Unemployment Benefits

So recently the Dems and Repubs have been fighting over extending unemployment benefits again. The Dems are all for it, but the Repubs were trying to hold the Dems to the Dems own PAYGO plan.

As heartless as it sounds, why not find a way to pay for it by cutting spending in other areas or using unused Porkulus Funds to pay for it? Why must it be added to our country's debt?

Sometimes I wonder if all the politicians are just interested in bankrupting this country. No doubt the Repubs ran up the debt under W, but the current regime is making mincemeat out of it.

I agree. As much as we would like everyone to live the American dream, we can't just keep adding to the debt. I too do not want to sound heartless, but if I heard correctly, unemployment benefits already go to 99 weeks. But if you're out of work for close to 2 years, maybe it's time to lower your expectations.

Pretty good, Dems demanded paygo to be back in force. Just not on there projects.....

We will pay for this benefit by not renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

and there it is: "Blame Bush." Can't the Democrats find anything CURRENT to cut spending on to fund unemployment benefits? I hardly think "PAYGO" meant "We'll pay for this by some future thing we'll do like eliminating tax breaks or tax increases for everybody."

What about eliminating the money we give to other countries to fund their abortions????? Wouldn't that money be better spent helping our unemployed????

thejoker wrote:We will pay for this benefit by not renewing the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Considering it is the rich that fund this government then they are just as over taxed. Meanwhile the people at the bottom....47% pay no federal taxes but reap all the benefits of the rich that do pay taxes.

But yeah we can get rid of some of these gov't programs to fund those tax breaks also. We can start with foreign aid. Get rid of the commerce dept. get rid of the education dept. That ought to be enough to cover both.

Some are abusing the unemployment benifits. I know a guy, a friend of my brother-in-law, who has been on unemployment for almost 2 years. He said in order to keep getting the checks, he applies for jobs that he is far unqualified for and he knows it. He goes golfing and drinking at least 2 times per week with a friend who is also taking advantage of the system. It makes me want to run him over with my car.

So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Tough call. I guess it's a matter of pride. Do you want to sit around doing nothing and be a drain on the system? Or would you rather work?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Tough call. I guess it's a matter of pride. Do you want to sit around doing nothing and be a drain on the system? Or would you rather work?

I guess another thing to consider is one's monthly expenses, if one can 'survive' (stay current) on UC or fall behind by accepting a j-o-b less than the benefit, by all means take the benefit. In the meantime, dilegently search for equal to benefit amt or above.

LTRT wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Tough call. I guess it's a matter of pride. Do you want to sit around doing nothing and be a drain on the system? Or would you rather work?

I guess another thing to consider is one's monthly expenses, if one can 'survive' (stay current) on UC or fall behind by accepting a j-o-b less than the benefit, by all means take the benefit. In the meantime, dilegently search for equal to benefit amt or above.

Indiana you cap out at like $385/week before taxes, you aren't living very high on the hog at less than $10 per hour

thejoker wrote:

LTRT wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Tough call. I guess it's a matter of pride. Do you want to sit around doing nothing and be a drain on the system? Or would you rather work?

I guess another thing to consider is one's monthly expenses, if one can 'survive' (stay current) on UC or fall behind by accepting a j-o-b less than the benefit, by all means take the benefit. In the meantime, dilegently search for equal to benefit amt or above.

Indiana you cap out at like $385/week before taxes, you aren't living very high on the hog at less than $10 per hour

And it's certainly not meant to be a means for someone to live high on the hog. How would you feel if you were busting your butt making minimum wage while the guy that IrishGuy knows is making more than you while purposely avoiding work?

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Sometimes you have to start at the bottom and work your way back up. Especially if you know a job at your previous pay isn't coming back.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

LTRT wrote:So should someone who's collecting UC benefits accept a job for considerably less than what their benefit amount is?

Sometimes you have to start at the bottom and work your way back up. Especially if you know a job at your previous pay isn't coming back.

Don't forget the over qualified aspect...shouldn't happen, but it is.

This is grandstanding on the part of republicans. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, $1.60 is returned to the GDP. It's actually some of the best money we can possibly spend. As far as doing it with unused stimulus, or raising taxes etc etc to pay for it, it matters not. Money is money and will be moved where it needs to be moved in order to pay for it. If we "borrow" from the stimulus funds, we will then need to replace those funds with debt, it's a push. Republicans know it, and they are trying to make political hay out of it in advance of the fall election season.

Pez wrote:This is grandstanding on the part of republicans. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, $1.60 is returned to the GDP. It's actually some of the best money we can possibly spend. As far as doing it with unused stimulus, or raising taxes etc etc to pay for it, it matters not. Money is money and will be moved where it needs to be moved in order to pay for it. If we "borrow" from the stimulus funds, we will then need to replace those funds with debt, it's a push. Republicans know it, and they are trying to make political hay out of it in advance of the fall election season.

Wow right straight off the Dems talking point. Who said they wanted to "borrow" from the stimulus funds. They wanted to use unobligated stimulus funds, that are already accounted for in the deficit.

You would think if unemployment benefits were so great for the economy we would have had a higher GDP last quarter with all the unemployed people.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:This is grandstanding on the part of republicans. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, $1.60 is returned to the GDP. It's actually some of the best money we can possibly spend. As far as doing it with unused stimulus, or raising taxes etc etc to pay for it, it matters not. Money is money and will be moved where it needs to be moved in order to pay for it. If we "borrow" from the stimulus funds, we will then need to replace those funds with debt, it's a push. Republicans know it, and they are trying to make political hay out of it in advance of the fall election season.

Wow right straight off the Dems talking point. Who said they wanted to "borrow" from the stimulus funds. They wanted to use unobligated stimulus funds, that are already accounted for in the deficit.

You would think if unemployment benefits were so great for the economy we would have had a higher GDP last quarter with all the unemployed people.

Yea, I'm deeply connected to the democratic policy machine, I get their newsletter, even through it's not distributed via cable news.

There are no "unobligated" stimulus funds. If the entire breadth of the stimulus become one day unneeded, then that money will be returned to the budget, which would be used to cover the larger deficit. You don't take money out of your kids college fund to cover your mortgage.

Also, I did not say unemployment benefits were good for the economy, but rather that unemployment benefits are a good return on investment for public dollars that we dont want to spend. For every dollar the government spends on unemployment benefits, $1.63 is added to the GDP (which is to "the economy" the same way that the DJIA is "the stock market"). It would of course be best for the government not to have to spend that dollar in the first place.

All told, I agree that it sucks that unemployment benefits need extended, but this business of republicans wearing a straight face while trying to convince Americans that "fiscal conservatism" is simply cutting taxes, preferably on the rich. Republicans would ask us to believe that engaging and financing two wars (right or wrong aside) without raising taxes wont one day put us on a footing where we will one day be unable to engage our military when we need it.

Pez wrote:

Yea, I'm deeply connected to the democratic policy machine, I get their newsletter, even through it's not distributed via cable news.

There are no "unobligated" stimulus funds. If the entire breadth of the stimulus become one day unneeded, then that money will be returned to the budget, which would be used to cover the larger deficit. You don't take money out of your kids college fund to cover your mortgage.

Also, I did not say unemployment benefits were good for the economy, but rather that unemployment benefits are a good return on investment for public dollars that we dont want to spend. For every dollar the government spends on unemployment benefits, $1.63 is added to the GDP (which is to "the economy" the same way that the DJIA is "the stock market"). It would of course be best for the government not to have to spend that dollar in the first place.

All told, I agree that it sucks that unemployment benefits need extended, but this business of republicans wearing a straight face while trying to convince Americans that "fiscal conservatism" is simply cutting taxes, preferably on the rich. Republicans would ask us to believe that engaging and financing two wars (right or wrong aside) without raising taxes wont one day put us on a footing where we will one day be unable to engage our military when we need it.

I get where they get the 1.64 benefit. I just don't agree with it in the following sense. Those unemployment benefits are going to go for rent/mortgage, utilities, food which are already figured into the economy. In other words holding it steady not expanding the economy.

The stimulus funding no matter how you look at it did not expand the economy...maybe saved some jobs but done no new job creation. Other wise we would not still be at 9.5% unemployment. Just look at all the road construction around FTW, yet I don't see EB paving or Brooks brothers doing much hiring for those construction jobs.

There are a lot of unobligated stimulus fund that could have been moved. Now those funds have been appropriated to certain areas of the stimulus (appropriated and obligated two different items). The below link shows 162 billion left to spend.

http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-spending-progress

On this statement "There are no "unobligated" stimulus funds. If the entire breadth of the stimulus become one day unneeded, then that money will be returned to the budget, which would be used to cover the larger deficit. You don't take money out of your kids college fund to cover your mortgage." I just have to ...