The $33 billion of US taxpayers' money about to be spent on extending unemployment benefits has sparked heated debate online in the past few days.
President Obama has been arguing in favour ahead of today's vote in the Senate which looks like it'll finally approve the spending on 2.5 million jobless Americans; or as Obama put it:
... honest, decent, hardworking folks who've fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.
The argument online mainly boils down to whether sustaining people who aren't working is government money well spent - and whether there really is "nowhere else to turn".
These are a couple of views from the 6000+ comments on CNN's page on this story ...
Mike SP: "I remember as a child going through weeks with no power and collecting bottles to get by on. My mother tried welfare once and was too ashamed to try again. We came out of that experience much more rounded individuals and I have always ensured that I had legal fall back plans to avoid such a situation ever since."
unemployed44 (who has 2 kids and refers to her husband who lost his job): " ... when he was receiving those bi-weekly unemployment checks it was enough to keep our heads above water. Now we are in danger of losing our electricity, not being able to have enough food on our table, and there is always the possibility of losing our home."
But of course, the sorts of payments you can claim in developed countries are unthinkable for the jobless in many other countries: here are debates in Malaysia and Nigeria on the subject.
Should you be paid for not having a job? Or is it more of a help to people to NOT pay them? Does it encourage drive and entrepreneurship if jobless people are left to help themselves? How should unemployed people be dealt with in your country?
Kenoli in California emails - Both in the United States and England people pay for unemployment and other benefits through the taxes they pay. Unemployment is a payroll tax which, while it is formally paid by the employer, is a "fringe benefit" created by the work done. This doesn't sound like welfare.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:21
113631290
Joane in Cleveland emails - For the world's information, these people have paid for years for this benefit. I have worked for 23 yrs at the same job and have paid thousands into a pot to protect me against unemployment.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:18
113631290
Ross in Ghana on Facebook - No way. The hand that does not work must not eat. It will just encourage laziness and also will not instill a sense of responsibility in these people.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:17
113631290
Lusungu on Facebook in Malawi - Yes, they should be paid, let's take for example graduates who have just finished their education - they can have something for a start.
Comment sent via Twitter
18:17
114301817
@大象传媒_WHYS Who is defined as "unemployed"? Many people who #work don't earn money-students, stay-at-home parents/grandparents, etc.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:15
113631290
Burite in Uganda writes on Facebook - Whatever happened to individual responsibility
Comment sent via SMS
18:14
109720590
Ben is lucky he is employed! Who caused the crisis that led to the unemployment! Wio pays the army when there is no war? Ryan
Comment sent via Facebook
18:14
113631290
Rebecca on Facebook in Ohio - I am currently unemployed and have been since Feb 2010 due to the down turn in the economy. I looked for work every day and also volunteer at the humane society. So for all of you who claim us unemployed Americans are sitting around living off the dime of the state government you need to think again. I didn't want to lose my job and I would be happy to take a job however most jobs in my area pay less than $9 per hour. I cannot put food on the table or cover my mortgage. Now I'm moving to another state where the economy is better and I can work
Comment sent via Facebook
18:12
113631290
Samson in Malawi says on Facebook - Not in a country like Malawi. One has to work to be paid. America is rich and can afford to do that.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:12
113631290
Richard on Facebook - If circumstances genuinely stop you from working then yes, they should receive help. For those who flaunt the system: NO. There are millions of those
Comment sent via Facebook
18:11
113631290
Bhikshuni posts on Facebook - Most of those people on unemployment worked paying taxes for many years, thus bailing out billions of dollars in failed banking and trillions in failed war efforts, It is time for their payback from society!
Comment sent via BLOG
18:08
113631290
Tara writes on our blog - In Canada, employees and employers both pay into the unemployment insurance program. You can't get remuneration from this program unless you have been working (and therefore paying into it). There are restrictions on the amount of money you can receive as well as on the length of time you can receive it. This is what distinguishes it from welfare.
Comment sent via host
18:04
113631290
On air now: post your comments here about friendship and unemployment benefit
Comment sent via BLOG
17:53
113631290
Justin in Iowa posts on the blog - Paying people for being unemployed is completely the wrong message and method. Take that money, and tax those of us who have jobs more if you have to. Find good solutions for our country, don't just feed people off the government tap!
Comment sent via host
17:46
113631290
We''re on air in 15 minutes time asking ''Should you get paid for not working?'' and ''Do we have real friends anymore?''
Should you be paid for not having a job?
| Tuesday, 7 July 2010 | 18:00 - 19:00 GMT
The $33 billion of US taxpayers' money about to be spent on extending unemployment benefits has sparked heated debate online in the past few days.
President Obama has been arguing in favour ahead of today's vote in the Senate which looks like it'll finally approve the spending on 2.5 million jobless Americans; or as Obama put it:
... honest, decent, hardworking folks who've fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who have nowhere else to turn except unemployment benefits and who need emergency relief to help them weather this economic storm.
The argument online mainly boils down to whether sustaining people who aren't working is government money well spent - and whether there really is "nowhere else to turn".
These are a couple of views from the 6000+ comments on CNN's page on this story ...
Mike SP: "I remember as a child going through weeks with no power and collecting bottles to get by on. My mother tried welfare once and was too ashamed to try again. We came out of that experience much more rounded individuals and I have always ensured that I had legal fall back plans to avoid such a situation ever since."
unemployed44 (who has 2 kids and refers to her husband who lost his job): " ... when he was receiving those bi-weekly unemployment checks it was enough to keep our heads above water. Now we are in danger of losing our electricity, not being able to have enough food on our table, and there is always the possibility of losing our home."
But of course, the sorts of payments you can claim in developed countries are unthinkable for the jobless in many other countries: here are debates in Malaysia and Nigeria on the subject.
Should you be paid for not having a job? Or is it more of a help to people to NOT pay them? Does it encourage drive and entrepreneurship if jobless people are left to help themselves? How should unemployed people be dealt with in your country?
Your comments
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Kenoli in California emails - Both in the United States and England people pay for unemployment and other benefits through the taxes they pay. Unemployment is a payroll tax which, while it is formally paid by the employer, is a "fringe benefit" created by the work done. This doesn't sound like welfare.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Joane in Cleveland emails - For the world's information, these people have paid for years for this benefit. I have worked for 23 yrs at the same job and have paid thousands into a pot to protect me against unemployment.
Comment sent via Facebook
Ross in Ghana on Facebook - No way. The hand that does not work must not eat. It will just encourage laziness and also will not instill a sense of responsibility in these people.
Comment sent via Facebook
Lusungu on Facebook in Malawi - Yes, they should be paid, let's take for example graduates who have just finished their education - they can have something for a start.
Comment sent via Twitter
@大象传媒_WHYS Who is defined as "unemployed"? Many people who #work don't earn money-students, stay-at-home parents/grandparents, etc.
Comment sent via Facebook
Burite in Uganda writes on Facebook - Whatever happened to individual responsibility
Comment sent via SMS
Ben is lucky he is employed! Who caused the crisis that led to the unemployment! Wio pays the army when there is no war? Ryan
Comment sent via Facebook
Rebecca on Facebook in Ohio - I am currently unemployed and have been since Feb 2010 due to the down turn in the economy. I looked for work every day and also volunteer at the humane society. So for all of you who claim us unemployed Americans are sitting around living off the dime of the state government you need to think again. I didn't want to lose my job and I would be happy to take a job however most jobs in my area pay less than $9 per hour. I cannot put food on the table or cover my mortgage. Now I'm moving to another state where the economy is better and I can work
Comment sent via Facebook
Samson in Malawi says on Facebook - Not in a country like Malawi. One has to work to be paid. America is rich and can afford to do that.
Comment sent via Facebook
Richard on Facebook - If circumstances genuinely stop you from working then yes, they should receive help. For those who flaunt the system: NO. There are millions of those
Comment sent via Facebook
Bhikshuni posts on Facebook - Most of those people on unemployment worked paying taxes for many years, thus bailing out billions of dollars in failed banking and trillions in failed war efforts, It is time for their payback from society!
Comment sent via BLOG
Tara writes on our blog - In Canada, employees and employers both pay into the unemployment insurance program. You can't get remuneration from this program unless you have been working (and therefore paying into it). There are restrictions on the amount of money you can receive as well as on the length of time you can receive it. This is what distinguishes it from welfare.
Comment sent via host
On air now: post your comments here about friendship and unemployment benefit
Comment sent via BLOG
Justin in Iowa posts on the blog - Paying people for being unemployed is completely the wrong message and method. Take that money, and tax those of us who have jobs more if you have to. Find good solutions for our country, don't just feed people off the government tap!
Comment sent via host
We''re on air in 15 minutes time asking ''Should you get paid for not working?'' and ''Do we have real friends anymore?''