Should The Unemployment Benefits Be Extended

Unemployment benefits are set to expire on Dec 28th 2013.

Should the benefit be extended?

 

The 3 amounts are not arbitrary. It is the 3 tire's that are in place now depending on a states unemployment rate..

 

NO. As soon as your jobs ends you should start looking for another one. Many people think this is time to take a vacation. I don't know how many months you get on unemployment but you should be able to find a job in two to three months. If you keep at it every day. Even if you have to take a temp job not in your field for a few months till you find a job you want. I know a few people on unemployment that don't even look for work.

 

No, what is provided normally is enough time to find another job. My wife and I both have two jobs during the year I do not know why others cannot as well. The secret is take what you can get and then keep looking for something better.

 

No, of course not.

If they want unemployment insurance, they should buy it on a free-market exchange and establish whatever policy terms they and their insurance company agree to.

It's clearly completely unconstitutional for the federal government to pay "benefits" for being out of work, and the states can compete among themselves for what they're willing to shell out, and, naturally, only employees, not employers, should be taxed to provide this questionable service.

Who owes them a living, anyhow?

 

I think it should depend on length of employment, the longer employed the bigger the unemployment package

obviously someone that works 6 months, should not get a year of unemployment

 

Yes, it's a requirement of the economic system we are trying to maintain in this country.

 

It's totally unnecessary with unemployment at 7%.

 

The "real" unemployment rate which the Bureau Of Labor Statistics call U-6 is 13.2%

 

I'd like for unemployment benefits to be extended even though I don't accept unemployment benefits. USA corporations have moved so many jobs overseas; it's only fair to tax USA corporations additionally since they neglect the welfare of persons residing in the USA that want jobs.

 

What do you have to say about King Obama and his illegal amnesty policy for illegal alien criminal invaders, since those illegal alien criminal invaders take millions of jobs away from people who have a legal right to live here?

 

Yes, to the max. While society corrects the issues that have brought us to such high unemployment in the first place. Laws to bar sweatshop goods from our shelves. A minimum wage that is a living wage so people don't take up two jobs or are unable to retire. Investment in infrastructure, science and medicine for public benefit, and proper education for everyone, all the way through graduate school for those willing to do the work, so that we have a more tech based workforce rather than a nation of impoverished burger flippers asking each other if we want fries with that.

 

If you want all these things you better write a letter to Obama. He is fast tracking the transnational trade agreement. Which will allow walmart and others to move jobs to Korea where wages are some of the lowest in the world. Thanks Obama.

 

If you want more of something, fund it.

 

So true! Or, as I have frequently put it, "Whatever you tolerate, you get MORE of...."

The websites and newspapers in every city and town advertise for job openings now. Make it easy for people to lay around on their asses for ANOTHER year, though, and that is EXACTLY what they will do -- and, vote for more Democrats and Democrat Welfare State goodies in November. It is perfectly predictable, even though the "Great Recession" officially ENDED in June 2009!

BTW, anybody here remember "Stagflation" economic disasters of the 1970's to about 1984? That was truly horrible, and IMHO was worse than this past "Great Recession". Primarily because on top of unemployment, economic downturn, and crippling government scandals we had skyrocketing, double-digit inflation and genuine military threats from the Soviet Union throughout the world. By comparison with that, the "Great Recession" was popcorn fart....

 

Who established this "requirement"?

 

The "welfare" of persons who simply reside in the USA is not the responsibility of people who pool their capital together to form companies. Nor do they have an obligation to create jobs here. I invest my money in order to be able to pay my bills, including 5 years ago when I was laid off from a job of 26 years so it was not a financial burden to me while I sought new employment, and retire when I turn 66 to be financial sound and in fact pretty well off.

 

That's just the market decisions of the corporations. They have a legal obligation to their share holders to make as much profit as possible; we have minimum wage & labor laws, they move to China, simple, our fault. Also unemployment is at like 5% now, its almost a non-issue. One of the largest arguments is we need manufacturing to sustain our large economy, but our economy is totally based in the market. We make our money through traders & middle men such as gas stations, retail clothing stores, Costco/BJ's, Amazon, etc. We don't need manufacturing. The easiest way to keep our jobless rates crazy low is to actually maintain our infrastructure, which we neglect horribly. I swear the national jobless rates would be >1% if we just put some money toward fixing & maintaining roads & bridges, not even building new ones, just maintaining old ones.

 

The freeloaders.

 

It should now be taken area by area. Some places have recovered from the downturn very well. Some have not.

The local unemployment rate here in Rockford, Illinois is still at 11%. Houston has dropped below 6%.

Rockford was once the most dynamic manufacturing place in America. The Russians even had it targetted with nuclear weapons because there was so much electro mechanical industry here. Today, all that has fallen to the micro-chip. Those jobs are gone, but the industry is still trying to survive. But there are only so many jobs still available. They are lined up for jobs at McDonalds, Walmart.

Many of the people who lost jobs are trying to move away. But with no job, that is too expensive. So they have few options but to keep trying. But they still need to eat, send their kids to school, pay rent.

These people worked hard all their lives, and are now desperate. A compassionate America would try to help by extending unemployment.

But that America seems to be a thing of the past. The angry rhetoric of right wing excuse makers seem to be drowning out the voices of Americans that are screaming for help. As well as those of us who are saying "Let's help them".

Maybe where you live and work, there are no people in dire straits. But that is NO excuse to say that no one needs help, and you know it.

Time to man up and stop making excuses.

 

"Should unemployment pay be extended?"

Workers paying for such = no 100%

Non-workers receiving unemployment pay = yes 100%

 

I believe that they should be extended. Times are very rough for people and people need as much assistance as they can get.

 

Wouldn't it be better to gear policies towards getting them back to work which includes stopping the extension of benefits? One of the reasons given for the slight uptick in labor force participation was that many feared that the benefits would be ending so the started looking for work.

 

There are jobs out there, the problem is folks stay unemployed longer than they should seeking an ideal job instead of compromising for one that they don't like as much because of unemployment insurance gives them that luxury. Every time you hear "I can't take that job, I make more money on unemployment" the nation is loosing productivity and it's hurting all of us.

Twenty six weeks is six months. Forty two weeks is ten and half months, seventy two weeks a year and a half. Six months is more than enough time to discover if what you offer is still competitive enough to earn you your old salary or if you need to accept less or work elsewhere. A year and half is too long.

Unemployment insurance is a reasonable idea, but I don't think we can afford to allow folks to stay unemployed for a year and half in hopes that they'll be able to get their old job back or a better one. They are welcome to keep looking, but we need them to do something in the mean time. We should not extend unemployment insurance.



​

 

It is good to help them get back to work but they should not revoke unemployment benefits in order to spur them on to get back to work. I think perhaps they should receive the benefits so long as they are actively and sincerely looking for work.