Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"One key principle of economics is that when you subsidize something, you get more of it, and when you tax it, you get less of it."
DETNEWS | Weblogs | Politics Blog (http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/politicsblog/index.php?blogid=16157 - broken link)
Continue to subsidize unemployment. You'll get more of it.
And cut unemployment benefits off and you get this:
Here's how Eisenbrey sees it: "In addition to sustaining some of the neediest families, safety-net spending in the form of unemployment insurance and health insurance subsidies helps the economy as a whole by circulating cash into local communities and helping businesses avert further job cuts. Each $1 billion of unemployment compensation generates an estimated $1.63 billion to $2.15 billion of additional gross domestic product (GDP). If the unemployed did not receive insurance benefits, then their reduced consumption would be a serious drag on the economy, reducing demand for businesses’ goods and services, in turn leading businesses to reduce investments and lay off additional workers. Simply put, allowing unemployment benefits to expire would set off another round of disastrous payroll losses and imperil the entire recovery. We estimate that these benefit extensions will increase nationwide employment by about 460,000 jobs. The $55 billion of additional income for jobless workers will be spent on goods and services in their local economies, generating an additional 0.65% of GDP."
Ya go ahead and cut those UB off and unemployment will go to 15%. Then people on this forum will change their tune when their one of those added 5% to the unemployment ranks.
Why do the democrats fail to focus on jobs and getting people back to work? Is it because they love having people dependent on the the government for their every need?
They just want to pay for it from funds already there.
Are you trying to say that there's some "sneak money" out there? What funds are you referring to? post the name of your "connection", I need to get a bag of that $h*t...
I would venture that one republican has done more than 10,000 democrats in aiding the unemployed. By actually being able to offer them a job.
The OP obviosuly doesn't understand economics.
To say that republicans don't want to "help the unemployed" is just a huge lack of understanding. Allowing people to stay on unemployment indefinitely is certainly not helping them become employed. It is actually enabling them to remain unemployed.
Republicans want to help them help themselves. So many people I have known who are on gov't asstance do not really begin to look for jobs until the checks stop coming in.
Are you trying to say that there's some "sneak money" out there? What funds are you referring to? post the name of your "connection", I need to get a bag of that $h*t...
Democrats passed a law stating that if you are going to spend new money, that cuts need to be made somewhere else. Its DEMOCRATS refusing to follow THEIR OWN LAWS..
Misstated question, the question should be why don't the repubs want to give "more" help the unemployed. You see there have already been several extensions to unemployment supported by both parties. Then the question becomes how many years are we supposed to support these people 2 years, 3 years, 5 years? 10 years?
Just talked to a neighbor who is 63, still collecting unemployment. He was going to retire at 62, but managed to get "laid off" just before that. He could have afforded to just retire, but free government money? Who says no to that?
Now he's amazed that he's still getting paychecks, even though he didn't ask for them to be extended. THEY WERE EXTENDED AUTOMATICALLY, thanks to our elected Leaders, who are having a grand time giving away taxpayer's dollars--I mean, borrowing money that will have to be paid back with taxpayer's dollars, plus interest.
If it was me who got laid off, I have no doubt the next day Washington would pass a law that if someone else in your family had a job, or if you had money in the bank, you couldn't collect a penny. But since it's me earning the paycheck and sending half of it to Washington, the sky's the limit for giveaways.
99 weeks of unemployment checks already, and liberals howl that the Republicans "REFUSE" to help the unemployed. Only in Bizzaro-World would someone type this nonsense and hit "submit reply."
Democrats passed a law stating that if you are going to spend new money, that cuts need to be made somewhere else. Its DEMOCRATS refusing to follow THEIR OWN LAWS..
Unemployment benefits have always been designated "emergency funds" and have always been exempt from "pay as you go" as far back as President Eisenhower. Why didn't the Repub's make them "pay as you go" when Bush was Pres? When Bush entered office, we had 900B in the bank. When he left we were 9T in debt. Now all of a sudden everything has to be paid for? I'm neither. That's alright, come November some of the Repub's are going to be joining the unemployment ranks and then they will wish they had voted for the UB extension.
Are you trying to say that there's some "sneak money" out there? What funds are you referring to? post the name of your "connection", I need to get a bag of that $h*t...
There is stimulus money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
