"Rand Paul: Extending jobless benefits a 'disservice' to workers"
Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and a probable presidential candidate for the 2016 election said Sunday that "extending unemployment benefits past what the U.S. federal government has already paid would be a 'disservice' to workers." To defend this statement, Paul pointed to a study showing that employers are less likely to hire the long-term unemployed. The White House and Democrats say "evidence shows that jobless benefits don't stop people from trying to find work." In his weekly address, Obama cited the Department of Labor and the Council of Economic Advisers and said "failing to extend benefits could cost businesses 240,000 jobs." It is certainly an interesting argument on Paul's side but I disagree with him and believe that cutting unemployment rates would only hurt those already struggling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with Sen. Paul that extending unemployment benefits will do a disservice to those it is intended to help. Not only does being out of the workforce a long time decrease desirability with regards to hiring, it also (in the words of FDR) is “a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” It was not just Republicans who were once opposed to handouts, it was the whole of America. We have seen time and again what happens when people get something for nothing: dependency and perpetual need. While the handouts may not decrease the rate at which people seek jobs, it accustoms them to receiving aid from the government—a deeply dangerous maneuver. Lastly, Obama’s comment that unemployment stimulates the economy underscores the premise of his entire re-election: if the economy is improving, why do we still need the government to stimulate the economy? If the system cannot survive without being propped up by the government, then let it reset.
ReplyDeleteI don't think unemployment benefits cause people to "to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy" as Sen. Paul believes. They do not encourage people to stay unemployed because in order to qualify for those benefits, one must be actively seeking a new job. Furthermore, unemployment benefits don't exactly provide a great source of income; they provide just enough money to get by. I'm sure people would much rather receive a paycheck than an unemployment check. Unemployment benefits prevents things like mortgage defaults which, if continued on a national scale, would only harm the already fragile economy. We cannot "let [the economy] reset" as Andrew said because that would mean we would have to let it crash, increasing unemployment and the deficit. There's too much at stake to reset the economy and to stop unemployment benefits. Although, I don't think 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is necessary. 40-50 weeks should be plenty of time to find a job.
ReplyDeleteI can understand both sides of the arguement. On one hand, by extending jobless benefits people can remain unemployed longer, and the longer they are unemployed, the less appealling they are to future employers. And on the other hand extending unemployment benefits allows people more time to find a suitable job, rather than rushing into one that may be below their skill level and supports thise families that direly need the money. And though I can understand both sides, I personally think extending jobless benefits would be better. Not only does it support families, but I honestly believe that the vast majority of unemployed people are working very hard to find new jobs, or may even be attempting to start their own buisness. I think the process of becoming remployed takes longer and is more difficult than politicans who are employed and are against jobless benefits may realize.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that extending unemployment benefits will do a disservice to the unemployed, and I think that the unemployed should have benefits for as long as they need to be able to get back on their feet. However, I think that those getting these benefits should be able to show proof of their efforts to get a job, because there are people who do take advantage of it. I agree with Olivia that people would much rather receive a paycheck than an unemployment check, and we should let them have that opportunity.
ReplyDeleteAs liberal as I would claim to be, and as much as I dislike sen. Paul's comment, I think that it has its merits. I understand his point that the longer you are out of work, the harder it becomes to find a job. Nevertheless, that does not mean that funding should be cut off. If you take the supplement away from them, it can increase the difficulty in finding a job. Also president obama's comment is also very true. The funding for the unemployed does help the national economy, because the I employed need to buy stuff as much as the employed, so taking their money will obviously hurt. All in all I think that the money should still be supplied.
ReplyDeleteAs liberal as I would claim to be, and as much as I dislike sen. Paul's comment, I think that it has its merits. I understand his point that the longer you are out of work, the harder it becomes to find a job. Nevertheless, that does not mean that funding should be cut off. If you take the supplement away from them, it can increase the difficulty in finding a job. Also president obama's comment is also very true. The funding for the unemployed does help the national economy, because the I employed need to buy stuff as much as the employed, so taking their money will obviously hurt. All in all I think that the money should still be supplied.
ReplyDeleteCutting back on unemployment checks would be a big mistake in my eyes. My uncle is on unemployment right now and I know how hard he's been working to find another job. If his unemployment was cut off, he would be out on the street. In the grand scheme of things, what if every unemployed person in America had their benefits cut? Then these people have no way to buy food let alone go to a job interview. DJ makes a great point how the unemployed need to buy stuff just as much as the employed, there's no difference.
ReplyDeleteCutting back on unemployment would not increase motivation for those who are unemployed as much as those in favor of cutting say it would. Even if it does increase motivation, if the job are not there, there is not much more a unemployed person can do. If people have to worry so much about how they will find a way to pay for their needs, they cannot focus on finding a new job. We want the best people to be in the right jobs, and it takes people time to find the right fit.
ReplyDeleteCutting back on unemployment would not increase motivation for those who are unemployed as much as those in favor of cutting say it would. Even if it does increase motivation, if the job are not there, there is not much more a unemployed person can do. If people have to worry so much about how they will find a way to pay for their needs, they cannot focus on finding a new job. We want the best people to be in the right jobs, and it takes people time to find the right fit.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul is taking for granted the notion that unemployment benefits remove the motivation for finding a job. While there is some credibility to this argument, I think he greatly overstates the relationship. There are many factors that make people want to find jobs: personal pride, the necessity of supporting one's family, being able to afford luxuries, etc. I doubt very much that a significant percent of unemployed people can be considered content with their situation. Additionally, unemployment benefits help support a person trying to find a job, helping decrease the stress associated with job-hunting and provide the time necessary to do so.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of the argument are understandable. What Senator Paul is doing is he is saying that unemployment will cause Americans to rely on unemployment benefits. However the other argument is that these people do not have enough time to find another job in the 26 weeks that the US government allows them. There really is no answer to this because we can't find out every Americans, who is on unemployment benefits, story.
ReplyDeleteWhile some unemployed people could take advantage of the unemployment benefits they receive, I think the majority of unemployed citizens are trying hard to find jobs where they can provide for themselves. Times are tough, and sometimes our fellow Americans need a helping hand. In this world, where so many suffer, is it really a bad thing to try and help out someone in need? Some of these unemployed people have children to provide for, food and clothing that they need to buy for someone that is not themselves.
ReplyDelete