Cutting unemployment benefits will cost economy $1 billion a week

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/320-80/21323-us-economy-losing-up-to-a-1bn-a-week-after-jobless-benefits-cut


The US economy is losing up to a billion dollars a week because of the fiscally irresponsible decision to end long-term unemployment benefits, acccording to a Harvard economist.

Professor Lawrence Katz based his assessment on official forecasts of the impact to the economy of 1.3 million jobless Americans losing benefits

The benefits, which apply to people who are unemployed for longer than six months, expired last week after a bipartisan budget deal on federal spending for the next two years failed to include a reauthorisation of the program.

Democrats have launched a sustained push to reintroduce the federal program, and a Senate vote on a bipartisan bill to restore the benefits for three months is expected early next week.

On Friday, Democrats in the House of Representatives released a state-by-state breakdown of Labor Department figures, showing the number of people who lost federal benefits when they expired on Saturday. The 1.3 million affected Americans are losing on average $305 per week. In total, Democrats said $400m had been "taken out of the pockets" of job seekers across the country.

"That would mean there is almost a billion dollars we are losing from the economy because of not extending unemployment insurance benefits," Katz said in a conference call organised by House Democrats.

[Wounded Bear]

1. As always, it depends on what one means by "the economy"....

RWNJs have been convinced that the money comes out of their own pockets, that they personally are supporting freeloaders and bums "too lazy" to find jobs. I know a couple of them. They're all outrage and bluster, with not much contact with reality.

If you think, like I do, that the "economy" is something that is bottom up driven, then money sent out to the disadvantaged is a good investment. Poor people tend to spend what they have because they have to in order to survive. More money injected into local economies is a good thing.

To someone whose income depends on Wall Street or banking/finance in general, there is no connection. They consider such spending as "waste" because it doesn't directly help them. In truth, of course, it does help them when more people are able to buy more stuff, thus boosting their corporate profits and stocks. But that's too hard to conceive of, apparently. That might take more than a few days to manifest into money in their pockets.

[MisterP]

7. it's even got a name: "producerism," where the Angry White Male is put in place of the proles

in a strange inverted Marxism (ever note how Paul's idea of capitalism has no poverty, corruption, profits, GMOs, suburbs, regulatory capture, market cornering, monopoly, racism, speculation, pollution, or income inequality? the man's a Titoite!)

in their minds, it's the suburbs and backwaters that are supporting the swarthy inner cities, and that a company's workers are a drag on corporate raiders and dividend-holders--a net loss (viz., Romney): I've literally seen them reverse the Maker and Taker States numbers to pretend Mississippi's subsidizing Minnesota, or say that Beaumont, Tex., shouldn't subsidize Houston-DFW-San Antonio high-speed rail

[SamKnause]

2. Unemployment

There is no place in the United States government for facts, data, or truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!

When lies, falsehoods, and exaggerations get the majority of news coverage, by ALL of the mainstream media, the electorate will be uniformed and vote against their best interest. When their insanity is validated, it damages the U.S. and the ripples can be felt over the entire globe.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Sprinkle in how corrupt our elected officials are, how the CIA controls the world, how the Military Industrial Complex is the only thing keeping the U.S. economy from total collapse, how Wall Street, global corporations, and global CEO's are in charge of writing and implementing our laws; I conclude the problems facing the United States of America as insurmountable.

[Triana]

3. This is exactly why Republicans want it cut off. Bad economy makes Obama look bad.

And that is their #1 objective. They'll destroy anything and anyone to destroy Obama. As long as they can keep the economy barely sputtering or worse, they can use this as a campaign issue. Cutting off extended UI is a great tool to benefit them in that regard.

Besides being Robber Barons, they're Ayn Randian psychopaths (no conscience).

[MindMover]

4. Total disconnect between our economy and the people ...

today, nobody really gives two shits ....

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Killing off of the UI is 1 effective way to help DROWN the Gov't in Norquist's infamous "bathtub."

[coldbeer]

6. I went to the grocery this morning

Wow, expensive. I am retired. Do not cut unemployment.
We need a level playing field.