E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Near the top of the to-do list for the lame-duck Congress is whether to extend jobless benefits for two million Americans who are relying on the payments to get them through until they find a job.
Recent talk is that lawmakers would be willing to extend benefits for the fifth time this year before they expire Nov. 30. Advocates for extended benefits include groups representing the so-called 99ers, who run out of benefits after 99 weeks.
But Republicans, who trounced the Democrats in midterm elections partly on the idea that America has been spending too much, say that the deficit is already too large and that even jobless benefits should be on the table for discussion.
Into the debate drops a number from CNNMoney.com, which reported Wednesday that Americans have collected jobless benefits totaling $319 billion over the past three years. CNNMoney’s article says the federal government has already paid $109 billion of that.
Businesses are likely to end up paying for much of the remainder, including whatever gets added if Congress agrees to extend the benefits, CNNMoney says.
High unemployment, currently at 9.6 percent officially, has forced states, which typically fund jobless benefits, to ask the federal government for help. States are in dire straits: 31 of them now have $41 billion in loans outstanding, according to CNNMoney.
With employers on the hook for replenishing the money that funds jobless benefits, taxes on businesses are expected to rise to $64 billion in 2015 from $38 billion last year, according to the Labor Department.
With that kind of money on the line, businesses small and large will likely prove to be strong allies for lawmakers who either want to stop extending benefits or to find cost cuts elsewhere to make up the difference.
Leave a Comment:
So what? 319 billion over 3 years?
The Fed is dumping 7BILLION dollars a day, every day, into the stock market buying up IT'S OWN DEBT, and making almost NO appreciable impact on the stock market.
Cut us some slack, since I don't have any say as to where my tax dollars are going, I'd rather see it going to my fellow, REAL, Americans than to the shill game that is Wall Street.
So an extension of jobless benefits has to "be on the table" because we're spending too much, but tax breaks for the top 2% (which cost TWICE as much as ALL the unemployment benefits paid out so far) are not?
Isn't it obvious who the GOP works for? That top 2% not only gets the lion's share of earnings, now they've bought themselves a whole bunch of new Congressmen and Senators, too.
Bank bailout continues. TARP, Fannie, Freddie, various government spending programs and the unemployment benefits. All of this is to inflate the money supply and keep people paying their debt to the bankers. This is because without further borrowing, the money to pay existing debt does not exist. Therefore, they are going to extend jobless benefits at tax payer expense, not because they think about the little guy, but because they favor the bankers.
When we borrow, banks create money out of thin air and they demand interest for it.
http://www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/credit-inflation/
We borrowed the entire money supply X. Banks want us to pay back X+I. But the interest portion is not cerated yet. For decades, X+I was created via new borrowing. To make people borrow, they allowed mortgage interest deduction, sub-prime, no 20% down, liar loans... 8K home buyer credit and so on. But at last we ran out of borrowers. Now, the federal government is doing it for us. Deflation is the problem and there is no easy way out:
http://www.kondratieffwavecycle.com/economy/deflation-how-to-survive-it/
How much are the wars costing daily? Oh that's right, no one cares because we are supposedly safer and a country is not a democracy because we say so? Can't we worry about our citizens and stop @!$%#ing around with oil countries. When the oil is all gone, I wonder what the countries will do to sustain their economies?
I gotta agree with the extension. At least the money being doled out gets immediately put back into the economy, and since those benefits eventually get paid for by the business sector, the long-term result to our deficit will be close to neutral.
Its time to take the Repubs, Dems and most who posts at this site off of Unemployment, Food Stamps, and Welfare. If you're smart, educated and willing to work, very good jobs with good salaries are available. Most people become too dependent on these programs for a living and just stop looking.
Sorry, but I have too disagree with the Dems on this extension. Enough is Enough. Most of these people have been on unemployment for over a year and now need to be forced back into the job market, even if it only pays minimum wage.
there needs to be an endpoint to all these extensions --- this cannot continue indefinitely. ---- and at some point, let's get honest and call it what it really is - another form of welfare.
would be nice if some sort of unemployment help could be in place to help the millions of unemployed contract workers who received absolutely nothing in the 99 weeks of benefits enjoyed by others.
fair is fair
So before anyone retorts about rules being rules and contract workers don't pay into the system think about it and what you are saying.
Glad to see the people that are on corporate welfare have decided that those that used up their corporate welfare and had to go on unemployment are now on public welfare. Quit your subsidized job and start your own business; then pontificate, otherwise you're just a seat warmer to keep your manager's job for them.
that's true, our current system is selective about who benefits.
