Prevaricating Pat called out on more employment lies

The Raleigh News & Observer observes the news that Deputy Assistant Governor McCrory continues his outright lies about the employment situation in our state, which is pretty dismal. Despite clear data that shows that 2013 was a poor year for employment and job growth, Prevaricating Pat toots the horn that "more North Carolinians are collecting a paycheck", and it's because of the NC GOP's tax policies. Both claims are demonstrably false, as the article unequivocally shows.

But perhaps the most nauseating lie Pat tells in this story is the one about how punishing unemployed people somehow helped the state's employment situation:

It’s insulting to suggest that North Carolinians who lost their jobs through no fault of their own were choosing not to work because they were getting a few hundred dollars a week in unemployment benefits. Nonetheless, McCrory repeated this canard to The New York Times when the newspaper reported on the effects of North Carolina’s cuts in benefits.

“Employers were telling me they had vacant jobs, but people would say, ‘Hold that job until my unemployment benefits end,’ ” McCrory said, “I heard that time and time again. Now, employers are telling us that people are coming in and filling out applications to accept jobs, not to meet the requirements of unemployment.”

Which employers told you that Pat? If you heard it time and time again, surely you can tell us 5 or so of the people who told you that? We'd love to check out their stories.

Unless, of course, you're just making shit up out of thin air again, Pat.


Pants ablaze

Another observation of the news from the N&O, same article:

A closer look at the numbers shows that punishing the jobless and reducing taxes on the wealthy are not creating what McCrory is calling the “Carolina Comeback.” What the state is experiencing is a “Carolina Dropout.”

Don't get too close to Pat -- his trousers are, as the firefighters say, fully involved.

"I will have a priority on building relationships with the minority caucus. I want to put substance behind those campaign speeches." -- Thom Tillis, Nov. 5, 2014

Wait a minute ...

The only reason that I can think of that a person seeking a job might tell that to an employer is is the potential job they're looking at pays less that what they're getting in unemployment benefits.

According to this site, the maximum that employees get per week, before the Republican takeover, was $535 per week and after the Republicans, $350 per week.

According to WRAL, "Between 2007 and 2011, households in North Carolina brought in an average of $46,291 per year." That's an aveage of $890 per week.

Your unemployment benefits are only a percentage of the salary you were making before you were laid off from your job. I used an outdated calculator here that estimated that weekly unemployment benefits on this average salary would be $442 per week.

So, Pat, what you're saying is that employers are telling you that employees getting laid off from a job that pays $890 per week ($46000 per year) are making more ($442 or $350 per week) on unemployment than they would get from a potential new job.

These employers you're "talking to" are offering jobs that pay somewhere between $18,200 to $23,000 to people that have been laid off from jobs paying $46,000 per year.

That doesn't sound like a healthy job situation in the state to me.

Please, Pat, tell us who those employers paying shit-for-wages are that you've been "talking to".

This is a tough call

I think you are looking at "household" income between 2007 and 2011, not individual average income but in any case you are correct teddy, $350 per month is just not something that can offset the loss of a job where someone made more than that. And something I disagree with is taking taxes out of unemployment. It should be treated just like SS disability and not be taxed at all. I have never understood that. Some of the unemployment receivers pay more taxes than our more wealthy on a percentage basis in this state. It is a tough call to try to choose between giving our unemployed more weeks to draw or to give them more when they do draw. Of course we should do both but I do understand that McSkimpy is doing all he can to keep our state in the dark ages on entitlements and government pay.

If I had to choose I would choose more weeks of pay because even though we hear a lot about this administration creating so many jobs that is not true.

Pat is so full of shit

Nobody "talks to" anybody these days in the job hunt game. If you try to walk in the door to fill out an application or talk to the human resources people, most of them tell you to fill out the application online, and nobody will talk to you until they've read dozens (if not hundreds) of applications and narrowed it down to 3 or 4 candidates. Then they might talk to you, but if they offer you a job and you turn it down, you lose your unemployment check.

Once again, McCrory just made something up off the top of his head, and once again, the lie is not even close to believable.

We know who he "talked to"

Pat's lies just pile up one on top of another.

Yep, it makes no sense that potential employees would be telling employers that - they'd lose their unemployment benefits.

I just can't see a situation where someone would be getting more from unemployment benefits that taking a job, unless they went from a decent paying job and were being offered a job with low wages. If that's the case, it blows a hole in Pat's "the economy is great!" lie.

Perhaps he was talking with one employer in particular.