If I was collecting Unemployment!
 

I'd be BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! Thank you John Kerry

May 11, 2004
Senate Rejects Extending Jobless Benefits
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:21 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate by a single vote rejected an election-year effort Tuesday to extend federal unemployment benefits.

Democrats tried to attach the benefit to a corporate tax bill. On a 59-40 vote in the GOP-controlled Senate, they fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year's budget agreement.

Mass. Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was the only senator who missed the vote. Kerry was campaigning Tuesday in Kentucky.

The amendment would have offered emergency federal unemployment benefits for six months, temporarily giving 13 weeks of extra assistance to people who exhaust their state benefits -- typically 26 weeks.

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent last month as employers added nearly 300,000 new jobs. The Labor Department has reported that payrolls have risen for eight months in a row, with almost 900,000 new jobs created so far this year, most within the last two months.

Republicans seized on April's employment report as evidence that more federal unemployment benefits are not needed.

``The employment picture in this country is looking up, by any measure,'' said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. ``I believe it's time to end the program.''

Democrats said the extended benefits are needed because the economic recovery still hasn't replaced 1.5 million jobs lost since President Bush took office.

``Keep our social compact and extend these needed unemployment benefits,'' said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said it would have cost $5.8 billion to offer the temporary benefits, which would have been drawn from $13.3 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund. Republicans said it would cost $9 billion.

Democrats also tried in February to extend unemployment benefits. That effort, too, failed narrowly, although it had the support of 12 Republicans from states hit hard by layoffs

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rint&position=

Wait...I'm sorry. You're blaming Kerry because he wasn't there? How about blaming the 40 senators who voted against it?

my thoughts exactly

Maybe he's thanking Kerry for not being there to contribute his vote for the measure, thereby insuring that it didn't pass?

OK, sure Kerry should have been there, but--unless you think this was all part of some elaborate plan--not being there doesn't "insure" anything. :hmm:

Not to bait, but where did it say that anyone had a right to unemployment?
It's a short term help solution that the government does for it's citizens that is in no way garuanted nor should it last more than a couple months.

I for one am glad an extension did not pass.

You people don't get the point, it was important vote for alot of people, and only 1 senator didnt show up to vote. I wonder why he didnt show up, could it be that he would of had to take a stand on something.
Whether you are for or against unemployment insurance, when you get laid off, you are damn glad to have it, and a few extra weeks can make a big difference.

Could it be that he was busy campaigning for the presidency and couldn't make it back? Oh no, wait, that would make too much sense.

I give up, John Kerry is campaigning on jobs and getting people back to work, etc. and here is a very important vote for people who are unemployed, something the democratic party is for. And Kerry is busy campaigning in Kentuckey?
By the way, unemployment means that you are out of a job, maybe from the dreaded outsourcing to India. I guess the liberals have abandoned this forum. And you wonder why there is no debate anymore. Just look at the replies above.

Ha! Coincidentally 11 Republicans supported the Bill. Looks like John was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/kerry.vote/

Did: "John Kerry would rather waste time in Washington with the fatcats and bigwigs supporting legislation that didn't even have a hope of passing than spend time listening to the good folk of Kentucky. Is there something about Kentucky that SCARES John Kerry."

Didn't: "John Kerry doesn't do his job and won't take a stand. He rather sit on a campaign tour bus watching French movies on DVD and drinking Champagne from the mini bar."

echo...echo...echo...echo...

Personally I disagree with his choice. I would've taken a potentially Custerlike stand in Washington. Then again, I have the luxury of not being a person who's running for President.:D

Insert troll picture here.

What did you want? People yelling about this? This is the reality of campaigning. Bush is doing the same thing. He's already locked into re-election mode.

I thought you promised that you weren't going to start threads like this anymore.

In my opinion, I think Kerry should have made some sort of effort to make the vote and get this passed. I, however, do not know the specifics. What was the turnaround time on the vote? i.e. how much in advance did the Senators know this vote was going to be held. Often, when there is a controversial issue, the party in power speeds up the process or slows it down to prevent certain parties from being there. I have no proof that this is what happened, but I would not rule it out - does anyone have any info on this?

Also, I think that for the long term stability and prosperity of this nation, it is more important that Kerry be out there working to get elected and getting President Bush out of the White House. Essentially, he is robbing Peter to pay Paul, something every one who is an elected official who is running for office has to do.

