Quantcast

Latest GOP Plan To Help Americans: Take Away Unemployment Benefits

Steele's Economic Plan: Take Away Unemployment Benefits


Today President Obama will meet with the nation's top bank executives in the President's "latest push for lenders to take greater responsibility as the nation combats an economic crisis that began on Wall Street." "The president is looking forward.[to discussing] the need to increase small business lending and the Administration's plans for financial reform," a White House spokesperson said.


This morning on NBC's Today, RNC chair Michael Steele said that in order for banks to start lending to small businesses, the federal government should reduce the unemployment tax:


STEELE: Well, I think, first off, he should recognize that banks aren't going to lend money to people who can't pay them back. . So there's - there's this whole cycle of not understanding exactly how the economy works with respect to small-business owners. Take that pressure off of them. Let's - let's eliminate the capital gains tax. Let's reduce the unemployment tax.


The unemployment tax is a tax levied on employers in order to provide payments of unemployment compensation to workers who have lost their jobs. Unemployment insurance provides a vital lifeline to more than 10 million Americans currently looking for work in an environment where jobs are scarce. Moreover, the benefits also provide fiscal stimulus as they are almost certain to be spent and put back into the economy quickly. Economists estimate that one dollar put towards unemployment benefits contributes about $2.15 to economic growth.


So Steele's solution to fixing the economy is to take away benefits from those who have lost their jobs. If these taxes are reduced, who will pay? Rather than raid unemployment benefits, the Obama administration is proposing to assist small businesses through funding from the TARP program, which Republicans also oppose.


This isn't the first time Republicans have sought to limit funds to unemployed Americans. Before the Senate passed its jobless benefits package last month, Senate Republicans held up the bill for four weeks, which prevented more than 200,000 Americans from receiving the benefits.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/14/steeles-tunemp...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Merl 2009/12/15 16:36:47 (edited)
    Merl
    +2
    I agree with Steele. Why is it called a benefit(welfare is more appropriate), no sound business pays people not to work, unless they work for the federal government or a union, which is the only sector adding jobs. With what has recently passed the unemployed can sit on their lazy butts for two years, all the while their former employers can't employ that capital to hire productive people. You want more jobs quit screwing with the system every month. Uncertainty is the reason for slow job growth. We in business like to know what the rules are, when you constantly change them, we sit idle until we know the game that is going to be played. Government is not a producer of anything. The only way they can expand is to suppress private growth. The economists that believe unemployment benefits add double to economic growth surely have never been in business.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • moe 2009/12/31 20:10:50
    moe
    I know that it's supplemental income for needy families.
    I don't know ANY person directly who receives unemployment.
  • rwmelton 2009/12/27 00:50:37
    rwmelton
    Awh man, don't nobody want to hear that sh. In the 70's when Richard Nixon was President. Everybody had jobs. We don't care nothing about what he did as far as Watergate was concerned. As long as it wasn't affecting us. You know what I'm saying?
    Nowadays, since all this illegal immigration has taken it's toll. It ain't too many jobs nowhere. They done took over all the fast food restaurants.(where youngsters 16 and up) use to get their first jobs at. Now all them Mexicans and Cubans done took over all that. And taken from our youth.While our youth lay around the house with nothing to do, but live off his or her mom or dad.
    Along w/ the jobs that the older ones are taking from American adults, as far as other jobs are concerned, you understand what I'm saying? That is why we are in a Recession. It wasn't like this during the Vietnam War. And that War went on for 30 years. Until Mr Steeles buddy Cowboy Bush came in Office.
    STEELE YOU ARE A TEXAS COWARD.
  • Old Geecer 2009/12/26 19:38:54
    Old Geecer
    Why would Steele of the "NO" party be for the average working American? They have never been for one thing in the last 50 years that was to help the working people of the US, so why would he be different now! Talk about blowing smoke from his a** just to be mouthing off is just plain rhetoric, maybe they had better change their rhetoric if they want to be leaders in correcting this mess that they pulled us into. Nobody seems to have an answer to this screw-up Washington mass and remarks like this isn't very fruitful to the people that last their jobs because of Political Greed and Corruption!

    For the last 20 years our Political system has been screwing the working people and all indications it will get worse, the more they screw us the more they want. 70% of the working people today are slaves to our own system and this percentage is growing every day. Look at this so-called health bill, talk about “the frying pan to the fire” that just what is bill will do to us, and believe me, they will spin it so that people will think it something other then what it is!
  • Alex 2009/12/24 02:13:11
    Alex
    His plan will be good for the economy. It would be hard on those whose benefits would be cut, but they are not working anyway, therefore not affecting the economy. And all we care is the economy, right? People? What people? Bah! Humbug!
  • Gary 2009/12/21 19:35:28
    Gary
    These billions of dollars in unemployment benefits could be better used being distributed
    to America's wealthiest citizens in the form of even bigger tax breaks. That way the money could trickle down to the rest of us. It's called the "supply side." David Stockman and all that. A healthy dose of Reaganomics will do these unemployed Americans a lot of good. Besides, aren't there food banks? Hell, I'm just a Libertarian at heart.
  • dublin9 2009/12/20 15:25:19 (edited)
    dublin9
    +1
    Let's get real about this. Unemployment is an insurance policy paid for by the employee and the employer (as a fringe benefit.) The problem occurs when people game the system. I'm really sick and tired of considering people who have paid into this system for decades, being treated like welfare recipients. Do you want to talk welfare?

    How about the 24 million, marginal, idolent, civil servants who earn high salaries and pensions paid for by the private sector American taxpayer and can't be fired. Federal employees just got a nice increase raising their average salary to $78,000 + $40,000 in fringe benefits. New York City Transit Workers and teachers just received 8% salary increases when private sector people are lining up on the unemployment lines. That's welfare.
  • AL 2009/12/18 09:45:54 (edited)
    AL
    +1
    We don't need hand any outs- we just need the jobs that illegal alien are doing instead of U.S. citizens and we need those jobs NOW!
  • fred 2009/12/17 05:58:24 (edited)
    fred
    +1
    Just who do you thinks pays the unemployment benefits? Santa Claus? Answer -- Employers pay for unemployment benefits...

    Tagging employers with higher and higher unemployment rates to cover benefit extensions for those unwilling to take a job that pays less than their last job isn't going to employ anyone. Between unemployment and workman's comp insurance, I have at least 10 years of paying 1/2 of a fully employed employee per month, without hardly a claim. This 1/2 of an employee has never showed up and done a stitch of work...

    That's tens of thousands of dollars that could have gone towards paying higher employee salaries and benefits for my staff of 5, or perhaps a hire a part time staff to help ease the work load...

    Instead, you'll see lots of small business owners around the nation doing things like workplace cleaning and maintenance... It's just less hassle and cost to do it yourself than attempting to hire some part time worker who will soon quit or get a sliver and file a claim that raises your rates even higher...
  • Merl 2009/12/15 16:36:47 (edited)
    Merl
    +2
    I agree with Steele. Why is it called a benefit(welfare is more appropriate), no sound business pays people not to work, unless they work for the federal government or a union, which is the only sector adding jobs. With what has recently passed the unemployed can sit on their lazy butts for two years, all the while their former employers can't employ that capital to hire productive people. You want more jobs quit screwing with the system every month. Uncertainty is the reason for slow job growth. We in business like to know what the rules are, when you constantly change them, we sit idle until we know the game that is going to be played. Government is not a producer of anything. The only way they can expand is to suppress private growth. The economists that believe unemployment benefits add double to economic growth surely have never been in business.
  • Saint P... Merl 2009/12/17 05:07:40
    Saint Paul the Decider
    +1
    Welfare?Some people will become desperate and robb your and my asses.Believe me a hungray man is a dangerous man.Recall Bastille Day..let them eat cake? At your own risk.I believe Mike Steele....is a FOOL.
  • Merl Saint P... 2009/12/17 07:00:27
    Merl
    +1
    Those without means will always be dangerous. But feeding a lion one day and then walking into the pen without food is just as dangerous. If they have not the will or the means to make a living in any economy, it is not for their employers or tax payers to carry dead weight. I have always made sure I can protect myself and my wealth from all foes. Let them come I have something for them, and it is not the money that I have earned. I take it from your response you do not run or own a business.
  • Saint P... Merl 2009/12/17 15:02:04
    Saint Paul the Decider
    Actually I do California is not business friendly the State has too many rule and regs. and the taxes OMG!
  • Merl Saint P... 2009/12/17 16:09:57
    Merl
    +2
    I do as well, here in our lovely journey, in socialism. I have an advantage in only hiring people with more than their labor to provide. In the last five years I have laid off no one yet I am still expected to pay into a system that is designed to keep people from working, it is welfare hands down.
  • Dan D 2009/12/15 15:33:20
    Dan D
    +2
    Steele's point is valid. An employer has to pay FICA, Medicare, Unemployment, Workman's Comp plus income taxes on what the employee produces. Reducing this burden would allow employers to hire more people.

    The worst part of about it is all these taxes go to the general treasury and are spent by Congress on other programs. There are no trust funds for use when we need it - we have to tax people more or borrow to meet the obligations that these taxes should have been set aside to meet. It's illegal for a private business to spend a pension fund, yet Congress has been spending the Social Security surplus since 1965.

    If Congress were held responsible for how they spend these funds then the money would be there and we wouldn't have to go looking for more now that we need it. Social Security and Medicare would be solvent and more people would be working.
  • Caroline - fan of Audubon 2009/12/15 14:58:18 (edited)
    Caroline - fan of Audubon
    Steele is talking out of his a** as usual. How does he expect unemployed workers to live? Ah, but it was ok to bail out big business who only paid back 5% interest on those loans. Smaller ones that make up over half of all US workers are also deserving of loans.
  • Merl Carolin... 2009/12/17 07:03:13
    Merl
    It is not the place of government to replace what they have lost in wages. It is for the individual to make themselves a sought after commodity. If all they have to offer is their labor it is their fault. Why shoudl the rest of us be penalized for their short comings?
  • Carolin... Merl 2009/12/17 13:55:58
    Caroline - fan of Audubon
    If I misunderstand you, but are you saying people are undeserving of help? I was talking about Steele and his ass-hat remark about not paying unemployment benefits. People work hard all their lives then find themselves laid off because of a recession. There are no jobs available. How do you figure that has anything to do with " the rest of us being penalized for their shortcomings" That didn't make any sense. In the US over 90% of businesses are considered small. People want to venture into their own business and are asking for loans from those big bank corporations that were bailed out with huge loans from the American taxpayer. America was built on labor, not sitting back writing a book to make a living.
  • Merl Carolin... 2009/12/17 16:26:07 (edited)
    Merl
    +1
    I am saying that "derserving" has nothing to do with the role of government. Steele's remark was to reduce the unemployment taxes, we in business pay, to free up that capital so we can put it to work in the economy. By being forced to pay for "someone's short comings" we are reducing the money we have to expand and innovate. There is plenty of venture capital out there if you have a sound track record and a good business plan. A friend of mine just gathered 300 million last week in one day for his new business venture. It did cost him about 15% of his new business, but he could have raised alot more if he would have wanted a 50% partner. The banks are lending, just not a freely as before, which is a good thing. I share and understand your anger as to the "bailouts". America was built on innovation not labor. The "middle class" was built on labor, which as you can see, is no longer the case. A person can no longer expect to bring a breathing body to a job and have it be a way to make a sustainable income. The days of able hands and body earning a living are over unless you want to head to Mexico or any other third world country. By continuing to provide welfare to the unemployed we are hurting these people. If they were nothing more than a laborer, they will not find work doing what they were doing, for the same pay. If they are to be paid for doing nothing then that pay should come with mandatory education requirements.
  • Carolin... Merl 2009/12/17 16:46:09
    Caroline - fan of Audubon
    People rely on unemployment to get them through those hard times. If there was no income coming in there would be chaos. For instance, crime would increase into suburban areas. I can understand how so many laborers need to look for other means to educate themselves, since too many of those jobs have been outsourced to other countries. This is where people are now taking college courses and learning new trades. In the meantime they need their basic needs taken care of.
  • Merl Carolin... 2009/12/17 17:04:58
    Merl
    +1
    You are creating a never ending circle by taking "care of" people. Necessity is the mother of invention. The reason for outsourcing is the arrogance of the American laborer, they bring nothing but a meaningless skillset to a job and expect to own homes, cars, and send their kids to college. That reality was dead in the 70's. People need to rely on themselves, not government, to change this situation. If you want to ecourage people to change, make them uncomfortable, in their current situation. Two years of unemployment welfare does not spur immediate action and they will continue to dither until it runs out. I would rather see them not having that option. We would see a dramatic turnaround in our unskilled labor force and huge innovation.

About Me

StarrGazerr

StarrGazerr

United States

2008/04/15 19:19:22

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics