Skip to main content

The Senate has just moved forward on legislation extending emergency unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans who lost them at the end of last year, and now President Obama is continuing his push for Congressional action with a statement delivered from the White House. A live video feed is above and as he delivers his remarks, we'll post updates.

Although the extension has moved forward in the Senate, it hasn't yet passed. If and when it does, House Republicans will need to back off their Scrooge-like opposition to unemployment benefit extension.

8:42 AM PT: As we wait for the president, House Speaker John Boehner weighs in with a big fat dose of misdirection:

Boehner issues statement on Senate UI vote, says he's still insisting on pay-fors & measures to grow economy

@ZekeJMiller

8:53 AM PT: And here's the president.

8:55 AM PT: He's joined by a group of unemployed people. One of them, speaks before the president, talking about the sacrifices she has made while unemployed, but on how essential the benefits are while she looks for a new job. Heartbreaking story—makes it clear just how heartless the S.O.B.'s in Congress are who are stonewalling on the benefits.

8:57 AM PT: President Obama starts out by talking about economic growth and how the deficit has shrunk by half during his term.

8:59 AM PT: After saying that he's pleased Congress started to unwind the sequester, President Obama says extending unemployment benefits should be the first priority of Congress in 2014. He makes it clear the the benefits are a crucial lifeline for people who lost work through no fault of their own and haven't yet been able to find a new job. This isn't some right-wing fantasy about moochers — it's the real people, who are really hurting, and really need help.

9:00 AM PT: "When we've got the mom of two of our troops ... who's wearing a coat inside of her house [because she can't afford to turn up the heat], we've got a problem."

9:02 AM PT: "This is not an abstraction. These are your friends, your neighbors. It could be, at any moment, any of us." That's why we set up the unemployment insurance system, President Obama says.

9:03 AM PT: In addition to the values case, President Obama points out that economists say that UI benefits also boost the economy. In other words, this is a moral imperative, and this is a smart business move. It's something only today's Republican Party could even dream of opposing.

9:05 AM PT: This is the kind of moment where a little flash of presidential anger would be important, because these S.O.B.'s who are blocking this aid are really, really out of line.

9:09 AM PT: "Congress should pass this right away, and I'll sign it right away."

9:12 AM PT: The president wraps up his remarks: "Let's get this done."


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would be shocked if the President could not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    find, or ask the Republicans to find, some areas in the budget to cut to provide for this extension.  The hard part will be to sell those cuts to the people who are being asked to take a cut in order to provide for yet another extension to long term unemployment benefits.

    This could get ugly.

    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:47:07 AM PST

    •  There is no reason at all to trade cuts (25+ / 0-)

      in one thing for spending in another. The UI extension is the right thing to do, and the economy needs it.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:53:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except economic reality. (0+ / 0-)
        There is no reason at all to trade cuts in one thing for spending in another. The UI extension is the right thing to do, and the economy needs it.
        What color is the sky in your world?  

        “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

        by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:28:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think you want to start with me, SN (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge, jobobo

          The facts are simple: we have ample room for more deficit spending, in fact the deficit now is lower as a % of GDP than it was in 2007.

          Hurting desperate people for no particular reason doesn't make you look like a serious person, it makes you look like a cruel and wicked fool.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:33:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the amount of money involved anyway (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue aardvark, jobobo

            is trivial in terms of long-term fiscal solvency.  It's like saying you can pay the mortgage by not buying toothpaste anymore.  While there are short term cost savings, it will make future income harder to come by.   Nobody worried about future deficits would ever want more people to drop out of the workforce, nor to reduce the income of third parties that the spending by recipients of UI represents.  Since one person's spending is another person's income, strike the above household finance analogy.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:48:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Then you will have to justify printing money to (0+ / 0-)

            pay for the band aid of a three-month extension of the 2008 recession-era law that provided nearly a year of additional unemployment payments, footed by U.S. taxpayers, that kicked in when the 26 weeks of state jobless benefits ran out.  Those are benefits that will cost $6.5 billion.

            There are a lot of rhetorical questions that are sure to be asked during this debate, like how long should someone be allowed to collect?  Is a year too long?   Is there anyone who cannot find a job that pays more than unemployment in a year?  

            I don't think it's cruel and wicked to ask those questions.   They need to be asked, if the public is going to be asked to pay for it.  The "particular reason" for asking is a serious reason.   The people who have to pay get to have the final say, not the Senate alone.  

            I am not a heartless person.   I am just a realist.  

            “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

            by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:12:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Austerity has failed in Europe (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jobobo

              We have the advantage of multiple simultaneous experiments, which is rare in economics, so we know as a fact that austerity is counter-productive.

              Therfore borrow the money, print the necessary bonds, and keep those benefits going without cutting something else. Anything else defies real-world economics.

              If your theories suggest otherwise, then your theories are wrong.

              I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

              by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:21:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It must be nice to be so sure of yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                The Weimar Republic could have used your skills.  

                I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Economics.  

                 

                “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

                by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:35:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  People who have won that agree with me (0+ / 0-)

                  E.G., Dr. Krugman.

                  You'll be hard pressed to find someone with any credentials at all on yours.

                  And by credentials I mean:
                  1) PhD in economics
                  2) Not currently employed by the Koch brothers via American Enterprise, Cato, et cetera. Those economists are paid to lie and they know it

                  I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

                  by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:49:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And the President won the Nobel Peace Prize. (0+ / 0-)

                    Drone on without me, please.  

                    “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

                    by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:53:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  As though that vitiates all Nobels ever on (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SpamNunn

                      any topic.

                      Seriously, though, you haven't said a coherent thing in this entire thread and your silly patronizing tone of someone who is quite clearly better informed than you are makes you look quite the fool.

                      Put that in your earphones and let it drone.

                      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

                      by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:03:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Regarding unemployment ... (0+ / 0-)

              It's just a fact of life that it's easier to get a job if you're employed, and the longer you are unemployed, the less attractive you are as a candidate.

              It's also a fact of life that we still don't have enough jobs for everyone to get off of unemployment.

              Are those things that should be addressed? Most definitely! No one wants to just keep everyone "on the dole" indefinitely.

              But in the meantime, well, people have to eat.

              ‎"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

              by jobobo on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:44:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Shouldn't there be a cut to pay for the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        losses predicted if unemployment does not pass? After all Moody's estimates that economy gains $1.55 for every dollar paid in unemployment. With  3.9M unemployed more qualifying for long term unemployment as year goes on the economic loss will be close to $100B.
        (Other estimates are higher but couldn't find them quickly)

        Since the Democrats want to pass the extension and avoid these losses the 100 billion will have to come from republican sacred cows. Just to be fair and balanced.

        and oh what they will owe for their food stamp cuts that have an even higher rate of return.
        Plus where is the repayment for the shutdown?

        republicans are either so stupid that they do not understand economic impact or are just willing to make us suffer that loss for the thrill of hurting those in need.

        It is so damn ugly.

        I still recall July 2010 when Senate did not have the 60 cloture votes to vote on extending  unemployment and went home for the  July 4th recess allowing the benefits to end. Orrin Hatch demanded unemployment benefits should be contingent on passing a drug test and wasn't alone. There were so many statements shaming those who needed the benefits to go along with the halt in the benefits themselves.
        That extension didn't pass until July 22nd, leaving people with no income for most of the month. They were retroactive but people went through the fear and shame and hassle.

        It started being an issue as soon as we lost the super majority. By early 2010 there has been fights and charges and short extensions...
        That Obama/boehner agreement everyone hated in late 2010 at least extended those benefits for 13 months...a great relief.

        Now here we are again. I was sickened that people would go home for a 'patriotic" 4th leaving their fellow citizens in such need. This time it was the 'religious' Christmas holidays.

    •  Tax cuts for the rich? (12+ / 0-)

      Taxpayer funded subsidies for multi-billion dollar corporations?  

      Tax cuts for corporations who feel no responsibility to do their social share in their personhoods.

      These three could probably fund a lot.

      Then of course there's removing the congressional GOPer's salaries, benefits and perks, as previously stated, since they don't actually work, unless you call drumming up fear and hate to get re-elected working.  I don't.

      The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

      by AnnieR on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:09:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The rich are exempt. No new pay4's --- oops taxes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnieR

        The rich don't pay4.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:35:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Suggestion three... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnieR

        Yes, absolutely there should be cuts to Congressional salaries, benefits and perks!  After all, they are the ones who failed to create jobs bills or propose and pass any jobs-related bills.  Why punish the people who cannot find non-existent jobs?  Punish the people who failed, repeatedly, to do anything whatsoever to address the needs of a sizable segment of our society.  

        Maybe if Congress members are suddenly under the gun, they'd get off their sofas and do some work, creating jobs programs.  Currently, they feel no urgency; they just accuse the jobless of being lazy and let it go at that, meanwhile collecting generous salaries, benefits and perks for doing nothing.  Nothing!    

        Maybe Congress members should be paid only at the end of their terms, with their pay directly related to the amount of problems they actually solved.  

        And of course your suggestions one and two -- ending subsidies and tax cuts for corporations -- should be enacted as well.  

    •  let the house make the first move, then. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, red rabbit, Matt Z

      it's abundantly clear, however, that republicans don't want to offset this spending because they don't want to extend UI to begin with.  

      "yet another," wtf?  to the extent the people being asked to take the cuts in your offset hypothetical are NOT long-term unemployed, i could give less of a fuck, as almost certainly their detriment would not outweigh the benefit of an extension.  So, yeah, concern troll is concerned.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:10:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  aw, give Spam a break (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Egalitare, Wildfaery, Matt Z

        he's very concerned about the long suffering defense contractors and oil companies.  
        Let those long-term unemployed starve, that'll motivate them to find a job!

        •  Or "create their own opportunities" (6+ / 0-)

          You know. Home invasion. Substance dealing. "Creative" scrap metal "acquisition."

          I have a few former classmates who lived fast and died hard. I have some who were skilled masons, welders, carpenters, etc. who haven't held full-time gigs longer than my ten years removed from full-time employment. One got arrested a year ago for being one of the principles in a home invasion gang.

          Not exactly the "entrepreneurial energy" most of us want to see result from adversity, I believe.

          Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

          by Egalitare on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:41:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  good point! (0+ / 0-)

          a little tough love is all they need  . ..

          in all seriousness, once the offset debate gets going, it turns into a political fight over that and the UI folks become sidelined.  Democrats would say pay for it thru tax loopholes; Republicans will go after federal worker COLAs, and the whole thing just turns into a mess.  As Matthew Broderick learned in War Games, the only way to win is not to play.  The Republicans should actually thank Obama for not proposing to finance it through jet depreciation or some such.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:46:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, Spam just realizes that any extension of (0+ / 0-)

          the long term unemployment benefits must be paid for, and not with money borrowed from China.   What is so hard to understand about the simple economics of what is being proposed?   We can't just print more money.   If it's considered "concern trolling" to point out an economic reality, call me guilty.  

          How would you fund it?

          “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

          by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:26:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what is the solution? (0+ / 0-)

            Let more people go hungry, lose their homes, not participate in the "buy, buy, buy" economy so even more people have their hours cut or laid off?

            The powers that be can find money for all sorts of things, when they want to.  They NEED to for this - preventing more people from falling into poverty is IMPORTANT.

            •  Your kind heart is admirable. (0+ / 0-)
              The powers that be can find money for all sorts of things, when they want to.
              Let's see if they find it here.   I suspect that politics will make that a hard row to hoe.

              “Most people are willing to take the Sermon on the Mount as a flag to sail under, but few will use it as a rudder by which to steer.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

              by SpamNunn on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:01:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  well, since nothing you said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boogalord

            resembles economic reality, i stand by the claim.  Not all deficit spending is bad, and if we're going to do it at all, automatic stabilizers providing a safety net for people who have to have worked and be seeking work as a condition of receiving insurance, is about the best kind.  This "borrowing money from China" meme is a nice bit of xenophobia, and overlooks that the Chinese, and Canadians, and Americans*, are demanding very little in short term interest rates, against which backdrop deficit spending with a known growth multiplier makes eminent sense.  Even Bowles-Simpson accepted the need for short term spending to boost the economy.  Over the longer term, UI is necessary because people who are unemployed for longer may find deteriorating skills or depleted savings.  As long as the job market operates on a first-fired, last-hired model (as may be rational for individual employers), we have a greater need for spending to give income stability for long-term unemployed, and relatively less need for short-term.  And this is without even addressing infrastructure and skills investments, just minimum efforts to keep body and soul together.  These workers will continue to spend money on staple foods, haircuts, etc., and thus provide income to other burghers whose income would otherwise be lost.

            This is not confidential information.

            *U.S. treasuries are purchased by different countries roughly in proportion to size of GDP.  China, as the world's second largest economy, represents an increasing share, but still less than the amount purchased by Americans on the open market, as the world's even bigger economy.  It has nothing to do with Red Menace leveraged buyouts, and everything to do with the U.S. DOllar beign a markt of global stability and reserve currency.  Whether China buys T-bills to keep its currency low is another question, but the immediate effect is to make borrowing by the federal government virtually costless.  In addition, owe the bank a little, the bank has power over you; owe the bank a lot, you have power over the bank.  China has a vested interest in the U.S.'s ability to repay its obligations, and that is not a bad thing.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:01:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Boehner, I know how to grow the economy (16+ / 0-)

    pass the UI extension bill.  It'll even partially pay for itself.  As for the rest, I think people who only work 113 days per year - as the House will be doing - should have their pay cut to match.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:51:05 AM PST

    •  unfortunately, that's unconstitutional. (0+ / 0-)

      this echoes too closely arguments about cutting federal civil service employee salaries -- i actually question whether congressional pay is too low to attract talented people or anyone other than those with independent means.  The composition of Congress speaks for itself.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:15:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no it's not unconstitutional (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildfaery

        at least not for Congress to vote to decrease their pay in accordance with the amount of time they actually work, or to cut their pay for any reason whatsoever.
        I'd like to know what part of the Constitution prevents a congressional pay cut, while allowing for pay increases.

        And it's not the salary that prevents non-millionaires from running for office, it's the cost of the campaigns.  

        •  27th amendment, (0+ / 0-)

          any pay cut wouldn't take effect until next term, so it wouldn't offset increasing UI now.  113 days in session is not the same as 113 days on the job, either.  Is someone like Keith Ellison just cooling his heels 252 days of the year?  He is not.  The amendment also says "no law varying the compensation" -- to me  that's broad enough to  mean increase, decrease, or a change from fixed salary to pro rata.  

          And what you suggest does nothing about the cost of campaigns, although once they win, they often have to maintain two homes.  And it need not be prohibitive, just not worthwhile, except to maybe ideologues.  The more gulf there is between what Congress pays and what lobby firms pay, the more will go by lobbyists.   I'd rather shelve the cheap populism (and it is truly cheap) and try to make sure the Congressional salary goes to better Congressmen.  The problem isn't the investment, just the return on it.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:43:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it gets offset over a two year period then. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wildfaery

            I was clearly talking generally about congress' ability to change its own pay, which you generally claimed was unconstitutional.    
            And I wasn't proposing solutions to the cost of campaigns, although there are several, just pointing out the main reason why so many choose not to run--and it's not because of the very generous salary they receive in the upper $100,000 range.  That's a lot and I don't care who you are, even if you have to share an apartment in D.C.  

            •  no, i don't think that's what i said (0+ / 0-)

              offsetting this, specific spending in FY 2014 with pay cuts would be unconstitutional.  There's no implication about the power generally, because no offset that would extend past however long they extend UI, a matter of weeks.

              Not saying members of Congress are starving, but most members of Congress are educated professionals who could -- and usually did -- make more money, so it stands to reason good people are deterred from running at the margin, unless they already have way more money than what a working doctor or lawyer would pull down, and others just get sick of being an older middle aged grown-up and living in a group house (which may or may not involve Chuck Schumer eating all of your cereal) and cash out when the opportunity is there.  In terms of the federal budget, it's a drop in the bucket, anyway.

              The bigger concern is underpaying congressional staff -- that's where you really find basic talent being outsourced to lobby firms because it's hard to hold on to staff.  The same is true of judges -- people who take that job are either very egotistical, very ideological, or simply very public spirited.  Which do you think is the least common?

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:42:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  John Boehner is a great idiot (17+ / 0-)

    UI is a way to grow the economy - a couple of hundred thousand jobs per CBO.

    As for "pay-fors", I suggest taxing stupidity.

    I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:52:15 AM PST

  •  The Pentagon has all (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo, JeffW, AnnieR, wader, tb mare, 88kathy

    The "pay-fors" Boehner could ever need.  

  •  Are there no prisons?......no workhouses? (6+ / 0-)
  •  Here's hoping that (9+ / 0-)

    Obama and Congressional Democrats stand firm against GOP intransigence, and remember the importance of doing everything that is within their own power to get this important legislation passed.

    Let the GOP keep playing defense on this issue.

    "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.” -Confucius

    by pierre9045 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:55:55 AM PST

  •  That's not the President speaking! (0+ / 0-)

    This is brilliant, and hard to hear.

    Okay, here he is. Wow.

  •  Obama reasons. Boehner demands. (7+ / 0-)

    It's well past time Obama used the only bully pulpit a president has: Address the nation in prime time and TELL the public what these lunatics have been doing for the last 5 years, and will continue to do throughout 2014.

  •  I think we should find "pay fors" for (7+ / 0-)

    the salaries, benefits and perks of the GOP in congress.  It's way past time.  Of course I would also support a pay as you work program for all of them.  That might be a better approach to get those living off the public teat back to work.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:06:46 AM PST

  •  No need to tie to pay-fors. The country (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, Wildfaery, Davidsfr, I love OCD

    gets more back than it puts in with UI.  The only pay-fors I would accept is a reduction of subsidies to old industry (oil, coal etc.) which the GOP will never accept.  UI extension is popular.  Just stay the course and see what happens.  These are the types of issues which cause Republicans to lose Senate races.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:12:00 AM PST

  •  GOP want to rob you of your dignity.....self (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, Wildfaery, PhilK

    respect.....Fuck 'em.

  •  Nobody is covering this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildfaery

    CNBC aren't, and Bloomberg just cut away.

    Which is probably fortunate because Obama sounds less than passionate.

    9:05 AM PT: This is the kind of moment where a little flash of presidential anger would be important, because these S.O.B.'s who are blocking this aid are really, really out of line.
    •  I find both your statements doubtful. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, I love OCD
      •  With the exception of C-Span (0+ / 0-)

        Usually Bloomberg stays till the president wraps up. They cut away half way through. CNBC didn't cut to Obama's speech once.

        And considering how awful MSNBC and CNN are in the morning/afternoon, I'd be amazed if they stayed with it for the duration.

    •  The President used real life suffering people as (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, askew, I love OCD, wader, Loge, edwardssl

      an example of how devastating this issue really is. When he spoke about people wearing coats in their homes. And people who are unable to feed their children.... Passion? Really?

      •  Really! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildfaery, TJ

        No passion. And if I misunderstood Jed's update, no genuine anger. Obama sounded more exasperated and looked like he was going through the motions. Which, after 5 years of Boner and the t-bags, is probably justified.

        •  If you feel you need Obama to yell in order for (6+ / 0-)

          Republicans to pass any legislation that they are blocking because of Obama himself you haven't been paying attention.

          So let me see if I get this straight. All Obama had to have done in five years of sabotage is jump up and down and cry I'm upset I'm upset, I'm upset, for the Republicans to stop their destruction of this country.

          Let us send Obama the memo stop showing suffering people, the key to get to Republicans is to say "I'm passionate."

          As always, it's all about Obama.

          •  You don't have to yell in order to show passion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wildfaery

            or get all pissy like Bush did, which still made spineless Democrats jump. As I mentioned upthread, the only bully pulpit has president has is an address from the Oval Office during prime time. These late morning/early afternoon speeches with "real folks" in the background don't work.

            •  btw, considering how the GOP have abused power (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wildfaery

              I consider it a huge missed opportunity Obama hasn't abused the power of the bully pulpit (aka "The White House") in the last 5 years. For starters, he should've used the Oval Office to push for a bigger Stimulus.

              •  One last thing. (0+ / 0-)

                Obama better switch to campaign season gear pretty soon and start showing some intensity. Because in less than a year's time, he could be made a lame duck president for real. Even after a GOP orchestrated  shutdown, it's looking increasingly likely that Boehner will still be Speaker, with a 50-50 chance of McConnell becoming Senate Majority Leader.

            •  counterproductive (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NedSparks

              the republicans would love to make this about them versus Obama, because that keeps their base connected to them.  If it's about the people suffering, the base doesn't support the GOP leadership position.  If Obama let the anger translator out, that's on the news, a la, Dean scream, and the republicans can make it into the partisan fight they want.  I'm sure the idea of kicking a fit occurred to the WH communications staff, they just spend more time on the issue and think past it.

              The time for a oval office address is when the public needs convincing; this isn't the case.  What should scare the republicans is a threat of on-the-ground organizing, as represented by the people inthe room; and the President didn't do anything to blow up the bill.  Boehner still has room to pass the thing quietly and pretend the whole thing never happened, which is what everybody should want.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:07:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  he really needs tougher language...this nice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, PorridgeGun

      guy tone is a real loser. I agree, he shows little passion and I am as pro Obama you can possibly get,

  •  ON top of it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, Wildfaery, I love OCD, wader

    Here in CT our weather is 2 degrees today.  Wind Chills will take it to 15below with gusts of over 50mph.  That poor woman and countless others will not only have to wear a coat but several layers and gloves INSIDE THEIR HOMES just to stay warm.

    These heartless fuckers who so callously screw over the less fortunate among us should be dragged out into the cold, stripped naked and allowed to be exposed to the elements until they say uncle.  It wouldn't take that long since they're mostly soft pudgy well off bastards who don't know a fucking thing about suffering even a bit.

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:24:29 AM PST

  •  Using up the clock (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PorridgeGun, Wildfaery, wader, ArchTeryx

    GOP dragging their feet on this -- something that's obviously going to pass eventually -- is just using up time on the clock. It forces Obama & Democrats to spend time and energy on something that should have taken 5 minutes.

    “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:28:02 AM PST

    •  But it's a great issue for the Dems (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wildfaery, I love OCD, wader, Positronicus

      So why the fuck would the GOP want to use up the clock on this?  So everyone can remember that the GOP cut their unemployment benefits?  If they were smart they'd pass it as quickly and quietly as possible and be done with it.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:39:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you were GOP, which would you rather hear? (0+ / 0-)

        A. Obama giving a 20 minute speech on extending unemployment benefits.

        B. Obama giving a 20 minute speech on raising the minimum wage.

        In the first case, you're forcing Obama to spend time & energy re-winning a battle that's already been won countless times before. He has to gin up a big head of steam just to get the ball back to the status quo line of scrimmage.

        In the second case, Obama has already passed the line of scrimage, and is moving the ball down the field. Even though the economic arguments are similar, GOP would much rather burn time losing a debate on unemployment benefits than they would (potentially) losing a debate on the minimum wage.

        “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

        by Positronicus on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:07:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Either way you look like a smug rich entitled ass. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Positronicus

          So I'm not sure what they gained by it.  Both issues tie into one another and if anything they're adding to a building narrative that the GOP is the party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich and everyone else can go fucking die.  

          I would understand if they were forcing his hand on addressing Benghazi but that horse has been flogged to an indistinguishable bloody pulp.  Worse, in the end we find out that it was actually a giraffe and not a horse like Obama has been telling us all along.  

          It's not a good move by the GOP.  It makes them look like colossal dicks and whoever came up with the brilliant idea for them to oppose the extension should be put out to pasture with the people who came up with other notable bright ideas like appealing to AA teens by having Michael Steele trying to talk ghetto.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:55:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree 100%. But since when has GOP been afraid (0+ / 0-)

            to look like colossal dicks?

            They are colossal dicks.

            To them, it's a feature, not a bug.

            “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

            by Positronicus on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:35:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  not so sure that it will pass eventually (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Wildfaery, wader, Positronicus

      the Repubs will just point to this as evidence of Obama's "failures" to pass more tax cuts, elimation of regulations, and cuts to SS and Medicare--only this will lead to economic prosperity in their warped minds, and only voting them out of office will stop their obstruction of sanity.  

    •  "Running out the clock" on the Obama presidency (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wildfaery, Positronicus

      is exactly what I've been saying for the last 3 years, as far as GOP strategy is concerned. Notice how Obama has been able perform his duties as Commander in Chief (Bin Laden raid, Iran Nuclear Deal, etc.) without any problems, and on his timetable? If the Senate had its way, we'd be at war with Iran by now.

  •  We should be hearing from the Secretary of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, Wildfaery, wader

    Labor on this one as well as Obama, and it should get shrill.  Turn the heat off in congress and lock the doors until they vote on it.  We need to see who which rats have the biggest teeth.

    We could use Ted Kennedy's ghost to do the impassioned censuring of a congress that is putrified and smells like it even in the cold.

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:39:17 AM PST

  •  Where was Obama in December? (0+ / 0-)

    You know, when they actually passed a budget? That's right, signing the budget without UI extensions, and not even making a peep about it.

     Amazing people still think he cares.

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:44:47 AM PST

  •  If we give the GOP a credit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildfaery

    against the $24B they siphoned out of the economy during the shutdown, I think we might have a deal!  I'm calling Ted Cruz right now.

  •  Dim Bulb Boehner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildfaery
    Boehner issues statement on Senate UI vote, says he's still insisting on pay-fors & measures to grow economy
    '

    Extending unemployment benefits increase aggregate demand, employment and output, i.e., they grow the economy.  Apparently Rep. Boehner didn't take macroeconomic principles.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:25:13 AM PST

  •  Nothing Wrong With "Pay Fors" (0+ / 0-)

    Its the specific type of "Pay For" that's the problem.  The Republicans are definitely not interested in a "Pay For" that takes money (in the form of government subsidies) from Big Oil, Big Farma, or by closing corporate loopholes.  The only "Pay For" they are interested in is one that takes money from cuts in government programs that help the poor.  In essence an ideal Republican "Pay For" is one that takes money from one group of poor people to give to another group of poor people.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:25:19 AM PST

  •  Memo to Boehner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildfaery, stewarjt

    re "measures to grow the economy": Giving unemployment to people with no other income does help the economy, because they pretty much go out and spend every penny of it, which helps at least maintain the level of economic activity in their communities. It's a pretty direct stimulus method.

    So are food stamps, for the same reason.

    They are either dumb, cruel, or disingenuous.

  •  gbvfg (0+ / 0-)

    my buddy's step-aunt makes $82/hr on the computer. She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $18010 just working on the computer for a few hours. read this…. http://www.dub30.com

  •  Watched Marsha Blackburn interview prior to Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Marsha Blackburn spurns unemployment benefit extension in favor of obstructionist, do-nothing Congress creating jobs for all from thin air. It'll never happen, could certainly never happen along any meaningful timeline to be of help to the unemployed, a lot of people will get hurt if this lie sells, she's completely full of shit and she totally knows it. This courts genuine evil and I don't say that lightly or very often.

    Contrast that garbage with the words of President Barack Obama: "Hope is contagious." So simple. And beautiful. I'm proud of him. Again.

    @iSenseChange

    "If that's what Fallujah is, then what's that band with all the Mexican kids in it?"

    by iSenseChange on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:38:57 PM PST

  •  So once again... (0+ / 0-)

    ...Once again it all comes down to Boehner deciding whether he will enforce the Hastert Rule or not, am I right?

    @iSenseChange

    "If that's what Fallujah is, then what's that band with all the Mexican kids in it?"

    by iSenseChange on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:41:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site