Should the U.S. Government stimulate the economy by extending unemployment benefits past the traditional six months?

  • Unemployment is vital for the economic stability

    I was wondering that those of who voted No, do they have $10,000+ in their bank accounts to survive. Will those of who say are working in small to large businesses, will they make money if people do not buy any products from their businesses? Those of who say No, will they giving money to those of who are in need?
    Use common sense. Economy depends if and only if people have money in their hands, we will see a huge rescission if unemployment is not continued as it should. If unemployment is cut down, then people will be stealing and more chaos will occur.

  • Yes, I believe extending traditional unemployment past six months would be a good thing.

    Since the economy is doing poorly, I believe it is right for the government to extend unemployment benefits. Without these extended benefits, a lot more people will begin to perish. Some will eventually turn to crime in order to live, and others will not survive. To reduce the incidence of those situations, it is right for the government to step in and help out.

    Posted by: DistinctJamar63
  • Unemployment benefits should be extended to those actively seeking work, because those are the people that deserve them.

    I think these benefits should be extended to those who are actively seeking verifiable jobs, seeking training in new career fields for displaced workers, or taking part in volunteer for pay jobs that help communities or citizens. These kinds of activities show that the unemployed individual is making an effort to be productive, and not just riding the system. If one or all of these criteria are not met, then that individual should be dropped from unemployment benefits.

    Posted by: ObedientMervin
  • The government should extend unemployment benefits since the economic recovery that was anticipated has stalled.

    The economy has yet to truly recover from the downturn of the last few years. Although economists and analysts continue to predict economic growth, there are always subsequent reports of less growth than anticipated, not as many jobs added, and not as many retail sales. The government should extend unemployment benefits past the traditional period not just to benefit the individual workers but the country as a whole so that we are not going further into a recession. If unemployment benefits are cut off too early with little to no job growth in the market, we will be looking at a worst economic picture than we currently have because those receiving unemployment benefits are not likely to obtain new jobs in the immediate future. The government needs to prevent the current economy from getting any worse as they attempt to figure out new ways to re-stimulate the economy.

    Posted by: RapidGarret59
  • With the economy as weak as it is, it's important to give people without jobs benefits for a longer period.

    The economy is unusually weak at the moment, especially in terms of unemployment. We can't just assume that people will find jobs once their unemployment benefits run out. Cutting them off will only weaken the economy, and make it harder for them to find jobs, by taking money out of the economy, which will further reduce demand. We need to keep money circulating to boost demand and employment.

    Posted by: NorbeChiari
  • No, because extending unemployment gives people a reason to not work.

    I do not believe extending unemployment beyond the traditional six months would work to stimulate the economy. The primary reason for this is that several economists have argued that the unemployment rate will go down once the current group of people on unemployment benefits are no longer getting those benefits. These expert opinions that state that many people are receiving unemployment, and are not truly looking for work, is an indicator that unemployment may not be stimulating economic growth, but rather preventing the economy from growing.

    Posted by: 5h3Insanity
  • We need to keep putting money into our own economy during this economic crisis!

    With record unemployment rates throughout the country, extending unemployment benefits is undoubtedly an expensive decision. I think, however, it is the right decision. Unemployed Americans need continued support through these tough times until jobs are worse again available. This allows them to continue supporting their families and spending money which will help to stimulate business and eventually create more jobs.

    Posted by: Kri5Java
  • The U.S. Government to stimulate the economy should extend the unemployment benefits past the traditional six months.

    In times of recession there are more unemployed people. For them, it is harder to get a new job particularly a good job or one according to their expectations.
    Unemployed people without revenue are a real problem for the economy. So they need help from the government. In that order they will continue spending for some of their needs and also have the enthusiasm to look for a job.

    Posted by: l0olllooi
  • Yes, if people have no income, they cannot contribute to the economy.

    If people are out of work, but are receiving unemployment benefits to pay their bills and buy food, they are contributing to economic growth. If you take away those unemployment benefits, the results will be detrimental to the economy on many fronts. If people can't pay bills or rent, then they have no where to live. No one is collecting rent or mortgage money. The power companies lose that person's business. By extending unemployment benefits, you are allowing people to keep contributing to the economy and also making sure there is food on their tables to feed their families.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • Yes, because this is an unusual unemployment slump and people need help.

    Under normal circumstances extending benefits would not be wise. But these are not "business as usual" times! Unemployment still continues to be high; As of August, 2010 the unemployment rate was 9.6%. There are many people who will go bankrupt if their benefits are not extended and the country cannot afford it. Economists do not think the unemployment rate will be reduced anytime soon, so we need to take care of the unemployed.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • I oppose extending unemployment benefits, because I don't think this will stimulate the economy for any extended period of time.

    When people have their unemployment benefits extended, there is no guarantee that they will use the extra money they are getting to buy things. Instead, it is likely they will put the money away for the future, when they run out of benefits and may not have a job yet. Also, once the benefits run out after the additional six months, it is likely they will be in the same boat they were in when they started.

    Posted by: OverwroughtEzekiel25
  • I do not believe the U.S. Government should extend unemployment benefits to stimulate the economy, because the government should use that money to provide incentives for foreign businesses to bring their jobs to America.

    Extending unemployment benefits would allow people to maintain a good lifestyle while being unemployed and could, in fact, cause unemployed people to remain unemployed for a longer time. I believe, instead, that this money should be provided to companies so they could bring their jobs to America, thereby increasing our national product, and providing more jobs for the unemployed.

    Posted by: SpiffyStefan
  • I do not think that increasing the need for more taxes or creating more government debt stimulates the economy.

    By providing even more unemployment benefits the government would either have to go after more taxes or go even further into the red. Neither of these options is acceptable or justifiable, especially in today's world. What should be done instead is more focus should be placed on helping people to recognize the extreme importance of being prepared for emergencies by having stores of food, money, clothing, etc. that can get them through times of unemployment and other emergencies.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Unemployment benefits should not be extended because the U.S. government is already in debt, plus handing out benefits will not have the desired effect.

    Providing extra benefits will not stimulate the economy. Extra money will be used for necessities - not excess spending. I don't see why the government is responsible for unemployment in the first place - the individual is. The more money that the government spends unnecessarily, the more our total debt will increase. This might have been a decent alternative if the government had not already wasted enough money on bailing out U.S. mega industries.

    Posted by: R4yCher
  • Six months unemployment is enough.

    Generally, people who are laid off do not start looking for another job until half their unemployment has been used. Extending unemployment benefits only extends the time before they begin to look for work. Unemployment taxes are based on the number of employees drawing unemployment, so extending unemployment is effectively a tax increase. Any tax increase depresses business, so extending unemployment does not stimulate the economy.

    Posted by: jackprague94
  • Extending unemployment benefits is not the answer to stimulate the economy.

    Creating jobs that would provide a salary would provide a better and longer term solution to the problem. Simply pumping money into the problem would not help in the long term.

    Posted by: IentChick
  • I do not believe in any way that the government should stimulate economy by extending unemployment benefits.

    No way! Sure they're helping people, but how long can you help someone before they need to get out and help themselves. I think extending unemployment is a terrible idea. It just hurts our economy more. Within a 6 month period you should be able to get work somewhere. Yes, sacrifices may need to be made, but you need to do what you need to do in order to survive.

    Posted by: LorenaH

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.