• 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
If china can manufacture stuff at a lower opportunity cost, let them, and we will specialize in something else.

Compete in what? What can you compete with them on? honestly I don't know if you can. Globalization will bite the ass of the champion of it. All your globalized companies are going to move to china. Your being forced to compete with near slave labour in the manufacturing industry. I just don't see how the balance can be changed without a huge dump in standard of living. All the while the system preaches to kids .. if you work hard you can do anything, particularly if you want to work for $100 dollars a month. I know that over time the benefits of globalization are going to benefit the world but in the meantime it gives the wealthy big business a winning hand on the cost of production. Without value added exports Americas middle class is being destroyed.
 
Compete in what? What can you compete with them on? honestly I don't know if you can. Globalization will bite the ass of the champion of it. All your globalized companies are going to move to china. Your being forced to compete with near slave labour in the manufacturing industry. I just don't see how the balance can be changed without a huge dump in standard of living. All the while the system preaches to kids .. if you work hard you can do anything, particularly if you want to work for $100 dollars a month. I know that over time the benefits of globalization are going to benefit the world but in the meantime it gives the wealthy big business a winning hand on the cost of production. Without value added exports Americas middle class is being destroyed.

1. It is literally impossible for china to have comparative advantage in everything.
2. I agree, certain people are hurt by globalization and free trade, since the US may move away from producing the things that they make. This just is an even better arguement for a stronger saftey net and better unemployment benefits for people making these transitions.
3. Big business is not the only one that gains. Think about all the american companies that loose when we decide to import from china at lower prices. They are no longer competitive either. But you cannot deny we all benefit by buying things at even lower prices than before.
4. Free trade increases our standard of living because it allows us to produce amounts of goods that would be impossible by ourselves.
 
It looks like the conservatives won the battle for their new found economic mantra of cutting spending.

In another area of the economy the conservatives at the world trade summit also promised to cut spending.

Guess what? The stock market is falling. Buddy, can you spare a dime?

HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
 
I say that the unemployment benefits are kept. Many families won't be able to afford living without it, hence they will find another benefit to use, like disability benefit. However it's much harder to get people off that kind of benefit. Hence, the government should keep them till the economy has improved so much that people should be able to get jobs.

Also, the economist magazine, support keeping the extensions.
 
They may be digging their grave, but I'd prefer that over them digging our nation into more debt.

Yeah, it's better to let your fellow man starve than go into more debt. One good thing about debt. We all die and don't worry about it anymore.
 
Last edited:
Hrm, good point but I still think it is a poor move both economically and morally. I honestly believe it is a partisan motivated political play aimed at making the dems look bad considering all the idiocy coming out of the republican party as of late. Preparation for the fall elections.

I disagree with what you believe their motives were. I don't often agree w/ GOP, but I do here. Because I look at it from the other side of the moral compass. Who pays for this? the workers via taxes. Now and later. And our children. Will the benefit of those who need to be employed be greater than the cost of unemployment tax to those still working? no. It's gone on past that point. So when you force people to pay into something more than you intend to give back to them that's stealing. Tax isn't stealing so long as we get an equal or greater value out of the dollars paid. But when unemployment is going on this long, the benefit to each individual paying in has significantly dropped. And the costs are piling up. Let's end it to be moral. It's going to hurt now, but if we don't, I believe it will hurt worse later.
 
Yeah, it's better to let your fellow man starve than go into more debt. One food thing about debt. We all die and don't worry about it anymore.

oh don't be so dramatic. Yeah, it will suck. But people who aren't getting benefits extended have already been collecting for 99 weeks. NEARLY TWO YEARS of collecting money without producing a thing for the economy or society. That's just too long. They should have been able to get on their feet by now. I was for the initial extension. At that time, their jobless status was not their fault and the situation just sucked. I was happy to help by paying higher taxes for my fellow Americans. At this point, except for rare exceptions, they're just taking too much. My pockets aren't that deep.
 
