Unemployment benefits for 1.3 Million Expire... Today

[Zaune]

CNN Money

Michelle Marshall is one of the 1.3 million long-term unemployed Americans who will lose jobless benefits Saturday.

Marshall, 56, has been out of work for a year, since she lost an administrative assistant job that paid her $44,000 per year.

She started collecting $624 each week in New Jersey unemployment benefits, but the state benefits ran out after 26 weeks. When federal benefits kicked in, she collected $521.

But Marshall will stop getting these checks next week.

That's because Congress failed to extend the recession-era program when it passed a budget deal last week.

Federal benefits kick in after state benefits run out, and range between 14 to 47 weeks, depending on the state where a person lives.

According to government figures, the average weekly benefit check is $300.

Even the cut from the larger state check to the federal benefits was hard for Marshall. She had to consolidate her $12,000 worth of credit card debt and enroll in a mortgage assistance program.

When the benefits stop entirely, she doesn't know what she'll do.

"I imagine I will go apply for food stamps," she said. "Depending how long this goes on, I might lose my car, which will impact my ability to get a job. I won't be able to drive to interviews."

The program was first signed into law in June 2008 by President George W. Bush, when the unemployment rate was 5.6% and the average duration of jobless insurance was 17.1 weeks.

The unemployment rate climbed to more than 10% at the height of the Great Recession in 2009, and the government extended the federal benefits for the long-term unemployed.

However, thanks to a weak recovery, those benefits have been either extended or expanded 11 times, most recently on Jan. 2 .

Most states, however, have cut back unemployment benefits, as the labor market has improved.

During negotiations over the budget deal earlier this month, House Speaker John Boehner suggested he was open to an extension if the White House came up with a plan. But the provision didn't make it into the deal that President Obama signed last week.

The White House issued a statement on Friday saying senators have put forward bipartisan legislation to extend emergency unemployment insurance for three months, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring it to vote as soon as they are back from recess.

The Obama administration has said the end of extended benefits can have a major impact on the economy.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers and Department of Labor issued a joint report earlier this month touting how jobless benefits buoy the economy, while keeping 2.5 million workers out of poverty each year.

The White House pointed out in a separate report that the expiration of benefits could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.2 to 0.4 percentage point in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office and a J.P. Morgan Chase economist.

The Congressional Budget Office said the cost to extend the federal benefits by another year is about $26 billion.

But Republicans have said in memos that the program has already cost $252 billion in the five years through July.

Democrats intend to make this a big issue. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday that the first item on Congress' agenda in 2014 must be an extension of unemployment insurance, and Senator Reid said last week he would push for an extension "after the new year." Ads by a liberal group blasting the Republicans for inaction are running this week on cable TV networks, including CNN.

Those who are set to lose benefits, like Marshall, haven't lost hope, but they are urging Congress to do something.

"Give us a little more time to try and make some plans," she said. "I can't give up. I have no one to take care of me."

That was yesterday. They didn't extend it, did they?

[Broomstick]

No, they did not.

[Thanas]

So what, they just wrote 1.3 million people off?

[The Romulan Republic]

Would that be surprising? We're talking about the Republican Party.

[Broomstick]

More or less. A few paragraphs of stuff but if you're in a hurry drop to the bolded bit at the bottom.

In order to qualify for unemployment in the US you have to have worked a certain number of "quarters" (meaning quarter of a year). Once you satisfy that requirement you have 26 weeks of benefits, or six months. That's the base benefit, and it comes from the state where you were employed. (So, when I was laid off in 2007 I received unemployment benefits from Illinois, where I had worked, and not from Indiana, where I lived)

In times of recession this can be extended for up to 47 more weeks. These extended benefits come from the Federal and not State governments. 47 additional weeks is an absolute limit, if you aren't employed at the end of that you simply lose the benefit and that's it. I've been there, done that - I ran out the Federal as well as the State limit which was... very unpleasant.

This action now is largely political in my opinion. The Republicans want to declare the recession over, not to mention their "government is always bad" ideology. If the recession is over there's no need for extended unemployment benefits, correct? So they ended them, and the Obama administration, still embroiled over the health insurance battle, honestly did little to nothing to fight for extended benefits. The Tea Party is arguing that extended benefits actually harm the unemployed and cutting them off entirely will prompt them to get off their lazy asses and actually look for work. This ignores the fact that you have to prove actively job seeking to collect unemployment insurance. If you can not demonstrate actual job-seeking during a week you do not receive benefits for that week. If there's suspicion you are faking the search documentation they will "audit" you (this happened to me at one point which, because I keep good records, wasn't that big a deal). It does, however, tie in with the notion that the only reason the unemployed are unemployed is because they're lazy. It ignores that for a number of years there have been more jobseekers than jobs, turning the job search into a sadistic game of musical chairs.

TL:DR - they are not canceling the base unemployment insurance, they're cancelling the extended benefits. We're back to 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits and then you're done. Other than foodstamps, average person on unemployment is not going to qualify for any other government assistance once that ends, and a certain percentage won't even qualify for food stamps for quite awhile. Yes, they're basically writing off 1.3 million people.

[Zaune]

So that's 1.3 million people with no money, little or no realistic prospect of getting a job before they get made homeless, and not a whole lot to lose. And this being the United States, a non-trivial percentage of them probably have guns.

Oh, joy.

[Broomstick]

They mostly don't qualify for further government benefits because most of them do, in fact, have assets of one sort or another. Speaking as someone who was in exactly the same position back in 2009, there ARE ways to survive the experience without being rendered homeless. Unfortunately, most middle-class and higher Americans do not have the proper skill set or mental frame to do this without some significant mental and emotional distress. Most people figure it out, but it's coming as a huge shock to a lot of people who just assumed they'd never be that poor or one of "those people".

You CAN hold down a job and continue to receive unemployment under a particular set of circumstances, but I have to get to work (because unemployment sucks and I want to avoid it) so I'll have to explain later. If anyone has a more specific question I'll do my best to answer it tonight or tomorrow.

I think the Obama administration weighed getting health insurance for 50 million or whatever Americans vs. extending unemployment benefits a few more weeks for 1.3 million and opted to fight for what would benefit the most number of people. That's a rather cold calculation, but there it is - and, let me emphasize, that's my view of what's happening which may or may not be the ultimate truth because I don't have access to all information relating to the issue.

[Flagg]

Things won't change. They could have if the SEC had taken heads after the implosion, but without sane people who aren't in Wall Streets pocket in charge that would never happen. Now we may end up taking literal heads unless people in charge start pulling them out of their asses and real quick.

[Thanas]

Here is another thing I don't understand - what is the obsession with food stamps? They seem to be just one more added hassle to the poor (check if stores accept them and then use them instead of cash). Is this another "but if we give them cash they will just use it to buy drugs" propaganda? (Over here we just hand out money without it causing a major drug problem, but whatever)

[Rogue 9]

Here is another thing I don't understand - what is the obsession with food stamps? They seem to be just one more added hassle to the poor (check if stores accept them and then use them instead of cash). Is this another "but if we give them cash they will just use it to buy drugs" propaganda? (Over here we just hand out money without it causing a major drug problem, but whatever)

It's a government authority thing. Technically the food stamp program is done under the Department of Agriculture's mandate to dispose of excess crops to keep the market stable, not Health and Human Services' welfare authority (which is screwed with by Congress far more than agriculture is).

[Flagg]

Here is another thing I don't understand - what is the obsession with food stamps? They seem to be just one more added hassle to the poor (check if stores accept them and then use them instead of cash). Is this another "but if we give them cash they will just use it to buy drugs" propaganda? (Over here we just hand out money without it causing a major drug problem, but whatever)

Well, the food stamp program is the single most successful welfare program in the US, far more so than just handing out money, as you can only use it to purchase food items. And I think there is actually a bigger economic return on them in this country than cash welfare. I mean there is always some fraud but that's true in any system and with there being no more food stamps but rather an electronic card, fraud is much harder as there are no tradable stamps.

No, opposition is purely mean spirited ideology, religious nonsense that isn't even found to be in religious canon and good old fashioned family racism.

[Broomstick]

Here is another thing I don't understand - what is the obsession with food stamps? They seem to be just one more added hassle to the poor (check if stores accept them and then use them instead of cash). Is this another "but if we give them cash they will just use it to buy drugs" propaganda? (Over here we just hand out money without it causing a major drug problem, but whatever)

A couple points about food stamps:

1) They're about the only government welfare benefit an able-bodied, childless adult can still qualify for. Us poor folks get obsessive about them because we have to eat, too.

2) They aren't "real money" so it's OK to give them to the poor because all they're good for is food. After all, if you gave real money to poor people they'd just spend it on rent, utilities, clothing, soap, deodorant, transportation, dental care, medical care, cigarettes, booze and drugs, right?

3) They help subsidize agri-business, which is good, because rich people need a government hand out.

[Broomstick]

In the US, while collecting unemployment benefits you can also work part time as well and continue to collect benefits. While employed your benefit is "offset" by 1/2 of your wage. The result is that it is to your advantage to get some sort of job, even part time and minimum wage, while seeking other work. Until your wage is equal to twice your unemployment benefit (assuming my tired self has the math right) you'll still collect something in addition to that wage.

I did this most of the time I was collecting unemployment and it did help. It did not, however, make up for even 50% of my lost full time wages. It slowed down our slide into poverty, it did not stop it.

[aerius]

The reasoning I've heard for discontinuing unemployment benefits goes something like this, and I will note ahead of time that I do not support or subscribe to it in any way. So here it goes:

The US Bureau of Economic Analysis declared that the recession ended in the summer of 2009, and about a year later president Obama himself declared that the great recession was in indeed over. So the reasoning goes that if the recession is over, and has been over for 3 years, then why are we wasting money on a program which is only supposed to be used in a recession or depression? The President and all the official authorities assert that the recession is over and the recovery is well underway, the economy is growing and jobs are being created in plenty, so why do we still need these programs? And if the recession ISN'T over and we really do need these programs, then why is the government lying to us and saying that everything is good, or will soon be good?

[Zaune]

Which is not necessarily wrong, actually. Truth be told, unemployment and underemployment were a problem in the US long before the sub-prime mortgage market shit the bed; the recession just made it harder to paper over the cracks. Barbara Ehrenreich explains it better than I can.

[Flagg]

The reasoning I've heard for discontinuing unemployment benefits goes something like this, and I will note ahead of time that I do not support or subscribe to it in any way. So here it goes:

The US Bureau of Economic Analysis declared that the recession ended in the summer of 2009, and about a year later president Obama himself declared that the great recession was in indeed over. So the reasoning goes that if the recession is over, and has been over for 3 years, then why are we wasting money on a program which is only supposed to be used in a recession or depression? The President and all the official authorities assert that the recession is over and the recovery is well underway, the economy is growing and jobs are being created in plenty, so why do we still need these programs? And if the recession ISN'T over and we really do need these programs, then why is the government lying to us and saying that everything is good, or will soon be good?

If un employment benefits were based on whether we're in a recession or not that may be a decent point, but it's my understanding that the benefits and their length are based on employment numbers, and that since their introduction to this country have never been withdrawn while the rate of unemployment was 7% or greater. Which it is.

[Flagg]

Which is not necessarily wrong, actually. Truth be told, unemployment and underemployment were a problem in the US long before the sub-prime mortgage market shit the bed; the recession just made it harder to paper over the cracks. Barbara Ehrenreich explains it better than I can.

In my humble, limited, largely ignorant, yet exceedingly cynical opinion the largest employers are essentially where they want to be since the recovery from the dot com and 9/11 busts. Remember back in the late 90s when employers had to start competing for employees and did so through added benefits? Well now the situation is reversed with employees competing for jobs, benefits being reduced and wages stagnating. It's not like these rich bastards aren't making record profits and sitting on huge amounts of capital.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Long ago, my Dad summed up the philosophy of the right in regards to the poor with the following.

"I've got mine, Fuck everyone else."

it is as true now as it was when he first said it.
The right live and breathe a constant atmosphere telling them that "Anyone" can get a job if you work hard enough. That if you can't get a job, you are just a lazy fuck, because America is the best goddamn country in the world!

Welfare? Nothing more than paychecks going to 'Queens' who live the highlife and pump out babies just to get more money!
Food stamps? I heard from a friend of a friend from Facebook, that some lady was buying LOBSTER With her food stamps! We should cancel the whole thing!
Unemployment? Nothing more then a crutch! Why, it forces people NOT to look for a job! Don't you know they make more money by NOT working?

(sighs)

[energiewende]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments. That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation. Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely? If not, should the payments drop (to what level?) or else, when should they end? And if they should end in 1-2 years or something, how is that qualitatively different to the program never existing, and her only receiving the state-level benefits for 6 months?

[Thanas]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments. That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation. Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely?

Depends on the persons needs, don't you think?

Also, where do you get the numbers from?

[Kitsune]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments. That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation. Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely? If not, should the payments drop (to what level?) or else, when should they end? And if they should end in 1-2 years or something, how is that qualitatively different to the program never existing, and her only receiving the state-level benefits for 6 months?

If you had been living on 100,000 a year before then?
Your house and care payments are structured on that?

[Broomstick]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments.

Hey, dumbshit, unemployment insurance is not "welfare". You don't get it based on need, you get it based on past employment. It's based on your salary while employed, with an ultimate cap.

That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation.

I guess you totally ignored the part about needing to demonstrate you are actively looking for work? When was the last time you looked for a job, shithead? That's hardly a "paid vacation". Thanks for buying into the right-wing bullshit about the unemployed jobseeker being lazy, fucker. Are you paying attention at all or just threadshitting?

Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely? If not, should the payments drop (to what level?) or else, when should they end?

IF the United States was a civilized country there would be a minimum floor people can't fall below. Someone long-term unemployed might have to move to different housing but they wouldn't have the threat of homelessness hanging over their head. They wouldn't have to worry about being locked out of access to medical care.

The only thing the US does right in regards to the destitute is foodstamps. At least the poor are able to obtain food. You might be homeless but you don't have to starve.

And if they should end in 1-2 years or something, how is that qualitatively different to the program never existing, and her only receiving the state-level benefits for 6 months?

When unemployment is high it can take longer to find a job with a living wage so for many these benefits can be the difference between having a place to live and sleeping in a car. Any more stupid questions, fuckface?

[Flagg]

I'm in favor of a minimum income system like the Swiss are setting up.

[Welf]

I'm in favor of a minimum income system like the Swiss are setting up.

While I do like a strong social state that seems excessive. You redefine welfare from something that's supposed to help temporarily until they can help themselves to something that's permanent.

[Broomstick]

The thing is, most people want more. The only way to get more, even under a minimum income system, is to work for it somehow or other. Thus, there is still an incentive to get a job or do something.