Then perhaps he should have quit his job before he ran for president, and we wouldn't be having these unfortunate scheduling conflicts between fundraising/campaigning and doing the job he was elected to do. For that matter, why did Kerry run for reelection in 2002 when he was already planning his presidential campaign? That is the problem with career politicians of either party, they're more concerned with their career than their constituents.

betcha won't see this in any televised news reports.

This is such a weak agruement I am almost tempted to just leave it alone. Did President Bush resign his post as Governor while running for President? No he did not .

If your point is that all candidates, (except presumably incumbants) should not be a current office holder then you have a more valid point. I would, however, respectfully agree to disagree with you on that issue.

And what would that prove? That it's a non-story, or that there's a "vast, liberal bias"? Sorry, but I'm with the former on this one.

the latter more than the former, true there are alot bigger stories out there but as you can see that it does have some importance just look at jcookc6. I think that if the roles were reversed (bush and kerry) there would have been a much larger buzz about it.

False. I saw this on both MSNBC and CNN.

drawerfixer

I guess I lost the bet. Still think it would have been a larger story if it had been someone else.

Thank God Kerry didn't make it. Extending unemployment benefits is a solution to a problem which doesn't even appear to exist anymore.

Keep on stumping you old Senator. Your bid for the White House has created at least one positive outcome.

The presumptive mantra that not extending them is a travesty of any mentionable order is disturbing.

-bear

I did promise that I wouldnt post anymore articles, but I did, does it sound like something, someone we know would do? Maybe it is time to start posting Eddie Kennedy stories.

RIGHT ON.

How much are we supposed to keep giving and giving to people who won't take the responsibility to provide for themselves, anyway?

I wonder how long it is before America becomes a full-fledged miserable socialist cesspool, and another country will have to be colonized and founded upon the principles this one was originally. At this rate I give it 30 years.

Kerry trolls started by jcookc6:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=52177
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=53334
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=53832
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=54124
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=43585

Trolls like this bring down the level of intelligent conversation in Tilted Politics, and encourage newbies to think that trolling is OK.

As I recall, Kerry has, on many occasions, said that he would make himself available for votes where it would be critical. I think that's a perfectly acceptable strategy. That being said, either the Democratic leadership of the Senate (e.g., Ted Kennedy) knew it would be a close vote and did not inform him of the need to attend, they miscalculated how close of a vote it would be, or Kerry did not answer when called. I would like to know which is the truth but don't believe anyone will bother investigating it.

If he failed to answer the call then the story is about Kerry not following through on one of his promises. <gasp> That means he lied and since there's so much BS being thrown around in the Kerry and Democratic camps about Bush's lying then the hypocrisy should be outed.

If he was never called back to vote, then the story is about the Democratic leadership of the Senate. Either they totally miscalculated how close of a vote it would be (almost unheard of since a big portion of their job is gaining the requisite number of votes to pass the legislation which they support) or they didn't make the effort to get him back to vote (maybe they thought his campaigning was more important than the legislation?). In that case it's much less of a story in my eyes.

I think this is great, get a fucking job you lazy bastards! People stay on unemployment for as many weeks as they are allowed, then try to find a job. Fuck'em

I would tend to agree.....You do seem to be reaching at this point Jcook. I probably dislike Kerry as mush as you do but, this is standard fair in the senate. If you really want to make more people dislike the man, wait for news that matters.

It is better to remain silent, and be considered a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

As for the topic in question:

Yes, he should have been there, it is his job.
No, I do not consider his missing vote important.

Benefits have been extended quite enough already, and to me at least seem to be bordering on federal welfare. I do feel for those out of work but, unemployment benefits are not the answer, they are a stopgap measure to cushion economic impact on families and individuals. In my opinion, anyone who cannot find some form of work within a year, is simply not trying hard enough, or is unwilling to compromise.

How about this: Get a job and stop sponging off me.

Absolutely.

Agreed. Nearly every person I know that has lost their jobs has remained on unemployment as long as possible, and miraculously, just when it is about to end, they find a job.

I think that we should decrease the length of time unemployment is available, or at least make the requirements more stringent to qualify for it.

Just my two cents

Well I had a friend who was on unemployment cuz the company he worked for went out of buisness. He really tried hard to find a job while on unemployment but nothing really worked out for him, it wasn't until about 3 months after his unemployment checks stopped that he found a job.