Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Page #192 looks the start of the unemployment insurance section. Maybe you could point out specifically what Jindal was talking about, so I can try to understand it as well.
Quote:
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OPERATIONS
For an additional amount for ‘‘State Unemployment Insurance
and Employment Service Operations’’ for grants to States in accordance
with section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, $400,000,000, which
may be expended from the Employment Security Administration
Account in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and which shall be
available for obligation on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided,
That such funds shall remain available to the States through
September 30, 2010: Provided further, That $250,000,000 of such
funds shall be used by States for reemployment services for
unemployment insurance claimants (including the integrated
Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance information
technology required to identify and serve the needs of such claimants):
Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor shall establish
planning and reporting procedures necessary to provide oversight
of funds used for reemployment services.
Quote:
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For an additional amount for ‘‘Departmental Management’’,
$80,000,000, for the enforcement of worker protection laws and
regulations, oversight, and coordination activities related to the
infrastructure and unemployment insurance investments in this
Act: Provided, That the Secretary of Labor may transfer such sums
as necessary to ‘‘Employment and Standards Administration’’,
‘‘Employee Benefits Security Administration’’, ‘‘Occupational Safety
and Health Administration’’, and ‘‘Employment and Training
Administration—Program Administration’’ for enforcement, oversight,
and coordination activities: Provided further, That prior to
obligating any funds proposed to be transferred from this account,
the Secretary shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Senate an operating plan
describing the planned uses of each amount proposed to be transferred.
Quote:
SEC. 1007. SUSPENSION OF TAX ON PORTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to unemployment compensation) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE FOR 2009.—In the case of any taxable year
beginning in 2009, gross income shall not include so much of the
unemployment compensation received by an individual as does not
exceed $2,400.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
Quote:
Subtitle A—Unemployment Insurance
SEC. 2001. EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4007 of the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–252; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note), as
amended by section 4 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–449; 122 Stat. 5015), is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘March 31, 2009’’ each place it appears
and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2009’’;
(2) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘MARCH
31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2009’’; and
(3) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ‘‘August 27, 2009’’ and
inserting ‘‘May 31, 2010’’.
H. R. 1—323
(b) FINANCING PROVISIONS.—Section 4004 of such Act is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(e) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the general
fund of the Treasury (from funds not otherwise appropriated)—
‘‘(1) to the extended unemployment compensation account
(as established by section 905 of the Social Security Act) such
sums as the Secretary of Labor estimates to be necessary
to make payments to States under this title by reason of the
amendments made by section 2001(a) of the Assistance for
Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act; and
‘‘(2) to the employment security administration account
(as established by section 901 of the Social Security Act) such
sums as the Secretary of Labor estimates to be necessary
for purposes of assisting States in meeting administrative costs
by reason of the amendments referred to in paragraph (1).
There are appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury,
without fiscal year limitation, the sums referred to in the preceding
sentence and such sums shall not be required to be repaid.’’.
SEC. 2002. INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
(a) FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.—Any State which desires to
do so may enter into and participate in an agreement under this
section with the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’). Any State which is a party to
an agreement under this section may, upon providing 30 days’
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT.—
(1) ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.—Any agreement under this
section shall provide that the State agency of the State will
make payments of regular compensation to individuals in
amounts and to the extent that they would be determined
if the State law of the State were applied, with respect to
any week for which the individual is (disregarding this section)
otherwise entitled under the State law to receive regular compensation,
as if such State law had been modified in a manner
such that the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents’ allowances) payable for any week shall be equal
to the amount determined under the State law (before the
application of this paragraph) plus an additional $25.
(2) ALLOWABLE METHODS OF PAYMENT.—Any additional
compensation provided for in accordance with paragraph (1)
shall be payable either—
(A) as an amount which is paid at the same time
and in the same manner as any regular compensation
otherwise payable for the week involved; or
(B) at the option of the State, by payments which
are made separately from, but on the same weekly basis
as, any regular compensation otherwise payable.
(c) NONREDUCTION RULE.—An agreement under this section
shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with respect to a State
upon a determination by the Secretary that the method governing
the computation of regular compensation under the State law of
that State has been modified in a manner such that—
(1) the average weekly benefit amount of regular compensation
which will be payable during the period of the agreement
(determined disregarding any additional amounts attributable...
Actually I heard over the weekend that LA pays a lot more into the federal budget than it gets in return. Particularly if you consider the amount of natural resources (oil and Natural gas) that come from LA and used by the rest of the US. Also I didn't hear anybody say that Jindal's assessment regarding the increased unemployment responsibility put on the states was incorrect. In fact I even heard Obama say that it was true.
I haven't watched the political shows in the morning lately so I missed any discussion of Jindal's assessment. And nobody has pointed out where this 'trouble spot' is in the bill (on this board), so it is currently impossible to argue (its just more partisan, my guy can kick your guy's ass pointless banter).
Last edited by compJockey; 02-23-2009 at 08:12 PM..
Read a lot of bill's there Dixie? I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
Do you. You do realise that most of teh Democrats that vote Yea on the stimulus had not read it. Seems reading isn't a requirement now days for congress anyway.
Well, old Fish Face Pawlenty of Minnesota, the two-faced wart, he opposes the Stimulus Plan but plans on taking the money because he wants to run again in 2010....and have a CHANCE at winning.
How's that bridge on I-35 coming?
How about spending some money checking the other bridges in Minnesota?
Do you. You do realise that most of teh Democrats that vote Yea on the stimulus had not read it. Seems reading isn't a requirement now days for congress anyway.
I gave it a shot, but I knew from attempting to read the bailout back a few months that I wouldn't get very far.
I read the analysis from the congressional budget office, though.
It was only a couple dozen pages and written in a way that is more accessible to a general audience.
What strings? Do you think this trillions of dollars in new debt never needs to be repaid?
The states that refuse the stimulus should certainly not be obligated to pay it back. They would be free from that burden.
Ahh, so that is what Jindal was saying?
Or is that you?
If that is what Jindal was saying its a ton simpler the way you put it.
Wrong, but easier to understand.
Let me try to reach common ground.
If you were heading towards a 'great' depression, but your economic experts said there was a chance to reverse course for 0.5 trillion. Doing nothing results in a 10 trillion loss of asset value over the course of the 5 year depression.
Do you agree in that scenario it is worth taking a chance?
I made the numbers up, and added some certainty to the deal (who really knows if we are already rebounding or still digger further).
If you want my reasoning for being pro-stimulus, you can find it in some of the other stimulus threads. I've typed it a dozen times I'm sure.
Ahh, so that is what Jindal was saying?
Or is that you?
If that is what Jindal was saying its a ton simpler the way you put it.
Wrong, but easier to understand.
Let me try to reach common ground.
If you were heading towards a 'great' depression, but your economic experts said there was a chance to reverse course for 0.5 trillion. Doing nothing results in a 10 trillion loss of asset value over the course of the 5 year depression.
Do you agree in that scenario it is worth taking a chance?
I made the numbers up, and added some certainty to the deal (who really knows if we are already rebounding or still digger further).
If you want my reasoning for being pro-stimulus, you can find it in some of the other stimulus threads. I've typed it a dozen times I'm sure.
Obama is not trying to fix the economy. Ever since before Bush signed the Pelosi-Frank bank bailout bill the stock market has been declining.
Obama is a Marxist and plans to nationalize everything. Banking, industry, healthcare, and housing. A Communist economy doesn't need a stock market.
It's best for individual states to position themselves FAR away from Obama's Washington DC. That money will create huge debt for the taxpayers and the less of it the better.
Ever since before Bush signed the Pelosi-Frank bank bailout bill the stock market has been declining.
With the exception of a week in november when Obama was speaking each morning and announcing his economic team. Is that why you complain - you want to hear him speak more?
Quote:
Obama is a Marxist and plans to nationalize everything. Banking, industry, healthcare, and housing. A Communist economy doesn't need a stock market.
And that piece tells me this is the last time I humor you with a response.
Is Jindal a lawyer and able to read and understand the bill fully?
Or are the folks who wrote it right, in saying its temporary?
I find it extremely hard to believe that the bill's authors would stick in a condition that screws the states meant to benefit by it. Sounds like fiction, despite what Jindal says.
Are you not reading what the links are saying? No one is debating that some states are having to change their laws to accept the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
I don't live in San Fransisco and never have. I just don't value things like stupidity, bigotry and hate.
Once again the liberal that is open to everything but opposing view points. The person who would rather save a tree than an unborn baby.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
