didn't extend the benefits. those states were probably mostly red states, frankly, with probably better economies to begin with, perhaps like texas, for example, or kansas, south dakota, north dakota, with other things going on, so it's hard to separate correlation and causation, but if you have somebody in the job market two years, and they say i've been unemployed for two years, newt has been unembroiled for three months, which one will you be looking at more seriously? irmgts i still don't understand. if you don't have 1.3 lazy americans. i do know people in the situation, actively trying to find the jobs. what's the moral case for further punishing them? what's the economic case for cutting out the jobs they're supporting? >> i've been a supporter in minnesota for some extension, but keep in mind there's the basic, there's the enhassed and then the turbocharged. when you get to the turbocharged level and say let's keep it