I disagree with what you believe their motives were. I don't often agree w/ GOP, but I do here. Because I look at it from the other side of the moral compass. Who pays for this? the workers via taxes. Now and later. And our children. Will the benefit of those who need to be employed be greater than the cost of unemployment tax to those still working? no. It's gone on past that point. So when you force people to pay into something more than you intend to give back to them that's stealing. Tax isn't stealing so long as we get an equal or greater value out of the dollars paid. But when unemployment is going on this long, the benefit to each individual paying in has significantly dropped. And the costs are piling up. Let's end it to be moral. It's going to hurt now, but if we don't, I believe it will hurt worse later.

I never had any kids. I demand all of my money back that I paid in taxes for other people's kids.
 
They may be digging their grave, but I'd prefer that over them digging our nation into more debt.

Hows this for being responsible?

Democrats add teacher money to war funding bill - Yahoo! News

House Democrats, who are trying to pass a long-stalled war funding bill this week, have attached $10 billion to help local school districts avoid teacher layoffs when schools reopen.

The approximately $70 billion measure is anchored by President Barack Obama's $30 billion request for the troop surge in Afghanistan and contains money for disaster aid accounts, foreign aid and disability benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

There's also more than $500 million in new money to hire more border patrol agents and pay for other security initiatives along the U.S.-Mexico border — though $200 million in previously appropriated money for a border fence, popular with Republicans, would be rescinded.

And there's $18 billion in new Energy Department loan guarantees, to be evenly split between nuclear and renewable energy projects.
 
Hows this for being responsible?

Democrats add teacher money to war funding bill - Yahoo! News

House Democrats, who are trying to pass a long-stalled war funding bill this week, have attached $10 billion to help local school districts avoid teacher layoffs when schools reopen.

The approximately $70 billion measure is anchored by President Barack Obama's $30 billion request for the troop surge in Afghanistan and contains money for disaster aid accounts, foreign aid and disability benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

There's also more than $500 million in new money to hire more border patrol agents and pay for other security initiatives along the U.S.-Mexico border — though $200 million in previously appropriated money for a border fence, popular with Republicans, would be rescinded.

And there's $18 billion in new Energy Department loan guarantees, to be evenly split between nuclear and renewable energy projects.

My brother-in-law died of agent orange. Isn't war glorious?:roll:
 
I never had any kids. I demand all of my money back that I paid in taxes for other people's kids.

why don't you just take everything I say to the absolute extreme? You're not trying to find the 'right' answer with me, you're trying to prove me wrong by manipulating what I say - that's not healthy debate - it's just annoying. We're not on opposite sides. We both want the best answer that will solve everything. That is impossible, so debates are set up to help find the best answer. This is what dem's and GOP forget in Congress. Let we the people not forget it too.

The benefit of extending was excellent to me as a taxpayer in the beginning. To get the economy up and running - to give people an opportunity to get on their feet. And to help people! But I've given enough opportunity. "It's gone past that point" - the point of being beneficial to me. Because they're not working. So let's stop paying them for that choice. If you can't find a job within two years, it's because you choose to not find a job. This is my opinion. If you want to debate my opinion as stated, please do so. But don't tell me I'm killing these people by starving them or that you don't want to pay anymore school taxes for the same reason. You're making me out to be an extremist... which truly makes you seem to be the extremist.If you are, I don't want to debate anymore. We have different intents.
 
I disagree with what you believe their motives were. I don't often agree w/ GOP, but I do here. Because I look at it from the other side of the moral compass. Who pays for this? the workers via taxes. Now and later. And our children. Will the benefit of those who need to be employed be greater than the cost of unemployment tax to those still working? no. It's gone on past that point. So when you force people to pay into something more than you intend to give back to them that's stealing. Tax isn't stealing so long as we get an equal or greater value out of the dollars paid. But when unemployment is going on this long, the benefit to each individual paying in has significantly dropped. And the costs are piling up. Let's end it to be moral. It's going to hurt now, but if we don't, I believe it will hurt worse later.

If you are concerned about US debt, which I am. Then there are so many other places that should go under the knife. Have you seen some of the luxury at many public schools. They got running field, soccer field, baseball, football and of course and indoor swimming pool. This isn't free and I would rather spend less on that, than on the fellow americans who are not able to get a job in this economic climate.

Also as I said, many people on unemployment benefits can't afford living without any income. They will try to use another benefit and if that doesn't work, then they may turn to crime.
 
Hows this for being responsible?

Democrats add teacher money to war funding bill - Yahoo! News

House Democrats, who are trying to pass a long-stalled war funding bill this week, have attached $10 billion to help local school districts avoid teacher layoffs when schools reopen.

The approximately $70 billion measure is anchored by President Barack Obama's $30 billion request for the troop surge in Afghanistan and contains money for disaster aid accounts, foreign aid and disability benefits for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

There's also more than $500 million in new money to hire more border patrol agents and pay for other security initiatives along the U.S.-Mexico border — though $200 million in previously appropriated money for a border fence, popular with Republicans, would be rescinded.

And there's $18 billion in new Energy Department loan guarantees, to be evenly split between nuclear and renewable energy projects.

Could you please relate this to the topic: should we extend unemployment benefits?

I'm only requesting because I truly don't know why you posted this here. What's it have to do with the topic? or did you just find it interesting?
 
Last edited:
I deliver there and load there but there is no work?

I'm two states over and my guess would be that yes. You deliver there and load there. So people are working there. Those positions are filled, not open. Nobody is hiring.
 
why don't you just take everything I say to the absolute extreme? You're not trying to find the 'right' answer with me, you're trying to prove me wrong by manipulating what I say - that's not healthy debate - it's just annoying. We're not on opposite sides. We both want the best answer that will solve everything. That is impossible, so debates are set up to help find the best answer. This is what dem's and GOP forget in Congress. Let we the people not forget it too.

The benefit of extending was excellent to me as a taxpayer in the beginning. To get the economy up and running - to give people an opportunity to get on their feet. And to help people! But I've given enough opportunity. "It's gone past that point" - the point of being beneficial to me. Because they're not working. So let's stop paying them for that choice. If you can't find a job within two years, it's because you choose to not find a job. This is my opinion. If you want to debate my opinion as stated, please do so. But don't tell me I'm killing these people by starving them or that you don't want to pay anymore school taxes for the same reason. You're making me out to be an extremist... which truly makes you seem to be the extremist.If you are, I don't want to debate anymore. We have different intents.

Sure:shrug:
 
Factor in this:

In the job hunt, the stigma of being laid off is hard to erase - CNN.com

"As if securing work in a jobless recovery isn't tricky enough, being labeled unemployed brings additional obstacles. Some companies state explicitly that they don't want to consider people who don't currently have a job, a CNNMoney article reported this month.

It's not against the law, labor attorneys say, to discriminate against people who are unemployed.

Some recruiters interviewed say companies perceive the unemployed as weak performers or fickle workers. Or they worry that a person without a job has rusty work skills, especially if they haven't worked for more than six months. Or that an unemployed person will take a lower paying job out of desperation and then flee when a better job opportunity arises."
 
If you are concerned about US debt, which I am. Then there are so many other places that should go under the knife. Have you seen some of the luxury at many public schools. They got running field, soccer field, baseball, football and of course and indoor swimming pool. This isn't free and I would rather spend less on that, than on the fellow americans who are not able to get a job in this economic climate.

Also as I said, many people on unemployment benefits can't afford living without any income. They will try to use another benefit and if that doesn't work, then they may turn to crime.

I definately agree! We should re-evalute a LOT of gov't spending. But when we re-evaluate each area, we can't say "well look what we're spending over there!" We need to decide if the spending is appropriate in each area despite spending in other areas. So despite the fact there are certainly other areas that could be cut dramatically, this is one area that I think we did the right thing. We can't spend money we don't have. If we want to continue it, let's get the funding to continue it instead of 'figure it out later'.

