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.
Incorrect. Not all states have a maximum benefit of 26 weeks. MA can pay up to 30 weeks (not during periods of EUC/EB), Montana up to 28, FL as little as 12.
The individual states determine the amount of maximum weeks that a particular state will pay based on:
With both the Bush/Obama tax cuts and SS tax break also ending in Decemeber, a deal will be available to extend all 3, although I would expect number of weeks to be like the 90s recession.about 46.
They probably will extend benefits, unless an austerity is implemented.
They probably will extend benefits, unless an austerity is implemented.
Like I said, a deal can surely be had, but the present POTUS is incapable of compromise, so if he is reelected, the odds of any extended ui in 2013 decrease sharply.
Like I said, a deal can surely be had, but the present POTUS is incapable of compromise, so if he is reelected, the odds of any extended ui in 2013 decrease sharply.
Let not go there, has nothing to do with the POTUS, if the other is elected you are guaranteed not to get ANYTHING!
Let not go there, has nothing to do with the POTUS, if the other is elected you are guaranteed not to get ANYTHING!
The GOP will have both the House and Senate (where 21 Dems walk the plank in '12, and at least 4 or 5 are DEAD ducks in red states), but they will want to avoid massive tax hikes, so a deal very similar to 2010 is doable, most likely for 20-26 weeks of extended unemployment.
But this POTUS dissed the compromise he AGREED to in 2010 ten minutes after the bill was signed. So if he wins again, I'm not certain there will be a single week of extended unemployment.
Like I said, a deal can surely be had, but the present POTUS is incapable of compromise, so if he is reelected, the odds of any extended ui in 2013 decrease sharply.
Huh????
Don't know what planet you're on when you say President Obama is incapable of compromise - he has done nothing BUT compromise since he took office - which is why he has disaffected and angered a lot of his base and the independents who voted for him.
Guess you're not remembering his abandonment of single-payor health care and instead the enactment of the ACA which is, if anything, worse financially for the deficit, essentially pandering to the health insurance companies; the payroll tax cut undermining SS thus making all Ponzi scheme proponents ecstatic, Bush tax cuts for the well-to-do which should have exired TWO YEARS AGO, still in place and not going away, ever, etc., etc., etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
But this POTUS dissed the compromise he AGREED to in 2010 ten minutes after the bill was signed. So if he wins again, I'm not certain there will be a single week of extended unemployment.
Why does it matter what was "dissed?" It's nothing but empty words. Neither side takes the other seriously on its rhetoric - done for show to placate their respective bases. Pres. Obama will trade Bush tax cuts and who knows what else once again, probably another extension of payroll tax cut furthering weakening SS to the point opponents can say it is on the road to failure, once again, for extended unemployment benefits. One doesn't need a crystal ball to know that.
Furthermore, too many Representatives and Senators are from states with huge numbers of unemployed bankrupting their safety nets. UE extensions will be with us for quite a while, yet. US may eventually get to a point where it says, as did Finland, two years max, no matter what. Our high unemployment/low wage/no benefit job environment is a permanent fixture for the US, sadly.
Don't know what planet you're on when you say President Obama is incapable of compromise - he has done nothing BUT compromise since he took office - which is why he has disaffected and angered a lot of his base and the independents who voted for him..
Only on the tax deal of 2010 did he compromise. ACA was NOT bi-partisan, and I do not count compromise between 2 uber lefties like Pelosi and Wasserman-Schultz as compromise.
Had ACA included tort reform, that would have been a tiny display of compromise. It contained ZERO ideas proposed by the minority than. Odd thing is, people remembered that when Pelosi's regime was ambushed 11/2/2010.
Only on the tax deal of 2010 did he compromise. ACA was NOT bi-partisan, and I do not count compromise between 2 uber lefties like Pelosi and Wasserman-Schultz as compromise.
Had ACA included tort reform, that would have been a tiny display of compromise. It contained ZERO ideas proposed by the minority than. Odd thing is, people remembered that when Pelosi's regime was ambushed 11/2/2010.
You give the American electorate way too much credit for brainpower. Most of them have none and believe the 30 second sound bytes on TV. 54% of American voters don't even know who Paul Ryan is, much less what he stands for. We have brain-dead voters for the most part.
Quote:
These results mirror reactions to the budget plan that Ryan authored and that House Republicans passed in April 2011. Two months later, a CBS News poll asked Americans how much they had "heard or read about the changes to the Medicare system recently proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and passed by House Republicans." Only 11 percent said they had heard a lot, and only 27 percent said they had heard some. More than half had either heard nothing at all (31 percent) or not much (28 percent).
I can guarantee the majority of voters in 2010 were NOT thinking about tort reform or anything else in any great depth. Their votes were pure knee-jerk to hyperbolic lies. Politicians from both parties should be ecstatic on ACA - their corporate masters, the health insurance companies, will continue to thrive, costs will continue to increase, profits keep rolling in. Any protests to the contrary are political drivel and not to be believed. Only the taxpayer suffers.
I can guarantee the majority of voters in 2010 were NOT thinking about tort reform or anything else in any great depth..
I agree, as with most elections, it was a "throw out those bums" landslide. However, had Obamacare included any GOP ideas, even for show, it would have been difficult for the GOP to run as effective a "Throw out the bums, they are not listening to you" campaign. BO made their work on 11/2/2010 very easy. Like a hanging curveball!
The GOP will have both the House and Senate (where 21 Dems walk the plank in '12, and at least 4 or 5 are DEAD ducks in red states), but they will want to avoid massive tax hikes, so a deal very similar to 2010 is doable, most likely for 20-26 weeks of extended unemployment.
But this POTUS dissed the compromise he AGREED to in 2010 ten minutes after the bill was signed. So if he wins again, I'm not certain there will be a single week of extended unemployment.
lol, dream on! The GOP will do nothing for the unemployed as has been proven since the 2008 financial collapse! Take a look at all the unemployment votes at that time! Anyone voting GOP who isn't rich has a screw loose!
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.
