jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (9 posts)

Do you think Congress should pass the bill extending unemployment for workers wh

  1. ExpandYourMind profile image73
    ExpandYourMindposted 7 years ago

    Do you think Congress should pass the bill extending unemployment for workers who have been...

    unemployed for over 6 months -- and why or why not.?

  2. SteveoMc profile image74
    SteveoMcposted 7 years ago

    My answer is yes.   My wife was laid off 6 months ago.   She has been trying to get another job, but she can't.   She has had a couple of good leads, and got into the final interview pool but was not selected.   We depend on the unemployment to pay our bills.   
    I am in my 60's and my wife is in her late 50's, this is the first time in our lives we have ever collected unemployment benefits, and we need them now.

  3. Joni Douglas profile image86
    Joni Douglasposted 7 years ago

    Yes, here in Michigan, it is really bad.  If they can give billions to fat bankers then they should help out the unemployed.

  4. 2010Revolt profile image55
    2010Revoltposted 7 years ago

    Yes they should. Why? Because even though the unemployed are not receiving benefits right now, and they are no longer tax payers, THEY CAN STILL VOTE!   Vote by July 20th.  GET out there and vote for an independent,  VOTE THESE CLOWNS in congress right out of there, start with an incumbent republican who voted no for extended unemployment!  LOL

  5. JeniferD profile image60
    JeniferDposted 7 years ago

    Yes, those benefits should be extended! No thanks to our incompetent congress, American jobs that paid a decent wage went to cheap foreign labor markets leaving behind ones that barely pay a living wage!

    That is just stupid for anybody to suggest one person work two, or even three, minimum wage jobs to make ends meet when jobs are scarce as it is.  When I see 70 and 80 year old people working a minimum wage job out here in my city, I wonder where things went awry in the social security system that these folks will have to work until they die.

    We have WAY too many parasites in congress, who don't give a hill of beans about the working class poor, while they continue to collect tax-payer supported salaries and millions of dollars in graft from 'special interest' groups with deep pockets.  I guess when people are starving, and dying, in the streets of the good old U.S.A., maybe congress will wake up....maybe they won't.

  6. profile image86
    HSchneiderposted 7 years ago

    Congress should definitely extend unemployment benefits for 2 reasons. Firstly, unemployed workers will definitely spend this money which makes these expenditures 100% stimulative which the economy needs badly. Secondly, these benefits are morally right. This is an extraordinary time and many jobs are not coming back after this economic fiasco. The argument that the unemployed are simply living easy off these benefits and not job searching is absurd, false, and cruel. The benefits barely keep families above water. Besides, many families would fall into welfare anyhow so society will pay one way or another.

  7. megadeth profile image58
    megadethposted 7 years ago

    yes they should you are right min wage wont pay your bills not if you want to eat maybe they should try to make it on min wage
    they sold all the good jobs down the river they should have to
    work for the same wage they want us to see how fast they raise min wage then ,they realy dont understand how hard it is to make it hear in the real world

  8. Springboard profile image82
    Springboardposted 7 years ago

    Absolutely they should, and it happens to be one of those points I happen to strongly disagree with my fellow republicans on. What we have to keep in mind is that unemployment benefits are paid to FORMER EMPLOYEES. That's key here, because one thing that employees do is pay taxes. These extensions are federally funded and are paid for out of taxes. The taxpayer is the unemployed worker, and until the economy is righted we have to look out for the worker.

    We looked out for everyone else, but now we want to turn our backs on who was REALLY affected by the economy? Something backwards about that if you ask me.

  9. Thesource profile image80
    Thesourceposted 7 years ago

    Definitely Yes!.

    It would definitely prevent hardship, crime and desperation.
    It would also help the economy recover, because the unemployed can still do some spending. Spending is key to economic recovery.

    See my HUB http://hubpages.com/hub/Government-spen … -recession