• 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 Extension

Should benefits be extended?

  • Total voters
    38
Redress said:
Being in a recovery, which we undoubtedly are, is not the same thing as "booming". If you want a hostile environment to business, take away unemployment benefits and watch consumer spending drop.
Click to expand...

oh yeah! People are taking their un-employment bennies and buying toothpaste and **** paper. That's firin' up the economy, aww-right.

You betcha!

What we need is more regulation for businesses in this country. That'll fix the economy, huh?
 
apdst said:
oh yeah! People are taking their un-employment bennies and buying toothpaste and **** paper. That's firin' up the economy, aww-right.

You betcha!

What we need is more regulation for businesses in this country. That'll fix the economy, huh?
Click to expand...

Yes, people are buying things with their unemployment money, which means people have to supply those items, which is jobs. Is this simple concept too complex?

The regulations are to prevent another meltdown like this from happening again. Saying that the regulations won't do something they are not designed to is not making much of a point.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm in the middle on this, it's about time to end it but then again, it will hurt.

I guess I'm willing to live with the hurt more than piling on more debt. :shrug:
Click to expand...

My thought is that ending benefits will slow recovery, which is the first big step towards solving the debt problem.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
The unemployment extension bill has been filibustered by the Republicans.

Congress Fails to Pass an Extension of Jobless Aid - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

Believe this poll is being a little distorted. Have not followed the issue that closely. But I believe the issue with the GOP is the fact that the benefit extension is unfunded. There are no cuts elsewhere to pony up the funds to pay for the extension.

The resources will essentially come from printing more cash and floating more debt.



.
 
ptif219 said:
Find the right industry and be willing to work for a little less until the economy improves. I am making $0.04 less a mile than I was when Bush was president. Bad economy wages go down. You can't sit and wait for a job as good and that pays the same as your old job. Some compromise may be needed.
Click to expand...

a few weeks ago, I had to go get my driver's license renewed, and was standing in line with a couple of young-ish men who were there to take their CDL test. They were hired by a company who paid for their school and their licensing if they would sign a two-year contract to work for a salary better than mine, and I don't make a huge sum, but it's a decent livable wage. They were really excited about the deal they were getting, and were anxious to get to work. They said the company they hired on with has "lots" of openings for drivers.
 
Redress said:
My thought is that ending benefits will slow recovery, which is the first big step towards solving the debt problem.
Click to expand...

I understand that aspect but really we are delaying the inevitable.
From what I understand our projected future economic growth is quite lousy.

Might as well rip off the band aid and get it over with.
 
Redress said:
My thought is that ending benefits will slow recovery, which is the first big step towards solving the debt problem.
Click to expand...

What needs to be happening (imo) is big incentives for businesses to get back to doing business. What I am seeing with the federal government is maintaining the status quo in long-term unemployment, but no attempt to increase productivity in the private sector. Government jobs and unemployment are a net cost, and can't go on indefinitely.
People are hesitant to start up new businesses because they can see that the feds are going to tax the hell out of them and penalize their industry.
 
Redress said:
Yes, people are buying things with their unemployment money, which means people have to supply those items, which is jobs. Is this simple concept too complex?
Click to expand...

No, it's not too complex. Does the concept of disposable income blow you away, or do you fathom how disposable income is the real driving force behind our economy? The United States didn't become an economic powerhouse by simply trading in household neccessities.

The regulations are to prevent another meltdown like this from happening again. Saying that the regulations won't do something they are not designed to is not making much of a point.
Click to expand...

Regulation only do one thing: make it harder for businesses to operate. Making it harder for businesses to operate means fewer jobs. How is forcing businesses to issue 1099's to all it's vendors going to prevent a meltdown? That's an idiotic idea.
 
lizzie said:
a few weeks ago, I had to go get my driver's license renewed, and was standing in line with a couple of young-ish men who were there to take their CDL test. They were hired by a company who paid for their school and their licensing if they would sign a two-year contract to work for a salary better than mine, and I don't make a huge sum, but it's a decent livable wage. They were really excited about the deal they were getting, and were anxious to get to work. They said the company they hired on with has "lots" of openings for drivers.
Click to expand...

Correct we do not get rich but $50,000 is a fair wage. As I said there are jobs people have to be willing to make compromises. You might be surprised how many truck drivers I have met that have college degrees.
 
apdst said:
No, it's not too complex. Does the concept of disposable income blow you away, or do you fathom how disposable income is the real driving force behind our economy? The United States didn't become an economic powerhouse by simply trading in household neccessities.
Click to expand...

Income - taxes = Disposable income = (wages,interest,rent,proft,etc) + government transfers = consumption +saving

Do you know what unemployment benefits are? What effect would that have on disposable income?
 
drz-400 said:
Income - taxes = Disposable income = (wages,interest,rent,proft,etc) + government transfers = consumption +saving

Do you know what unemployment benefits are? What effect would that have on disposable income?
Click to expand...

Your equation adds up to exactly zilch, but thank you for playing.
 
And back to the earlier point. How exactly is the proposed legislation going to get paid for?

If we are just magically going to provide this money out of the sky, why not double the amount of the unemployment payments?

