Friday, July 2, 2010
Unemployment Benefits
So I was watching the local news today and saw a story about a dad in Woodstock who has 2 kids, was laid off a while back and has steadily been trying to find work. He has been collecting unemployment during this time frame, and his benefits are about to run out. He was hoping, like many others, that congress would pass something to extend these benefits. As of yet, they have yet to do so, so he is basically shit out of luck. The reporter was able to get in touch with Senator Isaackson, a republican Senator from GA, and found out that he voted against the bill to extend these benefits. When asked why he did it, this was his answer "If we passed that bill, we would have to incur more debt in our national debt, and I don't believe any father would want to mortgage his kids future." This reporter then told the dad in Woodstock what the Senator said and his answer made perfect sense "I understand his point by not wanting to put hardship on our kids in the future, but by not extending these benefits, we are trading that hardship for the future to right now." He is absolutely right. Yes, no one likes the idea of having to go further in debt for the future, but at the same time, I think it is more important that we help these families out now so these kids do not have to go through the hardship now, while they are kids. There are so many reasons why the Senator is wrong, but I am sure he does not care. His plan to extend unemployment benefits was to fund it with the stimulus money. Now, if we were to do that, then what would that mean? Simple as this, if we take money from the stimulus package to fund unemployment, we are simply putting more people on the unemployment line. The stimulus money is for creating / keeping jobs. So if we take funding away from that, we accomplish nothing. What is messed up is that we, the people, keep re-electing these jackasses to represent us. Mainly because most of GA is republican and will always vote that way, no matter what they do in Washington or what they say they will do. Our other Senator, "Zaxby" Chambliss, has sponsored 1 bill sense he has been in Washington, since 2003. National Watermelon Day. His voting record is 100% with the majority of republicans and has NEVER voted for a bipartisan bill. So, Chambliss has accomplished nothing since his time in the senate, and he just got re-elected in 2008. Funny how congress has a 14% approval rating in GA during the 2008 election, but our wonderfully intelligent people in this state re-elect someone who has been there and done nothing. If we want things to change in this country, we, as citizens, need to stand up and let our voice be heard. Instead of letting the media, especially Fox News, who pawn themselves off as a "fair and balanced news agency" brainwash you, go out and do the research for yourselves. You will all be surprised of what you find out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post Steve! Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteIf only the answers were so clear and "Hind Sight" worked equally well in the forward direction. If only politician's priorities were for the future of the country before the future of the party and re-election. If only it was obvious the simple fact that we need the right brain as much as we need the left brain to think in balance, and that the left leg can't enter a race with out the right leg. Did we as a country ever have any balance or have we always been the drunken sailor weaving back and forth up the pier, but eventually find his way to the ship? Last week I saw a study come out of Northern EU that there was a large jump in employment once the benefits ran out. keep in mind the EU is very Left compared to America so imagine the scrutiny applied before the study was published. To counter the argument someone stated that it might be true IF there were any jobs here to take (my wife is unemployed and desperately looking for work now 20 months). We all recognize that both sides of the debate use extremes in their arguments so likely the answer is in the middle somewhere? If that the case then should we give half the amount each month to everyone in need or do we figure what is the max time asked for and give half of that? Neither sound to appealing to me yet practical thinkers (passionate thinkers are a different group) would have to say yes there is some limit somewhere. Does anyone remember when welfare was reformed? What evil sadistic bastards they were to even suggest limiting money paid to single mothers to feed their starving children. Fast forward over a decade and we see that the middle class grew and welfare shrank. Crime went down and education went up. Slum housing all over America went away to be replaced by parks and new homes. Does the same lesson of history apply here? If we knew there would be no debate, but does history have no value? Like that drunken sailor (which years ago in my youth I might have been once or twice) I have rambled back and forth on my trip down the pier of this conversation to arrive at a single point; We must all stop swimming up stream with the same tired old arguments of the stupidity on the other side and start floating down the middle of the stream as a single country working tirelessly to be kinder and smarter and healthier and cleaner, but remembering that we are surrounded by piranha.
ReplyDelete