around the big top

Politicians love the haves more than the have nots


The recent bill that passed through Congress and the Senate to extend unemployment benefits during the current recession passed almost unanimously in both chambers, 413-12 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate.

So was the government making a “humane” effort to help people out since unemployment is the highest it’s been in over two decades?

That depends on who you ask. The bill is only allocating $2.4 billion for unemployment benefits, and over $10 billion in tax rebates to large corporations to stem their losses.

I thought the age of the corporate bailout had passed. Even when the government does something to help out the common people, the ones hurting most, the ones who won’t be hired at the places getting another $10 billion in tax relief, it still bends over backwards to do what politicians really want to do.

Help out their biggest campaign donors.

“Today’s bill allocates $2 billion to the winner and $10 billion to the loser,” is what Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Republican said about the bill, and I see his point.

What I fail to see, though is why he voted for it anyway and why President Obama signed it.

I’m sure there is some “logical” reason why, and some Congressmen and Senators will be explaining it on some stupid news shows, but it’s getting ridiculous.

And I’m also getting sick of the reports that the economy is on the upswing. I know the GDP actually growing is a good thing, and so is the Dow Jones going above 10,000, but let’s see who those things help.

Not the people without jobs.

You’d think when the economy expands, as it did last month, and when companies on the Dow Jones Industrial index are doing well, that would equal more jobs.

Nope. Why not?

I have no idea.

I also have no idea why something as clearcut as extending unemployment benefits has to come with a mini-government bailout.

Maybe it’s because unemployment benefits being extended are like a bailout for working class people, and, in the eyes of the folks in Washington, they just don’t deserve to be rewarded for their suffering.

It makes me wonder about the 12 people who voted against the unemployment benefits. Why did they vote no?

My guess is because they didn’t read the bill, and they thought it would only benefit the growing masses of the unemployed and not those precious failing corporations.

If that’s the case, I wish more people never read this bill. When the side of pork is bigger than the entrée, someone is going to choke.

And it’s not going to be the big corporations.


Please review our community guidelines before posting

Please keep comments on topic and appropriate for all ages. Remember that people of all ages read our website. Those that are not appropriate will be removed. Please read our full community guidelines before posting.

5 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

This corporate greed is exactly why we need the government to overhaul these businesses. Why would corporations ever increase output, create new products, or hire workers if the government is just going to give them money and allow its executives to pocket it without care?

At least if the government controlled these companies voters could cast their votes in approval (or disapproval) of the corporation's leadership.

This is especially needed in companies that control our natural resources (looking at you Exxon Mobile.) Exxon Mobile made nearly $4 billion in profit the last quarter, but have we all benefited from lower gas prices, increased fuel technology, or more efficient gasoline? I think not.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 | Report this

Go talk to the people of eastern europe and see if the govt should control the businesses. Those ignorant of history are doomed!

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 | Report this

The true ignorance is believing that those in Eastern Europe suffered because govt controlled business.

Those is Eastern Europe suffered because a fascist Stalinist regime not only took over business, but all aspects of daily life.

You'd be hard pressed to find any one who would advocate for the same restrictions found in Russia (and the Soviet bloc) following the the fall of the Czars.

It's a fallacy to believe that government intervention solely in business, would lead to the take over of individual rights.

There is no reason why, as long as the govt works within the scope of the law, the government cannot become a competitor of private business in the fields of business that promote life and liberty.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 | Report this

I refer again to history, hard to refute what has happened over and over again all over the world every time it is tried!

Thursday, November 12, 2009 | Report this

Educate yourself and go read some history.

Thursday, November 12, 2009 | Report this

Copyright © 2018, Sunrise Publishing. Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.