Why would you want so much government control?
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.
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.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.
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 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.
Yes it does, in several cases.Taking Away Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Make People Get Jobs
Ah, but the OP was about UI, don't distract.Not exactly. More UI/MW to the "safety net" concept in general.
There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.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.
Man, you live in one hell of a state of delusion and denial.
But good job in further not answering questions.
Good to see that you did not read the article.Makes a nice hammock for some who would rather sit on their lazy ass.
It's not welfare, it is insurance that they were forced to pay for.
I think he realizes that.There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.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.
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.I think he realizes that.
And you STILL ARE AVOIDING THE POINT.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.
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.
Ah, but the OP was about UI, don't distract.
There you go, you do realize that UI is not based on family size.
Straw, it was not argued that it was. Do you think adding in another non-sequitur helps?Yes, of course, I do and it is not based on household income either.
Because the high levels of long termed unemployment was also.But it is also (normally) very brief in duration.
By George, he's got it!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.
Why bring up other non-job related benefits in a thread on UI? You keep doing this pointless distraction.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.
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.
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.
So tell us.....now that congress has cut UI extensions......has it in fact worked towards a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Cycles are going to happen, I agree. But we can make the crashes much less severe.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.
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.
As of 2012, Social Security pays an average of $14,748/year to retired individuals.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?