• 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!

unemployment benefits running out for 1.3m americans saturday

What will today's end of benefits for 1.3m Americans mean for this forum?


  • Total voters
    13
I don't see anything wrong with each of those scenarios. The gov't subsidized the guy building the business with unemployment and now he is a business and a taxpayer and may even have employees paying taxes. A success story for unemployment. The 63 year old woman probably never drew unemployment before in her life and was well-advised by her counselors. It always takes time for "cash businesses" to succeed and also takes entrepreneurial skills to get started. Its just temporary subsidization and a hell of a lot better than giving JP Morgan Chase or GE or Haliburton or Exxon/Mobil another thin dime. If you want to cry about subsidization, look at the Corporate Welfare Queens where the big monies are stolen. Repair the big problem first, then the small problem.

Why is there such a negative stigma againist people who are unemployed?
 
Why is there such a negative stigma againist people who are unemployed?

Because the Mainstream Media makes a Federal case out of the occasional malingerer/fraud/cheat who milks the system. It is a target that cannot fight back, so you never really get both sides of the issue. Republicans like to pretend Corporate Welfare doesn't exist because they are the ones getting that money and can create problems for any Mainstream Media that publicizes that or correctly describes Corporate subsidies as Corporate Welfare. I shouldn't indict all Repubs because some still have common sense, but the Republicans are the party of Big Business and spout "What's good for business is good for America." It's nonsense. "War is good business, and business is good." War is Welfare for the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex, but nobody calls them "Welfare Queens."
 
Well I don't consider unemployment pay a benefit, but an entitlement. We all pay a separate tax into it, so it is there when we need it. How long that entitlement lasts while unemployed is the issue at hand. Same can be said for other programs like Social Security and medicare which are also entitlements. You have to look at the intent of the entitlement. Unemployment is intended to be temporary and not a lifeline, so should be cut off at a certain point, where as SS and Medicare are meant to support you for the rest of your life after retirement. I believe that point should be 12 months for unemployment and it starts to build back up as you hold a job. I think it should be a 4-1 ratio meaning say you took 2 months of unemployment before getting a job, you are left with 10 months of entitlement. Every month you earn a week of entitlement back and at 8 months you have regained your entire 12 month entitlement back.
 
Last edited:
Why is there such a negative stigma againist people who are unemployed?

I don't think there is a stigma against people who are unemployed per se, so much as there is the belief that significant numbers of the long-term unemployed are those who are waiting for the kind of job they want at the pay they want in their area to open up - the belief that unemployment benefits dull the willingness to take work that would be beneath the level or pay of the job lost. That speaks, as well to the nature of the people making that decision, but does not extend to everyone who has taken an unemployment check.
 
I don't think there is a stigma against people who are unemployed per se, so much as there is the belief that significant numbers of the long-term unemployed are those who are waiting for the kind of job they want at the pay they want in their area to open up - the belief that unemployment benefits dull the willingness to take work that would be beneath the level or pay of the job lost. That speaks, as well to the nature of the people making that decision, but does not extend to everyone who has taken an unemployment check.
Wow....you describe a set of negative characteristics you ascribe to some unemployed....while claiming there is no stigmatizing.

Is ones argument ever aware of itself?
 
Wow....you describe a set of negative characteristics you ascribe to some unemployed....while claiming there is no stigmatizing.

Is ones argument ever aware of itself?

Let me see if I can put this into very small, simple ideas for you.

A: there is not a stigma against all of the unemployed
B: there is a feeling that some of the unemployed aren't willing to take work that they wouldn't like, or feel is beneath them, because unemployment gives them an out from having to do so
C: But that doesn't mean that that describes everyone on unemployment, or that it is believed that it does.

Here, I'll copy paste the section you responded to and highlight the relevant portions.

cpwill said:
I don't think there is a stigma against people who are unemployed per se, so much as there is the belief that significant numbers of the long-term unemployed are those who are waiting for the kind of job they want at the pay they want in their area to open up - the belief that unemployment benefits dull the willingness to take work that would be beneath the level or pay of the job lost. That speaks, as well to the nature of the people making that decision, but does not extend to everyone who has taken an unemployment check.

If you have trouble connecting those highlighted sections to the simple ideas above, let me know. I have a few friends who are elementary and middle school teachers, and they may have some basic tricks to help you with reading comprehension.
 
Let me see if I can put this into very small, simple ideas for you.

A: there is not a stigma against all of the unemployed
There you go again, adding in "all", the argument was not about "all" unemployed.....even YOU made that distinction in the post I quoted. Stop making absolute argument and moving YOUR goalpost.
B: there is a feeling that some of the unemployed aren't willing to take work that they wouldn't like, or feel is beneath them, because unemployment gives them an out from having to do so
Which is stigmatizing.....or perhaps your argument is clueless to the definition.
C: But that doesn't mean that that describes everyone on unemployment, or that it is believed that it does.
And there you are back to absolute argument again.....that did not exist in the first place.

