Unemployment insurance...

[MrPrena]

I'm pretty die hard against government handouts, but unemployment benefits would be the exception. Why? Because we pay for that specifically in every check we get, we are stocking up in case we ever get laid off. I'm all for using it. God knows I pay an arm and a leg for unemployment insurance for all of my companies.

+1
I agree with Ranger's comment. Employers do pay FUTA 590.
Part of employment. If someone doesn't like it, go open up corporation at a location where there is no unemployment benefits.

This is for anti-unemployment insurance.
If you don't like unemployment or even benefit, stop hiring more than what you need. Play conservative. You lay off people, you created unemployment. If you need to hire someone temporary bases, goto temp agency.

If you think extending unemployment benefit is bad, show us! I am tired of people who read commentaries on newspaper, wall st journals + watch CNBC and believe whatever. That is same/similar thing as liberals believe stuff straight out of TV or media.
You think you are economist by talking about unemployment insurance is bad? Stop reading commentaries and go apply 10 macroeconomic theories after running regression and apply econometrics to back up your statement.

[Ranger]

It adds quite a bit of overhead and each time someone makes a claim the premiums go up, but it's really a small price to pay and it's not government funded - that is much more reasonable than an able bodied person going on welfare IMHO.

[offgrid]

No one stays on unemployment because it's lucrative. Seriously, if you're faced with taking a job that still won't pay the bills but will tie you up all day (preventing you from searching for better opportunities) or staying on unemployment and dedicated yourself to the search for suitable work, I say stay on unemployment. One can always take the lesser job when the unemployment runs out. And in this economy, there aren't even the lesser jobs out there. Unless you're an illegal willing to work under the table for next to nothing or an executive with an Ivy League education, you're pretty much SOL.[/quote]

A friend who owns a business just hired a couple employees, had tons of applications. The two qualified people he hired where working at a "lesser jobs" and not collecting unemployment. He told me other applicants had more experience, but he choose the two who willing to do whatever it takes to keep working.

No doubt we are in tough times. The fact the extension was passed to me is a clear indication Washington believes the unemployment condition is not changing any time soon.

I'm employed, not sure what I would do if I lost my job.

[Irving]

From another site, not sure how true it is, but I think this is correct.

I'm not sure if you all understand what this extension is... It's an extension on the time frame that your eligible for 99 weeks of Unemployment. The extension up to 99 weeks was voted on last November(2009).

Those benefits would have elapsed for people who recently became unemployed. So lets say you got laid off in Feb of 09...you would be able to get 99 weeks no problem, now if you were laid off in December of 2009, if this recent bill did not pass you would lose your UI benefits after what ever the standard time frame was...I think ~60 weeks.

So what this current bill was is, if your ~60 weeks was up after i think June 1st you would not be able to get 99 weeks. If you ran out of your ~60 weeks before June 1st your good to go for 99 weeks. The bill is making it so people who run out of their ~60 weeks NOW can apply to get 99 weeks.

Also the time frame is based on your states unemployment rate. If your state has a Unemployment rate of over 8.5% you are able to get the full 99 weeks. 20 of those weeks are based on your states unemployment rate.

so your 3-4-10-11 year statement as far as THIS bill goes is ungrounded.

99 weeks sure seems like a long time though.

[DOC]

Not when your behind and the only work you get is not working out. But an extension might be just what people need to get off their ass's. I don't think there is going to be anymore help coming once the GOP takes over in Nov.

[Hoosier]

This past month, Senate Republicans filibustered against a bill to extend jobless benefits to over 2 million unemployed Americans, saying they were fiscally unwise and irresponsible given the current national deficit. All of these Republicans voted for Bush’s tax cuts.


Cost of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy for fiscal year 2010: $200 billion (Note: This only covers one year of the cost of Bush’s tax cuts)


Cost of extending jobless benefits: $34 Billion

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/04/pf/t...cuts/index.htm


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...care-probably/


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...20-503544.html


H.

[DOC]

I'm kinda stumped here. I checked my account at the department of labor and it still says my benefits are exhausted. Doesn't anyone know how this works and when the extension is going to kick in?

[Byte Stryke]

I'm kinda stumped here. I checked my account at the department of labor and it still says my benefits are exhausted. Doesn't anyone know how this works and when the extension is going to kick in?

I believe you have to re-apply.
Please do NOT quote me on that.
call the CDLE for more info

[Irving]

call the CDLE for more info

Good luck with that. I've NEVER gotten a hold of them.

[StagLefty]

Good luck with that. I've NEVER gotten a hold of them.

Second that-all contact has been on the internet-I haven't talked to a real person in all 4 months.