• 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?


  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Democrats say we should pass an extension of unemployment benefits through deficit spending.

Republicans say take some of the unspent stimulus/tarp funds and pay for an unemployment benefit extension.

Conservatives are saying we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits at all for people who have already been on them because it is becoming unregulated welfare.

What do you think?
 
Democrats say we should pass an extension of unemployment benefits through deficit spending.

Republicans say take some of the unspent stimulus/tarp funds and pay for an unemployment benefit extension.

Conservatives are saying we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits at all for people who have already been on them because it is becoming unregulated welfare.

What do you think?

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?

However, having expressed my relative distain for the extension itself (and the abuse I know is going on out there), worrying about how to pay for it is ridiculous. TARP has a $260 Billion surplus. They allocated $700 Billion and have dispersed only $440 Billion. Use THAT money. Worrying about what pocket to take it from at this point is just silly.
 
Worrying about what pocket to take it from at this point is just silly.

Exactly. As far as TARP running a surplus, that's like going to the store with your credit card and saying you have a surplus when you get home because you didn't reach the credit limit.
 
Democrats say we should pass an extension of unemployment benefits through deficit spending.

Republicans say take some of the unspent stimulus/tarp funds and pay for an unemployment benefit extension.

Conservatives are saying we shouldn't extend unemployment benefits at all for people who have already been on them because it is becoming unregulated welfare.

What do you think?

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.
 
Last edited:
I supported ending it - but then I read things about people who stil heavily depend on it and have no choice.
But if I support extending it then others who HAVE options but don't want to give up what they have now are a concern

I think they need to start figuring out people's assistance based on their situation - and it will be different for many. . . there's no one single blanket solution that won't be a harm or benefit to one or all.

For some people it seems that laziness is their sole reason for being unemployed.
For others it's probably transportation and location - will they move if those expenses are covered - if so, get that ball rolling.
What jobs are available and needing employees? Find the employees - and connect them with work.
Maybe it's a lack of education OR an overabundance of education (as in: people who have a degree - and are considered 'overqualified' to do something) - these can be remedied. . . and over-qualifying people should be willing to relocate, as well.

In order to solve this problem they need to first figure out what the problem is. . . and do the best they can on a more personalized level. :shrug:
 
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.
Agreed, the money is much more well spent than funding two wars...
 
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.

The problem I have with the saying "it increases the purchasing power of people", is then why not apply to it all people, working or not? Heck, if I had an extra "XXX" dollars, I could afford to buy some woodworking tools that I am still saving for. It is not a purchase of need (food, shelter), but it would still put money into the economy, provide jobs for those that make the tools, etc. At what point do we say enough is enough for unemployment checks. It also tells me at this point in time we have too many people in this country if almost 10% are unemployed.
 
I chose "Other."

Instead of putting that government money into unemployment benefits, I would rather that government money go to government job programs and government education programs to re-train people for jobs in other markets.

Use that money to rebuild our infrastructure. Use that money to build high-speed rail systems. Use that money to re-train employees. Use that money for small business loans.

But don't use that money to pay for people who won't get a job just there's no market for what they're trained in. If an art student has to get a job at a fast food place because there's no market for artists then an engineer should have to get a job as a janitor when there's no market for engineers. That's life and thems the breaks.
 
I've been wanting them to end these benefits for over a year. It serves little purpose but to endorse and further entitlement. There are too many people using it as an excuse not to look for a job. Hell, I know this just anecdotally, because I know a few people on the dole that are working hard not to get off of it. It's essentially legalized theft, and it's getting out of hand.

If you've been phased out of your current job, you should learn a new skill set instead of just waiting for if and when something you were doing suddenly pops up again. Some people really need the tough love, or else they'll get used to coddling.

And if a few eggs break, so be it. The sum is greater than its parts.
 
Government played a great role in our unemployment so government should be accountable. It's only unregulated welfare if the Obama administration continues to be anti-business and anti-consumer. Use the money from stimulus, issue tax cuts to everyone, and lets have a pro-business pro-consumer atmosphere in Washington rather than have the "so I know who's ass to tax, I mean kick" social justice taxation nonsense. Anyone who goes "LMAO! GET A JOB!" probably hasn't lost one around the time of the bailouts while living in California. Learning a new skill, not getting unemployment and looking for a job isn't going to change the job market unless you want to become a teacher and teach all of the people who think simply learning a new skill is going to award them a job in a California depression. This money is being extorted anyways so why not give it back to people who have lost their jobs due to Government shenanigans and ponzi schemes funded by an income that was heavily taxed when they did have jobs.
 
I've been wanting them to end these benefits for over a year. It serves little purpose but to endorse and further entitlement. There are too many people using it as an excuse not to look for a job. Hell, I know this just anecdotally, because I know a few people on the dole that are working hard not to get off of it. It's essentially legalized theft, and it's getting out of hand.

If you've been phased out of your current job, you should learn a new skill set instead of just waiting for if and when something you were doing suddenly pops up again. Some people really need the tough love, or else they'll get used to coddling.

And if a few eggs break, so be it. The sum is greater than its parts.

Well, to be fair, I don't mind unemployment benefits. It's just that I don't like drawn out unemployment benefits.

Unemployment benefits are good for when someone is between jobs. But it shouldn't sustain people through bad economies. Rather, they should have to adapt to the job market.

But it also sucks because there's so much require of a person to get qualified for a job. People need at least a 2-year degree, most likely a 4-year degree, and that doesn't count more technical jobs, such as engineering or medical occupations. And it sucks even more when someone has to get a student loan to pay back that education, despite the fact that wages may not meet the ability to pay back those loans.

But they can't stay on the dole forever, and the world needs plenty of bartenders.
 
The problem I have with the saying "it increases the purchasing power of people", is then why not apply to it all people, working or not? Heck, if I had an extra "XXX" dollars, I could afford to buy some woodworking tools that I am still saving for. It is not a purchase of need (food, shelter), but it would still put money into the economy, provide jobs for those that make the tools, etc. At what point do we say enough is enough for unemployment checks. It also tells me at this point in time we have too many people in this country if almost 10% are unemployed.

Chances are that the people who have the least income (i.e. the unemployed) will be the most likely to spend the money, because they pretty much have to in order to pay for their basic living expenses.
 
Anyone that votes DONT PASS the extension needs a dose of my reality. And something to get rid of your exteme ignorance.
 
For those who are just avoiding the inevitable and who can (if they so are coerced) still make it - yes, I agree - end their benefits (at least reduce them)

But what about people who absolutely can't make it without them, even now?
What about people who live in an area that was hit hard and the only way to get out of it is to *move* out of it . . .but don't have enough money or the other means to make it happen?

If benefits are to be cut then what other help will be given? Will anyone be given assistance in finding a job, selling their home, moving, getting a vehicle - and so on?

All the bailouts, stimulus and crap like that going on for all these years - I really don't like the idea of just dumping some decent people off the bus, you know?
 
pay people not to work? why, whatever could go wrong with that idea?


Kill unemployment benefits. not just for this batch. do it completely at the federal level. let the states engage in this idiocy if they must.
 
Chances are that the people who have the least income (i.e. the unemployed) will be the most likely to spend the money, because they pretty much have to in order to pay for their basic living expenses.

and that stimulates the economy how? So basically the bank that holds the title of the house, or owns the building they are renting, utility companies and food benifits. Seems that limits the growth of the economy to a very small sector.
 
pay people not to work? why, whatever could go wrong with that idea?


Kill unemployment benefits. not just for this batch. do it completely at the federal level. let the states engage in this idiocy if they must.

This video reminds me of you if ya ever had to deal with the things I do in my life......



What BS reality-bubble are you living in man? I hope God curses YOU with half the **** Ive had to deal with within the last 5 years just so your ideas and ideals grow up and you become a decent man.
 
For those who are just avoiding the inevitable and who can (if they so are coerced) still make it - yes, I agree - end their benefits (at least reduce them)

But what about people who absolutely can't make it without them, even now?
What about people who live in an area that was hit hard and the only way to get out of it is to *move* out of it . . .but don't have enough money or the other means to make it happen?

