Local Woman Appears with President Obama

Leslie Macko, of Charlottesville, stood with the president in the Rose Garden yesterday as an example of somebody who needs unemployment benefits extended.  #

15 Responses to “Local Woman Appears with President Obama”


  • Someone has said that some of the unemployed has been collecting checks for 99 weeks and, with the extension, will receive a month’s worth of checks retroactively since they received their last check. Does anybody know anything about this?

  • I can tell you that my unemployment taxes have gone up 400%, and in 13 years I have never had an unemployment paid out. I can also say that watching this insane increase makes me nervous about other increases and with one thought of hiring….NO WAY.

  • The reason the benefits should be extended is because this idiot of a President is responsible for the high unemployment rate. He was so busy protectng Union jobs at GM, Overpaid government workers jobs by giving the states stimulous money, trying to protect people without health insurance and alienating the “rich” who create the jobs in the first place that he FORGOT (or is too dumb to realize) that there has never been a time in history where a government had job growth at the same time as it raised taxes and increased regulation.

    He should have made jobs his one and only major issue from his first day on the job. He can’t blame this fiasco on Bush. Obama’s policies are whats ruining it now.

  • @danpri, obviously Taylor didn’t understand your post.
    @Taylor, “…rich who create the jobs in the first place” A lot of people create jobs who are not rich. Government is constantly creating jobs by expanding (they’ve just created a new government agency that’s supposed to protect consumers, changing regulations (keeps those tax preparers working and hiring specialists to deal with tax credits for green initiatives), handing out billions in grants (Michael Mann, non-profits, research teams,et al., you get the idea. Family-owned businesses hire friends and family, politicians have year-round campaigns employing milllions, grassroot lobbying and think tanks working government,oh, so many jobs are not created by rich people.
    “..there has never been a time in history where a government had job growth at the same time as it raised taxes and increased regulation…” Not even in the period between 1933 to 1939?

  • …and where will this additional money come from? China? Will we just keep tacking more taxes onto the employment costs of businesses. While Republicans seem to get hammered for being greedy and devoid of compassion, at least some understand that you can’t get blood from a stone.

  • “The reason the benefits should be extended is because this idiot of a President is responsible for the high unemployment rate.”

    the idiot president, of course, refers to GW Bush.

  • Neither Bush nor Obama are responsible for the unemployment and, yes, both are idiots, along with most people in Congress, although both Presidents are highly intelligent. Like China, we now have a managed economy and the U.S. isn’t managing its economy very well. That’s why “Communist China” is buying our debt. Ever wonder what would happen here if China stops?
    I heard a woman on the radio the other day saying that the unemployment benefit should be extended because she can make more money off of unemployment than she can working at McDonald’s. Unemployment checks are evolving into just another form of welfare. It’s also another way for politicians to buy votes at tax payers’ expense. It’s only a matter of time before the poor and the middle class will be owned by the politicians of both and their rich supporters. That’s why the millionaires got bailed out and the middle class didn’t, using the middies’ money no less.

  • I think there are a whole lot of misguided notions about the economy going around right now. Typically the biggest danger of running up a big deficit is inflation. The biggest risk during a recession is something called a deflationary spiral, where prices fall uncontrollably so people pull all their money out of investment and stop spending (creating a nasty feedback loop).

    When one talks about the budget it’s really important to separate short term deficits from long term deficits. In other words, running up a deficit over the short term during a recession may actually be quite beneficial (since it can counter deflation), but when that recession is over then the government needs to reign in spending. The real problem with countries like Greece was that there was a serious risk of them defaulting on their loans due to a huge number of programs that they simply couldn’t ever pay for, especially since the norm was that everyone basically cheated on their taxes in Greece with a significant percentage not paying anything at all. (If it was true that low taxes create jobs and a healthy economy then Greece would be booming!)

    In short, this is why the majority of Republican ideas right now are so incredibly misguided. During a recession you need to give money to people that will spend it. If you give a tax break to someone wealthy during a recession then they will just put in the bank which does little to nothing for the economy. Furthermore, once you give a tax break then it becomes an entitlement (See the Bush tax cuts as a great example) and is far more devastating to the economy and budget over the long term than handing out money to poor people.

