Poll: Do You Support Extending Unemployment Beyond 99 Weeks?

[Avatar4321]

Yeah, if you're starving to death it's your own fault, even though you worked the master's field. It's not his fault he has so much more than you.

Please, no country can long survive with such a huge income gap.

Actually, it is his fault that he has so much more than you. He planned, worked hard, and labored for it by learning the principles and laws that produce wealth. He created jobs instead of waiting for someone to give them to him.

If you want wealth, go out and create your own jobs.

I'm not starving because other people have money. If I'm starving it's because I haven't done what it takes to get the food.

 

[The Rabbi]

While some small percentage of these unemployed Americans are slackers the vast majority of them are not and I am concerned about what they are going to do when those minimal Unemployment checks are stopped. So I support extending their eligibility period and we can finance it by suspending Israel's annual $3 billion welfare check. And if need be we can start hacking away at a lot more "foreign aid" and start aiding our own.

Another thing we can do is knock off the goddam drug war which produces more harm than good.

I'm also in favor of confiscating any individual personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and restoring the progressive income tax to a maximum level of 90%.

Anyone else have suggestions?

Yeah. Quit being pea green with envy and quit worrying that someone else has more money than you do.

Yeah, if you're starving to death it's your own fault, even though you worked the master's field. It's not his fault he has so much more than you.

Please, no country can long survive with such a huge income gap.

Starving to death? How many people on unemployment are starving to death? DO you actuyally read the shit you post?
I think you need to join your illiterate friends on iggy.

 

[MikeK]

I'm also in favor of confiscating any individual personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars and restoring the progressive income tax to a maximum level of 90%.

Why don't you suggest that to all those filthy rich democrats in congress?

Democrats make-up 8 of the 10 richest members in congress. Democrats also make-up 9 of the 12 members of congress worth over the $20 million threshold who's assets you suggest we confiscate.

Why don't you suggest it to them? Or don't you think it's a good idea.

I don't suggest it to them because I know what they think and I don't care. So I'm suggesting it to you. What do you think of the idea?

 

[LANMaster]

The Left's Definition of a Kook

Economist Art Laffer points out something that should be "Well, duh" to anyone who doesn't have his head firmly planted in his proctological region: It's not an economic stimulus if the Government is paying people to do nothing.

The idea that higher unemployment benefits won't lead to more unemployment doesn't make much sense. Imagine what the unemployment rate would look like if unemployment benefits were universally $150,000 per year. My guess is we'd have a heck of a lot more unemployment.

Laffer believes that a temporary suspension in Federal Taxes would have provided more economic activity than the "Stimulus" did. His common sense analysis has led the left to denounce him as a kook. But remember, these are the same people who think the way to ease our dependence on foreign oil is to make it illegal to drill for any oil domestically. Look at your total Federal Withholding, and imagine that was income for six months. I bet you could do some serious economic stimulatin' with it.

Even the Swedes get it, that's why they they cut their corporate tax rate down to 2/3rd what ours is.

 

[saveliberty]

Unemployment pay is not and was not designed to be a long term solution. On the other hand, I think passing a bill that said full benefits will be extended for 30 days, then it will go another 30 days at 50% benefit. This allows people to plan and weigh their options. A planned end seems better than what Congress has done to date. Welcome to more housing value decreases.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment pay is not and was not designed to be a long term solution. On the other hand, I think passing a bill that said full benefits will be extended for 30 days, then it will go another 30 days at 50% benefit. This allows people to plan and weigh their options. A planned end seems better than what Congress has done to date. Welcome to more housing value decreases.

When people first got on unemployment they had a designated time there. THey could have planned then. Instead gov't kept extending the benefits. People learned they didnt need to plan because gov't would extend their benefits. People respond to economic incentives, as Laffer correctly noted. They are responding to extended unemployment benefits by being unemployed for extended periods of time. As they say, it beats working.

 

[saveliberty]

Unemployment pay is not and was not designed to be a long term solution. On the other hand, I think passing a bill that said full benefits will be extended for 30 days, then it will go another 30 days at 50% benefit. This allows people to plan and weigh their options. A planned end seems better than what Congress has done to date. Welcome to more housing value decreases.

When people first got on unemployment they had a designated time there. THey could have planned then. Instead gov't kept extending the benefits. People learned they didnt need to plan because gov't would extend their benefits. People respond to economic incentives, as Laffer correctly noted. They are responding to extended unemployment benefits by being unemployed for extended periods of time. As they say, it beats working.

I agree there was a specific limit, then government moved the goal posts. That is why I am suggesting they add that in this time, so people have no illusions. I think the reduction in benefits the second 30 days would be very helpful.

 

[amrchaos]

Depends on the situation.

As of present, we are facing a high unemployment-lackadasic job market which has a direct influence on the order of our society. Therefore I would agree to it, but there has to be efforts to increase the number of jobs as well.

If there were low unemployment(say circular 5%) I would be against extending unemployment for more than a couple of months(6 max) and would even venture to look at retraining efforts and cost reductions in edcation in the technical fields in order to curb such a trend.

At presently yes--in most cases, no.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unemployment insurance increases unemployment, it does not reduce it.

 

[LANMaster]

Unemployment pay is not and was not designed to be a long term solution. On the other hand, I think passing a bill that said full benefits will be extended for 30 days, then it will go another 30 days at 50% benefit. This allows people to plan and weigh their options. A planned end seems better than what Congress has done to date. Welcome to more housing value decreases.

After 99 weeks, who is still looking for a job? By then they have adjusted to the state unemployment as their paycheck. QAnything more is gravy. Why would anyone want to get off the government teet?

 

[Mr Natural]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

 

[manu1959]

unemployment compensation shouldn't exist........

 

[The Rabbi]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

 

[R.C. Christian]

The rich, the banksters, and everyone who didn't deserve it got a bailout. What did the common man get? 15 bucks a pay check more. If the government has the money to bail out everyone, and spend 717billion on the pentagram's yearly budget for useless wars then extending meager peanuts to the masses shouldn't be a big problem. I guess we should just let them eat cake now.

 

[Barb]

The Left's Definition of a Kook

Economist Art Laffer points out something that should be "Well, duh" to anyone who doesn't have his head firmly planted in his proctological region: It's not an economic stimulus if the Government is paying people to do nothing.

The idea that higher unemployment benefits won't lead to more unemployment doesn't make much sense. Imagine what the unemployment rate would look like if unemployment benefits were universally $150,000 per year. My guess is we'd have a heck of a lot more unemployment.

Laffer believes that a temporary suspension in Federal Taxes would have provided more economic activity than the "Stimulus" did. His common sense analysis has led the left to denounce him as a kook. But remember, these are the same people who think the way to ease our dependence on foreign oil is to make it illegal to drill for any oil domestically. Look at your total Federal Withholding, and imagine that was income for six months. I bet you could do some serious economic stimulatin' with it.

Even the Swedes get it, that's why they they cut their corporate tax rate down to 2/3rd what ours is.

Arthur Laffer, "Laffer Curve" Laffer? The genius economist of the Reagan administration? Well, if HE says so.

 

[txlonghorn]

can't answer this question until you tell me how it's going to be financed.......

 

[KissMy]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

If we are truly in deflation that means the dollar is stronger & prices are falling so wages should be falling. People can't sit around and wait for a job paying what they made before. They just need to get back to work because they will find their earnings will go just as far as they did with their previous job. I see houses selling at an 80% discount to what they sold for in 2007. This means they can afford 5 times the house they used to think they could get. They get twice the gasoline for their dollar. They can afford to work much harder for a dollar than they are used to. After a short time their wages will rise again.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Food for thought....

How many people currently receiving unemployment compensation that had to go out and pickup trash or cut grass at 10.00 per hour for 30 hours a week to be able to receive that unemployment check of 300.00 every week, would say forget that and find a job? 5%, 20%, 50% ........


.

 

[Barb]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

 

[R.C. Christian]

After a familys' gotten used to living on less than half of what they used to, chances are the breadwinner(s) will take a job in their former occupation at far less than what they had been making.

Sure employers have to pay into the system, but they make it back in spades later on with lower labor costs.

Not really. Do employers hold jobs open thinking, "aha! A few more months on unemployment and they will be begging for jobs at pitiable wages"? No, I really don't think so.
Actually what happens is companies go out of business or massively scale down. If they start up or staff up in an expansion they will pay market wages. As they earn more money, they will need to pay out more money in wages to retain talented employees.
You would have to show that wages as a percentage of revenue are lower in the beginning of a recovery than at the height of the business cycle. I doubt you can. Actually I doubt you understand the point I'm making.

Cloward and Schorr tied cuts in social safety net funding to the intent of making it harder for working people to effectively bargain with capital. Cloward argued that social safety net programs such as welfare, food stamps, and unemployment insurance give the working poor and the currently unemployed a little control over what type of work, wage, and benefits they accept by allowing them to prolong their job search. Slashing funding for social safety net programs reduced the bargaining power of labor by reinstating the horrors of joblessness. Schorr concurred with that assessment, adding that government and corporations rely on competition for existing jobs to force wages down as well.

Schorr, Alvin L. Common Decency, 17-18
Ibid, 16-18. See also Cloward, Francis Fox Priven and Richard A. "Keeping Labor Lean and Hungry." 466.

Indeed. That is a very good point. Also, it seems to me that unemployed tent people are more of a detriment to society than people receiving an unemployment check so it makes more sense in my opinion that these people be subsized with strings attached of course for as long as possible. It should not, however, be a free ride.