Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Last Question: Congressional Vote
Today, it was announced that Republicans are blocking the extension of additional benefits to those unemployed beyond the original 99 week extension. Citing concerns about the 13.8 trillion dollar debt, lawmakers suggested benefits could be helpful but should be paid for by cuts elsewhere. Ok, you are the Congress: how do you vote and why? Can you make use of our recent concepts regarding AD, velocity, fiscal policy, and budget deficits to support your position?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure how I would vote because regardless of what economic concept could help me make a decision the reality is that people either need these benefits to continue or they need jobs to support themselves and I cannot think of a solution for either situation.
ReplyDeleteI would vote against an extension for additional benefits for the unemployed. If someone has been receiving unemployment checks for 99 weeks it seems like they are not serious about trying to find a job. If they really wanted to they could go out there and get a job. Instead they are sitting on their couch at home and enjoying the "free" money that is showing up in their mailbox every week. If their benefits were cut off it would force them to actually go out there and get a job. If they keep getting benefits why would they want to get a job? Anyobody out there would much rather stay at home and do nothing and still make money, compared to going out there and getting a job at Taco Bell and working hard and making the same amount of money. This would force them to forget about their pride and just go out there and get a job no matter what they are doing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei believe they should extend the benefits because the unemployment rate is so high. it is unethical to take away benefits when so many people are depending on them
ReplyDelete(yea, it wouldn't let me post the whole thing at once)
ReplyDeleteMaking a quick reference to Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," if people had no support, our society would be experiencing the same thing as all those immigrants; willing to work for pennies, having to wait and only hope to get picked for work, not to mention all the unsanitary conditions that we would have to live in, which would include trying to find scraps of food in dump sites. Personally, I am not for such a savage society, so to conclude, we need to find a way/money, to create more jobs, and we could do it gradually, in groups, by taking a few people off the unemployment checks each time. Whew! (and for a lack of sounding unprofessional, some much needed sarcasm: you have fun now reading this nonfiction novelette :])
man this sucks, didn't realize that deleting one comment would actually delete both of them.
ReplyDeleteReally, really don't want to have to say everything I just, so unfortunately you won't get to hear my awesome and colorful tale :/ (maybe a good thing) but i came to the conclusion that as congress, we should start getting rid of unemployment checks first from those who had them the longest, and do that by groups. However, at the same time, if we were to do this, then we would need to find money that we can use to create jobs, otherwise, we should just keeping giving unemployment checks, but I thought this would be the best solution to little by little try to ease our economy back on top the hill.
I would vote to end the 99 week extention period. I believe that these people do need a job and do deserve the unemployment benefits (well except for those who are just taking a "paid vacation"), however this money needs to go towards fixing other problems in our country. Maybe Congress could figure out a way to create more jobs so that these unemployed workers could find a job and not need unemployment any longer. I definitely agree that these people need this money and there are a very limited number of jobs available right now, but it has been 99 weeks, the government cannot support these people forever and we have a whole list of other things that this money could be used for. Congress should stop the extension, but not turn their backs on the unemployed...more jobs need to be created somehow in order for this country to get back on track.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Congress should block the extension of the additional benefits. Obviously, there are some individuals who do choose to view unemployment as a paid vacation, but that doesn't mean that is the case for everyone. There are a lot of discouraged and frustrated people who have searched relentlessly for a decent job the entire time, but are just unfortunate victims of a struggling economy. Stopping the extension of benefits would just lower the purchasing power of these individuals even more, which would not be beneficial for anyone.
ReplyDeleteIf i was the congress, then i would extend the benefits given to these unemployed people. However, I would decrease the amount of money given to these individuals. It must be acknowledged that these people still have children to feed and mortgages to pay. If no money is provided to them, then they will fail to pay their mortgages and this will impact the economy in a bad way. The other reason why I believe that money should be provided to them is because there are not many jobs available out there for everyone who is unemployed. Yes, one can work at Mcdonalds but there are not many of these positions available for everybody. However, I still believe that the money provided should match these families' necessities. This means that only the money needed should be provided. This way they will still be able to pay for what's more important and still have the incentive to educate themselves so that they have a better chance to find a job.
ReplyDeleteI believe that by taking money from other programs to help solve debt would only make things worse. Some programs are already under funded that it would make it harder for them to operate. Instead of doing that they should increase taxes on certain goods although it would cause some inflation but it would be more beneficial than taking money from programs that are already under funded.
ReplyDeleteI would vote in favor of taking the benefits away, but not 100%. I think that if the government gave the unemployed just enough money for food and gas money to get to jobs and things such as that, than that could really make a difference. Many people abuse the unemployment system, who sit around and do nothing because they know that they will be getting that paycheck every month regardless of what they do. This reduced payment may be just what they need to get their butts in gear. they could realize that soon my free ride is ending, and if i want to keep my house, then i need to find a job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jack. I believe the extension would allow people to become more comfortable with their unemployment benefits. The money they get just sitting around, how could anyone want to ruin that? Of course , they are not going to be first in line looking for a job.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that congress should extend the unemployment. However, I also do not think that unemployment benefits should be taken away completely. I think that the best solution would to decrease the amount given on each check so that necessities can still be taken care of. I believe that the unemployment check should stay at the amount they are currently, however, overtime the amount give to an individual should begin to decrease so that if the individual is still unemployed their incentive will increase as less money begins to flow into thier bank account from the government.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion,
ReplyDeleteSomething within the system is failing, we cannot cut the benefits for the unemployed because they are still failing to close the unemployment gap, if we cut the benefits now many people who are actively in search for a job will no longer have the support to continue the search and not plummeting into severe debt. I feel that due the current state of our economy the last thing that we want to do is abandon the people. However, simultaneously I feel that the people’s dependency on government financial aid and welfare benefits is becoming a huge a downfall in the strength and recovery of the economy. Therefore, although I do not believe in cutting the unemployment benefits now I do believe that we need to work towards a future system that works towards the people’s independence from this aid system.
I would vote against continuing the additional benefits for the unemployed. I believe that if someone is unemployed for a long period of time, that they have given up on looking for a job. If these benefits were not given anymore, it would force this group of people to get a job even if it was working at a fast food place.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the extension of additional benefits for these unemployed people. I'm assuming these unemployed people are actively searching for jobs and need the extra help to get them through tough times. A problem like this will not solve itself in a day. It will take lots of time before the effects are seen. The best possible solution is finding a way to create more jobs during a time when money is tight.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't vote in favor of the extension, because I know of too many people that use unemployment as a paid vacation. however, I would be in favor of the monthly amount of money the recipient receives to gradually decrease over the 99 weeks. this could possibly create a quicker search for a job.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of congress I would vote to extend the additional benefits to those unemployed. I feel that the 13.8 trillion dollar debt will not be solved by blocking the benefits to frustrated unemployed americans. I stand behind a plan that would continue to support unemployed workers in their times of need. My thought, also, is decrease the amount of money given to the jobless, so that more money can be directed towards creating more jobs in America. With very limited job opportunities available in our nation today, more and more people depend on the government support in order to support their families.
ReplyDeleteI would vote against the extention of additional benefits to those who are unemployed because i feel as though such benefits will simply reinforce, or in other words, slow down the drive for those who are unemployed to go find another job. I feel also that in the big scheme of things our national debt, even at 13.8 trillion dollars, should not be the main focus in such dyer times. I think that more benefits to those who are unemployed will slow the process from which the unemployed become employed. I think that instead of putting more money into benefits for the unemployed, the government should use fiscal policy to create more jobs for the lower class which in time will bring our economy back to an equilibrium. Once our econmy is back to a steady and balanced state, we can then begin to focus on the problem of national debt and do so more effectivly because we will be backed by a steady and prosperus economy.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a member of the congress I would vote to continue to giving those unemployed money. I do feel like we should lower how much money they get so it gives them more of an incentive to go out and get a job, without just throwing them out on the streets with no money. Then we could that money to put towards creating more jobs and job opportunities.
ReplyDeleteI would vote to lessen benefits but to get the funds they would need to be taken from another area. I think that it is time for the government to let go up the publics hand and let them take care of themselves. Let them figure out what work is. There are too many people that are comfortable with doing nothing, when they could be stimulating the economy by working and spending, instead they are sitting and saving. I think by lessening the benefits it makes times a little tougher however, it allows some cash to be flowing to these families. However, I am not including those citizens who have a disability. People do need money, but the money that is given to them should not come from the tax payers, the people who are actually working. It needs to be cut from another area. People need to look at the opportunity cost and figure out what is important. What will have a bigger impact and improve the economy now AND in the future. We do not want hyper-inflation.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't vote for it unless congress got the money from cutting back on something else. We cannot continue adding to the deficit. These little bills begin to add up. Eventually these people will have to find jobs they cannot keep living off of the government. Also, there was just a compromised passed that will allows tax cuts to be passed for all classes, like republicans were fighting for in the beginning, in exchange for the additional benefits being allowed to pass. Here is a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07cong.html?src=me
ReplyDeleteAndrew Reed
I would vote in favor of extending additional benefits. There has never been an economic crisis like this one statistically, so it seems justified to extend benefits to extremes as well. The money could be generated by only renewing the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. By doing so, the rich wouldn't be quite as rich, but would instead generate estimated hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years.
ReplyDeleteI would vote for the extensions . Unemployment checks increase consumption (because people spend them right away. Even though these benefits don't give unemployed people an incentive to go find a job they are essential component of economic recovery consumption. If we cut benefits people will be forced to find a job and you will have many more people competing to get what few jobs are in the market
ReplyDeletei would stop paying benefits for the unemployed. during these tough times, there is no guarantee that people will spend money that is given to them. also, an extension of benefits will just prolong the issue of high unemployment. with no incentive to look for a job, people will not contribute to the economy positively.
ReplyDeleteBy: Gustavo Gutierrez
ReplyDeleteI will vote for the extension. During times when the economy is not very active, stoping the flow of money is not the wisest route to take. Giving more money to the unemployed will help the economy in the short-run since there is 99.9% chance that they will spend the money in what they need. Adding more money in a dry economy never hurts.
I would vote against the extension. I understand that in today's day in age, getting a job is a tedious process. However I feel that 99 weeks is ample time to get some sort of occupation, even if it is not their dream job. I feel most people have taken advantage of their unemployment checks, and this needed to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Congress should get rid of the additional benefits. Clealry there are some people who think unemployment is a paid vacation .However, there are a lot of upset people who tried to get jobs but are suprsessed by the poor economy. Blocking the extension of benefits would just decrease the purchasing power of these already suffering people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are big cases for both, however believe I would probably vote for extending benefits but by cutting spending elsewhere. Even though consumers can be hard to predict, especially during a recession, hopefully consumers will spend and inject that money back into the economy stimulating growth and creating jobs. The only huge issue I have with extending benefits is that the country is trillions of dollars in debt...do we really want to add more debt on top of that? What is the opportunity cost of this decision?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would personally vote to extend the tax benefits, economically not extending the benefits makes more sense. Unemployment benefits easily lead to increases in unemployment rates. Uemployment benefits reduce the incentive for workers to search for and take new jobs. Unemployment insurance benefits are usually implemented during times of recession. While this might seem like a good idea to help people through financially hard times, it will not revive the economy because the total increase in spending related to the size of the economy is too small.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, in my opinion I would vote to keep the benefits that are extended toward the unemployed members of our population, however after reading some of my peers responses, I believe that the best solution would be yes to vote in favor of the extension, but do make cuts on the current benefit amounts. Unemployment is such a prevalent issue in our society today and I firmly believe that the government should aid those who are suffering because of the unusually high unemployment rate, however some of the funds used could be used for other economic improvements. I would vote in favor of keeping the 99 week extension, but making cuts in the current amount of benefits offered.
ReplyDeleteI feel the extension should shorten but not expelled. Tax payers provide unemployed workers with there there money that they have given to them, but i think getting rid of the extension will actually hurt the economy by providing less consumption. If the extension was shorten to about 12-15 weeks it would give unemployed workers ample time to find a should while still having the ability to consume and help generate demand and increase supply. Also, this would help out tax payers. Yes, they are still paying money to the unemployed but that extra money can be spent else where or even giving back to the tax payers. The one thing the gov't should not do is not to cut payments to organizations, because usually it's our education, fire department, police force and hospitals.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of limiting the unemployment benefits. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there were 3.4 million job openings at the end of October. Knowing there are THAT many jobs available makes me think that people are passing these jobs up because they either think they are "too good" or "above" such jobs, or the unemployment check is sufficient enough.
ReplyDeleteAny job, no matter what it is, is better than no job at all.
Furthermore, at the risk of sounding harsh, the people who are most at risk have had ample time to find work. They knew that their checks wouldn't last forever and if we are to continue the benefits, nothing will change (minus the few million it will take to fund the unemployed's checks). The government must let change happen if they want to see a change in the economy.
This is a very hard decision but if I was part of the Congress I would vote against extending the unemployment benefits. One reason I would vote against is because of how much the U.S. is in debt and how this would just further us so much more into debt. Another reason that I would vote against it is because there are some jobs out there. I sometimes feel like people pass up the lower standard jobs because they feel they are "above" the job. I know you may be above working at say a fast food place, but the issue is that it is a job and it would bring in some money rather than none at all. Also I know that more and more jobs have been coming opening up, so therefore I think they can go out and find jobs. My other concern is if the unemployed are actually going out and looking for jobs or not. The Congress has already extended the benefits way past which they should have been because of the recession. It is time for the government to stop helping and see what this change will bring. Let the economy do what it needs to do, to open up jobs for these people.
ReplyDeleteWhile the unemployment rate is tragic, I would choose to vote against continuing the extension. Increasing the deficit is not the way to go about economic recovery, it just causes more problems in the future.
ReplyDeleteif i was in congressess shoes, i would vote to extend the benifits for the unemployed. I would want the benifits to be cut though. with unemployment being a priority and concern in the United States, benifits would help close the deficit. i dont think its fair to continue to give high benifits, but the proper benifits would be appropriate.
ReplyDeleteTo so rashly assume that there are ample jobs forces a judgment call upon the unemployed. I would warn that this leads to a critical generalization that neglects the current economic conditions and may derail a useful discussion.
ReplyDeleteI would vote to extend yet likely curtail the unemployment benefits and meanwhile entertain creative ideas to integrate these individuals. Whether it be through active employment agencies, green jobs or associated education, public works or other options for progress I would want to more readily ensure that unemployment benefits serve a purpose beyond buoyancy.
i think some sort of time limit on unemployment benefits is a good idea, because it gives people a deadline for when they need to be employed again, and thus theoretically increases their motivation to find new work.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that they should continue to extend the benefits to the unemployed. Due to the fact that the unemployed have no source of income, they rely on said benefits more than effort. It would be unethical to cut the benefits.
ReplyDeletei dont think they should extent the unemployment benefits because thats not going to motivate anybody thats unemployed go out and look for a job they will just sit on their ass and get paid by the government and thats b/s --oakford Gross
ReplyDelete