1.3 million to lose unemployment benefits today (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

Study after study shows they are looking for work right now.

Don't you have to be actively looking for work to continue to receive benefits?

you must claim you applied for at least two jobs per week in Ohio in your field. You are subject to audit. The chances of being audited are slim. Easy way around it if you don't want to work, apply for jobs in your field you are either over or under qualified for. You probably won't be called to interview. And you'll beat the audit on the slim chance your number is called. Most that get audited apply for jobs unrelated to their field.

If I were to get laid off, I would hope not to find a job soon. I'd do the minimum required to look and still get benefits. If the perfect job came along, I suppose I would take it but I would do whatever I could not to settle. Once the unemployment stopped, I'd get serious. I imagine there are a lot of people out there that are doing what I would do. Not the majority of unemployed, certainly, but a significant number.

I don't have numbers to prove it, but I strongly disagree with this assumption. Most people, I believe, are ashamed not to be working. There are certainly loafers out there, but they are a small minority. Most people who are not drug addicts or mentally ill really want to live productive lives.

 

[timschochet]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

 

[MAC_32]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

Study after study shows they are looking for work right now.

Don't you have to be actively looking for work to continue to receive benefits?

you must claim you applied for at least two jobs per week in Ohio in your field. You are subject to audit. The chances of being audited are slim. Easy way around it if you don't want to work, apply for jobs in your field you are either over or under qualified for. You probably won't be called to interview. And you'll beat the audit on the slim chance your number is called. Most that get audited apply for jobs unrelated to their field.

If I were to get laid off, I would hope not to find a job soon. I'd do the minimum required to look and still get benefits. If the perfect job came along, I suppose I would take it but I would do whatever I could not to settle. Once the unemployment stopped, I'd get serious. I imagine there are a lot of people out there that are doing what I would do. Not the majority of unemployed, certainly, but a significant number.

this is why I waited tables, allowed me to be more patient and find the right job instead of the first one. If I didn't find something in a given week I'd put in BS applications Sunday night. 5+ years experience, director positions or entry level. First I would find in my field.

 

[sporthenry]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Are you really asking this?

 

[Steve Tasker]

People ain't exactly getting rich off unemployment, fellas.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I thought the Obama economy was back on track and booming? The progressives like to point to the stock market as the indicator so why so many unemployed?

WTF? Have we been lied to again? No f###ing way!

Don't you get tired of turning every societal problem into "How can I bash Obama?" It's ####### boring.

He's making do with his limited google search abilities.

He's become Jim 11 II, Electric Boogaloo.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

get ready for a uptick in crime

 

[Juxtatarot]

People ain't exactly getting rich off unemployment, fellas.

I assume everyone here knows this.

 

[snogger]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

or maybe they will go out and get a job even if it is outside their career path..

I've mentioned this before but I was laid off from my first job out of college. While my unemployment checks were coming in I was out daily hunting for a new job in my career field .. This was the "ancient times" before internet where you had to check the newspapers, and cold call companies and mail resumes.

When I received the warning that my unemployment checks would end in a month I started considering other possibilities, including going back to school and get my bachelor degree.

Once the checks ended I got a full time job at a Restaurant as a Prep Cook, started looking into college, and continued to send out resumes.. about a month and half later I got a job in my career path and as they say, the rest is history..

To this day I still think being forced to re-evaluate my career and start working Full time made me look , and feel, less "desperate" at the interview and helped me land the job.

I'm glad you were able to learn from this, and that it helped you become a success, and I certainly hope more people follow your example.

But in terms of a political argument, the statement, "I got mine without help; why can't they?" doesn't work. It sounds good, but the opportunities in this country are not equal for everyone, and that is an unfortunate reality. And even if I accepted your premise fully, it doesn't change the fact that cutting off unemployment benefits from these people is not beneficial to us as a society.

Though I'm certainly concerned for the unemployed, I'm more concerned about us: the majority who are gainfully employed. We suffer by cutting off their benefits. It is bad for US.

So what's your answer Tim.. Unemployment benefits never end until you get a job??

Those losing the benefits are those that have been getting the checks the longest. It sucks, but sooner or later they have to end, we cannot afford to have them never ending can we

 

[Doctor Detroit]

People ain't exactly getting rich off unemployment, fellas.

I assume everyone here knows this.

According to government figures, the average weekly benefit check is $300.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

Study after study shows they are looking for work right now.

Don't you have to be actively looking for work to continue to receive benefits?

you must claim you applied for at least two jobs per week in Ohio in your field. You are subject to audit. The chances of being audited are slim. Easy way around it if you don't want to work, apply for jobs in your field you are either over or under qualified for. You probably won't be called to interview. And you'll beat the audit on the slim chance your number is called. Most that get audited apply for jobs unrelated to their field.

If I were to get laid off, I would hope not to find a job soon. I'd do the minimum required to look and still get benefits. If the perfect job came along, I suppose I would take it but I would do whatever I could not to settle. Once the unemployment stopped, I'd get serious. I imagine there are a lot of people out there that are doing what I would do. Not the majority of unemployed, certainly, but a significant number.

I don't have numbers to prove it, but I strongly disagree with this assumption. Most people, I believe, are ashamed not to be working. There are certainly loafers out there, but they are a small minority. Most people who are not drug addicts or mentally ill really want to live productive lives.

I agree that it's a minority but I think it's a significant minority. Of course this is immeasurable and impossible to prove.

I do take issue with your other comments. I think someone can be unemployed for a few years without being a "loafer" or living an unproductive life.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

 

[Big Cat]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

My ex-wife is collecting $724/week.

 

[Juxtatarot]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

Minimum wage on 40 hours a week is $290 before deductions.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

My ex-wife is collecting $724/week.

Then that means someone out there is paying out money to even out the average.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

 

[Apple Jack]

Mr. Cross, Mr. Ham, and Mr. Pack all epic schtick.

 

[Mark Davis]

I know in Alabama it was just under $300/week, the minimum any state could offer. Basically the first 6 months you file online and just answer boilerplate questions. After 6 months, you could be eligible for the extension if you submitted proof of searching for a job. In general that would mean giving names of companies you sent resumes too or actions you took. Not sure if they would really follow up on all that or not.

I have mixed feelings about this. You have to cut it off at some point but yet our economy is still so bad there are people legitimately searching who can't find work.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Not indefinitely. But the question we should ask is, do we benefit as a society by removing these people from unemployment? Will it affect our deficit and debt in a significant manner, one way or the other? Is it worth it?

My impression is that it is not worth it. We gain nothing significant by cutting these people off at this time. They will add to the people looking for work, or to the homeless. They will stop being able to pay their bills, which will in turn cause companies to fail. In return for this, we subtract a few millions from a deficit which is close to a trillion a year.

Makes no sense.

or maybe they will go out and get a job even if it is outside their career path..

I've mentioned this before but I was laid off from my first job out of college. While my unemployment checks were coming in I was out daily hunting for a new job in my career field .. This was the "ancient times" before internet where you had to check the newspapers, and cold call companies and mail resumes.

When I received the warning that my unemployment checks would end in a month I started considering other possibilities, including going back to school and get my bachelor degree.

Once the checks ended I got a full time job at a Restaurant as a Prep Cook, started looking into college, and continued to send out resumes.. about a month and half later I got a job in my career path and as they say, the rest is history..

To this day I still think being forced to re-evaluate my career and start working Full time made me look , and feel, less "desperate" at the interview and helped me land the job.

I'm glad you were able to learn from this, and that it helped you become a success, and I certainly hope more people follow your example.

But in terms of a political argument, the statement, "I got mine without help; why can't they?" doesn't work. It sounds good, but the opportunities in this country are not equal for everyone, and that is an unfortunate reality. And even if I accepted your premise fully, it doesn't change the fact that cutting off unemployment benefits from these people is not beneficial to us as a society.

Though I'm certainly concerned for the unemployed, I'm more concerned about us: the majority who are gainfully employed. We suffer by cutting off their benefits. It is bad for US.

So what's your answer Tim.. Unemployment benefits never end until you get a job??

Those losing the benefits are those that have been getting the checks the longest. It sucks, but sooner or later they have to end, we cannot afford to have them never ending can we

The ideal unemployment number is 4%, but we have so many underemployed people in this economy so that number might not mean what it used to. Extending benefits cannot go on forever, and there probably should be internal controls to apply timelines to specific economic numbers. I think it's ridiculous to basically treat those collecting unemployment benefits as we treat welfare recipients, those collecting unemployment actually had jobs in the recent past and a majority of them probably want to work.

Most probably look for jobs similar in pay and duties from what they did before, and this is normal. I do agree that over time though you have to consider changing fields and certainly consider taking jobs in your field, at a lower salary. That is just reality. I also think you have to find a happy medium between welfare and unemployment benefits that forces those looking for jobs to settle for something less, but also keep them out of the welfare state which we simply don't need more of. What's the cost of paying X number of weeks unemployment vs paying X number of weeks of full welfare benefits? How much of a burden is this on individual states? I guess I'd need to know those things before developing a proper path ahead.

 

[jonessed]

I'm not against extending them a few months if we can put an end to it after that. We don't need 47+ months of unemployment benefits any more.

The economy is in a position where we can start removing some of these extraordinary measures.

 

[Sand]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

 

[timschochet]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

 

[Mark Davis]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

 

[Courtjester]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

 

[timschochet]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

 

[timschochet]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

 

[Mark Davis]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

I disagree. To think that it's endless isn't realistic. So someone is out of work 5 years, are we to believe they had no job opportunity at all during that time? If you make it endless, the fraud and gaming the system would really escalate. One example, what's to stop me from going to work for a buddy of mine for cash and for endless years claiming I was unemployed? You can believe the state unemployment agencies don't have the will nor resources to stop that kind of thing.

 

[timschochet]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

I disagree. To think that it's endless isn't realistic. So someone is out of work 5 years, are we to believe they had no job opportunity at all during that time? If you make it endless, the fraud and gaming the system would really escalate. One example, what's to stop me from going to work for a buddy of mine for cash and for endless years claiming I was unemployed? You can believe the state unemployment agencies don't have the will nor resources to stop that kind of thing.

Anytime government offers benefits, there is going to be fraud and people gaming the system. But one of the arguments that conservatives always make is that the frauds are the dominant factor, and typically they offer anecdotes to prove their point. (The Obamacare thread is full of this.) In truth, fraud is almost always limited to a small minority of cases, and has no ultimate affect on whether or not the program in question is good or bad for society.

 

[Fennis]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

My ex-wife is collecting $724/week.

what state does she live in?

Maximum Weekly Unemployment Benefits for 2013

• Alabama - $265
• Alaska - $441
• Arizona - $240
• Arkansas - $457
• California - $450
• Colorado - $454
• Connecticut - $555
• Delaware - $330
• District of Columbia - $405
• Florida - $275
• Georgia - $330
• Hawaii - $560
• Idaho - $343
• Illinois - $385
• Indiana - $390
• Iowa - $459
• Kansas - $420
• Kentucky - $415
• Louisiana - $258
• Maine - $372
• Maryland - $410
• Massachusetts - $653
• Michigan - $362
• Minnesota - $585
• Mississippi - $235
• Missouri - $320
• Montana - $446
• Nebraska - $348
• Nevada - $398
• New Hampshire - $427
• New Jersey - $600
• New Mexico - $455
• New York - $405
• North Carolina - $535, $350, effective 7/1/13
• North Dakota - $470
• Ohio - $524
• Oklahoma - $368
• Oregon - $507
• Pennsylvania - $573
• Puerto Rico - $133
• Rhode Island - $566
• South Carolina - $326
• South Dakota - $295
• Tennessee - $275
• Texas - $426
• Utah - $451
• Vermont - $425
• Virginia - $378
• Virgin Islands - $454
• Washington - $604
• West Virginia - $424
• Wisconsin - $363
• Wyoming - $387

 

[Mr. Cross]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/27/obama-pushes-for-unemployment-benefit-extension/

Another 1.9 million will lose their benefits by the end of June and 1.7 million more by year’s end.

Obama thinks the solution is that we should just pay them indefinitely.

What's your solution?

Everyone that continues to need assistance should be sterilized so they don't bring even more people into the world. The government should take their children until they can find a job to support them.

I was guessing you were going to say gas chamber, so this seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Something drastic needs to be done to a system that awards poor people for making more poor people. Nobody wants to see any body be hungry, especially children.

Probably true but how many jobs are available for these 3.2 million unemployed?

Make them work for the money. There is still plenty or crime. Make them cops.

 

[mad sweeney]

$300? Lucky stiffs.

My ex-wife is collecting $724/week.

In unemployment or disability? What state? CA max unemployment is $450/week/

 

[Mark Davis]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

I disagree. To think that it's endless isn't realistic. So someone is out of work 5 years, are we to believe they had no job opportunity at all during that time? If you make it endless, the fraud and gaming the system would really escalate. One example, what's to stop me from going to work for a buddy of mine for cash and for endless years claiming I was unemployed? You can believe the state unemployment agencies don't have the will nor resources to stop that kind of thing.

Anytime government offers benefits, there is going to be fraud and people gaming the system. But one of the arguments that conservatives always make is that the frauds are the dominant factor, and typically they offer anecdotes to prove their point. (The Obamacare thread is full of this.) In truth, fraud is almost always limited to a small minority of cases, and has no ultimate affect on whether or not the program in question is good or bad for society.

So fraud won't increase if you make it endless? Come on. With no end to it, what's to stop me as a small business owner from hiring someone on a cash basis for a little under market while that person can endlessly claim to be unemployed? Fraud is relatively small in the grand scheme of unemployment right now, but it would increase with no limit at all.

Again, I don't know 6 months is the right number. But I am sure 5 years would be too much. Making it endless would be the very definition of a welfare society.

 

[Limp Ditka]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/27/obama-pushes-for-unemployment-benefit-extension/

Another 1.9 million will lose their benefits by the end of June and 1.7 million more by year’s end.

Obama thinks the solution is that we should just pay them indefinitely.

What's your solution?

Everyone that continues to need assistance should be sterilized so they don't bring even more people into the world. The government should take their children until they can find a job to support them.

I was guessing you were going to say gas chamber, so this seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Something drastic needs to be done to a system that awards poor people for making more poor people. Nobody wants to see any body be hungry, especially children.

Probably true but how many jobs are available for these 3.2 million unemployed?

Make them work for the money. There is still plenty or crime. Make them cops.

 

[Courtjester]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

lol @ "make them cops".

 

[shader]

Wasn't this extension granted due to economic emergency? Since the economy is booming, seems like a good idea to remove the extra welfare.

 

[Fennis]

I'm not against extending them a few months if we can put an end to it after that. We don't need 47+ months of unemployment benefits any more.

The economy is in a position where we can start removing some of these extraordinary measures.

the max was 73 weeks

 

[mad sweeney]

There's tons of fraud in defense contracts but rarely do you see the same people castigating entitlement programs say the same thing about their cushy buddy-buddies in Haliburton scamming the system. If they applied the same logic of eliminating the small percentage of fraud by cutting it all off to the defense budget, then I'd support them in reducing entitlements. But since we all know that won't happen, hell they won't even shout at Lockheed Martin for pulling support to the Boy Scouts over their anti-gay policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/27/obama-pushes-for-unemployment-benefit-extension/

Another 1.9 million will lose their benefits by the end of June and 1.7 million more by year’s end.

Obama thinks the solution is that we should just pay them indefinitely.

What's your solution?

Everyone that continues to need assistance should be sterilized so they don't bring even more people into the world. The government should take their children until they can find a job to support them.

I was guessing you were going to say gas chamber, so this seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Something drastic needs to be done to a system that awards poor people for making more poor people. Nobody wants to see any body be hungry, especially children.

Probably true but how many jobs are available for these 3.2 million unemployed?

Make them work for the money. There is still plenty or crime. Make them cops.

How would putting them on a gov't payroll stop them from costing the gov't too much money?

 

[mad sweeney]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Other countries have it worse than us, we should strive to be more like them. :thumbup;

 

[Courtjester]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

 

[Fennis]

Other countries have it worse than us, we should strive to be more like them. :thumbup;

If South Sudan doesn’t need to offer even a single week of unemployment benefits why should America?

 

[Fennis]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

Is your point our poor aren't poor enough?

 

[mad sweeney]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

You could still get cheap small ones. I paid $225 for a 26" in early 2010.

I also highly doubt the 2-4 number or if they even bought them themselves. I've given a few computers and TVs to my siblings when I had money to do so. It's an stupid claim to say that our poor are doing better than other countries' poor are.

 

[timschochet]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

I disagree. To think that it's endless isn't realistic. So someone is out of work 5 years, are we to believe they had no job opportunity at all during that time? If you make it endless, the fraud and gaming the system would really escalate. One example, what's to stop me from going to work for a buddy of mine for cash and for endless years claiming I was unemployed? You can believe the state unemployment agencies don't have the will nor resources to stop that kind of thing.

Anytime government offers benefits, there is going to be fraud and people gaming the system. But one of the arguments that conservatives always make is that the frauds are the dominant factor, and typically they offer anecdotes to prove their point. (The Obamacare thread is full of this.) In truth, fraud is almost always limited to a small minority of cases, and has no ultimate affect on whether or not the program in question is good or bad for society.

So fraud won't increase if you make it endless? Come on. With no end to it, what's to stop me as a small business owner from hiring someone on a cash basis for a little under market while that person can endlessly claim to be unemployed? Fraud is relatively small in the grand scheme of unemployment right now, but it would increase with no limit at all.

Again, I don't know 6 months is the right number. But I am sure 5 years would be too much. Making it endless would be the very definition of a welfare society.

We live in a welfare society. What we choose to do with unemployment won't change that.

 

[timschochet]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

We can't solve the problems you describe with "tough love". The only way to solve them is to increase employment.

 

[Mark Davis]

Not indefinitely.

How long?

I don't ask to be snarky, because it is a tough question to answer. Welfare is designed for more permanent upkeep. Unemployment is designed to be temporary.

Personally I always thought six months was a reasonable number.

Pretty much the same question that Snogger asked. It's a reasonable question, but my answer is: whenever it benefits society to remove these benefits.

The arguments seem to be: we should remove these benefits now because they're undeserved, or we should remove these benefits now because it will be better for the unemployed not to have these benefits. I happen to disagree with both of those arguments, but in the final analysis, they're irrelevant anyhow. The ONLY question we should be considering is: does it make us, as a society, worse off or better off to extend these benefits? IMO, for reasons I have already given, it makes us better off- for now. When such time comes as it makes us worse off, that's when we should cut them. But I can't tell you when that time will be.

You could use that argument though at any point and not give a number. I'm not saying 6 months is the right number, but you have to have a limit somewhere. They shouldn't be indefinite, but there has to be a hard number cap somewhere.

Why?

What if it was ALWAYS true that it benefited us as a society to offer unemployment benefits? That's a distinct possibility. And in that case, why should there be a limit?

I disagree. To think that it's endless isn't realistic. So someone is out of work 5 years, are we to believe they had no job opportunity at all during that time? If you make it endless, the fraud and gaming the system would really escalate. One example, what's to stop me from going to work for a buddy of mine for cash and for endless years claiming I was unemployed? You can believe the state unemployment agencies don't have the will nor resources to stop that kind of thing.

Anytime government offers benefits, there is going to be fraud and people gaming the system. But one of the arguments that conservatives always make is that the frauds are the dominant factor, and typically they offer anecdotes to prove their point. (The Obamacare thread is full of this.) In truth, fraud is almost always limited to a small minority of cases, and has no ultimate affect on whether or not the program in question is good or bad for society.

So fraud won't increase if you make it endless? Come on. With no end to it, what's to stop me as a small business owner from hiring someone on a cash basis for a little under market while that person can endlessly claim to be unemployed? Fraud is relatively small in the grand scheme of unemployment right now, but it would increase with no limit at all.

Again, I don't know 6 months is the right number. But I am sure 5 years would be too much. Making it endless would be the very definition of a welfare society.

We live in a welfare society. What we choose to do with unemployment won't change that.

We also live in a society full of crime. What's your point? Because it happens doesn't make it right or even better for the society. I don't see any economic reason or benefit to have someone on unemployment who might be entering year 6 on the program for instance

 

[Courtjester]

Its gotta end sometime or it just becomes welfare. If thats what they want to do at least call it what it is. At the peak, some collected unemployment benefits for nearly 2 years.

And this is the truth--the hard truth, but what else can the system do?

As one of the earlier posters said, this will force people who have the mentality of I can't find a job in my field to reevaluate what positions they would be willing to take. My brother worked for Pepsi for 27 years. He was the plant supervisor and ran the bottle/can lines. The plant here closed. He was devastated and basically just sat around for well over a year using the mantra of I will never find a job in my field and/or I can't find a job making more than my benefits. The enforcement on the number of jobs he had to apply for a week was nonexistent. Well, his benefits dried up and it forced him to get creative. He is working at a supermarket now and makes decent coin (union job). But I can guarantee he never saw his life going this direction 3 years ago, but he and his wife still have a very nice house and they do well for themselves.

There has to be an end date for this. Otherwise what stops people just deciding to live off this program. There are jobs out there. Some may not be great, but if you are faced with a deadline knowing you are going be making zero (and keep in mind this is after years of checks) then you take what you can get and keep looking for something better. I am sorry if that sounds cold.

I'm not concerned about this, but if it became true, THAT would be the time when it would benefit us as a society to cut them off. Not now. Especially because I seriously doubt it will ever come to that.

Tim, the bottom line is we live in a spoiled, entitled society here in America. Many in this country have become lazy because we believe the government should just take care of all our problems. We need some tough love, but instead we have a government who wants more handouts. Instead of telling people to strive to be better, it is being taught to blame the rich because it is their fault you are in the position you are in.

Maybe it isn't a fair argument, but many of what we call poor in this country are not poor by world standards. A poll taken by CNN in 2009 showed the average poor family making under 20k a year owned 2-4 flat screen tvs. Is that poor?? But many in this country scream poverty because they don't have an Iphone or a Blu Ray when in other places many want a job just to eat.

My example of my brother is spot on. It is weird but unemployment was the best thing that ever happened to him. Previously, he was a drinker and unhealthy. Unemployment forced him to hit his rock bottom when he couldn't afford alcohol. He now runs 15 miles a week and really appreciates everything he has. The change in him is amazing.

.

Seems like a specious argument. What size? Pretty much all TVs now are flat screens. You can get a 19" for under $200.

Note the year of the study, Back in 2009, the prices on flat screens were night and day compared to now.

Is your point our poor aren't poor enough?

No, my point is my kids think the end of the world is when Starbucks is out of their favorite blend or when our hi-speed internet is down for more than five minutes. And that is pretty representative of a lot of people in this country. Because I can't afford the things I want or in their estimation "need" and those people have it, we must be poor.

I simply put the tvs out there as an example of the difference of what we consider poor in this country and what is really poor as merely an argument to the number of people who won't take "that" job when in other places people just want a JOB. It really probably isn't the right argument for this thread--sorry for the hijack.,

 

[Fennis]

We also live in a society full of crime. What's your point? Because it happens doesn't make it right or even better for the society. I don't see any economic reason or benefit to have someone on unemployment who might be entering year 6 on the program for instance

the max was 73 weeks

 

[Mark Davis]

We also live in a society full of crime. What's your point? Because it happens doesn't make it right or even better for the society. I don't see any economic reason or benefit to have someone on unemployment who might be entering year 6 on the program for instance

the max was 73 weeks

Tim said why have a limit, merely pointing out we do need one. I realize what the limits have been. Maybe 6 months isn't right, but limitless isn't the right way either in my opinion.