• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No, Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs

Why would you want so much government control?

I do not want government control, I think they 'control' far too much that is outside of their purview as it is. But if you believe there should be a set amount for people to make, how do you 'control' them to ensure they actually live off of that amount rather than waste it away and then become broke again? I realize you don't want to do that because you don't care if they do, then you can justify even more money be shifted their way. That never ending cycle of dependency.

It is noted you did not answer the first two questions.
 
Not true, actually. Sovereign debt is different than a loan that you or I would take out. Governments that create their own fiat currency do not need to borrow that currency from anybody.

If what you say is true then please explain the US debt that China holds. My understanding is the US govt has and does borrow money from other countries.
 
I do not want government control, I think they 'control' far too much that is outside of their purview as it is. But if you believe there should be a set amount for people to make, how do you 'control' them to ensure they actually live off of that amount rather than waste it away and then become broke again? I realize you don't want to do that because you don't care if they do, then you can justify even more money be shifted their way. That never ending cycle of dependency.

It is noted you did not answer the first two questions.
I haven't said anything you are claiming I am saying. People are free to go into debt, or help themselves out and go to school. I have no issues with that and it causes no cycle that you claim.
 
If what you say is true then please explain the US debt that China holds. My understanding is the US govt has and does borrow money from other countries.

here is how that process goes. China build products, US citizens buy products. China now had lots of USD and nowhere to spend it, so they buy US treasuries to earn interest. The US doesn't ask for this money, they simply allow China to buy Treasury securities.
 
I haven't said anything you are claiming I am saying. People are free to go into debt, or help themselves out and go to school. I have no issues with that and it causes no cycle that you claim.

Man, you live in one hell of a state of delusion and denial.

But good job in further not answering questions.
 
Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs
Yes it does, in several cases.

When a person is receiving maximum unemployment benefits, that is more money than many people make. In my state, the maximum is $538 a week, equivalent to $13.45/hr. These people simply will not work for even $15/hr or more to get off. $20/hr would be like working for $6.55/hr.

In reality, it's worse yet. It's actually equivalent to more than $13.45, because you don't pay the 7.45% FICA on it. Depending on your deductions for taxes, you would have to make $14.53/hr to $15.11/hr, and waste 40 hrs a day plus gas money plus commuting time to break even.

Makes a nice hammock for some who would rather sit on their lazy ass.
 
Not exactly. More UI/MW to the "safety net" concept in general.
Ah, but the OP was about UI, don't distract.
The UI rate is always set at some lesser percentage of the person's prior earnings (even if they were working for MW); it is not based on household size or other income within that household.
There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.
 
Man, you live in one hell of a state of delusion and denial.

But good job in further not answering questions.

i don't live in delusion, I admitted that there will be people who go into debt and are still broke even after raising their incomes. I am not disagreeing with you there.
 
Makes a nice hammock for some who would rather sit on their lazy ass.
Good to see that you did not read the article.

The point was that even with the ENDING of UI, fewer than 20% of those who lost benefits found work.

It's the economy, tonto.
 
It's not welfare, it is insurance that they were forced to pay for.

Yes, but the insurance has a six month expiration at full benefit levels. More than that, and it becomes a social program rather than insurance.

Now if you want benefits to be able to last twice as long, the the premium we pay needs to be twice as much as well.
 
The UI rate is always set at some lesser percentage of the person's prior earnings (even if they were working for MW); it is not based on household size or other income within that household.
There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.
I think he realizes that.
 
I think he realizes that.
And again, you miss the point. The point was that diverting the thread from a specific point in the OP....is not what the OP is about.

PS:
Try focusing on objections to your own posts.
 
Yes, but the insurance has a six month expiration at full benefit levels. More than that, and it becomes a social program rather than insurance.

Now if you want benefits to be able to last twice as long, the the premium we pay needs to be twice as much as well.
And you STILL ARE AVOIDING THE POINT.

Yawn.
 
If what you say is true then please explain the US debt that China holds. My understanding is the US govt has and does borrow money from other countries.

Only the U.S. govt. can produce dollars, so all dollars originate from the government. If we just borrowed the same dollars over and over, the amount of dollars could never increase. Like JP said, the U.S. buys Chinese goods with U.S. dollars. The Chinese use some, but they sit on the rest, because their system is built on being a net exporter. They could sit on dollars, or they can exchange those dollars for bonds and earn a bit of interest.

Operationally, fiat currency economies do not even have to bother with bonds. They could just issue currency directly and be done with it. But we still have laws on the books from the gold standard days that require Treasury's account at the Fed to remain in the black. In the gold standard days, this was a good idea, because bonds promising gold-convertible dollars (that we were limited in creating) represented real debt - when bonds came due, we had to either create more dollars, which meant procuring more gold, or we had to roll over the debt.

Now when we issue bonds, there is zero risk of not being able to redeem them. That's why the interest rate is so low - there is no risk component to U.S. bonds, just a time component. Fiat dollars cost nothing to produce. That's why the government can never run short of them (political stupidity notwithstanding), and that's also why we can buy our own bonds (which satisfies our legal obligation). And if China, along with the rest of the world, decides that they no longer want to buy our bonds, that would not prevent us from buying 100% of our own bonds and continuing to issue dollars.

Does that short version make sense? If not, the long version can be found in this thread.
 
Ah, but the OP was about UI, don't distract.
There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.

Yes, of course, I do and it is not based on household income either. But it is also (normally) very brief in duration. The point of the OP was that when jobs are as scarce as they now are then folks don't magically find a job when the UI checks stop comming. The rationale used to stop the federal UI benefit exptnsions was that they only encouraged folks to not get a job; that same rationale was not used on the federal "safety net" benefits which are growing at a healthy clip - especially with the recent addition of PPACA.
 
