19
   

How do you feel about congress cutting unemployment benefits?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:49 pm
@Advocate,
The federal government pays the extended benefits.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Correct!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 12:57 pm
@Miller,
Quote:
Just consider the numberous American families, who 've never received a salary based on employment and instead have for generations upon generations received welfare payments in the form of food stamps, free housing and $1000/month per dependent child .


Just consider the number of Americans that believe things that aren't factual because they want to justify their own beliefs.

I am curious as to which states you think provide $1000/month per dependent child on top of housing and food stamps.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 01:30 pm
@parados,
$1,000 a month per dependent child? ROFLMAO...... Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 03:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
As for the effort required to remain on Unemployment, it isn't even a tiny fraction of what is expended in the normal 40 hour work week.


The compensation is a fraction also. My unemployment was 1/5 of my previous wages.

Quote:
widescale wealth redistribution


Unemployment is an insurance program. Employers pay into it. It is not wealth redistribution.


I agree there needs to be a limit. There also needs to be more proactive activities to get people to work.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 03:22 pm
@IRFRANK,
People like Finn have been brainwashed by the GOP to think everything government provides is a "hand-out" to the lazy bums who refuse to work.

All government programs are "the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor." They don't even realize that the top 10%'s salaries and benefits have increased ten-fold during the past decade while the middle class and the poor's wages and benefits have remained somewhat stagnant compared to the inflation rate.

They don't mind the wealth transfer from the middle class and the poor to the already rich, because TNCFS. They are brain dead.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 03:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It may be hard for you to see the point when it becomes a detriment because you are looking at it in isolation, and you are disinclined (if not opposed) to the notion that widescale wealth redistribution is not only harmful to a capitalist economy, but to a society that has developed with such an economy as a foundation.

Henry Ford dramatically increased the salary of his workers because he wanted them to be able to afford the cars he was making. The insight that economic growth is driven by the masses, not the wealthy is pretty well accepted by economists today. Putting some money in the little guys' pockets is absolutely essential to a capitalist economy. What you call "wealth redistribution" really puts a floor on the economy protecting the rich as well as the poor. The poor suffer a lot when they are kicked from their homes and lose their cars, but the rich lose a lot as well when their markets dry up, they have to evict tenants and they have to repossess those cars. When banks stop lending due to foreclosures, small business owners end up in a cash crunch. Allowing that spiral to continue slams everyone and since money is a massive multiplier in our system, the rich lose a lot more in dollar terms. (The poor lose more in suffering.) The meltdown of 2008 is a great example. How many trillions disappeared from the stock market? How many formally successful businesses closed shop? The capitalist economy counts on the little guy spending most of his income to drive growth. Cutting unemployment is like reducing air to an engine. Performance is going to suffer.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 04:23 pm
@engineer,
True; consumption makes up 70% of our economy. When millions lose buying power (like those 1.3 million who lost unemployment benefits), it affects everybody - not only the poor and the rich; everybody! Those working in stores and services, and all levels of government lose tax income.

0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 10:40 pm
@parados,
Me too. If he will tell me where it is I'll sell my house and move there.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 05:19 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:

Unemployment is an insurance program. Employers pay into it. It is not wealth redistribution.


Absolutely correct!

Quote:
I agree there needs to be a limit.

There also needs to be more proactive activities to get people to work.


I agree, it should not be limitless. The US Republican Party refuses to pass a job's bill that would get many unemployed back to work to fix our infrastructure, roads, bridges etc. The GOP's vendictive small petty-like minds refuse to do so out of spite; they don't want this current US president to have a successful administration. The dark side of our species is truly amazing!

Extending unemployment benefits will only advantage the economy because the money will be circulated immediately,not hoarded which will give a boost to our financial system. Refusal to extend benefits will hurt our financial management because money will not be spent and it has a rippling effect throughout communities.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 08:02 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You don't understand the first thing about unemployment insurance.


Do I understand the second thing?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 08:04 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I suggest you stick to matters concerning Israel.


Hey. That was my line.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 08:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

They don't mind the wealth transfer from the middle class and the poor to the already rich, because TNCFS. They are brain dead.


But then it trickles down to the working class, since the wealthy use many services. Admittedly, the working poor do remain poor, since they do not offer their employer any skills with a higher pay scale. The poor need to be educated. Those that are uneducable require a solution that has not been developed yet, in my opinion?

Regardless of how wealthy the wealthy are, the dirty little secret might just be that 300+ million Americans all do not have the same potential to contribute to society equally. It has nothing to do with laziness/slothfulness. It has to do with aptitude. You know, like the battery of tests you took when enlisting.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 08:31 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

But then it trickles down to the working class, since the wealthy use many services.