And let them turn to crime if they will - we will find a way to fight them off if they do. Fear of the negative things people will do isn't a justification to give them what they want. That's basically unspoken blackmail. And do you honestly think that enough people will qualify for disability insurance that the costs would be greater than unemployment insurance? I don't have figures, but that seems far-fetched.
 
I definately agree! We should re-evalute a LOT of gov't spending. But when we re-evaluate each area, we can't say "well look what we're spending over there!" We need to decide if the spending is appropriate in each area despite spending in other areas. So despite the fact there are certainly other areas that could be cut dramatically, this is one area that I think we did the right thing. We can't spend money we don't have. If we want to continue it, let's get the funding to continue it instead of 'figure it out later'.

And let them turn to crime if they will - we will find a way to fight them off if they do. Fear of the negative things people will do isn't a justification to give them what they want. That's basically unspoken blackmail. And do you honestly think that enough people will qualify for disability insurance that the costs would be greater than unemployment insurance? I don't have figures, but that seems far-fetched.

"Let them turn to crime" Great idea! We could become a prison nation and even import criminals from other countries.:roll:

One slight problem with that is, though, that california has just built a 77 million dollar prison that they can not afford to staff.
 
"Let them turn to crime" Great idea! We could become a prison nation and even import criminals from other countries.:roll:

One slight problem with that is, though, that california has just built a 77 million dollar prison that they can not afford to staff.

obviously I don't mean let the crime happen - I mean - let them try. We'll take care of it as we always do. And great point on the prison system - perhaps it too needs to be re-evaluated - (both in benefits prisoners get - perhaps cutting them down or cutting down who gets them AND in who goes to prison - there are some pretty easy things we could change in our laws that would free up prison space and a LOT of money).
 
obviously I don't mean let the crime happen - I mean - let them try. We'll take care of it as we always do. And great point on the prison system - perhaps it too needs to be re-evaluated - (both in benefits prisoners get - perhaps cutting them down or cutting down who gets them AND in who goes to prison - there are some pretty easy things we could change in our laws that would free up prison space and a LOT of money).

It costs a hell of a lot of money to keep people in prison. I think it's a lot cheaper to educate them or even have public work projects to help them stay employed. At least we will have something to show for it.
 
I definately agree! We should re-evalute a LOT of gov't spending. But when we re-evaluate each area, we can't say "well look what we're spending over there!" We need to decide if the spending is appropriate in each area despite spending in other areas. So despite the fact there are certainly other areas that could be cut dramatically, this is one area that I think we did the right thing. We can't spend money we don't have. If we want to continue it, let's get the funding to continue it instead of 'figure it out later'.

And let them turn to crime if they will - we will find a way to fight them off if they do. Fear of the negative things people will do isn't a justification to give them what they want. That's basically unspoken blackmail. And do you honestly think that enough people will qualify for disability insurance that the costs would be greater than unemployment insurance? I don't have figures, but that seems far-fetched.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like you have any sympathy for the ones who lost their jobs and will be without income if they get no unemployment insurance. I mean, it could happen to anyone and your reaction to them turning to crime to be able to afford living. Was, "well I'm sure they will be caught by the police and put in prison. "

I mean, there are families with children who is living on unemployment insurance. Do you want them to be kicked on the streets and end up scraping by with food coupons somewhere in downtown LA? I am a conservative, but I do have sympathy for the ones who are struggling in this society.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like you have any sympathy for the ones who lost their jobs and will be without income if they get no unemployment insurance. I mean, it could happen to anyone and your reaction to them turning to crime to be able to afford living. Was, "well I'm sure they will be caught by the police and put in prison. "

I mean, there are families with children who is living on unemployment insurance. Do you want them to be kicked on the streets and end up scraping by with food coupons somewhere in downtown LA? I am a conservative, but I do have sympathy for the ones who are struggling in this society.

No get a job. I am on my second job this year. That after not working for a year because of back surgery. I did not collect unemployment. If you give them money why should they work or look for a job?
 
How is this the fault of republicans?




House lines up second vote on unemployment benefits
By Vicki Needham - 06/29/10 06:33 PM ET

The House is expected to approve a stand-alone extension of unemployment benefits on Wednesday, leaving the matter up to the Senate.

