Updated: 6 December 2012 | 6:30 am in conversations
Should Congress extend benefits for long-term unemployed?
Related Stories
thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The federal program that provided extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployment benefit during the recession is about to run out.
The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program provided up to 47 weeks of additional benefits to the long-term unemployed in Iowa. The week ending Dec. 29 will be the last for which benefits are paid.
The program is expiring because Congress has not acted to renew it. Do you think Congress should renew extended unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed?
Rules of Engagement
Should Congress extend benefits for long-term unemployed?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Has anybody else heard the rumor that there is no money for new spending?
This is an excellent place for transparent legislative action. Either raise taxes to pay for this or cut spending. Dollar for Dollar. Lets see if a Repblican or Democrat will actualy do something fiscally responsible.
There are two dimensions to this issue. First is the human asspect. Being dropped off the unemployment roles can be devastating to families.
A second aspect is the economy. Taking money away from people with a very high marginal propensity to consume will have a recessionary impact on the economy.
Why is it that when someone said lets start a war no one ever has said where will we get the money? But when someone said lets feed, shelter and provide medical care for the poor the first thing we hear is where will we get the money? Its just a matter of will or human nature.
There is a very good answer to your question. Constitution.
The federal govt has very few enumerated powers. providing food housing, medical care, etc, is not a power of the federal govt. Providing for the common defense is.
The federal govt does have taxing power. That is why I said, if the extension is supposed to be extended, do the right thing and raise taxes.
Williamson,
Unemployment compensation was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 which was ruled constitutional in 1937.
“Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), upheld the program because “The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way”. That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress’s general taxation powers”
Also
“Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548[19] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Great Depression, “[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare”. ”
Wikipedia
Both Social Security and Unemployment Compensation fall within the “enumerated powers” of the federal government as determined by the Supreme Court
It is the fundamental purpose of government to ensure that the people it governs and protects do not starve to death. Any government that ignores this mandate does so at its peril
“It is the fundamental purpose of government to ensure that the people it governs and protects do not starve to death. Any government that ignores this mandate does so at its peril”
Roberta you are welcome to your opinion. It just has no constitutional support.
My opinion is not an opinion, but more of a direct quote from the constitution. If you cared to learn about the founding you would know that the constitution was drafted to limit the power of the Federal govt. I know you dont like the facts, but it doesnt change them.
Oh my goodness, Mr Williamson, “Promote the General Welfare”. Now what do you think that means.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937) was very clear: ““[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare”.
I believe, Mr Williamson, that the Justices of the Supreme Court know a great deal more about the Consitution than you do.
Roberta you know this was a 5-4 decision. You know SCOTUS is not bound by the constitution. Since you found the quote. now find that part of the constitution that allows SCOTUS to consider the seriousness of the crisis, in their interpretation of the constitution.
It is time we stop the extensions, Some people need forced to get a job.
Why work when you can get rocking chair money
What you call “rocking chair money” is barely enough (often not enough) to tide a family over until someone can get a job. I’ve never met an unemployed person who did not want to get a job.
You must also realize that there are virtually no jobs available for low skilled workers and some employers make it a policy to not hire unemployed people.
Cutting off unemployment benefits for some will mean losing their home and living on the streets. You okay with that?
Rich…we are currently providing unemployment benefits for THREE years to people. I’ll say that again..THREE years.
If a person can’t find some type of work in that amount of time–quite frankly they either aren’t trying or they don’t want to work.
I was raised by my parents that if I didn’t have a job..my job was to FIND a job. Didn’t matter if that meant having to work two part time jobs to equal 40 hours a week..or having to work 3rd shift.
And yes..there are most certainly jobs available for “low skilled” workers…and tell us..just what companies make it a policy to not hire “unemployed people”–because if that’s the case..they aren’t going to be a successful company for very long.
The company I work for has plenty of positions open for entry level workers, training provided on the job. Our company even provides limited benefits for part-time employees, including some medical coverage.
However the applicants that come in–expect to be paid $15 an hour to start, want to dictate what hours and days they work, and many that do get hired–quit in 2-3 weeks claiming that “the work is too hard”.
I work for a grocery store, Rich. You don’t need to be a highly skilled worker to work for my company. What you do need to be–is motivated and have a strong work ethic.
Unfortunately, Rich..we’re living in a society today where increasingly–people find that its easier NOT to work than it is to have to work hard for a living.
I see adults of all ages and races come in my store–buying hundreds of dollars of food with their food stamp card–then pull out a wad of 20′s so they can buy a carton or two of cigarettes, beer and liquor, and other junk that their food stamps wont pay for.
