I'm still waiting for a response to his "people will lose their homes" argument.

[Clio the Leo]

I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/06/statement-president-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-benefits

Either you think that idea is total BS. Or you're more concerned with winning a political victory than Americans having smaller paychecks (or having no UI benefits.) Which is it? (again, not flame bait, I'm really curious as to what people think)

[Kennah]

1. There's perhaps a few ...

... but I daresay most on unemployment with benefits running out are more at risk from NOT EATING than losing their homes.

[martymar64]

68. As more unemployed become 99ers, they WILL get hungry . . . and angry too.

Maybe angry enough to start robbing banks or burning them down.

[tekisui]

2. I don't accept that the issues are in any way connected.

It was a failure on the part of the party in power to allow these disparate issues to be conflated. I simply can't accept that this was some kind of win or concession when the supposed good guys held absolute power for two years.

[Tansy_Gold]

6. Indeed. n/t

[Aramchek]

19. after all this time, you still don't understand how the Senate works??

making deals is the only way to get anything through save for reconciliation which is not an option for this.

[tekisui]

21. Where was the Senate months ago?

It was a failure of the Democrats.

[TwilightGardener]

24. But what happens now? That's the only question.

[Aramchek]

27. some people would rather bitch about the past than work for the future

[phleshdef]

Months ago? Passing the last unemployment extension that almost didn't get passed.

[Aramchek]

25. waiting for the House to bring up a bill

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. Why is it that the DEALS always FUCK me and the rest of the

lower middle class of America?

[ProudDad]

55. 51 votes...

is all it takes to change the rules of the Senate...

60 votes is self-serving bullshit!

You still don't understand how the Senate really works, do you?

[Aramchek]

75. but to procede to the vote you have to be able to overcome a filibuster

study up!

[saigon68]

3. Lose their house???

That was gone a long time ago

[Carni]

18. No shit! eom

[Hello_Kitty]

4. If you're relying on UI losing your home a some point is pretty much a given.

In the vast majority of cases the benefits are not sufficient to pay your mortgage and other basic needs. Obviously the UI extension is a good thing but the Beltway insider crowd clearly doesn't understand how little it is in comparison to what you made at your previous job.

[phleshdef]

23. It can be sufficient enough if its 2 working people with 1 or both laid off.

It depends on your mortgage or rent, but its an outright lie to say that it doesn't make a lot of difference whether people are able to keep a roof over their heads. It absolutely, unarguably DOES.

I've lived it.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. I have too and I lost my house. And don't call me a liar.

[phleshdef]

41. Then don't say things that aren't true.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Don't extrapolate your situation to everyone else. It's atypical.

[phleshdef]

45. Its not an atypical situation. Its extremely common.

[prolesunited]

59. Unemployment checks kept me in my home

Good thing I bought small and live quite frugally. Now that I'm a 99er, I don't know what's next.

[Riley133]

5. I think it's fair to say

That most people, regardless of political persuasion, are tired of the fancy words and advertisements. My fear is that in 2 years we will be in the same place as we are today because the selling of the idea was more important than the implementation.

[Cant trust em]

9. Seems like ideas are always more important than implementation.

Implementation is a rarely heard word around here.

[martymar64]

69. It'll be worse because their will be several million more 99er's.

If things continue this way, it's going to get ugly.

[TwilightGardener]

7. In ProgressiveBlogLand, they wouldn't, because the clock would magically

be turned back to October and everything would be handled the right way. Or we wouldn't lose the elections. Or, the Republicans wouldn't let the unemployed starve. I think people just have a hard time accepting that this is the boat we find ourselves in.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Yep....

.... an understandable, albeit perhaps unrealistic position. (Not bashing you ... or anyone for that matter.)

[Cant trust em]

10. It's tough to feel helpless, and I think that's really where most of the frustration comes from.

It's easier to think that we had a great situation in January 2009 and our leaders squandered it by miscalculations. But honestly, I don't think that with a huge recession to climb out of, that we were really going to see much in terms of a progressive agenda. These are not normal times.

[ProSense]

11. The President is making the case for unemployment

Republicans believe it has no value.

[ProudDad]

56. And

democrats have proven themselves to be cowardly wimps...

[xchrom]

12. The fault lies with letting the two become connected.

That includes Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Right. But they are now. So what is to be done?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Giving the super rich tax breaks while people are losing their homes is immoral

[Clio the Leo]

16. So is it worth allowing the poor to suffer (more) in the name of not placating the rich?

We needed Solomon here to cut the baby in two.

[Caretha]

48. Bend over

I'll see if I can find a "Rich one" to placate you.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. I would trade Obama for 13 months of unemployment. He could resign.

I bet the Repos would trade for that.

Why isn't that offer made?

[girl gone mad]

14. If he was worried about people losing their homes..

he should have forced mortgage modifications with principal reduction back when he bailed out all of the banks.

Several million people have lost their homes due specifically to the administration's decision to make bank profits the number one priority.

[Carni]

15. Max unemployment is like 400 bucks a week

If people are on the verge of losing their homes UI benefits won't prevent that.

A decent banking bill that prevented mortgage companies from screwing with people, that forced banks to renegotiate obscene mortgage rates/terms, would have protected home owners more than 13 months of UI benefits.

I think that rationale by the Prez is spin. JMO

[phleshdef]

22. The hell it wont prevent that. I was laid off once, but my wife wasn't.

The unemployment benefits plus her smaller waged paycheck was just enough to get by until I got a new job. And thats a common situation for a LOT of people. You are trying to tell me that an extra 1600 dollars a month doesn't make a huge difference for families in situations like that?

His rationale isn't spin. Its as real as it gets.

[Carni]

29. I notice there's no mention of his preference to banks

In your heartfelt defense...

I have neighbors with two or three jobs who are behind on their mortgages and their banks will not renegotiate. They are working and are on the verge of losing their homes.

His rationale is cover for the fact that he doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP assholes who want tax cuts for million and billion-aires.

And BTW what about the 99'ers?

[phleshdef]

38. What about starving ewoks on Endor?

We aren't a utopia here. We don't have all the answers. Sure, more should be done to get the banks in line, that has nothing to do with the importance of unemployment in the middle of a jobs recession.

He was very clear on what would happen if he tried to act like he "had the balls, blah, blah blah" in his press conference today. And he is probably right. He could beat his chest about it until the cows come home. But he is dealing with some really lousy bastards that feel like they have nothing to lose by letting people get fucked if it means keeping Obama from balancing the budget. And they have no reason to think its going to cost them any votes. They voted against unemployment several times before the 2010 elections and it cost them nothing.

[martymar64]

67. 99ers are real people, Ewoks are fictional

Your contempt for people in desperate straits is sickening.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Here in AZ the max benefit is $250 per week. I was getting $150/wk the last time I drew it.

In this state when you go on UI and don't get a job soon (and aren't in the fortunate position to have a working spouse) you can reasonably expect to kiss your house goodbye.

[phleshdef]

43. All you had to say was "Here in AZ".

[slackmaster]

77. I don't understand your logic or your arithmetic, Carni

The maximum in California is $450 per week, and it certainly could make a difference. That's over $1,800 per month that a person otherwise would not be receiving.

I collected UI for about five months in 2004. I believe my benefit was $420 per week, and my house costs a little over $1,200 per month. With the UI plus the severance and unused vacation pay from my previous position, my cash flow situation for that whole time was essentially unaffected (it was as if I had been earning my previous salary the whole time).

If not for the UI, I could easily have been put at risk of losing my home.

[phleshdef]

20. This is exactly why his "sanctimonious pure and tough" comments were DEAD ON.

[jody]

26. "lose their homes"! No way if it's their home but possible if they lose a house they occupy because

they are unable to pay rent or its surrogate house-payments on a loan for which they gambled on rising house-values and lost.

Would they have shared their profits if that house doubled in value and they sold it for profit?

Why should debts of corporations and house-owners who gambled and lost be paid by tax payers who sweat for their daily bread?

[bowens43]

28. I think that his argument is nonsense.

An extension of unemployment benefits will not save anyone's home and , we could have the extension without caving to republicans. With stronger leadership we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[ProSense]

30. So what's the point of unemployment? n/t

[TwilightGardener]

32. Could've would've should've, unemployment's worthless, shouldn't have been

tied to tax cuts, etc. etc. But what do we do now?

[phleshdef]

34. Its a damn lie that it won't save anyone's home.

I was laid off for a few months just last year and if it wasn't for unemployment, we would not have been able to make our mortgage payment and pay for the other necessities. My wife didn't make much, but with her pay and the 1600 a month in unemployment, we just made it comfortable enough not to starve. I got a job after that and all was good again. It SAVED me from missing my mortgage payments.

And "losing your home" doesn't just apply to people buying a house. It also applies to people who rent a home. They have to pay the rent somewhere and you will get kicked out of an apartment for not paying your rent a lot quicker than you do for missing mortgage payments. If you think unemployment hasn't saved people from apartment evictions countless times, then you are really out of touch with whats going on out there.

An extension of unemployment benefits HAS and WILL save people from losing their home, renting and buying.

Show me the 60 votes to defeat a filibuster to get unemployment extended otherwise. Give me the names. I want to see them. Republicans have all ready been voting against the extensions. They are on record as having done so. And you can't pass something like that through reconcilation because it adds to the deficit.

[ProSense]

31. Thirty-five economists urged President and Congress to extend unemployment

PDF

Dear Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Congressman Boehner, and
Senator McConnell:

Congress must decide whether to continue the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program
(EUC), a decision that will directly affect millions of families and the entire economy. Authorization
for the additional benefits Congress has been providing since the passage of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 expires tomorrow, November 30, and millions of unemployed
workers will soon be affected. I write you out of concern for the jobless, who through no fault of their
own, cannot find work in an economy with only one job vacancy for every five unemployed workers,
and who depend on EUC to pay their rent or mortgage, pay for groceries and gas, and pay for their
heating bills and other utilities.

But I write also out of concern for the economy. Together with Lawrence Katz of Harvard University,
I gathered the signatures of 33 prominent economists on the attached statement, which warns that
letting the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program expire will weaken the economy by
reducing the spending of the unemployed and overall consumer demand. All of us agree that EUC
should be extended for another 12 months and that there is no danger that continuing to provide
extended unemployment insurance benefits will materially raise overall unemployment. We also agree
that deficit financing for EUC is prudent and will not contribute significantly to long-term deficits.
We hope that you act swiftly to renew these benefits, for the good of the economy and the well-being
of millions of deserving Americans who depend on them.

<...>

Statement from leading American economists

Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency unemployment insurance program, which provides extra
weeks of benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic policy that will not only assist the
unemployed but help maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this critical point in the recovery.
Given that there remains a historically high number of unemployed workers per job opening, there is no
danger that continuing to provide extended unemployment insurance will materially raise overall unemployment.
Eliminating these benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the long-term unemployed, scale
back spending, and weaken the economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most effective means
available to support overall demand. Unemployment has remained above 9.0% for 18 months already and
will likely remain high for some time to come, making a strong case for continuing the current program for
another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for extended unemployment insurance during recessions
have traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and this remains a prudent approach. The
program will not contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its costs will diminish automatically as
the economy recovers and unemployment returns to more normal levels.

[phleshdef]

35. I can't believe people on the LEFT are saying unemployment doesn't help people make their bills.

It undeniably has helped countless people stay in their homes throughout the whole time its existed. I'm one of these people that its saved in the past. So called liberals trying to deny something like that is blowing my mind.

[Windy]

37. I really think that the adult and sane members of the party have left DU for the most part

and have stopped watching Ed Shultz and frankly, listening to Thom Hartmann of late.

Many need a basic lesson in civics and some lessons in history!

[phleshdef]

40. Yea, this place definately isn't the same as it was in 04 when I first started snooping around.

Where did they go and how do we bring them back? We are getting buried by the crazy over here.

[Clio the Leo]

51. "This too shall pass."

.... Jesus said that. Or maybe it was Obama.

Heck, I get them confused sometimes. :)

[martymar64]

70. Now you're getting creepy.

[Caretha]

57. I'm still here

2002, UIA, my sis who helped start DU in 2001 is gone though.

PS - she would would tell you that you are full of it, btw.

edited for clarification

[phleshdef]

60. I think you should speak for yourself and not hide behind her to make snide comments.

I can take an insult fine. But I've no patience for cheap cowardice.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Who said that?

Some of us are just pointing out that when you are unemployed for an extended period, UI will probably not be sufficient for you to keep your home for long. It's not just Pres. Obama. Much of the inside-the-Beltway crowd seems utterly clueless about working people and our living expenses. As much as UI is definitely better than nothing (I sure as shit wish I were getting the lousy $150 a week I used it get right now), if politicians and pundits were forced to live off of it for a while they might get a clue and realize how badly we need jobs.

[ZombieHorde]

72. I know. When I fell rational, something weird is going on, nt

[Windy]

36. People to blame Obama and not congress who delayed bring the tax cut issue to the floor

prior to the midterms for political reasons! If Obama wouldn't have acted now, we would have unemployment and a republican controlled house and no power in the senate and then we could have ended up with nothing at all.

I give obama credit. He could have taken the "easy way out" and refused to negotiate and allow the unemployed to be without but he didn't, knowing the backlash he was going to get from the far left.

He equated the repubs to terrorist today in his press conference and he was right.

Their are some good benefits to the middle class in the compromise.

And to me, it is important to remember that the republicans now own the economy and will have a difficult time crying deficit reduction...

[NorthCarolina]

46. There will be people who will lose their homes even if this legislation passes. nt

[phleshdef]

50. No shit. We could pass single payer healthcare and people would still die.

That means nothing. You can't make the world perfect and without pain.

[TwilightGardener]

49. So, to sum up this thread: we all want to bitch about the circumstances of the deal

and engage in finger pointing, recriminations, hindsight, and insist that unemployment is worthless. But no one is able to say what we do NOW.

[Clio the Leo]

54. which is what I was thinking all along.

It was just interesting to me to see most folks IGNORE what seems to be the President's main point. But then again, I'm not really all that surprised by that.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bornskeptic]

62. Don't be so modest. Your post is much more deserving of that award.

[TwilightGardener]

63. See, and that STILL doesn't answer the question the OP posed.

[ZombieHorde]

73. You seem to be right. I hate the tax cuts, but what is the solution?

If I had one, I would spam it all over DU.

[ProudDad]

52. The when you look in the mirror tomorrow morning

take a good luck at a major architect of the situation you democrats created...

:puke:

[Skip Intro]

64. If you're living on unemployment benefits, I don't see how you could be making mortgage payments. nt

[KoKo]

65. It sounded good...but it seemed a "Red Herring." He could have "held out for Better."

He seems so dictorial/imperial (unlike how he campaigned) that I'm thinking he doesn't read the writings of Dem Economists who have "Hair on Fire" trying to Warn him against what he's doing. I know for sure he doesn't read Progressive Blogs who had members who worked "on the streets" for him.

He trashes his own Parties IDEALS every chance he gets while always seeming to feel that the REPUG RIGHT WING...OWNS THE POWER!

Does Obama WATCH TOO MUCH FOX NEWS? Do his "Advisers" ..listen to LIMBAUGH DAY AFTER DAY?

LISTENING TO MSM/FOX/LIMBAUGH and the THOUSANDS OF RW RELIGIOUS ON RADIO......COULD HAVE ROTTED HIS BRAIN...and his ADVISERS!........HE NEEDS TO BREAK HIS "HABIT"...IT's ADDICTIVE!

[Exilednight]

66. Basic economics. Short term ............

relief will be useless when compared to the long term damage.

Eventually the deficit is going to hit critical-mass. Our debt will grow to an amount that we will basically be raising taxes and and cutting spending just to pay the interest. The long term effect is an eventual complete collapse of the economy which make the current depression look like a sunny day at the beach. Quantitative easing is only adding fuel the fire. The more money we throw into the public means the dollar goes down in value.

Fuel prices are beginning to rise, again. Food prices are, also, going up, along with health-care and other necessities.

This is like asking someone if they want a broken knee now, or be in the final stages of lung cancer later.

Looks like Obama chose to defer to the later stages of lung cancer.

[martymar64]

71. On the bright side (if there is one)

I pay my $50K Student Loan directly to the Dept of Education. If the government collapses, my debt to them disappears.

[niceypoo]

76. It disappears along with the country

Let us know how that plan works out.

[martymar64]

79. Well, the fate of the country is not in my hands

But at least I'll be debt free while huddling in a Rethug run concentration camp.

The collapse of the United States is a very real possibility.

If you have any doubts, go ask the guys at the Soviet Embassy.

[lamp_shade]

74. Kick and rec.

[Union Scribe]

78. So it's NOT flamebait to say that anyone unhappy with giving the rich

more money is, in fact, a heartless fiend who is fine with the unemployed starving and losing their homes?

Interesting. See, I haven't seen ANYONE say that they would want that to happen, but I've seen LOTS of people insist that's what the critics really feel.

[derby378]

80. It's total BS

Those people are going to lose their homes anyway. The banks don't even need a reason to foreclose anymore, even if the house is paid in full. They'll foreclose "because they can" and dare the homeowners to fight them in court.