The House Rules Committee agreed to set up a same-day rule for the bill for Wednesday.

An attempt to move the legislation on Tuesday under suspension of House rules failed after it did not win the two-thirds majority that is necessary. In the 261-155 vote, 16 Democrats crossed party lines and voted no, while 30 Republicans voted for the measure.

All but two of the Democrats are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. The 14 Blue Dogs were: Reps. Marion Berry (Ark.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Glenn Nye (Va.), Bobby Bright (Ala.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.). The other two were Reps. John Adler (N.J.) and Melissa Bean (Ill.).

Those Democrats are from 14 different states — half of which recorded double-digit unemployment in May — Mississippi (11.4 percent), Alabama (10.8), Illinois (10.8), Tennessee (10.4), North Carolina (10.3), Georgia (10.2) and Indiana (10). New Jersey is in line with the national average of 9.7 percent and Idaho's rate is 9 percent. Colorado is at 8 percent, Arkansas at 7.7, Maryland at 7.2 and Virginia at 7.1 percent.

Herseth Sandlin's state has one of the lowest rates of unemployment at 4.6 percent.

The approximately $35 billion six-month extension appears to be two votes short of the 60 it needs to pass in the Senate.

Democrats want to move the extension before Congress adjourns later this week for the week-long July 4 recess.

The legislative week has been further tightened by the death of long-time Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who will lie in state in the Senate chamber for most of Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) said Tuesday that if the bill isn't with other spending cuts or tax increases, it won't get his vote.

With the Senate missing Byrd, three Republicans would need to back the measure to ensure passage.

So far, Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) is the only Republican who has voiced support for passing an extension without offsetting its cost.

Ohio Sen. George Voinovich (R) said he's unlikely to vote yes if the bill is not offset.

If the House passes a bill, the Senate will have one shot at sending it to President Barack Obama's desk. Any changes would require the lower chamber to consider the measure again. The House is expected to complete its business by Thursday night.

Without action, 1.2 million people are expected to lose their extended benefits by Wednesday. That number will rise to at least 2 million by July 10, some right after finishing up their state-funded 26 weeks, before Congress returns from its weeklong recess, according to Labor Department figures.

Benefits expired June 1.

A total of 54 percent of workers exhaust all of their unemployment insurance benefits, up to 99 weeks in states with high levels of unemployment.

Americans receive an average of $304 a week, providing about $6.7 billion a month in economic stimulus, according to the National Employment Law Project, a group studying the issue.

Those who have exhausted their benefits could potentially be without their weekly checks until the middle of July if the Senate can't reach an agreement.

The House bill under consideration extends unemployment benefits through November but will not include the extra $25 included in checks as part of last year's stimulus bill.

If Congress is unable to extend benefits, all 50 states would lose emergency funding that provides between 34 and 53 additional weeks on top of the state-provided 26 weeks.

Overall statistics on unemployment benefits are staggering — 46 percent of the 15 million unemployed Americans have been out of work for at least six months, with an average person jobless for 34.4 weeks, the highest in history, according to NELP and Labor Department statistics.

Under the extension, unemployed workers can receive up to 99 weeks of benefits based on the state's unemployment rate. Every state is affected if Congress can't resolve the issue before recess begins. If a measure isn't passed, lawmakers wouldn't take it up again until at least July 12, when they return from the weeklong break.
 
No get a job. I am on my second job this year. That after not working for a year because of back surgery. I did not collect unemployment. If you give them money why should they work or look for a job?
But not everyone is like you. Some people have a much harder time getting a job. The problem isn't that people aren't willing to take low enough pay, but there aren't any jobs because there isn't enough demand and therefore not enough hiring. Hence some people will end up unemployed before the confidence in the economy improves and people start hiring again.

Also, they will want a job, because a job pays better than unemployment insurance. Also a job is more secure, because as we have seen. It's very easy to lose the unemployment insurance, and it will certinally be removed when it is easy to get a job again.
 
Back
Top Bottom