WASHINGTON — A bill to restore unemployment benefits to millions who have been out of work for more than six months has cleared a Senate hurdle.
The 60-40 vote came moments after Carte Goodwin, a successor to West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, was sworn in. Goodwin was the crucial 60th senator to defeat a Republican filibuster that has led to a lapse in benefits for 2.5 million people.
To me it is just a waste of money. Unemployment benefits do not really help the economy. We hear all about how it does because that money is spent, but in reality, all government spending does it kill an equal multiplier effect in the private sector.
Paying people not to work (in the name of economic recovery) is going to get us nowhere. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and with predictions that unemployment will remain high for the coming decade, are we just going to pay out for ten years? I hope the bill fails on the final vote.
I agree, but now I must ask another question - What is the difference between extending unemployment and giving billions in bailout money to the banksters?
Could it be that our government is more sympathetic to the banksters?
My out of work cousin who's living off the government now for the past year is probably doing somersaults with joy. She makes just as much by staying home and traveling on her husbands money than she would working. I agree... it's not just welfare it's extended welfare. Imagine - staying on the dole for 2 1/2 years going out and getting some 20K job for a few months and then hopefully getting laid off again. Hopefully Washington can keep up printing the worthless money they'll have to use.
To me it is just a waste of money. Unemployment benefits do not really help the economy. We hear all about how it does because that money is spent, but in reality, all government spending does it kill an equal multiplier effect in the private sector.
Paying people not to work (in the name of economic recovery) is going to get us nowhere. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and with predictions that unemployment will remain high for the coming decade, are we just going to pay out for ten years? I hope the bill fails on the final vote.
None. Just different verbiage of the same thing. And why can't the unemployment money be taken out of the stimulus money if we must do this?
A line has to be drawn, but a recession is not the time to do it. Unemployment isn't what is stopping people from working right now, the lack of jobs is. Companies get hundreds of resumes to fill a handful of jobs. Unemployment can be the difference between staying in your home or losing it. People without any income stop buying things entirely, you can't ignore government-generated demand any more than you can ignore privately-generated demand. If unemployment stopped today, what magical part of private industry would fill this demand? Where would all the extra jobs come from?
And when that 2 1/2 years is up, would your cousin vote for someone who'd extend another couple of years? Hence, the thought process behind all this.
Many of the unemployed simply won't do the jobs that are available to them. There are jobs out there, but they're "beneath" them.
Many of the unemployed simply won't do the jobs that are available to them. There are jobs out there, but they're "beneath" them.
Many, yes, but the fundamental problem is there are far more unemployed than there are job openings.
Why should it be done in the first place? But the banksters already have their billions. How about we extend unemployment benefits and take the money back from the banksters to do it? Just playing a little Devil's advocate here, but it's a funny world that doesn't do anything for workers who get laid off, but keeps the wine and caviar flowing to those who ran their banks and companies into the ground.
I agree, but now I must ask another question - What is the difference between extending unemployment and giving billions in bailout money to the banksters?
Could it be that our government is more sympathetic to the banksters?
A line has to be drawn, but a recession is not the time to do it. Unemployment isn't what is stopping people from working right now, the lack of jobs is. Companies get hundreds of resumes to fill a handful of jobs. Unemployment can be the difference between staying in your home or losing it. People without any income stop buying things entirely, you can't ignore government-generated demand any more than you can ignore privately-generated demand. If unemployment stopped today, what magical part of private industry would fill this demand? Where would all the extra jobs come from?
edit: And a bill that gets 60 votes to beat a filibuster isn't going to lose out to the 51 final vote requirement.
Why should it be done in the first place? But the banksters already have their billions. How about we extend unemployment benefits and take the money back from the banksters to do it?
Just playing a little Devil's advocate here, but it's a funny world that doesn't do anything for workers who get laid off, but keeps the wine and caviar flowing to those who ran their banks and companies into the ground.
And by the same token, hundreds of billions has already been spent on umemployment benefits and stimulus for the sake of the "little person." It just does not work.
In fairness here, many of the bank CEO's that were at the helm for this are gone, and the concept that we have not done anything for "workers who get laid off" is bogus at best.
Fair enough. I do agree with you that we cannot keep spending money like this. I also strongly believe that we should have let the banks go under. Here is the problem I have with the banks - They scream "Capitalism" until they want money from the government. Then they scream "Socialism".
Moderator's Warning: |
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?