benefits, than to do the hard work and fix the actual problems that create the need in the first place.

It’s good work, if you can get it.

/

Seven Percent Solution on July 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Hooooooo-ray! Obama gonna pay mah morgiz!

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Don’t forget..Obie is going to pay for the gas in your car too! :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM

No.. it leads to a bunch of slackers back to looking for work. If you can’t find a job in your field, then you need to find something,even if that means you gotta work at Wal-Mart or flip burgers till you find something more suited to your talents. I had to take a job I didn’t like at the end of the tech bubble when I got laid off so I wouldn’t be on unemployment for longer than absolutely necessary and I am not the most motivated of individuals.

Wolftech on July 9, 2010 at 6:34 PM

As someone who has had to take a job at Wal-Mart in Obama’s America, I would point out that in a severe recession/depression the job market no longer functions as it does in normal times. I can see the difference between the people who’ve been at Wal-Mart for years and the new guys hired in the last year.

The new workers are mostly in the upper of the labor force in education and experience (and of course age). The older workers are from the lower end, but people who managed to show up everyday. Now that I and other unemployed people who decided to do any work instead of collect benefits took jobs at Wal-Mart where are the lower end workers supposed to get jobs? I suppose they could go on welfare or into crime, 6 one way, half a dozen the other.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM

There seems to be a wee bit of hostility in Ed Schultz,
and he also seems to be really,

piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissed off,with Team
Liberal!!

Sweet!!

WHAT TOOK YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG ED!!!!!!

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM

This has to be satire. Has to be.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Only to the ill-informed I’m afraid. Glad to have provided you entertainment at least :).

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Don’t forget..Obie is going to pay for the gas in your car too! :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:42 PM

An mah go-joose? Obama gonna pay mah go-joose?!?!

Hooooooo-ray! Obama gonna pay mah go-joose!

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Ed shot his dog!

Ed shot his dog!

Ed shot his dog!

sorry, having a flashback to my college days when he was the broadcaster for NDSU. ;)

and yes, he did shoot his hunting dog.

heh

exsanguine on July 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM

That’s debatable since economics (as conservatives often don’t realize) is about more than just dollars. More important than the econometric analysis side of it, which I haven’t seen or done so I’ll leave it at debatable, is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

This has to be satire. Has to be.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Only to the ill-informed I’m afraid. Glad to have provided you entertainment at least :).

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Explain this part:

More important………….is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Third World Country!
==========================================

HEY ED,if you would of visited Hot Air,any time before or
after November 4th 2008,you would of seen,that well over
half the commenters would of given you a heads up,about
how soon it was going to take Team Liberal,commanded by
Captain Hopey/Changey to drive AMERICA straight down in
to Hopey’s Abyss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Schultz is an idiot. Isn’t it a crime to take money under false pretenses? Seems his employer should demand their money back.

GarandFan on July 9, 2010 at 6:53 PM

onlineanalyst on July 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

Holy moly.

tru2tx on July 9, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Third World Country
-Ed Schultz

An upset Liberal
=================

=================

“Were about to Die Down Here”!!
-James Carville

Another upset,and pissed of Liberal!!

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Could Ed Schultz possibly be a bigger boob?

MCGIRV on July 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM

Name this Dem Congressperson

In an August xx, 200x video taped interview with YYYY concerning the size of the national debt,

XXXX stated that the size of the national debt is a reflection of the nation’s wealth.

When pressed if the nation should take on more debt in order to have more wealth,

XXXX threatened YYYY and said,
“You get the fuxk out of here or I’ll throw you out the window.

DSchoen on July 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM

As a conservative, I don’t think you can have it both ways. This site is always touting the high unemployment, low levels of civilian employment & 1 available job per 5 applicants as proof that Obama’s policies are failing, which is true. However, we want these same unemployed people to be punished for the poor policies of Obama that have caused the problem.

Only 40% of stimulus has been spent. Use it to pay for the 33 billion that is needed. Obama can pay off his buddies but not help the people who are really suffering the most due to the recession?

Please remember, the unemployed are not lazy. They have worked hard all of their lives & really suffering. There are no jobs. The reality is they will get unemployment or welfare, which is what Obama wants anyway. He does not really care about jobs.

HellCat on July 9, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Really, really OT, but this video is an eyeblast: Malik Shabazz is celebrating Osama bin Laden post 9/11:

http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/07/new-black-panther-chairman-malik-shabazz-praises-osama-bin-laden/

onlineanalyst on July 9, 2010 at 6:21 PM

onlineanalyst: Outstanding Intel grab,WOW,Black Panthers
praising O Bin Ladan,unreal!——–:)

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 7:02 PM

HellCat on July 9, 2010 at 6:59 PM

We’re actually trying to hire people. It’s for an entry level position that only pays $18 an hour, but it’s something. And there is the opportunity for upward mobility when things pick up.

My question: For $18 an hour, do you think a staffing agency should be able to provide us with a decent range of candidates who can perform 5th-grade level mathematics?

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Don’t panic folks! This lady has a plan.

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Dire Straits:She is nuts,a real ObamaVoterBot!!:)

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Explain this part:

More important………….is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Sure. Essentially what do you think would have happened if 10 million people were unemployed were tossed on the streets with no unemployment benefits? The argument right now would be less about rolling back Obama’s socialism and more about how we need Obama to give us more socialism to help people. Like most things the US govt does, our current system is rather bad. But, imagine if Obama and Pelosi were allowed to design an unemployment benefit system from scratch.

As for the less rich but richer point, true a purely free market economics ueber alles system would be best. Let’s say it would have a PCI of $60,000. Our imperfect system has around a $45,000 PCI. Let Obama and Pelosi have a full 4-8 years to socialize us and the PCI would be more like $30,000 (if that).

That’s what I mean by negative benefit, we theoretically lose $15,000 but gain $15,000 from where we would otherwise be. That being said, no unemployment benefits wouldn’t be the sole catalyst, no it wouldn’t be as black & white, and of course if we had fewer or no govt social benefits this would’ve played out before 2010 and with someone other than Obama.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM

We’re actually trying to hire people. It’s for an entry level position that only pays $18 an hour, but it’s something. And there is the opportunity for upward mobility when things pick up.

My question: For $18 an hour, do you think a staffing agency should be able to provide us with a decent range of candidates who can perform 5th-grade level mathematics?

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:02 PM

What entry-level job that requires 5th grade mathematics “only” pays $18 an hour? And no, there is no reason whatsoever you shouldn’t be able to fill that job. at least 7 of the 9 people hired with me last week at Wal-Mart for $8-9 would be grossly overqualified for it.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM

I’m having a hard time believing that the person who wrote this:

More important………….is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

….was the same person who wrote this:

Essentially what do you think would have happened if 10 million people were unemployed were tossed on the streets with no unemployment benefits? The argument right now would be less about rolling back Obama’s socialism and more about how we need Obama to give us more socialism to help people. Like most things the US govt does, our current system is rather bad. But, imagine if Obama and Pelosi were allowed to design an unemployment benefit system from scratch.

As for the less rich but richer point, true a purely free market economics ueber alles system would be best. Let’s say it would have a PCI of $60,000. Our imperfect system has around a $45,000 PCI. Let Obama and Pelosi have a full 4-8 years to socialize us and the PCI would be more like $30,000 (if that).

That’s what I mean by negative benefit, we theoretically lose $15,000 but gain $15,000 from where we would otherwise be. That being said, no unemployment benefits wouldn’t be the sole catalyst, no it wouldn’t be as black & white, and of course if we had fewer or no govt social benefits this would’ve played out before 2010 and with someone other than Obama.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Maybe it’s me, but the first quote is near gibberish.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM

canopfor on July 9, 2010 at 7:06 PM

You are correct my friend. :)

Dire Straits on July 9, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Schultz is an idiot. Isn’t it a crime to take money under false pretenses? Seems his employer should demand their money back.

GarandFan on July 9, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Aren’t his employers Air America and MSNBC? I say they could use a couple extra Schultz’s.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:13 PM

A horse is a horse, of course, of course
And no one can talk to a horse, of course
That is, of course, unless the horse(‘s a$$)
Is the famous Mister Ed

NC Hoov on July 9, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Maybe it’s me, but the first quote is near gibberish.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Other than the superfluous “and” in the last sentence, they say the exact same thing. The second is obviously longer and more detailed, but I didn’t expect such detail to be necessary. Sorry for the mistake.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:17 PM

What entry-level job that requires 5th grade mathematics “only” pays $18 an hour? And no, there is no reason whatsoever you shouldn’t be able to fill that job. at least 7 of the 9 people hired with me last week at Wal-Mart for $8-9 would be grossly overqualified for it.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:12 PM

It’s an entry level inside sales position for an engineering/manufacturing firm. The product for this particular division requires a basic 5th-grade grasp of mathematics in order for us to train the person to read prints and determine basic applications.

We are working with 3 different staffing agencies. So far, I’d say 20% of the applicants can pass a mathematics test that wouldn’t overtax a moderately intelligent 10-year-old.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Other than the superfluous “and” in the last sentence, they say the exact same thing. The second is obviously longer and more detailed, but I didn’t expect such detail to be necessary. Sorry for the mistake.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:17 PM

Oh, c’mon. This is entirely contradictory:

More important………….is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

If negatives are important, why do you then move right into positives?

