Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I wonder; death of long term unemployment insurance
Topic Started: Dec 27 2013, 09:35 AM (722 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
In the 'handwringing' article below I highlighted three points. I was told in the article that possibly 240,000 jobs would be lost, that the current unemployment rate was 7.3%, and that to extend long term benefits would cost us $25 billion.

I wonder what is actually going to happen?

1. will the unemployment level jump way up due to the loss of 240,000 jobs?

2. will the number reach say 8%+

If the number remains the same or lower, then those long term sufferers will have gotten off their asses and found a job now that the gravy train is ending. And there was no loss of 240,000 jobs. Plus we didn't blow $25 billion.

Remember when we were warned what would happen if the payroll tax cut was not extended? Nothing happened.

What is your prediction of what will now happen if the benefits are not extended.?




The Quiet Death Of Long-Term Unemployment Insurance In 2013

Posted: 12/26/2013 3:59 pm t Benefits, White House Unemployment, Politics News

WASHINGTON -- The looming expiration of federal unemployment benefits raises the question of whether Democratic lawmakers bungled the debate.

Though Congress can still act retroactively, Democrats' goal had been to pass an extension of the benefits before Dec. 28, when they are set to expire. The administration and allies on the Hill tried to attach a provision to the budget deal passed in mid-December. But by the time they began engaging the fight, few Democrats seemed particularly attentive and Republicans were more than comfortable running out the clock.

Now, with Congress in recess, long-term unemployment insurance will come to an end for 1.3 million Americans, potentially costing 240,000 jobs, according to the White House's Council of Economic Advisers. Was it inevitable? Or was it a case of political mismanagement?

The record indicates that Democrats were late to show up, distracted in part by other concerns. A month and a half before the deadline, few members of Congress or administration officials were even talking about unemployment insurance. The first major mention from the White House came in mid-November, in a little-noticed remark from top economic adviser Gene Sperling during an interview at The Atlantic's Washington Ideas Forum.

"With an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent, we need to raise the emergency unemployment insurance and push for extensions to 2014," Sperling said.

The statement received such scant attention that administration officials had to flag it for news outlets to ensure that the message actually got out. One day later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney amplified Sperling's remarks by declaring the president "believes we should extend this provision through the end of 2014, and we are confident that Congress will join us in this effort."

But there was no reason for the White House to be confident. The shutdown of the federal government in October, followed by the disastrous launch of the president's health care law, had commanded the spotlight. On the Hill, lawmakers were only casually paying attention to unemployment insurance, outside of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the benefits.

"It is true there were other major, major issues, and at times they seemed to be overshadowing this, but it's not too late to act," Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking member of that committee, said on a conference call Thursday. Levin noted that Democrats on the committee began raising concerns about the expiration of the benefits in early November.

But even then, most other members assumed that the issue would resolve itself as it has the past two times an extension was needed, when Republicans were more or less politically shamed into supporting it.

"Last year, there was no real debate over this. And the year before, Republicans got so hammered on it, they essentially had to do this by unanimous consent with their tail between their legs," said one Democratic congressional aide. "I think Democrats could be generally forgiven for having assumed a little bit that this was something that Republicans would not put up a fight over, because it's a losing issue for them."

Republicans certainly learned a lesson from years past. But it wasn't to acquiesce on unemployment insurance -- rather, it was to keep their mouths shut. As a result, only a few members came out forcefully against extending benefits.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) caused a stir when he argued that the benefits turned job-seekers into welfare dependents. And Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was probably the only high-ranking Republican to make a serious argument for dropping the benefits altogether. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, he pointed to North Carolina, where the Republican-controlled state legislature deliberately made the state ineligible for federal jobless aid.

"There, the program ended in July and the state has seen rapid job creation," Camp said.

Camp's argument was debunked by both liberal and conservative think tanks, which pointed out that North Carolina's unemployment rate declined since July largely because benefit cuts pushed people out of the workforce.

A small group of House Republicans did send a letter urging for the benefits to be extended. But the effort gained little momentum and its organizer, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.), has stayed relatively quiet about the issue.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), meanwhile, stayed as ambiguous as possible. He would innocuously and repeatedly declare that he was open to looking at a proposal from the president to extend benefits and that he would judge that proposal on its merits. There is no evidence that President Barack Obama directly engaged Boehner's office, aside from a discussion between the two men in early December.

"The President and senior members of his team have been pushing, and will continue to push to get unemployment insurance extended so families are able to make ends meet while fighting to find a job," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

Privately, the Republicans were stern in opposition, Democratic aides said. Levin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, urged for unemployment insurance to be a chief demand for Democrats during the crafting of a budget deal. But Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) demanded that the cost of the benefits -- an estimated $25 billion for one year -- be offset in a way that was acceptable to Republicans.

Publicly, the fight over renewing the benefits escalated as the deadline neared. Obama mentioned it in a much-touted speech on economic mobility. He then made it a focus of his weekly White House radio address, while the Council of Economic Advisers put out a state-by-state report on the impact a lapse would bring. When the budget deal ultimately came out without unemployment insurance in it, the administration called for it to be considered outside of that package.

Levin and Van Hollen proposed a three-month extension that is unpaid for, though aides said they could decide to slash agriculture subsidies as a way to cover the cost. Valerie Jarrett, the president's closest adviser, endorsed the Levin-Van Hollen proposal. But Boehner felt no concrete pressure to bring it to a vote after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) publicly stated that the issue would have to be tackled in the next calendar year -- a pronouncement that caught some Democratic aides by surprise.

Reid's office did not return a request for comment.

The party is now putting its hopes for extending the benefits on local political pressure. Democrats are betting that over the holiday break, enough Republican members of the House of Representatives will hear from angry constituents that they'll push Boehner into finding a piece of legislation he can support. It's a long-shot strategy. But aides say they've been buoyed by the press coverage the issue has received outside the Beltway.

Reid, meanwhile, has set up a procedural vote on the three-month extension for Jan. 6.

"Leader Reid has said that he will bring up the bipartisan legislative proposal in the Senate as soon as they return and we are hopeful it will pass," said Brundage. "We urge the House leadership to allow a vote and stop obstructing a common sense proposal that would help Americans across the country and our economy."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I think it will be extended but if it isn't I have no idea what might happen. Another step towards the destruction of America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sea Dog
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
How many extra workers are being
hired by your company, Pat?

Do you ever turn away anyone who is
trying to find a job?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
If the number remains the same or lower, then those long term sufferers will have gotten off their asses and found a job now that the gravy train is ending.

Ahh, the Right Wing myth of the "Lazy Worker" Rises again!

Pat, when there's more people than jobs, somebody's going to be out of work. And if they've already been out for some time, it looks bad on their resume, and their job skills are either out of date or badly deteriorated.

How do they find a job?

Oh, By The Way, I know that you think that somewhere out there there's a whole pool of jobs just waiting for people, more jobs than people, although nobody's ever found it. But even if we accept the fantasy, the Reps have just taken away their only income - how are they expected to travel to this amazing place?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Covered wagon. It's been done before.

Or, they can migrate to Canada for one of those well paying jobs in the tar sands oil fields that Brew was bragging about on another thread,... unless those workers in Ontario from the Kellogg plant shutdown beats them to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]

Pat, according to Reed, Polosi, and company the economy is rebounding at a fantastic rate. If that is the case then there will be plenty of jobs for people who have their unemployment insurance dropped. Growing the economy will also be the answer to low wages. When there is competition for labor then the compensation will go up accordingly as companies vie for good employees.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sea Dog
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Dec 27 2013, 10:41 PM
Covered wagon. It's been done before.

Or, they can migrate to Canada for one of those well paying jobs in the tar sands oil fields that Brew was bragging about on another thread,... unless those workers in Ontario from the Kellogg plant shutdown beats them to it.
You do realize that the Kellogg plant was shut down by an American company?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Berton
Dec 27 2013, 10:43 PM
Pat, according to Reed, Polosi, and company the economy is rebounding at a fantastic rate. If that is the case then there will be plenty of jobs for people who have their unemployment insurance dropped. Growing the economy will also be the answer to low wages. When there is competition for labor then the compensation will go up accordingly as companies vie for good employees.

Exactly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 70's, unemployment benefits maxed out at six weeks. I believe that within six weeks those that really want to work and do what it takes to do so are employed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Berton
Member Avatar
Thunder Fan
[ * ]
I think you are right. I don't mind extending it on a temporary basis to help people when the economy is a wreck. But if the economy is on the up rise then it is time to scale back the unemployment insurance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Sea Dog
Dec 27 2013, 11:40 PM
Banandangees
Dec 27 2013, 10:41 PM
Covered wagon. It's been done before.

Or, they can migrate to Canada for one of those well paying jobs in the tar sands oil fields that Brew was bragging about on another thread,... unless those workers in Ontario from the Kellogg plant shutdown beats them to it.
You do realize that the Kellogg plant was shut down by an American company?
Must not have been cost worthy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis