Not only is Mitch McConnell as ugly as two ugly sticks, he is holding up the unemployment for millions of Americans who will be homeless without it. The filibuster was broken but the Repubstupidlicans are continuing to use up all their time. May they rot in you-know-where at the end of their sorry and greedy lives.
you are concerned? how concerned would you be if you were waiting to find out if you no longer have any form of income?
and don't tell me you would run out and find a job making 7. 50 an hour.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l … _unem.html
How did you say they were paying for it?
Oh, you didn't.
it's a political party doing whatever they can to show us their true colors. when it's about the big guys with the big bucks, no problem not paying for it. I'm not going to play your game here.
http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/unem … -vote-907/
as someone who is unemployed--with the exception of my paid writing work--i would say that i would, indeed, go right out and get a job--ANY job--that IS what we are all supposed to do whenwe are unemployed.
we are not supposed to be on it forever
i have taken any job that had paid training whether it would work out or not
i have taken commission only sales jobs even though i thought they might not work out
we are supposed to go out and get work as soon as possible and we are all supposed to NOT live month -to -month when we DO have jobs
does this help anyone i here or am i just causing more trouble?
yes, I understand this, but at the same time, for many who have degrees or are over 40, going out and getting any job is not easily done. employers see the qualifications and work history and toss the resume. that's what I was trying to say, people say just go get any job. It doesn't quite work that easily, along with the factor that there are many people applying for one job position. only one person will get that job.
I agree, it's not intended to be a long term situation, but the recession as it is now, calls for situational decisions.
good luck, I hope you find something!
I found this article I thought was interesting.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/ … -have.html
i read the article.
i found something odd about it though.
i have been told by people who know these things that it is illegal to ask anyone his/her age or to ask for any information from which age could be determined
so it makes me wonder about her research or at least her conclusions
i understand that if i am educated i am going to be unemployed longer but in theory anyway an employer should know nothing of my specific age
so i don't know why she would bother including age in her conclusions
i have been told to not include anything having to do with age and to not include all my education
i have also been told to not go too far back on a resume either
i have been told to give them the past 10 plus years and not anything else
It hurts me to say this, like a deep, lancing pain, but... I agree with you totally in this remark.
The tax cuts for the rich that will expire at the end of this year. There is a god!
How are tax cuts for the uber rich paid for? How was the invasion of Iraq paid for? That water boarding equipment doesn't grow on trees you know...
The tax cuts and wars are paid for from unemployment taxes and social security taxes from those who did not lose jobs and died before collecting SS. Then those of us who are still paying income tax, are buying a few more missles. Boards do grow on trees.
If we are actually talking about extending benefits beyond what is being paid in, your arguments make less sense than mine and have nothing to do with the subject being discussed.
You seem to be unfamiliar with water boarding and the equipment used, which is strange given all of the coverage of that tortue technique in the news. You demonstrate a similar lack of knowledge regarding the source of unemployment insurance funding.
To clarify the point that seems to have escaped your grasp, many objectionable government expenditures have been authorized without asking the "how are they paid for" question. Hypocrites of the right have no problem spending borrowed money to harm innocent people and fatten the wallets of the wealthiest Americans. They suddenly become concerned about increasing the short term debt by a fraction of 1% when the funds are used to help people in need.
This is entirely in line with the subject being discussed; it's a pity you don't understand that.
Ron's point is valid. We let the government cut taxes on the richest Americans for many years, engaged in an expensive and pointless war on terror, and now we have a real crisis. How do we pay for the crisis and keep America strong?
Simple: increase income and or decrease spending.
To increase income, raise taxes on those who can afford it. Our tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are lower now than at any other time since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Income inequality is also obscene - at rates not seen since the years leading up to the Great Depression. Tax the rich. It's very simple, and it doesn't require an increased burden on the poor or middle class.
To cut unnecessary spending... well, you figure it out. More bombs? More planes? Send more American boys overseas to kill other human beings and come back home psychologically scarred?
Or do we cut funding for those who through no fault of their own need our help?
Why isn't 99 weeks of unemployment enough? Why is 126 weeks sufficient? Will people that are out of work for 99 weeks going to be able to keep their homes if they are still out of work after 126 weeks? All of this has to be paid for, so who's paying for it business? You and me? How will these additional costs on business and or people helpp to reduce unemployment or spur job growth?
