• 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?

evanescence said:
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.
Click to expand...
How would you then make up for the loss of corporate taxes? That is a huge part of our tax code that would, I assume (who knows with our gov't), be transferred to income tax. This would hurt our economy more than help it, I believe. Not arguing, just like to know your opinion on it. You seem knowledgeable about economics.
As far as trickle down economics, I agree something needs to happen to make these guys put their money back into the market. It shouldn't be any sort of gov't intrusion though. The Fed and Europe, to an extent, are the reason they are holding on to their money to begin with. I don't think trickle down economics has failed, I just think these guys are doing what I talked about earlier. The smart thing. Holding on to their money because they realized bad times were coming. Thats what I did, thats what you did, what's wrong with that?
 
MarineTpartier said:
How would you then make up for the loss of corporate taxes? That is a huge part of our tax code that would, I assume (who knows with our gov't), be transferred to income tax. This would hurt our economy more than help it, I believe. Not arguing, just like to know your opinion on it. You seem knowledgeable about economics.
As far as trickle down economics, I agree something needs to happen to make these guys put their money back into the market. It shouldn't be any sort of gov't intrusion though. The Fed and Europe, to an extent, are the reason they are holding on to their money to begin with. I don't think trickle down economics has failed, I just think these guys are doing what I talked about earlier. The smart thing. Holding on to their money because they realized bad times were coming. Thats what I did, thats what you did, what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that we'd be missing as much as they claim, as far as corporate taxes are concerned. Many fortune 500 corporations have a negative tax liability. I can find the links later if you want. I support the fair tax or some form of it. I know it seems strange from what I've said so far, but I actually don't believe in Big Government. Then there's corporate subsidies and tax loopholes. Along with corporate personhood, the IRS needs to be flushed as well. Just my opinion though-
 
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...

Well, how much was TARP?
 
evanescence said:
I'm not sure that we'd be missing as much as they claim, as far as corporate taxes are concerned. Many fortune 500 corporations have a negative tax liability. I can find the links later if you want. I support the fair tax or some form of it. I know it seems strange from what I've said so far, but I actually don't believe in Big Government. Then there's corporate subsidies and tax loopholes. Along with corporate personhood, the IRS needs to be flushed as well. Just my opinion though-
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly agree on tax code reform. We need to simplify the tax code yesterday. By last count the friggin thing is 84,000 pages. Thats ridiculous.
 
TNAR said:
I agree. In fact, jobs are overrated. We should just pay everyone an unemployment check as soon as they graduate from high school until they start collecting Social Security.
Click to expand...
I've heard that unemployment benefits actually create jobs.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Wholeheartedly agree on tax code reform. We need to simplify the tax code yesterday. By last count the friggin thing is 84,000 pages. Thats ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Practically everything the government does is inefficient and corrupt. The tax code is but one example of this.
 
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...

Raise taxes.

Fix the infrastructure.

Put people to work...
 
I think we should continue to help the unemployed until such time as we have a society in which everyone who is able to work, and who wants to work, is able to find a job that is suited to their nature and merits. There is a social contract. But that contract cannot be valid without guaranteed economic and social participation.

Of course, those who are able but do not want to work should receive no help from society. If you find yourself agreeing with that sentiment (i.e. that expressed in just the previous sentence), ask yourself why. What would be the basis of extending no help to those who do not work? I think pretty clearly, the idea is based on the notion of the social contract. Those who can work but do not break their end of the contract, and so are not entitled to the performance of the other party. And if that is so, then also, pretty clearly, the principles of the first paragraph of this post must also be correct.
 
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...

Any dollar not spent on unemployment checks will be spent on an oil co. subsidy or on another military imbroglio. Take your pick.
 
We need to help the unemployed until everyone is earning $7.50 per hour. It's the only fair thing to do.
 
Last edited:
it certainly is a more complicated issue than some politicians would have us believe.
 
unemployment is currently one of the usefull safety nets in america.i think its length should be adjust per job growth in the country.just doing job searches now the majority of jobs around my area will only hire people with 5+ years experience plus a college degree,but start them out at the same wages someone fresh out of highschool with no experience would get.even finding a minimum wage job is getting rediculous now,so it would only make sense to make unemployment benefits last longer under the current economy,and make them shorter under an economy with good job growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom