As the weeks roll by and nothing gets decided millions are going to lose benefits. Just remember for every dollar of unemployment benefits received to individuals approx $1.65 is put back into the economy, this would really touch down on millions of consumers who receive these unemployment benefits. June 24, 2010 | 1:56 PM ET Republicans United Against Tax & Unemployment Benefits Bill Republicans are poised to deliver a death blow to a package of tax incentives and jobless benefits on Thursday, this after months of tweaks by Democrats to try to gain at least two GOP 'yes' votes. Democrats, paring the bill back by $20 billion Wednesday night but kept about $35 billion in deficit spending from an extension of unemployment insurance benefits through November, a move that has one Democrat, Ben Nelson, D-NE, saying 'no' to the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, needs to round up 60 votes, and with Nelson out of the mix, he needs two Republicans. As of now, not one is willing to vote in favor of the bill. Though Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, who Democrats have courted for weeks, said she could support deficit spending for jobless benefits, her spokesman tells Fox, the senator was not able to convince Democrats to eliminate a tax on small businesses that organize as S corporations. Democrats have maintained that they are merely closing a loophole to prevent abuses by wealthy business people who use the tax structure to avoid payroll taxes. Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA, is also a 'no', according to his spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho. Gitcho simply said, "It still raises taxes and still increases the deficit." That puts Democrats on track to lose an afternoon vote, leaving 1.3 million unemployed Americans without a benefits check by week's end.
"If the index goes to 1,040 and only bounces one day and the next day goes to a new low, be very careful because the time cycles in that pattern indicate there could be a crash scenario," McLarer said. "I doubt it, but if it occurs, look out." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Humm, between the idiots on Wallstreet, the washed out traders who still think they trade for a living, the unemployment and soon to be loss of benefits, and the above statement by an ass clown on CNBC...... Things that make you go HUMM
If this is the case, why don't we give everyone unemployment pay? Its possible you might generate $1.65 in revenues, but that doesn't really mean anything (ie it could be $5, it could be $.02). I see what you did there, you tried to create the impression that $1 in unemployment benefits generates $1.65 in income for someone. I could say that unemployment benefits actually hurt the economy. How? When I go out to eat with my unemployment check, I'm crowding out someone who has earned money and is trying to get a table as well. I'm actually hurting the economy by punishing people who produce. You're also hurting the supermarket that the unemployed would have gone to to cook at home, thereby robbing them of income. I'm actually a big proponent of unemployment benefits (limited to something 'reasonable', whatever that is), but both sides lately on any debate create flawed logic that no one holds anyone accountable for.
I would say they hurt the economy because we are paying people (a lot of people) to do nothing. There is no production. And there's no motivation to get productive because benefits keep getting extended.
Well, it's a good start. In order to reduce unemployment we have to reduce the cost of labor to make it worth hiring people. In order to do that, we have to get people to take jobs at a lower salary than what they made last time around. And in order to do that, we need to stop paying them benefits at a fraction of their old salary. It makes sitting around and doing nothing too attractive.
Well, it's a good start. In order to reduce unemployment we have to reduce the cost of labor to make it worth hiring people. In order to do that, we have to get people to take jobs at a lower salary than what they made last time around. And in order to do that, we need to stop paying them benefits at a fraction of their old salary. It makes sitting around and doing nothing too attractive. ----------------------------------------------------------------- And here's the way for the congress to make that happen. Each month the unemployment check is reduced 5% of the preceeding month's balance until it is below 1 cent.
How about before the idiot politicians sign off on CAFTA or any of these outsourcing deals and claiming that it is beneficial to the economy, they see job replacement in queue for those jobs that are to be outsourced. Otherwise, unemployment extensions should persist as a result of failed planning. The structural employment problem is largely a result of conservative economists who don't bother with the real world as it conflicts with their imaginary fairy tales dreamt up in their textbooks. With all the outsourcing to China and India, can anyone name any company that has recipricated jobs from either country to the US? Textbook says reciprocation should have happened.