Would you support repeal of the unemployment benefits program?

[kentuck]

I know it's only a hypothetical but nothing is impossible with the bunch of nuts now running Congress.

Would you support it if the President agreed it was a good thing? As Mitt Romney suggested, people could save for their own unemployment. Would you have a problem with that?

Everybody, but everybody, knows that the unemployment insurance program is a Democratic Party creation. Why shouldn't the Repubs want to repeal it?

Would it change the way you look at politics, if it were to happen??

[treestar]

1. What is with the wild hyperbolic hypos tonight?

Even Republicans know they can't really get that.

Again proving the point that the Republicans don't get everything they want.

[kentuck]

5. And the Supreme Court could declare healthcare bill unconstitutional?

It is hypothetical but not out of the realm of possibilities.

[TBF]

10. We didn't think they could destroy Social Security either, but they

are half-way there with a democratic president helping them.

[Statistical]

18. They are half way there? Really. Wow I didn't know SS was 50% destroyed already. n/t

[TBF]

22. Taking away the funding tends to destroy programs. FYI. nt

[Statistical]

25. No funding was removed. n/t

[TBF]

26. Pushing a good share of the funding into the general program puts

it into the mix with all the other entitlements. It will be far easier to cut it now, which shouldn't happen after all the years of citizens paying in. I am 44 now and doubt I'll see a dime from Social Security, despite working and paying in at the top rate for many years.

[Arkana]

2. No, and why the fuck are you asking?

E: Oh, I get it. It's a not-so-clever tweak of the people who don't think President Obama is a corpofascist bankster sellout to the EEEEEEVIL DLC which doesn't even officially exist anymore. Funny stuff. Maybe you should do stand-up.

[Imajika]

3. That isn't even a possibility...

Are you just asking to see how far people would go in support of President Obama?

Because really, nobody seriously wants to repeal Unemployment Insurance. A few Republicans may be talking about it, but nothing like that is even seriously on the agenda for them. And no, President Obama would never support such a thing so there isn't a whole lot of reason to speculate about it.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. No. Nor would I support being beaten in the balls with an oar.

Not a fan of self abuse.

[kentuck]

7. It's good to know that there are lines even on DU...

that people are not willing to compromise. :-) I am encouraged.

[virgogal]

6. Of course not ! eom

[Skip Intro]

8. No, but I'm sure it's on the rw hit list, just after social security, medicare, and welfare. nt

[uppityperson]

9. Would you rather suck the snot out of a dog's nose until its head collapsed or slide down a 50 ft

razor blade with no pants on?

[phasma ex machina]

11. No! America's morally obligated to take care of the poor. nt

[howaboutme]

12. But why is there no WPA?

Roosevelt didn't just hand out billions. He required something in return and I agree.

Political opposition to unemployment comes because billions in unemployment benefits provide for payments to those out of work, but should start requiring a service in return for compensation. That's the way I look at it and the way many Americans do too.

Politically Americans would support giving unemployment compensation to help those without jobs if those receiving it were required to provide service to country. I agree.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. No. I would stop being a Democrat if Obama (or any Dem) were to

call for unemployment compensation being ended. Tbat's a third-rail line in the sand kind of thing for me, much like Social Security is.

[undeterred]

14. No, saving for unemployment is as ridiculous as saving for health care

that costs a few hundred thousand or saving for college before you go.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Is it any more ridiculous than saving for your own retirement

if you want to live somewhat better than a mere subsistence form of life in that retirement?

One of the great problems in this country is that too many people (myself included in my younger years) would piss every dime away, without trying to set anything aside. I managed to buy a house with almost zero down, by privately borrowing the downpayment from my (now) ex's brother-in-law, and when it came time for the divorce, there was no equity to divide. It would have been nice if I had had a few thousand dollars towards my next living situation, and I've never owned a home since then.

What if we had a multi-purpose account that would allow younger people to set aside funds for these sorts of things? If we made contributions to the fund tax-exempt, and even gave a bit of a tax credit to those who did such savings, it would create a great pool of wealth spread among millions of Americans. You could withdraw the money tax-free for times of unemployment, a down payment on a house, education to get a better job, moving expenses to get to an area where you could get a better job, or perhaps a minimal first car to get to work, if you moved to an area where they didn't have mass transit.

Instead of just having people have to go to government agencies to beg for help, why not empower people to help themselves, too?

[WinkyDink]

17. Ah, yes. The "Personal Anecdote Theory of Governance."

[customerserviceguy]

20. Rather than just being glib

why not discuss my idea? What's wrong with letting people save for all of the things I mention, in the same way we allow them to save for their retirements?

[Statistical]

19. There is nothing wrong with saving for retirement. It is totally different than the others.

Retirement is a fixed event and one that occurs roughly 40-50 years after entering the workforce. It is possible to put aside a small % of income of your 40-50 years. That is essentially how pensions (roughly 5% - 10% of gross pay) and social security (12.8% of gross pay) work.

Saving for UI, or health care isn't similar though. Those are unknown events are hard to plan for. Many people may never need it and thus that reinforces a belief that no "rainy day" fund is needed. Second for some people the first event may occur very soon. Say 2 years after working. The likelihood someone would have enough money saved that soon is very low.

As for your hypothetical "fund". It already exists. It is called IRA. You can withdrawl for buying a home or large medical expense. Maybe an exemption for UI should be made.

[customerserviceguy]

21. There are similarities and differences

between having a fund for retirement, and one for the things I mention above. For one thing, not everybody lives long enough to retire, just like not everyone becomes unemployed.

I'll admit, it would take more than a few years to save up for your own unemployment fund, and perhaps that gap could be addressed with some sort of high-deductible insurance product, perhaps with a premium paid from the FUTA tax fund, at least for the first few years of a person's working life. But that would be for a pure unemployment fund, and would not be usable for other things.

I do like your idea of the expansion of the existing IRA to cover these things. We'd also have to allow a person to have a fully deductible emergency IRA if they had a pension plan or 401K at work, current law puts some limits on that. Also, IRA money is always taxable when withdrawn, the only thing they give you a break on is the 10% penalty if you use the money for the home purchase or large medical expense.

I just got into an HSA at my work, and I think it's a great idea. If I had tax incentives thirty years ago, I might have been able to better weather tough times I've had when unemployed, or changing jobs, or moving to find work.

[kentuck]

23. Excellent idea about expanding the 401-k benefits..

in my opinion.

[Statistical]

24. Well if you use a traditional IRA you are given a tax break for putting money in.

Of course you should pay taxes when you take it out. Your other option is a Roth IRA.

Traditional IRA: tax break on contribution -> taxes on withdrawals.
Roth IRA: no break on contributions -> no taxes on withdrawals.

One other clarification. You can ALWAYS contribute to IRA regardless of 401K or pension however if you have a high income and 401K contribution then your IRA contributions will not be deductible (no tax break).

[customerserviceguy]

27. And in the case of the traditional IRA

the thinking was that you would be putting pre-tax money in during your higher earning years, and withdrawing it during a time when you might be likely to be paying little or no tax on it.

We've gone past that with Health Savings Accounts, you put the money in tax free, the earnings grow tax free, and as long as you use it for medical expenses, it comes out tax free. Why not do that with a fund that is designed to provide for times of unemployment, moving expenses that are job-connected, or education expenses needed to keep employed?

I'm not talking about getting rid of unemployment insurance, I'm only talking about supplementing it. Sometimes you lose a job in a situation where you don't get UC, or you get into a financial bind when the benefits your state pays are not enough to keep up.

You're right about your clarification, but I'm advocating tax-deductible contributions for the "emergency" fund, and even sweetening the pot with a possible tax credit to encourage personal savings.

The rich always have various exemptions and preferences on their savings and investments, why not have something that the average person can use?

[WinkyDink]

16. Just. Stop.