I feel bad about the unemployed my son and daughter-in-law are among them but we can't just allow Washington to keep printing money. Maybe Obama should use some of the money they haven't spent from his failed stimulus bill , or the money in the tarp fund or better yet reduce the size of the Government and he could always have them all take a cut in pay especially since he just gave out raises to his cohorts.

Thats where they can get the money and stop blaming everyone else for his failure.

For Democrats to offset unemployment benefits with stimulus dollars would undermine their claim that the stimulus will continue to create and save jobs. It’s to Democrats’ advantage, then, for the party that controls both houses of Congress to let 2.1 million people go without their unemployment benefits in order to cast Republicans as heartless monsters.

Heck the money they are spending on signs for the American Recovery Act or whatever it is they say could be put toward this I think is is about 200 million dollars for signs alone Yes I realize that someone has to make a sign and that is a job but you cannot tell me with all the infrastructure I hear the stimulus has created that these are the only signs they are making

A GOP Senate aide advised that four attempts by Senate Republicans to pass unemployment benefits with a stimulus offset came on June 14th, June 17th, June 24th and June 30th. But Democrats have continued to hammer them for obstructing the bill.

Please get real. Do you really believe that someone can pay the mortgage, buy food, gas, pay the electric bill etc on $300 per week. Only the naive can take such a stupid stand. Please use some common sense when dealing with issues that affect peoples lives.

Lets see, the GOP doesn't want to do this if it extends the National Debt, but yet they pledge 7.5 BILLION to Pakistan.

Here's some rocket science. How about putting that 7.5 BILLION to our own people and not Pakistan?

Actually the issue is something you don't see in an article. Dems tried to push through a bunch of pork spending issues along with the benefits extension. When it didn't pass previously they conveniently point to those who did not approve the bill. Now they are pointing the finger at those who did not vote for it. Typical near-november stuff to try and bolster sagging numbers by the Dems in hope that the rest of the country is too stupid to read about what is REALLY happening in Congress.

The second issue is, though I feel for those still unemployed, I can't help but wonder of the cost that we will be burdened with after the recession is over in order to pay the benefits of 10 million people a weekly check of 300-whatever the cap is. Create jobs instead by cutting spending and to stimulate hiring, cut deeply into taxes for small and medium sized businesses who hire and keep new employees. Those out of work in the Gulf Coast should be contracted into the cleanup effort. Hey even if it is a minimum wage job, it should be more than what they are getting now.

Taxation without representation, throwing money by the truckload at a money problem, how do you like him now?

Obama to press for extension of jobless benefits

Let me state the request a different way.

Obama doesn't know what to do to fix the jobless rate so all he can think of is spend more to buy votes to stay in power. Meanwhile the deficit rate has tripled under his policies and this money has done nothing for the private sector. His policies are a befuddled mess of inexperience and liberalism that does not work.

The GOP didn't let 7.5 billion go to Pakistan===the DEMOCRATS did how in the he-- does the GOP always get the the blame Obama and Hillary spent this money===and fact it should have gone to the gulf coast to help those in this country===THERE IS A REAL DISASTER HERE OBAMA WAS ON IT BUT LOST INTEREST FAST FOR HIS THREATS WERE NO GOOD AND ASININE

This is why we elect a President. If we let nut cases like those on this blog decide, the world would be gone by now.

"Obama: Lawmakers should extend jobless benefits"

We should also give him $1 trillion and he will keep unemployment below 8% and create 3.5 million jobs... all the guy knows how to do is spend money and point fingers, he must be especially happy with this issue since he gets to point fingers at not being allowed to spend money. Can we send him back on vacation now?

John & Ellie,

I would'nt worry to much about 7.5 billion to Pakistan. We also pledged $100 million

to Haiti. But as of yet , have'nt gave them a dime.

Janie Ackerly- I am sure Mc Donald's is hiring, Wal-Mart, CVS, Dollar Tree, Home Depot, Best Buy, Macy, local bank, etc. ... There is an old fashion saying, "beggars can't be choicer". It is people that understand this concept and able to adapt and over come when they get knocked off ladder to work their way back up.... Plus collecting unemployment benefits is the absolute last thing you should do... Flipping burgers is better then that due to the fact that it hurts your credit and future job employment. We have an entitlement issue in the country right now, people not willing to take less after losing their job and would rather sit in osmosis until something comes by... We will have to see how this all pans out, hopefully they do not grant more unemployment.....

I heard the Republicans want tax cuts to sign off. I promptly wrote to my CA federal legislators this morning.

No way do I agree to reinstate the Bush tax cuts. If they want tax cuts to hire American workers, or do business in the United States, I am all for it.

I want that estate tax back!!!!!!! That is one reason why Clinton left us with a budget surplus and despite popular belief - ESTATES WERE BUILT WITH GOVERNMENT MONEY.

GimDam

I have to say this - when I was on unemployment - I made a lot more on unemployment than I would have made working at McDonalds. And to let you know, I even applied at a McDonalds. The manager could barely contain himself from laughing.

Many people actually make a lot more than the minimum wage and would be penalized for taking a job at the minimum wage - in more ways than you can count.

While I work in entertainment, I did finally get an offer to sell aluminum siding. I couldn't take the job because then I would not have unemployment or any funds to pay my rent while waiting for the first commission check.

I totally sympathize with those unemployed in this impossible economy. Yes, things are beginning to improve, but slowly, unfortunately. It took several years prior to President Obama's election for the former administration's house of cards to come tumbling down, and now it needs to be dealt with.

It is a sad thing to say or even think, but regrettably it seems that the Republicans are using this to further sour the recovery, keep things status quo, in order to gain votes in this year's election. I cannot imagine this sort of behavior, but it certainly seems this is what's happening. The party of NO is doing it again, trying to go back to the "old ways" instead of supporting efforts to help get a solid recovery going.

I don't think the majority of those unemployed are playing the system so they don't have to work, but are sincerely trying to find work, but sadly, there is not much out there yet. I know some of those unemployed and know the difficulty they are experiencing. We need to help our own in time of need. Extending unemployment insurance is a good way of doing so, regardless of what it does to the debt. We need to try to spend our way out of this mess. Worry about the national debt after things improve and people are back to work.

Stop spending money overseas, promising money here and there, and spend it on our own who desperately need our help.

We can't afford to extend the unemployment benefits unless cuts are made elsewhere in the bloated federal budget. One idea would be to stop giving money to our enemies like Pakistan. That $500 million could help with this problem. Damn the Muslims.

Did you hear the news anyone who supports the United States of America is a socialist oops I mean who supports the president of the United States of America oops I meant if you support the commander and chief of our armed men and women you are a socialist

Denise Gibson from Brooklyn, N.Y., Jim Chukalas from Fredon Township, N.J., and Leslie Macko from Charlottesville, Va., all unemployed,

So where did they get the money to travel to Washington so they could pose with obama?

he sought to cast his Republican opponents as hypocritical for having voted for extensions of unemployment benefits

He is the pot calling the kettle black. He talks of how the last administration extended benefits but how many times has HIS administration extended benefits. He also said that any new bills must be paid for before he would sign them. Where are the dems going to get the money?

GimDam

Your sure huh? Well do your fellow citizens a favor and post links to these jobs your are so sure about. Will agree there is things you can do to better yourself even in this crappy economy.I am not going to play politics with this issue. I choose to try and help. Look at what these people are doing

http://www.quirky.com/?r=8257b960b7b305db51b6184c63e938b0

Innovation at its best anyone with a PC can submit a idea for a new product or to improve a existing product and they will earn a percentage of all sales for it.You can be unemployed under employed over employed etc. etc. if there community likes it ,the company will manufacture it sell it ship it ever thing for free. and if you help sell there other products you can be making 10% of ever thing you sell. They have been on CNN ,CNBC,The today show and many other news programs. Thats how I found them.There many other things just like this out there. So if you cant find a job be creative. Never give up.

Of course Obama doesn't want to use the stimulus money, he is saving it to stimulate his re-election campaign..

Right you are and he will use it IT'S TIME WE LOWER THE HAMMER ON HIM FOR EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS

Dictator Idi Amin Obama is not worried about getting caught

Thats because there is nothing for him to get caught doing you dolt. You talk about dems and thier kool-aid, why dont you go drink your hater-aid, and dont forget your meds. Looks like all four of you jacka$$es need them, LOL. Conspiracy theorists are such looney tards.

How can people be so blind and uneducated>instead of listening to your propoganda media mouthpieces why don't you study and pay attention. Bush made mistakes he had to make tradeoffs to get war funded. When did wall street go idiotic, when did unemployment start blowing up, can you study the facts? it was 2006 (when democrats got control of legislature) it only accelerated when ODUMBO kicked hillary out in may 2008. Most people could see what was going to happen and it only became clear when he couldnt quote the oath of office. Government can't buy employment only industry. We can not have sucessful economy without manufacturing, agriculture, mining, we have to produce something to sell. Government employees are leaches off the system, when they receive twice what private workers, there's no way remaining workers can pay for the system. Odumbo doesn't want this he wants control the more people relying on government the more secure the votes, democrats go right along they are sooooooooooooooo smart no one can get along without their smart rules. Yes the slush fund will loosen up closer to election time until then blame common sense, (republican) shout racism, it got him thru campaign, use it whenever have problem, shout racism sets off liberal uneducated followers.

Exactly, Wayne.

The deficit was running at about 300 billion per year (which is still too damn much) under bush until the dems took control of congress. Obama, Pelosi, reid and the rest of the thieves currently control Congress have upped the ante and deficit well over a trillion dollars per year now. Don't forget from your civics class, spending can't be done without Congressional approval. The joke or insult about someone who spent money foolishly was "spending money like a drunken sailor." I think a worse joke, or insult, would be to say that someone is spending money like a democrat.

Unemployment rate was 4.2% when George W Bush took office in 2001 and 4.5% when Dems took control of congress in Jan, 2007. After only two years, the Democratic congress "succeeded" in increasing the unemployment rate to 7.6% when Obama took office. with the help of his so called "necessary" stimulus money, the unemployment rate has gone up to 10% and is now hovering around 9.6% How in the #%^&* can this be blamed on Bush?

As Gingrich said, Obama is acting like a teenager with his first credit card.

Jon - what exactly is so funny? I think you better come out from under your rock and check out your representatives. Unless of course you like the current conditions in our country. I don't think the 'super majority' of dems will ever happen again - at least I hope it won't. Remember there's an election in November. You know what to do. Even up the field - vote 'em out. Btw - I am a card carrying independent leaning toward GOP.

Scary thought - isn't it? Vote 'em out while we're still a democracy. ;)

November 2nd, my friends...can't wait to send Pelosi to the unemployment line, or at least to ensure that she does not have the speaker of the house position. Her pork reign has gone on far too long for the welfare of America.

Send her a bill when done, she isn't tentitled to private planes $1000 per flight drinks and goodies, hate to see expenses for her staff, but made husband millionaire, kept her companies profitable with slave labor, why shouldn't we respect her like she wants?

then start bitching to your dem leaders.. They are the ones holding up the relief.

How about a job application to Mc Donalds? They are always hiring! :-)

The extension are capped at 99 weeks ~2 years.

Right now, the market is outright finicky, and there is a definite age related factor going on. Workers over 40, after working 20 or 30+ years are being passed over in favor of dirt cheap young workers that are expected to perform many roles (ie, companies are trying to squeeze far too much from every employee, and many job postings should actually be multiple jobs - this will lead to errors and productivity losses in the long term, but employers can get away with it for now). Even if unemployed workers are whiling to take the pay cut. Companies don't want to invest on overqualified and experienced workers because they will likely move on to other jobs as the economy improves.

And the whole "unemployment pays more" argument being quoted by some Republicans is ridiculous (and it's usually an oversimplification and special cases). At best, UI compensation is ~30% of what the worker was making before being laid off, and he/she is expected to take any job that comes along? (even temporary jobs that won't last) and reset their unemployment benefit grade (when they are going to be back on UI in a few weeks or months because the job was temporary). And in the meantime, banks aren't renegotiating mortgages (and Reps have opposed legislation to force them) and utilities aren't lowering their prices. If everybody on unemployment were to take any job that pays less than they're getting under UI, we would spiral in a deflation cycle that would have disastrous consequences (ie, that's one of the things that happened in the Great Depression).

zootie #5.1,

And you don't think the odds of us slipping into a deflation cycle are increasing ?

zootie,

And the whole "unemployment pays more" argument being quoted by some Republicans is ridiculous (and it's usually an oversimplification and special cases).

If you factor in that there is little wear & tear on your car from commuting and no worries of child care, and maybe a few other things that I haven't thought of - it might be worth staying on unemployment rather than take a job that pays less than what you were making previously.

Also, why is unemployment being extended? Why not allow unemployment to expire like it should after about six months then place people on welfare?

We are already in a deflationary cycle. Banks aren't lending, and even if they were, people aren't borrowing and instead are trying to pay off their debt. The only way "inflation" occurs is when people get new loans. This is how new money is created in our money system. So we have two things occurring, no new loans (no new money in the system, or inflation), and people who are making money are saving every last drop of it, other than to pay for basic life necessities. Meanwhile prices on necessities are going up, making it even more difficult to get by, harder to save, and further driving down economic activity.

Personally I am studying how people get by in places like India and Thailand, where they live on nothing. We are expected to compete with these countries, so it would make sense to live more like they do so that we can charge similar labor rates. (Think trading the Lexus in for a bicycle.) I'm not saying I agree with a global marketplace, I am opposed to it because the playing field is never even, but it's what we have to deal with until there is any political will to address it.

Make no mistake, we are already in a deflationary depression. Deflation is the ethical way to address the problem. Printing money isn't, and isn't even likely to work. It's going to get ugly before it gets better. I'm just not sure giving somebody 30% of their old salary for "free" rather than them having to take some kind of low paying jobs (making donuts, selling chickens at a local market) to get the same thing will do anything to combat the problems we have now.

I became unemployed because of the bad economy. Since 2007 I have worked for three companies. All three of them have gone out of business due to low sales and ran out of money.

However the biggest issue that is not being told is unemployment discrimination. This is why many unemployed are not getting hired back.

1. Most companies require an unbroken employment history.

2. If you are older with a family the health insurance is more.

3. Anyone over 50 is too old.

4. Credit checks- many unemployed have now missed a payment or two.

5. Degree or school- the degrees needed to get the same jobs have jumped up one or the school is the wrong one.

6. Overqualified.

7. The fact that you are unemployed has negative stigma attached- like deadbeat or loser and some one that is just sponging from them by getting unemployment.

8. Loans to start your own business even with a very good credit rating cannot be found.

This and many other reasons the unemployed are not getting hired. Even If we are the best employee and perfect for the job we will not get rehired by anyone. Stop giving money to business to hire; it is not happening. Loan the money to the unemployed to start their own business. Many of us are very capable of starting and successfully growing our own business. We would actually hire other unemployed.

Even our own government discriminates agents the unemployed. I applied for a SBA disaster loan because our area was declared a disaster area by the president. The SBA told me that because i was unemployed I could not get the disaster loan to fix my flooded business. I was told that if I could get a job to reapply any time within six months. However I cannot get a job because my consulting business was flooded. Wow I complained to the White House and received another letter from the SBA because it was referred to them from the White house telling me that exact same thing- That I qualify for the low interest disaster loan to fix my business if I get a job. So because I am unemployed I cannot get a loan to help me get a job.

Chris - "But with people on unemployment for the two to four year range, isn't that more like an early mini-retirement?"

Haven't you heard what they call it? FUNemployment.

Chris-Austin: you didn't mention when you were laid off. If you were laid off recently, within the last couple of years, then you yourself should know how bad things are for people looking for work. If you were laid off years ago, you probably stood a better chance of finding a job whether or not you collected unemployment. I was laid off in 2001 (and again in 2009), and I can tell you both of these recessions were different in terms of scope and severity. In 2001, using classified ads, pounding the pavement, and eventually through a temp agency, I found a job about three weeks after I was laid off. Fast forward to 2009, where I'm doing all that plus the internet and networking, and still no job. I've gotten leads, but nothing turning into a job for me. Every recession is different, and a one size fits all approach doesn't work.

cwyatt: You mention letting unemployment benefits expire and have 14-15 million unemployed go onto welfare. Which program do you think costs more overall, unemployment benefits, or welfare entitlement programs?? Welfare entitlement programs, like food stamps, section 8 housing, cash assistance, etc. costs more, especially when you are piling on another 14-15 million people to the welfare rolls. And remember that these people aren't paying income taxes. Perhaps your taxes (and others that complain about unemployed people) should go up to keep all of us up to speed?? Or would you rather have us collect unemployment, where we ARE paying taxes (10% federal, and some states requiring state taxes withheld from unemployment checks). Me personally, I'd rather have a job that pays a living wage, instead of something paying minimum wage for part time hours. That will put me and others on the fast track to welfare programs, and your increased tax dollars.

Tony41 comes up with an interesting scenario. You have a large (massive) group of unemployed 50+ workers with tons of experience in all types of industries. Give them business loans (create money, inflation) to exploit that experience. Over time they'll need help and won't be shy about hiring other unemployed people their age (probably their friends and past work acquaintances, that is how networking works) and it could actually be a rebirth of domestic enterprise.

The necessary simultaneous effort would be to figure out a way to promote these companies and give them significant tax advantages, while creating a disincentive to be a giant multinational monopoly corporation that destroys local economic ecosystems.

Andrew - almost all the tech resumes I see lately have unemployment gaps adding up to 1 - 2 years during the years of 2000-2003. You were one of the lucky ones.

In any economic downturn if you have a job it is a "recession." If you don't it is a "depression." Everything is relative.

Chris: I thought the old joke was "If your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession; if you lose yours, it's a depression". As I said earlier, 2001 and 2009 for me is apples and oranges. It's more of an employer's market out there right now with 14-15 million people out of work. And those in their late '40's or higher aren't even being considered. Recently, a job posting in Atlanta for jobs with Sony/Ericsson had in it's job listing "Unemployed Need Not Apply". How's that for discouraging. And this is still going on, albeit more subtle than the Sony/Ericsson listing. BTW, they changed the wording of the ad after they were called out for it, but that type of advertising isn't considered discrimination. Go figure.

I completely agree. Benefits don't have to stop, but after two years (and two years is a huge windfall) the type of benefit should change. This is why we have welfare programs. Welfare was designed for this exact situation where people need a long term temporary windfall while they pick themselves back up.

After two years, you aren't unemployed anymore. Two years is decent size chunk of your working years assuming a 30-35 year work life. (about 5%)

30-35 year worklife ???? where ?

Been at it for 39 years now (I'm 54) and don't see an end EVER.

Now, if you started out as a civil servant yes perhaps. Just means you retire from THAT job and go into the private sector with a pension backing you and your decissions.

Can this proposed extension be "right" if it un-Constituionally "takes" from one taxpayer to give to another. Come on Libs, let's be honest about this. If you want this type of thing to be legal, PROPOSE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to make it so. But we all know that won'y happen as long as the Congress can get away with bill after bill that trashes the Constitution.

There are no plans on increasing UI contributions/taxes since the programs usually operate at a surplus and the shortfall would be paid over time, the duration is just an effect of the current climate. Furthermore, the theory is that when the workers return to work, the gap between what they already paid into UI and what was paid out will be more than made up when the economy bounces back; especially when you consider that the damage being done to the economy by 100s of thousands (or millions) of people going on welfare and homeless would be far worse than the interest added to the national debt. A non-extension of benefits in the current climate borders on criminal and ignores 200 years of economics history and the lessons learned from the Great Depression.

Also, most welfare programs only help you if you have children. Otherwise, you're sol (even if you are caring for an elderly parent because you don't qualify for that either because he/she is in good health).

We own a mom and pop business, not small enough for tax breaks. Well we have been in business for thrity-five years, we have employees that have been around that long. They are loyal because we treat them with dignity, we have always and to this day provide health insurance, sick days, paid vacation days and 401K. Now with the healthcare situation our insurance rates went up because the companies are getting ready for when this new healthcare goes into effect. So we are now forced to pass some of the costs to our employees, not to mention sales are down because of the recession and out unemployment taxes went up twelve times (not twelve percent) twelve times and we have never had any employee put a claim through......And now he wants to extend the benefits NO WAY. I am sick, sick of what is going on today, enough already.

Just being unemployed (even if those benefits have run out) does NOT qualify you to receive Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare or Medicaid. Especially single people. The rules for these programs have not changed. Unless you are age-65, or have a qualified disability, or have minor children in the home, and your current combined household income is at/below the poverty level calculation guidelines - you get NADA from these agencies.

I went from $30hr to $13hr and only drew 2 weeks unemployment last year. YES some people rationalize that they can make more on UI than working at McD's. If the benefits run out the rationalization is gone. There are hundreds of thousands of low paying jobs. Get off your high horses and get one. Yeah, it sucks. But quit asking for hand outs after 12-24 months.

File for bankruptcy it you need to survive. GM, Chrysler and many other businesses have. You don't see it bringing your jobs back do you.

Get a job people.

After two years a person could become vocationally re educated in order to help find a replacement job. If they were unemployed they most likely would have qualified for grants or at the very least a student loan. The gall of Obama saying he wants businesses to hire, obviously this man can't even run a lemonade stand, how in the world are business suppose to hire when he is forcing their hand on insurance while repealling tax breaks. How is it possible to charge a business more and expect them to provide more as well, two negatives do not make a positive in business, red pen books are not a good way to do business and will accomplish nothing except the closing of its doors. I swear if Obama had it his way we'd all be on the dole.

Just being unemployed (even if those benefits have run out) does NOT qualify you to receive Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare or Medicaid. Especially single people. The rules for these programs have not changed. Unless you are age-65, or have a qualified disability, or have minor children in the home, and your current combined household income is at/below the poverty level calculation guidelines - you get NADA from these agencies.-- Vin, you are wrong on two of these programs. For food stamps, general welfare assistance, INCOME is the deciding factor on these two, not how old you are. For people collecting unemployment, most times, they can't get welfare or food stamps because they make more than what their state requires based on how many people are in their household. If someone loses or exhausts their unemployment and isn't eligible, then that income significantly drops, and the person may very well be eligible for food stamps and other welfare assistance. For food stamps, how much you get monthly depends on how many family members live with you. Even if you live by yourself, no wife or kids, you can still get food stamps if your income is below your state's income limits for one person. Food stamps isn't determined by how many kids you have.

I went from $30hr to $13hr and only drew 2 weeks unemployment last year. YES some people rationalize that they can make more on UI than working at McD's. If the benefits run out the rationalization is gone. There are hundreds of thousands of low paying jobs. Get off your high horses and get one. Yeah, it sucks. But quit asking for hand outs after 12-24 months. File for bankruptcy it you need to survive. GM, Chrysler and many other businesses have. You don't see it bringing your jobs back do you. Get a job people.

Coach, most people, myself included, would take a $13 an hour job. I don't see your rationale for who wouldn't take that kind of hourly wage. However, to go from a $13 an hour job to $7.25 an hour part time (read: PART-TIME) job at McD's is nothing but a fast track to getting welfare for the 14-15 million of us. You mention bankruptcy: when was the last time you filed for bankruptcy, if you had at all?? The laws for bankruptcy are much different than they used to be. I know of what I speak because I filed for Chapter 11 in 1992. Today's bankruptcy doesn't wipe out your debts, like it did in the past. Bankruptcy is more of a payment arrangement with your creditors (maybe). What you don't seem to rationalize about Coach, is that a minimum wage job never has, or never will be a substitute for a full time job with a living wage. Given the choice of unemployment benefits or a McD's part time minimum wage job, for me to pay my bills right now, unemployment benefits gets the nod. Now if you want to give me your $13 an hour job, I'll take that. Otherwise, get off your high horse, Coach.

Andrew, The story is about the extension of benefits after 99 weeks. You stated that given the chance for Unemployment benefits or Mc D's part time you will take the FREE money. AFTER 99 weeks it is simply free money.

So yes, my whole rationalization is if there are no more benefits, you can either continue to sit on your ass or go get a low paying job. $7.25, $8, $10 (about UI benes).

IF that is the case, then you can file for Chap 13 restructing. This will allow the courts to determine how much you can afford to pay based on part time and/or low income and then decide how much your creditors get for the next 5 years. After 5 you are free and clear. (This here is called being educated). It is not Chapter 11 where you walk away scott free. You at least attempt to pay some portion of your debt.

Working minimum wage and low pay after the UI money has ran out is called being responsible and productive. To ask for another 3rd year of "gimme" is something the country cannot afford right now.

An No Mr. Andrew GIMME, you can't have my job. Quit expecting something for nothing.

Coach: A minimum wage part time job never has, nor ever will be a living wage for most people. Including those who pay a mortgage on a house, as I do. Each person has their own threshold for a living wage in terms of what it would take for them to make ends meet. I give you an example: While I am on unemployment, my weekly check, if you were to figure it out for a regular 40-hour workweek comes out to around $9 an hour. On unemployment, I am only responsible for Federal Taxes (10% comes out each week of benefits). No state taxes, no city wage taxes, no Social Security, no Unemployment Insurance (yes, coach, I PAY into unemployment insurance where I live, so you can ditch the welfare argument), etc. Now, factor back in all those taxes I am not required to pay, and for me to make what I am making on unemployment currently, I would need to make another $3-4 dollars an hour more just to offset the other taxes I normally would pay with a regular job's paycheck. $7.25 an hour for an average of about 15 hours a week doesn't even come close to paying the mortgage. Sure, you can say "well, I'm responsible because I have a minimum wage part time job" from the comfort of your car sitting in some Wal-Mart parking lot because you don't have a place to live. Some responsibility, huh?? As I said earlier, I paid into unemployment insurance for many, many years through payroll deduction, as well as being a taxpayer for many, many years before getting laid off. So don't give me or other people any crap about unemployment being welfare.

Based off the latest information, it appears the most recent extension is for Benefits beyond the state allowance of 26 weeks. I don't have a problem with 26-52wks or if needed the total federal susidies for 73 weeks total.

I had my information wrong that this current measure would give more benefits beyond the total of 99 weeks.

I will still stick to my guns and say you can't rely on the government after two years e.g.99wks. MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE CONSIDERING BENEFITS FOR GREATER THAN 99 WEEKS.

There are a lot of jobs in the break even area of $10 per hour. Which is part of your argument that you would rather take the benefits rather than work if it is just breaking even. It is in my opinion un-American to say but, but, but when I pay my other taxes I am losing out and now have to make $12-$13hr before I break even. But I am better off on UI so I don't have to pay state, local, ss, etc.

By not trying to work for wages less than 13-14hr does not help all Americans. When you pay your state and local taxes that translates into jobs and self sustaining economies.

Coach, it looks like you are trying to twist my remarks into making your argument more credible. Let's look at some of your twisted illogic:

There are a lot of jobs in the break even area of $10 per hour. Which is part of your argument that you would rather take the benefits rather than work if it is just breaking even.-- If there is a job out there that pays $10 an hour, and the only taxes I have to pay are Federal taxes, then I may bite on that. But it doesn't work that way, Coach, and even your feeble, illogical brain should already know that. My argument is that in order to make the amount I get on unemployment, I would need to make about $13-14 an hour to offset all taxes I pay into where I live (see the list in the last post). $9-$10 an hour will ALL the taxes I would be paying removed from my paycheck WILL NOT break even for me. That is common sense, not your illogical, crap for brains, dribble.

It is in my opinion un-American to say but, but, but when I pay my other taxes I am losing out and now have to make $12-$13hr before I break even. But I am better off on UI so I don't have to pay state, local, ss, etc.-- It's utterly amazing how this sentence makes no sense at all. It sounds like you need to learn how to write complete sentences, instead of but, but, but. And un-American is a pretty foolish and asinine thing to say about anybody that is born and raised here. Of course, I forgot who said that.

Based off the latest information, it appears the most recent extension is for Benefits beyond the state allowance of 26 weeks. I don't have a problem with 26-52wks or if needed the total federal susidies for 73 weeks total. I had my information wrong that this current measure would give more benefits beyond the total of 99 weeks.--Here is a prime example of someone who posts here that doesn't have all his facts straight. See, you don't even know how long I've been on unemployment, but you already assume that I have been on unemployment for 99 weeks. Another a-hole who makes blanket assumptions just to satisfy their own pride, or the lack thereof.

By not trying to work for wages less than 13-14hr does not help all Americans. When you pay your state and local taxes that translates into jobs and self sustaining economies.-- By not trying to get a living wage where I CAN pay taxes as well as make ends meet is what should be helping not only myself, but the 15 million of us unemployed. Your illogic is making the claim that by working for a less paying job, I will be helping out the state and local coffers, but in the end I end up with no place to live, food on the table, etc. That is financial suicide, plain and simple. So much for your logical comments. People don't work to pay taxes and have nothing left. People work to make their household ends meet, and to aid the federal gov't programs through taxes. Perhaps if you would take your head out of your "you know where" your brain might get some oxygen for a change.

Andrew it was my admission of the article that I thought the current legislation was to extend beyond 99 weeks. That was not the case so I admitted I was wrong.

I stated that I do believe that yes there should be benefits beyond 26 weeks. I personally believe that a total of 99 weeks is excessive. I never once stated to know how long you have been drawing UI not do I give a sh*t.

Note that my all caps statement was for people who believe benefits should extend for LONGER than 99 weeks. If that is not you, then the other items following that statement were not directed at you.

Re-read what I actually wrote. But if it makes you feel better to be-little me, enjoy yourself.

I don't need to do that Coach....Your posts betray you as it is. You make remarks about people on unemployment without knowing the facts. Let's go back to one of your earlier statements:

By not trying to work for wages less than 13-14hr does not help all Americans. When you pay your state and local taxes that translates into jobs and self sustaining economies

So I am supposed to work in order to go broke for the sake of state and local coffers, huh?? Is that what having a job is all about?? Feeding the gov't but to hell with me?? Is that what you are doing right now: Feeding the gov't and nothing for you?? If you aren't, then don't suggest it onto someone else unless you are willing to walk the walk also.

