Debate Question:
Should the federal government extend unemployment benefits given the state of the economy?
-Statement of purpose: Why is the policymake being asked to consider a policy chnage at this time?
-Review of the current policy: What are we currently doing? Why are we doing it this way? What is the public;s perception of the current policy? Assess how well it is or is not working.
-Statement on the Necessity for Change: What circumstances (e.g., changes in governemtn, leadership, economic, stabilty, etc.) have changed that make a new public polic approach advisable or necessary?
-Discuss the alternatives to the current policy by enumeratiing and explaining each policy options in turn.
-Rros and cons of each policy option. identify the political, economic, social, and/or security implications for each alternative. each policy option should be compared and contrasted to other options as well as to the current policy.
-Which option will be recommended and which options will be discounted.
-Recommendation for specific steps on how and when to implement the recommended policy option.
I'm confused. You want to have this debate here?
Nope, i want some advice for the debate i'm going to have. Any input is helpful but im the agaisnt person for the question should unemployment benefits be extended. Thanks
Well, you've got hyper-left wing hyper partisan Paul Krugman supporting your case.
And off the top of my head, here's a couple of anecdotes.
thanks, do you think i should argue to abolish unemployment benefits or just limit them
As with anything, it depends on what your goals are. Ideally, yes, payouts in which money is forcibly taken from some people to be handed out to other people should be abolished, for economic as well as moral reasons.
In Economics in One Lesson Henry Hazlitt includes a discussion on the economic side of this. See section 2 of Chapter 18 and Chapter 19.
Yeah these are not uncommon.
Philip:-Fiscal stimulus: unemployed spend most of the money they receive = good tool to stimulate aggregate spending
This assumes the (fallacious) notion that "aggregate spending" (which, has its own problems in itself) is what drives economic growth. In other words, this argument assumes that money simply being spent is "good for the economy". For information on why this is false (which, this is basic Keynesian economics, so you will find mountains of refutations here) you might start here and here and here.
For basic argumentation treatment on this area, see Argumentation:Consumerism and for more detail, The Failure of the New Economics.
However, that argument is so bad, we can even assume the false premise it rests on, and it still fails. Think...if the problem is not enough spending (which is the whole point, right? The argument is, giving unemployed people money they didn't earn is a good thing because they tend to spend it rather than invest it or save it), then why don't we give them more money? Why don't we have the government write a check to every unemployed person for a million dollars? That would create some spending, wouldn't it?
And furthermore, if that's a good idea, why do we allow anyone to have a job? All you have to do is outlaw employment and self-employment, (i.e. make it so that it is illegal to work), thus making everyone unemployed, and then provide "unemployment benefits" to everyone. This way, you make sure that everyone is spending money instead of saving and investing it. Would that not provide an even greater stimulus? Afterall, we'd have a lot more people spending.
Check out the discussion in this thread. I think it may help greatly...
Three questions from a clueless high school student
Jobless need help/ what are you going to do just let them strave (is there anything good on how the community will support them/ the classic ex. they will use is say there is two areas A and B A is rich and supports there unemployed but in the B area they are poor so they can't support the unemployed)
Quite a few good resources here.
P.S.
Welcome to the forum! See the beginner thread here for helpful tips.
Don't have much time, but check this out:
Welfare before the Welfare State