This is what our nation is moving towards, Rich–a society that is hopelessly dependent on government. The work ethic that built our country–is rapidly vanishing.
Those who still do work hard and are successful–are now vilified for their success. They get told they’re not “paying their fair share”.
Until our country wakes up and understands that government is NOT the solution to our problems–then the vicious circle of dependency will continue unabated.
Todd, I was on unemployment when I was laid off. Let me tell you from my first hand experience. There are very few who are milking the system. I met hundreds and hundreds of people – all unemployed during my stint as an unemployed person. And I can honestly say I only met 1 person that I considered to be milking the system. That puts the percentage of those people well below 1%.
Next you claim that someone shouldn’t be unemployed for 3 years. I agree. But during this economic disaster, I didn’t plan on being unemployed for 17 months.
There’s nothing wrong with your work ethic. During my time as an unemployed person, my main job was to find a job. I found lots of jobs, but had to weed out the ones I wasn’t qualified for. I took several temp positions as a way to get my foot in the door to a full time position, but that didn’t work. I went on interview after interview. Sometimes getting rejected after second and third interviews.
My unemployment checks were right at $300 per week. My rent was $550 per month, my groceries were about $200 per month, Utilities about $65 per month, and my COBRA was $425 per month. PLUS, I had to pay to have resumes printed, cover letters, business cards, I had to have a phone to call for interviews, and internet access to research companies.
So yea, as long as we’re seeing elevated unemployment numbers, we should extend unemployment compensation. But I agree with you, as those numbers come down, the extensions should be reduced.
My guess Mr Johnson, is that if your company is having such a problem with high turn-over and new hires who don’t work out for whatever reason that perhaps your company might be doing something wrong.
I suggest you go through your litany of complaints starting with “don’t need to be a highly skilled worker to work for my company”.
If your company does not respect the people who work for it, your company is going to get the same in return.
As for the three yearson unemployment, the only way that happens is if the individual is able to cobble together enough temp jobs to extend benefits and to requalify for unemployment once the first claim has run out.
You must be a young person, I know a lot of 60 some who lost there jobs
and they use this to pay for medical cost (cobra) if they lose this who do
you think will pick up that cost, us tax payers.
Having the government inject money into the economy via direct payments to the unemployed was probably beneficial to the economic recovery and, more importantly, it directly benefitted the “average citizen” (both employed and unemployed) more so than the cash infusions made to the financial industry. However, this is not a sustainable model and the signs of “diminishing returns” are becoming apparent. It’s time to end the unemployment-payment extensions.
You can always tell the Democrats from Republicans on unemployment. Democrats believe people need jobs to express their creativity and gain self-esteem and want to help them get there even when there are no jobs. Republicans believe mankind are basically shiftless bums who need to be starved into working or driven to work with a whip.
Dean Owens,
You hit the nail right on the head.
Anyone who knows people who’ve been unemployed even for a short period of time knows that the standard response is to go into a cleaning frenzy and then start doing a lot of volunteer work. People don’t like being idle. And losing a job is nearly as traumatic as a death in the family or one’s house burning down.
Just a thought but I wonder if the divergent attitudes of Republicans (aka conservatives) vs Democrats (liberals) might also say something about their supervisory styles which would then reinforce their respective views of how human beings function in the workplace. Human beings have this annoying tendency to live up to expectations
Dean…seriously? Are you that deluded to believe that?
Republicans believe in a hand UP..not a hand OUT–meaning that we believe in the safety net, but that the safety net is NOT meant to become a permanent source of dependency for those who need it.
If Democrats truly believed that people need jobs…then tell us, Dean..why do Democrats continue to push policies that restrict job growth and instead increase dependency on government?
Mr Johnson, could you please explain “policies that restrict job growth”? Historically speaking, job growth has been better when the government was operating under what most people would recognize as “Democratic”, aka Keynesian, economic policies than under “Republican”, aka Supply Side.
This is basic stuff. What are you upset about? Minimum wage? Workplace Safety regulations?
Republicans keep using these phrases like “job killing” and I have no idea what they are talking about. Sometimes I think they have no idea what they are talking about
The maximum duration for unemployment benefits is capped at… I think it is 79 weeks. Many who were laid off in early 2009 have not been able to regain full employment and are already well outside of any unemployment benefit (as you have to work a “full time job” for at least six consecutive months to be able to reapply for benefits. Most of these people see comments written in incomplete sentences like at least one of those above extolling ‘rocking chair money’, as a comment from someone whose employer could probably hire someone with better english skills from the vast number of unemployed and underemployed struggling to get by.
