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.
Thanks for the article, it made mention of strings attached but didn't say what those strings were.
Yeah, it did. It says clearly that they have to change the way the benefits are given to include part-time workers and those who are unable and/or unwilling to get jobs. To do this -- and to sustain it after the fed money runs out -- they will have to raise the taxes on businesses to pay for it.
Good article! Even Ed Rendell says he is reticent about it but Pennsylvania's economy is really bad so he has no choice.
Is this the part you are talking about?
Quote:
“If you expand our unemployment benefits to include people who are not willing and able to accept a full-time job, when the federal money ran out in a couple of years, we’d have to raise taxes,†Barbour told CNSNews.com. “The tax we’d have to raise is the unemployment insurance tax, which is a tax on job creation. We want to create more jobs. If you want to create more jobs, you don’t put a new extra tax on creating jobs.â€
Hardly enugh to convince me that he is not playing politics. I read the ARRA did you?
Two things that I noted from earlier posts that maybe the Texans can answer. Doesn't Texas have a relatively low unemployment rate in comparison with the national average? And isn't Texas one of the states that sends more money to DC than it gets back in benefits? I thought I had heard those two things somewhere.
If the states take the unemployment stimulus they must make permanent changes to the unemployment laws of the state..not temporary for 2 years but permanent. When the stimulus money runs out in two years then the states must carry the burden.
One of the restrictions is to expand unemployment to part-time workers permanently.
All those states that took the money cause they are hurting now will be in worse condition in 2 years time.
Yeah, it did. It says clearly that they have to change the way the benefits are given to include part-time workers and those who are unable and/or unwilling to get jobs. To do this -- and to sustain it after the fed money runs out -- they will have to raise the taxes on businesses to pay for it.
Where does it say that unemployment benefits must go to those who are "unwilling" to get jobs? It's a no-brainer that it would go to those "unable" to get jobs--that's kind of the point of unemployment.
"[Texas Gov.] Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan."
If the states take the unemployment stimulus they must make permanent changes to the unemployment laws of the state..not temporary for 2 years but permanent. When the stimulus money runs out in two years then the states must carry the burden.
One of the restrictions is to expand unemployment to part-time workers permanently.
All those states that took the money cause they are hurting now will be in worse condition in 2 years time.
Not only that, I should hope that Texans won't have to pay back these billions of dollars. Wait till those believers in this massive spending start having to pay for it.
If Texas didn't take the money, we shouldn't have to get a tax increase to pay this extreme debt back.
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.
