This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

18 Households Making Over $10 Million And 2,362 Making Over $1 MM, Collected Unemployment Benefits In 2009

Tyler Durden's picture


Just because millionaires are people too, and they too can apparently lose their jobs, we now learn courtesy of the Congressional Research Center, that in 2009, 2,362 Americans making over $1,000,000 in income (and just shy of a million people making over $200,000) collected unemployment benefits.

The amount of money allocated to evil, evil millionaire benefits in 2009 was $20.8 million, amounting to $8,806 each for the year (out of a total of $83.5 billion, of which 90% went to those earning less than $100,000).

Cue tar and feather fury because these evil, evil millionaires also dared to use a legal system that, at least so far, does not discriminate based on wealth or income level. Just as the US tax system allows everyone to use the same loopholes. Note that we said so far, because it may soon "not be fair."

More from Bloomberg:

The reported benefits may include those received by spouses or dependents of people who made high incomes, or benefits received earlier in the year before a household member got a high-paying job.


“Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending,” U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. “Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt.”


Coburn introduced legislation in February 2011 to prohibit federally funded unemployment benefits for people who had at least $1 million in assets in the year before they filed a claim. The Senate voted unanimously for his measure, the Ending Unemployment Payments to Jobless Millionaires Act of 2011. It was later added to another bill, which hasn’t passed the Senate.


Coburn found that 18 households reporting an adjusted gross income that exceeded $10 million received an average unemployment benefit of $12,333 in 2009. The average benefit for 74 households earning between $5 million and $10 million was $18,351. The average household making $1 million or more received $11,113, or about 37 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Eliminating the federal share of unemployment benefits for millionaires would save $20 million in the next decade, the congressional researchers said in their report.

Which then begs the question: just what is fair cutoff - $10MM? $1MM? $$100,000? $0.99? And far more importantly, who decides what is fair? And how soon before the "fairness doctrine" shifts from defining what laws are applicable to that guy but not to the other guy when it comes to income, and moves to who is eligible for such "you didn't build it" state benefits are police protection, or ambulances, or paved roads, or, who knows, air? Because that too may only be "fair" soon enough.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:38 | 2848056 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture




Use your Obama phone and get on disability.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:46 | 2848096 Divided States ...
Divided States of America's picture

I would like the list showing the names and addresses of those 18 motherfuckers.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:57 | 2848121 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Actually those are smart people. Why not? The state is printing for everybody, not only for those who are unemployed and broke.

Those people may own real estate that they rent out for example.

Their income may be because of investments and not work related.

It also says: households

That may also mean, the unemployed son who's sleeping it off all day while mom and dade make the money. Mom on her back, dad on the secretairy...

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:58 | 2848148 machineh
machineh's picture

Meanwhile, the 'little people' are warned that unemployment fraud is a FELONY.

Thousands of small-time UI chiselers are being prosecuted to feed the prison-industrial complex.

Lesson: if ya don't know how to work the system, the system works you.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 13:09 | 2848863 Surly Bear
Surly Bear's picture

I am surprised at the outrage. I mean, the collective 'you' were ok with big banks being bailed out so what the fuck?! who is to say some investment banker made a million dollars in January, blew it on hookers and blow, and then was penniless and unemployed a month later? We call it moral hazard for a reason....

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:02 | 2848158 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Because these same people, presumably, have benefitted from a completely corrupt and nonsensical system...  and they want to press their chances on continuing in that system for a few thousand dollars?  Really? 

This simply displays the degree to which people, in general, demand government involvement and the expectation of each for entitlements.  The amount received is irrelevant.  It ain't just the bottom.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:21 | 2848219 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Look, one of my friends is a director of a pretty big company.

he brings in about 9000 euro a month.

His wife stays home caring for the kids.

But she had worked in the past.

And one day he said to me: We where thinking about the misses to apply for unemployment benefits. She has the right to do so, we didn't ever thought about doing it but why not? I pay more than a fair chair of taxes.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:35 | 2848262 tbone654
tbone654's picture

If you want to get REAL excited...  Do the same study on those with SAY $5,000,000 or more in the bank or other investments, but rake in Social Security for 25 years or more...  Add that up...

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:44 | 2848302 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Either they're going to get dick because of devaluated payments or they'll get dick because of means testing...  hell, maybe a little of both.

The obvious thing to do is withdraw what you can from the system while you can...  but that does come with opportunity cost.  In the end, I don't think the mob is going to care one way or the other...  prudence will be punished (although, clearly, not all wealthy have established that wealth through anything resembling a morally justifiable avenue).

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:45 | 2848304 odatruf
odatruf's picture

For which, they paid in for 35 years.  What's your point?  Social Security isn't welfare.  Turing it into that would undermine its support from the great unwashed middle class.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:07 | 2848377 tbone654
tbone654's picture

just want to know the number...

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:49 | 2848515 Joe Davola
Joe Davola's picture

Then what, their names and addresses like Divided?

And why 5, why not 2?  Heck, they're geezers about to kick off anyway - why not 100k, they've already proven they're frugal and don't really need that much anyway.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:02 | 2848563 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

We should thank them, and the realt looter class, for helping hasten the demise of a corrupt, unsustainable system.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:49 | 2848317 TheMadNumismatist
TheMadNumismatist's picture

I am not sure if it still the case, but in the jolly old Netherlands, when made unemployed, you would receive 90% of your last wage for six months, gradually declining over two year period. So, theoretically, getting E100,000 per month meant the unemployment cheque would have been 90 G’s going forward.

They had a great scam going. Get a job for six months, become un-sackable, fake a back injury claim sickness until sacked, take them to a tribunal and get another job in the meantime.

I knew waiters that were pulling in close to 10,000 guilders a month (in the good old days). Can any of our cheese head readers confirm this is still the case?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:24 | 2848232 aint no fortuna...
aint no fortunate son's picture

Hey, cat food's expensive!

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:07 | 2848375 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

They will have the right to deny unemployment benefits to millionaires when they stop collecting unemployment contributions from millionaires.

The benefits go only to those who are registered and who pay the appropriate tax. This is NOT voluntary. You do not get to chose to make payroll contributions or not.

You have to obey the 1,000,000 laws that you don't like that are not in your favor. You should have the right to obey the one out of a million that is in your favor.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 14:04 | 2849070 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

SCOTUS has already spoken on the issue...  it is simply an additional tax...  of which, you may be parted from any benefit.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's reality.  Plan accordingly.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:05 | 2848165 Monedas
Monedas's picture

What a little rabble fuck you are, Divided State of Mind !

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:06 | 2848171 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

They paid their unemployment insurance.  It's their right to collect it.



Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:21 | 2848218 capitalist bison
capitalist bison's picture


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:45 | 2848305 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Sure.  But the question is whether they SHOULD not whether they CAN...  big difference.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:00 | 2848544 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

If you are going to start means testing then both income and wealth need to be factored, and a lot people won't like the results.  An unemployed banker and an unemployed Section 8er can very easily be in the same boat, the banker's new BMW is worth the same as the Section 8er's Escalade  (w/ the after market stereo and rims), the understated watches and gaudy bling balance each other out,  they are both in over their heads in debt, and yet are drowning in rental properties full worthless iCrap they didn't need in the first place.



The same should also apply to $75k pickup trucks in the trailer park...

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:06 | 2848579 dirtbagger
dirtbagger's picture

You are right, BUT they are still part of the shiftless 47%

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 13:24 | 2848917 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Same thing with retiring baby boomers. At some point there were a lot of people born. Those people were earning income and paid taxes. Now that they are retiring there's somehow a shortage of cash because there aren't enough youn people to feed the social security system. Ahem, what? Where did all the baby boomer tax money went? Why should young people be a part of the equation? Aren't they being taxed for the sake of their own retirement? No? Then why the hell pay taxes! Oh wait... I forgot. IRS has guns, bullet-proof trucks and quality body armor.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:25 | 2848437 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture


Divided States

666 Fuckyou Blvd

Asshole, PU  66666

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:57 | 2848543 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Why? They are just reclaiming stolen property from the theives.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:35 | 2848057 max2205
max2205's picture

fuck it

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:56 | 2848131 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Fuck nothing .... this is Obama circus !  Are you gonna take away their Social Suck and Obama care, too !    The problem is the millions who never make anything .... not the few who make a million !   Is this a financial blog .... or an Acorn meeting ?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:00 | 2848154 machineh
machineh's picture

How can we tell, when there's no sound track playing Kumbaya?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:44 | 2848290 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"The problem is the millions who never make anything .... not the few who make a million"

a lot of Goldmans make a million.

