Anti-unemployed is such a DNC talking point.

Conservatives are not "anti-unemployed", but there has to be a limit somewhere.  Last I looked, people were getting unemployment benefits for up to two years at least in some parts of the States.  Two years?

When does it stop becoming unemployment and begin being welfare? 

ID:  fine and dandy.  But why choose to draw the line now during the worst economic crisis in modern history?

Out of curiosity, when you've got one long sitting gop senator thinking that the unemployed folks are drug addicts and another possibly soon to be gop gal saying that the unemployed are lazy/entitled, and an entire party line voting against the extention of benefits:  if that's not an anti-unemployed sentiment, what do you call it? 

DG:  Apparently at least 2.  Sharon Angle and ID just did it now.  Hatch just implied that there all a bunch of degenerates. 

Maybe Krugman is more on than I thought: 

By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.

I mean really, even if you're going to pull this shit under the guise of cutting government spending, why not just cut actual government spending where nobody cares?  Why pick human targets? 

It just doesn't politically make sense.  At all. 

It doesn't have to be called anything.  The fact is the longer someone is on government assistance the more dependent they become.  

As I said, where does it end?  Another year, then comes another extension, and then again, and again, and again.  

Sure, and while you are at it, go ahead and buy the mercedes you cannot afford.  Again. DEMOCRATS and Republicans voted (and Obama screamed he was going to) PAY AS YOU GO.  Apparently the only ones with any integrity are the republicans (not in all cases, but in this one).

I love how it's called extensions when it's obvious they had this planned all along as another "here's a 20% discount with every purchase" sales pitch to get people to like Obama and ignore the failures.

This is no longer unemployment, it's welfare. I should know, my parents were on welfare when i was young. Hell, I was the family interpreter for the welfare office. I have had unemployment and let me tell you while it's great to have a back up plan such as this even I know this can not last forever and it has to end some time.

Extensions will only push back a bit the inevitable truth that this Administration failed to accomplish that which they said would be fixed by the stimulus bill. I have nothing against those who are unemployed but seeing as this situation may not start to fix itself and jobs will not start to truly be created for another year or 2, will we be giving unemployment till this happens? Will we extend unemployment for 4, maybe 5 years? As ID asked, when will this end? Where is the limit?

This is not about hurting the unemployed, it's about facing the facts that we can not just keep giving money away during a time when the economy is screwed. By the same token that this is a bad time to go against the extension due to the economy, you ignore the fact that this is a bad time to be overspending due to the economy since overspending is what got us here in the first place.

Makes me wonder just how temping those jobs only illegals will do are these days compared to unemployment.  Free money vs working under the sun for close to minimum wage. Guess it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

It does not have to be minimum wage either.  But I will tell you that I have been unemployed twice in my career.  And both times I did take a job paying less.  For those unwilling to do so, yea, it can take years.  The first time, I actually switched careers, calling upon skills that were a part of my previous position, but I got a job in 4 months.  The second time, while I was unofficially out of work for only 2 months, I actually knew it was coming for 3 months prior to that.  Fortunately I did not have to switch careers then.

But in both cases, I did take a pay cut.  The first time it was 20%, the second it was much smaller.  You do not need to be unemployed for 2 years.  That just means you have set your expectations too high - or are enjoying not working.  BTW:  The first time was during the "worst recession since the great depression!" Version 1 (or was it 2?  I do not recall if that line was used in 1980).

It 'ends' when it becomes a reasonable proposition for somebody to acquire gainful employment---at least them having a fighting chance.  Despite slight gains, there still does not appear to be enough jobs. If you want to say that the economy is doing ok and there's plenty of jobs available, I guess that's ok. 

I don't think there's a single rubric right now that would indicate that things are 'ok'.  I don't even think there's anything that's really even 'pointing up'. 

Really?  I mean, really?  300, 400 bucks a week is convincing people to sit at home? 

Now that's just fucking appalling. 

Well yes.  Actually you can.  And on balance, it's not that much money as compared to the pointless bailouts in Detroit and the cash dollars expended to 'save' a bunch of banks. And on balance, you'd much rather have consumers with even a few dollars to pump into a failing retail economy anyway. 

Yeah because that's a practical dilemma. 

No.  All you have to do is look at welfare.  You are trying to be subjective in an objective law.  The rules are clear.  It never ends unless you adhere to the rules, and you are telling them to just chuck them out the door.

I have no hard data to back up the statement that you replied to (nor do I care to google them).  However, the press is doing the work of the OP in this case giving us numerous stories of exactly what he states.  Anecdotal - true.  But in lieu of any quantifiable data (none presented so far), the statement stands as true.

No, but it goes to a basic difference between us.  Unemployment is meant to help people find new jobs, not take a "daddy break" or extended vacation.  Those using it for such are simply on welfare.  Your job is to prove otherwise.

No you cannot.  Just take it to its logical conclusion.  How is the government going to support 300 million on unemployment?  Weimar Germany (and Argentina and Chile) have shown us that just printing money is no solution.  Or are you like the current administration that believes this is a new economy where the rules of economics no longer apply?

Because if we don't, the economic crisis will continue.

@DG/ID: 

I think your major confusion here stems from this: 

Unemployment is not welfare.  I know that the Orin Hatch comments and the Sharon Angle comments make you believe that all them there unemployeds are just sitting around collecting their big fat government cheese check, but it just isn't the case.  There are many, many, people in that group who can't (and won't) get by on 300 bucks a week.  Seriously:  300 dollars might cover our cell phone/internet bill.  That's about it. 

I get it.  Welfare bad.  Chronic welfare worse, generational welfare awful.  All societal issues.  But unemployment checks in a time where the unemployment rate is at 9 and a half points:  it's just a little novacane for the root canal...it's enough to help ease the pain, but sure isn't going to knock you out.  

Incidentally:

No you cannot.  Just take it to its logical conclusion.  How is the government going to support 300 million on unemployment?  Weimar Germany (and Argentina and Chile) have shown us that just printing money is no solution.  Or are you like the current administration that believes this is a new economy where the rules of economics no longer apply?

YEAH YEAH I'M JUST LIKE THAT OBAMA!  Really man.  This isn't Weirmar Germany. We're sure as shit not Argentina and Chille.  I don't even think they wear shoes there.   This is a vastly different economy from what it was 30 years ago.  Now, that's not to say that I believe that the obama ARRA mechanism was executed correctly or that TARP was a good idea.  But, that is to say that we can't keep going off of this outdated hardline playbook of how to deal with this. 

And, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with why we can't help out some unemployed folks. 

Leauki?   How so?  Specifically, how does a little shot in the arm cause the crisis to continue.  You can't give a FIT break to people who aren't paying. 

More confusion between unemployment and welfare.  Who did that to you? 

Well.  I went to college.  I can tell you pretty conclusively that 400 dollars a week won't even be enough cause for me to drink coffee. It certainly doesn't support my life style or that of my family.  Ditto for most of the college grads I know. And those that are on unemployment.....

Really, that's what this is about?  You're so concerned with the illegal immigrants that you want to fuck otherwise hard working Americans for being caught up in the worst economic crisis in recent history? 

No, you miss the point. Unemployment is not welfare.  Unemployment extensions ARE Welfare.  The rules are set up so that there is a safety net, and the money is calculated for that net.  And you pay (through Payroll taxes).  BUT, extending it comes from the same money pot as welfare.  Unemployment is earned.  Extensions are not.  And if you have a 1200 cell phone bill, you need to get a new plan!

Apples are oranges again, right?  Sorry, but you do not have to commit every error to learn from them.  Smart people learn not only from their own errors, but that of others as well.  It is not Weimar Germany - YET.  There is no reason it cannot be just like them IF WE MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES.

Wow.

Neither cell phone nor Internet are strictly needed for a decent life. And 1200 bucks for cell phone and Internet access is beyond what I can even imagine paying.

And I waste _a lot_ of money on cell phone bills and Internet access!

(Highest cell phone bill was around 400 euros. Roaming in Israel.)

2000 years ago the Italians were roaming the Mediterranean. The result was called the Roamin' Empire.