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.
Whats to stop the "lame ducks" voting for a tier V
after the November elections...after all they're out of office and those who managed to get re-elected have 6 years to soothe any backlash
Why does it matter? On another thread you are asking if you qualify for food stamps. Are you opposed to this? This country will have intransigent long-term unemployment for the foreseeable future - into 2015 and beyond - and significantly lower wages for those who are lucky enough to find work. Tier V is just a first step in what I suspect will be a long saga of Congress addressing this problem. The problem is only getting bigger and will be the cause of continuing deflation in property values and wages.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 08-07-2010 at 03:22 PM..
Why does it matter? On another thread you are asking if you qualify for food stamps. Are you opposed to this? This country will have intransigent long-term unemployment for the foreseeable future - into 2015 and beyond - and significantly lower wages for those who are lucky enough to find work. Tier V is just a first step in what I suspect will be a long saga of Congress addressing this problem. The problem is only getting bigger.
I agree completely.
If you look closely at the S.3706 plan for Tier V, it has two major elements:
(1) Obviously, it provides another 20 weeks for those who have exhausted all their benefits.
(2) But look at what Stabenow's Tier V does for those just now entering or already in the EUC Tiers program -- it provides a greater number of weeks at a lower trigger rate than Tier IV.
It appears to be an acknowledgment that additional benefits are needed in those states whose three-month average unemployment rates are starting to fall below 8.5% -- the Tier IV trigger. And that the length of those additional benefits (20 weeks) now needs to be longer than the length of benefits currently provided by Tier IV (6 weeks).
This is not a bill that could be introduced or endorsed by anyone who genuinely thinks that unemployment is winding down anytime soon -- quite the opposite! It is legislation that expands the maximum number of unemployment benefits (state + federal) to 119 weeks -- in other words, Stabenow et al. seem to be saying that we need to brace ourselves for a longer time "in the trenches."
it matters to me
i thought this was a forum
you have a problem with someone asking 2 different questions?
for the record, Ariadne22, I'm opposed to neither.
Last edited by nobodywantsme; 08-07-2010 at 03:36 PM..
Reason: theme
it matters to me
i thought this was a forum
you have a problem with someone asking 2 different questions?
for the record, Ariadne22, I'm opposed to neither.
Point taken. I think I may have misinterpreted your intent inasmuch as your post was in bold. On a reread without the bold, I see it is merely a passing comment. With all due respect, regular text appears somewhat less emphatic.
(2) But look at what Stabenow's Tier V does for those just now entering or already in the EUC Tiers program -- it provides a greater number of weeks at a lower trigger rate than Tier IV.
It appears to be an acknowledgment that additional benefits are needed in those states whose three-month average unemployment rates are starting to fall below 8.5% -- the Tier IV trigger. And that the length of those additional benefits (20 weeks) now needs to be longer than the length of benefits currently provided by Tier IV (6 weeks).
Well, that sure works for Wisconsin. Our three-month average unemployment rate is currently 8.2% and below the trigger.
Well, that sure works for Wisconsin. Our three-month average unemployment rate is currently 8.2% and below the trigger.
Exactly -- and as many claimants in states like Wisconsin are seeing, there is a significant gap between the current triggers for Tier III (6%) and Tier IV (8.5%). Tier V's proposed trigger of 7.5% cushions that drop from 8.5%.
Point taken. I think I may have misinterpreted your intent inasmuch as your post was in bold. On a reread without the bold, I see it is merely a passing comment. With all due respect, regular text appears somewhat less emphatic.
understood
i used bold today due to a minor vision problem
I am absolutely for a tier V and food stamps
I've been unable to keep up to date on what's been happening.
I thought I read somewhere that the House (maybe the Senate?) sent the bill to committee, but it didn't need to go to committee, it could have been voted on (by the House, I presume??) and passed, then signed into law. Is this true?
I also thought I read the House went on recess and is not returning next week to address this bill.
I'm sorry for being so ignorant about this, I read through this thread and either missed this information or it wasn't there.
I've been unable to keep up to date on what's been happening.
I thought I read somewhere that the House (maybe the Senate?) sent the bill to committee, but it didn't need to go to committee, it could have been voted on (by the House, I presume??) and passed, then signed into law. Is this true?
I also thought I read the House went on recess and is not returning next week to address this bill.
I'm sorry for being so ignorant about this, I read through this thread and either missed this information or it wasn't there.
Any information would be appreciated.
Jane
The bill passed ( if you are referring to HR4213 ).
Are you currently on a Tier or entering a new one ? Or perhaps going on EB ? If so , call your unemployment office...
The bill passed ( if you are referring to HR4213 ).
Are you currently on a Tier or entering a new one ? Or perhaps going on EB ? If so , call your unemployment office...
Actually I'm referring to the new bill, the one that would add 20 weeks for people who have exhausted their benefits. I'm trying to find out at what point that bill is at, and could it have bypassed committee and gone straight to a vote? Some people are telling me it could have, and it could be law by now if it had bypassed committee. I'm trying to find that out.
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.