Here, I'll copy paste the section you responded to and highlight the relevant portions.
If you have trouble connecting those highlighted sections to the simple ideas above, let me know. I have a few friends who are elementary and middle school teachers, and they may have some basic tricks to help you with reading comprehension.
The irony! An ignoring of the definition and the creation of a false argument.

Comprehension...indeed!
 
There you go again, adding in "all", the argument was not about "all" unemployed.....even YOU made that distinction in the post I quoted.

Hey! Good for you! When reminded, you can go back and check!

Stop making absolute argument and moving YOUR goalpost.
Which is stigmatizing.....or perhaps your argument is clueless to the definition.
And there you are back to absolute argument again.....that did not exist in the first place.

The irony! An ignoring of the definition and the creation of a false argument.

Comprehension...indeed!

:) I specifically pointed out that we were not stigmatizing the unemployed. You then suggested that we were. Are you saying now that you deliberately mis-read in order to justified taking an offended pose?
 
Hey! Good for you! When reminded, you can go back and check!
You reminded me....that you did not originally say "all", making an absolute where one did not originally exist?

FFS! Your argument IS NOT aware of itself!

How sad!



I specifically pointed out that we were not stigmatizing the unemployed.
I know, and I pointed out that YOUR ARGUMENT DID in fact stigmatize the unemployed it was discussing. I still believe your argument is clueless to what "stigmatizing" means.


You then suggested that we were.
No, not "we".....your argument....singular.


Are you saying now that you deliberately mis-read in order to justified taking an offended pose?
LOL.....no, I am maintaining a consistent point.....your argument is unaware that it IS stigmatizing the unemployed under discussion.

I am so sorry that your argument cannot comprehend this.
 
Last edited:
I heard today on the news this guybeing interviewed who's been collecting unemployment benefits for almost two years and he was pissed off.

I think his exact words were "I now have to go out and get a job !!!"

The recession ended in July of 2009. It's been Obama's economy as soon as he got his stimulus to pay off the unions and his corporate donors who helped put him in office, cash for clunkers and the Feds have been propping up Obama's economy for almost five years now.
 
Look, if we are rotting out the people's brains, desensitizing their souls to the suffering of others, and turning destructive criminal behavior into amusing sport rather than something to be shunned..... but can also make oodles of money off of it?!?

Cmon Chris - it's the American Way! :mrgreen: :lol: :sigh: :(

The ancient Greeks were very fond of their sitcoms. Maybe I should start watching them, American sitcoms, instead of learning more about the ancient Greeks. I am still in awe of the Athenian victory of the Persians at Marathon.
 
Last edited:
The ancient Greeks were very fond of their sitcoms. Maybe I should start watching them, American sitcoms, instead of learning more about the ancient Greeks. I am still in awe of the Athenian victory of the Persians at Marathon.

At least sitcoms are entertaining unlike reality shows.
 
Which is stigmatizing.....or perhaps your argument is clueless to the definition.

Hey, lookit that - the New York Times is Stigmatizing the Unemployed!


Economists expect that the end of the emergency jobless benefits will, surprisingly, lead to a sharp drop in the unemployment rate, by as much as 0.5 percentage points.

That is in part because the loss of benefits might spur some workers to intensify their job search, or accept an offer they might have turned down...

:roll: "surprisingly" :roll:
 
Hey, lookit that - the New York Times is Stigmatizing the Unemployed!




:roll: "surprisingly" :roll:
Wow....not only is your argument incapable of recognizing its own stigmatizing.......it cannot differentiate a newspaper reporting it....in statements made by "economists".

FFS!

Good grief.
 
I heard today on the news this guybeing interviewed who's been collecting unemployment benefits for almost two years and he was pissed off.

I think his exact words were "I now have to go out and get a job !!!"

The recession ended in July of 2009. It's been Obama's economy as soon as he got his stimulus to pay off the unions and his corporate donors who helped put him in office, cash for clunkers and the Feds have been propping up Obama's economy for almost five years now.

A stunning lack of citations...Need to get over the hyper-partisanship too
 
Wow....not only is your argument incapable of recognizing its own stigmatizing.......it cannot differentiate a newspaper reporting it....in statements made by "economists".

FFS!

Good grief.

:shrug: hey, if your big retort is to accuse us of having an opinion so basic that even the NYTimes is forced to admit it, but that they have to cit "economists" to do so...
 
:shrug: hey, if your big retort is to accuse us of having an opinion so basic that even the NYTimes is forced to admit it, but that they have to cit "economists" to do so...
If in your arguments' view that reporting stigmatizing legitimizes the action.....well there it is.

At the least, your argument has recognized and admitted that it is stigmatizing.
That only took, what, 2 days?
 
If in your arguments' view that reporting stigmatizing legitimizes the action.....well there it is.

:shrug: no one is out there stigmatizing. It's just the charge being thrown because no one wants to defend people using unemployment as a paid vacation.
 
:shrug: no one is out there stigmatizing. It's just the charge being thrown because no one wants to defend people using unemployment as a paid vacation.
And there your argument is back again not recognizing its irony.

Oh well.
 
But I do not (as of yet) require it to survive or feed/house/clothe my family.

My wife lost her job recently.

Based on what we have saved we can continue on, business as usual, for 13 months (though I'll probably consider putting the house on the market in May, if it comes to it, just because it'll be easier to sell it in the spring/summer before the school year starts and it'll also stretch the money a couple more months before we need to tap into investments).

Not only are we (well, she I guess) collecting unemployment, but we've also already negotiated with lenders to have loans put into deferment/forbearance or to have minimum payments reduced.

Do everything that you can NOW to minimize overhead and maximize income.

I generally operate by the maxim that it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. I reverse that 180 degrees when dealing with finances. Lenders and creditors are always more willing to work with you before you become a problem for them.

If you're back to work in a couple weeks, that's great. You make a couple phone calls and put everything back to rights.

If you're still unemployed in 15 months you'll be glad that you were proactive.

And if you do have to unload your house you'll be glad five or seven years down the road that you didn't corner yourself into a short sale or foreclosure.

Unemployment insurance is insurance.

Just like car insurance or health insurance.

You "buy" it to protect yourself against the eventuality that you may someday become unemployed (or require medical care, or total your car).

You don't run out and pay cash for major surgery, or to replace a totaled car just because you can.

Likewise, you don't wait to claim unemployment insurance payments just because you don't need them right this minute.

The minute you lose your job you make a claim against your insurance.

If you're not entitled to it at present, for whatever reason, let the insurer make that decision.

Take the money and stick it in the bank and then tack it on to the back end if need be.
 
Last edited:
My wife lost her job recently.

Based on what we have saved we can continue on, business as usual, for 13 months (though I'll probably consider putting the house on the market in May, if it comes to it, just because it'll be easier to sell it in the spring/summer before the school year starts and it'll also stretch the money a couple more months before we need to tap into investments).

Not only are we (well, she I guess) collecting unemployment, but we've also already negotiated with lenders to have loans put into deferment/forbearance or to have minimum payments reduced.

Do everything that you can NOW to minimize overhead and maximize income.

I generally operate by the maxim that it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. I reverse that 180 degrees when dealing with finances. Lenders and creditors are always more willing to work with you before you become a problem for them.

If you're back to work in a couple weeks, that's great. You make a couple phone calls and put everything back to rights.

If you're still unemployed in 15 months you'll be glad that you were proactive.

And if you do have to unload your house you'll be glad five or seven years down the road that you didn't corner yourself into a short sale or foreclosure.

Unemployment insurance is insurance.

Just like car insurance or health insurance.

You "buy" it to protect yourself against the eventuality that you may someday become unemployed (or require medical care, or total your car).

You don't run out and pay cash for major surgery, or to replace a totaled car just because you can.

Likewise, you don't wait to claim unemployment insurance payments just because you don't need them right this minute.

The minute you lose your job you make a claim against your insurance.

If you're not entitled to it at present, for whatever reason, let the insurer make that decision.

Take the money and stick it in the bank and then tack it on to the back end if need be.

You shoulda seen how fun it was to try to get the unemployment benefits for which you'd yourself paid by way of working at your job back in the days before Obama became president.

A whole buncha fun, that — just tryin' to live, as it were.

Someone could easily get himself sent up the river aping John Dillinger back then.
 
You shoulda seen how fun it was to try to get the unemployment benefits for which you'd yourself paid by way of working at your job back in the days before Obama became president.

I only collected them once, back in 1994 right after I got out of the service.

I don't recall it having been all that difficult.

Maybe things changed between then and 2000-whenever-it-was-Obama-was-elected?
 
As of Jan 15 I am out of a job as well, and don't have another one lined up yet (stupid holiday season). If I hit that date without anything, I'm wondering if I should apply, given that I have savings.
It will be interesting to see how your views on the GOP cutting off the extension, reducing SANP, not making principle reduction on underwater homes any sort of priority, not pushing for real employment programs....etc, etc.

Both my significant other (of over 30 years) and I had extreme levels of income loss, we went through all savings, we could not get a principle reduction (only a very small reduction in interest), we could not keep up and tried to do a short sale. That fell through as soon as she filed for BK, the bank seized the house and sold it at auction after dragging their feet on a short sale.....and all of our equity (real and a LOT of sweat) was lost. This included the profit of a previous home. I was able to keep us fed with SNAP and extended UI....that was a long time ago. If it had not been for my parents generosity, we would be on the streets.

It can happen to you too.
 
Last edited:
I only collected them once, back in 1994 right after I got out of the service.

I don't recall it having been all that difficult.

Maybe things changed between then and 2000-whenever-it-was-Obama-was-elected?

Yes.

Getting one's unemployment insurance benefits for which he or she had rightfully paid through his or her employer was bigtime difficult — especially if that someone lived in a Right-to-Work state — prior to the 2008 economic crisis, man.
 
Back
Top Bottom