GOP Argument Against Extended Unemployment Benefits is Misguided

[GHook93]

I am going non-partisan here. I hear the Republican arguments against extending unemployment benefits and they cry foul. They state it allows people to rely an an entitlement instead of looking for work. Others just claim the US can't afford it. Both are erroneous arguments.

In Feb I was laid-off in Feb. Ten loyal years at the company, great performance reviews, but after 10 years someone at the top of corporate need to meet a bottom line and eliminated my position. I received a huge severance package and was able to find a new job in about a month and a half at a nice pay increase. 80% of my severance package has gone into my savings, so my personal story ends well.

But I digress. I have never been on unemployment and I was SHOCKED, by how little it pays. I figured out quickly it's a safenet for essentials and not one for someone keep up their life-style on. When I applied for unemployment, I received the max allowable amount and I got extra for my 4 kids. The total amount was well less than HALF what I made and it obviously didn't include healthcare (my former employer's severance package paid for 3 months of COBRA for me).

I found out quick that it only paid for essentials when someone was at their lowest point and it was not intended to pay for extras or keep up one's life-style. If anything it provides HUGE incentive to seek out new employment. It gives a strong sense of urgency.

The we can't afford it argument is illogical. Unemployment is expensive, but affordable. We need to cut other places not it.

It's a losing argument.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ahh, the you need money so its a good deal argument. That's not bipartisan it's a conflict of interest.

 

[Stephanie]

Unemployment was NEVER meant to sustain you for YEARS...and it's a STATE issue...It's not the parties or the Federal governments job
but now you all are demanding when you use up yours us TAXPAYERS should shoulder you for life I guess

this country is going to hell in a hand basket

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A conservative of convenience.

 

[GHook93]

Ahh, the you need money so its a good deal argument. That's not bipartisan it's a conflict of interest.

Me personally I could probably survive on saving for a few years if I needed. However, most people aren't like that. Don't like welfare, because it rewards laziness in my opinion. But unemployment provides for a person at their lowest point and gives incentive to find a new job (even one that pays less). If you are long-time unemployed, then you are even worse off.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Its a good thing that more information and experience can align one's perspective closer to reality. The money you would've been paid through UI I would assume would all be spent, maintaining demand so that others would more likely keep their jobs thereby helping to sustain the flow of the local economy. Its a win-win.

Now extrapolate that out with food stamps, welfare, and medicare/aid. That's the liberals' argument. All boats float. We should be vigilant for fraud but not leave those in need out in the cold and hurting the local economy at the same time simply because of a blanket moral principal. Let's be pragmatic about the poor in that the more poor there are, or the more there are people in financial distress because of lay-offs, medical problems, etc., the more there is a drag on the flow of an economy. Like rapids on a river slowing the flow of water. We help others and by it help ourselves.

 

[GHook93]

Unemployment was NEVER meant to sustain you for YEARS...and it's a STATE issue...It's not the parties or the Federal governments job
but now you all are demanding when you use up yours us TAXPAYERS should shoulder you for life I guess

this country is going to hell in a hand basket

I paid taxes for unemployment for years and so do the people currently on unemployment. We pay a ton more than we take. This was my first time taking unemployment and I have had jobs on an off since I was a teenager in 1995

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ahh, the you need money so its a good deal argument. That's not bipartisan it's a conflict of interest.

Me personally I could probably survive on saving for a few years if I needed. However, most people aren't like that. Don't like welfare, because it rewards laziness in my opinion. But unemployment provides for a person at their lowest point and gives incentive to find a new job (even one that pays less). If you are long-time unemployed, then you are even worse off.

You could survive through savings. Responsible behavior. But others can't so we should reward their irresponsible behavior....

 

[Samson]

I am going non-partisan here. I hear the Republican arguments against extending unemployment benefits and they cry foul. They state it allows people to rely an an entitlement instead of looking for work. Others just claim the US can't afford it. Both are erroneous arguments.

In Feb I was laid-off in Feb. Ten loyal years at the company, great performance reviews, but after 10 years someone at the top of corporate need to meet a bottom line and eliminated my position. I received a huge severance package and was able to find a new job in about a month and a half at a nice pay increase. 80% of my severance package has gone into my savings, so my personal story ends well.

But I digress. I have never been on unemployment and I was SHOCKED, by how little it pays. I figured out quickly it's a safenet for essentials and not one for someone keep up their life-style on. When I applied for unemployment, I received the max allowable amount and I got extra for my 4 kids. The total amount was well less than HALF what I made and it obviously didn't include healthcare (my former employer's severance package paid for 3 months of COBRA for me).

I found out quick that it only paid for essentials when someone was at their lowest point and it was not intended to pay for extras or keep up one's life-style. If anything it provides HUGE incentive to seek out new employment. It gives a strong sense of urgency.

The we can't afford it argument is illogical. Unemployment is expensive, but affordable. We need to cut other places not it.

It's a losing argument.

We need to cut a lot of stuff, but after someone is on welfare for 99 weeks, I really cannot see justifing a 100th week as SPENDING THAT MAKES SENSE.

You're not taking enough credit for yourself: you worked 10 years to achieve a station at your employment so that you DESERVED your severence package when whatever happened that caused management to eliminate the job. You might have PLANNED a day when you would need extra money.

Both of these personal actions are called "being and adult."

Those that choose to perform poorly, or choose to be poorly trained, or choose lower income employment opportunities, or choose to not save must rely on the nanny state. Many of these are what we call "Europeans."

I choose not to support the social strata that requires 100+ weeks to regain employment.

 

[Samson]

Its a good thing that more information and experience can align one's perspective closer to reality. The money you would've been paid through UI I would assume would all be spent, maintaining demand so that others would more likely keep their jobs thereby helping to sustain the flow of the local economy. Its a win-win.

Now extrapolate that out with food stamps, welfare, and medicare/aid. That's the liberals' argument. All boats float. We should be vigilant for fraud but not leave those in need out in the cold and hurting the local economy at the same time simply because of a blanket moral principal. Let's be pragmatic about the poor in that the more poor there are, or the more there are people in financial distress because of lay-offs, medical problems, etc., the more there is a drag on the flow of an economy. Like rapids on a river slowing the flow of water. We help others and by it help ourselves.

I agree that in the short run, its a Win-Win.

However, if we continue to extrapolate that out, then what incentive is there for anyone to accept personal responsiblilty, ever? We can all depend not only on a soft landing, but also on a nanny state that enables us to begin to find comfort in a less demanding lifestyle of drinking ripple for breakfast and watching cartoons all day even while procreating.

 

[Samson]

Unemployment was NEVER meant to sustain you for YEARS...and it's a STATE issue...It's not the parties or the Federal governments job
but now you all are demanding when you use up yours us TAXPAYERS should shoulder you for life I guess

this country is going to hell in a hand basket

I paid taxes for unemployment for years and so do the people currently on unemployment. We pay a ton more than we take. This was my first time taking unemployment and I have had jobs on an off since I was a teenager in 1995

Your ex-employer also paid taxes. So does you current employer.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There is ZERO justification for paying ANYONE who can't find or isn't looking for a job after that amount of time. Period

 

[GHook93]

Ahh, the you need money so its a good deal argument. That's not bipartisan it's a conflict of interest.

Me personally I could probably survive on saving for a few years if I needed. However, most people aren't like that. Don't like welfare, because it rewards laziness in my opinion. But unemployment provides for a person at their lowest point and gives incentive to find a new job (even one that pays less). If you are long-time unemployed, then you are even worse off.

You could survive through savings. Responsible behavior. But others can't so we should reward their irresponsible behavior....

I see it differently. I don't see it as rewarding irresponsible behavior. I see it as helping people, WHO PAID FOR THIS BENEFIT, when they are at their lowest point. Again it's NOT welfare. The people who use unemployment HAVE PAID THEIR SHARE AND THEN SOME in prior taxes. Second, it's temporary! Third, it pays dick! It helps provide for essentials that is it. Even on day one of unemployment, the recipient has a mass amount of incentive to get another job even one that pays less because unemployment pays dick and you get no health insurance benefits!

 

[KNB]

Why are job creators not creating any jobs? Maybe if job creators created more jobs, fewer Americans would need to stay on unemployment for so long.

https://www.google.com/search?q=95%25+financial+gains+1%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

 

[Rozman]

I keep hearing from the left how good the economy is now thanks to Obama....
Then they get angry when it's brought up that there are still so many Americans out of work.
They get angry when it's brought up that we have a record number of people on food stamps.
They get angrier if they get a push back against extending people's UE benefits again and again and again...

Why aren't they angry about the fact that people now have to pay more out of pocket for healthcare after being
dropped from plans that worked for them...

 

[Rozman]

Why are job creators not creating any jobs? Maybe if job creators created more jobs, fewer Americans would need to stay on unemployment for so long.

https://www.google.com/search?q=95%25+financial+gains+1%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Maybe if Obama wasn't changing ObamaCare every five minutes companies can project what their costs will be in advance...

Oh that's right the Libs believe that companies primany function is to provide jobs for the
masses.

 

[KNB]

Oh, yes. The companies are in their "wait and see mode". The same "wait and see" mode that they were in even before the idea of Obamacare was conceived.

Just face it. Rich people have sucked up the majority of the world's money for their own and left the rest of us bickering over the scraps, and they have their vast media empires to tell you to blame other poor people. How much money do you have? A couple hundred thousand? You're poor. Get it? Your nest egg doesn't mean shit to the owners of this country. They blow that much on a wristwatch.

 

[edthecynic]

I am going non-partisan here. I hear the Republican arguments against extending unemployment benefits and they cry foul. They state it allows people to rely an an entitlement instead of looking for work. Others just claim the US can't afford it. Both are erroneous arguments.

In Feb I was laid-off in Feb. Ten loyal years at the company, great performance reviews, but after 10 years someone at the top of corporate need to meet a bottom line and eliminated my position. I received a huge severance package and was able to find a new job in about a month and a half at a nice pay increase. 80% of my severance package has gone into my savings, so my personal story ends well.

But I digress. I have never been on unemployment and I was SHOCKED, by how little it pays. I figured out quickly it's a safenet for essentials and not one for someone keep up their life-style on. When I applied for unemployment, I received the max allowable amount and I got extra for my 4 kids. The total amount was well less than HALF what I made and it obviously didn't include healthcare (my former employer's severance package paid for 3 months of COBRA for me).

I found out quick that it only paid for essentials when someone was at their lowest point and it was not intended to pay for extras or keep up one's life-style. If anything it provides HUGE incentive to seek out new employment. It gives a strong sense of urgency.

The we can't afford it argument is illogical. Unemployment is expensive, but affordable. We need to cut other places not it.

It's a losing argument.

We need to cut a lot of stuff, but after someone is on welfare for 99 weeks, I really cannot see justifing a 100th week as SPENDING THAT MAKES SENSE.

You're not taking enough credit for yourself: you worked 10 years to achieve a station at your employment so that you DESERVED your severence package when whatever happened that caused management to eliminate the job. You might have PLANNED a day when you would need extra money.

Both of these personal actions are called "being and adult."

Those that choose to perform poorly, or choose to be poorly trained, or choose lower income employment opportunities, or choose to not save must rely on the nanny state. Many of these are what we call "Europeans."

I choose not to support the social strata that requires 100+ weeks to regain employment.

Wing-nut math is quite "fuzzy!"

The Dems want to extend the present 26 weeks by 13 weeks. To the Right 26 + 13 = 100+ weeks.

 

[Rozman]

Taxes,regulations,health care costs,minimum wage,cap and tax...
How much money do you guys think small to mid size companies have just lying around.

 

[The T]

Taxes,regulations,health care costs,minimum wage,cap and tax...
How much money do you guys think small to mid size companies have just lying around.

MOST that I know of are barely surviving...and having to make dire decisions on letting people go...or folding their tent entirely.