Should the government extend unemployment benefits? Yes.
Should they make George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et al pay for it? Yes.
Todd
all you have to do is read what republicans wright hear. I just repeat their delusions. if you understood money and the economy you would know that money is like gas to a car. the democrats want to put gas in the car so it will run and the republicans want to take gas out of the car because they think it will run better.
why is it that republicans want to keep subsidizes for oil corp. who are the riches corps in the world and the republicans say nothing of wasted money but to them it is a waste to have food stamps and unemployment payments?
Dean what ‘oil corp subsidizes? I think you’ve bought into a talking point that isnt what you think it is.
As far as the gas analogy goes. You want to take gas away from the people that have gas, that have paid for it, have some gas left because they save it, and delay gratification.
But in the end, there is no more gas, you can only take it from those that still have it, (raise taxes) or divert gas from a different engine(reduce spending).
At the begining of this post I asked which to do. All I got was crickets.
Bill
The oil subsidizes come from tax payers and go to those who don’t need them. where is the republican complaint.
you obviously don’t know where money comes from. when you find out you will see things differently. please tell me where money comes from and how it gets in the system.
Dean I know what a subsidy is, I dont know of any subsidies going to the richest oil corps in the world. Please identify them.
Williamson,
In answer to your question, the subsidies are in the tax code. The oldest of these provisions is in the Tariff Act of 1913.
Refer:”As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies”
David Kocieniewski, New York Times 7/02/2010
“But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. “
Bill
you argue about the obvious and ignore the question i asked you. please reply to the question on money.
Where money comes from? The tax payer. The govt only redistributes money. So when are you going to answer the question? What taxes are you raising or what money or you diverting from existing spending. That was my original question…………..still…………crickets.
Roberta a tarriff is not a subsidy. The left keeps using words that dont mean what they think they do.
“But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process”
Here, from your article I see why low information commentors continue to get it wrong. The above quote interchanges the words subsidies and tax breaks. These are NOT interchangeable words. Writers pushing an agenda, depend on their readers being ignorant of the subject.
There are no subsidies in tax codes. The tax breaks (not subsidies) are tax deductions available to all businesses. They are deductions for business expenses that assure income taxes are paid on profits and not sales before expenses.
Heres an article I found that explains the continuing intentional misrepresentation of the oil industry
“Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_prez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M
But all of this is a distraction from the question of what govt spending you are going to reduce to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits?.
Mr Williamson,
Tax breaks and tariffs are subsidies in that they are used to pick winners and losers by creating an uneven playing field. The tax breaks, dating back a century, afforded the oil industry are not extended to all businesses. They are specific to the oil industry.
And explain to me why I should take more seriously an opinion piece in the New York Post over a business news article in the New York Times.
Just so everybody knows, the New York Post is a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. It’s known for sensationalism, not accuracy or objectivity
To return to unemployment benefits—these are paid for with a payroll based tax on employers.and administered by the states.
I’m no more in favor of cutting spending in order to properly fund a program intended to help people through hard times than I am in favor of cutting spending in order to provide FEMA money to cover Sandy damage.
Go play your cold hearted and irresponsible hostage game with somebody else
.” The tax breaks, dating back a century, afforded the oil industry are not extended to all businesses. They are specific to the oil industry.”
Well at least I learned you up an Subsidies, and got that piece of flawed reasoning out of the talking points,
Now all you have to do is find some of those tax deductions that are only available to the oil industry. To my knowledge none actualy exist. I concluded long ago they only exist in liberal talking point, which have never been based in reality.
As far as my link, I notice you work hard to impeach my source. What you are incapable of doing is proving even a single bit of it as flawed, or inaccurate. The only conclusion is, unable to debate the facts of the linked piece, you are only left with smearing the source. If the source is so terrible, what they write should be easy to shred.
bill
everyone knows who the low informed commentators are on these blog and Roberta Bell is not one of them.
you are right that the demigods rely on readers being ignorant of a subject lets them talk crazy stuff. that is why i asked you to answer my question on the creation of money and how it gets in the system. there is no point in talking about debt, deficit, stimulus, surplus, or bankruptcy if you don’t know the facts about money.
Bill I answered your question. Now what?
This has been a great exercise is liberal talking points. None of them founded in facts and a refusal to answer a simple question. What spending is going to be cut, or where to raise taxes.
Not a single response to a basic question.
The attitude seems to be that magic will somehow prevail.