U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:00 PM
 
128 posts, read 132,659 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rlukas79 View Post
Looks like Baucus and Reid maybe either stripping hr 4213 down by taking out the state medicare bailouts (24 billion and already funded to the end of the year)or stripping the unemployment extensions out and doing what they did for the Doc fix. There is a strong push right now to move the extensions out on their own. They would get the 60 votes. Gotta remember, those republicans are voting no because they are using the total cost of hr4213 as an excuse. That way they can go back to their states and say we had to vote no due to the entire price tag. I'm not so sure they would be willing to vote no on just the unemployment extensions. Especially when some of their respective states have over 9-10% unemployment.
I don't know why they didn't do this before instead of toying with 30 day extensions. Anything to get this moving is a welcome though

 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:01 PM
 
377 posts, read 343,191 times
Reputation: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn View Post
You make an excellent point. It could be argued that the unemployment benefits are preventing the unemployment problem from getting worse. Giving the unemployed money to spend helps stimulate the economy in some sort of a way, slowing down the vicious circle of unemployment causing more unemployment. However, I wouldn't count on Congress, especially the Republicans, to understand that.
I think they do understand that. Remember republicans are the trickle downers.

But yeah, it helps stimulate the economy. We are at survival levels. We aren't stashing these benefit checks under our mattresses. We are putting the money directly into the economy. Both sides know that if they don't fund it, the economy takes a huge hit. I think they realize they are playing with fire.

And, there are plenty of currently unemployed voters, like me, who traditionally vote republican that are watching this. No one was spared from the unemployment mess, and no side is immune from voter anger if something doesn't happen. And right now it's the independents every one wants on their side. And independents tend to be for both social programs AND fiscal responsibility. And yes, both of those can happen at the same time if done correctly.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:11 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 7,915,175 times
Reputation: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrox311 View Post
I don't see in either of those articles where anyone is saying "bring it to an end". So what is your point?

But let's say it was said, then why is it that the Republicans just offered up a 30 day extension, only to have Reid shoot it down? I've read in numerous articles (all posted in this thread, not hard for you to find) where it has basically been said that it's not about giving the money, it's about finding a way to fit it into things without adding to the deficit.
I was responding to your post about "both sides pretty much agree." They don't. There are discussing HOW to wind the benefits down -- not whether they should or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrox311 View Post
Both sides pretty much agree that help for the unemployed is needed (if you look into it, you'll find very few who say that the unemployed don't need any more assistance).
Sure, both sides agreed on continuing the existing federal unemployment benefits programs a month ago, maybe even two weeks ago. But this situation has been steadily deteriorating. And that is apparent in the news reports posted here and elsewhere.

Reid is losing more centrist Democrats each day -- he couldn't even deliver all of his own party on a cloture vote. And unfortunately, now it IS about the money -- because even if Reid does finally decide to agree to use other funds to pay for the extension of the eligibility cut-off dates, he's got to sacrifice something else in the budget to do it without adding to the deficit.

He cut the deal for the "doc fix" -- why that and not unemployment benefits, not even a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits?

I'm saying that while it would be great to see the eligibility cut-off dates extended through November 2010, the chances of that happening in this political environment are slim and getting slimmer.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
308 posts, read 344,958 times
Reputation: 188
Diogirl, perhaps you can shed some light on this. My regular benefits were exhausted on 6/5/2010 and a week later I received a EUC eligibility notice. According to the notice, to certify for the EUC benefits, I must file on 6/23/2010 which is this Wednesday. However, if my regular benefits were exhausted after the eligibility cut-off date, how could I be eligible to start collecting EUC? Shouldnt I be collecting EB rather than EUC? I'm in NJ. I'm a little confused as to what to do. I seem to be in limbo. Thanks for your help!

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
In New Jersey, when you exhaust your regular benefits, your account will automatically be reviewed to see if you are eligible for the next level of UI benefits available. If the eligibility cut-off dates for the EUC Tiers have still not been extended at that time, you will probably qualify for EB.

At this time, NJ has triggered 20 weeks of EB.

You should expect to get a written determination of your next level of benefits within 7-10 days after you exhaust your regular benefits.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:16 PM
 
600 posts, read 689,253 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
I was responding to your post about "both sides pretty much agree." They don't. There are discussing HOW to wind the benefits down -- not whether they should or not.



Sure, both sides agreed on continuing the existing federal unemployment benefits programs a month ago, maybe even two weeks ago. But this situation has been steadily deteriorating. And that is apparent in the news reports posted here and elsewhere.

Reid is losing more centrist Democrats each day -- he couldn't even deliver all of his own party on a cloture vote. And unfortunately, now it IS about the money -- because even if Reid does finally decide to agree to use other funds to pay for the extension of the eligibility cut-off dates, he's got to sacrifice something else in the budget to do it without adding to the deficit.

He cut the deal for the "doc fix" -- why that and not unemployment benefits, not even a 30-day extension of unemployment benefits?

I'm saying that while it would be great to see the eligibility cut-off dates extended through November 2010, the chances of that happening in this political environment are slim and getting slimmer.
You missed my new edit apparently.

Care to comment on the Senator from Michigan's quote? I find it irresponsible to nit pick which quotes you care to pull from an article, all to meet your own agenda and leave out any contradictory quotes that don't follow in lock stock and barrel into your OPINION of how things are.

If they're "losing" people on HR 4213, then why did it gain 16 additional votes last week, after the second vote was taken? It went from 40 votes to vote for cloture earlier in the week to 56 votes towards the end of the week. That doesn't look like losing anyone. Looks like a gain to me.

And the Republicans offered the 30 day extension. Reid is the one who shot it down. It's all a big stand off and has little to do with anyone losing interest in it or the bill "going dead". It has everything to do with politicians puffing their chest and seeing who caves first.

There are also articles in this thread, posted as of late last week, that have quotes from both sides of the political fence saying something needs to be done with the unemployed, it's just a matter of how to get it done. That's not "a month ago or two weeks ago". It's 4 days ago.

Last edited by shamrox311; 06-21-2010 at 08:25 PM..
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:25 PM
 
377 posts, read 343,191 times
Reputation: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
even if Reid does finally decide to agree to use other funds to pay for the extension of the eligibility cut-off dates, he's got to sacrifice something else in the budget to do it without adding to the deficit.
Sounds good to me.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:26 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 7,915,175 times
Reputation: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrox311 View Post
You missed my new edit apparently.

Care to comment on the Senator from Michigan's quote?

If they're "losing" people on HR 4213, then why did it gain 16 additional votes last week, after the second vote was taken? It went from 40 votes to vote for cloture earlier in the week to 56 votes towards the end of the week. That doesn't look like losing anyone. Looks like a gain to me.
The second vote was taken on a different version of the bill -- a test vote on the version that Baucus had specifically cut to get the 60 votes they needed.

And even after Baucus "tailored" the bill to those demands, they still couldn't get the 60 votes.

As for Stabenow, she's talked a great game about the importance of extending UI benefits, but when it comes to a vote, where is she? She is still dancing on the fence: "It seems we are going in the right direction," she said after Baucus's test vote -- but still no support for something that will actually pass.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:30 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 7,915,175 times
Reputation: 910
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
even if Reid does finally decide to agree to use other funds to pay for the extension of the eligibility cut-off dates, he's got to sacrifice something else in the budget to do it without adding to the deficit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjca View Post
Sounds good to me.
Exactly -- that would be the sensible thing to do if Reid really wanted to pass the federal unemployment benefits provisions of HR 4213. It's past the stage of trying to maintain the "emergency spending" principle. Reid has lost the Democrats on that concept --- and he knows that.
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:30 PM
 
600 posts, read 689,253 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
The second vote was taken on a different version of the bill -- a test vote on the version that Baucus had specifically cut to get the 60 votes they needed.

And even after Baucus "tailored" the bill to those demands, they still couldn't get the 60 votes.

As for Stabenow, she's talked a great game about the importance of extending UI benefits, but when it comes to a vote, where is she? She is still dancing on the fence: "It seems we are going in the right direction," she said after Baucus's test vote -- but still no support for something that will actually pass.
The point was, they're still moving in the direction to get something done. You're acting as if it's dead in the water, has lost all momentum and nothing will happen..........yet they gained 16 votes on changes that were made.

And as far as Baucus is concerned, he was to work on additional changes this weekend. As far as I know, he hasn't made those changes available for review. Maybe he did today but I didn't see anything in that regard.

What you also seem to be forgetting is, this bill is about much more than UI extensions. Who is to say that with additional tweaks, it can't get the votes? Who is to say that if they pull out the UI extensions and make them a separate bill, they won't get the votes?
 
Old 06-21-2010, 08:35 PM
 
377 posts, read 343,191 times
Reputation: 83
I don't see Reid wanting to not pass it. He wants to pass it his way. Reid is from one of the largest unemployment states and he's running for re-election this year and as far as I know is WAY behind in the polls.

I can't see any gain to them torpedoing the extension. Yes, they want to say "mean old republicans" but I don't see how that flies when the democrats are in the majority. And as the majority they would run on the platform of "we had the majority and couldn't get the benefits extended. Vote for us and maybe we can try again." That doesn't seem likely to me. Democrats are the most likely losers in this face off if the thing dies. The story is going to soon change to "democrats throw unemployed over cliff in order to demonize republicans."

I referred to health care earlier. If Reid had wanted to, he could have let health care die and said "the evil republicans hate sick people!". But they got health care through because it was a priority. I think unemployment benefits are a priority too. The question really comes down to, who gets the victory.

This is all about who gets credit, and who gets blame. BOTH want the credit, more than they want the blame, of saving the day but doing it "responsibly". But for someone to win someone else has to cave.
This issue is not about if there is support for the unemployed. It's about government spending. The extensions will pass but they just might really hurt the left in the process.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top