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:21 PM

I have test results from an interview that just took place. Here’s some examples:

Convert 18/36 to decimal. Answer? .1

Calculate the perimeter of a rectangle with one side measuring 2″ and the second side measuring .250″.

Answer? 2.5

Complete this series and briefly explain the logic behind it:

1 2 3 5 8

Answer? 11

Logic? “Because the numbers are always increasing.”

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM

My point to Hellcat, jarodea, is that some people are unemployed because they are basically unemployable for anything beyond paper clip hockey.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Nico-

Which part of the country are you in?

I have some smart kids that may interested in those jobs.

CWforFreedom on July 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM

The unemployment rate in my county is 11.4%

It was 4% at the end of 2006.

I took my son to the local IHOP this weekend for breakfast. Not a single person that I saw working in that place was born in this country. The kitchen and bus help weren’t speaking any English and the wait help were difficult to understand.

If there were no unemployment benefits, or if unemployment benefits didn’t last so damned long or were so high, I would be willing to bet there might be more locals working in there.

crosspatch on July 9, 2010 at 7:44 PM

CWforFreedom on July 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM

And this will give the reason away and quite possibly provide hours of witty repartee (believe me, we’ve been cutting up on this for 3 days):

Southern California

It’s astonishing and one of the reasons my 14-year-old son has never seen the inside of a public school.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Benefits are not entitlements, but that’s what the left wants unemployment to become.

madmonkphotog on July 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Here’s another:

Convert 199/1000 to decimal. Answer? 5.025

Got to give this guy props, though. He divided the denominator by the numerator instead of the other way around.

Still, he’s unable to tell that, by definition, a fraction, by itself, cannot result in a whole number.

This is indicative of most the people coming through here. We started out determined not to take anyone who couldn’t ace the test. I’d say 15% have aced it and another 5 to 10% have scored above 70%. The rest have done worse.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM

This is how third world countries get started when you started ignoring people.

Hello? Porkulus … crap-and-tax … ObamaCare? Quite apparently, any sense of irony is missing in this clown.

ya2daup on July 9, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Congress has extended jobless benefits out to two full years in this session, but they did it spending money we don’t have….

Unemployment checks have ended for people who’ve been out of work for 26 weeks and, I believe, in some cases less than that so the whole “eff the lazy goldbrickers!” narrative falls down on that point, in my opinion. Sorry, but this is nothing but reflexive “libs suck!” in place of rational thought.

Most conservative blogging and comments on unemployment and unemployment insurance could be summed up as “Lazy commie scum, die in a fire!” This is politically moronic.

We’re in what is arguably the worst recession in 80 years and have a severe unemployment problem as a direct consequence our godawful Dem Congress and a horrific Dem president. I fully understand not wanting to increase the deficit another $30 billion (or whatever the extension debit is) but the harsh criticism should be on Obama and the Dems, not the unemployed.

It reminds me of Virginia’s Republican Governor Bob McDonnell declaring Confederate History Month as one of his first acts as governor. It confirms to independents and those on the fence the very worst propaganda about Republicans, i.e., “racist”, “they hate the poor”, etc. Republicans should be INCINERATING Obama and the Dems for unemployment right now but, screw that, it’s more fun to scream about what lazy scum their fellow Americans are.

Throw the unemployed a bone with extended benefits and then hammer the Dems for unemployment. Another $30 or $40 bil in the insane budgetary scheme of things isn’t that much. That would be the most politically beneficial thing Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority of one on this point.

Django on July 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Complete this series and briefly explain the logic behind it:

1 2 3 5 8

Answer? 11

Logic? “Because the numbers are always increasing.”

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I’d have thought the logic might be on the same plane as this:

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and …
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You’re on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don’t know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

ya2daup on July 9, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Funny… I always thought that Third World countries become that way by spending money they don’t have.

JohnGalt23 on July 9, 2010 at 8:44 PM

More important than the econometric analysis side of it, which I haven’t seen or done so I’ll leave it at debatable, is what negative benefit do unemployment benefits provide. That is, by say preventing communism or hyper-socialism from taking root it allows us to be richer and than otherwise.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 6:37 PM

That’s what I mean by negative benefit, we theoretically lose $15,000 but gain $15,000 from where we would otherwise be.

jarodea on July 9, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Gotcha on the lose, but win angle, but I’m having difficulty. Unemployment benefits prevent Communism? A bit of a stretch. Temporary benefits do not prevent Communism. And that the undefined extension of unemployment benefits prevent Communism is a nugatory arguement. I do admit that your second explanation made far more sense than your first(like I said, maybe it’s me. ok, it is

me) but negative benefits aren’t important when the positives they imply are, at the very best, highly debatable.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 8:55 PM

pardon the formatting nightmare.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 8:55 PM

ya2daup on July 9, 2010 at 8:43 PM

LOL. Spinal Tap references. Love ‘em.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Dammit, that Ed Shultz photo nearly had me punching my monitor purely by reflex before I stopped myself.

Cylor on July 9, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Imagine Greece with 20 million illegal Mexicans.

repvoter on July 9, 2010 at 6:19 PM

Permiteme, por favor. Yo quiero viente y dos gyros por mi familia. Muchas gracias. Opah!

gryphon202 on July 10, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Unemployment checks have ended for people who’ve been out of work for 26 weeks and, I believe, in some cases less than that so the whole “eff the lazy goldbrickers!” narrative falls down on that point, in my opinion. Sorry, but this is nothing but reflexive “libs suck!” in place of rational thought.

Django on July 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Ohh, try again, Libtard. The fact is that they have run out, and Dems want to extend them even further. And history shows that after that extension, they will want to extend them yet again. And they’re pushing for all of this without even honoring their own paygo rules. Nowhere have I seen documentation of Republicans sour on the idea of unemployment benefits financed with real money instead of yet more government debt.

Enjoy your consolation prize.

gryphon202 on July 10, 2010 at 1:30 AM

Ohh, try again, Libtard.

Yes, that’s it, I’m a “libtard.” Go f— yourself, j@ckass.

Django on July 10, 2010 at 2:57 AM

Unemployment checks have ended for people who’ve been out of work for 26 weeks and, I believe, in some cases less than that
Django on July 9, 2010 at 8:33 PM

You believe wrong.

26 weeks is guaranteed. The debate now is how much to extend past 26 weeks. It is currently at 99 weeks.

Sane, rational people say 99 weeks is enough.

Deluded, insane people (see the above clip from MSNBC) think 99 weeks should turn into 100, 110, 120, 200, 500 weeks.

angryed on July 10, 2010 at 6:43 AM

How many jobs has Obama taken out of our economy now? He’s shut down oil rigs, was too slow to act on the spill, thus shutting down the fishing industry. It would seem that the only jobs that are safe are golf club jobs, czars, party planners and basetball manufacturers. He just started on the coal industry. By the time Obama gets through with this country we won’t have to worry about being a third world nation, we will be one.

Wills on July 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM

“the only thing standing between you and the public with pitchforks is ME”

That would be because Obama is at the head of the crowd with the pitchforks. I call him, “Fork Leader One”. Alternatives are “Torchfuerer” and “Thugmeister”.

Immolate on July 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

wow…you called it. He is the leader of the mob that wants to kill, to poke holes in people that don’t toe the line.
Obama the Divider. Divide and conquer.

Obama taught from rules for radicals, the work of Saul Alinsy. Saul dedicated the book that Obama taught from to Satan. (No kidding.) Does this suggest anything to you?

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/the-truth-about-obamas-teaching-at-chicago-law-school/

There’s a nice pic of Obama teaching, using a chalk board with the following description.

This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):

also…

* How Obama got a job teaching law: It was a political favor. The law school actually had turned down his application to teach there.
* What his academic title was: Obama was a “lecturer,” never a “professor,” not even an “adjunct” professor. The distinctions between/among these academic titles are important. A lecturer is someone who is hired on a year-by-year basis, without going through rigorous screening or possessing sterling academic credentials.
* How other faculty members regarded him: They thought him lazy and unqualified.
* What he taught at the law school: Although he was hired to teach Constitutional Law, Obama instead taught Machiavellian power politics à la Saul Alinsky, the Marxist ideologue who dedicated his book on community organizing, Rules for Radicals, to the fallen evil angel Lucifer.

Great…just great.

Army Brat on July 10, 2010 at 3:42 PM

It’s an entry level inside sales position for an engineering/manufacturing firm. The product for this particular division requires a basic 5th-grade grasp of mathematics in order for us to train the person to read prints and determine basic applications.

We are working with 3 different staffing agencies. So far, I’d say 20% of the applicants can pass a mathematics test that wouldn’t overtax a moderately intelligent 10-year-old.

nico on July 9, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Yikes. Where’s your firm? Math was never my strongest suit, but jumping catfish…elementary math? Piece of cake!

Dark-Star on July 10, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Yes, that’s it, I’m a “libtard.” Go f— yourself, j@ckass.

Django on July 10, 2010 at 2:57 AM

You didn’t say I was wrong, Potty-mouth. :P

gryphon202 on July 10, 2010 at 10:05 PM

You didn’t say I was wrong, Potty-mouth. :P

gryphon202 on July 10, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Why state the obvious?

Dark-Star on July 10, 2010 at 10:19 PM