http://www.alternet.org/workplace/141190/hundreds_of_thousands_of_workers_will_lose_unemployment_ben


Workers laid off early in the downturn are soon to be left without the basic sustenance of an unemployment check.


WASHINGTON -- When a virulent disease is ravaging you like a cancer, you don't want a cacophony of voices promoting different or contradictory cures. Yet that is what we're starting to hear about the economic crisis, not only from a politically divided -- and pretty scared -- capital, but from within the Obama administration itself. In just the past few days, Vice President Joe Biden has said the young administration misread the depth of the recession -- an honest account, since most private economists did as well. Laura Tyson, an outside economic adviser to the White House, said it's wise to start preparing another stimulus package.

Then President Barack Obama made everything perfectly muddy when he said in an ABC News interview that the seriousness of the downturn and how to attack it is "something we wrestle with constantly." Yet in the next breath, he expressed concern about the burgeoning deficit. But if anyone's looking for some clear voices, there are 650,000 of them just waiting to be heard. That is roughly the number of long-term unemployed who will begin losing their jobless benefits in September, according to the National Employment Law Project. Remember, the recession didn't start last fall when the government bailed out AIG and the financial system froze. It began in December 2007 -- and 6.5 million jobs have been lost since then. Depending on which state and the sort of triggers that apply to benefits, hundreds of thousands of workers laid off early in the downturn are soon to be left without the basic sustenance of an unemployment check.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department says, the number of unemployed people out of work for 27 weeks or longer continues to grow, reaching 4.4 million last month. In June, three out of 10 jobless workers had been out of work for at least six months, according to the department's data. The stimulus package the president signed soon after taking office did provide extended benefits, and boosted weekly payments. But even that extension runs out on Dec. 26, and would not apply to all the unemployed. Does anyone really believe that a significant portion of the unemployed will have found new work by then? Hardly. Both private and government economists now predict that unemployment will continue to rise at least through the end of this year.

"We can't ignore this moment when all these folks are running out (of benefits)," says Maurice Emsellem of the National Employment Law Project.

"That needs to be a top priority, to help these workers." Let's stop kidding ourselves. In no contemporary economic crisis -- not even those that unfolded on the Republicans' watch -- has Congress left the unemployed completely in the lurch. So some sort of spending package -- call it stimulus, call it stopgap emergency aid, whatever works -- is going to have to be passed.

The unemployment emergency helps feed another crisis Congress is going to be forced to address: the state budget disasters unfolding around the country. So far, 42 states have cut budgets that already had been enacted for fiscal 2009, according to the National Governors Association. More and deeper cuts are expected next year.

Already states have laid off and furloughed workers -- including, in some states, the very workers who process unemployment claims. Generally speaking, states are required to balance their budgets each year, a mandate that forces them to pull money out of the economy through spending reductions and tax hikes, counteracting the federal government's efforts to juice things up. "That is what happened during the Great Depression, we had states working against what the federal government was doing," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. With red states and blue, Republican governors and Democrats, all struggling against the same relentless, recession-driven drops in tax revenue, an almost irresistible political coalition for more aid to states eventually will take shape. And with the fast-approaching September deadline for extending some unemployment benefits, there will likely emerge one of those must-pass measures that may or may not be called another stimulus bill.

Any hot air expended trying to stop it serves no purpose but to fuel political fires. Remember, that is the whole point of those now huffing and puffing most heartily. They don't want to figure a way out of this morass; they just want to figure out a way to unseat those now in office.

Workers laid off early in the downturn are soon to be left without the basic sustenance of an unemployment check.




I fully expect there to be 'Emergency Extensions' of unemployment benefits .

ZOG can't afford millions of desperate and alienated workers , looking for a cause to their plight . They might figure it out .

A larger concern ; those wi jobs are so scared that they aren't spending . Malls are unable to pay their mortgages and commercial property is starting to slide , badly . Which will lead to further problems for the mortgage holders ( read banks ) .

Honestly, I'm still spending. I know that might sound stupid to many people, but what good will ZOG bucks be in the event of a complete meltdown? The government will tax us out of our properties, and even if we had them will the utility companies still be functional? We'd be like squatters in our own homes anyway. Might as well have the nicest seat on the Titanic.

Might as well have the nicest seat on the Titanic.

I'm thinking more along the lines of having the nicest, most well-equipped lifeboat with enough weapons to be able to dictate who else will be riding with me.

That's just me, though.

I'm thinking more along the lines of having the nicest, most well-equipped lifeboat with enough weapons to be able to dictate who else will be riding with me.

That's just me, though.

Nope, not just you.

Honestly, I'm still spending. I know that might sound stupid to many people, but what good will ZOG bucks be in the event of a complete meltdown? The government will tax us out of our properties, and even if we had them will the utility companies still be functional? We'd be like squatters in our own homes anyway. Might as well have the nicest seat on the Titanic.

Prices for valuable "durable goods" are never going down. However, holding FRNs guarantees you'll never get to use them for those things you may need if you manage to hold onto a roof over your head.

It DOES stimulate the economy to spend but we can't spend individually nearly enough to prevent the inflation that comes from creating money out of thin air, giving away "unemployment" benefits beyond those that were earned, etc.

I don't think that paying people not to maraud, loot, vandalize, rape, and murder is going to work, long term, any more than buying the votes of have-nots by politicians who are helping their consitituents in their mov'n on up at our expense.

What really bothers me is the appeal to the young to blame the old for the economy and to feel good about reneging on defaulting on Social Security, the protection of their home equity, etc. It is exactly the same strategy as appealing to "people of color" and the young appear to me to be buying it. The young won't benefit from being propagandized to turn us on one another.

