Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label unemployment benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment benefits. Show all posts

Thursday, March 1, 2018

More Bad News For Trump Haters

U.S. jobless claims plunge

 to 49-year low of 210,000

Published: Mar 1, 2018 8:30 a.m. ET
 
 
By
REPORTER
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The rate of layoffs as measured by U.S. jobless claims fell to the lowest level since 1969, reflecting the strongest labor market since the end of the dotcom boom nearly two decades ago. Initial U.S. jobless claims fell by 10,000 to 210,000 in the seven days ended Feb. 24. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast claims to total 226,000. New claims haven't been this low since December 1969. The more stable monthly average of claims declined by 5,000 to 220,500, the government said Thursday. That's also the lowest level since 1969. The number of people already collecting unemployment benefits, known as continuing claims, increased by 57,000 to 1.93 million.

Friday, February 14, 2014

Congress Gets In The Way Of Obama, So Is Going To Go Around Them And That's A Promise! More Unilateral Actions On Their Way!


The areas of importance he emphasized:

"...Obama and the Democrats are increasingly emphasizing their economic agenda – not only a universal minimum wage hike but other policies like unemployment benefits, retirement security and comprehensive immigration reform, which they say will help the working classes do better in an economic recovery where a large bulk of the gains have gone to the wealthy."

We understand many of the things about which he was talking except  "retirement security."  We do not understand that comment, however, our fear is that it means that everyone will be guaranteed a retirement--whatever that could be interpreted.  Does it mean that the government will give you a mid-six figure retirement? Does it mean that Social Security will be increased? Or does it mean that anyone with over $500,000 (an arbitrary number) in IRAs, 401 (K)s or 403 (b)s would have to turn them over to the government? Or does it mean rolling over your retirement vehicles into Social Security, regardless of the amount you have in the accounts? 

Heck, everyone wants a retirement but is it the job of the government to provide it for you or should you have been thinking about that throughout your working years? Hasn't the government given you enough opportunities (IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k), 403(b), 457, Simple Plans, Pension Plans to name just a few)  to put money away both pre and post tax? 

Many will respond that most people have not been able to save because they needed that new TV, big house, new car or cell phone.  Sometimes people are the grasshopper (who doesn't save anything during the summer and dies in the cold) and sometimes they are the ant who puts away food for the winter all during the summer and lives. We need to teach people to be ants!


The last question we should be asking is--how is this going to be paid for? Yes, we know that is negative thing to be considering when people just want to retire and get something from the government!  However, don't you think in the time of $17 trillion dollar (declared) debt we should be considering how we will pay for it?

We fear we will find out very soon what Obama means by "retirement security" and how he plans to accomplish it. We believe it will entail significantly more government spending, be means tested and leave less to individual decision making. In other words, it will be take more control over our lives. That is the Obama way.

Hold on the next three years are going to be a remarkably depressing ride.

Conservative Tom





Obama promises more executive action

CAMBRIDGE, Md. – President Obama vowed Friday to do everything in his power to help the middle class – with or without Congress.
Speaking to House Democrats attending their annual issues conference on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the president doubled down on his State of the Union promise to use his executive authority at every turn to advance policies benefiting working people.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The single most important thing we have to do, not just as a party, but as a country, is make sure that there is opportunity for every single person, that we are focused every single day … making sure that if you are willing to work hard and take responsibility that you can get ahead," Obama told his fellow Democrats.
"I want to work with Congress to make that happen. But, I'm not going to wait, because there's too much to do. And America does not believe in standing still," the president said.
Obama highlighted several steps he's taken already on that front, including a recent executive order to hike the minimum wage for government contractors.
"These aren't teenagers," Obama said, pushing back against a common criticism of the minimum wage hike. "These are folks who are looking after families and trying to raise kids."
The remarks came as leaders in both political parties are settling into campaign mode ahead of this year's mid-term elections. As part of that transition, Obama and the Democrats are increasingly emphasizing their economic agenda – not only a universal minimum wage hike but other policies like unemployment benefits, retirement security and comprehensive immigration reform, which they say will help the working classes do better in an economic recovery where a large bulk of the gains have gone to the wealthy.
Obama was quick to concede there are limitations to his executive powers, though. 
"Across the board, we're moving," Obama said. "But … we can get a whole lot more done if we've got Congress working with us."
He urged Congress to enact an immigration bill, calling it "a top priority." The president acknowledged the political thicket that surrounds that issue, particularly for Republicans, but asked lawmakers to transcend their political concerns and focus on the practical effects of such reform. 
"I believe, frankly, that there are folks on the other side of the aisle who genuinely want to see this done. But they're worried and they're scared about the political blowback," Obama said.
"Look, everybody here is an elected official and we can all appreciate the maneuverings that take place, particularly in an election year," he added. "But when it comes to immigration reform, we have to remind ourselves that there are people behind the statistics."