Yes, of course, I do and it is not based on household income either.
Straw, it was not argued that it was. Do you think adding in another non-sequitur helps?
But it is also (normally) very brief in duration.
Because the high levels of long termed unemployment was also.

11-20-13ui-f3.png



The point of the OP was that when jobs are as scarce as they now are then folks don't magically find a job when the UI checks stop comming.
By George, he's got it!
The rationale used to stop the federal UI benefit exptnsions was that they only encouraged folks to not get a job; that same rationale was not used on the federal "safety net" benefits which are growing at a healthy clip - especially with the recent addition of PPACA.
Why bring up other non-job related benefits in a thread on UI? You keep doing this pointless distraction.
 
Straw, it was not argued that it was. Do you think adding in another non-sequitur helps? Because the high levels of long termed unemployment was also.

11-20-13ui-f3.png



By George, he's got it! Why bring up other non-job related benefits in a thread on UI? You keep doing this pointless distraction.

What the gov't chooses to do instead of further UI extensions is, indeed, part of any UI discussion. How can "safety net" benefits that are based on household size/income not be considered job related - have you not noticed that most households with good jobs don't use those "safety net" programs? To assert that the "safety net" programs are not job related is nonsense. Those funds could be better put to use on infrastructure improvements (shovel ready jobs) than to be doled out to keep the poor more comfortable.
 
What the gov't chooses to do instead of further UI extensions is, indeed, part of any UI discussion. How can "safety net" benefits that are based on household size/income not be considered job related - have you not noticed that most households with good jobs don't use those "safety net" programs? To assert that the "safety net" programs are not job related is nonsense. Those funds could be better put to use on infrastructure improvements (shovel ready jobs) than to be doled out to keep the poor more comfortable.
So tell us.....now that congress has cut UI extensions......has it in fact worked towards a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank?

Hint: McConnell stopped it dead in the Senate.

Even your tangents and diversions fail, while you still cannot deal with the fact that UI does not cause lower levels of employment.
 
i don't live in delusion, I admitted that there will be people who go into debt and are still broke even after raising their incomes. I am not disagreeing with you there.

You said: "No I think that people should receive a basic minimum income or a job guarantee that pays them enough to earn a living."

I am still waiting on the answer to who determine what that income is as well as how government is going to make jobs so that there are jobs available.

But yes, it is either delusion or just some serious dodging. You want these jobs and some unnamed rate of pay, and it seems you want it so thing will be 'fair'. But on the other hand above you say people can blow away their money and sink back into poverty. So what would be the point of artificially determining this wage and setting it? Don't we already have a system where people can go into debt if they want, where they can better themselves and rise out of their situation? If so, what exactly are you calling for? Be specific, wage rates and all.
 
I never said increased spending via credit, I said increased spending via increased income. Big difference. People need to stop putting words in my mouth.
I didnt say you wanted increased spending via credit, rather its a natural consequence when the government is involved that they start lowering interest rates to the point where there is lots of credit going around and it gets abused. In an ideal world you should match spending with income but that never seems to happen does it. But at the same time we should discourage a tax and spend economy because it is too vulnerable to market bubbles and the inevitability of crashes- its a vicious circle. Baby steps going forward rather than three steps forward and three steps back.
 
You said: "No I think that people should receive a basic minimum income or a job guarantee that pays them enough to earn a living."

I am still waiting on the answer to who determine what that income is as well as how government is going to make jobs so that there are jobs available.

A good start of a minimum income that is on teh conservative side is using the MIT living wage calendar:

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

As for creating jobs, that would be handled on the local levels, and the federal government would simply be the entity that writes the paychecks. We have done it consistently throughout the history of this country.
 
I didnt say you wanted increased spending via credit, rather its a natural consequence when the government is involved that they start lowering interest rates to the point where there is lots of credit going around and it gets abused. In an ideal world you should match spending with income but that never seems to happen does it. But at the same time we should discourage a tax and spend economy because it is too vulnerable to market bubbles and the inevitability of crashes- its a vicious circle. Baby steps going forward rather than three steps forward and three steps back.
Cycles are going to happen, I agree. But we can make the crashes much less severe.
 
Savings are a darned good idea for when times get tough. Perhaps the grasshopper and ant fable explains that best. Of course, if you can rely on gov't to get you through hard times then you can be a happy, carefree and comfortable grasshopper. ;)

Aesop's Fables

Absolutely, which is why we need a living wage for minimum wage earners, so that they CAN save ... also why we need Public financing of universities so People can get an education and not spend the rest of their lives paying it off.
 
Absolutely, which is why we need a living wage for minimum wage earners, so that they CAN save ... also why we need Public financing of universities so People can get an education and not spend the rest of their lives paying it off.

What happens to the value of SS or other retirement pensions for those no longer working if the gov't decides to inflate the MW?

As of 2012, Social Security pays an average of $14,748/year to retired individuals.

Social Security Basics - Just Facts
 
A good start of a minimum income that is on teh conservative side is using the MIT living wage calendar:

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

Well that's interesting. Living wage depends on the people in the family. Have more kids, get a bigger wage. Sort of like that welfare thing, eh? You really think the wage someone makes should depend on where they live and how big their family is instead of what the work they do is worth?

As for creating jobs, that would be handled on the local levels, and the federal government would simply be the entity that writes the paychecks. We have done it consistently throughout the history of this country.

A duck and cover! Don't answer the questions, obfuscate! LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom