Which is more important, the national debt or the unemployment problem?
By kolsti87
@kolsti87 (521)
United States
July 13, 2010 11:33pm CST
Unemployment is over 10% (reportedly, meaning more than likely it is worse) in many parts of the country. After unemployment benefits were cut by the Republicans (and a few democrats), the lack of money for the people who would be most likely to spend it could cause another dip of the recession. But the national debt is several trillion dollars and eventually it will have to be payed for. A plan to give money to those who need it would act as both an act of charity and as an economic stimulant (mostly the latter). But this would also lead to an increase in the debt. Possible solutions to balance this out would be to raise taxes. Now raising taxes would hurt the millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans, therefore defeating the purpose of an economic stimulant. But if taxes were raised for the rich, maybe that could work. The main thing standing in the way of that is the fact that a large part of the government has interests in the success of the rich, as they contribute large campaign donations, thus changing the decisions of the politicians.
So, what do you think of the problem? How can we stimulate the economy and help the people who need it without further increasing the debt. Keep in mind the corruption of the government and how that could deter progress.
1 person likes this
8 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Jul 10
This is really a no-brainer, despite what our friends on the right will try to convince us of. Extending unemployment benefits will generate $1.61for every $1.00 spent into the economy while an increase in food stamps will give a $1.74 "bang for the buck. From increased infrastructure spending would come $1.57. The more the economy grows the less the deficit and debt grow.
Compare the above to making the Bush tax cuts permanent which would generate a whopping 0.32!
: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf
I really love how the Republicans feel justified in denying those who are unemployed an extension unless the $33 billion is "paid for" but they don't the $700 billion in tax cuts need to be offset at all!
Annie
1 person likes this
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
15 Jul 10
Exactly! The worst part is that a lot of the people who vote for them are hurt by these very policies. People need to learn to vote their class. Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the rich but don't say it. But the ones who are sincerely for the people usually are democrats.
@artistry (4151)
• United States
14 Jul 10
..Hi kolsti, Our national debt has long been a problem and getting worse. But econmists have sais, if you believe them that we cannot worry about the debt while we are in the claws of a recession. The debt must be addressed and dealth with soon. But we must stimulate this economy and get people back to work. That means spending money that we really don't have. So we borrow and print money. Quite a mess. Money was supposed to be spent on infrastructure jobs and new methods of energy production, I am waiting for those, can't figure out the problem?? The Republicans spout of about not extending the compensation for the unemployed but they don't want to touch the tax cuts for the super rich who prospered during the last administration. How sweet is that? People with children won't be able to feed them without that money, more people will lose their homes, folks are living in tents here now. So the benefits need to be extended for humanities sake. It is exactly as you say the large donations dictate the direction the politicians take, both Dems and Republicans. By the way real unemployment is more like 20%, that figure is only an estimate, they take a sample. Take care.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
14 Jul 10
The government could solve this problem without raising the debt or taxes if they would cut spending elsewhere. They waste ALOT of money on completely unneeded programs or BS grants especially now. So cut cut them. Then you have the money. The problem is our government does not want to cut anything...and just keep spending.
I don't like that the unemployement benefits were not extended. Finding a job right now is not easy. There are not a lot of jobs. My state is over 12% unemployed. you can't let people starve. But our government does not seem willing to mkae cuts anywhere.
As for taxes...they are going to have raise them sooner or later. It is the only way to pay for all the debt and budget deficts. it is coming.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
15 Jul 10
Amen to that. But they're too concerned with what's "good politics" because if you cut spending people get mad. For example, even if what you're cutting has nothing to do with Medicare, people will hear "spending cuts" and think 'Get away from my Medicare!'
@poingly (605)
• United States
15 Jul 10
Cutting spending "elsewhere" is very vague.
Most programs people would be willing to cut (even collectively) would be peanuts--and if these programs were cut, it would put more people out of work, hurting the economy even more.
There are a few budget items that you could cut that are big enough, but the public would be up-in-arms about getting rid of them.
The only wiggle room the government really has is in military spending, which the public actually does support cutting at least somewhat.
So when you say "cutting spending elsewhere," remember that it means cutting military spending.
@poingly (605)
• United States
15 Jul 10
How about a solution for both?
Anyone with personal incomes above $500K per year would see an increase in taxes. After making that much money, it is impossible to see a substantially better lifestyle (so sayeth the rich people in Forbes magazine), which means that any personal income over $500K doesn't stimulate the basic construction/consumer/service parts of our economy. The increase in tax revenue could be partially used to bring the government's budget in line. Or it could be used by the government to do what these over $500Kers aren't doing and that is investing in a workforce. Have the government use this tax revenue to hire workers to build rails or roads, teach classes, or do whatever. These middle classers would stimulate the economy, making more jobs, paying more taxes, etc.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
15 Jul 10
I agree as this would solve both the deficit and the jobs crisis while simultaneously investing in our country's infrastructure. The problem is a lot of the government is run for the very people that would receive raised taxes so realistically I don't see it going through with the corrupt government.
@Laurelle11 (409)
• Australia
15 Jul 10
I don't know which would be more important but maybe if they concentrated on fixing the unemployment problem, then they would have to pay less on benefits and possibly reduce the national debt because they would have that many more people paying tax. So instead of the government paying out so much for unemployment they would have it coming in from tax. They could then afford to give money to the needy without it impacting too much on the national debt. Anyway thats what I think and I don't understand to much about politics but it seems pretty obvious to me that if they help people to help themselves get jobs then in the end everyone would probably be better off.
@daddydaycare (17)
• Philippines
14 Jul 10
while I think that both things are important, given a choice of which to prioritize I would place more emphasis in addressing the unemployment problem. It is better to have people working because that would earn them income which they could use to take care of themselves instead of just relying on the government. If you have income, you could purchase commodities that you need even though they may not be the best but it would be better than nothing. Suppliers will eventually find a way of producing goods which will cater to the needs of these low income earners. Now imagine the situation if a lot of people where not employed. That would put too much pressure on the state to come up with immediate solutions that would require the utilization of huge fiscal resources.
1 person likes this
@Theresaaiza (10487)
• Australia
14 Jul 10
Giving away money to the people may serve as an economic stimulant but I never had faith on dole-out systems. Because once that money is consumed, then it's back to poverty again. People will again complain and say that the govt is good-for-nothing and things like that.
If I were the President, I couldn't look at individual problems but the country as a whole. Yes, maybe pay the national debt but that's not of topmost priority. It must be first on eradicating graft and corruption on a massive campaign concurrent with doing measures to pay the national debt.
If the leader has a firm stand, he will not be influenced by rich supporters but will look into the public welfare.
Well, *shrugs, easier said than done, though.
@akhileshnigam (494)
• India
14 Jul 10
world recession stop the mormal people growth, its results very bad unemployment is very big problem of man , his position is very typicle people lost his patience
we want solve to problem & try to smile in hard time.
