Trump won't extend unemployment because it 'paid people to stay home'.
Category: News & Politics
Via: jbb • 5 years ago • 74 commentsBy: Connor Perrett (Business Insider)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said the White House didn't want to extend the $600 weekly unemployment boost because it "paid people to stay home." ABC News/This Week
- White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Sunday the president was not interested in extending the $600 weekly boost to federal unemployment benefits as they're set to expire on July 31.
- Meadows said the $600 per month increase to unemployment "actually paid people to stay home" and "people got more money staying at home than they would going back to work."
- The $600 weekly boost was passed in March as part of the CARES Act in order to supplement the gap between a worker's lost wage and state unemployment benefits, which cover just a portion of a person's previous earnings.
- Meadows said the Trump administration planned to support an effort to expand unemployment insurance that would provide up to 70% of an individual's lost wages — though state officials have previously warned such a plan would take weeks to implement.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said Sunday that the Trump administration was not interested in extending current federal unemployment benefits instituted earlier during the pandemic because it "paid people to stay home."
"The original unemployment benefits actually paid people to stay home, and actually a lot of people got more money staying at home than they would go back to work," Meadows said during an appearance Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The president has been very clear, our Republican senators have been very clear, we aren't going to extend that provision."
As Business Insider's Joseph Zeballos-Roig reported, approximately 32 million Americans on unemployment could see a reduction in benefits up to 75% by the end of the month if Congress does not renew or replace its $600 weekly boost to unemployment payments. Lawmakers had instituted the boost as part of the CARES Act in March to keep Americans afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic as benefits from states often cover just 30% to 50% of a worker's lost wages.
On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would like to negotiate a new stimulus package with Democrats "in the next few weeks," though The Washington Post reported also Friday that infighting within the GOP had posed a roadblock for new coronavirus economic relief legislation.
Meadows said the White House was prepared to offer a proposal on Monday to help "get people back on their feet."
"We are going to be prepared on Monday to provide unemployment insurance extension that would be 70% of whatever the wages you were prior to being unemployed," Meadows said. Under the Trump administration's system proposed last week, the average weekly federal benefits for unemployed Americans would be reduced to about $200.
The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that 3.4 million fewer jobs will be created over the next year if unemployment benefits are reduced by $400.
As Business Insider previously reported, officials have warned that the transition to the president's proposed reduced benefits could take some states months to implement, though Meadows pushed back on that Sunday, telling Stephanopoulos that the administration planned to work with state agencies to ensure that "antiquated computer" systems did not cause delays in benefits.
The discussion comes amid the continued increase in cases of the coronavirus in the US. According to data analyzed by Johns Hopkins University, there have been at least 4,193,103 cases of the coronavirus in the US that have resulted in more than 146,000 deaths.
Those in the know gotta go with Joe...for the win!
People will still get the unemployment benefits they are eligible for via their state and federal extensions. It’s only the temporary federal $600 a week extra that is in question. It’s not sustainable. Period. Trump and Republicans have been flexible about a smaller number so that workers aren’t paid more to not work than to return when their job comes back or they are offered a new one. Democrats have been fixated on that 600 number so the only way to get them to compromise is to let it expire so their negotiating number is 0. Democrats as soon as this expires as it does have that sunset soon, can choose a GOP number or 0 or come up with a proposal of their own that can pass the senate and be signed.
You voted that up? It is the working class Trump voters waylaid by Covid-19 and the crashing economy that will suffer most. Their pain will just be cresting come November. Democrats are lining up to make sure that doesn't happen...
Butt, Trump, McConnell and Manchin say, "NO!"
GO FIGURE...
Whoever you are for, I will always be against. Ever since the 15 minutes of Palin CFP.
it wouldn't even be an issue if the incompetent moron occupying the white house wasn't 7 months behind the curve in effectively dealing with the pandemic in the first place. the longer senate republicans drag their feet on approving the federal extension, the better november looks for democrats. that extension money goes directly into the economy.
seriously? he just barely endorsed masks over a week ago... he's almost directly responsible for the recent major outbreaks in FL, AZ, and TX, not that I care that much about those that followed his lead, but I feel for the innocent victims.
They are going to continue the program to keep funding employers who hold on to their employees, they are going to do another $1200 stimulus like the last one, they are going to add funding for testing and to states and local governments for education that re open their schools. There will be some extra federal $ per week for the unemployed. Most Americans will find that reasonable.