If it wasen't for the gov. forcing Americans into poverty we woulden't need extensions. Can You explain why there are so many people on welfare? some who have been on welfare for up to 10 years. Why is there no bitching about that. Most of them aren't even AMERICANS. So let's keep on sending American money else where & leave our own to starve,is that the new American way?? Washington thinks so. Have you noticed not a word about the unemployed has come out of the white house? why is that? Because he's too busy dancing around India. Hmmm.. I wonder who paid for that trip. The American people maybe?
it's even worse that that --- i have lived next to families that were third generation welfare, which would be bad enough, but they brag about playing the system to their friends.
The unemployed weren't the ones funding the elections of the winning politicians in the midterms. So, I don't see them getting anymore $$.
Banks, oil companies, and agribusinesses, however, will continue to see their corporate welfare funded without debate by Congress.
Ronpal
The end point is when the economy is back to where it was before the Great Recession took hold and turned our economy upside down.
I am 65 years old, was thrown out of work at the very beginning of the Great Recession. I am a professional but there is no way a company will hire me. I have had several personal interviews but that is as far as it goes. They see the grey hair and decide someone younger can do the job better. If this sounds bitter tain't so. Its just a fact of life. But I have two more years until my expected retirement age as defined by the government. What are people like myself who want to work but simply cannot find a job to do. We are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
BTW: My company survived and I am very happy about it as there are a great bunch of guys and gals working there yet today.
LL
if that's the endpoint for unemployment claims, then some of these people will still be unemployed in 10 years from now. ---- perhaps it would be more appropriate to have these people sign up for welfare programs, since that it what it really is. ----- but you are correct, it is very difficult for an older person to get hired. ---- i am grateful that i am self-employed and, though in my 60's, can work for as long as i want.
I am 51 and in the same boat. I've been out of work for over a year. Got told to leave my last job for bogus reasons - the real reason I was the oldest and most senior person on the admin staff. I have had interviews, too, but they see you in person and think you're too old. I'm not too old! I would love to have a job to go to everyday. It's scary when you're my age and cannot find a job!
I wonder how many of us there are in age group from late 50's to early 60's experiencing what you describe. At least we probably can get part time work (I have three jobs like that!) without benefits depending on our skills and work history and we may make it to the age where we might get Social Security (for as long as that lasts) and maintain subsistence. Of course, since we have not been laid off from a full time job, many of us have no unemployment benefits. What about long term unemployed in late 40's to early 50's age group? I think those are the people who are screwed big time. Social Security is somewhere over the horizon, but they are too old to be considered for full time jobs by most employers and end up working at peon wages as "contract" labor, if they can get that. Oh well, be thankful for every day that you have something to eat and a roof over your head.
in my state, you must look for work every week, and keep a record of all the places you applied for work, and you cannot travel out of state, plus you must report periods of illness. ---- i wonder how many of the millions who have been unemployed for 2 years are actually doing what their states require, or if the money is just being paid without any supervision whatsoever.
In my state they get out the phone book and fill in the blanks on the job search. It is known as the 10 minute pack of lies.
that's what happens when you have no oversight on these programs.
i agree. it needs to be oversight. thats the problem. i say recession is over there are jobs available. the economy is growing but now people are just using all this recession and jobless stuff and an excuse to go out and work and for political gain. i know from close close people around me how unemployment benefits are being abused. if it was strict oversight about 75% of the debt wouldnt exist and we would know there are jobs out there because the lazy people would be forced to get off their butts and go get a job. i think it should be weekly drug test. before your weekly check it sent out you should come in and take a test. u dont pass you dont get your weekly check. people should prove and present record of filling out and turning applications weekly. etc etc. ive personally seen it myself. a person fund a big house party birthday bash off or unemployment and food stamps. use the money to go out and buy hundredsof dollars in decorations. and everything you need for a party. use food stamps to purchase the food and of course they always give you more food stamps than u acutally need so they sell the extra food stamps for cash (i.e. buy someone groceries with the foodstamp card like $100 dollars worth in exchange for $50 in cash) and then take the cash and go buy liquor for the party. totally unexceptable to me cause i work full time and attend school fulltime to get my masters and this is what happens to taxpayers money. long story short. there are people that to need this but they have been sucked dry because of poor oversight people that shouldnt be getting benefits using money and causing debt that wouldnt be there now if oversight was stricter. If these people that shouldnt of been getting the benefits never got it then it would still be money for the people who do need it and it wouldnt be a need to keep extending and extending.
If any unemployed person can't find a paying job within two years, he or she is not going to find one no matter whether or not unemployment benefits are extended.
i tend to agree with that, especially for smaller cities like where i am ---- there are only just so many opportunitites available. ---- and while it can be difficult if you have a family, i would move ---- there are places in this country not so dramatically influenced by the recession.
