Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. Rob Thommins | May 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm

   http://jobsearch.about.com/b/2012/03/29/unemployment-extension-2012.htm

   This is part of the February Budget continuing resolution.
2. Dan Casey | May 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm

   Rob,

   That was initiated by the House Republicans. It sounds as if you’re suggesting that they have cut employment benefits in order the lower the published unemployment rate, something that is going to benefit Obama.

   You might want to think that one through again.
3. Rob Thommins | May 11, 2012 at 4:50 pm

   Mr Casey:
   To answer your question on the beer blog,
   Congress allowed the extension of benefits
   to expire. To my knowledge both Dems. and Reps.
   occupy that branch of the Fed. Gov.
4. Dan Casey | May 11, 2012 at 5:27 pm

   “Congress allowed the extension of benefits to expire. To my knowledge both Dems. and Reps. occupy that branch of the Fed. Gov.”

   Rob, you’re correct about that. But guess what? the Republicans control the House, which (under the U.S. Constitution) that bill originated. And though the Democrats putatively have control in the Senate, the GOP has enough senators to sustain a veto, which means they can block anything in that chamber.

   The bottom line is, the extension was cut by the GOP. And you’re suggesting that was done to make the unemployment rate fall, which would make Obama look good. Seriously, you ought to rethink that.
5. Rob Thommins | May 11, 2012 at 5:31 pm

   Rethink this:
   Democrats refused to agree to budget cuts equal to the amount
   necessary to fund the additional weeks of benefits.

   Democrats: the party of the people, not unemployed people
   but the people who work and pay taxes.
6. Rob Thommins | May 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm

   Your thoughts that srinking the unemployment figures favors
   President Obama, I totaly agree. If the figure can get down
   in the low 7 range or less Obama is a shoe-in.

   Dems. know this and it was a calculated move to refuse to
   do what was on the table to extend benefits, thereby reducing
   the unemployment figure.

   Dems. and Reps have ALWAYS put party and re-election ahead
   of the masses they proport to represent.
7. dave | May 12, 2012 at 1:11 am

   Rob Thommins

   You’re delusional. The Republicans wanted to fund the extension of employment benefits by cutting children’s health care and food stamps. That was simply taking the money out of one pocket and transferring it to the other. Democrats were fine with matching the extension funds by cutting oil company subsidies. Guess who torpedoed that idea?
8. Rob Thommins | May 12, 2012 at 10:32 am

   ‘cutting oil company subsidies. Guess who torpedoed that idea?

   More correctly, raising taxes. Oil companies do not get subsidies
9. Ron | May 13, 2012 at 6:07 pm

   The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.

   When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

   But the oil industry gets no subsidies, right Rob Timmons??
10. Dan Casey | May 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Ron,

    I’m getting the impression that if you criticize Rob with facts, he’ll just respond with a shout that “you’re a LIBERAL!” (even if you aren’t one) and nothing after that will make any difference. Just like Suzie.
11. Ron | May 13, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    I’ve been called worse Dan.
12. John Wilburn | May 13, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    “he’ll just respond with a shout that “you’re a LIBERAL!” (even if you aren’t one) and nothing after that will make any difference. Just like Suzie.”

    Ah yes, Dan, I proudly remember the day Suzie wrote me off as a “liberal” too, never to this day knowing the difference between a liberal and libertarian. She wrote off Dave Hicks for exactly the same reason prior to that. It’s a good club to be in that all free thinkers should aspire to!