If benefits are to be cut then what other help will be given? Will anyone be given assistance in finding a job, selling their home, moving, getting a vehicle - and so on?

All the bailouts, stimulus and crap like that going on for all these years - I really don't like the idea of just dumping some decent people off the bus, you know?

A friend of mine spent most of his money on going to film school, and he only barely had enough to ship some (not all) to California and move there to get a job.

On one hand I can sympathize to areas hit hard by the recession in which there is no economic growth going on. On the other hand continuing unemployment benefits won't help them either, since it doesn't guarantee economic vitalization of that area.

What should be done about it? I'm not sure. Maybe government loans to the businesses in the area to develop it for economic revitalization, perhaps? Instead of using an area for a manufacturing area, perhaps take government assistance to develop an agricultural economic base? Such a thing, I would be more in favor of rather than continuing with unemployment benefits. I would rather government money go to pay people to produce something rather than just give them money on which to get by.
 
Does anyone agree with outgoing Speaker Pelosi on this statement today?
...unemployment insurance grows the economy and creates jobs.

Depends on the circumstances. Ordinarily, no, it doesn't create jobs because it discourages people from working. But when unemployment is above 9% that's really not a problem. There are plenty of people who want to work who can't find jobs. So unemployment insurance will increase their purchasing power which will stimulate the economy, without as many of the typical negative effects (discouraging productivity).

Should we keep these unemployment benefit extensions in place for all time? No, most definitely not. But are they a good idea right here and now to stimulate the economy, while alleviating the hardships placed on those who are out of work? Yes.
 
Yeah - but unless the government ACTUALLY does something beneficial in these certain areas - I say to leave (theirs) alone for the time being - not everyone but some, yes.
I really really really don't want people who have BEEN suffering to just suffer more merely because the healing is taking a long time.

If people have given up a lot and suffered a lot - it just seems horrible to make it worse for them, you know? That's the only part of this whole issue that really trips me up.
 
samsmart said:
Well, to be fair, I don't mind unemployment benefits. It's just that I don't like drawn out unemployment benefits.

Same here, mostly because the original money granted for unemployment is the person's own money, along with contributions from the employer. That's more than fine to me, as I'm out of the equation completely (as is all other taxpayers).

Unemployment benefits are good for when someone is between jobs. But it shouldn't sustain people through bad economies. Rather, they should have to adapt to the job market.

Absolutely agree.

But it also sucks because there's so much require of a person to get qualified for a job. People need at least a 2-year degree, most likely a 4-year degree, and that doesn't count more technical jobs, such as engineering or medical occupations. And it sucks even more when someone has to get a student loan to pay back that education, despite the fact that wages may not meet the ability to pay back those loans.

But they can't stay on the dole forever, and the world needs plenty of bartenders.

Oh it absolutely sucks. However, people need to recognize that we're making a shift toward service-base industries and need to adjust accordingly. 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. I'd really like to say that...

Truth can be a harsh mistress...and nobody is immune.
 
I said other too. I'd like it paid for by cutting other money wasting costs like the wars we are in and raises for congress critters.

All I know is I hear about people that are gaming the system but I haven't personally met one. I have a brother that that has been unemployed as a comptroller for 13 months and I can assure you he would be jumping for joy if he found a job. He hates being unemployed and has been climbing the walls. He sends out a stamp book full of resumes every week and gets nothing. He's also on all the major job sites on the Internet. And he lives in the second largest city in out state. He thinks his age is hurting him and believes any positions that are available are being filled by younger less experienced people that they don't have to pay as much. Employers can pick and choose and the competition is stiff. He's working on getting his CPA certificate but you can't officially get it unless you're employed, even if you pass the tests with flying colors. Sounds absurd to me.

My sister-in-law was self employed (we self employed are not allowed to collect unemployment even though we pay in) and is losing her home soon.
 
This video reminds me of you if ya ever had to deal with the things I do in my life......
...
What BS reality-bubble are you living in man? I hope God curses YOU with half the **** Ive had to deal with within the last 5 years just so your ideas and ideals grow up and you become a decent man.
Maybe if you didn't do stupid crap like that you wouldn't get yourself in so much trouble. :doh

.
 
Back
Top Bottom