Jobless Benefits Extension Hits Snag In Senate

[Sub Atomic]

Source: CBS News

A House-passed bill to give another 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to people from states where the jobless rate is at least 8.5 percent has bogged down in the Senate because of resistance from lawmakers whose states have lower unemployment and would be left out.

With hundreds of thousands having already lost their benefits or about to lose them in the coming weeks, Senate leaders were scrambling to come up with a compromise.

The original hope among Democratic leaders was to get quick approval of a proposal giving four extra weeks of benefits to the jobless in all 50 states and 17 weeks to workers in those 27 states where the unemployment rate is 8.5 percent or above.

But that drew opposition from lawmakers from the 23 states who wouldn't qualify for the greater benefit.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/05/ap/congress/main5363168.shtml

---

As one whose benefits ran out in the beginning of August, I wish the Senate would pull together and come up with a compromise.

[Love Bug]

1. You have my sympathy, Sub Atomic

My benefits are due to run out in mid-January so I still have some time but I'm in one of those 23 states that don't currently qualify for an additional extention. I have no idea what I'll do when my benefits run out. I'm actively looking and crossing my fingers that something will come up soon.

Only four weeks? Are they kidding? What the hell kind of compromise is that? The additional 13 in the House bill is little enough but this economy is still shedding jobs at a rate not seen in decades and they are quibbling about this? They need to stop nickel-and-dimeing this issue and pass the same extention for ALL states and get on with the business of trying to get the economy moving again so the 7+ million of us who lost our jobs in the past year can get back to work.

And a message for those who will surely come here and talk about "deadbeats": Fuck you. I was at my former employer for 21 YEARS before getting laid off. I've been actively working since 1972 so I don't want to hear about how I'm a drain on the rest of you or don't deserve the help. My past productivity helped support other unemployed workers and now I need the help.

[thecrow]

2. We should all of us go camp out on Independence Mall

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. I am in the same boat as you.

And there is NOTHING out there.

[tonysam]

17. Wrong. The states that need it most

should receive the most assistance.

Shaheen and her ilk, so-called Democrats, are ruining a needed program for the vast majority of the unemployed because of some stupid notion of "fairness."

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. Are those still unemployed in states with a rate of 8% less.....

deserving of help? I don't think so.

[WriteDown]

4. Huh?

Why? They are just as unemployed.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Why? Because there are less of them still unemployed?

I'm trying, but I can't figure out what your thought process is behind that statement.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. I don't think you stated that clearly.

If what you meant to say was that you don't think they are less deserving of help just because their state is under 8%.

I did have to read it a few times though and I apologize for the response I almost left after the first reading.

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. My bad. That was my point. Sorry. n/t

[MaineDem]

8. Perhaps those states are better able to provide the benefits

Where the unemployment rate is very high the states are running out of money. Just a thought.

[tonysam]

16. No, it's because states like SD, ND, WY, and IA

have much lower unemployment rates, which means the unemployed in those states have a much better chance of securing employment than in the majority of the states.

Shaheen wants to cover ALL 50 states, not just states with 8 percent unemployment. She is fucking around with people's lives, and I deeply resent it.

[blue_onyx]

9. So you think....

that a state like North Dakota which has an unemployment rate around 4% is in need of the same assistant as a state like Michigan, which has unemployment over 15%?

[mule_train]

11. it's a paradox - once benefits end, they no longer count in the '< 8 percent' unemployment rate

so by definition, that 8 or lower percent understates the real level

[tonysam]

15. Not the Issue

Why should states like Michigan, Nevada, and California that have truly astronomical unemployment rates have their benefits held hostage so states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa be catered to?

After all, the unemployed in those states have a far better chance of getting work.

[mule_train]

10. How about we suspend 'guest workers' in fields where there are gluts of unemployed citizens?

It's a way to give the best relief to the unemployed, and it doesn;t cost anything (except for passing on bribes, er uh, 'campaign contributions')

I can't believe the party faithful aren't making a bigger deal about this

(I know many of you are, but it needs to be pitchforks and torches)

One way to make 'shovel ready' jobs, is to quit taking the shovel from the citizen and giving it to a foreign worker

[99 Percent Sure]

12. In the same boat as you, Sub Atomic,

The job market in California has been bleak for at least 2 years.

My last check was the last of August and I was served with a 3-day notice last night.

We have some lousy Congress critters who should have handled this before they went on their last recess.

Michigan, Nevada, California and Rhode Island have the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and climbing.

[tonysam]

14. Jeanne Shaheen needs to cut the crap

People are HURTING out here; the legislation needs to be passed NOW and take care of the states with lower unemployment later.

Why should people like me who live in high, high unemployment states (Nevada) be held hostage because states which have 4.9 percent unemployment like the Dakotas be catered to?

[Odin2005]

18. Bastards!