    Republicans will say, “Hey, don’t give $20 to that homeless or unemployed dude, he’s just going to spend it” but you see that’s exactly the intention, and that is what creates jobs because of the multiplier effect. Even if the homeless dude buys Boones with it then tax revenue goes back to the state and the feds, and a convenience store makes money which translates into pay for the employees who also spend it. Each time that $20 is spent by each hand it goes through it generates tax revenue and pays salaries and small business owners who in term spend the money again.

    In short, federal spending right now on poor people is GOOD, cutting spending and cutting taxes is BAD. That’s not to say smaller government isn’t a great idea, just not in a recession. Heck, the whole reason we have governments is to do things like look out for us in times of crisis.

  • “… running up a deficit over the short term during a recession may actually be quite beneficial …” And then again it may not, so where will we be then. BTW, the extension is not giving anybody $20. The extension is over $33B.
    “In short, federal spending right now on poor people is GOOD, cutting spending and cutting taxes is BAD.” Unemployment checks are not directed at “poor” people. Even engineers getting it over a long period of time.
    “…and that is what creates jobs because of the multiplier effect.” During this recession there has been several extensions to the unemployment benefit. Where is the evidence that by doing so, jobs have been created?

  • True enough, perhaps “job creation” is misleading. It’d be more accurate to say that it’s reduced job losses. That’s part of the reason why its really easy for the other side to say measures have been ineffective, because the only way to demonstrate that they are wrong is to remove government spending and show them that it crashed the economy. Of course, doing that would be like proving to your daughter that seatbelts are necessary by not requiring her to wear one.

    Yes, we may be talking about $338, and it may go to an engineer instead, but the principle still holds. If you give that $338 to an unemployed engineer then they will spend it, which is exactly what you want them to do. If you cut spending during a recession, then people have less money and then they spend less money. If they spend less money then there is less tax revenue. If there is less tax revenue then the government can’t pay its own bills and so forth.

    So… while there’s no question that we need to cut spending, cutting spending by the government now would be a huge mistake. If you examine the numbers, I think that you’ll find that the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy render the extension of unemployment merely a drop in the bucket. It is entitlement programs that need to be cut. Short term expenditures and a short term increase in the deficit are not a problem, provided that a plan is in place to pull out federal money once people start spending and inflation begins (which it hasn’t).

    From that perspective the Tea Party people and others concerned with smaller government should really be focusing on things like corporate subsidies and military spending (often on weapons, planes, and other items that will never actually be used). They should also be very concerned about the aging and retirement of the baby boomers. We may reach a point were we have more retired people than we have people working, and that is the biggest threat to our budget and our economy.

    Dare I also say that much of the economy is also psychological? Money has value merely because we believe that it does. I think the BP disaster is a big part of why the recovery has slowed, because it frightens people, and that makes them keep their money in the bank instead of spending it. Of course, the irony is that BP itself is probably not a bad investment right now (compare stock prices for Exxon since the Valdez spill for an example).

  • @Tigernach , one small thng, I wrote $33 billion (B) not $338.
    “If there is less tax revenue then the government can’t pay its own bills and so forth.” Let me see, the federal government borrows $33 billion to extend unemployment compensation. Let’s say everyone spends it all, every dime. Do you want me to believe that the federal government will then take in $33 billion in taxes? During this recession, whether you have a job or not, you will spend less money. Your limits on the charge cards have been reduced. Your unemployment will go to cover past debt, to eat and to buy a little gas. If you haven’t lost your home, it will go to the mortgage. It will go to your car payment. You will not be buying new cars, new houses, new clothes, new grills, restaurant meals, movie tickets and other ofrms of discretionary spending go out the door. How is that helping to retain jobs? The federal government will not be seeing much of that money again. It is being spent in non-taxable ways. It is not creating new jobs. Maintaining the old jobs does not increase federal government income because most likely the current workers are not getting raises for the most part.

  • When the government takes money from working people and creates a job it is not really a “job” they are creating UNLESS that job pays for itself by ptotecting taxpayers in one form or another that is quantifiable. Make work mickey mouse jobs are BS and just drain the treasury.

    The government needs to give tax incentives to businesses to take the risk of hiring people. This will involve borrowing money that will be repaid in higer tax revenues.

    Unemployment does not do that because no business is going to expand if they know their money is coming from unemployment income that could run out any time.

  • Face it, we have a “managed economy” like the Chi9nese. Thank goodness they are buying our debt or we wouldn’t have an economy at all.

  • I wonder what prompted the connection between the Obama admin and this lady.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog