bravely rated and reviewed, etc.

"So what you're saying is that these are rotten apples."

"No, not at all, I'm saying that our apples have rotted. That's not the same."

If what she is saying is keep unemployment benefits the same but continue to pay part thereof to part time workers or workers on low incomes then I agree with her. That is the system used in Australia and seems to be less worse than most others.

Alternatively, I spent 12 months earning less than my then unemployed then girlfriend in the first year of my apprenticeship. She received about a week less than me unemployment benefits plus rent assistance that I could not receive due to working 38 hours a week in a sodium cyanide plant. Still, this week I made the final payment of my mortgage whereas I suspect my ex is probably still sitting in front of the TV drinking 2 litres of coke a day (if her bones haven't snapped by now). If the job provides training and career prospects, people will do it for a loss of income. Flipping burgers... not so much.

I hate this woman but she's right on at least one count. Unemployment pays better than most jobs available to the people on unemployment. But that's because we allow companies to pay significantly less than a livable wage to their workers.

It also sounds like she thinks benefits shouldn't always be completely cut off when someone finds work. I definitely agree there too.

The system as it stands encourages long-term unemployment and helps no one, least of all the people receiving benefits.

It seems like a decent idea to help get people back into the workforce and get them the same amount of money as normal unemployment is now. It also helps combat the other problem involving employment--employers routinely toss out resumes of people who aren't currently employed. Of course, we could go and find some way to regulate that part of it to make sure employers are fairly checking every resume, but we all know how often that'll go enforced...

This all seems like a good idea. It's taking the moderate side of things rather than either of the extremes. It lowers the costs of unemployment and keeps people from starting at the bottom of the ladder all over again. There's probably some way to exploit workers through this, but I can't see it immediately on the surface. Maybe it'll just inspire workers to go job-hopping through shit ass jobs once every two months to keep the benefits rolling in.

"It lowers the costs of unemployment and keeps people from starting at the bottom of the ladder all over again"

What?

Can you make a "shut up you cunt" tag?

You all seem to be forgetting that we are still in a recession that shed millions of jobs from our economy. People are not staying on unemployment because they're lazy, they literally can't find jobs.

The reason we want to extend unemployment benefits is so that those people can pay their rent, buy food, etc to keep our economy moving until we can start adding jobs.

She's not even using the GOP's actual talking point of why they're not extending unemployment. They're not saying people are lazy, they're saying that we need to be able to pay for this bill and not add to the deficit (which they suddenly care about).

Her message makes sense outside of a recession and corruption within the unemployment system is a real problem. But that is not the debate they're having in Washington right now and can't be our debate during a recession. Once we start creating jobs again then we can worry about who's fucking over the system.

For now there are millions of people who have worked all their lives and paid into this system and are now not getting the return on their investment.

If you don't believe me read these comments from unemployed Republicans commenting on their leaders cutting off their benefits last week.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/30/873801/-WSJ-Republ ican-Voices-who-just-lost-their-Unemployment-Benefits*UPDATE*