No one, especially the republicians, wants to see people out of work for so long and losing their homes, but extending unemployment isn't the solution, jobs are the solution and Obama and the democrats have done nothing to stop the bleeding. I applaude the republicans for their courage. It's not easy to oppose the handing out of free money.
Now, would you be in favor of having unlimited unemployment benefits? If not why not?
Team Obama REFUSES to FUND the Bill... which has now been passed.
Just another Blank Check written for $34 Billion.
Obama continually blames the Republicans and the lamestream media gives him air time.
The Republicans are FOR funding unemployment... they just want Odumbo to tell them how he plans to do that before they pass it.
Seriously what kind of idiot would vote to keep writing those blank checks?
Odumbo had every opportunity to fund this Bill... but he won't do it.
Obama = FAIL!
Hmmm Obama is such a failure isn't he...he had the silver spoon held to his lips by his ex-president father huh?
It's all such a matter of projection isn't it. Obama's a magnet for other peoples' problems in America - and no one has more self-inflicted problems than Americans.
BTW: @bgamall LOVE the title of this post, it's so funny!
Jim, the Repubstupidlicans never met a war they felt they needed to pay for. And all of them have been war crimes.
I kust thought id comment due to the hilarious name 'Repubstupidlicans'. Brilliant
Everyone is so concerned about 'how they paying for this?' Well, well, how do they pay for their toner? billions How do they pay for airline tickets with MY tax monies? billions How do they pay for their kids private education? Shall I go on????
Gee, They find monies for their own expenses living like kings...HMMMMMMMMMMM
Ever stop to think of THIS?
They pay for it by simply printing more paper money just as they always have since abt. 1920 something! Pay attention people of the dumb-down USA, our money has not been backed by Gold for so long generations of us had no idea. Did not you who question extending unemployment have any questions when the gov't so easily and without anybodies vote bail out those money pits, the same who caused this mess we are in, what did you think about that? Not to mention all the money in Foreign aid we so readily have available but not for Katrina? Where are all your questions and complaints that "it has to stop somewhere" when we allow ILLEGAL aliens to work here and send ALL their money home without filing Income Tax. I hope your not going to defend the illegals and say they take jobs we won't because I have worked those jobs along side of those migrant, illegal (criminal) workers meaning I will work any job I can find, for too long this countries federal gov't has ignored the border issues because those same illegals are good votes for an easy election, I do know what I say Clinton & Bush bused them in without any paperwork, some violent criminals and got their votes and set them loose. I am through no fault of mine beginning unemployment and I sure do not like the negativereactions from fellow Americans who better pray they are not next. Yes they need to bring back our businesses stop outsourcing and concentrate on re-building this nation and stop butting into other nations, but 1st collect the bail-out money and send those bastards to jail, shut down the money pits and oh by the way how about the Federal gov't employees (elected) stop getting paid and just live on what they already received. Did you know when a Senator or Congressman retires he receives the same pay, add that to the incoming person and who pays for that deficit, they also keep any previous employment, miltary pensions. So do you still think they should not extend unemployment for the millions of us when our monies could not come close to the feds payroll expenses? They found the money they wanted, no problem, print out some fresh Benjamins please! Keep your job sweetie, but remember your replacement is at the door, and everybody can be replaced!
it's not gonna work locating jobs - unless they're the same kind of jobs that were lost for those who are on unemployment. What possible good will it do to get jobs in the tech industry available for people who used to be steelworkers? Unemployment has to be there for people while they get re-trained, if possible.
it looks like she got her information from raw data compiled from surveys
taken monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. and those are answered voluntarily.
employers cannot ask age, but can very often pick up clues from resumes. as you mentioned, it's best not to go back over 10-15 years.
resumes should be targeted with key words for the positions applied for. it takes tweaking the resume for different positions. some employers use technology to scan resumes looking for those key words.
But the unemployed people are going to pay it all back when they get on their feet . . . right? ....right...?
(I don't hear anything) . . . they're not?
actually we pay into unemployment to begin with . . . but surely you must know that, right?
anyone who has ever had a job and not been totally supported by a family or a husband forever and ever knows that, right?
i didn't check your profile rochelle are you an American citizen?
unemployment insurance is for working people who are currently unemployed at no fault of their own, who have paid/pay taxes, helped bail out the banks, pay taxes for their kids to go to school, have paid into the very system that is helping them...
I guess I'm an ig'nernt American, but never been on unemployment, nor has anyone in my family-- so I guess our deductions went into the fund for others. Good for them.
Actually Unemployment comes from the persons paycheck that the employer withholds and in turn uses that money to cover the cost of Unemployment Insurance which is required of all businesses per state. What you get on unemployment is less than half of previous pay for a set amount once you receive that amount you are done unless you get an extension. The amount you receive every two weeks is determined by the employer when they contract for the insurance coverage. This will seem at odds to some who comprehend but my previous employer vigorously and fraudulently fought all claims. I was in managment so I witnessed their tactics and was privy to the motivation...Supervisors bonuses were depleted if their store had to pay benefits.
Also consider if they pay out zero dollars then this is free untaxed money which means hourly wages were not the truth as told.
Well, I'm geussing you may be retirement age, so a part of my check goes every week to pay your social security!!
See how it works?
You know, the left might be able to blame the Republicans for this if the whole world wasn't aware that Obama has a ton of money left from the stimulus and didn't need the republicans to vote for and unfunded bill.
But why pay for it when we can just charge it on our China-card, gives a whole new meaning to MasterCard eh.
If not for that lil fact, this lie might fly.
I was going to comment on another post that seems to have vanished-- I will anyway:
I sympathize with those who have paid into the SS system and will probably not get their "investment"- aka tax, back. I have children who are in that category, and they do not expect to get much or anything from the social security fund.
As I said, we have paid into the fund for unemployment, and though we have never collected from that contribution, I don't mind, because it is only fair to help those who have not been able to find work for a time. That "Time" should not be endless.. people have to adjust and make their own way better after awhile, or have close enough family ties to help them over the bridge.
When I applied for social security I was surprised at how much they were giving me. I'm almost embarassed to take it. My husband and I have planned ahead for our retirement, not going into credit card debt and stuff like that. We did take a loan on our first house... we paid it off early and,many years later, sold and built our new home for a lot less than our selling price.
We planned, invested and saved. We also have been "lucky" and in good health.
If I never get more than I put into social security (even discounting the fact that we got no interest on that contribution) I would be perfectly satisfied. Whatever we put away will perhaps help our kids and their families- who will probably not have SS.
If you want to know about where I am coming from you might read my hub about the 'traveling health insurance plan' of my parents, and also the one about their experiences during the 30's depression.
Why does everyone think their story of walking 300 miles to school on one broke leg, applies to everyone. What about the high school grad that worked minimum wage, no benifits, no retirement, yet worked hard and put his children through school? He has nothing to fall back on except the deal made with him and his government. They take his money all his life, and the government makes sure he doesn't starve or beg on the streets. Nobody is living on what you dole out. You pay your taxes that you are obligated to pay. You get your unemployment or SS that you paid for and earned on your own.
No one walked 300 miles or had a broken leg.
No one makes a deal WITH the government-- the government makes the deal and the rules.
I've never gotten any unemployment
I pay taxes. I follow the rules
I might get much of the SS I paid, but not the interest it might have earned if I hadn't paid it.
I'm sorry I made it look like I was directing my comment at you specifically, that was not my intent. You did the right thing, your husband worked hard, and you deserve what you get just like everyone else that paid their FICA tax.
I need to clarify another point that may interest you. Unemployment is actually called Unemployment Insurance. Social Security and Unemployment are not personal bank accounts we draw from. Your eligibility is determined by the minimum amount FICA tax paid over a certain amount of years. That is the only reason the amount you paid into FICA matters.
Yes, I know it is not a bank account. I understand you can choose how much to put in and take out of a bank account.
The FICA tax is regressive in that it imposes a greater burden on the poor than the rich in regard to their ability to pay. 75% of taxpayer pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Some people will never benefit from their own 'contributions' but they will, at least help others who--through no fault of their own-- need the help.
Payroll taxes have been part of the Internal Revenue tax code since 1939 becoming the means of tax collection for Social Security. Officially calling it insurance does not change the fact that it is a tax that must be paid by Federal mandate-- but maybe that makes some people feel better about it.
Did I read your post correctly, the government makes the rules and we must follow them" do you not understand our constitution...the government is suppose to do what we want, senators and congressmen are suppose to create the laws and rules we want...how long has it been since those were reality? As for SS that agency is not expected to go broke under abt. 2035, at present it has enough money yet my disabled brother who paid major contributions cannot get SS disability and he had severe stroke at 51 with significant brain damage they suggested work in another field he has spine disk protusion from being heavy equipment operator for the Fed. gov't he cannot remember one minute to the next on bad days. Yet you say a family member got more than paid and you feel embarassed over the large amount you get perhaps you were calculated using anothers earnings totalled with yours or perhaps you worked for the Feds?
Better watch it Rochelle, Obama might just be waiting around the corner with a tax bill to take it all away...
OK-- making myself invisible now.
I really do sympathize with people having a tough time-- I'm appalled at food and fuel prices, but take some lessons from some people who know that we shouldn't and can't depend on the government to fix things. They(the government) don't have a really good history of fixing, if you have noticed... especially lately.
I’ve read through all the responses to this and I am both proud and appalled by what I read. Oddly enough I had been working on hubs on this topic that may now become rants before I can get them written.
First, I don’t know of anyone who enjoys being unemployed and is hoping those ‘benefits’ will last forever. Unless things have changed, you don’t draw unemployment if you quit a job and you can’t qualify for unemployment if you haven’t earned a certain amount over the 4 quarters prior to when you apply.
People are unable to find jobs because there aren’t any to find. Take a look at this news report about 3000 people applying for 300 jobs at an auto plant. http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=12846927 Not to mention that within the last month a Whirlpool plant where I live moved operations out of the US and 1300+ additional people had to apply for unemployment. They weren’t the first and won’t be the last.
Hardworking people are being displaced from their jobs, losing all insurance and other benefits at the same time. What savings they had is disappearing to house, cloth and feed their families. Unemployment is not comparable to the job they lost through no fault of their own.
There is a big difference between a person choosing not to work and expecting the government and taxpayer’s to support them and a hard working person who has had their income taken away.
Sorry for the rant… now I can finish my hubs without exploding
PS If they want the money spent to fund unemployment paid back; how about a tax on imports from formerly US companies?
my parents paid into unemployment and never cashed it out either so i figure i am just using all the money my family paid in and my own as well
naturally anyone who has never worked has actually never paid into it and would not need to use it.
people who have always been supported by someone else would not need unemployment either even if they had worked part-time
i know for a fact there are people out there who worked part-time while someone else paid all their bills
those people wouldn't need unemployment nor would those people have kicked in much in the first place
i won't bother spouting statistics because no one can prove anything without posting links
not to mention the fact that statistics can be manipulated
see above posts I responded to, each employee pays their own unemployment benefits, it is calculated the 4 quarters past earnings each has. cannot get it if you quit or fired with good cause, only if laid off or let go just because they want to let you go. If fired without legal cause you must fight and go to hearings and appeals and wait abt. 6 to 9 mths. You cannot get unemployment if you never worked and had 4 past quarter earnings of any amount. You can get unemployment if employer cuts hours and you are available for those hours and had them before it adjust for current pay and hours shorted.
So for those of who have paid the tax for years and years-- and never got any back, where does it go?
I've been paying into SS for thirty years. I get my little report every so often showing what my benefits will be when I retire. It's infuriating. If I could have invested that money, even just that, if I'd put the money through yesterday in a bank account and never put another dime in it, just let the investment season, I'd retire well, with ability to pay for my medical and long term care and all of it on my own without ever being a burden on anyway.
Oh, and good luck giving that extra savings to your kids. The government is coming after that, I guarantee you. You need a realy good accountant to put that stuff in places that wont get raped by the feds and state when you croak. They're sitting like vultures in the limbs, staring down at your estate licking their lips avariciously. Just because you worked hard and were frugal doesn't mean you're entitled to keep it. That's not the kind of entitlement we do here anymore.
Where does the premiums for your life insurance and your car insurance go? If and when you need SS or unemployment it's there for you.
Premiums for private insurance go to private businesses which are created to make a profit-- they go to paying huge salaries to the owners and and employees of insurance companies and they go to build huge elaborate buildings owned by insurance companies.
Where do the premiums for government "insurance" go when they are not paid back as benefits? I will never collect unemployment. They are not keeping what I paid in, in a little box "just in case."
Right...for the past 30 years, we allow businesses to move overseas, or off-shore their accounting, pay no taxes here, and sell their products here for a profit.
Now THAT'S an entitlement!!!
And Rochelle, thank you for mentioning the payroll tax!! It is more than the state and federal COMBINED.
It makes me loopy when people say "50% of Americans pay no taxes"...
Payroll tax is the biggest of all!!! And anyone who works pay it. errrr, except those earning $120,000 or more....they're exempt. Go Figure.
But we owe our citizens a helping hand when they need one....GUILT FREE!!!
Hey Rochelle, how you like being the target for everything that has gone wrong with America? Did you ever think you'd be getting shot down for defending the principles of hard work, frugality and personal responsibility?
If you get tired of fending it all off, I'll buy the first round.
Thanks, Shades-- It's OK, I'm sending a letter to Obama to have my excess payments sent to the rich.
I'm not going to convince anyone that I'm right, even if they can't understand that tax cuts aren't "giving" money to anyone. .. it's just a matter of the government taking less.
I don't know how I got into this-- I don't usually.
By the way- have you seen this?
I just saw it thanks to that link. Thanks, that was very cool, and fitting.
And I know what you mean about not knowing how you got drug into it. I usually don't read the political threads very far, but I saw your name kept coming up, so I read the whole thing just to watch your ninja fighting skills. Very nice. As impressive as I expected. Like watching an M. Knight Shyamalan movie or something in text.
I do not have a great deal of knowledge and experience about political matters (except for knowing about my husband's family's experience with Hitler's regime). I do have more experience than I want with taxes, including the incredible complexity of trying to run a small business and comply with all the rules.
By the way-- I have no Idea who M. Knight Shyamalan is. never heard of him or her -- and I can't afford to go to movies... I have taxes to pay.
Well, may I share my opinion? I am unemployed for the first time in my life. Actually, for the second, but when I lost the job first time, I found another immediately, even didn't get one payment from my unemployment insurance.
So, I feel just fine to use my unemployment benefits, because I and my employers were paying unemployment insurance exactly for this situation. I used my unemployment time wisely- I went to college and got a degree in a new field (even graduated with honors, was named Outstanding Graduate for my program).
But after my Unemployment benefits were exhausted I started looking for a job. I hate thinking that now I am living on federal Benefits, I call them alms. I am very grateful for the country that they aid me this way, but it is not really right.
I think that Federal Benefits should be differentiated, based on the years a person worked, on a persons age and his health status. Young healthy people should NOT be kept on benefits after they exhaust their UI.
I know two young men (one is 26, another 24. both single, healthy). They live on Federal extensions already more than for two years. One of them worked only for less than a year, another just half a year before they lost their jobs. They sit in the bars, drink bear, smoke pot. Oh, yea, they even get food stamps.
Another case if a woman at her 50s is kept on FB. This is where our taxes should go. Not to support the young and lazy jerks who are happy to abuse the government help.
I am looking for a job according my new degree. If I don't find it withing a month, I will go working in Walmart, KMart, whatever. I hate being supported with alms.
ReuVera. I especially appreciate your response, because you and your family have survived hard times under very different governmental structures and hard circumstances.
You have a very great appreciation of the options we still have in this country and have used your choices to make your situation better. There is no shame in taking help when you really needed it and especially when you are helping yourself.
Rochelle, thank you for your words. I really know first hand different types of governmental structures and believe me, America is the best. There’s no other country that gives so much to her citizens. That’s why it really hurts to watch how many Americans, especially young people, abuse the giving hand because it is so convenient to do this. Personal values and morals went down the hill. You and I watched our parents work hard to raise us. We got the same values, we feel it necessary to work, to give, before we can feel comfortable to take. We pass the same values to our children. But many people live on welfare generation after generation, giving the wrong idea to their children. Young people prefer to abuse the system rather than go and work for a minimum wage. Shameless, unscrupulous people will abuse the benefits as long as the system allows them.
Of course, just cutting the benefits off sharply is not the best way. That’s why I still think that the emergency benefits should be granted according certain rules. Differentiation by age first of all. In our region there are enough jobs for young strong people. So, people under 30 should be granted only Unemployment Insurance benefits. Then, go to work! No Emergency extensions for young people. This is the only way to teach them responsibilities.
I really deeply appreciate the prolonged help the government is granting to us and I just would like to see people to act for themselves. To really try hard before accepting help. System makes it too convenient for those who do not appreciate it.
Well, yes, you are right to an extent, William. Even though taxes have been cut on the wealthy they are still paying the most. The upper 50% still pay 97% of all taxes.( you can look it up. I did.) the top 1% pay over 21% at an average rate of 24%.-- so they probably wouldn't mind paying 35 or 40%.
Spending is obviously out of control when we are bailing out big banks and companies with no provision for them to repay.
When families face a financial crisis they can cut their expenses to the bone-- but they do not have the option to tax someone who is richer for additional income.
But we are not really talking about taxing and spending, which is a huge problem. We are talking about a much smaller problem of extending unemployment benefits beyond what the system can support.
As examples in this thread have indicated, there is a lot of abuse and waste here, which will be further encouraged by letting people know that the cash machine is still working.
The top earners are benefiting from the bank bailouts. 1 percent of the country controls 83 percent of stocks. This is too much money that has gone to the top. Unless this is fixed, mainstreet may have a very difficult time. Unless consumers the world over are willing to replace the US consumer as the buyer of last resort for the world's excess goods, then we are going to have problems.
The top 50% also has 98% of the wealth, so it's fitting that they pay 97% of taxes.
A family can't go and tax people when they are having trouble - but they can pool their resources. That's what taxes are - pooling the wealth of the community to benefit the community. The problem comes when the government wastes that wealth. That's the real problem - wasteful spending and crony capitalism. Extending unemployment benefits is just a symptom of a problem that's been with us and growing for at least thirty years.
Personally, I'd rather see people get money to pay rent and buy food than see rich folks get tax breaks.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart … ica-2010-4
Its amazing to me that the left is the party of tolerance yet just the title of this forum shows that is otherwise.
Regardless, America can not continue their deficit spending. There will come a time soon when our debts will come calling back to us. Do you want to add on to that debt? The CBO projects that between 2015-2020 America will have a 100% debt to GDP ratio. That is bad news, if inflation hasn't hit already, it will hit fast and hard once that happens. America's credit standing will be reduced meaning that we will have to pay even more money on interest. I think all of this spending madness needs to stop!
The rich are already taxed.
Here again is where the left and the right diverge in their views. The assumption by the left is that we need all of the government we have, and in fact we need more government. Well, government costs money! Naturally the more government you have the more money you need to pay for it and the only way for government to get that revenus is through taxes.
What we need is less government. We don't need all the government we have now let alone any more of it. Government is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Government always spends more than they have and government measures success by how much they are able to increase their budgets. The implication is growing the bureacracy means they are "helping" more people and are therefor more effective.
Less government costs us less means we have more money in our pockets for other things, like helping the poor, or starting a business. Less government equals more freedom and less corruption and less taxes, and less debt, and more prosperity for all including the poor!
Look at the spread in wealth inequality since the Reagan "revolution."
Smaller government means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Look at history - facts don't lie. The same sorts of policies that brought us the Great Depression brought us the Great Recession of 2008. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn't help a society, it hurts.
America was at its prime when it had the most progressive government, in the years following World War 2.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart … ica-2010-4
That simply isn't true. Ask any of the nearly 10 percent that are out of work now.
Unemployment under FDR remained in the double digits throughout his 4 terms of the presidency, this even with the war!
You simply refuse to recognize the facts.
http://www.economist.com/node/16640337? … d=16640337
There are two main reasons why Republicans oppose extending benefits: because the country cannot afford it, and because benefits, they believe, have given the unemployed an incentive to stay out of work. Neither reason is well founded. The bill’s price tag, at $34 billion, is small—equal to just 2.5% of this year’s deficit forecast. With the American economy still convalescent, weak demand remains a bigger threat to recovery than indebtedness....
Unemployment benefits may also be the government’s thriftiest option.... By recent estimates, a shift of just 200,000 unemployed workers to SSDI could entail an increase in government lifetime costs of up to $24 billion. If unemployment benefits keep those people in the labour force, the savings could be substantial.
Nor have long-term benefits played much of a role in keeping unemployment high, as Republicans claim. A recent study of their effect, by economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, pegged their contribution at just 0.4 percentage points of the close-to-10% jobless rate.
The main driver of joblessness remains the difficulty of finding work."
by Eugene Hardy4 years ago
Specifically, you have run out of benefits and you still can not find a job?
by moonlake4 months ago
We were in line at the grocery store and the lady in front of us in one of the motorized carts, had maybe $40. worth of groceries. Her card wouldn't go though and she said she thought it had money in it, maybe it...
by MikeNV6 years ago
"The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation's mounting debt. Republicans have tapped into the public's anger and concern over the national debt, saying they would support...
by shareware3 years ago
usually, we face this dilemma. In the repationship, boyfriend doesn't work , so his girlfriend shoud pay all the time they go out and eat somewhere. Or, boyfriend earns enough money , so his girlfriend completely...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/11/s … est-since/Seems even democrats dislike the job Obama has done on reducing unemployment... well I'm not surprised!!
by Holle Abee5 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.