Are we saying here that if you cannot find a job in 2 years your SOL? No matte what the economy/job situation looks like? Lets just forget about those peope right? Move huh? Last time I checked it costs a couple of Grand to move.... more if its to another state. Jobless people can afford that huh? Interesting math you use there.......
i wouldn't have waited 2 years to move. ---- i don't say we abandon these people, but there needs to be better oversight concerning the doling out of these benefits. ---- and if they don't move by now, then when ??? --- do you honestly think the jobs situation is going to improve very much over the next few years ??
I am lucky and still have my job. My wife...not so lucky. So we should sell our home and BOTH of us try to relocate and find new jobs? FAIL!
The unemployment she gets keeps us above water and all the bills paid on time. Never missed the mortgage or utilities.
When her unemployment runs out, well.. the story changes and not for the better.
never said moving was easy for everyone, but life has trade-offs --- you sound like you're managing your life ok, considering the economy. ---- how is the equity on your home ?? ---- at least you are fortunate to have that as a potential asset.
For the sake of your argument, let's look at moving to another state that has a lower unemployment rate than the one you currently live in. If you're currently a homeowner, and have to lose your house through foreclosure, short sale, deed in lieu of, etc. there goes your credit down the tubes. At the same time, if the bank or mortgage company takes the house and tries to sell it, and can't recoup all of the monies owed, guess who gets the bill for the remainder....YOU!!! So now, you're credit is screwed up, and you owe the bank/mortgage company money on the house you lost because there's a job somehwere in another state. So you move to this "shangri-la" state with all the so-called jobs, and the employer who interviews you wants to do a credit check. What do you think he will find?? At the same time, you need a place to live in "shangri-la", so the landlord wants to also do a credit check on you. Wonder what he will find also?? So now, for giving up your house for whatever reasons to move to another state, you remain jobless and now homeless. I don't know about how good this "trade off" really is when you actually sit down and look at all the consequences involved with these actions. The only feasible way something like this could eventually work is if you move to a state where you have friends/family able to help you out. But blindly moving to another state with no money, no job, and no support at the other end isn't the kind of "trade off" people would want to make.
While I appreciate the unemployed"s situation, there is a limit. When does a helping hand become a handout? 99 weeks? Many of the recepricants have already supplemented their benifits with "cash" jobs. Others, like a friend of mine, encourged his employer to lay him off, calulating the weeks to retirement with unemplyment as a bridge. With no way to seperate the real need from the abuse, we need to close the opportunity.
exactly its people who finds way to abuse the system. i say extend the benefits but force strict oversight. and induce fines on the states and the people in the offices personally who dont follow the rules. when this happens people wont "overlook" so much. its people in these unployment offices who very well know that people are going out looking for jobs and they just make you come in check off the lil checklist and issue your check. they are helping peole "smooth" by. place fines on them and fine the state and they will atually inforce the rules.
How come conservatives decry the use of tax moneys to help the average American and call it welfare no matter what the program name but these same conservatives can off load taxes on corporations and then cry foul when the average American complains about corporate welfare?
Why is that?
LL
I do wonder that myself
The answer is obvious: If you are rich or are a multinational corporation, then government money is called an "investment incentive" or a "subsidy" or a "tax incentive".
If you are not rich and are not a multinational corporation then government money is called a "handout" or "welfare".
See how that works! :D
Unemployed people are not the cause of this mess they are just catch up in it.
Let's see we cannot extend unemployment benefits but we can certainly agree to extend tax cuts for the super rich to the tune of $700B. What is wrong with this picture? And yet these are the people you elected into office who have duped you into believing they have yours and the country's best interest at heart. When will the angry electorate pull their heads out?
When they finally wake up and pull their heads out it will be just in time to have it cut off.
There should be some sort of "checks and balances" put into place. I realize its hard to find a job out there, but you should have to prove you are, at the very least, looking and applying. We had a big layoff at our company in 2008 and most of the shop employees were making MORE on unemployment than working a normal 40 hour week. (overtime the previous year increased their income). NONE of them were required to look for a job by our states unemployment benefits program - just call in every two weeks and get "free money". Not the greatest incentive to go look for a job, now is it?? I also realize there are people that are looking HARD to find a job and just cant find a match - you're fine, at least you are looking.
in my state, they have those requirements, but my question is how many beneficiaries are actually going through the motions as required ?? ---- in fact, here - you lose benefits if you travel out of your area, or have a period of illness.
