Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Extended unemployment benefits slow growth, hoax on working poor
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/06/extended-unemployment-benefits-slow-growth-hoax-on-working-poor/ Due 13 Jan 2014. What is the rationale of conservative economists for NOT extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans?? What are the backend costs of such a policy??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The rationale of the conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that its a good thing. They say we are not in an emergency like the Great Recession anymore so it isn't necessary to extend it. They believe by continuing the extention will slow growth, limit job creation and stop any incentives to work among the abled and educated Americans if the government does not find something to cut to make up for the costs. They also argue that extending it will only cause more trouble for the poor working class Americans having to pay more taxes. The backend cost of such a policy would be a higher unemployment percent, more people would suffer, and a panic among the unemployed to find a job before their 26 weeks of benefits are up.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that it would slow growth and impose unconscionable burdens on the working poor. Economists think that although employers pay taxes to cover some necessities and benefit unemployment, extended unemployment benefits will do nothing but hurt the hardworking people and devalue the high educated people. The backend costs of such a policy are that people become more lazy and have less incentives to work. Also, it's not fair to the working poor whom are working so hard to pay taxes. They would eventually raise the taxes even higher and the unemployment rate would rise. The country would be in a total chaos.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that it would be beneficial, its a good thing! There is no reason at all why we would extend it, if we're not even close to being as bad as the Great Recession. If it does continue it will just slow down the growth, decrease job production, which we desperately need. I will affect the poor more than anything. They would have to pay more taxes, and there's no money to pay taxes, there's barely anything to pay bills. The backed cost of such policy, will only cause this. The whole entire country will just be messed up.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that unemployment benefits slow growth, limit jobs creation and incentives to work among many well-educated Americans and place the greatest burdens on the working poor. There is no reason to extend unemployment benefits, because the longer unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed. The backend costs of such a policy is that it won't really help the long-unemployed workers. And extended benefits discourages workers from moving from high unemployment locations. So, the backend costs of such a policy wouldn't work out very well.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is a benefit for our government. Why should individuals who are capable of joining the workforce decide to collect unemployment instead? That indicates a degree of laziness in my opinion. There are individuals who are not capable of reaching such heights and thus are collecting such government assistance, but for the others who are capable they do it for the free money. Yes I understand that the money these “free loaders” receive circulates back into the economy, but still it is absurd. Stated in the article, we are no longer in the Great Recession as of 55 months ago, there is no reason to keep such an extension. The government should have put their foot down a couple of months ago. The backend costs of such a policy would depreciate the growth economically, after the major financial crisis of the Great Recession in my opinion. The people that would be negatively affected would be the government with funding such benefits and the working poor who actually depend of such funds.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of the conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that it would be best to end the extension program. They believe that there is no reason why we would extend it, if we're not even close to being as bad of an economic position as before. Their position is that continuing the extension will slow growth, limit job creation and stop any incentives to work among the abled Americans if the government does not find something to cut to make up for the costs. They also argue that extending it will only cause more trouble for the poor working class Americans having to pay more taxes. The backend cost of such a policy would be slow growth, and a panic among the unemployed to find a job before their 26 weeks of benefits are up, and if they cannot suffer as a result of no supporting income, which will further burden the economy with poorer people.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for NOT extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is more of a beneficiary factor towards the government more than anything. The people who actually do not have the ability to have jobs receives government assistance in all fairness. But those that actually have the ability are just doing it to get free money without having to actually get up and work for it. Even though the money is being circulated, people should not be receiving for free. The backend costs of such a policy would tear down the economy. The people who suffer from this are the people who work who actually need the government funding. And ultimately the government will also suffer from such funding. It is important for the government to step in and actually solve this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is to regain control over government assistance. During the Great Recession many individuals had claimed government assistance, 55 months later more individuals are trying to still claim. Individuals who are capable to apply themselves in the work force but choose not to. To economists if they extended these benefits it will slow down the growth from the Great Recession that they worked so hard for. The backend costs of this policy would be slower economic growth and bigger obstacles for the poor who rely on such assistance. The work force will diminish due to excessive amounts of unemployment and the poor will be forced to pay higher taxes that they originally couldn't afford.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for choosing not to extend unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is more of a benefit factor than anything towards the government. The people who actually do not have the ability to have jobs receive government assistance, but those that actually have the ability are just doing it to get free money without having to actually having to put effort into it or use labor. Even though the money is being circulated, people should not be receiving free money just for their good looks. The backend costs of a policy similar to this would just obliterate the economy. The people who do suffer from this are the people who work that actually need the government funding, and ultimately the government will also suffer from such funding. It is important for the government to step in and actually solve this issue, instead of just prolonging it even further.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for deciding not to extend unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is a benefit towards our government. To the government, they felt that we were not in the Great Recession anymore, so an extension of the benefits was unnecessary. They believed that if we did continue these benefits, it would only slow growth, limit job creation and stop any incentives for people to work. The backend costs of this policy is that the economy will start breaking down. There are people who truly need government benefits to help survive day to day. It is our government's job to help those in need, not just to shut everyone out of benefits without knowing everyone's situation.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is not beneficial for the working poor at all. Although, it does seem that it would help though that need the unemployment benefits, there are thousands that take advantage of this program. The program gives the lazy bums something to rest on, without having to do anything and thus, having no incentives to go out and look for a job. The backend costs of the policy would only depreciate the growth of the economy. The emergency unemployment benefits slows growth, it limits the job creations and as well as the incentives to work of the well-educated Americans and place the greatest burdens on the working poor. The people who really need the unemployment benefits are not able to receive it, while the ones that already have the benefits will get an extension without giving the chance to the people who are in the need of the program.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists is a benefit to the government. They thought we weren’t in the Great Recession anymore, so they felt that there was no need to extend the benefits. They also felt that extending the benefits would slow growth and have negative effects on the economy such as limited job creation and reduced incentives for people to work. The backend cost of this policy is the breakdown of the economy. People who need government benefits will suffer since they rely on these benefits and the government to help them in times of need.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits is because in the end, conservative economists believe that the benefits will actually be detrimental to the poor. Many conservatives argue that the plan for extended benefits does not take into consideration the funding of other federal programs or increased taxes. Increased taxes, less funding for other federal programs, and less payment from employers would actually impose more of a burden on the working poor. It's also my belief that the more funding a person receives from the government, the less likely that person is to go out looking for a job.In the end, the backend cost of the extension of unemployment benefits is the promotion of slower growth. This type of extension is not needed, and it will only slow growth when what we really need is to promote it.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is a benefit for our government. Why should individuals who are capable of joining the workforce decide to collect unemployment instead? To the government, they felt that we were not in the Great Recession anymore, so an extension of the benefits was unnecessary. They believed that if we did continue these benefits, it would only slow growth, limit job creation and stop any incentives for people to work. They also argue that extending it will only cause more trouble for the poor working class Americans having to pay more taxes. The government should have put their foot down a couple of months ago. The backend costs of such a policy would depreciate the growth economically, after the major financial crisis of the Great Recession in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits is because extending unemployment benefits will actually be harmful. It slows GDP growth by giving people no incentive to look for work and less jobs are being used to repair roads and other public works jobs. The back end costs of not extending unemployment benefits is that many people who have been looking for jobs and haven't gotten a job won't have an income to support themselves. Extending unemployment benefits will actually slow growth and we need to expand growth since the "emergency" following the Great Recession.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans would benefit our economy. They say that we are not in a great depression anymore, therefore i don't think it was necessary to extend the benefits. I think it's unfair that those people who are capable to work are getting unemployment benefits simply because they are lazy and don't want to work. There are people who are not capable to work who actually do NEED these benefits. The backend cost of such a policy is that it will slow down growth and will affect the working poor who depend on Government funds. The government needs to help those people who actually do need the unemployment benefits, than those who do NOT need it and want it for the easy free money.
ReplyDeletethe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans would hurt our economy, the say we are not in a "great depression", but as a matter of fact we are in a "great recession" just no one really knows. People are less determined to get a job and make money because they believe that there is no incentive and less people are being hired. The backend cost of this is that the people that cant get jobs wont have money to pay for their costs, any worse.. pay for their family.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that it will be good for the government. Apparently, they don't believe we are in the recession anymore which deemed the benefits unnecessary. They also believed that providing the people with the benefits would actually slow down the growth of the economy. The backend cost of the benefits would be the breakdown of the economy. It would reduce the incentive for people to find a job and deny the people who really need them the money that they need.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans would be a good thing for our economy and benefit us. They say that we are not in a great depression anymore, so extending the benefits isn't really necessary. I don't think those people that are actually physically and mentally able to work should be receiving the unemployment. There are people who are not capable to work due to disabilities and mental problems who should be the ones receiving the benefits. The costs of the benefits will be hurting the economy, the people who actually need the money should be getting it not those just filing for unemployment to get money because they don't feel like working.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists is to not extend the unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million american. they believe that it would do more harm then good on the working poor and that the condition we are in now is not as bad as it was in the Great Recession. the Backed cost is that you are limiting the amount of money going to those we really need the money to live.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists deciding not to extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans would be a great benefit for our society and to our economy. They claim that the United States is no longer in the "Great Recession", so extending the unemployment benefits isn't really a necessity. The conservatives also claim that extending the program may also lead to economic decline. The back end costs of not extending unemployment benefits is that it could probably "tear down" the economy. Another back end cost might be the many people who have been previously searching for work and who haven't found their luck in finding a job to support themselves.
ReplyDeletei believe the rationale of conservative economists is a benefit to the government.since apparently were no longer in a "great recession" but thats not fair considering people arent going out to look for jobs thinking there isnt any. i don't think it was necessary to extend the benefits. The backend cost of this policy is the breakdown of the economy, and slow growth
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment is that it would slow growth and impose unconscionable burdens on the working poor. The Republicans think that we are not in the Great Recession anymore so extending unemployment is seen as unnecessary.They also believe that extending it would make long term benefits permanent and create another entitlement. The backend costs of the policy are that while more people would be able to get help, it would also make people lazier as they could collect unemployment for longer. It also makes the people seem lazy as they relax for a longer period of time while trying to get a new job.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists opinion for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is the unpracticality of it. They believe the current economic state of the U.S. is healthy enough for people to relay less on government leave. In addition, the economists believe it will only create issues such as being less of an incentive to find a job because of the expected continued support of the government. To support this claim, the most recent unemployment poll states a lower unemployment rate, however, a recent study suggests many have left the American workforce causing the lowering. The backend cost of extending the program would less people in the workforce and an increase in poor class Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe conservatives beleve that t is a good thing to withhold these unemployment benefits. They think by helping people they are encoraging laziness. What they do not understand is that most if not all of these individuals are without work because there are no jobs to be had. The cost of not extending these benefits would mean even slower economic growth, and ultimatly the government would spend even more money because they would wind up having to aid these individuals in one way or another through other programs
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for NOT extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans good and bad. The people who actually do not have the ability to have jobs receive government assistance, But those that actually have the ability are just doing it to get free money without having to actually get up and work for it (shocking right?). Even though the money is being circulated, people should not be receiving for free if they do not deserve such a benefit. The backend costs of such a policy would tear down the economy. The people who would suffer from this are the people who work who actually need this program. The government will also suffer from such funding. It is important for the government to step in and actually solve this issue but, action is louder then words...
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits is because extending unemployment benefits will do more damage than good. first of all, it slows GDP growth because people have no incentives to work or look for jobs. secondly, the amount of jobs used to repair roads and other public works is being reduced.the cost of the unemployment benefits is that many people who have been looking for jobs and haven't gotten a job won't have an income to support themselves. Extending unemployment benefits will actually slow growth and we need to expand growth since the "emergency" following the Great Recession.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale of the conservative economists for not extending unemployment benefits to 1.3 million Americans is that its a good thing. They say we are not in an emergency like the Great Recession anymore so it isn't necessary to extend it. They believe by continuing the extention will slow growth, limit job creation and stop any incentives to work among the abled and educated Americans if the government does not find something to cut to make up for the costs. They also argue that extending it will only cause more trouble for the poor working class Americans having to pay more taxes. The backend cost of such a policy would be a higher unemployment percent, more people would suffer, and a panic among the unemployed to find a job before their 26 weeks of benefits are up.
ReplyDelete