Posted on 12/28/2013 5:51:29 AM PST by reaganaut1
WASHINGTON — An emergency federal program that acts as a lifeline for 1.3 million jobless workers will end on Saturday, drastically curtailing government support for the long-term unemployed and setting the stage for a major political fight in the new year.
The program, in place since the recession started in 2008, provides up to 47 weeks of supplemental unemployment insurance payments to jobless people looking for work. Its expiration is expected to have far-reaching ramifications for the economy, cutting job growth by about 300,000 positions next year and pushing hundreds of thousands of households below the poverty line.
An extension of the unemployment program did not make it into the two-year budget deal that was passed just before Congress left on its winter recess. When the federal program expires, just one in four unemployed Americans will receive jobless benefits — the smallest proportion in half a century.
...
Republican aides said they remained willing to negotiate. “Why didn’t they offer a plan that met the speaker’s requirements — fiscally responsible, with something to create jobs — or any plan, for that matter, before they left for the holidays?” asked Michael Steel, a spokesman for John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House.
Some Democrats have suggested that continuing the program for three months, with the estimated $6 billion in spending offsets coming from agricultural subsidies in the farm bill.
But some conservatives have shown stauncher opposition.
“I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for,” said Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on Fox News. “If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The sign was actually there but was put up by a disgruntled worker and taken down soon. Happened not far from me.
Why should the rules differ for the two programs? Pretty simple question.
“Why should the rules differ for the two programs? Pretty simple question.”
If from your perspective they are the same - military benefits and welfare - then they shouldn’t
From the taxpayer perspective - somebody has to provide the revenue so that benefits are paid - and if there isn’t enough revenue than someone in the future has to pay it, or default on it.
It’s pretty simple really, we don’t have the money for all the folks wanting a check from the government.
Without a vibrant private sector to pay for everybody’s demand for government checks, those demands are not going to be met.
SO that’s what we need to focus on - the private sector - not the size of government benefit checks.
I don’t care who it is - if you get a government check the likelihood that you are unable to think rationally about who actually has to pay for it is dramatically increased.
The private sector can’t pay for everything right now. So outlays are going to have to be dramatically decreased.
“Voters returned Christie to office with a large mandate.”
No, they didn’t. This “mandate” crap started under Clintoon that claimed he was given a mandate upon reelection.
You don’t know why voters voted Christie Cream back in. That wasn’t in the polling questions. It could have been he won because the other guy sucked worse.
“No, they didn’t. This “mandate” crap started under Clintoon that claimed he was given a mandate upon reelection.”
Not quite; Clinton never won more than half of the votes cast, while Christie did handily (that is how I’m defining “mandate”). Clinton could never say he was representing any kind of majority; he won a plurality twice.
Even if they don’t say it, if a company has the option to hire workers who are currently employed, they will take them over those who have been unemployed, even if for only a few months.
It’s easier to get a job when you already have one.
I take it you are too young to remember the 1992 and 1996 elections where after Bill Clinton and his supporters claimed he had a “mandate for change”?
Not at all; the lack of a majority had an impact on CLinton psychologically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.