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.
Really, diorgirl? I actually seen the question as to whether or not if new legislation wasn't passed by the end of his tier 1 claim (which he said ends in December - passed the end of November extension bill that was just signed) would he be able to get tier 2.. If it's anything like the phase out we all just went through.. they will cut it off and only let people finish the current tier they're on .. correct? UNLESS you're in a state like NJ, which isn't 100% federally funded.
Yes, really,lQQkin4fulltime. You are confusing several issues.
(1) 100% federal funding had nothing to do with NJ continuing the EUC Tiers. All EUC Tiers are 100% federally funded in all states.
(2) Here is the question originally posed: This poster's Tier I will run out at the end of December; will he go on to Tier II and III?
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyanks57
I have a question:
My initial claim will run out of money the week that ends August 14th. I know that I'll be eligible for Tier I EUC, which will run out of money on December 31st. Will I be eligible for tier II and tier III since I would have already applied for EUC (provided that I don't find a job between now and then), or will I be SOL if no new legislation is passed come January 1?
(3) Here is your first response to that post, assuring the poster that "you're ok." In fact, the answer does not depend on the poster's state (Tier cut-off dates are the same in all states) -- and the poster is not "ok" under the circumstances you list. BTW, you will note that your initial direct response to the poster is not the same as your most recent post above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lQQkin4fulltime
Depends on your state. If you're in a state that isn't 100% federally funded and as long as they're TUR is high enough, you're ok. Most states are 100% federally funded for EUC and EB so I hope you get a job by then cuz you'll be SOL if they don't extend again.
(4) The correct answer is the one offered earlier by spawn026 -- the poster is not "ok" unless another bill is passed to allow him to start a new Tier after November 2010 (in his case after December 31 when his Tier I is exhausted).
Quote:
Originally Posted by spawn026
Gonna have to wait for a new bill to be passed. This only goes to the end of november so you can't move to a new tier with this bill
(5) I'm delighted that your latest post (reprinted again below) appears to describe the situation accurately -- but that is not what you originally advised goyanks57, as reprinted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lQQkin4fulltime
Really, diorgirl? I actually seen the question as to whether or not if new legislation wasn't passed by the end of his tier 1 claim (which he said ends in December - passed the end of November extension bill that was just signed) would he be able to get tier 2.. If it's anything like the phase out we all just went through.. they will cut it off and only let people finish the current tier they're on .. correct? UNLESS you're in a state like NJ, which isn't 100% federally funded.
How come no one is answering my question. I feel ignored
Please help!!!! Here is what I want to know. Basically it is this. I was a school bus driver and a part time office worker. In November 2008 I lost my office job. In Nov. 2008 I lost my office position and only drove the bus. In Jan 2009 I lost my bus driving job as well. In Nov 2008 when I called the unemployment office to open a claim, I was told that a claim was already opened so there was no need to open a new claim yet. So, my question is...because there was already an open claim...Will that effect my elegiblity for me to be able to collect EB?
(sometime between Jan to Mar of 2009 I had to open a new claim up)
I am now on TIER #4
I have 6 weeks left of Tier 4 and then I am hoping that I will be able to move into EB (I live in MASS) where the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. My one year anniversary rate was Feb 2010.
How come no one is answering my question. I feel ignored
Please help!!!! Here is what I want to know. Basically it is this. I was a school bus driver and a part time office worker. In November 2008 I lost my office job. In Nov. 2008 I lost my office position and only drove the bus. In Jan 2009 I lost my bus driving job as well. In Nov 2008 when I called the unemployment office to open a claim, I was told that a claim was already opened so there was no need to open a new claim yet. So, my question is...because there was already an open claim...Will that effect my elegiblity for me to be able to collect EB?
(sometime between Jan to Mar of 2009 I had to open a new claim up)
I am now on TIER #4
I have 6 weeks left of Tier 4 and then I am hoping that I will be able to move into EB (I live in MASS) where the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. My one year anniversary rate was Feb 2010.
Please...please please try to answer me!! Thanks
Thank you Thank you thank you
Why are you posting the same story under different screen names?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnicerthanyou1009
Hi,
Here is my situation (Thanks in advance)
I was a school bus driver and a part time office worker for the same company.
In November of 2008 I was let go from the office and only drove the bus. When I called to open the claim, the unemployment lady told me that I was lucky because I had a claim that was already opened. So I was taking checks from an existing claim. The benefit rate was $279 per week.
In January of 2009 I was laid off from the company and had no job at all so I was claiming the entire week. The old claim expired so I had to open up a new claim.
I used up that new claim (26 weeks). I also used up Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. This week was the beginning of Tier 4 (pending legislation).
My question: Will I still be eligible for Extended Benefits because when I first got my hours cut in November of 2008, I didn't start with a new claim (I started claiming from an old claim)? Does that matter? So, will I get denied EB because when I called unemployment to open up a claim, they put me on an already opened claim? HELP! Thanks
Another question: Are they taking the $25.00 extra away from us?
Another question: Is November 30, 2010 the date that they stop making payments to us? For example, just say we are on EB- does that mean when Nov. 30 comes around, all eB payments stop? What about those that are on their tiers? Will they still be paid all of their monies or does it cut off on NOV 30?
I exhausted all my tiers of federal Unemployment. I was sent an automatic acceptance letter telling me I was entitled to 20weeks of EB from the state of AZ. It stoped I believe 2 week of June. Will these be reinstated now that Obama signed the unemployment bill?
I exhausted all my tiers of federal Unemployment. I was sent an automatic acceptance letter telling me I was entitled to 20weeks of EB from the state of AZ. It stoped I believe 2 week of June. Will these be reinstated now that Obama signed the unemployment bill?
You're in a similar situation as me. Yes, it should be reinstated. The only question is, will your state pay retroactively or will they pay you the remaining 18 weeks from here forward.
But yes, this new law passed provides 100% federal funding for EB to all states, which gives states like AZ and GA (where I am) the ability to reopen their EB and begin paying.
You're in a similar situation as me. Yes, it should be reinstated. The only question is, will your state pay retroactively or will they pay you the remaining 18 weeks from here forward.
But yes, this new law passed provides 100% federal funding for EB to all states, which gives states like AZ and GA (where I am) the ability to reopen their EB and begin paying.
Yessss!! its what i was wondering, i had got confused over in another thread...
Why are you posting the same story under different screen names?
Now see, all I did was make "personal" comments to two posters who were being really mean to another someone and the mods disabled my account for 72 hours (right during the "passing/signing" frenzy ). Thus (after this post, though I did say it in one other more obscure thread on here), my status. Yet I didn't go and create a new screen name like some people....
But before I go, a couple of things I wanted to say:
1) Hooray on the extensions being passed! Fight has to be kept up as this will all be a problem again after the elections, plus something (be it extensions or something else (or just SOMETHING), the thread with the community service/"modern WPA" idea wasn't too bad) for the 99ers.
2) I think with the House it was noteworthy that both 10 Democrats rejected it (have no idea who they are) and amazingly (even if just 1/6 of the group) 31 Republicans bravely voted their conscience and voted "yes" (don't fully know who either though one is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who is usually quite conservative but occasionally shows an independent streak, for example sometimes with the environment, but considering she rejected expanded SCHIP in the Bush years for "deficit reasons" was very pleasantly surprised this time).
3) If you think the "no deficit spending for the unemployed (and now to give loans to small businesses, which even Collins/Snowe went along with and goes totally against the grain of traditional Republican zeitgeist) while doing so on a mass scale just to keep taxes on the rich 4% lower than they once were is a hoot, get a load of this article regarding the fight over Afghanistan war funding, obviously the Repubs STILL have no problem running the debt for the war(s) and general foreign aid. Granted, Obama siding with the Senate because the House bill included "Race to the Top" being eliminated didn't help, but the $10 billion to states (once a lot more) is sorely needed too and worst case before they recess on August 9 (yes, they did actually change the date of their recess, originally July 31) if they have to used unused stimulus funds for this, "aid to states" is not "historically" deficit spending and $10B, while not adding much to the debt, doesn't greatly affect the original stimulus plan either, it should be done one way or another.
House pressured to pass stripped-down war measure - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_war_funding - broken link)
That said, be careful on here, the mods will stop you even in the name of good (I'll note that the two I commented on haven't been on since then either so who knows what they got!). Enjoy!
I exhausted all my tiers of federal Unemployment. I was sent an automatic acceptance letter telling me I was entitled to 20weeks of EB from the state of AZ. It stoped I believe 2 week of June. Will these be reinstated now that Obama signed the unemployment bill?
If you kept signing every week it should be retro.. I know mine is i'm in mass.
Looking Ahead to November When This Extension Ends?
While there are been some reassuring signs about more federal unemployment benefits to come in November -- including comments by the White House and interviews with Senator Stabenow and Representative McDermott -- I ran across two historical points that are also encouraging:
(1) Congress has never allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 7.2%.
(2) Despite what Democrats have insisted in this last go-around, federal unemployment benefits have not always been treated as "emergency spending" and added to the deficit.
In 1991, the elder President Bush signed a bill for 13 additional weeks of federal unemployment benefits at a cost of $5.5 billion, fully offset with tax hikes. The New York Times reported then that the extension would be "financed through changes in the tax law that will require higher corporate estimated tax payments, increased taxes on lump-sum pension distributions and a one-year elimination of the personal exemption for high-income taxpayers."
That was a different source funding than the pay-go that the Republicans now want to use (taking a chunk of money from another part of the budget to pay for benefits) -- but the unemployment extension of 1991 was not treated as "emergency spending" and did not add to the deficit. So perhaps the "emergency spending" issue can be put in perspective over the next few months.
In 1991, the elder President Bush signed a bill for 13 additional weeks of federal unemployment benefits at a cost of $5.5 billion, fully offset with tax hikes. The New York Times reported then that the extension would be "financed through changes in the tax law that will require higher corporate estimated tax payments, increased taxes on lump-sum pension distributions and a one-year elimination of the personal exemption for high-income taxpayers."
LOL can you imagine the SCREAMS if they decided to do that now, but hey, you wanted it PAID FOR, right?
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.
). Thus (after this post, though I did say it in one other more obscure thread on here), my status. Yet I didn't go and create a new screen name like some people.... 
Looking Ahead to November When This Extension Ends?