Yep, we're planning to make the best of a bad situation.

Years ago, most of us were probably conservatives, saying, "Hey, you are ruining civilization! We got a good thing here, why are you destroying it?"

Now we aren't saying much at all, but we are thinking, "OK, bitches, you wrecked civilization. You made your bed, now sleep in it."

That's what really makes me perplexed about liberal types. You look at such people -- they most of all need their comfort and the continued smooth functioning of civilization. THey are the most unprepared people in the world. And yet, they do everything possible to undermine the foundation of their existence, and of all of us. They are like spoiled children.

Multiculturalism and judeo-liberal policies in general are going to create the opposite of what jews and liberals will want. Multiculturalism will create millons of racially aware Whites. Liberalism will make us all broke and struggling.

Maybe they will look to trying the jobs that Americans don't want to do. THere are such jobs around. Labor Ready has jobs. most of these people are not looking for jobs - they are just enjoying a paid vacation.

Maybe they will look to trying the jobs that Americans don't want to do. THere are such jobs around. Labor Ready has jobs. most of these people are not looking for jobs - they are just enjoying a paid vacation.


Come to Michigan. At least 1/4 of the White males are out of work. They will do anything to put food on the table.

In my area there are no Mexicans. They left years ago.

When a Walmart opened in town they had over 800 applications per job opening.

Times are really bad here and they have been for years. Closed factories, shops, and abandon homes all over the place.

It is not a liberal vs conservative thing.
It is a Jewish harvest to the max!

A larger concern ; those wi jobs are so scared that they aren't spending . Malls are unable to pay their mortgages and commercial property is starting to slide , badly . Which will lead to further problems for the mortgage holders ( read banks ) .

Well it's duel purpose I believe, yes people are concerned of unemployment and that "cutbacks" will turn to bite them in the rear, so they are more inclined to build a nest egg so to speak, but also on the other side, it's that the stimulus package granted early this year, didn't allow them the ability to spend.

Everything has gone up, it became more expensive to spend, you spend more for far less. This the average individual of America understands as they are the ones most hit by these price inflations, but it is something your economists (as well as the rest of the World) completely overlooks. They merely see that "sales figures went up for Christmas so people aren't scared to spend"...which I believe was an argument used December last year, they neglected that although the figures (amount of money spent on gifts and such) may be higher than 2 years before, it is not indicative of spending on the workers part they spent more money but got far less, sales of goods were far less than they had been before.

The effect of this is more damaging than it seems, the less people are able to purchase the less demand there is for products, and the less demands there are for them, the less will be produced, and the less that are produced the less workers are required in order to ensure production. The excess workers are perceived as "baggage" and "cut back" so the vicious cycle continues, whilst the stimulus packages are thrown at banks and temporary band-aids. The only consolation the worker got out of the Billions tossed into the Yiddish Global Banking system, was a drop in interest rates of 0.05%, but they STILL can't pay the loans they made, because of the increase in produce prices.

But that's my take of this economy, I'm sure that I missed some, that I overlooked others, and that I might have only a rough outline of it..as much as I am sure that there is someone who could improve upon or rectify any misconceptions I may have about it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of having the nicest, most well-equipped lifeboat with enough weapons to be able to dictate who else will be riding with me.

That's just me, though.

Oh no, I've been working on that too. Obviously millions of people are as firearms stocks are the only ones performing. :) Hopefully the majority buying them are Whites.

All non-essential stuff I've been buying is stuff that HAD to be replaced long ago, but I've been waiting to get it.

"The effect of this is more damaging than it seems, the less people are able to purchase the less demand there is for products, and the less demands there are for them, the less will be produced, and the less that are produced the less workers are required in order to ensure production. The excess workers are perceived as "baggage" and "cut back" so the vicious cycle continues"

That's what Keynesian economics is about. "Aggregate demand" falls, so the economy enters a death spiral, to be saved by government spending, which jacks up "aggregate demand." In fact, the economy is simply trying to correct the excesses, which are due to the false prosperity emanating from the preceding funny-money/low-interest rate orgy.

". . .However, one school of thought — the Keynesian — has succeeded in capturing the great majority of economists. Keynesian economics — proudly proclaiming itself as "modern," though with its roots deep in medieval and mercantilist thought — offers itself to the world as the panacea for our economic troubles. Keynesians claim, with supreme confidence, that they have "discovered" what determines the volume of employment at any given time. They assert that unemployment can be readily cured through governmental deficit spending, and that inflation can be checked by means of government tax surpluses.

With great intellectual arrogance, Keynesians brush aside all opposition as being "reactionary," "old-fashioned," etc. They are extremely boastful of having gained the allegiance of all the young economists — a claim that has, unfortunately, a good deal of truth. Keynesian thinking has flourished in the New Deal, in the statements of President Truman, his Council of Economic Advisers, Henry Wallace, labor unions, most of the press, all foreign governments and United Nations committees, and, to a surprising extent, among "enlightened businessmen" of the Committee for Economic Development variety.

Against this onslaught, many sincere liberal-minded citizens have been swayed by the Keynesians — particularly by their argument that the wide governmental intervention they advocate will "solve the problem of unemployment." The most dismaying aspect of the situation is that the Keynesian arguments have not been countered effectively by the liberal economists, who have generally been helpless in the tidal wave. Liberal economists have confined their attacks to the political program of the Keynesians — they have not dealt adequately with the economic theory on which this program is based. As a result, the Keynesians' claim that their program will insure full employment has largely gone unchallenged. . ."

http://mises.org/story/2950