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Unemployment Benefits Illustrates The Difference Between Dems and GOP.

Rand Paul Rips Obama's 'Big-Hearted, Small-Brained Policy' for Unemployed

Tuesday, 07 Jan 2014 03:48 PM
By Bill Hoffmann
Share:
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
   Forward Article  |
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on Tuesday fired back at President Barack Obama's aggressive push for extended unemployment benefits, saying that like "most liberals," he makes "big-hearted, small-brained policy statements."

"They can make all these emotional arguments, but their policies haven't worked and unemployment is still a horrific problem in our country," Paul, a Republican, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

Earlier in the day, Obama ripped Paul's belief that expanding benefits harms the country.

"I have heard the argument that says extending unemployment insurance will somehow hurt the unemployed, because it saps their motivation to get a new job . . . That really sells the American people short," Obama said.

"I can't name a time when I met an American who would rather have an unemployment check than the pride of having a job," the president said.

But Paul said statistics in many states bear him out."North Carolina reduced their unemployment benefits and their unemployment went from 8.9 percent to 7.4 percent. South Carolina did the same thing, reduced their unemployment 3.5 points. Missouri did the same thing, reduced their unemployment benefits, so their unemployment went down 2.5 points," Paul said.

"So, really there is a direct correlation between extending benefits and having more unemployment . . . All of the studies also show that the longer you are unemployed, the less likely you are to get a job.

"So, if an employer looks at somebody who's been unemployed for two months and someone who's been unemployed for two years, the employer almost always, regardless of skills, chooses the [person] that's only been out of work for two months."

Asked whether he was disappointed that six Republicans voted with the Democrat-controlled Senate to extend benefits, Paul said:

"I'm disappointed in the sense that I don't think [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid's going to allow any amendments or any ability to pay for this. We've spent over $230 billion on unemployment benefits over the last six or seven years, and that adds to the deficit, which causes rising prices.

"The people who are least able to absorb inflation with food prices rising, with gas prices rising, are the poor and those on fixed incomes . . . So on the one sense, they have this big heart, they're going to help all these people, but on the other sense, the $230 billion they borrowed to pay for unemployment insurance has actually hurt the working class and the poor by raising the prices of their goods."

Paul also is pursuing a lawsuit against the National Security Agency over its ongoing blanket surveillance of Americans' phone records, which many people think is unconstitutional.

"We've assembled a team of lawyers. We expect to file our complaint in court within the next week or two. We have over 250,000 people who have signed up for the lawsuit, and I've told people that the class or nature of people who can apply is pretty wide open. You have to own a cellphone," Paul said.

"So, if you own a cellphone in America, you probably had your records taken by the government. And there really is a constitutional debate in question, whether a single warrant from a judge can apply to millions of people's phone records."

Paul's lawsuit has ruffled fellow Republican lawmaker Rep. Peter King of New York, who says the NSA's surveillance has stopped numerous terror plots and saved hundreds of lives.

Paul doesn't agree.

"There will always be people who succumb to fear and are ready and willing to trade their liberty for security, but there are serious constitutional questions here, and there are questions of whether or not you do have an expectation of privacy," Paul said.

"It's pretty clear to me that a warrant for a million people's phone records is not a valid warrant, and this needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. We may not win at the Supreme Court, but I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to expand the right of privacy and expand the notion that the Fourth Amendment does protect some of these records."


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.