Where do I get that number you ask? Well......in June 2010 the number of unemployed Americans stood at 14.6 million and figuring on about 2.5 voters per household that is potentially 36 million voters who obviously must be lazy...no good Democrats who do not deserve employment in the first place....much less an extension of it. :wink: Can you say "backlash"?
Backlash against whom? All the polls still say that the Democrats are going to lose seats in the midterms, plus there is some what of a backlash predicted but it is against incumbents in general and democrats in particular.
Terry, you are correct that the key word is not democrat or republican. It is incumbents. US Congress needs to have a clear message delivered that we are not going to stand for the status quo. We will lose some (very few) good ones in the process but every single senator and every single representative must go.
Out of curiosity If each of the unemployed Democrats had an additional 1.5 voters in the household, just what are those 1.5 voters doing? Obviously, they can't be unemployed (or your math is completely uncorrect) so they must be employed paying taxes for the eternally unemployed Democrat in the family or the .5 could be a student in the local community college who is majoring in urban studies or some other useless major getting ready to enter into the ranks of the unemployed Democrats. So if 99 weeks of unemployment is not enough, what is? 199 weeks, 299 weeks or lifetime ass sitting?
Got this from a friend; I had to pay a guy for some work the other day...he wouldn't take a check because it might endanger his unemployment. Not opposed to the extension...but at some point we've got to ask ourselves how long and how we should be paying for it...
Obviously you need to be unemployed.....because you don't have a clue what it's like to have a family and bills to pay and no job or even a decent prospect of getting one. Do you live in the same Detroit that I spent 31 years in? The "Democrats" I am coming up with are those voters who reside in families who have a principal person of the household on unemployment and who has had his/her unemployment cut by the GOP's reluctance for extension or who is worried about it....which I am sure almost everyone who is on umemployment is indeed worried about. Maybe you just can't grasp the seriousness of the situation unless you have the experience. Unfortunately I have to hope anyone that has nothing but insensitivity to this issue has to either go through it themselves or has a loved one go through it. Then we can talk.
Dave here's a quote from an article I posted in another thread and you either didn't read or chose to ignore because it debunks your liberal view of the world That's right they chose ass sitting over being employed. If I could get unemployment benefits I'd consider it. (just kidding) But as a self employed individual with no employees, I don't qualify for benefits. However because I am incorporated I have to pay unemployment insurance premiums even though I will never see a nickle of benefits. You need to be forced to pay insurance premiums for a loss you never will be reembursed for. Maybe for once you'd get to find out what it's like to pull the wagon rather than ride in it.
I guess if we were all lawyers then you would be out of business with all of that competition. I don't "ride the wagon" but I do understand completely why you said "just kidding" because unemployment doesn't cut the mustard for those of us who have made a good living with higher paying jobs for something of note that we have accomplished. Unemployment is pittance compared to a decent living.....if a decent living is what you have been accustomed to and you have the assorted bills and expenses to go with it.....which I am sure that you do as do I. I think I gave a similar answer as to why some folks may not even be in a position to do landscaping in lieu of unemployment. Having gone through it I can say it takes a lot of daily energy, time and follow through to land a "decent paying" job and I would find it next to impossible to do just that in such a piss poor economy while at the same time trying to hold down a low paying landscaping job working 40-50 hours a week at probably minimun wage. It's a damned if you do....damned if you don't scenario. Again.....you just have to come to the realization....however stubborn you are about it....that there are millions of good solid citizens who have ertswhile been high wage earners ( a great many of which I'll bet used to be Republicans until recently :wink: ) who are now barely surviving on unemployment. Accepting very low paying jobs right now for those people is an economic death knell for their household in many cases.
Yeah, I guess that those that used to be high wage earners who haven't been able to find a job during the past 18 mon. of the Obama cluster **** in Washington will become Democrats. That's part of the plan, keep them poor, keep them stupid, make them Democrats.
A lot of people are gaming Obama's endless unemployment voter grab. The average annual wage in the US in 2008 was $39,645 according to the SS Administration. Using the Myrtle Beach vacationer as a barometer, he was taking $33,540 for sitting on his entitled ass and playing golf. Not much incentive to find work, is it? Especially since many compound the scam by working " under the table " while lapping up the largesse. Obama has bankrupted many generations to come with his pure socialism.
I would like to know what state that guy drew unemployment from. I drew the max allowable in Michigan and it only amounted to about $1390.00 per month after taxes. That equates to about a $21,000 annual gross.....about 1/8 of what I averaged over a 10 year period prior to that. Why is this math so difficult for you guys? Would you want to be in that position at age 55 ? Do you think I am bullshitting you?