(Blog) ThinkProgress: Cantor Opposes Extending Unemployment Benefits: We Need To Stop ‘Pumping Up’ Jobless Americans

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/05/288965/cantor-unemployment-pumping-up/

The unemployment rate inched downwards to 9.1 percent today, with private sector jobs increasing by 154,000. While a slight improvement, these better-than-expected figures provide little comfort to the 14 million Americans who are unemployed. 44.4 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more.

For these Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, the federal unemployment benefits program provides much needed financial support. Every dollar the federal government spends in federal unemployment generates two dollars of economic growth. These benefits, however, are set to expire at the end of the year.

In response to today’s jobs report, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) declared that “unemployment is far too high” and that Congress “must push pro-growth policies to get back on track.” Noting Cantor’s apparent concern as “spot on,”, CNBC host Jim Kramer told Cantor that obviously, “you’re for extending unemployment benefits given the chaotic situation.” Cantor’s response? Nope, because “for too long in Washington now we’ve been worried about pumping up the stimulus moneys and pumping up unemployment benefits”:

Cantor declared that “the most important thing we can do for somebody who’s unemployed is to see if we can get them a job” and declared that the only way unemployment benefits could be extended is if “we find commensurate cuts somewhere else”:

CANTOR: Jim, the most important thing we can do for somebody who’s unemployed is to see if we can get them a job. I mean, that’s what needs to be the focus. For too long in Washington now we’ve been worried about pumping up the stimulus moneys and pumping up unemployment benefits and to a certain extent you have states for which you can get unemployment for almost two years and I think those people on unemployment benefits would rather have a job. So that’s where our focus needs to be.

KRAMER: I just want to be very, very clear, on a day when we have a good unemployment number, that’s terrific, but not a great one and you confirmed not a great one, you are not in favor and will go against the president’s wishes to extend those unemployment benefits?

CANTOR: What I have said all along, Jim, is if we’re going to spend money in Washington, we better start to make choices and we’ve got to set priorities. If we’re going to spend money, we better cut it somewhere else.

[Mad Mike]

And just what is your plan to create those jobs Mr Cantor? Because I know how important it is for you republicans to have a plan for how to do things. :doh:

[Larry]

And just what is your plan to create those jobs Mr Cantor?

Well, I seem to remember reading somewhere that he wants to end the 2% tax cut that all workers are getting, (but it's scheduled to expire at the end of the year), and to give a 7% tax cut to their employers, instead.

(Fortunately, unemployment benefits must be "paid for" with cuts somewhere else, but tax cuts don't have to be.)

[Thiebear]

I understand going from 13 weeks + because obviously we are in tough times.

But studies have shown most people don't start looking till there are 4 weeks left. And we've got it to 113 weeks now.

There are no easy answers to this.

Putting people in Job programs or helping them move to states with booming economies would be a bit cheaper i bet.

[sacase]

And just what is your plan to create those jobs Mr Cantor? Because I know how important it is for you republicans to have a plan for how to do things. :doh:

I agree with him, at some point people have to stop relying on the government to survive. 2 years of unemployment? Really? Time to get that lower paying job and stop being a burden. I hear all of this stuff about oh well the job may pay the same or less that unemployment. Yeah but at least you are not sucking that money away from the Government. The government might need to provide a little assistance, but not full unemployment. I rather pay food stamps than foodstamps + unemployment. Think about it, if unemployment stopped and you only got food stamps, that job that paid the same as unemployment starts to look real attractive. Which in turn helps the government and the economy.

How do you create jobs? You make the business environment friendly to employers. right now its down right oppressive; you also make a stable political environment, ours is very volatile right now. Obviously regulation is needed, but we need to really reexamine how we regulate and what really needs to be regulated and how many burdens are put onto companies. I think minimum wage needs to be dropped or lowered. Minimum wage should never be a living wage.

A mixed government is needed, because it stops both sides from getting stupid things done. However, both sides need to learn to compromise or things to get things done. No the democrats are no compromising either so don't even bring that up.

I have said this before, government should not be everything to all people. It should create an environment for everyone to have the OPPERTUNITY to succeed.

