Senate to pass unemployment benefits up to 99 weeks

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Financial Saint, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. The bill would provide unemployment benefits of up to 99 weeks in many states for people mired in joblessness as the economy slowly recovers from the worst recession in decades. The measure easily cleared a procedural hurdle Tuesday by a 66-34 vote, with eight Republicans voting with Democrats to break a GOP filibuster. (source:yahooFinance)

    So is anybody going to look for work since they can stay unemployed and get paid for almost two years?
    I think this money can be better spent by creating actual jobs, where people can get real paychecks.
  2. Lethn


    I think they should stop thinking they can even run an economy in the first place because either alternative would be disastrous.
  3. That's why "support" for the unemployed should be "a cot in a shelter and 3 meals per day".... After a bit of that, the unemployed would look for and take a job... even though it might not be one for the $50,000/year they think they "deserve" and are holding out for.

    Unemployment Insurance is becoming a permanent entitlement... yet another one we can't afford.
  4. guys, we're facing unusual circumstances.

    Show a little compassion.
  5. wave


    False Economy Created
    False Recovery Created
  6. achilles28


    I agree. UI should be 20K a year, max.

    Gotta liquidate the house? Car? Wife? Sorry!! That's life.

    People must live within their means. It's not the taxpayers job to support lavish excesses when the economy won't.
  7. achilles28


    The only handout I support is UI.

    We'll need it when the budget gets balanced... Unemployment >25%, easy.

    Cut all the mandatorys in half - defense, medicare, social security.

    Then close most of the departments.

    Some of you guys think it's bad now. Just wait a few years...
  8. Agreed, but...

    The govt could show some compassion and put a 1 year moratorium on all taxes for EVERYBODY. Think of the possibilities of where that money would go instead...
  9. How would that work? Government's expenses would still be the same $3.5-$5T... with NO money coming in?

    What problem would that solve?
  10. but in the UK, isnt unemployment benefits indefinite?
    #10     Mar 10, 2010