Vote soon on bill to extend help for homebuyers, jobless

YOUR COMMENTS

The voices of UnionLeader.com readers: To join UnionLeader.com's discussion of the news, use the form below.

NOTE: If you have read this article before, you may not be seeing the newest comments. Press F5. Or click "Refresh" or "Reload" at the top of this page while holding down Ctrl. All approved postings will appear. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)

On first impression I certainly understand resenting paying taxes that will end up paying those without jobs. I also agree with those want a balanced budget. But to those that don’t believe in extended unemployment benefits I need to point out the failure of their understanding of economics. The success of an economy is not maximized by individuals with employment or capital keeping all the money they generate. The most successful economies are those that use their financial, natural, tax and human assets in a combination that maximizes productivity of its entire workforce.

I infer that Spike and Jim of Loudon believe that the unemployed receive sufficient benefits that they are no longer motivated to work. Unemployment benefits provide only enough to cover food and transportation. Most unemployed are using up all their reserves and when those are exhausted lose their property such as cars and homes. Previously working people do not choose this eventuality, it is forced upon them. Furthermore the destruction of households reduces the market value of assets of all property owners and positions possible workers with less flexibility to adapt to new working conditions. Finally to the idea of ending all benefits I would point out that starving people will resort in some proportion to criminal behavior, e.g. taking money and property from those who have money and property. The dissolution of a civil society reduces general economic productivity.

To Jim of Loudon I can understand your resentment about those you have known that collect without intention of finding work. I would guess that if they have a life style where they can live on unemployment benefits then they didn’t likely earn much when they were working. Regarding the idea that the unemployed should pick up litter of do daycare. I would point out that those who do those jobs for pay would not be paid if the state were to have the unemployed do those tasks. The net would be just the state employing poorly suited workers to displace and thereby un-employ those who were employed in the free market workforce. Again the success of a society is maximized by employing resources to add more value per hour than similar resources being used in another society. This means creating more efficient information technology, product design, factories, food production and physical infrastructure than other countries so they will choose to spend money on our products instead some other countries products.

Taking our expensive and educated workforce and employing it in “make work” projects like picking up litter or displacing employed child care specialists would be mimicking last century’s communist states attempt to have “full employment”. It will lead to the same kind of failure due to the creation of a low value add work economy.

Guys get your emotions in check and think. To turn the trend of the US economy we need invest less in non value activity, in other words lower our personal material standard of living, increase income taxes for the high income people and use that money balance the budget. Then incentivise capital with tax policy to invest in enterprises that create high value-added employment. We must create better products for less than the cost of importing. Then sell our products to other countries. By definition positive balance of trade economies are building wealth (China, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia 1,2,3,4) and net importing countries are losing wealth (United States #190) Smart people in our government understand this. Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric “of the greatness of the low tax free market”. Most smart American capitalists and shareholders don't make decisions to maximize benefit to the overall US society but just to maximize their personal profit.

Check out the link.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html
- Eric Doberstein, Brookline NH

PS--Just read the AP story on this bill. It won't surprise you to find out that the way Gregg "paid for" this free money was to vote for tax increases. (Technically, delaying the date of a scheduled simplification, and delaying the date of a scheduled reduction.)

"miss the coast," you are free to beg to Sandy of Thornton. But if he declines to give you alms--or objects to the 424 thieves in Concord doing so for him--it does not become his duty to tell you what to do with your life.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

It is even hard to take a "lesser" job, when the stores like Market Basket are not even handing out applications anymore as they have so many applicants on file already. What would you suggest then? I am willing to shovel snow and rake leaves. Not sure what "SANDY IN THORNTON" would suggest then. Next step for me is to see if the ski areas are hiring.
- miss the coast, NH

I work hard and live within my means, so I'll just get hit up through higher taxes to help fund these continued bailouts. What's my government done for ME lately?
- DP, Manchester

What about the people who have jobs and are still struggling to make ends meat? Both myself and husband work everyday and still we don't get any help from the government! I know it's hard out there for everyone but how about a tax credit for THE homeowners that work and pay our bills. We need help just like someone that is not working!
- Homeowner in Manchester, manchester

In my opinion if you're about to run out of unemployment benefits, it's about time to bite the bullet and take a lesser job - In fact, I think that should be a requirement. I'd even go so far as to say that if they accept a lesser job - let unemployment make up the difference between what they would make on unemployment and what they are making on a "lesser job". But to just keep shoveling "free money" out the door so people can sit on their duffs and feel sorry for themselves is not the answer.
As far as shoveling more free money - MY MONEY - out to folks to buy homes they can't afford in the first place - NO NO NO! This first time home buyer scam is just that - a scam - it is being subsidized by FHA and people don't have to have a downpayment - the FHA will lend them the money for that, too. Now, what is so different from this scam, than the one that got us into this mess in the first place? As far as giving current homebuyers "free money" to buy another house - what's this for? Their vacation home?

This is not free money - it's my money, your money, and money that hasn't even been earned yet, just printed in expectation of tax returns. It is insane.
I think it is good Gregg is going - he has forgotten his Republican roots - Shaheen doesn't bear commenting on - other than she's nothing more than another party schill.
- Sandy, Thornton

Hope Jim, Loudon will not get unemployed.
He does not realize it was the Government the one that created this crisis. It was Mr. Greenspan who allowed the Home Crisis to happen by decreasing the interest rates beyond any logical rate.
It was the Government the one that allowed the Banking Crisis to happen and the problems in Wall Street that affected million of workers and retirees.
It is the Government the one that rescued the Big Ones that got a lot of profits from the rescue. It is the Government the cause of this Crisis.
How many Big Guys had gone to Jail?
Trillions of dollars have disappeared with not a single culprit.
Should you Jim, be unemployed you would have another view of this situation.
It is easy to talk about what you do not know.
Hope you will keep your job!
- Ben Abraham, Miami, Florida

I'm for dropping the "unemployment checks" all together. Set up a "job corp." that will let a person work for the same pay as unemployment for the same amount of weeks. They can clean the roadside or other type jobs. Let the state gain some extra labor. If these jobs are beneath a persons concept of themselves then they can opt out. Just as they can choose not to take a regular job they do not want. If they are unemployed then they have nothing else to do during the day. If they went to work they would have to find daycare on their own or let some of the people do the day care for others. If we are going to keep extending and extending benefits then let the state get something out of it. Why pay people to set at home and then pay others to pick up paper on the roads. I personally know a number of people that each time they get laid off or take a voluntary layoff they just go on vacation and collect. We used to call it their summer job.
- Jim, Loudon

More free, feel good money in an attempt to buy votes from the shortsighted "me first" crowd.
- Brian, Farmington

This article seems to be an answer to Jennifer Horn's recent op-ed, and the many Union-Leader readers who agreed that there seems to be no difference between R and D.

The increase in benefits is for people who have been out of a job for a year and haven't made the tough choices. It is inconceivable that another 14 or 20 weeks on the suck will wake them up. It was to apply only in states where unemployment is severe, but Shaheen famously grabbed extra loot for NH.

And, having enacted a tax credit for first-time home buyers, the Senate turns its grace to non-first-time home buyers? FREE MONEY FOR EVERYONE! This shortly after an economic meltdown caused by putting people in homes they could not afford--a wake-up call Gregg insisted the Senate had to ignore by pushing home prices back up.

The end of the article lets Shaheen gush about the industries to be helped with the new dollop of free money. What about the things the achievers would have done with the money before she stole it from us? Neither Senator has any concept that we can prosper without the Senate overriding our economic decisions--Shaheen because she is a socialist, Gregg merely because he wants to be loved by them. Our highest-ranking Republican advocates "properly paid for" socialism.
- Spike, Brentwood NH