... only americans that believe in an imperial presidency.
the fascist nirvana...
Remember that billionaires begrudged you $600...
what's the matter? didja run out of other people's money?
just for fun,
show me an article you posted thanking trump for those extra benefits when he first did it.
if everything trump has done has been wrong? certainly, those unemployment benefits were wrong also.
why are you not happy he fixed his mistake?
There are tons of articles in the financial news praising Trump and Mnuchin for saving Wall Street and the bond and real estate markets!
which one did you post here?
or which one did anyone from the left post here?
short answer? none.
according to the left here? everything trump has done has been wrong -period.
now your mad he is no longer providing that support while bitching about a rising deficit at the same time below.
I admit Trump profits off American suffering! And, that he is an abysmal leader for such difficult times. He came in with a half trillion dollar deficit and is leaving his successor a giant mess and over ten times the budget deficit. No way long run that is good for anyone except billionaires, like Trump and Putin.
The topic though is unemployment benefits!
tRump expects everyone to be grateful for the crises he creates and then allegedly 'fixes'.
It's his fault that everything is now SNAFU AND FUBAR
That’s what Obama did. Trump gave much more to small business and individuals than Obama ever did.
Trump grew up as a thief and a rapist. Worshiping Mafioso. Chip off of the block.
The extra 600 a week unemployment windfall was a slap in the face to every low wage worker who has continued to work through this pandemic. All those essential workers who weren't laid off and had to put themselves at risk got to watch their friends and neighbors staying at home and getting many times double their normal pay.
No, tRump has given most of the money to BIG BUSINESSES and LARGE CORPORATIONS who didn't need the money like the small businesses and individuals did.
That is why essential workers are getting pay raises, bonuses and hazard pay. I think they should get more. Trying to pit working class people against each other is deplorable. All those who were laid off because they were nonessential had no choice in it. They were asked to stay home to slow the virus. They have bills and kids and mortgages. We are not talking seniors on social security or the disabled. They cannot get unemployment. These are working class Americans who are unemployed due to no fault of their own. Once they can return to their old jobs the unemployment benefits cease.
Which is why Trump proposed and demanded that the Congress pass legislation to reward essential workers and give them bonuses.
Oh wait...
From what im seeing around here , it isn't the billionaires that are doing the begrudging , its those that were titled "Essential workers" , that continued to work for no more pay or very small stipends while others that were rightfully shut down from working , being able to collect and getting away better than they were for doing nothing but sit on their backsides.
Essential workers are undervalued.
Non-essential workers who got layoffs have kids, bills and rent due. And, they cannot collect unemployment if their old jobs are available. So, they still have no choice in not being able to return to work. Moany are Trump Voters!
I hope they don't get evicted soon.
Donald Trump better hope not too.
all workers are essential.
time for those currently not working to become essential again.
people sitting on their asses will never be essential.
Again, if jobs are available workers are ineligible for unemployment benefits. So, those who would benefit from an extension of UE benefits have no jobs to return to...yet!
Donald Trump better hope not too
He only wants their votes even if they are forced to live on the street. Other than that, he could care less about them.
I'm sure it will be Obama's Fault. It always is...
That is not accurate. Whether it is safe to go back to work is a different topic. When workers are allowed to return to work and their former jobs are available they become ineligible. If they collect benefits they are ineligible for then that money is supposed to be recouped. In any cas you are comparing state UE benefits with the Covid-19 federal program. Anecdotes don't count. The law does! Making false unemployment claims is a crime!
Work search rules aren't the only way states can keep track of whether an employee has a job available. When I was mandated to close, I laid my staff off. And the employment commission has sent several forms for me to fill out, requesting the reason for furlough, whether part-time work is available, expected date of return, etc. When I knew I'd be reopening, that date of return was submitted as part of that form. On that date, they all became ineligible for UI, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of work search rules.
Yes, it became unavailable. Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. No, there was no job search requirement. My point is that to say that workers are still eligible for unemployment when their jobs become available again merely because there is no job search requirement is inaccurate. State governments can and do find out from employers when a furloughed worker's job is available again.
This is what he said:
Earlier, he also said:
So, several times, he indicated that he is aware that once their jobs become available, they are ineligible for unemployment benefits. To me, it is clear that JBB is referring to their former jobs, not to available jobs in general, which are in fairly short supply right now.
That 5.4 million is nearly 2 million fewer than a year ago.
Now, consider how things have changed for the working class since then. Their kids may or may not be returning to school this fall, and they may or may not have childcare available. Daycares here have cut the numbers of kids they'll take drastically. So, while they may be running out of unemployment benefits, they may well have a childcare dilemma. If they can't send their kids to school, and the daycare they used has closed, they may be unable to return to work, regardless of how willing they are.
School buses will be operating at a drastically reduced capacity, too. Parents who weren't doing so before will now have to drive their kids to school. Another wrench in the works.
If they do return to work, will those jobs available cover the cost of childcare? I don't know. Daycare facilities will likely have to make some pretty expensive changes to how they operate, and the cost for those will be passed on to parents.
It's not as easy as "there are jobs". There are a lot fewer available jobs than there used to be, and folks need to know that those jobs will pay the added expenses they're now likely to have.
It may, or it may not. That's above your and my paygrade.
Absolutely not. I never said that. I said that when those who collect unemployment because they were laid off due to Covid-19, when their original jobs are available again they must come back to work or else lose benefits!
For instance, when a GM factory reopens the workers must return or lose unemployment benefits. There is no requirement they look for work in the interim.
And, I resent you misrepresenting my words!
Thank You!
That's pretty much the most 'lack of empathy statement' I've heard in awhile.
So they can infect those of us not already infected?
This pandemic is much worse than far right wing deniers can possibly imagine.
Thank You. I do appreciate that...
Get this from Ted Cruz...
The same here. The sooner we whip Covid...
Well all I said was the ones I see doing the actual begrudging here are those that have worked throughout the situation
And because the way UE is set up here , they cannot just quit and collect, and they know that..
so if you see that as a lack of empathy on my part , that's not my problem its was a statement of the fact of what I am seeing and hearing ..
WTF do work search rules have to do with unemployed workers RETURNING to the jobs they had?
Hint: Not a fucking thing.
Unemployment benefits cover 70% of the person's wages. Talk about CS, this has all the hallmarks of being a complete disaster.
REMEMBER KISS. Keep it simple stupid.
Trump is also going to end up with a six or seven trillion dollar deficit this year not even counting the trillions off the books from Trump's Fed's "Monitary Easing". That mean printing money...by the trillions!
Those trillions aren't ending in working people's bank accounts. They are going to bankers and stock holders and...real estate moguls! It should be a scandal
BUT...TRUMP!
wait, you want it to be higher?
wanting free money and bitching about the deficit at the same time? very confusing... LOL
I damn sure am not blaming it on unemployed workers who deserve a break. Again, who is getting a lot richer in the end from runaway spending and reckless monetary expansion?
Not the middle class getting unemployment!
It is greedy billionaires like Trump and Putin...
never said ya did.
they had a break... a big one.. now it is time to get back to work.
continuing to hand out free money and run up the deficit further, is fukin stupid.
Unemployment benefits are a pittance and only those legitimately unemployed qualify!
Then tRump needs to stop looting the treasury and taking OUR money along with giving it to HIMSELF AND HIS ALREADY FILTHY RICH co-conspirators.
Unemployment isn't 'free money'. Just stop.
The Senate bill includes $1.7 BILLION for Trump's FBI building and $33 BILLION to replace the DoD funding that Trump took for his wall. Then you add in the $20 BILLION for farmers [who already have multiple relief programs to choose from] and it starts to look like real money...
Is the additional $600/wk part of the 70%?
There is some talk of using the 70% instead of the flat $600. This mainly is designed to reward higher income earners and harm lower income people. It any case it would be instead of and not in addition to. People are acting like workers can choose to not return to jobs and still collect. They cannot.
Instead of a flat amount of $600 per week, they are proposing that each persons unemployment payments be 70% of their wages when they were working. That will be close to impossible to figure out and if it can be done it will take months to implement.
At best this proposal is FUBAR.
Can Trump file for UB next year?
The reason for the increased benefits was to encourage those who were not needed to provide essential services to stay home, for reasons of public safety. Other than those workers providing essential services, or those who could work from home, we didn't want people working. We wanted them staying safer at home, and keeping the rest of us safer, too. I know that when I was mandated to close, knowing that my staff would be ok financially for a few months took a lot of pressure off of me. It also allowed me to delay reopening a bit, and wait past our county's peak in new cases. Two have elderly parents they care for, and we all worried about being safe for their sake.
Sometimes, public safety is more important than jealousy.