You can read about my situation above but beyond that. What does it say for the minimum wage in this country when you can make more on unemployment than you can if you work full time? I see it as not that the unemployed are taking advantage of the system. Instead I see employers taking advantage of the American worker by paying him a less than subsistance wage. Then to top it all off he complains that his unemployment taxes are going to go up next year. Get that -- next year, not now when he should pay for it but next year. What gall !!!
the maximum possible unemployment here is $495 per week, and you'd have to have some pretty nice job before hand to be getting that much. ---- a minimum wage job here pays $360 per week, but someone who had a minimum wage job before a layoff, will not be getting anywhere near $495.
for me, i could live pretty nice on $495 a week, but i'm guessing the person receiving that benefit has a much more expensive lifestyle than i do.
In Washington State you must provide evidence (via a job search list that is audited) to collect unemployment insurance.
yea its people getting benefits and making more than the jobs they were cut from. ive seen my own friend get laid off and the next day he was happy. "I'm going to get my unemployment" the next week he got the check and went straight to the mall shopping. 2 pairs of brand named shoes. Polo Ralph Lauren shirts and jeans. even Polo underwear and socks.
now i dont believe in tax cuts for the wealthy and im not a conservative by any means. the past 3 years my taxable gross was 24,000 and i have a child to care for so you do the math. im barely making it myself, but i still go to work everyday. I joined the army reserve to make a lil extra on drill pay and benefits from the army to send back to school for my masters while still working fulltime. so seeing this abuse firsthand does not make me very happy. I'm under this "middle class" that they are reaching out to. im not even able to be considered middle class but i'm still not looking for a handout. its a scapegoat. the economy is growing and there are jobs to go out and get. we praise the president for reaching out and trying to make change for the middle class but the people that are sitting on their butts saying "leave the president alone he's trying to help people" YOU are actually hurting him because until you get up and go get the jobs that are out here to be had and decrease the unemployment rate and help the economy grow they are gonna get playing the percentages and playing the numbers in the media and labeling him a failure. things are actually working but it the lazy few that are killing his efforts. he helping you and you are kiling him in the process. when they dont vote him in office for a second term its gonna be because the unemployment rate never change and they are gonna say the economy grew "just not fast enough" and he is not creating jobs like he promised. but jobs are actually out there but since your sitting around getting benefits with no oversight the unemployment rates will remain high. THINK ABOUT THAT. YOUR ACTUALLY HURTING THE PERSON WHO YOU ELECTED TO HELP YOU.
I think 99 weeks is enough. Many low incomers are living on the benefit, vs taking a job at Mc Donald's. We have to make cuts across the board, defense, SS, Medicate, etc.
It's nice to see Jerome the unemployed man pictured for this article had time to protest instead of looking for a job.
Did you also notice that Jerome had a professionally printed sign. What is he? A paid protester?
Jerome can be looking for work many more hours than you put into your 40 hour week. You have no idea what his life is like. You just make huge assumptions based on your prejudices.
May this generation of vets never let another generation of vets be forgotten. Support the Wounded Warrior Program. LL
Perhaps the Federal Government should require that all who are receiving long-term unemployment benefits complete some sort of community service in return for those benefits.
Hourly wages could be paid based on local competitive rates for the particular task at hand up to the amount of their regular unemployment benefit. There are myriad things that need to be done in any community.
i like that idea ---- you should run for public office.
I like that idea too. Nice to see I have something I can agree with ronpal on LOL!
Hardly anyone is talking about extending benefits beyond the 99 weeks but what many people don't realize in this discussion is that without the extension, the benefits will immediately drop back to just 26 weeks. This will stop benefits to over two million people abruptly and halt their spending. Many economists agree that this will significantly risk throwing the whole economy back into recession.
Halting benefits without a phaseout period is just reckless.
you do realize that the money they are spending comes out of your pockets, and mine, so what's the difference whether you or i spend the money, or if someone else spends it ??
Because the unemployed spend the money right now. Wealthy people tend to put the money into savings. Not a bad thing but not what the economy needs now, the current economy is desperate for consumer spending.
except for one little problem --- unemployment compensation is not very much --- so for the average person, that money is going for rent and food, not extras that boost the economy.
Rent and food get paid to some company somewhere. That company pays it's employees, those employees spend that money at other businesses, those companies pay their employees...etc.
Bueller, Bueller...anyone?
but those landlords have already been getting rent, and the vast majority of americans are employed --- the grocery stores are not hurting. ---- it's the small businesses that don't deal with the necessities that are hurting the most. ---- people on unemployment are not likely to have much, if any, residual income.
So assume that the estimated 2 million people are now cut off.
Say that each pays rent somewhere, say $700.00 a month (not too high not too low).
Are you really saying that 1.4 BILLION dollars a month yanked out of the economy, the real everyday, Main Street economy, isn't going to negatively impact all of those communities?
Get your nose out of a text book, walk down the actual main street of your town and then tell me things would be better if the government was to hoard that money, or worse, add to the POMO/QEII slush fund, instead of recycling it back to local communities.
It's not perfect and it's still 'welfare', but at least it's not CORPORATE welfare.
no it won't make any difference, because the vast majority of these people would be applying for a welfare program, or apply for rental assistance, or food stamps, so the end result is net zero --- there is no gain for the economy.
Mark,
I have no problem working in order to collect my unemployment. I want to work that is the my point. To group all who collect long term unemployed as lazy and not really looking for work is the same as grouping all women as gold-diggers. Just tain't so.
LL
MasterQ - Please reread my comment. I never said that all long-term unemployed are lazy. I simply suggested that at some point perhaps recipients should be required to work for the benefit. Seems to be a win-win to me.
It seems to me that there shouldn't be any problem extending unemployment benefits if companies are going to hoard money.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69Q00T20101027
$1 TRILLION equals 23.8 MILLION JOBS PAYING $42,000/year.
If these companies hoarding the money started hiring, we wouldn't be talking about extending unemployment benefits. We would be talking about the reductions in the deficit that we would realize from increased revenues of income taxes.
Congress had better make the extensions.
the reason why companies aren't hiring is because they know we haven't seen the bottom yet.
So based on your previous comments you are fully aware that the business climate is terrible and no one is hiring, but God forbid our taxes should go to help our fellow citizens, and we should keep shoveling money, via the Fed, into corporations that just sit on that money, presumably collecting interest.
Shill.
no, i do not feel that way, but good luck getting congress to do anything constructive about it. --- all they do is things that make them look good to the average voter --- they don't actually try to solve problems.
The ones who are able should work for their benefits, I would think the goverment should have at least that much common sence. We are becoming a nanny state fast, and a third world country. The goverment wants us all to depend on them , where have all our freedoms gone. Bring our jobs home from over the pond, and Mexico and you will save a fortune, and folks will have all the jobs they can handle. A food stamp nation, free everything, no wander we are over 13 trillion in the hole.
Where you see America as becoming a nanny state and a third world country I see America as competing with other nations and that competition is lifting the boat for all of us. My what a difference in viewpoints. Isn't America great.
LL
ronpal,
Timing is the difference. They do not take it out of your pocket and immediately put it into mine. Thus the delay will encourage the re-emergence of the Great Recession.
LL
considering the kind of problems we have concerning our economy, this is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. ---- our leaders do not have the intestinal fortitude, or the cajones, to do what really needs to be done.
Please define 'what really needs to be done'.
well... for one thing, we need to address the disparity in the birthrates between the working class and the non-working class. ---- our current welfare system encourages those receiving welfare to have larger families. --- those working people who tend to be more responsible, are having fewer offspring. --- anyone who doesn't see this as a problem needs a reality check, and you will never solve our economy woes until you solve that one.
Someone better wake up and smell the coffee. to many people in the work force, too much automation, and the result is continuous high unemployment. add to that illegals taking jobs, corporations selling jobs overseas and you have a very long term disaster on your hands. the unemployed have to live and if they can not find work society will have to pay them or risk rioting on the streets. as they say payback is a bitch so be prepared for a long, rough road. congress had better start looking for the unintended consequences of being fools.
you are exactly correct.
I see both sides of this discussion frankly. I feel sorry for those who have been out of work so long. There will always be those who are taking advantage of the system but the majority of folks who are out of work would give anything to have a job. So I suppose, while I am a conservative, I am for extending the benefits. We send far too much overseas to help other countries and help should start at home.
Any employer who isn't hiring has no right to complain about unemployment extensions. Also, any employer to prefers young applicants to older applicants is also guilty of age discrimination and I think we need to start a website for anyone over 40, 46, 50, 60 to sign an electronic petition for a class-action lawsuit against federal and state goverments for not enforcing these laws. You squeeze people hard enough and long enough.... get ready for class warfare people. It's coming.
actually, i believe there is a tax benefit in play atm that gives incentives for hiring older folks.
I read a study saying that if we deport the illegals, there would be 1.1 jobs for those who have none. Not to mention the school, medical, ect cost.
How about we use our jobs for those people that are here. Or replace those illegals on welfare who are being paid by the TAXPAYER already. Seems we don't need to spend any more just redistribute what is already being spent.