• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Long Should We Help the Unemployed?

Paschendale said:
Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just had a system in effect to place people into jobs? There would be no need to subsidize unemployment, since there would be far less of it.
Click to expand...

We already have that. It's called the Department of Labor. Guess what? People are lazy and/or cheat the system and/or are unemployable.
 
Muhammed said:
The thing is, I don't think most people on unemployment are getting anywhere near $600 a week. The last time I was on unemployment the Maximum was like $350/week. Granted, that was a long time ago, and it has probably gone up a bit since then, but even back then it was barely enough to survive on your own.

Any savings you had would drain real quick.
Click to expand...
Unemployment max varies from state to state but the most common max is $600, i looked it up, which is why I used that number. I agree also that it is a drain on the budget and needs to be addressed. I am playing devils advocate somewhat here because I do have my familly to think about and if I was in the situation, I can honestly say given the circumstance I would opt for most available money, rather than go bankruptcy or foreclosure out of principle. Sorry but that is just the truth. Unfortunately our government is more concerned about floating failed fortune 500 companies than doing right by its citizens. If we went back to a mode of productivity long term unemployement benefits wouldn't be an issue.
 
With all the talk about unemployment numbers, I don't know one single soul who hasn't used unemployment as a paid vacation. And that's the truth. Oh! Paid vacation and outright scam.

One was 65 years old and decided to use unemployment as long as she could and then take her Social Security...to let it build up.
One young woman works cash for her dad and collects unemployment.
One decided she needed a break and just figured she'd collect until it ran out. (Husband primary earner.)

I could go on, but this is pretty indicative to me that a whole lot of people are milking the system. Get rid of this **** and pay real unemployed people enough to live on for a much shorter period of time.
 
Dr. Pepper said:
Why do we need rely on the government for helping the poor? Yes I generally show compassion for the lower class of society, especially given the fact that circumstances beyond peoples control can cause them to be misfortunate and less economically well off. Hell, even the smallest mistakes can plunge one into poverty, but everyone makes mistakes once in a while, and no one should be punished severely for little mistakes.

Instead of relying on the government (which apparently annoys the conservatives to no end, but who cares about what they think) what if people just casually releid on each other? Don't live by yourself, live with family or friends. Pitch in together and all work part time minimum wage jobs while supporting each other in the respective household. Live a little rag-rag and cheap; the best pleasures in life, like food, sex, and people are usually very cheap or free altogether. Is your nest door neighbor having difficulty paying the rent? Lend him some extra cash and work a flexible date for paying back the money when they're ready. Establish more emotional bonds with the local community. What the government provides to the needy via systematization can also be done through simple will power and love.
Click to expand...



Lordy...a genuine "kumbya moment". ;)
 
MaggieD said:
With all the talk about unemployment numbers, I don't know one single soul who hasn't used unemployment as a paid vacation. And that's the truth. Oh! Paid vacation and outright scam.

One was 65 years old and decided to use unemployment as long as she could and then take her Social Security...to let it build up.
One young woman works cash for her dad and collects unemployment.
One decided she needed a break and just figured she'd collect until it ran out. (Husband primary earner.)

I could go on, but this is pretty indicative to me that a whole lot of people are milking the system. Get rid of this **** and pay real unemployed people enough to live on for a much shorter period of time.
Click to expand...

Don't have any links handy, but am pretty sure studies have shown some/many people cavalierly take Unemployment Benefits to their duration limits. And then do magically find employment when the benefits stop.

That was my biggest gripe when the "Federal Extended" benefits were increased to 99 frigging weeks (that's 2 years for those without a calculator handy). The old standards of 13-26 weeks sound about right to me.
 
JohnWOlin said:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

I found this to be a very interesting article and before I might say extend but I tend to agree--several unemployed don't need these extensions they need to learn to adapt and build up. This is a nonstarter to get unemployment down by continuously extending the unemployment for those out of work for over a year. I mean come on a year? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think that government social services should be provided at the state level, not the federal level. I don't believe the states formed their compact so that people in New York could receive a dole from the people of Pennsylvania.
 
JohnWOlin said:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

I found this to be a very interesting article and before I might say extend but I tend to agree--several unemployed don't need these extensions they need to learn to adapt and build up. This is a nonstarter to get unemployment down by continuously extending the unemployment for those out of work for over a year. I mean come on a year? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

We should help the unemployed for as long as we help businesses.
 
Our government has failed to realize, since the days of FDR, that we will take care of each other. Churches and the like have always provided for their members. Charity organizations will provide. The gov't should not. Gov't workers who are put into these programs generally are in it to help people. However, they also earn a salary. Many wouldn't do it out of love without the salary. I don't have stats to back that. Its just human nature. I would be willing to say a volunteer at your local church is going to be much more accomodating than a paid employee of the state or federal gov't. Unemployment is a good program, to an extent. Not a 99 month extent. And definitely not to the extent that an employer pays more in unemployment insurance than they would to an actual employee, which is happening in some cases. This is the goal of the entitlement based gov't. The more people you have sucking on the nipple of gov't, the more will fight tooth and nail to keep it the way it is. A huge, unwieldly mess.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Our government has failed to realize, since the days of FDR, that we will take care of each other. Churches and the like have always provided for their members. Charity organizations will provide. The gov't should not. Gov't workers who are put into these programs generally are in it to help people. However, they also earn a salary. Many wouldn't do it out of love without the salary. I don't have stats to back that. Its just human nature. I would be willing to say a volunteer at your local church is going to be much more accomodating than a paid employee of the state or federal gov't. Unemployment is a good program, to an extent. Not a 99 month extent. And definitely not to the extent that an employer pays more in unemployment insurance than they would to an actual employee, which is happening in some cases. This is the goal of the entitlement based gov't. The more people you have sucking on the nipple of gov't, the more will fight tooth and nail to keep it the way it is. A huge, unwieldly mess.
Click to expand...

So I'm going to disagree with you here. People don't take care of each other any more and the reason is because there's no sense of community. In the long ago past, people knew each other and helped each other because they were part of their society. They met in churches, at schools, etc. The people in the community worked for a company that was in the city or town and the employees spoke and socialized with their managers and the owners of the companies. Things were done face to face. Today in comparison, more and more people reject the church. They spend more time online emailing or texting than on the phone or face to face. Many of us email each other when we sit no further than 6 feet away. Schools are larger, regionalized - kids are a name in a database. People are a name in a database and there is no personality or community any longer. Sure we might get all up in arms about some new tax and all show up at the town hall to complain but we're not connected like we were in the past. We're DISCONNECTED and so we don't take care of each other through the churches or charities.... because of that fact many (especially our liberal friends) see the gap and state that government must step in and take over. The same way government must step in everywhere.

So what we're left with is a government that can't tie it's own shoes without spending billion of tax dollars and decades of passing new laws about the shoes and types of shoelaces which can be used, who then starts to take over general societal functions where people have decided they don't want to do it any longer or are not interested. The 99 weeks issue is indicative of this --- people who are unemployed who made 75K at their last job don't want to take a job for 40K. Why? The reason is if they take that job and need to leave, their new unemployment check is reflective of their last job which was 40K, not 75K so they get less money - so they don't want to take that job, especially if it's just something to tide them over. They'd rather sit it out for 99 weeks - the down side to that is once they're out for that long, it's even MORE difficult to get a job. The only time it works is if the person doesn't give a squirt about the unemployment and they want to work and do whatever is necessary to feed their family. More and more people would rather sit on their couch and eat cheetos, email in their online claim form that they submitted for 10 jobs this week, and collect their paycheck. It's sad that the extension of unemployment which has the best of intentions, actually drives the wrong behavior and teaches people the wrong message which is: Stay home, collect until it runs out, and don't take a job for less money than you were making or you'll get penalized if they lay you off again.
 
