MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rasmussen Poll: 39 Percent Say Gov't Should Do Nothing for Long-Term Unemployed

New Rasmussen polling finds a plurality (39 percent) of Americans think the government should do nothing for the long-term unemployed. Twelve percent think the government should hire the long-term unemployed, 8 percent think government should extend unemployment benefits indefinitely, and 32 percent think the government, or the taxpayers, should pay for their retraining.

These results are explained in part because 54 percent say it’s possible to find work these days, up from 44 percent in November. Also, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans think government hiring more people would hurt the economy. These findings are especially interesting given that three out of four Americans know someone who is out of a job and looking for work.

Rasmussen also found a new high of 43 percent who expect unemployment to be higher a year from now, while 30 percent expect it to be lower and 23 percent think unemployment will stay the same.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's destructive for us to try to support every person in this country, regardless of how nice it would be to have everyone share some minimum affluence. First, we can't afford it, second, such spending is rife with fraud, and, finally, there's a more subtle issue--sucking all that wealth out of the economy to provide social welfare on a large scale makes our economy moribund and helps to slow technological progress and any hope of growth.

  • T o n y||

    Subsistence money isn't sucked out of the economy. It tends to get immediately put back into it, in fact.

    It's generous non-offset tax cuts and other forms of welfare for the rich that actually do suck wealth from the economy and cause it to stagnate. Apart from being common sense, the recent history of the US's economy provides ample evidence of this.

  • db||

    Opportunity cost, how the fuck's it work?

  • T o n y||

    Think of all the missed opportunities resulting from all that wealth stashed in the Caymans.

  • sarcasmic||

    Money is not wealth and wealth is not money.

    Holy fuck you're stupid.

  • KPres||

    Not to mention the only reason somebody stashes their money offshore is because the tax rate has made it too expensive to invest here. Tony's "solution" is to raise taxes more...

    ...Because he's a fucking idiot.

  • T o n y||

    That incentive would seem to exist no matter what the tax rate, if the loophole remained.

    You can't throw around the term "opportunity cost" and then pretend that all your preferred policies don't also have them.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't throw around arguments against "opportunity cost" if you don't know what it means. Moron.

  • sarcasmic||

    Subsistence money isn't sucked out of the economy. It tends to get immediately put back into it, in fact.

    Broken window fallacy.

    It's generous non-offset tax cuts and other forms of welfare for the rich that actually do suck wealth from the economy and cause it to stagnate

    Allowing people to keep their own income instead of stealing it and giving it to someone else is welfare! Not taking is giving! Not destroying wealth causes the economy to stagnate! We need to break more windows!

    Apart from being common sense

    *snort*

    the recent history of the US's economy provides ample evidence of this.

    Stupidity on wheels!

    ALL HAIL KING OF THE DERPS!

  • T o n y||

    Your (idiotic) moral preoccupations do not necessarily align with economic realities.

  • sarcasmic||

    You promote the Broken Window fallacy. Obviously you know nothing of economic reality. Though you do love your fallacies.

  • Paul.||

    Subsistence money isn't sucked out of the economy. It tends to get immediately put back into it, in fact.

    Yes it is. It's sucked from productive sectors and put into non-productive ones. Or more accurately, it lowers the economic strength of the producing sectors through redistribution. Not to mention the obvious effects of keeping people on the long-term dole.

    If I am in a productive sector of the economy, IE, I'm gainfully employed, and I have a dollar in my pocket and you take $.35 cents of that dollar, that's $.35 cents I no longer have to spend on the things that I need.

  • T o n y||

    What's a "nonproductive sector"? All I'm saying is it's more economically productive to give money to the poor than to give money to the rich, which should be quite obvious (since the poor will tend to spend rather than save).

  • sarcasmic||

    it's more economically productive to give money to the poor than to give money to the rich

    Allowing the rich to keep their money is not giving money to them.

    Try to be honest for once.

  • GILMORE||

    All I'm saying is it's more economically productive to give money to_______

    You didn't do very well in economics class, did you?

    ...and by the way, where did you get all that stuff you're "giving"....?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    What's a "nonproductive sector"?

    Every paper pusher, regulator, and bureaucrat in government.

  • Mike M.||

    Princeton college professors with shitty blogs...

  • Scatcatpdx||

    Lest see how the math works I own a shop, I pay one dollar for unemployment insurance. That dollar goes the unemployed person who spends that dollar at my shop for a soda. The cost of the soda for me is 70 cents. What is my profit or loss 30 cents or loss of 80 cents (cost of unemployment tax and wholesale / operational cost of the soda)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Too bad retraining doesn't really work.

    Anyway, most of the "long term unemployed" are just happier collecting a check for not working than taking a job netting the same amount of money.

  • Paul.||

    Or taking a job for less money.

  • db||

    Rasmussen is also reporting that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy now. It is getting hard to reconcile all the mishmashed contradictory opinion polling being reported. If all these polls are really correct, the only conclusion to draw is that Americans really just don't know what the fuck is going on. They are unwilling to recognize that the current statist D-R paradigm is unsustainable, and that massive change is required. There is something stirring in all this confusion, and anyone who can figure out what will come of it will either become wealthy or run screaming for the hills.

  • Mike M.||

    If all these polls are really correct, the only conclusion to draw is that Americans really just don't know what the fuck is going on.

    This is definitely the correct answer. The deliberate dumbing down of the American people over the last 20-30 years, especially of the youth, is finally starting to have the desired injurious effects the dumbing-downers have long hoped for.

  • Ryan60657||

    Isn't "long-term unemployment benefits" just a euphemism for "welfare"?

  • Paul.||

    Yes.

  • Paul.||

    Only 39%? Biden 2016!

  • GILMORE||

    Rasmussen Poll: 39 Percent Say Gov't Should Do Nothing for Long-Term Unemployed

    WHAT!!!! BUT BUT...... WHAT ABOUT THE "DO SOMETHING" RULE?!? POLITICIANS MUST DO SOMETHING

  • waaminn||

    Just roll with the punches man!

    www.BigAnon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online