Obama Urges Congress To Restore Unemployment Benefits

A bipartisan Senate proposal would reinstate jobless benefits for three months

HONOLULU (AP) — President Barack Obama is urging Congress to reinstate jobless benefits for more than a million Americans.

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama says the unemployment insurance is a "vital economic lifeline" for many people. And he says failure to reinstate the benefits will cause the economy to slow for all Americans.

Comments

[Sevo]

There's no "restoration" involved; he wants to EXTEND the benefits, likely in the hopes of buying some D votes.
He's a slimy liar.

[JWatts]

Slimy seems a bit unfair. He's a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," as well as, a liar.

[Eric Bana]

Exhibit A as proof of a robust, growing economy.

[Sevo]

Guy's a master at 'stimulating' the economy, ain't he?

[Res ipsa loquitur]

"Unemployment checks are the fastest way to create jobs" - Nancy Pelosi

[NotAnotherSkippy]

It's a good distraction from BarryCare. Now we just need another academic to tell us that inequality hurts us all or that somehow extending UE which results in more Walmart spending or increased (imported) gas consumption with borrowed money actually grows the economy. Maybe we could get that oracle of economics Mark Zandi (you know he advised McCain at one time so he's non-partisan) to tell us how failing to extend the $30-40BB in benefits will cause a $400BB knock-on effect.

The GOP needs to propose offsetting cuts in a bill to "temporarily" extend benefits. Otherwise Team Blue's pals in the media will bludgeon them relentlessly for their cruelty. Or they can cave and just restore them without any offset. Any bets as to which will happen?

[BigT]

Good idea - offsetting cuts.

Why not from the Presidential entourage travel budget? Or maybe the IRS? NSA? Better, since there is a 2x knock-on effect (as claimed by Dems) why not cut $2 for every $1 of UE benefits?

[Calvin Coolidge]

It's funny how those Keynsian Aggregate Demand models, which have been discredited since at least the 1970s, have now been dumbed down to "when the government spends money, it makes the economy grow". Nobody remembers why the models gave the results they did, it is just a tautology on the left now that government spending equals stimulus.

Nobody thinks to ask where the money came from, or what it would have been spent on if the government hadn't taxed it away or borrowed it from a lender with available capital. It is just "when you hand out money, the economy grows, because government!".

[SQRLSY One]

So then WHY in the Sacred Name of Government Almighty, does Government Almighty NOT just go ahead, and cut me a billion-dollar (borrowed) check, and let ***ME*** Stimulate The Economy?!?!? I am READY, WILLING, AND ABLE, just tell me where, when, and how!!! "Marry" 144,368 Mormon Fundy wives, and get all my babies on welfare? Sure, let's DO it, those food stamps will stimulate the economy! Or give me some $$$billions for "solar power" or you name it, I can work with "whatever"?

[Ann N]

the concept of an invisible hand requires too much faith for them.

if they can see the money being spent (by govt) it makes them feel proactive. if the money stays hidden in the private sector (invisible hand) who is to say if its being used wisely? there is no verification or transparency.

in fact, they mostly impute the actions of the invisible hand to bitch-slap blacks and other 'oppressed' protected classes. that hand has a punitive social agenda, yet its unwaveringly greedy. doublethink?

atleast we know it cant ever be motivated by compassion, as shown by the charity industry of USA.

the public image of the invisible hand is a pack of lies.