People need to look how others in most other countries live. The family structure is very important. I don't see a problem with people living with family members and everyone chipping in to make it. That is how it should be rather than relying on the government to take care of them.

[twa]

We obviously need to pay everyone unemployment since it gives a 2 fer 1 benefit to the economy.

Is that some kind of perpetual money machine or what?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There will not be a jobs bill, period.

Can someone explain to me what theory he is working from? Is there some theory out there that the government's debt caused unemployment? It wasn't the fact that banks pumped out ****ty mortgages and then double and triple downed on them, causing credit to dry up and companies to lose tons and tons of money? Does he believe that the debt was the cause of the financial crisis that we went through from 2008 until now?

[luckydevil]

This is basic stuff, unemployment benefits lower the incentive for people to find work.

[Larry]

We obviously need to pay everyone unemployment since it gives a 2 fer 1 benefit to the economy.

Is that some kind of perpetual money machine or what?

I agree with you that I cringe when I read claims like that.

Although, usually, I see it coming from the other Party.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 07:01 PM ----------

This is basic stuff, unemployment benefits lower the incentive for people to find work.

It's even more basic than that.

If people have to chose between taking a pay cut or starving, they'll take the pay cut.

Because employers tend to pay people based on how much they were making at their last job, once the emplyee takes the pay cut, his pay will be depressed for the rest of his life.

Lowering the cost of labor is great for the people who employ labor. (It's just not so good for the labor.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is basic stuff, unemployment benefits lower the incentive for people to find work.

Its actually more basic than that. People don't spend money and get money into the economy, unless they have it. A lot of people are unemployed now because the economy is ****ty. If you want to get people jobs, giving people money to spend probably will help with that.

Plus, its not as if these people don't have jobs because they suck at what they did. They lost their jobs because bankers sucked at their jobs.

[Predicto]

Plus, its not as if these people don't have jobs because they suck at what they did. They lost their jobs because bankers sucked at their jobs.

And because their employers sent their jobs overseas.

[Hunter44]

We just need to keep pumping up big corporate subsidies....this guy is a tool.

[Bang]

I don't get it.

i thought the rich.. i mean the "job creators" got the tax breaks and control of so much money so they could create jobs.

~Bang

[twa]

I agree with you that I cringe when I read claims like that.

Although, usually, I see it coming from the other Party.

ah but creating domestic wealth is indeed possible by taking away what you send out and distributing it here.

the benefits come not just from income taxes but from infrastructure as well.

but it is probably better to just pay people not to work.....we got printing presses

[luckydevil]

Its actually more basic than that. People don't spend money and get money into the economy, unless they have it. A lot of people are unemployed now because the economy is ****ty. If you want to get people jobs, giving people money to spend probably will help with that.

Plus, its not as if these people don't have jobs because they suck at what they did. They lost their jobs because bankers sucked at their jobs.

I understand the point you are making, I am sympathetic to the argument that you are making. With that said, study after study show that unemployed insurance delay people from going back to work solely because the unemployment insurance programs pay them to not work ( this is true regardless of the economic situation- the laws of economics do not get suspended in a recession). There are far better and efficient ways of giving people money to spend than extending unemployment benefits. Why not embrace a negative income tax?

[Larry]

ah but creating domestic wealth is indeed possible by taking away what you send out and distributing it here.

the benefits come not just from income taxes but from infrastructure as well.

but it is probably better to just pay people not to work.....we got printing presses

twa, you advocating a domestic jobs program, focusing on infrastructure?

You socialist, you. I know you'd become a Democrat, eventually.

[Jeeb]

post withdrawn

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 07:47 PM ----------

I agree with him, at some point people have to stop relying on the government to survive. 2 years of unemployment? Really? Time to get that lower paying job and stop being a burden. I hear all of this stuff about oh well the job may pay the same or less that unemployment. Yeah but at least you are not sucking that money away from the Government. The government might need to provide a little assistance, but not full unemployment. I rather pay food stamps than foodstamps + unemployment. Think about it, if unemployment stopped and you only got food stamps, that job that paid the same as unemployment starts to look real attractive. Which in turn helps the government and the economy.

How do you create jobs? You make the business environment friendly to employers. right now its down right oppressive; you also make a stable political environment, ours is very volatile right now. Obviously regulation is needed, but we need to really reexamine how we regulate and what really needs to be regulated and how many burdens are put onto companies. I think minimum wage needs to be dropped or lowered. Minimum wage should never be a living wage.

A mixed government is needed, because it stops both sides from getting stupid things done. However, both sides need to learn to compromise or things to get things done. No the democrats are no compromising either so don't even bring that up.

I have said this before, government should not be everything to all people. It should create an environment for everyone to have the OPPERTUNITY to succeed.

People need to look how others in most other countries live. The family structure is very important. I don't see a problem with people living with family members and everyone chipping in to make it. That is how it should be rather than relying on the government to take care of them.

Lowering the minimum wage from the whopping $7.25 an hour gives everyone the opportunity to succeed!

[twa]

I advocate the govt getting out of the way of domestic production meeting existing needs.

Do that and I might be willing to give seed money to sheep.....I'm benevolent when flushed with money.

[Hubbs]

Its actually more basic than that. People don't spend money and get money into the economy, unless they have it. A lot of people are unemployed now because the economy is ****ty. If you want to get people jobs, giving people money to spend probably will help with that.

Finally, our daily offering at the Great Altar of Spending. I was beginning to worry that we might get a dozen posts into an economic thread without anyone breaking out the "spending = inherently good" logic, but luckily, that terrible disaster has been averted.

[Larry]

Finally, our daily offering at the Great Altar of Spending. I was beginning to worry that we might get a dozen posts into an economic thread without anyone breaking out the "spending = inherently good" logic, but luckily, that terrible disaster has been averted.

OTOH, the "post that contributes nothing but snarkiness" had already been taken care of, previously.

[Predicto]

Finally, our daily offering at the Great Altar of Spending. I was beginning to worry that we might get a dozen posts into an economic thread without anyone breaking out the "spending = inherently good" logic, but luckily, that terrible disaster has been averted.

I think the point is actually: "if you give rich people a tax break they salt it away - if you give poor people (or inemployed people) a subsidy, they spend it all right away."

Both of those may fiscally irresponsible, but one of them actually stimulates the economy quite well.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

The policies the republicans (and some posters in this thread) support making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Seriously haven't we tried "trickle down" economics enough times to see that is doesn't work all that well? The rich have been getting tax breaks for years and have been able to get out of paying what they actually owe and i don't see the massivve amount of jobs there should be with all the help they've been getting. I don't know how some of you can say with a straight face that we should just stop unemployment benefits and help out the rich more. This country would be an aristocracy if the repubs had their way.

[Hubbs]

OTOH, the "post that contributes nothing but snarkiness" had already been taken care of, previously.

I was afraid there would be a shortage. :pfft:

I think the point is actually: "if you give rich people a tax break they salt it away - if you give poor people (or inemployed people) a subsidy, they spend it all right away."

That's actually a quite different, and much better, economic point. (I won't bore you by taking paragraphs to explain why it's very different.)

[twa]

I think the point is actually: "if you give rich people a tax break they salt it away - if you give poor people (or inemployed people) a subsidy, they spend it all right away."

Both of those may fiscally irresponsible, but one of them actually stimulates the economy quite well.

Kinda depends on how you structure the tax break...if it is directly linked to expenditures the result is the same or greater since it encourages them not to salt it away

Are you arguing tax breaks or tax rates?

How much their original obligation is, is a quite different matter

edit for repeating BS

[The 12th Commandment]

I don't get why these conversations always end up talking about people who could work but don't. Isn't the problem that there aren't enough jobs for them even if they were all real go getter types? If that's the case, and I believe it is, then how can we claim the guy's lazy when there isn't a job for him to go get, no matter what? When there is no option, i.e. no job, then isn't unemployment and an extension called for until there are enough jobs?

Even if these gung hoe'ers replace a less motivated employee at lower paying jobs don't they then become a problem? Taking everyone's assistance away will have a lot more impact, IMO than simply taking away from one side of the balance sheet.