Ockham said:
So I'm going to disagree with you here. People don't take care of each other any more and the reason is because there's no sense of community. In the long ago past, people knew each other and helped each other because they were part of their society. They met in churches, at schools, etc. The people in the community worked for a company that was in the city or town and the employees spoke and socialized with their managers and the owners of the companies. Things were done face to face. Today in comparison, more and more people reject the church. They spend more time online emailing or texting than on the phone or face to face. Many of us email each other when we sit no further than 6 feet away. Schools are larger, regionalized - kids are a name in a database. People are a name in a database and there is no personality or community any longer. Sure we might get all up in arms about some new tax and all show up at the town hall to complain but we're not connected like we were in the past. We're DISCONNECTED and so we don't take care of each other through the churches or charities.... because of that fact many (especially our liberal friends) see the gap and state that government must step in and take over. The same way government must step in everywhere.

So what we're left with is a government that can't tie it's own shoes without spending billion of tax dollars and decades of passing new laws about the shoes and types of shoelaces which can be used, who then starts to take over general societal functions where people have decided they don't want to do it any longer or are not interested. The 99 weeks issue is indicative of this --- people who are unemployed who made 75K at their last job don't want to take a job for 40K. Why? The reason is if they take that job and need to leave, their new unemployment check is reflective of their last job which was 40K, not 75K so they get less money - so they don't want to take that job, especially if it's just something to tide them over. They'd rather sit it out for 99 weeks - the down side to that is once they're out for that long, it's even MORE difficult to get a job. The only time it works is if the person doesn't give a squirt about the unemployment and they want to work and do whatever is necessary to feed their family. More and more people would rather sit on their couch and eat cheetos, email in their online claim form that they submitted for 10 jobs this week, and collect their paycheck. It's sad that the extension of unemployment which has the best of intentions, actually drives the wrong behavior and teaches people the wrong message which is: Stay home, collect until it runs out, and don't take a job for less money than you were making or you'll get penalized if they lay you off again.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with you , but it begs the question whos fault is this? My take it is us and not the govt. Your post is a sad commentary of the social state of the US. That is why I like living in smaller towns where we do know our neighbors and help each other.
 
Ockham said:
So I'm going to disagree with you here. People don't take care of each other any more and the reason is because there's no sense of community. In the long ago past, people knew each other and helped each other because they were part of their society. They met in churches, at schools, etc. The people in the community worked for a company that was in the city or town and the employees spoke and socialized with their managers and the owners of the companies. Things were done face to face. Today in comparison, more and more people reject the church. They spend more time online emailing or texting than on the phone or face to face. Many of us email each other when we sit no further than 6 feet away. Schools are larger, regionalized - kids are a name in a database. People are a name in a database and there is no personality or community any longer. Sure we might get all up in arms about some new tax and all show up at the town hall to complain but we're not connected like we were in the past. We're DISCONNECTED and so we don't take care of each other through the churches or charities.... because of that fact many (especially our liberal friends) see the gap and state that government must step in and take over. The same way government must step in everywhere.

So what we're left with is a government that can't tie it's own shoes without spending billion of tax dollars and decades of passing new laws about the shoes and types of shoelaces which can be used, who then starts to take over general societal functions where people have decided they don't want to do it any longer or are not interested. The 99 weeks issue is indicative of this --- people who are unemployed who made 75K at their last job don't want to take a job for 40K. Why? The reason is if they take that job and need to leave, their new unemployment check is reflective of their last job which was 40K, not 75K so they get less money - so they don't want to take that job, especially if it's just something to tide them over. They'd rather sit it out for 99 weeks - the down side to that is once they're out for that long, it's even MORE difficult to get a job. The only time it works is if the person doesn't give a squirt about the unemployment and they want to work and do whatever is necessary to feed their family. More and more people would rather sit on their couch and eat cheetos, email in their online claim form that they submitted for 10 jobs this week, and collect their paycheck. It's sad that the extension of unemployment which has the best of intentions, actually drives the wrong behavior and teaches people the wrong message which is: Stay home, collect until it runs out, and don't take a job for less money than you were making or you'll get penalized if they lay you off again.
Click to expand...
We agree to disagree. I think the gov't put its foot in the door during the Great Depression and never took it out. Instead, it replaced that foot with its whole body and now they are in the door, in our living room, in our lives. The deChristianizing (is that a word) of our country by a gov't that says its okay to be a malcontent, the dehumanization of society by first liberals, and then "conservatives" who fell in lock step, by putting everyone into a class, and the offering of benefits and entitlements to everyone who will take them are a few ways this has happened. I think if gov't butted out and let it go for a few years we would realize our folly and correct it. The problem is, just like a heroin addict, society would yell and scream about "where's the gov't? whose gonna bail me out of this?" until politicians caved because they care more about being re-elected than anything else.
 
Blackstone said:
Federal tax monies used to provide a minimum level of income for the unemployed is an unconstitutional program which invites moral hazard for both those receiving the assistance and those providing it. Why should an individual, merely from the fact that he paid income tax and now finds himself unemployed be subsidized for not working? It is nobody else's responsibility - not the government, not society, not the taxpayer, not his neighbor - to provide that individual with a job, with an income, or with an education. It is solely the responsibility of the individual to seek, acquire and retain these things. A country which does not promote that is instead promoting self-defeating ideas which lead to the moral decay of both the individual and the civilization at-large.

Here's a thought for people without a job: drastically downsize your expenses, sell assets, remain out of debt and don't consider any job "beneath" you. The people receiving government assistance rarely take common sense measures like these to alleviate their own circumstances. They are not less "fortunate" than others. They are not unluckier than anyone else. They arrived in their situation - or remain there - because of the choices they make. Financial assistance to the unemployed only discourages those people from making the kind of hard decisions they will eventually be forced to make anyway. Much as no bank is too big to fail, no individual is too small to fail either. Welfare, in all its forms, is wasteful and corrupting whether the money lands in a bank vault or a family checking account.
Click to expand...

MarineTpartier said:
We agree to disagree. I think the gov't put its foot in the door during the Great Depression and never took it out. Instead, it replaced that foot with its whole body and now they are in the door, in our living room, in our lives. The deChristianizing (is that a word) of our country by a gov't that says its okay to be a malcontent, the dehumanization of society by first liberals, and then "conservatives" who fell in lock step, by putting everyone into a class, and the offering of benefits and entitlements to everyone who will take them are a few ways this has happened. I think if gov't butted out and let it go for a few years we would realize our folly and correct it. The problem is, just like a heroin addict, society would yell and scream about "where's the gov't? whose gonna bail me out of this?" until politicians caved because they care more about being re-elected than anything else.
Click to expand...

The ultra conservative position doesn't get more cliche than this.

Look fellas these are nice sentiments, but facts are: jobs are fewer and far between every day. At least jobs that pay a liveable wage. i listen to these people opine about how the average unemployeed Americans are welfare queens taking it easy while they collect a check. The reality is, these people are terrified that they may not be able to feed their families. Ironically, many ultra conservatives may eventually find themselves standing in line for unemployment. How opinionated will they be then?
 
evanescence said:
The ultra conservative position doesn't get more cliche than this.

Look fellas these are nice sentiments, but facts are: jobs are fewer and far between every day. At least jobs that pay a liveable wage. i listen to these people opine about how the average unemployeed Americans are welfare queens taking it easy while they collect a check. The reality is, these people are terrified that they may not be able to feed their families. Ironically, many ultra conservatives may eventually find themselves standing in line for unemployment. How opinionated will they be then?
Click to expand...

Ultra-conservatives shouldn't be in line at all... they should be out finding work wherever they can. I am proud that I've never taken a dime of unemployment and if I have my wish, I never will.
 
Ockham said:
Ultra-conservatives shouldn't be in line at all... they should be out finding work wherever they can. I am proud that I've never taken a dime of unemployment and if I have my wish, I never will.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't, maybe. So if an ultra conservative got on unemployment, would he or she be a hypocrite?
 
evanescence said:
The ultra conservative position doesn't get more cliche than this.

