I heard this clip (appropriately enough) on the way to the liquor store. It begins with an Obama quote about "smart government" being needed to tackle the unemployment problem among the middle class. It then tells the story of Sandra- a skilled worker who lost her job 18 months ago; who was offered retraining, but only if she opted for it in the first 30 days; and who, now, cannot obtain that retraining benefit.
Fair enough- or rather, unfair enough. One gets used to this sort of unemployment benefit rule. But wait- there's more! If she pays to go back to school on her own dime to obtain the retraining she could've gotten for free 17 months before? Not only will she not be reimbursed for it, but the government will deem her no longer unemployed and cut off her benefits.
That, my friends, is what Ed Schultz refers to as "psycho talk." Only this time it's coming from our own party.
Fix this, plxkthnx.
Fair enough- or rather, unfair enough. One gets used to this sort of unemployment benefit rule. But wait- there's more! If she pays to go back to school on her own dime to obtain the retraining she could've gotten for free 17 months before? Not only will she not be reimbursed for it, but the government will deem her no longer unemployed and cut off her benefits.
That, my friends, is what Ed Schultz refers to as "psycho talk." Only this time it's coming from our own party.
Fix this, plxkthnx.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 01:14 am (UTC)If you want to deny the reimbursement for the training, I can swallow that, but discouraging the training at the expense of benefits beyond a short period of personal denial? That's not just cruel; it encourages the dependency on government benefits that the honks on the right are always blaming the Democrats for creating.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 03:05 am (UTC)'Cause now I have it stuck in my head.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 11:19 am (UTC)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfAwQSk9STI