Extend aid for long-term unemployed? Your Say

About 1.3 million people receiving long-term unemployment benefits lost them Saturday when the federal emergency program expired. Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

I'm sure that many people have empathy for those people who have lost their jobs and are having trouble finding new ones, but to pay someone for up to 73 weeks is a bit on the overboard side.

— Lou Creola

At some point, the special measures enacted to help blunt the recession need to be rolled back. There is no perfect time, but the economy is getting healthier so this would probably be as good a time as any.

— Terry Mayer

The economy has failed to keep pace with population growth.

I know several people with long, successful careers who have not been able to land full-time jobs.

— Kathy Clark

If private industry can't put these people to work, then it's time for the government to do so. I say continue the aid in the form of jobs. Our infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading, and we have a massive work force idle.

If we need to find the funding then just cut back on the bloated military budget.

If we can't fund both, and it appears we can't, then stop defending our allies and start helping our people.

— Jerry Schull

I never had a problem with the government offering extended unemployment benefits if people were using the time and money to learn new skills or obtain education in a field that would allow them to get a job in a growing, hiring field.

Unemployment is not there for people to sit home for more than a year, and watch television and play video games.

To get these long extensions in unemployment aid, people must show that they are serious about working by getting the training they need in order to be a desirable hire.

— Larry Hubble

If after a year or so of unemployment a person does not rethink job-hunting strategy, then he or she is likely just to keep wanting some type of government program.

— William P. Murphy

Everyone knows why jobless claims have fallen recently: because of temporary employment offered around this time of year, which is obvious. Do these numbers really mean anything to you, especially if you are unemployed, underpaid or looking for a decent job?

— Laurie M. Pennisi

Letter to the editor:

Federal emergency unemployment benefits, which pay recipients when regular unemployment benefits run out, ended Saturday. Democrats want to extend them. Many Republicans believe they should end. Each side has a valid point.

The benefits, begun in 2008, have been extended repeatedly and should not end abruptly. However, they are "emergency" benefits, put in place when the economy was hemorrhaging jobs, and should end. A sensible compromise could wind down the benefits over a reasonable time and fund them through their conclusion.

The program consists of four "tiers" of benefits. The higher the unemployment rate in a state, the more tiers its unemployed can receive. Each tier provides benefits of 9 to 14 additional weeks. By reducing the length of each tier by one week every month, the program could gradually phase out over about one year.

A fully funded phaseout would provide recipients some certainty about the benefits they could expect. It would be preferred to an abrupt end to the program and could continue the recent bipartisan cooperation into 2014. And for 1.3 million Americans losing benefits, it would replace Uncle Sam's bah humbug with a belated Merry Christmas.

Darren Young; Rock Hill, S.C.