GOP Senate nominee: $600 virus unemployment benefit is 'way too much'

[brooklynite]

Source: American Independent

Tommy Tuberville, the Republican Senate nominee in Alabama, said on Tuesday that the recently expired $600 coronavirus unemployment "was way too much" during an interview on "Alabama's Morning News with JT."

Tuberville, who recently won the Republican primary and is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, claimed Alabamians are not working because "they're making more settin' around" and said he didn't want unemployed workers to "get used to all this."

Millions of Americans are currently unemployed as a result of lockdowns occurring due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed over 157,000 U.S. citizens so far.

Read more: https://americanindependent.com/tommy-tuberville-coronavirus-unemployment-benefits-way-too-much-alabama-senate-gop-covid-19/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Alabama will elect his stupid racist ass anyhow

because as far as we know he's not a child molester, which you have to be to get defeated by a Democrat in Alabama.

[NickB79]

2. Tuberville sounds about as bright as a potato

I can hear the banjos from here.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Tom-ato Potato.

What a stupid name - Tommy Tuberville.

[rickyhall]

4. Make these senators get by on $600 a week. See how easy it is.

[mr_lebowski]

9. It's on top of normal unemployment benefits, and it's also generally not taxed

until you pay taxes in April, plus ttbomk there's not other taxes like SS/Medicare.

If you normally make $10/hour, that's $400/week. After taxes, more like $300.

Your regular UI benefit is probably around $200 in that case. Thus, with the $600 bonus, it's now $800/week.

Eyeballing the math here ... by becoming unemployed and staying home, you've received a raise from $10 for working ... to $26.66/hr for not working. Granted you'll lose some of that in taxes owned next year, but I bet most people are thinking 'I'll worry about that come April'.

A great many people are indeed going to calculate that it doesn't makes sense for them to go back to work, given how much they would lose by doing so.

To be clear, I'm not saying *I CARE* that many people are going to make that decision. I don't. I'm fine with it. I don't think ANYONE should only be making $10/hour. I favor pumping money into the bottom of the economy like this, when there is a good reason for it (and this is a good reason for it).

But a significant number of people are going to stay home and collect their big raise. It's human nature.

[Bengus81]

13. What unemployment benefits? Most of those ran out. Have they been extended?

My guess is not unless a new bill passes. Then you have the people waiting for 6-8 hours just trying to apply for unemployment for the first time.

How come they NEVER mention how much RICH asshats have made for three years now on their Trump tax cut. Then talk about Amazon netting BILLIONS per year and paying zero taxes. Funny how both of those are NEVER discussed as being "Excessive".

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. But if they don't have jobs they don't have health insurance either.

I should think that most people would rather work for a little less cash upfront if they can have health insurance (especially during a pandemic), which they probably wouldn't be able to afford at all even with that extra $600. Many jobs have other benefits as well that they won't get if they don't go back to work.

Anyhow, the other big reason for the $600 payments, which is just as important as the benefit to individuals, is to get desperately-needed money into the economy. If people don't get that money they can't spend it on rent, food, consumer goods, etc., and the recession will get even worse.

[mr_lebowski]

26. To be clear, I agree w/everything you just said ...

All I'm saying is that a fair number of people, if given the option, are going to elect not to work when they're getting $26.66/hr instead of $10. People who don't think they need insurance all that bad, in particular.

I'm not at all against continuing the $600 ... I consider what this clown is talking about happening as being an unfortunate, but nonetheless real ... side effect ... that does NOT obviate the need to pay people more money right now in UI.

My attitude is ... yeah, sure. Some people ARE gonna do that. But SO WHAT?

[raccoon]

36. lots of jobs don't offer insurance because they're part-time. Nt

[Tiger8]

22. You lose all UI benefits, including the $600, if you are called back to work

....regardless of whether you choose to or not.

And since they told us the unemployment rate was practically zero before the pandemic, it means all the currently unemployed, are jobless because of COVID.

So the “lazy people” is a totally false argument...plus, this affects unemployed who make more than $10/hr, and without the $600/weekly, will fall behind on their financial obligations, which are often greater.

[mr_lebowski]

27. Right ... so the people called back to work are not the population he'd be addressing in this case.

And as I said, I think a sliding scale commensurate with your normal unemployment benefit is a reasonable compromise (addressing your last paragraph).

There are going to be some 'lazy people' who elect not to go back to work at $10/hr when they're getting $26.66/hr for not working ... that part is true regardless of the rest of it. It's human nature.

I'm not even judging them if they do ... nor am I advocating NOT extending a bonus payment on the grounds he describes.

[GB_RN]

23. I think you're forgetting something...

If I’m wrong, and you just neglected to mention this, my apologies. But, if an employer calls the laid off employee back to work, and he or she doesn’t return, then that employee forfeits all unemployment benefits. So, it’s not like that person is choosing unemployment payments over work, despite, or in spite of the fact that it’s probably safer to do so. That person has no choice but to go back to work, or he/she gets no money.

[mr_lebowski]

28. Yeah, and I kinda think that part is bullshit too ... making people go back to non-essential work

But the population of people you describe are by definition NOT the people that this asshat is referring to. Hence my not mentioning it.

[MichMan]

32. The employee loses unemployment IF the employer reports them

and the state processes the information expediently to exclude them from benefits. The employee is also expected to self report that they were called back and didn't accept.

That may not occur in many cases. Also given how the state unemployment offices are overwhelmed just paying benefits, how quickly are they prioritizing kicking people off.

[louzke9]

30. The Average MONTHLY Cost of Living in the US.....

for a family of FOUR is approx. $4,602. Not every family has TWO breadwinners in it. So how can a family survive on one breadwinner's unemployment benefits?

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/united-states

[mr_lebowski]

5. I do think it could be reasonably argued that it should be sliding scale, like the benefit itself

I don't think $600/week is way too much for the people that qualify for the highest amount of UI check normally, that seems about right to me.

But when you suddenly start giving somebody the equivalent of 2X or even 3X their normal wages ... to stay home and not work? Well ... it's human nature that a good many people are going to decide that going back to work is not worth the risk with the COVID raging around them ... when doing so also involves a large pay cut.

[Withywindle]

37. We SHOULD be incentivizing staying home

The fewer people out spreading the virus around, the slower the spread of it will be. I am ALL in favor of paying people in non-essential jobs more than they usually make - if it means that they actually WILL sit on their ass at home. That's exactly what as many people as possible should be doing.

[Coleman]

6. The unemployed should get the same amount as Cam Newton got to transfer to Auburn

Economic stimulus is supposed to come from people spending money. The $600 will be spent, the $200 will be spent but it puts less $$$ into the economy.

[Traildogbob]

31. A fuckin' men!

And all the other athletes he paid under handed to beat Bama. That’s the only black People he would associate with and allow to financial socialist money. Is it not socialism when Alumni of the college funnel cash to secretly buy athletes, championships?

[totodeinhere]

7. He should get along just fine with Moscow Mitch then. n/t

[LiberalArkie]

8. I think a lot of people miss why it was set that high. People on unemployment have to spend the

money. They do not put it in a hedge fund. They do not buy a new car or boat. It ends top going into the Economy. Sales taxes are paid.

set it at $0 and watch what the next GDP is.

A 1% drop in GDP is a recession.
We called a 6.5% drop in GDP "The Great Recession".
In 1929, we called a 15% drop in GDP "The Great Depression".
What in the heck is a 33% drop in GDP called?

[Jedi Guy]

11. "What in the heck is a 33% drop in GDP called?"

The Trump Slump.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Exactly

[Bengus81]

14. And...unlike Trumps tax cut give away for the rich these benefits WILL sunset

If workers get nothing in a new stimulus bill because of Republicans then roll back those massive tax cuts for the rich and Corporations.

WHY THE HELL do people keep voting for asshats like Tuberville and many others. What's wrong with Kansas?? HELL what's wrong with most every State that keep putting these fucks in a position of power.

[LiberalArkie]

15. And who says that the voters actually vote them in any more?

[MichMan]

33. Why not set it at $1000 per week then?

It would stimulate the economy even more

[LiberalArkie]

34. If you want to see the economy grow - Give us seniors an extra $1000 a week from the fed.

[amb123]

10. Of course you would Tommy TRUMPERville.

[BamaRefugee]

16. I wrote a long, reasoned response but tossed it. F**k you Tubby Trumperville, and the tractor you

rode in on.
One more reason why I can never go home again.

[cstanleytech]

18. It's probably going to have to be changed to be whatever the person earned per week prior to losing

their job with a cap of up to 600 a week which is more than fair imo.

[durablend]

19. So basically making total chaos for the system

You do realize they'll have to go through millions of claims to figure this out for every individual person? Nevermind what the hell they're going to do with self employed people with erratic incomes.

[cstanleytech]

20. That is what we have computers for.

All the people would have to do is provide pay stubs for the month or two before they lost their job and they can then get the unemployment benefits.
Of course if they go this route they should look at extending the benefit period to 6 months and maybe even a year.

[obamanut2012]

39. lol my sweet summer child

[ananda]

21. I bet the unemployed idiots will still vote for him.

Yes, they are that stoopid in red states.

[MissMillie]

24. If the benefit goes away, the economy tanks even more

Millions and millions with no money to spend means the economy goes to crap.

When are these nut-jobs going to figure that out?

[Cicada]

25. This tests his theory: have wages risen?

If the supply of something declines then it’s price rises. If fewer Alabamians are offering to work then employers will be paying higher wages. That has not happened overall. If employers can’t get enough workers they will raise wages. Econ 101. Supply and demand. But it isn’t happening.

Workers will give up $600 per week to get health benefits, retirement benefits, security that there will be income after the virus has gone away. I will take this job today despite less than $600 for those other benefits of working.

The numbers say something like that is going on.

[lagomorph777]

29. OK. If Tommy Tuba wins in AL, we'll pay him $200/week.

[andym]

35. Too high for the common folk-- not the 100's of thousands of dollars an employed football coach gets

That is of course- oh so reasonable--NOT.

[sakabatou]

38. Tuberville: People should just eat cake