And Cheney made change on the war

It kinda depends how you make your money

and how you lose it

It always has

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:36 | 2848062 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Mammon makes you mad. Like it's never enough once Big Money has been tasted.

Value = Meaningless.

Price = Everything.

In such a world, where 1st world garages are chock (choke?) full of once or never used rubbish, made and transported at great cost globally, while the third world starves for food and water.

Bring on the re-balancing. About time.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:38 | 2848068 CPL
CPL's picture

It's truely obscene what it's all become.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:59 | 2848353 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

obscenitiy is the right word. We've moved beyond pornography into something disugsting, exploitive and criminal.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:26 | 2848445 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Or just another 9-year old marriage, if you're a mohammedite.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:36 | 2848476 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Not co-incidentally, just the direction pornography has taken, disgusting, exploitative and criminal.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:44 | 2848093 JohnKozac
JohnKozac's picture
Prisoners cashed in on homebuyer tax credit

NEW YORK ( -- More than 1,200 prison inmates, including 241 serving life sentences, defrauded the government of $9.1 million in tax credits reserved for first-time homebuyers, according to a Treasury Department report released Wednesday.

Treasury's inspector general also found that thousands of people filed multiple claims or made claims outside the allotted time period. In all, more than $28 million was improperly doled out.




I wonder how many got the free golf carts?

Free Golf Cart with the Government’s Golf Cart Tax Credit

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:37 | 2848063 bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

,,, i love to work at nothin all dayyyyy

and i'll be takin care of buisness, every day

takin care of buisness

every way takin care of buisness

it's all mine

takin care of buisness

and workin overtime


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:39 | 2848065 Desert Irish
Desert Irish's picture

Cue Odumber's war on the wealthy in 10....9....8....

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:56 | 2848132 Abraxas
Abraxas's picture

Yeah, the poor poor wealthy need being protected in this country. There's certainly lots of discrimination and injustice going around against them. How did they educate you to jump into their defense is beyond me. The Stockholm syndrome?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:37 | 2848066 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Tax them all to 100%!! Profit is theft!

/chanelling Obamabots

In other news, Turkey is on the verge of invading Syria because they have 93k refugees and they said if it reaches 100k, it's go time.

Also, the UK and France are doing military drills right off Syria for the next few weeks with a lot of hardware.

While Russia says : DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!!

All bullish!

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:39 | 2848072 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

That's okay, they make more money from not paying the mortgage on their $1M gated community McMansions anyway.

Romney would do it!

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:53 | 2848127 CPL
CPL's picture

Not sure why you were junked, the article has been out there for a while about people squating in million dollar homes.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:42 | 2848293 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Junking probably has something to do with the troll "Romney would do it".

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:39 | 2848073 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

They are saving pennies and waisting Franklins....what a bunch of idiots. We need about 537 people in government filing for unemployment....oh wait they can't. They've stolen over the threshold allowance.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:41 | 2848079 pndr4495
pndr4495's picture

It's disgusting to read this. I started a business in 2006 with cobbled together funds that were all my own.  Shortly thereafter my industry decided that a human being was excess baggage. Shortly after that , my business folded.  Not once since then have I considered walking into an unemployment office. 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:46 | 2848099 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Why?  You paid into the system.  There is a difference between 'living on principles' and just doing something foolish.  The problem with the unemployment system in the US is that it was not menat for long-term periods of higher unemployment. 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:51 | 2848111 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Shortly after that , my business folded


You didn't fold that.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:23 | 2848228 pndr4495
pndr4495's picture

Quite right - I folded the business before I lost my common sense as well. I stand corrected.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:54 | 2848333 odatruf
odatruf's picture

To be fair, unless you put yourself on regular payroll and therefore paid into the unemployment insurance program in your state, you could not collect anyway.

I don't think most people understand that employers pay into a state run fund that pays for this benefit.  And the great minds in politics have decided that just when times get tough, that the premium / tax rates have to go up because so many people have lost their jobs as a way to cut employer costs. If you can understand that circle jerk, you should run for office.



Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:26 | 2848679 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

You have morals but sad thing is, they have not done anything illegal.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 13:48 | 2849017 odatruf
odatruf's picture

It isn't any more moral than deciding after you have a car wreck to not make an insurance claim.  So long as there is no fraud and you meet all the requirements, I submit it immoral to deprive your family of its rightful income / claim.  Fine if you already want for nothing, but that's a choice not greater morality.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:43 | 2848083 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Boy when they say "entitlements for everyone", they aren't kidding.  

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:45 | 2848095 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Why not? It's totally free!


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:53 | 2848128 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Its not totally free but keeping making ridiculous nonpoints.  No person can qualify for payments unless they paid into the system for at least the last 2 years and even then you benefits are rated on a sliding scale for what you were wages are.  This isn't European-style unemployment benefits in terms of % of wages.  No where close. 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:19 | 2848416 Boondocker
Boondocker's picture

its called sarcasm.....the last defense of those unwilling to do something.  

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:01 | 2848155 HungryPorkChop
HungryPorkChop's picture

Just image all the good paying jobs that these millionaires are creating? 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:15 | 2848191 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Take a stand GZG .... you always play it safe .... red arrows are a badge of courage !      Here, I'll give myself one .... feels good !

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:50 | 2848086 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

I agree with Coburn's general principals about too much spending but since when did this become 'welfare' in the technical sense?  Didn't these same millionaires pay into the system while they were working?  Part of the general attack by the GOP on unemployment insurance in general which somehow equates laid-off workers who paid into a system every paycheck while they working as 'bums' and 'lazy' and 'entitled' they used to describe people on welfare in the 80s/90s before reform.  This is just a unique twist of it.

My favorite GOP idea on this topic though is that instead of unemployment insurance everyone will have a mandatory individual 'unemployment account' in which they are forced to save.  Isn't that a rainy day fund?  Just want to destroy the social insurance component of the current system.

Both parties are generally full of BS when it comes to making gov't smaller or less intrusion in citizens' lives.  They just want to interfer in way they agree with and spending money on their pet causes. 



Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:11 | 2848185 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The problem is that in a corrupt system, all wealth becomes of questionable origin.  Ergo, any additional monies extracted directly from the government carry increased scrutiny.  The question is more of how it plays into equity theory and whether it's a smart policy to continue.  Meaning, if I'm worth $10m and I lose my gig, knowing full well that the mob hates me because of my wealth, do I go ahead and take a measly $8k anyway?  Just for the hell of it?  Would this make the mob seem like I'm rubbing their noses in it?

While there may be moral legitimacy to receiving funds back from uncle sam that one (unwillingly) pays in, the question isn't whether one is entitled to the money, it's whether, strategically, this is a wise decision.  What is $8k when a one-off wealth tax is on the table?  Best of luck.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:57 | 2848347 odatruf
odatruf's picture

So long as I qualified for the benefit and was willing to 100% comply with the benefit requirements (which mostly means be willing to take any offered job that reasonably matched my prior employment and be actively looking), I would take the $8,000 if only to use it to pay the next tax bill coming in the door.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:31 | 2848261 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Dr.Coburn has been consistant about waste and fraud in Govt. but this time he's jumped the tracks.

Equality under the law is the very foundation on which jurisprudence rests and imperfectly as it is applied in regards to the well connected, it is a fundemental concept that needs to be reasserted and strenthened, not casually cast aside in an attempt as a social pallitive.

Equality under law is the solution, not the problem.

Dr.Tom, the paitient's constitution requires vitamins, not an enema.

Read your Pericles as well as your Galen.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:42 | 2848294 Acet
Acet's picture

The purpose of unemployment benefits or in fact any other benefits provided by the state is as a safety net - they're meant to stop a person that is having an unlucky time in their lifes from falling so far down that they can't get up again or at least for their children to be able to do so.

There is no morally valid reason to give some of that money to a person just because he or she is tagged as being in a specific situation (i.e. unemployed) when that person doesn't actually need that money - that money would be better used helping somebody that does need the help in getting back up.

You might ask then, if those well-off people paid into Social Security why should they not get their money back. The thing is, they already get their money back: they get it back by being able to live in a Society with is not overrun with desperate people commiting crimes because they can't feed their kids - it's not by chance it's called Social Security. You're not paying into Social Security because you will get the money back wether you need it or not, you're paying it so society remains secure and productive because anybody that does need that money to get back to being productive citizens gets it rather than sinking into crime: this money is simply to avoid a Tragedy of the Commons type of situation.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:45 | 2848094 The big unzip
The big unzip's picture

So, I guess not all men are created equal.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:49 | 2848106 Peter K
Peter K's picture

It's called "claw back", bitchezzzz. :)

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:51 | 2848115 alexb
alexb's picture

2 summers ago a good friend left his position at a Silicon Valley company.  I came out to visit the family and found out that he was taking unemployment.  When asked why he was collecting unemployment since he certainly did not need the money he indignantly replied that he's paid into the system and that it is his money being returned to him.  


He is right, but, isn't there a moral issue here?  In the meantime, his daughter took his unemployment benefits and had a great time at Bottega Veneta.  I'm sure that fact makes people who are on the brink of homelessness and starvation all warm and fuzzzy.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:53 | 2848124 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



isn't there a moral issue here?


When we run out of'll see their morals.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:49 | 2848509 Acet
Acet's picture

I really don't understand your friend's whole naked greed point of view. What you describe is exactly the same sense of entitlement of the chronical Welfare-dependent types: the excuse is different but the moral posture is the same.

I myself have stopped working as freelancer almost a year ago and started my own Tech Startup with a friend with our savings. The company has yet to release its first product out, so effectivelly I have no income. Yet I have not claimed a single cent in money from the State since I don't need it (I have plenty of savings, thank you very much). In fact I don't remember ever having claimed any money from the State even though I've been unemployed before. I've paid plenty in though.

The whole purpose of Social Security is to help others, not yourself. You do it because in doing so you end up indirectly helping yourself (you get a safer, more balanced society) and maybe, just maybe, one day when you need it you get that help back (or maybe someone you know, or maybe someone in your family). It's pretty much the same reason why in almost all social species your see selfless behaviour: in overall it pays up and helps the whole species prosper.

Now, one might claim that the State is hardly the best entity to manage something like a pot of money to help those in need in society, but using the "I pay, so I'm entitled to get money out" excuse is just self-serving.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:55 | 2848119 LongBalls
LongBalls's picture

Man cannot rule himself. The flesh demands comfort and security on the road to certain death. This leads to all kinds of corruption and breaches in morality in pursuit of a false objective. Circumstances described in this article will always be will us untill immortality is realized.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:58 | 2848146 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

I wouldn't wait around for that moment.  People are always and have always been 'immoral' to a degree. 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:20 | 2848163 LongBalls
LongBalls's picture

That is my point. Life is never going to be fair. Corruption will be with us untill the end of days. The only thing that will stop it will be the revelation that there is nothing to be gained by it.

Furthermore, let me be clear, if those people paid into the system then they should be free to harvest. The big picture is this; when two kids are fighting over the same toy what should a parent do? Take it from them both or decide who deserves it most? What if the parent never gave the children a toy in the first place and told them to make their own out of their own creativity and God given talents? From there all the parent needs to do is encourage sharing but forces it on neither so the child can enjoy the benefits and reward of sacrafice for others through sharing on their own terms. Othewise it's just stealing the creativity and work of one child to provide for another. This only harbor's laziness in one and hatred in the other.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:53 | 2848123 BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture

And so fucking what if they did collect? They're supposed to be able to. To say or think otherwise is positively communist.

Now, do these Obamaphones have his picture on it, or something?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:53 | 2848130 AndrewJackson
AndrewJackson's picture

I do not hold this against any of the millionaires who want to recoup some of their stolen tax money. What needs to happen is for unemployment benefits to be cut for everyone entirely. Average Joes should realize that spending $500-1000 on a football game is not as important as saving for a rainy day.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:55 | 2848133 youngman
youngman's picture

The Chicago teachers were allowed to file for unemployment....they go on strike...they collect benefits...they were not forced to quit their jobs....they did it on their own...voluntered not to work...that is incredable

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 09:57 | 2848138 Magnum
Magnum's picture

What gets me is the foreign aid to rich countries like Israel, where the streets are all clean and everyone gets free medical/dental.  They've shystered US taxpayers into sending them billions in direct cash via wire transfer straight into their general welfare fund.  It's so "in your face" that it only reinforces to foreign people how stupid Americans are.  

Years ago I worked for uncle sam in a similar situation, where tons of money was just given away to people overseas who already had a better standard of living than most taxpayers.  

Given that US politicians are bought and paid for, and don't represent the American people at all, I see no change in the near future.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:01 | 2848157 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

Its $3B last year and FDI was less than 0.1% of the Federal Budget.  Most of it was in the form of military-aid which has nothing to do with 'clean streets' etc.  Now maybe you should argue that we shouldn't being given any country FDI but that's a different matter.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:02 | 2848562 Boondocker
Boondocker's picture

the problem with "bribing the barbarians" (foreign and domestic) is they always want more...  

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:06 | 2848145 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Eliminating the federal share of unemployment benefits for millionaires would save $20 million in the next decade, the congressional researchers said in their report.


Are you fucking kidding me?  I bet $20mm worth of cigarettes and booze were purchased with food stamps last week.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:19 | 2848167 fuu
fuu's picture

Class bait article is class bait.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:09 | 2848174 DavosSherman
DavosSherman's picture

I've seen some CRE developers get blindsided.  They may have 8 figures in assets, but their monthly outlays exceed income, they can't sell shit, and their credit is maxed out.

Their totally upside down.  The banksters are coming after their McMansions.

I'm not saying they didn't fuck up.  They did.  Some I told to get out in 2004, they laughed at me.

I'm not laughing at them now.

I'm sure some of the shitheads collecting are shitheads that don't need it.  I'm also certain some people in this group are just fucking broke, they just have more zeros trailing everything.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:07 | 2848177 sschu
sschu's picture

I know people, as well as myself, that depleted their savings to keep their small business afloat during 2009.  I recall the time, new President, lots of HopeyChange.    

Do these people have no shame?  Where is our "government" through all this?

After reading these kind of articles, the idea that we can solve our fiscal problems is laughable.


Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:10 | 2848183 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nothingburger. Populist demagoguery.

If someone was employed and eligible for UI benefits, who cares how much money they have? Shit, it's only $400 a week. That money may be protecting the job of their au pair or lawn-care specialist.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:11 | 2848186 sangell
sangell's picture

Curious that this data is released now. How about the racial composition of housing foreclosures? I'm sure the government has that data available. In fact they must since lenders are required to to compile it but I have not seen any 'official' statistics released on it.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:51 | 2848328 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

You are being such a hater! Everyone knows we can only trash the rich. Leaches are to be pitied and the wealthy to be despised. Envy is a perfectly understandable feeling, but attempting to denigrate the poor minorities will not be tolerated!

This world is sooo screwed up!

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:23 | 2848225 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

After votes cast for a cannibals smile our forefathers would have said it is only fair that one of you is for dinner
and everyone should get his fair share from the limbs.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:27 | 2848248 Marley
Marley's picture

Scum bag millionairs. . Tax the rich, feed the poor, until there are no rich no more.

Scum bags

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:44 | 2848301 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Obama should sign an executive order that changes employment law forcing any employer who "downsizes" their workforce to only lay off their best and brightest. I mean after all, those are the people with the best chance of finding a job, right? As it stands now the opposite happens and the market place is full of the worst employees that no one wants. Those willing to put out the extra effort to excel or keep their jobs are now being forced to subsidize the non working. I think this is the net effect of the new European employment laws, to eliminate any unemployment by outlawing layoffs. The best and the brightest again subsidizing the less so. It kind of feels like no child left behind, where none are allowed to excel beyond the slowest in the classroom. I mean, its like Obama said about capital gains taxes in his last election, even though increasing those taxes would harm the economy, it is the right thing to do for "fairness". The world is no longer about incentivizing people to be the best they can be, but one where we are to be incentivized to be no more than the least of us, so no one is left feeling less than, or emotionally harmed in anyway. The ultimate expression of political correctness. Criticise only those perceived to be more successful than one's self. When our societies are governed by feeling rather than fact, we are gong down. Feelings are what rules mobs in the streets, not facts.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 10:46 | 2848310 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

I'm one of the people who was earning $10 million and lost my gig.  I applied for Unemployment Benefits and gave the entire amount I collected to a shelter for abused children.

After reading my story, don't you all feel like fools?



Now I was only joking about earning $10 million and losing my job but I hope I made my point.  Not sure what that is though.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:24 | 2848432 Joe Davola
Joe Davola's picture

Yeah, I'm sure the only reason you gave it to the shelter was for the itemized deduction to offset the 'earned income' from the UE benefits.  /sarc off


(Yes, I know at that level of income intemized deductions have long since phased out.  Hey, lookee more equal protection!)

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:06 | 2848372 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

AS a small employer in Texas, I have seen my unemployment insurance costs rise from .3% of payroll to 7.6% in three years after laying off two people. If anyone thinks that is not an incentive to NOT hire, then you just don't want to look at facts. These numbers are still being based on a 26 week unemployment duration. Once 99 weeks becomes part of law, employer costs will skyrocket. Our government does absolutely nothing to incentivise hiring. Every law and regulation puts in place creates another barrier. Successful business have to front run their labor needs in order to be able to respond to market pressures. That means we must invest BEFORE the revenue actually shows up. Who the hell wants to invest what little they have left in this corrupt rat chase. Speaking for myself the only front running i'm willing to undertake is being first out the door. The world is bankrupt but TPTB will not allow it to reconcile, so the system, such as it is, just stays in suspension, slowly decaying. No amputation of rotting limbs and such, we are going for full blown pulmonary failure, cause nobody wants to take a loss.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:08 | 2848378 TrustbutVerify
TrustbutVerify's picture

The question is whether these people are doing something illegal in receiving these benefits.  They obviously paid into the system.  Why shouldn't they be entitled to receive benefits? 

Its too easy within our society to ask others to pay in for the benefits of others.  Of course, this is how welfare works.  But its a matter of degree, isn't it.  And after a certain point that 'matter of degree' connotes fraud.  

We all know that such a high percentage of those receiving unemployment SUDDENLY are able to find a job just as the benefits are about to run out.  This is for all levels of wealth.  But it suggests just how much fraud there is acoss the board - again, for all income levels.  

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 14:27 | 2849137 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

How about this for an idea.


Get rid of all these programs. Simply the tax code.

We wouldn't have nearly as much controversy in regards to loopholes and people taking advantage of a system that is flawed.


Government creates more problems then it solves.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:09 | 2848386 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

You'd have to be a moron to be a small biz owner and hire people right now.

Which sucks b/c we need the jobs.  But the TBTF banks and their government buddies want to ensure monopolies.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:46 | 2848502 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Cue tar and feather fury because these evil, evil millionaires also dared to use a legal system that, at least so far, does not discriminate based on wealth or income level - Tyler


Nice try Tyler.

The legal system in the US is entirely predicated (and discriminates) based upon income/asset level by limiting ones options of quality legal representation based upon ones ability to pay substantial sums in retainers (or top shelf publicity in lieu) and other fees.

The US legal system is the very definition of pay to play.

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:53 | 2848531 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good to see you Miles

A judge made a freduian slip yesterday at arraignment and instead of word "release" asked what "were the conditions of sentence." I said, your honor I know the budget crisis is getting worse but I don't think we are yet imposing sentence before arraginment. He laughed and said you're right counsel, we're not there quite yet 

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 12:38 | 2848655 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

He laughed and said you're right counsel, we're not there quite yet - DaveyJones

.... with respect to this case

A salute; To the Power Ball legal economy! (and means testing insurance payouts, social or otherwise)

Good to see you too.  Regards-

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:53 | 2848524 wagthetails
wagthetails's picture

Sure I do t like the feeling of unemployment for millionaires, but they put into the system. So we want to raise their taxes and now remove benefits. Equality fairness Etc.

Once we tax them and remove the benefits that every other citizen has there will be no reason to stay here. I'm guessing these rich can live anywhere. I wonder which country moves first to cut taxes on rich to encourage more rich immigrants?

Tue, 10/02/2012 - 11:53 | 2848527 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

For the first time I can remember, I have to say, HEY TYLER, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? This is such a complete bullshit non story.

This kind of crap is about as significant in the macrofinancial picture as a pimple on the ass of a flea.

How about an expose on how retailers keep a percentage of the sales tax they collect as a state approved commission? Or the shocking news that not everybody working in Indian casinos is of native blood?

Sure, it gets the rubes excited, but you really ought to be very ashamed of wasting our time with it. This story feels like a case of, "Hey, lets kick over the ant hill and watch them all scurry."

I can only imagine you were pissed off at the world for some reason today and wrote this instead of whacking off to some nice tranny porn.

Shame, shame. Even if reading this for free, we deserve better.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!