Look fellas these are nice sentiments, but facts are: jobs are fewer and far between every day. At least jobs that pay a liveable wage. i listen to these people opine about how the average unemployeed Americans are welfare queens taking it easy while they collect a check. The reality is, these people are terrified that they may not be able to feed their families. Ironically, many ultra conservatives may eventually find themselves standing in line for unemployment. How opinionated will they be then?
Click to expand...
One of the reasons people end up in situations where unemployment exceeds the salary they can get is they live beyond their means. Remember, the housing collapse started all this. A bunch of people taking loans on houses that they couldn't afford. I know everyone can agree that when you see people buying cars, tv's, Playstation 3's, etc when the one they have works or they don't need it to begin with, its infuriating. A symptom of this was when this recession started, video game and movie sales didn't really take a hit. Some people were too stupid and too spoiled to realize that they may need to start saving up. The people who are smart with their money did start saving up. Now, the stupid, spoiled people are Occupying places wanting the smart people's saved money. I know this is all me venting and not how it happens all the time. There are legitimate reasons to take unemployment and I don't demonize people for it. But, when I ride around seeing help wanted signs on fast food joints and at Wal-Marts and then see a line out of the door at the unemployment office, there's something wrong with that. My dad, rather than go on unemployment, worked 3 jobs. That's what people should be doing. Does it suck? Yeah, sure it does. One of the jobs my dad had was with Servicemaster cleaning buildings and offices. Servicemaster required he have a three person crew to help him. Guess who that was. My 6 year old brother, my mom, and me at 12 years old. He didn't go on unemployment and it taught me hard work as well. Many people now would rather just go sit in the unemployment office than put the work in to live in their own means.
 
MarineTpartier said:
One of the reasons people end up in situations where unemployment exceeds the salary they can get is they live beyond their means. Remember, the housing collapse started all this. A bunch of people taking loans on houses that they couldn't afford. I know everyone can agree that when you see people buying cars, tv's, Playstation 3's, etc when the one they have works or they don't need it to begin with, its infuriating. A symptom of this was when this recession started, video game and movie sales didn't really take a hit. Some people were too stupid and too spoiled to realize that they may need to start saving up. The people who are smart with their money did start saving up. Now, the stupid, spoiled people are Occupying places wanting the smart people's saved money. I know this is all me venting and not how it happens all the time. There are legitimate reasons to take unemployment and I don't demonize people for it. But, when I ride around seeing help wanted signs on fast food joints and at Wal-Marts and then see a line out of the door at the unemployment office, there's something wrong with that. My dad, rather than go on unemployment, worked 3 jobs. That's what people should be doing. Does it suck? Yeah, sure it does. One of the jobs my dad had was with Servicemaster cleaning buildings and offices. Servicemaster required he have a three person crew to help him. Guess who that was. My 6 year old brother, my mom, and me at 12 years old. He didn't go on unemployment and it taught me hard work as well. Many people now would rather just go sit in the unemployment office than put the work in to live in their own means.
Click to expand...

Scripted.

Define "beyond their means." Even the essentials with no extras cost more than most people can afford. My husband was laid off the year before last, and luckily found employment nearly a year later. He doesn't make as much as he did at his last job. And we've cut all sorts of things. We do not live beyond our means, nor do most unemployeed people.
 
evanescence said:
Scripted.

Define "beyond their means." Even the essentials with no extras cost more than most people can afford. My husband was laid off the year before last, and luckily found employment nearly a year later. He doesn't make as much as he did at his last job. And we've cut all sorts of things. We do not live beyond our means, nor do most unemployeed people.
Click to expand...
Define "essentials". Its amazing what people in our country define as essential. Like basic cable is "essential". Internet is "essential". A data plan on your iPhone 4 is "essential". See what I'm saying. I did say some people were stupid and kept living beyond their means. You sound like the other side, the person who saved their money and made it through. I also applaud your husband for taking a job that paid less than before. That's the exact thing we need people doing, if they have to. A lot of people would have just gone to the unemployment office forever. Kudos to him.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Define "essentials". Its amazing what people in our country define as essential. Like basic cable is "essential". Internet is "essential". A data plan on your iPhone 4 is "essential". See what I'm saying. I did say some people were stupid and kept living beyond their means. You sound like the other side, the person who saved their money and made it through. I also applaud your husband for taking a job that paid less than before. That's the exact thing we need people doing, if they have to. A lot of people would have just gone to the unemployment office forever. Kudos to him.
Click to expand...

To me, essentials are basic things like a safe place to live, a basic/cheap phone plan (for employment purposes), internet (because i do half of my courses online so it's for education), utilities, at least one car, gas, groceries, then there's insurance (which is our third largest expense monthly after the mortgage), health care costs out of pocket, home and car repair, the unexpected repair bill, I'm sure I'm missing something. All of these things add up and it aint cheap. If I worked full time, we'd need to add to that the cost of daycare for two kids under five, one not potty trained. We've cut cable tv, our cell phone plan (we're now on my parent's family plan), and we rarely go out. My point is, many other people are in similar situations. And to be honest, if his job didn't pay more than what unemployment offered, we would have held out. And frankly, I don't blame the people that do hold out. What these people are getting in unemployment is nothing compared to the trillions the pentagon lost in a single year. Corporations are making record profits while the average person is supposed to "cut back." I don't buy it.
 
JohnWOlin said:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/index.htm

I found this to be a very interesting article and before I might say extend but I tend to agree--several unemployed don't need these extensions they need to learn to adapt and build up. This is a nonstarter to get unemployment down by continuously extending the unemployment for those out of work for over a year. I mean come on a year? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

It is Obama's instinct to have as many unemployed/unemployable people as possible wholly dependent on the Government for their living expenses.

This way it is reasoned that there will always be a majority who vote Democratic.
 
Tigger said:
I'm all for a system similar to what Wisconsin has been using for the past few years.....

Anyone coming into the system would be classified based on their education and job skills. Over a period of time (six months to a year) they would be offered educational and job training programs to bring them to a minimum of a GED level education and some job skill (if necessary). At the point they are deemed both educated and skilled they should be given 26 weeks to find employment or they get cut off completely. During those 26 weeks they should be required to check in weekly to ensure they are actively seeking employment. Those check-ins would also allow the administration to provide them with information on potential job opportunities with their skills.... IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.
Click to expand...

So, how does someone without a job have the money to be able to move across the country.

I moved only 500 miles a couple of years ago and between moving expenses, deposits (and loss of deposits), the total cost was about $5,000 - a couple thousand more than I budgeted for.

And I had a job on both ends of the move. I can't imagine someone who has been struggling can simply afford to pack up and move.

That's part of the problem. There are several parts of the country where there are ample open jobs and other pockets of high unemployment. But those who need the jobs can't afford to get to where the jobs are.
 
Pointy said:
It is Obama's instinct to have as many unemployed/unemployable people as possible wholly dependent on the Government for their living expenses.

This way it is reasoned that there will always be a majority who vote Democratic.
Click to expand...

Rolls eyes at obvious propaganda...
 
evanescence said:
To me, essentials are basic things like a safe place to live, a basic/cheap phone plan (for employment purposes), internet (because i do half of my courses online so it's for education), utilities, at least one car, gas, groceries, then there's insurance (which is our third largest expense monthly after the mortgage), health care costs out of pocket, home and car repair, the unexpected repair bill, I'm sure I'm missing something. All of these things add up and it aint cheap. If I worked full time, we'd need to add to that the cost of daycare for two kids under five, one not potty trained. We've cut cable tv, our cell phone plan (we're now on my parent's family plan), and we rarely go out. My point is, many other people are in similar situations. And to be honest, if his job didn't pay more than what unemployment offered, we would have held out. And frankly, I don't blame the people that do hold out. What these people are getting in unemployment is nothing compared to the trillions the pentagon lost in a single year. Corporations are making record profits while the average person is supposed to "cut back." I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
Worrying about the fiscal responsibility of others will take you to an early grave. I don't understand your beef with "corporations"? Explain please.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Worrying about the fiscal responsibility of others will take you to an early grave. I don't understand your beef with "corporations"? Explain please.
Click to expand...

That would require a thread by itself. I disagree with the very premise of their existence- corporate personhood. There are many reasons why, but one of the main arguments against corporations is that they contribute less to the societies they exist within than what they take from it. The externalities are not being considered by most individuals who support corporations. It should be apparent that "trickle down economics" has failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom