Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
*'''Unemployment benefits are okay in short-term if paid-for; long-term unemployments/extensions to unemployment benefits do workers a disservice''':
→Jobs and Business Policy
== Jobs and Business Policy ==
'''*Help the unemployed through lowered taxes:'''
"Well, you know, there are competing influences in the Republican Party. We've lost two presidential elections in a row. So some people say we need to dilute our message, we need to become Democrat-lite. And then there are some like myself who say, No, no, we need to be more bold with our message. We need to be the party that's not for revenue-neutral tax reform, we need to be the party that actually wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and be proud of that, and that it will help poor people, it'll help the unemployed if we lower taxes dramatically. And I think that's being more bold, and I think that actually will bring more people to our cause." (OTI - J)
"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. There was a study that came out a few months ago, and it said, if you have a worker that's been unemployed for 4 weeks and on unemployment insurance and one that's on 99 weeks, which would you hire? Every employer, nearly 100%, said they will always hire the person who's been out of work 4 weeks. When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy. And while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the people you're trying to help. You know, I don't doubt the president's motives. But black unemployment in America is double white unemployment. And it hasn't budged under this president." (OTI - J)