CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 08, 2011 06:30 PM UTC
22 Comments
Therefore all unemployed people are parasites, undeserving of our compassion.
Let’s say we accept that logic, for the sake of argument. Well, I heard about this guy who parked a truckload of explosives outside a government building in Oklahoma City. Destroyed the whole building and nearly everyone inside.
Ergo, all right wing patriots are cowardly baby killers.
at the unemployment office in a Cadillac
What’s $17 billion amongst friends?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic…
At the very least, it sure looks like Obama heard the same story. But blame Tipton! I say this about most of the Occupy agenda, but in this case it’s particularly helpful to dispassionately look at the facts. There is a large amount of waste and fraud in the unemployment compensation system, and we can’t just extend benefits into perpetuity.
I assume you as well as Tipton’s staff have never been on unemployment. I have been on it twice and I can assure you that nearly all of those receiving benefits would never be able to simply live off their unemployment checks. I believe you get around 60% of your income up to a certain maximum. When you’re living check-to-check and you suddenly have your income cut nearly in half you aren’t exactly in a position to just sit back and not look for a job.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/…
Funny how FoxNews doesn’t mention this caveat from the Department of Labor. They, instead, focus on a few cases of real fraud and imply everyone who’s on unemployment is a criminal. Most jobs make you wait at least 3 weeks until you get your first paycheck. A simple fix of allowing recipients to collect up until their first paycheck would solve a lot of this so-called “fraud”.
You mean they’re not all criminals? This is America. If you don’t have a job, it’s your own fault, and it’s probably because of drugs or felonies or ACORN.
People without jobs should quit complaining and go to jail where they can get 10 cent an hour working a call center or doing laundry. Problem solved, greedy libs.
Tipton may have phrased his argument inelegantly (to say the least), but there is a school of thought that extended unemployment benefits may be a disincentive to vigorous job search (this was discussed in the Becker-Posner blog a while back and those guys have the intellectual chops that Tipton may not). Indeed, are we de facto making unemployment compensation a permanent benefit and should it be? How low does the unemployment rate have to be before we limit the time a person can receive unemployment? I’m pretty sure that even before the recession people who were trying their best to find work lost their benefits. Have we decided that that’s not right? Are we not permitted to even debate or discuss the costs and benefits associated with such a policy change?
I find “confrontations” like the one described by Ms. Filer to border on the petty and childish. Rep. Tipton is a staunch conservative and she is shocked (SHOCKED!) to find out that he MAY be againt extending unemployment benefits. This isn’t news and this isn’t effective advocacy, especially when Ms. Filer “doesn’t understand why there is even a question about it!” Guess what, Ms. Filer, this is a policy question and if you want to make your point, make a cogent policy argument. Otherwise, have your tantrum elsewhere.
may have been “inelegant” in his response but you hold MsFiler to a strict liability standard for her own “inelegance”?
so, yes, the burden on her is a bit higher. Stated another way, I’m pretty sure she’ll get nowhere spouting stupidity in response to stupidity. But, she may stand a chance responding intelligently to what she perceives is a stupid argument.
except your first sentence
Constituents that are desperate to get the ear of their elected official are rarely as articulate as a paid lobbyist. The little old lady or man who needs his social security check, the poor family that haven’t received their food stamps for some reason and the hard working people who are now unemployed have burden enough and you think the bar should be higher for them than their elected congressman?
I don’t think so. These people more often than not see their congressman or senator as their only hope.
of seeing your representative if you’re not going to make some sort of convincing argument that will perhaps change that person’s mind (especially when you know from the outset that they disagree with you)? If you’re just going there to confirm your suspicion that they don’t get it so that you can express your outrage to media outlets, you certainly have a First Amendment right to do so. However, it’s not going to change anything. If you want to change a person’s mind, you actually have to think and present a compelling case. Without that, “your only hope” will be no hope at all. Sorry, but that’s reality.
I have been up close and personal to some conservative politicians. Outrage does not affect their views. Human suffering does not affect their views. In fact, I’m pretty sure there is a faction of conservatives who assume anyone receiving any type of social benefit is on the take or somehow morally corrupt. The only thing that matters to them is how much it costs. The argument is that it is cheaper to do X than to do Y. If you don’t make that argument, you are wasting your breath.
Now I am as pissed off as anyone about the way in which some of these legislators approach the issues, but at this point all anyone can do is make the argument that might actually resonate with that person and/or hope that person is defeated in the next election.
This is where I disagree with your analysis.
For all its warts, the “Occupy” movement has garnered a lot of media attention and changed the conversation. While it may not change Tipton’s mind, that raw populism resonates with a lot of people in a way that “job creators” doesn’t. And regardless of whether he’s being pushed or pulled, it seems to have helped Obama develop a little spine.
Excellent.
and is readjusted often based on the state’s unemployment rate. There is no unemployment into perpetuity and never has been. When there are many millions unemployed and only about 100,000 net jobs created every month, people fall off the rolls. The homeless rate goes up and the number of people receiving food stamps go up. The greatest numbers of unemployed are the young and those over 50, especially those over 55 and 60. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics provides statistics every month.
http://www.bls.gov/news.releas…
And, of course, I get that unemployment does not last forever. However, if I was a conservative legislator faced with a stubbornly high unemployment rate, these continual extensions may make me think there is de facto permanent unemployment benefits for some. Again, maybe that should be the way it is and perhaps it’s cheaper than the inevitable costs of an increasing homeless population, but the point is certainly worthy of debate.
There is still a 99-week cutoff from the Federal government (max – some states make this shorter).
So if after almost two years you’re still unemployed, you don’t get any more unemployment benefits as subsidized by the Federal government. This is part of the reason why the official unemployment rate is dropping so quickly now – people have outlasted their benefits and are dropping off of the unemployment rolls.
Unfortunately with this recession, there are a LOT of people who fall into this long-term unemployment trap. And after that length of time, some industries consider your former skills to be atrophied or obsolete, too…
They especially won’t hire anyone who has been out of work for more than three or six months. Many of these people are in a seriously screwed situation, especially the older ones. One U.S. Senator has talked about unemployed over 55 who may never work again. This is an extremely serious situation that needs attention. I’m all for some type of program to get these people back in the workforce.
Is that some people will unquestionably take advantage of any system. While others are trying the best they know under even the most generous system. So we have to design a system that tries to strike a good balance.
If you’re going to end a system that has a single person take advantage of it, then no system will pas that test. If you’re going to create a system that provides well for anyone who is trying, then you’ll have a lot taking advantage of it.
I think the present system provides a decent balance (and I pay into the fund as a business owner). Where I think we fall down big time is we don’t help people who’s skills are no longer needed. Most people out of work who spent decades in construction or manufacturing – those jobs are gone forever and they need to be helped to learn a new career.
You’re sounding more and more like Newt Gingrich every day. Throw in a reference to the Peloponnesian War and you’ll have it down.
That “disheveled guy” reminds me of the recent college grad who took on some student loan burden to get a degree and be faced with no better job prospect than their loser brother who stayed at home and works 30hrs a week retail.
Good one.
It also reminds me of the guy who quit his federal gig with soid pension, made a fortune lobbying for Fannie/Freddie and now claims to want to be President. Hahahaha That’s awesome.
by staff for Udall, Bennet, K Salazar, Lamborn (better than by lamebrain hisself). But, I was never there on a protest but to present local and personal views on legislation. And, I was already known to those staffers and office holders