The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, not at all what I am saying. That's just some weird thing you made up.

People who get unemployment spend the money immediately, infusing it all right back into the economy. These are people that have no discretionary spending options. Do you realize that "the government" doesn't pay the overwhelming majority of unemployment funds, right?

Why does the govt. put a price tag on what it's going to cost to extend unemployment, if they (we?) aren't paying out the overwhelming cost. Does the overwhelming cost mean anything to you? Are you gainfully employed? Have you ever drawn Unemployment Benefits? Sorry Riot , I don't trust these guys running the show.

[SOREHOOF]

The more people dependent on the Govt. for their "good fortune" in life, or their mere survival, the better it is for the Govt. who needs their votes for their own continued "good fortune" and survival.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The more people dependent on the Govt. for their "good fortune" in life, or their mere survival, the better it is for the Govt. who needs their votes for their own continued "good fortune" and survival.

Nobody is asked their political party when they get unemployment insurance from their state.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Why does the govt. put a price tag on what it's going to cost to extend unemployment, if they (we?) aren't paying out the overwhelming cost.

Because our whole economy is affected, and they are talking about the federal extensions.

There are two types of unemployment. The first is paid by employers paying into a pool within your state. That is the vast majority. The federal government only steps in to support the states for extended benefits after the state's two types of benefits are exhausted. States have the option to have the feds pay shared or all of the most extended benefits. For the states that are letting the fed pay it all, those folks are getting cut off earlier than other people in other states whose states share the burden.

The recession is so severe, the feds have millions of people on extended benefits. These people have exhausted their savings, their houses don't sell readily now - the only thing keeping many of them from literally homelessness and starvation is $300 a week.

Does the overwhelming cost mean anything to you? Are you gainfully employed? Have you ever drawn Unemployment Benefits? Sorry Riot .

Yes, of course the cost matters. But not when unemployed people are starving in a recession. We're Americans, and we help our fellow Americans. I'm not going to let another hard-working American and his kids starve because "it costs money to give them help".

We're broke. We don't buy new weapons systems now. We do help keep our fellow Americans from starving.

If we follow the "can't spend money when we're broke" logic, the next natural disaster (another Katrina, an earthquake in LA, massive flooding), the feds should NOT help, simply because it costs money.

Yes, I am employed, no I have never drawn unemployment. I've paid unemployment insurance for multiple employees for many years as a business owner.

I know a couple people who have been on unemployment in the past three years. And they are NOT lazy drug addicts living off the government. They were highly qualified, hard-working people who were laid off their jobs.

I don't trust these guys running the show

Who, the federal government? Or the states? (who approve who gets unemployment funds from the fed government) Or the employers? (who always have a say in an employee getting unemployment or not in the first place)