...or triple it? That oughta buy some future votes.



.
 
I think that the GOP saw that the recovery was going decently. When Obama started the job the economy was losing 700 000 jobs a month. Now it is about to bring its head above water the GOP is moving with austerity prematurely in an attempt to slow the growth under the democrats for the fall elections. They voted the washed down version of the bill in solidarity.
 
Okay then.

One side of this debate actually understands the economics and the other side is flailing around hopelessly.

Let's start.

First principle: The marginal propensity to save and consume differ at economic and wealth levels. Those with large amounts of money and wealth generally save more and consume less as a percentage of their income and wealth then those not so fortunate. Unemployment benefits generally go to those in the lower economic brackets. The same people with higher marginal propensity to consume.

Increasing payments to groups with greater tendencies to spend money in their local markets increases demand and thereby increases economic activity. Businesses then respond by increasing hiring and increasing orders which then trickles down the supply chain. Reagan was partially right on trickle down economics, except that his start pointing was wrong. Therefore, unemployment benefits are in many ways, the fastest form of stimulus that the government has. Someone who has no savings and has immediate expenses spends that money quickly. Giving a tax cut to someone who's marginal propensity to save is high and hasn't changed with the economy is not effective. As we saw with the Depression, the rich buckled down and stopped spending so lavishly. It's a reason why luxury products took truly massive hits during the worst days of the recession but while Walmart saw some of its best per store sales.

Take away unemployment benefits and you will see businesses cut back as consumer spending drops. With no income, you conserve to spend only on necessities. That is death to our retail driven economy.

Ironically, to support business, you support unemployment benefits. Note, this cannot go on forever, but right now there seems economically and logically good reasons to support it.
 
Cole said:
And back to the earlier point. How exactly is the proposed legislation going to get paid for?

If we are just magically going to provide this money out of the sky, why not double the amount of the unemployment payments?

...or triple it? That oughta buy some future votes.



.
Click to expand...

If we can fund a dumb ass stupid ****ing war for ten years without making people pay taxes for i (in fact, lowering taxes for the rich), then we can fund a few billion for a temporary unemployment extension.

The republicans are playing chess with the American workers.
 
Redress said:
How so? They have never denied what I said, so how is it not according to them?
Click to expand...

According to them the unemployment rate is dropping, they claim to have saved 3.8 Million jobs.

The above are so easy to say, almost impossible to prove.

Unemployment rate will drop as unemployed people come off being paid benefit, plus a number of folk simply give up trying to find work as their are no jobs to be found.
The exception being that Illegal immigrants can always find jobs, because if there were no jobs they would head back home in droves.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Being in a recovery, which we undoubtedly are, is not the same thing as "booming". If you want a hostile environment to business, take away unemployment benefits and watch consumer spending drop.
Click to expand...

If you want a Hostile enviroment, continue endless benefits and watch your $ value, diminish to less than the value of the Zimbabwean $.

For it is an absolute fact that withought income, constant expenditure leads to Bankruptcy.
 
Redress said:
Yes, people are buying things with their unemployment money, which means people have to supply those items, which is jobs. Is this simple concept too complex?

The regulations are to prevent another meltdown like this from happening again. Saying that the regulations won't do something they are not designed to is not making much of a point.
Click to expand...

Basically the things people on benefit, are buying are made overseas.
Is that clear enough for you to understand or should I explain the eventual consequences of that to you as well?
 
Cole said:
Believe this poll is being a little distorted. Have not followed the issue that closely. But I believe the issue with the GOP is the fact that the benefit extension is unfunded. There are no cuts elsewhere to pony up the funds to pay for the extension.

The resources will essentially come from printing more cash and floating more debt.



.
Click to expand...

Now if only you can explain this all so simple fact to all those who apparently fail to understand the simple facts of home economics.
$10 income, $9.99 expenditure, result contentment.
$10 Income, $10.01 expenditure, result bankruptcy.
 
jujuman13 said:
If you want a Hostile enviroment, continue endless benefits and watch your $ value, diminish to less than the value of the Zimbabwean $.

For it is an absolute fact that withought income, constant expenditure leads to Bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Wrong.. inflation is no worry when your unemployment is near 10%. You want a much lower level of unemployment before you become hostile to the social benifits. (imo 4-5%) Cutting economic stimulus before that time will only have a negative effect.
 
Redress said:
2 weeks ago tells you nothing about when the hard times here start. It's a manufacturing area. When the economy is good, it excels. When the economy goes bad, it goes really bad here. The problem is not that people won't take less, the problem is there are no jobs.
Click to expand...

Possibly because they have priced themselves out of the jobs market.
 
I voted "other" At this time I would be ok with extending the jobless benefits if it was off set with spending cuts in other areas of govt. spending. I also would want a provision where the unemployed spent at least 20 hours a week looking for work and at least 20 hours doing community service. This would espcially be for the ones that have run up against what normally would be paid out. Without the off-set, we have dug such a deep hole with the spending on the wars and social programs I feel we are on the brink. It also boils down to just way too many people for our country or economy to support. But I also feel the whole world is over populated since the world economy is almost in the tank.

(Side note, I say this with having a daughter who's unemployment just ran out)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom