• 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: who's right?

What should be done about unemployment benefits?

  • Extend them through deficit spending

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Extend them, but pay for them with unpaid stimulus/tarp funds

    Votes: 14 26.4%

  • Don't extend them, it is unregulated welfare

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Other, Explain:

    Votes: 8 15.1%

  • Don't you touch my unemployment benefits!!

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Don't extend them, the labor market is beginning to make a solid recovery.
 
pbrauer said:
Agreed, the money is much more well spent than funding two wars...
Click to expand...

of course wars are a constitutional function of the federal government but don't let that bother you
 
Fed Chairman Bernanke points out a serious externality to long periods of unemployment.

The high share of workers who have been out of work for six months or longer is troubling, he said, because those workers face a particularly high bar to reentering the labor force both because they lose skills and because employers may question their suitability for employment.

Bernanke also said the elevated jobless rate makes businesses and households reluctant to spend because they are uncertain of future income.
Click to expand...

Source
 
I voted other. I feel that those on unemployment should prove to the government that they are trying to get a job and submit a sample of their resume to the government. They should tell the government what jobs they have applied to, and the government should be able to audit these and call those employers to see if it is true. I have no problem with unemployment for those who absolutely need it, but many are just sucking money from the government and choosing to not work because they can get a free check.
 
digsbe said:
I voted other. I feel that those on unemployment should prove to the government that they are trying to get a job and submit a sample of their resume to the government. They should tell the government what jobs they have applied to, and the government should be able to audit these and call those employers to see if it is true. I have no problem with unemployment for those who absolutely need it, but many are just sucking money from the government and choosing to not work because they can get a free check.
Click to expand...

I haven't measured it, but I would strongly suspect that all the additional bureaucratic red tape of processing, auditing, and verifying those submissions would cost a lot more than the unemployment benefits.
 
Extend them one last time, making sure to get the message out "This is the final extension." Maybe it will give an extra boost to those who are unemployed to get a new job.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Fed Chairman Bernanke points out a serious externality to long periods of unemployment.



Source
Click to expand...

Very true - especially in certain areas where continual on-the-job bump-ups in knowledge are a must (like things relating to techology or federal-regulation)

When I was an employer people who were unemployed for a length of time were simply not as favorable for the type of work-mindset I was looking for.
 
digsbe said:
I voted other. I feel that those on unemployment should prove to the government that they are trying to get a job and submit a sample of their resume to the government. They should tell the government what jobs they have applied to, and the government should be able to audit these and call those employers to see if it is true. I have no problem with unemployment for those who absolutely need it, but many are just sucking money from the government and choosing to not work because they can get a free check.
Click to expand...

I may state you have to prove you are trying to get a job.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, they're considering a year-long extension. And I ask, "When does it end?" Does that mean it goes from 99 weeks to 151 weeks?
Click to expand...

umm you do understand this is a extension of the state unemployment benefits and not the feds. This means as it stands right now once you pass the six months state benefits ... thats it.

The United States Congress has not reauthorized the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Program which expires November 30, 2010. The expiration of the EUC Program affects the establishment of new EUC claims and the continued payment of current EUC claims. The United States Congress may still consider another extension of the EUC Program; however, legislation has not been passed. The pending legislation does not add any additional weeks of EUC benefits. If you have already exhausted your EUC benefits, no additional benefits will be available.
Click to expand...

Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Update - Unemployment Insurance Claimants
 
Since employers already pay for them in the first place this is just giving them a little more money in the first place. I think this is where we need to cut for now if for nothing else, as a social experiment. I'm very well aware some people will take advantage of unemployment and this will encourage many to get back to work sooner than later.
 
Gipper said:
I'd like to say I could sympathize with the crop of grunts who C-minused their way through a revolving-door public school system only to land 30 dollar an hour shop jobs, and watch economic reality catch up to them.
Click to expand...

It's not those I have sympathies for. Rather, my sympathies are for those A+ high school students who go on to college and get a degree in an industry in which the job market dried up and they can't get employment that is at the level of their education. There's a lot of very educated people who can't get jobs in the area of their education and training. That's my concern.
 
Kandahar said:
The Democratic position is correct in this case. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of fiscal stimulus out there, because it increases the purchasing power of people who otherwise wouldn't have any. Using unused stimulus money to pay for it would defeat the purpose, and using TARP money doesn't even make sense.

As for the idea that it's unregulated welfare...that might be true if the unemployment rate was lower, but when it's over 9% I think it's hard to make the argument that it's discouraging people from finding work. That might be true in some individual cases, but from a macroeconomic perspective there are far more people willing to work than there are people willing to hire them.
Click to expand...

Khandahar, you fall into the basic economic trap that Democrats believe in, which has continued to keep us in this down economy. Consumption does not drive growth, it is a symptom of growth. The whole consumption based economy thing is a Krugman/Bernanke idea and is the reason we have spent $1.4 trillion above our budget the last two years and have nothing to show for it.

Consumption doesn’t drive growth, investment drives growth. When businesses are able to expand, plan for the future, hire more workers, purchase new equipment, pay higher salaries, and allow the investors to purchase luxury items and services from developing businesses, that is what drives economic growth. You said extending unemployment benefits increases purchasing power, but that’s not true. If you borrow a million dollars, that doesn’t make you a millionaire. The government is stealing from the investors in order to drive consumption that would have happened anyway if investors had the money to invest in the economy. We aren’t increasing purchasing power by borrowing from China to fund extensions of unemployment benefits. We are actually decreasing future purchasing power, delivering future purchasing power to China through their ROI, taking purchasing power from the investing class and guaranteeing that we will not see economic recovery.

Stimulus of consumption has taken us to 9.6% unemployment. Reducing taxes on investors in the past decade took us to 4.5% unemployment.
 
friday said:
Khandahar, you fall into the basic economic trap that Democrats believe in, which has continued to keep us in this down economy. Consumption does not drive growth, it is a symptom of growth. The whole consumption based economy thing is a Krugman/Bernanke idea and is the reason we have spent $1.4 trillion above our budget the last two years and have nothing to show for it.

Consumption doesn’t drive growth, investment drives growth. When businesses are able to expand, plan for the future, hire more workers, purchase new equipment, pay higher salaries, and allow the investors to purchase luxury items and services from developing businesses, that is what drives economic growth. You said extending unemployment benefits increases purchasing power, but that’s not true. If you borrow a million dollars, that doesn’t make you a millionaire. The government is stealing from the investors in order to drive consumption that would have happened anyway if investors had the money to invest in the economy. We aren’t increasing purchasing power by borrowing from China to fund extensions of unemployment benefits. We are actually decreasing future purchasing power, delivering future purchasing power to China through their ROI, taking purchasing power from the investing class and guaranteeing that we will not see economic recovery.

Stimulus of consumption has taken us to 9.6% unemployment. Reducing taxes on investors in the past decade took us to 4.5% unemployment.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect

Overconsumption in the 90's and 2000's led to the 4.5% unemployement. People were buyiung homes on credit, cars on credit and generally consumed on credit. They brought consumption that should have been done later or not at all forward, leading to strong economic growth. (fake economic growth). When consuming based on debt was no longer possible (to high debt loads) consumption had to decrease. causing lower demand for goods and services, and as such lower demand for labour and lower demand for capital goods and investment. Untill debt levels in the US get quite a bit lower, %of gdp, the US will not see strong economic growth as too much of its wealth creation will be spent on debt reduction rather then consuming items like cars or new homes

Remember that for investors to invest, they have to believe that people will have money to buy the goods or services that will be produced
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cause and effect

Overconsumption in the 90's and 2000's led to the 4.5% unemployement. People were buyiung homes on credit, cars on credit and generally consumed on credit. They brought consumption that should have been done later or not at all forward, leading to strong economic growth. (fake economic growth). When consuming based on debt was no longer possible (to high debt loads) consumption had to decrease. causing lower demand for goods and services, and as such lower demand for labour and lower demand for capital goods and investment. Untill debt levels in the US get quite a bit lower, %of gdp, the US will not see strong economic growth as too much of its wealth creation will be spent on debt reduction rather then consuming items like cars or new homes

Remember that for investors to invest, they have to believe that people will have money to buy the goods or services that will be produced
Click to expand...

You’re close. What you call overconsumption, investors call leverage. People borrowed because they knew their future income could cover it. Yes, some people over-leveraged, and instead of letting those risks take their proper course to either failure, or the $70 billion the Fed made on so-called troubled assets this past year, we stepped in with regulation that exposed their risk to investors and then bailed them out with government loans that the government printed or borrowed.

Instead of spending $2.8 trillion that we don’t have on duck ponds and skate parks in order to spur consumption, we should have let over-leveraged investors and consumers fail and deal with our appropriate bankruptcy safety nets, and then spurred growth by extending tax cuts for pro-growth sectors, not throwing money at people who can’t get jobs because employers can’t afford them anymore.
 
One choice should have been, "REPEAL THEM." Unemployment benefits are among the tons of things any government should never be doing.

Charity is NOT a legitimate function of government. It should be done solely by charities, churches, and other private entities.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
One choice should have been, "REPEAL THEM." Unemployment benefits are among the tons of things any government should never be doing.

Charity is NOT a legitimate function of government. It should be done solely by charities, churches, and other private entities.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% when it comes to the Federal government. But repealing federal unemployment benefits would require adhering to the constitution.
 
As I said, I think as a social experiment they should stop the federal funding of unemployment and see what happens in the 9 months span they do that.

What I would love to see even more than that is government student loans have far more forgiveness. I still owe the government $20,000 and they want to threaten this and that over my loan, we give these ****ing banks and car makers money and they don't even have to fully pay back a few billion? You got to be ****ing kidding me.
 
friday said:
Consumption doesn’t drive growth, investment drives growth.
Click to expand...

OK, but what drives investment? Consumption.

friday said:
When businesses are able to expand, plan for the future, hire more workers, purchase new equipment, pay higher salaries,
Click to expand...

They do those things in order to sell more, ie more consumption.

friday said:
and allow the investors to purchase luxury items and services from developing businesses,
Click to expand...

That IS consumption, it's just rich people doing it.

friday said:
You said extending unemployment benefits increases purchasing power, but that’s not true. If you borrow a million dollars, that doesn’t make you a millionaire. The government is stealing from the investors in order to drive consumption that would have happened anyway if investors had the money to invest in the economy.
Click to expand...

The government isn't taking money away from investors, because it is borrowing money rather than raising taxes. The investors are able to invest AND the consumers are able to consume. Both will help the economy.

friday said:
We aren’t increasing purchasing power by borrowing from China to fund extensions of unemployment benefits. We are actually decreasing future purchasing power, delivering future purchasing power to China through their ROI, taking purchasing power from the investing class and guaranteeing that we will not see economic recovery.
Click to expand...

It's true that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable, but that's the point. It doesn't NEED to be sustained, it just needs to get us through a period of high unemployment. High deficit spending during bad economic times, and balancing the budget during good economic times will help smooth out the economic cycle.

friday said:
Stimulus of consumption has taken us to 9.6% unemployment. Reducing taxes on investors in the past decade took us to 4.5% unemployment.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, no federal taxes have increased since the recession began.
 
digsbe said:
I voted other. I feel that those on unemployment should prove to the government that they are trying to get a job and submit a sample of their resume to the government. They should tell the government what jobs they have applied to, and the government should be able to audit these and call those employers to see if it is true. I have no problem with unemployment for those who absolutely need it, but many are just sucking money from the government and choosing to not work because they can get a free check.
Click to expand...
I think this is already the case in that people must look for work and document that effort to receive unemployment benefits.
 
Kandahar said:
OK, but what drives investment? Consumption.
Click to expand...

But you can't consume without consumption.

The government isn't taking money away from investors, because it is borrowing money rather than raising taxes. The investors are able to invest AND the consumers are able to consume. Both will help the economy.
Click to expand...

That takes away capital. There is no way around that. Government spending NECESSARILY decreases private investment.

It's true that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable, but that's the point. It doesn't NEED to be sustained, it just needs to get us through a period of high unemployment. High deficit spending during bad economic times, and balancing the budget during good economic times will help smooth out the economic cycle.
Click to expand...

Except it does nothing to fix the capital markets. In fact, it makes their situation much worse. Sure, prices fell for them in 2007, but they're on the rise again.

ProducerPriceIndexStart10,property=image.gif


To my knowledge, no federal taxes have increased since the recession began.
Click to expand...

You really have to emphasize federal on that, don't you?
 
Also bear in mind that there are 5 job seekers for every job out there.
 
drz-400 said:
Extend them one last time, making sure to get the message out "This is the final extension." Maybe it will give an extra boost to those who are unemployed to get a new job.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - but I'd put a time limit on the extension. As of Feb 1st, unemployment will run out. No more extensions, no more extras. So if you can't find a job in your field, time to change fields. If you have to go work at a meat packing plant when your previous employment was computer science, then that's what you'll have to do. That, or set up shop at your local YMCA and fight the wino's this winter for a cot and a hot bowl of broth.
 
phattonez said:
That takes away capital. There is no way around that. Government spending NECESSARILY decreases private investment.
Click to expand...

Sure, but borrowing money doesn't take away capital today. It takes away capital in the future, when hopefully the economy will have recovered. Borrow during bad times, pay back (or at least balance the budget) during good times. This smooths out the economic cycle. Yes, it takes away private investment during booms, but that's better than taking it away during busts.

phattonez said:
Except it does nothing to fix the capital markets. In fact, it makes their situation much worse. Sure, prices fell for them in 2007, but they're on the rise again.

ProducerPriceIndexStart10,property=image.gif
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this proves, other than that demand is stronger when the economy is good...
From looking at that chart, it's not really clear to me what you think needs to be "fixed." Speculative bubbles?

phattonez said:
You really have to emphasize federal on that, don't you?
Click to expand...

I don't really know what the states have been doing. Probably a hodgepodge of tax hikes and tax cuts, depending on the state. But for the record, I'm opposed to most state tax hikes during recessions too. Wait until unemployment goes down before raising taxes.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Sure, but borrowing money doesn't take away capital today. It takes away capital in the future, when hopefully the economy will have recovered. Borrow during bad times, pay back (or at least balance the budget) during good times. This smooths out the economic cycle. Yes, it takes away private investment during boom times, but that's better than taking it away during busts.
Click to expand...

Capital exists. You can't borrow against the future. You borrow now. You can't seriously say that my borrowing money now has no effect on someone else who is trying to borrow. I've necessarily dried up some capital.

I'm not sure what this proves, other than that demand is stronger when the economy is good...
Click to expand...

And demand is stronger? Do you think that there's been a significant change when unemployment is still so high?

Gallup Daily: U.S. Workforce

I don't really know what the states have been doing. Probably a hodgepodge of tax hikes and tax cuts, depending on the state. But for the record, I'm opposed to state tax hikes during recessions too. Wait until unemployment goes down before raising taxes.
Click to expand...

But the benefit doesn't come from some mythical multiplier effect. If that were the case then spending money or cutting taxes would have the same effect. They don't. Government spending is far less efficient. People spend their own money better and use it to invest which would lead to more production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom