Extending unemployment benefits

[467riverfix]

Much ado over recalcitrance by some US legislators to extend unemployment benefits. My understanding is that the US is the most generous in this regard than any other Western nation. In Canada - long considered a social welfare beacon by US liberals - there is one-time collection of unemployment benefits [[usually less than a year) - and that's it!

[Danny]

The Republicans are going to say 'HELL NO! We're are not feeding the poor anymore. The poor are going to find some way to find work.'

[Lowell]

In Canada - long considered a social welfare beacon by US liberals - there is one-time collection of unemployment benefits [[usually less than a year) - and that's it!

At least in Canada, you do not lose your health insurance coverage when you unfortunate enough to be laid off.

If the cut off is carried out, it will be a disaster for tens of thousands in metro Detroit and Michigan. Social services, emergency rooms and other last resort destinations, already overloaded, will be under even more pressure. Foreclosure and crime rates can expect a bump too.

[bailey]

At least in Canada, you do not lose your health insurance coverage when you unfortunate enough to be laid off.

If the cut off is carried out, it will be a disaster for tens of thousands in metro Detroit and Michigan. Social services, emergency rooms and other last resort destinations, already overloaded, will be under even more pressure. Foreclosure and crime rates can expect a bump too.

Its quite a dilemma though. How long are we going to keep paying unemployment benefits to someone who's job is never coming back? Especially in Michigan. Is the continued extension just delaying the inevitable?

[oldredfordette]

The original post was worded in a very interesting way. "Recalcitrance by some US legislators", hmmm I wonder what side you're on.

[Corn.Bot]

My husband's $35/hr job went overseas in early 2003. In the years since then, he has yet to find a job paying half that wage; I think the most per hour he's earned was $12.75. That job went away, too; as did the $11.50/hr and $10/hr jobs. None of them offered benefits aside from the wage [[whereas the $35/hr position had benefits, retirement, paid vacation and sick time).

After 9+ months of being unemployed in 2010, meantime doing all the 'right' things to chase down job leads and interviews, he's working again, now earning $9.50/hr for 24 to 48 hours per week depending on how many days they schedule him. He claims unemployment when he does not get 40 hours/week, and by golly, he gets a small UIA check about every other week. IMO he's earned it, working as long and hard as he does for such minimal pay.

Not much farther to fall in the way of income for him. I hope against hope for another unemployment extension because it is still helping us make ends meet. When someone with a 30-year career in a field that went offshore, and now almost a decade of manufacturing experience, has to work for just over minimum wage and still try to cover everyday expenses... I don't know what else he can do. What else WE can do.

Costs sure aren't going down the way pay seems to keep going. It may not be up to the government to continue helping, but businesses and banks have made no modifications that even so much as acknowledge the demographic that includes my husband [[and by association, me).

[Novine]

Keeping people on UI provides a safety net for all of us. It helps keeps homes out of foreclosure, people out of the emergency rooms and money going into the economy. Without UI, we'll all take a bigger hit as those people lose their homes, lost their health insurance and stop spending and start relying on food assistance. It's a much better use of tax dollars than giving tax breaks to gazillionaires and other schemes promoted as being boosters for the economy.

[trotwood]

My husband's $35/hr job went overseas in early 2003. In the years since then, he has yet to find a job paying half that wage; I think the most per hour he's earned was $12.75. That job went away, too; as did the $11.50/hr and $10/hr jobs. None of them offered benefits aside from the wage [[whereas the $35/hr position had benefits, retirement, paid vacation and sick time).

After 9+ months of being unemployed in 2010, meantime doing all the 'right' things to chase down job leads and interviews, he's working again, now earning $9.50/hr for 24 to 48 hours per week depending on how many days they schedule him. He claims unemployment when he does not get 40 hours/week, and by golly, he gets a small UIA check about every other week. IMO he's earned it, working as long and hard as he does for such minimal pay.

Not much farther to fall in the way of income for him. I hope against hope for another unemployment extension because it is still helping us make ends meet. When someone with a 30-year career in a field that went offshore, and now almost a decade of manufacturing experience, has to work for just over minimum wage and still try to cover everyday expenses... I don't know what else he can do. What else WE can do.

Costs sure aren't going down the way pay seems to keep going. It may not be up to the government to continue helping, but businesses and banks have made no modifications that even so much as acknowledge the demographic that includes my husband [[and by association, me).

Corn.Bot,for whatever it's worth, bless you&your husband! I know that doesn't help with bills and expenses but your post sounds very sincere and touching to me. You two hang in there&things will work out just fine in the end! This won't last forever.

[justanotherboy]

Danny - How long should taxpayers pay someone not to work? At what point would you cut off unemployment benefits? How many YEARS do you propose we pay benefits out?

[littlebuddy]

Does your husband have any skills or was the $35 and hour just for factory work/no skills. What skills has your husband aquired in 7 years? What skills did you husband aquire when he was working or was it just easier to live and not worry about tomorrow? Have you downsized, sold things,etc or should we just pay your way till you die? Why do you think you deserve for us to pay your way. Life isn't fair, get used to it and make changes. What happens when this extension is over, ask for more?

[Wingnatic]

How long should the taxpayers elect and pay politicians in Washington to sit on their hands while jobs leave the U.S. ? We have an incredible unfair trade balance
with alot of countries , but because we want to be buddies with as many countries as we can [[ for strategic purposes ) our Government is doing little to address the problem , the real problem . I'm not letting the auto industry off the hook , they shot themselves in the foot , but their not the only industry shipping jobs elsewhere . If you look at some of the conditions of say China , a certain % of the components of anything thats produced in their country , must be made at home .
We don't need laws like that do we ? It really doesn't matter when the U.S. lets nations flood our markets un -impeded , while limiting what we can put in their market [[jobs loss) They could care less about our economy .

[Mikeg]

The real question is how much longer are we going to continue borrowing money to pay for unemployment benefit extensions? The adjective "unsustainable" can be applied to more than just the noun "suburbs".

Much of the "recalcitrance" has been because of a lack of spending offsets in previous bills to extend unemployment benefits and therefore the entire cost would have been added to the federal deficit.

[Novine]

We financed two wars and the rebuilding of Iraq for almost a decade using that method. Conservatives don't mind funding wars using debt but don't want to see a dime spent on helping out American workers. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

[Det_ard]

There's a subset of people on unemployment who are working for cash while they collect benefits. Drywallers, painters, office helpers, I've met quite a few.

And another group who are OK with being unemployed because their spouse works and makes enough money, enabling the unemployed one to do their non-working thing while getting their weekly benefit as a supplement to the family income.

These folks are taking advantage of a system intended to help those truly out of work, but the system isn't doing anything to screen the scammers out. Maybe a three or four month stoppage of benefits for those who've been on it for two years would help weed some out.

[bailey]

We financed two wars and the rebuilding of Iraq for almost a decade using that method. Conservatives don't mind funding wars using debt but don't want to see a dime spent on helping out American workers. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

...don't forget the unfunded "bush" tax breaks that republicans are demanding we keep.

[Mikeg]

We financed two wars and the rebuilding of Iraq for almost a decade using that method. Conservatives don't mind funding wars using debt but don't want to see a dime spent on helping out American workers. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

Spare us that threadbare rhetoric - it's so pre-Nov. 2nd. The situation we face today is that we've borrowed nearly a trillion dollars to finance ARRA and it's lack of stimulative effect has been woefully obvious to all but the most partisan among us. Unemployment insurance recipient spending is a hell of a lot more stimulative to the economy than anything that's come out of ARRA. I hope that the lame duck Congress can agree to use the remaining uncommitted ARRA funds to finance the UI extension and/or find other spending offsets to fund it.

[Mikeg]

...don't forget the unfunded "bush" tax breaks that republicans are demanding we keep.

So if the 2001 and 2003 "bush tax breaks" were "unfunded", how do you explain the fact that by 2006 and 2007, US tax revenues were at all-time highs?

[bailey]

So if the 2001 and 2003 "bush tax breaks" were "unfunded", how do you explain the fact that by 2006 and 2007, US tax revenues were at all-time highs?

That is all well and good, but they did not come with the required spending cuts--- revenue did not come close equaling spending, in fact all we did was cut taxes and INCREASE spending...two wars, medicare part D..etc....thus they were unfunded. Because Bush did not reduce spending, Washington has paid about $265 billion in interest on loans to cover the lost revenue. So the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts really cost around $2 trillion.

I will agree with you that, yes, taxes should be as low as possible. However, what I will not agree with is saying that another unfunded 700 billion in tax breaks to the top1% is ok when unfunded UI is a line too far. When Boener comes out and says NO tax breaks without offsetting spending cuts, I'll believe the republicans are serious about governing.

[1KielsonDrive]

The original post was worded in a very interesting way. "Recalcitrance by some US legislators", hmmm I wonder what side you're on.

Uh, huh. Wording is revealing. I often wonder why we're not asking how long we'll be extending tax cuts and breaks for the rich, - military and economic aid to countries like Israel and Pakistan, subsidies to companies off-shoring their manufacturing, employees and HR, while reaping huge profits and paying thousands of lobbyists, not to mention a zillion other excuses for not taking care of our own. Patriotism doesn't just mean fighting in and supporting the military, waving flags and spouting nationalistic phrases, it means taking care of your fellow citizens - even the ones you don't always agree with. If I'm correct most of those conservatives and liberals who are unemployed without medical coverage, are the same people who worked for 35 years, paid taxes and supported our system. I haven't seen too many of them taking home bonuses the last few years, the least of which could be a few months unemployment compensation.

[hamtown mike]

...We have an incredible unfair trade balance...

And we have an amazing unfair wage balance as well. Welcome to globalization. There will always be somebody ready and willing to do it cheaper and faster. And blaming politicians is a joke. If politicians "protected our wages" nobody outside of the US could afford what we made

Unless you work in an industry directly tied to shoving another partially hydrogenated snack product down America's gaping consumer-based food hole, start saving or learn a concrete skill.

Let's be honest. Does barely graduating high school and turning bolts equal a place up north, a jet ski and two snowmobiles? At one time it did. God bless those who secured those contracts. I'd take it if it were offered. But things have changed.

Quit buying crap! The next time you're at the gas station maybe take a pass on the plastic made in china rose. And do you really need the 30 second egg poacher? What's wrong with a pot of water and a bit of patience?

Our priorities have been out of whack for so damn long and now they're coming back to haunt us.

[Novine]

"The situation we face today is that we've borrowed nearly a trillion dollars to finance ARRA and it's lack of stimulative effect has been woefully obvious to all but the most partisan among us."

If you're going to throw around numbers and claims, back them up with some facts. Which part wasn't stimulative? Most of the biggest chunks of the ARRA money went for tax breaks for individuals and businesses. If you're telling me that tax breaks don't stimulate the economy, you'll have no problem with the Bush tax cuts expiring? Another significant chunk is going for projects that will be constructed by private businesses. A chunk of ARRA went to keep people above water as we had the worst economic downturn in over 70 years. Throw tens of millions of people off UI, cut off their access to medical coverage and take away food assistance and then see how well the economy would have performed. I know it's a conservative dream world but it would have been a nightmare for the average working person.

[Mikeg]

That is all well and good, but they did not come with the required spending cuts--- revenue did not come close equaling spending, in fact all we did was cut taxes and INCREASE spending...two wars, medicare part D..etc....thus they were unfunded. Because Bush did not reduce spending, Washington has paid about $265 billion in interest on loans to cover the lost revenue. So the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts really cost around $2 trillion.

I will agree with you that, yes, taxes should be as low as possible. However, what I will not agree with is saying that another unfunded 700 billion in tax breaks to the top1% is ok when unfunded UI is a line too far. When Boener comes out and says NO tax breaks without offsetting spending cuts, I'll believe the republicans are serious about governing.

You guys want to keep fighting the political wars using the same old arguments as if the economic problems we are now facing are no different than 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

The facts of the matter are that the Obama Administration and Congressional leadership has been trying to lead us out from under the worst recession in 70 years and the electorate is not very happy with the results to-date. Based on the mid-term election results, I think many voters are suggesting to our leaders that
a) they can't stimulate an economy like ours that is 70% dependent on consumer spending by reducing on January 1st the disposable income of the very folks who are critical to the recovery OR by denying UI extensions to millions of unemployed. Save the class warfare rhetoric for when we have the luxury of time to play that game.
b) it doesn't matter who did what in the past - if we do not get our fiscal house in order NOW [[revenues and spending), the standard of living for ALL of us - including the ~55% of income tax filers who actually pay an annual amount of income tax greater than zero [[aka the golden geese) - will be heading for the dumper at an even faster rate than it already is.

[kraig]

Danny - How long should taxpayers pay someone not to work? At what point would you cut off unemployment benefits? How many YEARS do you propose we pay benefits out?

Unemployment benefits are not the same as paying someone not to work, it's insurance. As an employer, I've never had a problem with paying the costs and benefits should continue. Especially when it's taken into consideration that those willing to vote against the continuation of benefits will receive pensions for working their jobs for a small fraction of the time that the average person has to.

[Stosh]

You guys want to keep fighting the political wars using the same old arguments as if the economic problems we are now facing are no different than 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

The facts of the matter are that the Obama Administration and Congressional leadership has been trying to lead us out from under the worst recession in 70 years and the electorate is not very happy with the results to-date. Based on the mid-term election results, I think many voters are suggesting to our leaders that
a) they can't stimulate an economy like ours that is 70% dependent on consumer spending by reducing on January 1st the disposable income of the very folks who are critical to the recovery OR by denying UI extensions to millions of unemployed. Save the class warfare rhetoric for when we have the luxury of time to play that game.
b) it doesn't matter who did what in the past - if we do not get our fiscal house in order NOW [[revenues and spending), the standard of living for ALL of us - including the ~55% of income tax filers who actually pay an annual amount of income tax greater than zero [[aka the golden geese) - will be heading for the dumper at an even faster rate than it already is.

I suppose that your puppet masters betrayed you Mike. See where the Republcants denied the extention of the UI? How do you explain that? I guess that they are more focused on giving the tax breaks to the rich a big boost.

[JBMcB]

Extending unemployment benefits extends unemployment. A few guys won a Nobel prize in economics a few years ago figuring that out:

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/...yment-benefits

Basically, Sweden used to have very long unemployment benefits during a recession a decade or two ago. They kept extending unemployment benefits, and the unemployment problem kept getting worse. Finally they stopped extending them, and unemployment started decreasing. No free money for not working equals more people looking for jobs.

It's unpopular because people like free money, but it isn't good for the economy as a whole.