# Republicans are taking away my unemployment for my own good. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823 "2013-12-08T15:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/121 "2013-12-10T03:57:06Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Stop concentrating on things A person can do, and concentrate on things 1,400,000 people can do. > > A person can start a business installing A/V equipment. A person can retrain to be a nurse, or an I/T professional. > > 1.4 million people can’t do that when their checks run out. The (officially recognized) 10.9 million unemployed people can’t do that. Even if they did, you wouldn’t solve the problems of 10.9 million unemployed people, because there isn’t enough work for all of them to do. You’re right. We should wallow in pity instead. Whaaaahhh!! The economy isn’t giving me a job. Hey, I feel better already!! As for the facile argument that extending unemployment benefits is good for economy, well, we’ve been through that in the MW threads. We have a $16T economy. Please show us the math where the amount of money spent on unemployment benefits can have a measurable effect on that economy. You’d have to spend $160B to even hit 1%. And that would assume that 100% of the money used would not have been spent in the economy otherwise. If you want to help people down on their luck, that’s fine. Just be honest about it and don’t try and con me into thinking we’re doing something that is going to have any kind of measurable effect on the economy. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/122 "2013-12-10T03:58:00Z")
Jeesus, won’t _somebody_ please think about all the poor baby jobs being killed? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/123 "2013-12-10T04:14:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re right. We should wallow in pity instead. Whaaaahhh!! The economy isn’t giving me a job. Hey, I feel better already!! No instead you should offer nonsense about hanging a shingle as a solution. Starting a business is chancy at the best of times, you might as well offer that he go to a casino and bet all his money on black. > [@](#): > > As for the facile argument that extending unemployment benefits is good for economy, well, we’ve been through that in the MW threads. We have a $16T economy. Please show us the math where the amount of money spent on unemployment benefits can have a measurable effect on that economy. You’d have to spend $160B to even hit 1%. And that would assume that 100% of the money used would not have been spent in the economy otherwise. > > If you want to help people down on their luck, that’s fine. Just be honest about it and don’t try and con me into thinking we’re doing something that is going to have any kind of measurable effect on the economy. It will help, just not very much. > **[How Extending Certain Unemployment Benefits Would Affect Output and...](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44929)** > > Extending emergency unemployment benefits would raise economic output and employment in 2014 relative to what would occur under current law, CBO estimates. > [@The CBO](#): > > Combining the positive effects on the economy from higher aggregate demand with the negative effects from job searches that would be (on average) less intense, CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014. Those figures represent CBO’s central estimates, which correspond to the assumption that key parameters of economic behavior (in particular, the extent to which higher federal spending boosts aggregate demand in the short term) equal the midpoints of the ranges that CBO uses. The full ranges that CBO uses for those parameters suggest that, in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2014, GDP could be increased very slightly or by as much as 0.3 percent, and employment could be increased very slightly or by as much as 0.3 million. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/124 "2013-12-10T05:02:48Z")
> [@](#): > > And he didn’t or hasn’t paid taxes that go to subsidized daycare? Taxes pay for both unemployment benefits and subsidized daycare. Paying someone to sit at home and cry on the internet while pretending to “watch” their kid instead of surf the internet isn’t actually that productive. Paying for his kid’s daycare so his lazy ass can get to work has twofold benefits. One, it provides income to people who operate daycares. Two, he is certainly more productive at work than he is sitting at home crying. So do you think all stay-at-home parents are unproductive and lazy, or just me? I don’t need to apologize or justify taking some time out of my day that starts before the crack of dawn cleaning; doing laundry; doing dishes; doing school with my kids; doing crafts with my kids; grocery shopping; cooking three meals (on the days my wife works); making sure these non-stop bundles of energy are entertained and safe at all times; working on a business plan; taking calls from potential customers; studying for my certifications; scouring the Internet for jobs; writing cover letters; customizing resumes; networking with old co-workers over the phone during nap time; and checking in with the unemployment people, to rant a bit about a dipshit politician that’s pissed me off. So God bless you, Martin, I sense you’re an unhappier soul right now than I am, and that your unhappiness is rooted in a much deeper place than my current financial anxieties. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > The daycare argument is retarded by the way. You can get the government to help you pay for childcare, this is a program specifically so that people can’t cry and whine about making such a small amount of money that daycare for their child bankrupts them. If I took a job that made even $8/hr, when combined with my wife’s shit-job income, we are ineligible for child care subsidies, because we’d make too much, but thanks for thinking of us. So again: if I take a shit job to appease you and to stop “being lazy,” the child care costs alone would bankrupt us. So, as a conservative, you should appreciate the ability of someone to do a cost-benefit analysis and act in a prudent fiscal manner. We’ve done that, and it is financial suicide for both my wife and I to hold low-paying jobs and put our kids into daycare. Maybe as a conservative, you can also appreciate our strong family values and putting the well-being of our children above all else. Anyway, if you think I’m lazy or a cry-baby, that’s your prerogative. If you also want to think you know what’s best for us, knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/125 "2013-12-10T07:20:50Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Where did they get that $4,000 figure and why do they think The Tea Party supports government subsidies to corporations? I don’t know- I’m glad you asked. I’d like to see those numbers vetted. I don’t think the author assumes the Tea Party supports government subsidies to corporations. I think the author considers opposing that intellectually consistent with Tea Party doctrine, and is pointing out that the animus against the poor is the inconsistent factor. Unemployment insurance is not bankrupting us; corporate welfare is. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/126 "2013-12-10T10:59:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If you want to help people down on their luck, that’s fine. Just be honest about it and don’t try and con me into thinking we’re doing something that is going to have any kind of measurable effect on the economy. Aaaaaaand we come full circle. Yes, I want to help people who are down on their luck, in large part because throngs of desperate, unhappy people is bad for the country. I also believe that our country has a demand problem, and anything we can do to increase demand for goods and services is worth consideration. UI puts money directly in the hands of consumers, consumers who are on the brink of shutting down, and minimizing their involvement in the economy. In the interest of honesty, can you all admit that you want to stop the checks because you think the unemployed are lazy bums, and stop trying to con us into thinking that you expect to turn them into entrepreneurs by putting them in financial peril? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/127 "2013-12-10T11:03:08Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, I don’t think Paul is looking to strengthen Head Start–but I’m just guessing there. But no one I’m aware of has proposed getting rid of subsidized daycare for poor people. Sure they have. First of all, “Head Start” _is not adequate daycare_. In most instances it only covers 3-4 hours a day, meaning other arrangements must be made for the rest of the time a parent is at work. Head Start is not daycare, it is preschool. People, please stop confusing the two. Fact is there is very little subsidized day care out there, and so far as I know _there is no free daycare provided by the government_. If someone is aware of such a program please let us know but provide cites. The only free daycare I’m aware of is provided by religious organizations. A quick google showed that Head Start programs that do have full time hours _require the parents to already be working full time_ - a catch-22 for the unemployed looking for work, or for those working part time seeking full time work. As for getting rid of it - back when I worked in corporate America among the well to do there was much bitterness expressed that poor kids were getting for free what the wealthy had to pay for: preschool and daycare, nevermind that, as I said, I am not aware of any _free_ daycare from the government (there are some programs that reduce the price). I am certain there are many people out there in favor of abolishing such programs even if they don’t speak of it publicly, just as there are bigots who put on a tolerant face in public but happily use racial slurs in private. > [@](#): > > Here is the reason that it’s not just a magic wand we can wave and pay people to not work. For one, there is a completely false claim that paying $1.00 in unemployment benefits creates $1.80 in economic growth. This is patently absurd, if it was a net gain to collect money from (what must be some magic tax fairy) and pay people not to work then obviously we could all sit at home doing nothing while the government enriches us with a Keynesian fueled economic perpetual motion machine. The multiplier works because people that poor _don’t save their money_. They can’t. Every dime goes right back out to the landlord, the grocery store, the utilities, the gas station… and that drives other businesses. Also - unemployment DOES NOT pay people “not to work”. It pays people to LOOK FOR work. You _can not_ collect unemployment unless you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, actively looking for work. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never been on unemployment. If anything, the requirement has become more stringent over time. The only exception is for certain seasonal workers who are laid-off _but expected to be called back_ in a few months… but their employers pay into the system for that. Even then, not all of those people get to “coast” because the rules vary from state to state. A friend of mine who has done that sort of work for about a decade is required some years to look for work anyway, the requirements change almost yearly. > [@](#): > > The reality is every dollar spent on people not working is dollars that are not being productively allocated. That isn’t the end of the world, but it should have a finite term. Again, _we are paying them to look for work_. While these days that can largely mean sitting at home in front of the computer until recently that actually meant getting off your ass, putting gas in the car, and getting out in the world. Actually, it _still_ does when you get to the interview phase. The activities around looking for work - including new clothes for interviews, grooming like a trip to the barber for a haircut, and so forth do in fact stimulate the economy. > [@](#): > > Even better than fixed-term benefits would be creating an _actual_ trust fund. (The unemployment trust fund like so many government trust funds is an accounting gimmick that individuals do not directly have any real access to whatsoever.) Instead of the trust fund being kept on government ledgers (State and Federal), individuals would get individual accounts. Both they and their employer would pay into this account, mandatorily, every pay check at a rate equivalent to current taxes. If a person loses their job, they get to draw down money from the account. Once they retire, any surplus in the account converts into an IRA. In other words, more bureaucracy in for the sake of ideology. How would that actually be more efficient? Sounds more like subsidized employment for lawyers and banks for me. > [@](#): > > The tax is 0.6% of a worker’s first $7,000 in wages, and it increases every year that a State has an outstanding balance by 0.3%. Some States are nearly up to 2% of the first $7,000 in wages. > > That may seem like a small number, but mind these are payroll taxes. The most regressive, most pocketbook-hitting taxes we have. They are the taxes that most limit consumer spending and most hurt job growth, that is why Obama (correctly) advocated and received from Congress a 2% temporary reduction in the payroll tax. Also note that when it expired the CBO and others in the next quarter found there were immediate negative economic impacts with that tax expiring. Here’s another idea - impose the tax on ALL a worker’s wages, not just the first $7,000. That would allow the same revenue in return for a lower tax rate and make it less regressive. What? Make the rich pay in a similar manner to the poor! Heresy! The rich the deserve their money, the poor deserve only scorn and punishment! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Further, at 7% unemployment rate we are well out of crisis levels. What, we have to wait until the house is actually burning down before we put out the candle flame? 7% is still high, and we very clearly have a serious problem with the long-term unemployed. Abruptly cutting them off will NOT magically create new jobs, it’s not going to provide any additional motivation (just desperation), and is just a feel-good measure for the greedy wealthy. It will hurt, not help, those who are looking for work because, as hard as it is to look for work when you still have a roof over your head it’s a hell of a lot harder when you’re homeless. > [@](#): > > An economic crisis can justify things that you would not otherwise do, but we are no longer in an economic crisis. Yes, we are. At least, portions of the US are. There are some severely depressed areas of the nation. Sure, I suppose we can just sneer at the people living there and bark at them to move someplace where there is more opportunity, but we aren’t willing to help them do that - I suppose they should just abandon houses they can’t sell and can’t pay for (taking a hit to their credit rating that can mark them as undesirable - just as there are employers who won’t hire the unemployed there are those who won’t hire those with bad credit even if that is irrelevant to the job at hand) and live in a cardboard box in that new land of opportunity. Tell me, do you _want_ a necklace of shanty-towns around the prosperous areas? Because that’s what happens in other countries under those circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/128 "2013-12-10T11:20:15Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > So, as a conservative, you should appreciate the ability of someone to do a cost-benefit analysis and act in a prudent fiscal manner. We’ve done that, and it is financial suicide for both my wife and I to hold low-paying jobs and put our kids into daycare. Maybe as a conservative, you can also appreciate our strong family values and putting the well-being of our children above all else. Anyway, if you think I’m lazy or a cry-baby, that’s your prerogative. If you also want to think you know what’s best for us, knock yourself out. The problem, my friend, is that there is an unacknowledged fiscal double-standard here. Wealthy people are allowed to make cost-benefit analysis based on their actual situation. Poor people are supposed to do exactly as ordered by people who have no clue about their actual situation. Because you haven’t absorbed this, and you haven’t absorbed that you are now part of the impoverished scum rather than still solidly middle-class and full citizen, you are now an _uppity_ poor person. The usual tactic, as we have seen here, is to dismiss such people as whining cry-babies and lazy-ass defectives. You could work 20 hours a day, but the fact you’re poor makes you lazy in some peoples’ eyes. Also, only the middle-class and higher are permitted family values, stay at home parents, or spending time with their children. Poor people are supposed to put their kids in warehouses with other poor kids and spend all their time working low-wage jobs to appease their socioeconomic betters. Regrettably, the above is not entirely satire. The problem is that _he really does think he knows what best for you_, and that it’s best you and your wife both work even if that leaves you fiscally worse off. Rich people are allowed to pass on things that cost them money, poor people are not. There is also the problem of the [ghetto tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_tax), which many people are unaware of and is completely discounted/ignored in discussions about subsidies for the poor, the economy of poor households, and internet discussions on what to do about _those_ people. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/129 "2013-12-10T13:01:08Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Have you looked at moving? Where are you located? What is your degree in? > > One of the biggest reasons we have had a hard time getting out of this recession is that our work force is not mobile. People are locked into their houses and are unable or unwilling to move to locations where the job market is stronger. Many are waiting until the housing market recovers enough that they are no longer underwater and will not lose a bunch of money when they sell their house. This is flawed thinking in most locations; losing 50 grand or whatever in the sale of a house is a small loss compared to making 10 grand a year more in a more favorable job market when you take into account interest payments on your mortgage. I am not saying that you fall into this situation. > > Anyway, I feel for you. I was unemployed for 6 months back in early 2009 and it sucked ass! I was grateful for the unemployment and the cobra benefits that the government extended to me. Like you, a low paying job would not have paid enough for me to make ends meet and I would also have had to arrange childcare to do it. I was one month from missing a mortgage payment and was negotiating a job in another state when I found a new position locally. I was going to move to the other city (Salt Lake, bleh) and get a cheap apartment and send my salary home to my wife and kids to pay for childcare and our home. The plan was that if I could not find a position in our home city in 6 months or so, we would put our house on the market and they would come and join me. Have you thought about this kind of solution. > > The thing is I also see John’s point; I don’t believe the government should pay unemployment benefits in perpetuity and with a college educated worker with more than a decade of experience there is no reason it should. If you are unlucky enough to have chosen a career that is no longer in demand, you need to retrain yourself. I have no problem paying taxes to help you with this. If you are in a location where your skills are not in demand, you need to move. If you absolutely cannot get a job in your field at your location and will not retrain yourself for other fields or move; well you need to get a low paying job as a fry cook or whatever and suck it up. I see no reason why I should continue to pay taxes for the rest of my career to support your unwillingness to do anything except what you did for the last 13 years. You need to be accountable for your decisions, just like someone who decides not to go to college or graduate high school. If you make those types of decisions, a crappy job is all you will get and I see no reason why I should support you (again, I am happy to pay taxes to support education to all comers). I also don’t believe that any of my fellow Americans should be homeless or die due to lack of food or healthcare. I believe we should have a strong social safety net. If you don’t want to take a job that is available, I will happily pay taxes to have you on welfare and food assistance and housing programs but I doubt that you will live where you currently live… > > Good luck! And if you are looking nationally and trying to retrain yourself, know that I support you getting government assistance while you undertake your search. I know there are people who cannot find a job. Many lived over their income because of easy credit. Even a millionaire will go under if it lives over it’s income. One has to live under their income if they want to get ahead. I also believe Food Stamps are not really helping people to save, I was behind a woman in a grocery store that bought cuts of meat I wouldn’t buy,( because they were too expensive) then bought cigarettes and booze with the money she had on her… During the depression we didn’t get food stamps or the food we wanted, my father also had to dig ditches for the rent of a house to live in. My older brothers had to go to CC camps. We were very glad for the food we did get. ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/130 "2013-12-10T13:31:35Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > In other words, more bureaucracy in for the sake of ideology. How would that actually be more efficient? Sounds more like subsidized employment for lawyers and banks for me. Well, the main advantage would be that it requires people to directly pay in the money they’re able to take out, making it utterly useless to those scummy people in most need of it- those who never manged much more than scraping by, and never had the chance to accumulate any savings. I somehow can’t see the employer contribition being as high at a minimum wage job as for one paying $500,000 a year, but I’m sure it would be a nice little extra for those on high incomes, while allowing them to claim they just get the same break as the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/131 "2013-12-10T13:56:11Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > So do you think all stay-at-home parents are unproductive and lazy, or just me? I don’t need to apologize or justify taking some time out of my day that starts before the crack of dawn cleaning; doing laundry; doing dishes; doing school with my kids; doing crafts with my kids; grocery shopping; cooking three meals (on the days my wife works); making sure these non-stop bundles of energy are entertained and safe at all times; working on a business plan; taking calls from potential customers; studying for my certifications; scouring the Internet for jobs; writing cover letters; customizing resumes; networking with old co-workers over the phone during nap time; and checking in with the unemployment people, to rant a bit about a dipshit politician that’s pissed me off. I never said you were lazy, I was talking a bout a hypothetical stay-at-home parent. But I don’t feel there is any real argument: most two parent families have both parents working. We can argue about what that means and the specifics, but the reality is most two parent families do not have a stay at home parent. Most people get it to work, if you can’t that’s tough shit. But not at all an argument you should be able to keep your hand in my pocket for as long as you want. I’m fine with you taking some out of my pocket, but there needs to be a limit lest you become a dependency. > [@](#): > > If I took a job that made even $8/hr, when combined with my wife’s shit-job income, we are ineligible for child care subsidies, because we’d make too much, but thanks for thinking of us. So again: if I take a shit job to appease you and to stop “being lazy,” the child care costs alone would bankrupt us. So, as a conservative, you should appreciate the ability of someone to do a cost-benefit analysis and act in a prudent fiscal manner. We’ve done that, and it is financial suicide for both my wife and I to hold low-paying jobs and put our kids into daycare. Maybe as a conservative, you can also appreciate our strong family values and putting the well-being of our children above all else. Anyway, if you think I’m lazy or a cry-baby, that’s your prerogative. If you also want to think you know what’s best for us, knock yourself out. Then you’re living beyond your means, simple as that. You either have a house that’s too expensive or some other thing. Sell your house, go onto Section 8 housing, rent etc. The services are there. How can you expect pity if you’re too well off or have too many assets to qualify for them? Especially when there are many people in worse situations who do not have the assets that you are not putting into the equation because you want to have your cake and eat it too. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/132 "2013-12-10T14:12:01Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Sure they have. > > First of all, “Head Start” _is not adequate daycare_. In most instances it only covers 3-4 hours a day, meaning other arrangements must be made for the rest of the time a parent is at work. Head Start is not daycare, it is preschool. People, please stop confusing the two. Hey moronic bitch, maybe you should actually read the thread. I didn’t bring up Head Start, **monstro** did. She asked “do you think Rand Paul is looking to strengthen Head Start” and I said “no, I doubt it.” I never said another word about Head Start. > [@](#): > > Fact is there is very little subsidized day care out there, and so far as I know _there is no free daycare provided by the government_. If someone is aware of such a program please let us know but provide cites. The only free daycare I’m aware of is provided by religious organizations. Maybe you should spend more time on your low income waste of a life if you can’t get your facts straight. I never said “free” daycare, I said subsidized daycare. There is absolutely subsidized daycare. If you’re not aware of that, you need to read the laws of this country a bit more before you come to the table against someone like me that actually understands the legal framework of our welfare state. As a poor person I would have assumed you’d be more familiar with it than I, but I guess not. [Here](http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/cc/assistance.cgi) is just one example of what I am talking about. I’ve known people who received the benefit for Virginia, while working their way through trade schools and etc and they paid little to nothing out of pocket. > [@](#): > > As for getting rid of it - back when I worked in corporate America among the well to do there was much bitterness expressed that poor kids were getting for free what the wealthy had to pay for: preschool and daycare, nevermind that, as I said, I am not aware of any _free_ daycare from the government (there are some programs that reduce the price). I am certain there are many people out there in favor of abolishing such programs even if they don’t speak of it publicly, just as there are bigots who put on a tolerant face in public but happily use racial slurs in private. I didn’t see anyone in this thread talking about abolishing child care subsidies, I didn’t say no one in the entire world had ever talked about it. Nor had Rand Paul said that in the speech that prompted the OP. > [@](#): > > The multiplier works because people that poor _don’t save their money_. They can’t. Every dime goes right back out to the landlord, the grocery store, the utilities, the gas station… and that drives other businesses. The Keynesian multiplier doesn’t work, period. It’s false that a $1.00 spent in unemployment checks generates $1.80 in economic activity. Especially since that analysis ignores what a $1.00 spent instead by a consumer not paying ramped-up unemployment taxes would generate and fails to deduct it from the false $1.80. > [@](#): > > Also - unemployment DOES NOT pay people “not to work”. It pays people to LOOK FOR work. You _can not_ collect unemployment unless you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, actively looking for work. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never been on unemployment. If anything, the requirement has become more stringent over time. It pays people who are unemployed. The work search requirements are part of what keeps you eligible for payments, but you are not paid to “look for work.” You’re paid because you aren’t working. > [@](#): > > Again, _we are paying them to look for work_. While these days that can largely mean sitting at home in front of the computer until recently that actually meant getting off your ass, putting gas in the car, and getting out in the world. Actually, it _still_ does when you get to the interview phase. The activities around looking for work - including new clothes for interviews, grooming like a trip to the barber for a haircut, and so forth do in fact stimulate the economy. That money doesn’t come from nowhere to stimulate the economy. It’s coming out of the pockets of other workers, most of whom will use it on consumer discretionary purchases versus people like the OP who will probably use it to keep paying a mortgage he can’t afford. > [@](#): > > In other words, more bureaucracy in for the sake of ideology. How would that actually be more efficient? Sounds more like subsidized employment for lawyers and banks for me. Private savings accounts, with private banks as trustees running the system would be more bureaucracy? Come back when understand words, thanks. > [@](#): > > Here’s another idea - impose the tax on ALL a worker’s wages, not just the first $7,000. That would allow the same revenue in return for a lower tax rate and make it less regressive. Yes, we can indeed just tax our way to prosperity. > [@](#): > > What? Make the rich pay in a similar manner to the poor! Heresy! The rich the deserve their money, the poor deserve only scorn and punishment! :rolleyes: I’ve got no problem with the rich paying more money in taxes, both in absolute and relative amounts. But I’m talking about the current reality, where unemployment taxes are generated from payroll taxes in a regressive manner. They hit poor people where they live, and they go up automatically under current law when States do what Rand Paul is saying we shouldn’t let them do–essentially borrow from the Feds. > [@](#): > > What, we have to wait until the house is actually burning down before we put out the candle flame? 7% is still high, and we very clearly have a serious problem with the long-term unemployed. Abruptly cutting them off will NOT magically create new jobs, it’s not going to provide any additional motivation (just desperation), and is just a feel-good measure for the greedy wealthy. It will hurt, not help, those who are looking for work because, as hard as it is to look for work when you still have a roof over your head it’s a hell of a lot harder when you’re homeless. There is no imminent crisis. The economy is getting better, not worse. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/133 "2013-12-10T14:22:21Z")
> [@Filbert](#): > > Well, the main advantage would be that it requires people to directly pay in the money they’re able to take out, making it utterly useless to those scummy people in most need of it- those who never manged much more than scraping by, and never had the chance to accumulate any savings. > > I somehow can’t see the employer contribition being as high at a minimum wage job as for one paying $500,000 a year, but I’m sure it would be a nice little extra for those on high incomes, while allowing them to claim they just get the same break as the poor. I actually said it should be a mandatory payment to private savings account, based on the same rates as the unemployment tax. Since those rates are based typically (it varies slightly by State) on the first $7,000-8,000 of income in fact it would be the same for an employee making $10,000/yr as it would be for one making $500,000/yr. To fully explain what I mean, is each employer would have to maintain their own private trust fund. Any unemployed employees would be able to draw from the trust fund at some statutory minimum rate sufficient to equal current employment payments and for a statutory minimum time similar to the current eligibility weeks. Employers could be more generous if they wished to bulk up their own fund, but could not be less generous. When an employee retired they would be eligible for some lump sum payout (rolled over into an IRA for example) based on their lifetime contributions to the fund. It would not be a huge amount. If an employer had an insolvent fund they would be required to both increase their contribution rate to the fund in the future and take some responsibility (shared with government) to pay for ongoing unemployment costs of unemployed employees out of their revenue. I would stipulate severance payments could be a straight-line deduction from the requirement to pay an employee out of the fund. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/134 "2013-12-10T14:56:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Then you’re living beyond your means, simple as that. You either have a house that’s too expensive or some other thing. Sell your house, go onto Section 8 housing, rent etc. The services are there. How can you expect pity if you’re too well off or have too many assets to qualify for them? Especially when there are many people in worse situations who do not have the assets that you are not putting into the equation because you want to have your cake and eat it too. So someone who got laid off is living beyond their means? Does this count for rocket science amongst the conservative set? The idea is that unemployment is supposed to be a temporary condition. Your solution here turns it into a permanent trap of underemployment. Also – you know what the waiting lists are like for section 8 housing? Meanwhile, Rand Paul’s little scheme is just a petty distraction from the fact that our Congress, which promised to have a laser-like focus on job creation, has instead done absolutely nothing but dick around and whine about the ACA. This seems to be in line with current conservative philosophy is that if they just keep screwing the poor and middle class then somehow morale (and the economy) will improve. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/135 "2013-12-10T15:06:39Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I also believe Food Stamps are not really helping people to save, I was behind a woman in a grocery store that bought cuts of meat I wouldn’t buy,( because they were too expensive) then bought cigarettes and booze with the money she had on her… During the depression we didn’t get food stamps or the food we wanted, my father also had to dig ditches for the rent of a house to live in. My older brothers had to go to CC camps. We were very glad for the food we did get. Well, thank you New England Journal of Some Lady in Line at the Store! ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/136 "2013-12-10T15:40:46Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I never said you were lazy, I was talking a bout a hypothetical stay-at-home parent. Bullshit you liar. > [@](#): > > But I don’t feel there is any real argument: most two parent families have both parents working. We can argue about what that means and the specifics, but the reality is most two parent families do not have a stay at home parent. Most people get it to work, if you can’t that’s tough shit. But not at all an argument you should be able to keep your hand in my pocket for as long as you want. I’m fine with you taking some out of my pocket, but there needs to be a limit lest you become a dependency. Pay attention, Martin, this thread has never been, from my perspective, about getting unlimited benefits. I’m pissed because a wealthy douche doesn’t want to extend unemployment benefits at a time when unemployment, especially in some states, remains higher than it should be, and justifying it by telling me this is actually a service to me and the rest of the unemployed. It’s not, that’s bullshit. It may be libertarian ideology or protecting corporations and the wealthy or it may be a service to business owners, and that’s his (and your) prerogative to believe, but it’s not a service to the unemployed. It’s shitting on people and telling them it’s for their own good. > [@](#): > > Then you’re living beyond your means, simple as that. You either have a house that’s too expensive or some other thing. Sell your house, go onto Section 8 housing, rent etc. The services are there. How can you expect pity if you’re too well off or have too many assets to qualify for them? Especially when there are many people in worse situations who do not have the assets that you are not putting into the equation because you want to have your cake and eat it too. Again, your astonishing level of pig ignorance of anything beyond your own narrow experience is shining through. Up until six months ago, we were living 56% below our means. We’ve always made it a point to have a parent (heretofore my wife) be at home because we value that highly. Through frugal living and money management, we were able to save and live well below our means, but now, through no fault of our own, we need some assistance. But your brilliant suggestion to right now sell our house, which would be for a loss that we would still owe the bank, and enter section 8 or rent? Of \*course \*we’re living beyond our income right now, I lost my job, but that shouldn’t have to be an automatic ticket to section 8 or losing your modest home, for us or anyone else. I pray nightly that it doesn’t come to that, and that’s where increased frugality and the unemployment benefits are helping us slow that train; and I pray that the business we’re starting will provide for us, even though I understand that likely won’t be for a long, long time. We haven’t missed a payment on anything yet and God-willing, we won’t. For you to just tell me to go get subsidized child care and just get a job, is pure unadulterated ignorance of how things are. And for Rand Paul to say that not extending these benefits is a service to me is utter bullshit, which was the point of this thread. The point was not to justify my life to a deeply unhappy person such as yourself. And your belief that I expect or want pity is simply your own projection of how people below \*your \*means should feel, but not based in any sort of reality. Martin, you truly are a sad soul, and I say that with no consideration of your politics or ideology. You’re just angry/bitter/sad. If you think I expect or want pity because I posted this thread, you’re absolutely positively wrong. In fact, I pity you. I hope you can find some inner peace. Because in addition to the extreme anxiety I feel due to finances currently, I have a deep joy that comes from being with my wife and kids every single day now, as opposed to being in a hotel room most nights for work. We’ll get through this economic set-back, one way or another, but no matter what I’ll still have the source of my joy. I hope you can find joy and peace someday too. I’m not talking financial security or comfort or material success or cocksureness-- I’m talking deep peace and joy. You lack that. And with that, I’m bowing out of my own thread. I got the anger off my chest. Feel free to continue telling me how I should live, but, for better or worse, I won’t be here to listen. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/137 "2013-12-10T16:05:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you think there should be no time limits on unemployment benefits? Yes, as until we are at or close to full employment. > [@elucidator](#): > > Used to be, the tighty righties could rely on turning the middle class against the poor. Its easy enough, or it was, to tell people how worthy and deserving they are, as compared to the wastrels and layabouts who are draining away what is rightfully theirs. Back in the good old days, that would work, there was so much money in America, there was a middle class majority that could be relied upon. > > Is there any one here who doesn’t know \*anyone \*in **Happy** ’s shoes? I know several, always did. I don’t think the reality of our collective situation has quite soaked in, but its getting there. People are functionally poor now who have never been poor before, they are confused. How could this happen, they played straight, got the credentials, ate the shit, this isn’t supposed to happen to them. > > There was a meme going around about Fox News: Very rich people hiring rich people to tell middle class people that poor people are the source of all their problems. That used to work, before everyone knew somebody who was screwed. Now, its not even “what are you going to do for me?” but “what are you going to do for my brother in law?”. “What are you going to do for my son who borrowed thirty thousand dollars for his ticket to the middle and his ticket isn’t any good any more?” > > We’ve got their answer, its another dose of stern medicine, austerity, fix you right up. But today’s Tom Joad has been to college. I don’t think turning us against one another is going to work this time. And sweet baby Jesus and compassionate Buddha, I sure as hell hope not. They still do. These days they are heading back towards blaming black people. It doesn’t help that outfits like the 98% on facebook has gone from economic populism to an umbrella organization for every left wing thing out there. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/138 "2013-12-10T16:07:29Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Up until six months ago, we were living 56% below our means. We’ve always made it a point to have a parent (heretofore my wife) be at home because we value that highly. Through frugal living and money management, we were able to save and live well below our means, but now, through no fault of our own, we need some assistance. But your brilliant suggestion to right now sell our house, which would be for a loss that we would still owe the bank, and enter section 8 or rent? Some people believe that if something bad is happening to you, it must somehow be your fault because the system worked for them so it should work for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/139 "2013-12-10T16:53:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Some people believe that if something bad is happening to you, it must somehow be your fault because the system worked for them so it should work for everyone. People like that are obviously narrow minded. Luckily I see no one here doing such a thing. But what I do know is that whether it’s luck or not, unemployment and other benefits don’t exist to put a poor person in a middle class person’s home indefinitely. Unemployment is and must be a finite benefit, and whatever other benefits we may or may not offer to the permanent under class should not be available to people with large assets like houses that they do not need. It’s stupid to try and assign “fault” as to why someone needs a government hand out, instead we need to look at the desirability of the hand out and other factors relating to that individual. Unlimited uninsurance benefits just indebt States and hurt future earnings for _all_ workers, and disproportionately low income workers because of the way the tax works. The OP lives in a dream world where he thinks it’s 1950 and his precious little kid shouldn’t be subjected to having two working parents. Because of that they have poor income security. They stupidly put all their eggs in one parent’s income basket, and now that he is out of work obviously they’re paying the price for that. So in this particular situation they are much worse off because historically they have chosen to do something stupid and unsustainable, which was be a single income family. I’m assuming the low wage job his wife is working is something she just picked up to help them make ends meet while OP collects unemployment. What should have instead been going on is his wife should have skills and education sufficient to get a decent job in addition to his own decent job prior to all of this. This would have meant a much more stable two income family so that when he had lost his job, things would not be nearly so dire as they are now. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823/140 "2013-12-10T16:57:27Z")
Wow, Martin Hyde is quite an asshole. I was surprised at John Mace’s level of pricksmanship in this thread, but then Grand Admiral Hyde sailed out of the sunrise on a prickcraft carrier, launched wave after wave of Tomahawk Pricks, and his battleships rained smug douchebaggery with their fearsome sixteen inch pricks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-are-taking-away-my-unemployment-for-my-own-good/675823.md?page=8)