Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Scott Brown Votes Against Unemployment Extension

By

http://www.boston.com/business…

John Nocella checks the job listings at state career centers almost every day. He’s sent out at least 150 resumes. But it has been more than a year of searching since he lost his sales job, and Nocella is about to run out of time.

… “Unless you’ve been in this position, you don’t realize how hard it is,” said Nocella, 64, of Stoneham. “The bills never disappear. People like me are in a desperate mode. We don’t know where we are going to end up.”

Sen. Scott Brown explains his vote against unemployment extesnions for Massachusetts residents this way:

“We need to stop the deficit spending and start offsetting the cost of worthy programs by cutting wasteful spending in other places,” Brown said in a statement. “This requires elected leaders to make hard choices, but our country’s economic stability requires that we get our fiscal house in order.”

Unemployment checks go directly back into the Massachusetts economy – paying rent, buying food, spending money in local businesses. And Scott Brown ignores that basic economic fact – voting in lockstep with the Washington DC Republican leadership (and sadly a few DINOs).

November 2012 can’t get here soon enough.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. And most are too young for social security, and do not qualify for food stamps or anything else, yet.

    <

    p>How many will go into foreclosure, be evicted and homeless, etc.?

    <

    p>What is a person who loses their job due to budget cuts, or outsourcing, and is 50, 55, 62 going to do?

    <

    p>Where is the “bailout” for these folks, or even a jobs program to harness their experience and willingness to work without age bias, bias against the “over-qualified”, etc?

  2. I think a good rule of thumb is to use a paragraph or two of copyrighted material — enough to get the gist, but not more. I think this post used too much, so I’m going to edit.

  3. Aren’t Brown and other Republicans saying something this:

    • The government is spending so much money that “they” are going to have to raise taxes.
    • Raising taxes kills jobs.
    • Worse, the mere threat of future taxes kills jobs.

    It sounds pretty absurd. It comes off like a random collection of topically connected talking points.

    <

    p>Maybe, if someone can detect a coherent argument there, we could address it.

  4. They want to cut the unemployment benefits so that out of work people will have to work cheap or starve.

    <

    p>The more desperate people there are, the lower the pay will be for everyone.

    <

    p>Forget what Brown or any politician says. Anyone can make a few light pleasantries in a speech.

    <

    p>What matters is what they do and what the result is.

    <

    p>It is all about CHEAP LABOR. That’s what right wing economics is about.

  5. I don’t know how this works, but wouldn’t these folks now (at least in many cases) qualify for welfare and/or other assistance benefits?  So by cutting off unemployment benefits – aren’t we just pushing them off one plan onto another?  And, are these other benefits state or federally funded?

    • Hi RST1231 –

      <

      p>The state’s welfare program, called TAFDC, has a number of eligibility restrictions.  For example, you’re ineligible if you don’t have children under age 18.  You’re ineligible if you have a car worth more than $10,000.  You’re ineligible if you have assets worth more than $2,500.

      <

      p>And the amount of the monthly grant is very low.  For a family of three, it is around $600 per month.  Compare that to the maximum Unemployment Insurance grant of $654 per week.  

      <

      p>So, welfare will help a few folks who lose UI, but not many.  

      <

      p>(PS – The state program is paid for with both federal and state money.)  

      • Thanks for the info Hester, I knew there were different programs for families and others with small children, but I thought there maybe was something for those without small children.  Sad to know there isn’t.

        • called “Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC),” that provides benefits to some adults without children.  But those adults must be either elderly or disabled, and they can have even fewer assets than the TAFDC program (which is the program usually thought of as  synonymous with “welfare”) allows.  Consequently, only about 20,000 people are receiving these benefits.  There is very little overlap between the UI population and the EAEDC population, because the UI program requires that a person be able to work, while the EAEDC program essentially requires the opposite.  The maximum benefit for this program is only $303.

          <

          p>There are also some federal programs for disabled people who don’t have kids.    

          <

          p>But for people who are able to work, UI is pretty much it.  

    • Hoovervilles sprouted during the Great Depression, and were tolerated because people had no where to live.

      <

      p>While tents may work for the summer, not so easy in winter in New England.

Archives