But it doesn't and that's the problem. If you give the rich another $10k, they will not spend one additional dollar because they already have all they want. You would have to throw a lot of money at me to get me to change my spending habits in the smallest way. I already have what I want so extra funds just go into savings. (Ok, if I won $100 million in the lottery I'd buy a few things.) My state just brutally slashed unemployment benefits and cut my taxes. I can guarantee you that not a penny of my tax cut will be used to stimulate the economy but my net worth will be higher for it.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 09:50 am
It's anecdotal, of course, but it seems like the economy is in bad shape. From MSNBC at http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/04/22111938-with-benefits-cut-off-long-term-unemployed-brace-for-a-grim-new-year?lite :

With benefits cut off, long-term unemployed brace for a grim new year
Gretchen Ertl / for NBC News


There was little merry or bright this holiday season for millions of unemployed Americans who are losing their extended unemployment benefits.

Many depend on these meager payments, a federal extension of state unemployment programs that expired as of the last Saturday of 2013, to stay afloat. After tapping out their savings, downsizing their living space, and draining their retirement funds, one-time managers and MBA grads bought Christmas gifts secondhand and worry over what the new year will bring.

“I shopped at the dollar store because I really didn’t have any expendable income,” said Nancy Shields, who said she also picked through the toys at thrift stores to find gifts for her three grandchildren— which she was only able to afford because her sister sent her money before Christmas.

Earlier this year, Shields lost her townhouse and now rents a single room in her Southern California town. At one point, the 59-year-old managed a team of 60 people for a large retailer. She lost that job in 2011 but took another one — and a 20 percent pay cut — some months later. When that store closed in 2012, her luck ran out, and she has been looking for work ever since.

“My federal [unemployment] benefits are about $1,200 a month, and that’s all I get… I have been very dependent on the generosity of my family members,” Shields said. Her retirement savings exhausted, Shields said she didn’t know what she would do if Congress doesn’t authorize an extension.

The National Employment Law Project estimates that more than a million Americans are in the same situation. "For a lot of people and a lot of families, this is their only income source," said NELP federal advocacy coordinator Judy Conti. "This could pull the rug out from under 1.3 million families," she said. Without an extension, an additional 2 million will fall off the rolls in the first half of the year.

"Job opportunities are, by most measure, really no better than they were a year ago," said Heidi Shierholz, labor market economist at the Economic Policy Institute. The improving unemployment rate is largely due to people dropping out of the labor force, and hiring hasn’t budged from a year ago, she said. "The reason they extended it last year, that reason is still almost exactly the same right now."

Despite more than 25 years in the retail industry, Shields said the fact that she doesn't have a college degree makes landing a management level job challenging. "It’s such an employers’ market at this point. They seem to be more interested now in your education, if you’ve got a bachelor’s degree, than they used to be," she said.

Higher education is no silver bullet, though. Abe Gorelick’s Ivy League undergrad degree and MBA from the University of Chicago weren’t enough to keep the 57-year-old Massachusetts resident off the unemployment rolls.

Gorelick said his family recently borrowed around $12,000 from his wife’s sister, and that his parents as well as his brother had given them money over the duration of his unemployment. With three kids, two in college and one in high school, Gorelick said just covering their health insurance through COBRA cost around $1,200 a month, and January would bring with it new deductibles that would have to be met before coverage kicks in.

"I feel responsible for juggling every month and figuring out how the bills are going to get paid," he said. "There’s just so many things to juggle and address… and spending as many hours as I can trying to find work."

Gorelick echoed a common refrain among the better-educated jobless: He's turned away from entry level positions because he’s overqualified, but he can't find a job that matches his level of experience.

"Their education does not help them get out of long-term unemployment,” said Ofer Sharone, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. Sharone founded the Institute for Career Transitions to help older, white-collar workers get back into the workforce with mixture of career and emotional support. The longer people stay out of work, the harder it gets to find a new job, Sharone said.

"Once you become unemployed for more than six months, you pretty much fall into a trap," said Rand Ghayad, a visiting scholar with the Boston Federal Reserve and research associate at MIT.

Massachusetts resident Vera Volk also has a master’s degree, but the 53-year-old biotech researcher lost her job at the end of May and has been selling prized possessions in order to stay afloat.

“We’ve had to cash in everything that we could potentially cash in,” Volk said. “We’ve got our water heater down to the lowest we could potentially tolerate.” Volk’s extended unemployment benefits of $480 a week are the couple’s sole source of income. They’re four months behind on their mortgage, and although she and her husband both have chronic health conditions, they couldn’t afford to keep paying for health insurance.

The families receiving extended unemployment benefits are generally in dire financial straits, so helping them helps the economy overall, economists say. “Emergency UI has one of the largest economic bangs for the buck,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said via email. According to Zandi’s calculation, these payments have a multiplier of 1.49: For every dollar in extended unemployment benefits jobless Americans get, $1.49 goes back into the economy.

"Nobody wins when we leave people looking for work out in the cold," said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at advocacy group Demos. "It hurts the economy when local businesses can’t rely on basic spending… It strains the private safety net when food banks and charities have to serve more people,” she said. “It slows down our recovery."

“In the next couple months, if I don’t have that extra income coming in, there will have to be drastic cutting,” said Chris Nitso, a 46-year-old Massachusetts retail manager who has been out of work since February.

“Ultimately, I need a job. I would have to resort to ...applying for jobs I wouldn’t normally apply for or part-time jobs,” Nitso said. “I’m going to have to be a sales clerk somewhere… It definitely feels like a step back, for sure.”

Increasingly, those are the only jobs out there. A NELP study says nearly 60 percent of jobs created in the post-recession recovery pay $13.83 or less an hour. CEPR found that the number of low-wage workers with a four-year college degree nearly doubled between 1979 and 2011.

“There seems to be more job seekers who are willing to take any job,” Alexandria Vasquez, a lead researcher with the Institute for Career Transitions and Brandeis University sociology professor, said via email.

Writing in the National Review Online in December, Michael R. Strain, a resident scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute argued that extended unemployment benefits should be continued, writing that without them, “it’s likelier that these workers will need other kinds of government assistance.”

“We see people who run out of unemployment benefits get absorbed into other parts of the safety net program,” Conti said.

This is the case for San Francisco resident Thadd Evans. He also holds a master’s degree, but the 63-year-old has been unable to find a job since being let go from a market research position in March. With unemployment insurance his sole source of income, Evans said he had no choice but to apply for Social Security this fall, when he saw the writing on the wall and suspected that his extended payments might be terminated.

"My hope was at the last minute something would pop up and I’d be saved,” he said. “But it didn’t happen.”
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:26 am
@engineer,
For those who don't live in NC, I tried to find out what "brutally slashed" means. As of Jan 1, NC has lowered the maximum unemployment benefit from $535/wk for 26 weeks + an additional 37 weeks of federal support to a maximum of $350/week for 20 weeks with no federal support (the reduced NC program doesn't quality for federal matching funds.) It's pretty confusing but if I've researched this correctly the maximum unemployment benefit has dropped from $535/wk for 63 weeks to $350/wk for 20 weeks. Note that if NC has dropped to 20 weeks but stayed at $535, they could have kept the federal funds but they chose not to do that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 10:33 am
@Foofie,
Where did you get the idea that the rich uses more "services" when the economy for the middle class and the poor are reduced or "stays the same?"

What economic theory are you using to arrive at your conclusions?

I dare say, you're an idiot! You have nothing to back up your opinions, because they were created in your own brain without any outside, reliable source.

The rich already have all they want in addition to their summer and winter homes, their yachts, and their luxury cars. They already have their servants and maids, and their personal jets to fly them to any destination they please.

Where else are they spending their money when the middle class and the poor loses their jobs or are cut off from unemployment insurance?
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 12:53 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Foofie wrote:

But then it trickles down to the working class, since the wealthy use many services.

But it doesn't and that's the problem. If you give the rich another $10k, they will not spend one additional dollar because they already have all they want...


Oh sorry. Not necessarily trickle down directly. It might trickle down through the investments that the wealthy make, since the additional money pumped into corporate America could allow a retail chain to expand, and then hire more people. It just doesn't go to the poor on welfare, or the working poor. Both need to expand their skill sets. Some cannot. That is the sticky wicket.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 12:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Where did you get the idea that the rich uses more "services" when the economy for the middle class and the poor are reduced or "stays the same?"

What economic theory are you using to arrive at your conclusions?

I dare say, you're an idiot! You have nothing to back up your opinions, because they were created in your own brain without any outside, reliable source.

The rich already have all they want in addition to their summer and winter homes, their yachts, and their luxury cars. They already have their servants and maids, and their personal jets to fly them to any destination they please.

Where else are they spending their money when the middle class and the poor loses their jobs or are cut off from unemployment insurance?


Their investments trickle down to corporate America, so businesses can expand, and hire more people. The problem is that skill sets do not command a decent job. And, regardless of skill sets, most organizations do not hire for decent paying jobs beyond a certain age. Corporate America wants to have the best years from their valued employees. Sort of like the way beautiful Hollywood women age out of films at an early age, oftentimes.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Jan, 2014 12:59 pm
@Foofie,
What makes you think the wealth of the rich will "trickle down" to the middle class and the poor through their investments? The top 10% of the wealthy already owns 80% of the financial wealth of this country. Where's the trickle down? How much longer do we have to wait until that wealth shows up in the pockets of the middle class and the poor?

You guys have been brainwashed too well! You only know how to regurgitate what you hear on Fox News; in other words, brain dead.

BTW, are all of you in the top 10%? Just wondering.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 05:58:36