How about this one??

It is in my opinion un-American to say but, but, but when I pay my other taxes I am losing out and now have to make $12-$13hr before I break even. But I am better off on UI so I don't have to pay state, local, ss, etc.-- I don't even know where to start with this. Am I better off on UI getting only 1/3rd of what I was making at my last job?? You obviously come to that conclusion that I or anyone else on unemployment enjoy getting 1/3rd of what we previously earned. If that isn't ignorant and naieve thinking, I don't know what is.

Both of the last two quotes are after my statement:

I will still stick to my guns and say you can't rely on the government after two years e.g.99wks. MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE CONSIDERING BENEFITS FOR GREATER THAN 99 WEEKS.

Thanks for participating.

I guess in your case Coach...stupid is as stupid does.

Too Classy Andrew. Looser

For Democrats to offset unemployment benefits with stimulus dollars would undermine their claim that the stimulus will continue to create and save jobs. It’s to Democrats’ advantage, then, for the party that controls both houses of Congress to let 2.1 million people go without their unemployment benefits in order to cast Republicans as heartless monsters.

Heck the money they are spending on signs for the American Recovery Act or whatever it is they say could be put toward this I think is is about 200 million dollars for signs alone Yes I realize that someone has to make a sign and that is a job but you cannot tell me with all the infrastructure I hear the stimulus has created that these are the only signs they are making

GivPeace, the defecit before Obama was around 2 trillion. It was alot, but nowhere near the 14 trillion and counting we are seeing today. Capitol hill has thrown money at job creation and it is not creating jobs. The only way to get this ball rolling again is to remove all the pork expenditures that have added 12 trillion in 2 years to the national debt and give tax breaks to small and medium size businesses who hire and maintain the jobs. With people back to work there would be no need for the jobless benefits. Win - Win I think.

M. D. Stell,

Obama didn't add 14 trillion in 2 years. Most (at least half) of that was added by Bush over his 8 years in office (w/o a good excuse for it). And Obama is doing what he is supposed to do (according to the theory that most honest economics experts agree): deficit spend to protect existing economic infrastructure and in order to restart the economic process (so you are able to pay back what you spent and more).

Just look at many of the chart available on the net (look a several, since people can re-interpret them to push their points). The debt was going down during Clinton, Bush comes in and it starts going up. The same thing happened in the past, as the % of gdp charts show (FDR did it to get us out of the GD, Reagan did it, Clinton did it - Carter didn't seem to do it, and you see how that turned out).

A few charts of the debt (gross and percentage of gdp):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

This is not the Republicans fault that it is not passing..

Remember the Pay-Go that the Dems said they would do? Look at the compromises the republicans have issued. 1st it was pay it 100 percent from the unpaid stim money.. then it was 1/2 of it paid for with stim money or cut spending elsewhere.. the Dems are using the unemployment issue for political gains, not the republicans.

Rockmain: I too am one of those unemployed veterans also (Desert Shield/Desert Storm), so I also sympathize with your down the block unemployed vet. People want jobs, not unemployment that only pay about a third of what we were getting before being laid off. Besides our unemployed veterans, I am also concerned for those currently in the military serving overseas, and rotating back stateside into civilian life. They are also going to be thrown into this unemployment mix as well, and like those of us out of work for over six months, are going to get the same treatment of no jobs available. This only adds to the unemployment miseries for everyone, not just veterans, and those returing to civilian life.

Veterans might want to think about re-enlisting. Those whose tours aren't yet up might consider staying in. It is steady work with good benefits, free food, free clothing, free housing.

With respect to kids, I hate seeing kids living in cardboard boxes under freeway overpasses. We should gather them up and put them in orphanages where they can learn how to work to pay their keep.

My sympathies on your situation.

What goes around comes around. You'll get yours one day!

But life does not work that way, or at least, not in my experience. Fairness and justice are fairy-tale dreams.

There are lots of things that this country should be doing that we are not and some things that we are doing and should be doing a whole lot better. Should we take care of our people? Yes, that would be the nice thing to do. But our country has become extremely needy and less productive. How do we change the formula and make America less needy and more productive? I could give everyone my two cents, but it really wouldn't change a thing. All that I can do is wish us all luck.

sammi -"You'll get yours one day!"

When the country collapses under it's debt are you planing on not being here? You'll be "getting it" just like everyone else. Instead of being a bitter old turd focusing on "I, I, I ...You, You, You" maybe you should recognize the concept of "We". I wouldn't hire you no matter what your qualifications are for fear your bitter, "whoa is me" attitude would infect others, that is your problem, not the responsibility of everyone else.

Carla,

why is this revisited every two months and has to be passed again.

A few things come to mind: It's great headlines and politics, and if they didn't revist this ever so often and a blanket 1 year coverage was established, politicans would simply move on without attempting to fix the problem long term. Not that the Dem's are fixing anything.

Yeah this is just the Dems trying to save their collective asses in the coming election. Spin, baby spin. They don't take into account that the American public are waking up and mad as hell...not to mention that those who are unemployed have some extra time to read about the goings-on in Washington. They are going to try to make everything a partisan issue from now until November in order to try and sway poeple back to the Dem camp by great omissions of fact and truth; as it has been in the past, worse it shall be now. I hope the hope of all hopes that come November the Dems lose control of the house. Perhaps then we will see some real, useful change in this nation.

Obama is by no means an asset! He doesn't have a clue, he refused to lower corporate taxes as an incentive to keep businesses here!

The last thing we need is for Washington to get involved with the issue of property taxes, are you kidding me?? I doubt it would even be constitutional for the federal government to intervene with how states raised taxes, but I want that issue decided at the state level where voters have more control.

Washington should not have anything to do with property taxes. If that is a problem where you live write to your Governor or your local representatives.

Scott, a majority of property taxes are to cover the public schools. If Amnesty is offered and granted to the millions and millions of illegal immigrants here your property taxes will continue to skyrocket. The increases will be needed for the school systems to cover the cost of the additional children created. Unfortuantly this country lets anyone have children and some of the burden of costs is passed onto those who are responsible. We need laws created to stop this and need them created now..

Thats because Obama and the Dems policies are job killers, company killers and so on...btw, Our state just increased our pension plan payment to 9 percent, so our checks get smaller again...how long before the HCR act kicks in new charges? Pretty soon we'll be paying over 50 percent if not more in taxes/fees and such...

Scott, do you work for ACORN or the WH? Maybe you are one of those New Black Panthers? Obama is the worst president ever with Jimmy Carter now in the #2 worst president position. He is destroying the economy, our freedoms and unemployment is far worse than when he took office. Taxes will increase with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the terrible Health Care Reform and FinReg bills will greatly increase our healthcare costs and banking costs. What the hell has he done for you? Please explain.

Crystal: You never stopped by to ask me if I'm looking for a job or not. Why make such a generalized blanket statement about ALL unemployed people when you don't even know me, or for that matter most of the 14-15 million of us?? Judge not, lest ye be judged and cast the first stone.

Check into schooling- I know a guy in Portland that asked which job he would have the best chance of being hired in, and they said landscaping was booming, so that's what he is doing. He has only been on unemployment for about four months.

@Unconvined. I feel for you. My mother is in the same boat. She can't get hired. She would DO ANYTHING but nobody is hiring or the 30 other people half her age get the job.

I had to cover her bills last month... not easy for us.

This is a catch 22 in my opinion, but at the same time, this nonsense about people 'getting off thier butts' is very ignorant.

Paying someone to sit at home (for almost 2 years) is not stimulus - it's welfare.

That being said, I truly hope you find a job.

She can't get welfare for two reasons. she needs to have a dependent and if so must maintain work for 20 hours a week. Hence the catch 22.

I'm 64, single and have been job hunting for over a year. I'm living UI check to UI check. If Unemployment Insurance benefits are not extended, I'll be forced to go on welfare. Please, Senators, don't make me do this. Vote to extend COBRA and UI.

Unconvinced---I feel sorry for you and others in the same position. At the sametime I have questions. You mention you worked for 45 years, where is all that money you saved during that time? Surely you had some, enough to easily go 3 years. I think each situation should be looked at and while I do not know yours it seems you may have been irresponsible and may have lived beyond your means just as so many do here. Im with the many others who say why do I have to cover your costs because I was responsible and saved.

Same with you Vagabond, where did all the money go that you should have saved. 1 year of not working and your are broke....you both were raised during the greatest time in this country to build a nest egg and have nothing to show for it...it makes no sense to me..Sorry If Im coming off as a jerk but it seems we have too many folks in this country in this situation because they were irresponsible. I know some have valid reasons such as the young who didnt have a chance to get established and save but you both are close to retirement age.

UAW - exactly what I was going to ask.

Unconvinced - "I lose everything thatI have worked for my whole life after this month if this extension does not happen."

If "everything" you worked for for 45 years depends on one unemployment extension then you better only have one possession to show for your 45 years. Otherwise you can sell your rental properties, cash out your IRA's or 401k, sell your stock portfolio, get rid of the speedboat, the RV and the timeshare in Boca...etc.. maybe even cancel your cable and high speed internet. When you do get down to one posession then come back here and write about how "you lose everything" until then you'll understand that most readers will remain "Unconvinced" of your plight.

pjam and UAW: If you've been out of work for a great deal of time, that six or eight months of savings that has been suggested for decades now, only goes so far to help. Any emergency taps into that savings. Any car repair could tap into those savings as well. I had the 6 months savings plus some severance when I was laid off. Now over a year later, it's been mostly depleted. I've had to go into 401k to make ends meet. I don't have any debt, except for my house which I paid under $100k, and I own both my cars. But the reality is this recession is more severe than previous ones, and the six to eight months of savings only go so far today.

I guess nobody ever taught you to plan for retirement or invest in stocks or IRA's.... Maybe they did and you just ignored it becuase you wanted to live in the moment. Granted it is sad however PPP(piss poor planning) is only your fault.

GimDan: This isn't about stocks, retirement plans or IRA's, it's about having savings for emergencies, like long term unemployment that millions of people are going through. What does retirement, stocks, or IRA's have to do with this?? Nothing. As I said before, I had the six months recommended savings plus a severance package which added about two more months of money, but even so, when you're on longer than expected unemployment, any sizeable emergency can dwindle that emergency fund. It has nothing to do with planning. You can't plan for some emergencies, like a trip to the emergency room, or an unexpected breakdown with the car. Even the best laid plans go to waste, as the saying goes. So don't assume or conclude someone hasn't planned accordingly, because you don't know me.

agreed.

John - you forgot to add that ALL the money loan to the big banks has been repaid with interest. It also appears likely that most of the money loaned to AIG will be repaid. It is even possible that the money loaned to GM will be repaid.

Do you expect those who receive unemployment benefits to repay that money once they get a job?? I thought not.

Well if all those Billions was repaid as you said and it was INDEED given to then with no guarantee that it will be paid back..they can help unemployed americans then, since that money as returned.

You forgot that part..it wasn't agreed to that they had to paid it back!

Also I don't expect to receive unemployment and pay it back..not unemployed..I'm retired 7 years now and just fine with my pensions and SS.

John,

I think everybody complained when Bush paid all our money to prop up failed businesses so they could continue paying the unions' exorbitant salaries that bankrupted them in the first place. I was ok with Afghanistan, I could even accept a few years in Iraq (it was kind of like Bosnia on a larger scale), but the bailouts were not good.

I really hoped Obama wouldn't continue Bush's bailouts. He did.

The corporations had to pay the money back if they wanted the government to stop interfering with their business. Essentially, the government became a majority owner in their company and the board wanted that controlling ownership back. The incentive was there for a payback.

You know I'm not a fan of FDR. His economic policies made things worse during the Great Depression. The economy was in worse shape in 1938 than it was in 1932. Only WWII pulled us out of the Depression. But he did do one thing that made some sense. He rounded up the unemployed and put them in work camps. He set them to planting trees, clearing trails, fighting forest fires, fixing roads, repairing sewer systems, etc. Good honest work done at cost by the unemployed rather than by some union pukes working for a fat cat contractor skimming from the federal till.

Perhaps Obama needs to restart the WPA, reopen the CCC camps, put American's back to work with pick and shovel instead of letting them sit on their butts and draw never ending unemployment checks.

Or, he could do his job, enforce the law, and kick the 22 million illegal invaders feeding on our social systems out of the country. That would open up enough jobs to take care of the idle unemployed while at the same time easing the financial pressure on our schools, hospitals, prisons, etc which are causing an ever higher spiral of taxation on American citizens.

Press 1 for full employment.

That's right Joe: lower your standards, and you can quickly end up on welfare. Then you can have 14-15 million welfare recipients, who don't pay taxes, collect food stamps, section 8 housing, etc. all on your taxpayer dime, which will go up because of the influx of unemployed people moving onto welfare. People getting unemployment pay federal and in some states, state taxes. If you want to see REAL welfare, let 14 million people join the welfare rolls. You may need to work longer hours to support us. Unemployment benefits are a better bargain, don't you think??

It is because I am a realist that I do not run for a public office. Bleeding heart liberals and moderates would not vote me in because I would cut the hell out of all the pork spending done in the past years. I would not please many. I would however stand on the original ten articles of the constitution and the post civil-war articles to ensure the kind of deficit we have run up is never done again and we as people maintain the rights given us by our forefathers when they conceived this great nation.

I know how to run my budget. I know if I throw money I don't have at things I don't need, I go in the hole. I know that if this was to occur I would have to work twice as hard to get my budget balanced. I do not have people blindly paying for me to spend past my budget like the government does. I can't say "we don't need that" and decide not to pay for it. The House and the Senate is supposed to be our voice and do that for us. They are supposed to be there to challenge laws that are against the consitutional enactments. Instead, because of control of the House and Senate, the Dems are nickel and diming the American people to death with escess spending for items outside of the budgetary norms which should be limited to what is necessary to maintain enough government to uphold the constitution.

When I look at the government and it's fiscal irresposibility it makes me want to rise up and say no. I work hard for the money I get. When a bunch of lawmakers see fit to spend my money far beyond their means, it makes me angry and vocal. It should be doing the same for you. There is not a man, woman or child in this country who is being properly represented here and we all suffer for it.

I am not aiming to please anyone. I already know I will not please most. This is a given. This is the United States of America, not the United Socialist States of America. There is a huge difference. Please look at what your representatives and senators have done in the recent history. Please look with open eyes at the deficit and its exponential growth in the past two years. Please look at the cost of the laws enacted and envision the cost of those laws. Please realize you and all of us as Americans will be the ones paying for this in years to come. Do we want to give our children a legacy of debt, corruption, and socialism, or the legacy of a nation we can be proud of that stands steadfast on the morals of it's founding fathers and the principles set out in the American Constitution?

This is why I take my unalienable right to speak out, my constitutional right for freedom of speech and use it to voice my opinion and make it heard in a public forum. I will not be in Capitol hill anytime soon, but if I am going to be taxed, I will definitely be represented by the taxes I pay.

Hey big hat unemployment is not welfare......... why don't you go back to high school and learn your abc. you mongoloid.

Pitt- When it becomes a crutch instead of a stepping stone it absolutely is welfare, and that is what treating it as if it is some kind of right has made it.

pjam: If you want to REALLY see welfare, watch 14-15 million people on unemployment go onto real welfare. Not unemployment benefits you somehow deem as welfare. Watch as your taxes will go up to pay for our services, like food stamps, section 8 housing etc. Welfare recipients aren't taxpayers pjam, unlike unemployment benefits which are federal and state taxable. Think unemployment is welfare?? Just wait until 14 million people hit the welfare rolls. Your taxes will most certainly go up.

people just don't care if it;s not them.we got to stay strong god has always been there

Who you think put these people that are unemployed in this spot????

"THE GOVERNMENT" of the past (Bush 8 years) that's who!!!

The average unemployment rate for the 8 Bush years was 5.3%, and he had a recession to deal with just like Obama. The average unemployment rate for the 8 Clinton years was 5.2%. When do folks stop trying to appologize or blame others for Obama's incompetence??

In other words its all Obama's fault since Jan. 2009 and 16% of the nation is unemployed. (9.5% unemployed is just a federal stat). The recession started Dec 2006! Not Dec 2007 as they say (unless you believe what the government always says).

Where are you getting that info? Clinton presidency created 8 million jobs, Bush presidency created 3 million jobs. Please you guys, get some facts out. By 2005 Republicans turned wealthy country to 585 billion in deficit. Obama needs not 18 month to clean the mass up but we probably will need our life time to clean it up. I wonder why the lies had found stronger base in this country then the facts, Glenn Back, Sarah Paylin these demagogues doing well their job.

This Emergency has been going on for quite some time/it did not just happen yesterday

The Democrats have had the majority in congress and the WH for quite some time. The Unemployment rate has been high for quite some time. why is this revisited every two months and has to be passed again. By the way I thought this would be passed tomorrow when they bring it to the Senate floor??? As upset as I get with the Republicans for being hard headed on this there are 2 sides to every story

Why not simply put forward a bill that covers unemployment only for 1 year along with COBRA and figure out a way to cut something to pay for it. It is not a surprise so it seem to me they like to bring this up every 2 months

For Democrats to offset unemployment benefits with stimulus dollars would undermine their claim that the stimulus will continue to create and save jobs. It’s to Democrats’ advantage, then, for the party that controls both houses of Congress to let 2.1 million people go without their unemployment benefits in order to cast Republicans as heartless monsters.

Not jut cold hearted, but blind and refusing to learn from history.

No one likes money being taken out of their paycheck or seeing ballooning debt and knowing that it will have to get paid, but UI is just that, insurance that was put in place to avoid the damages done to the economy by abandoned houses and falling economic activity (it's a way for the government to break a vicious cycle that ends with the country falling apart). It makes a lot more sense to extend benefits knowing that they will get paid back (w/o raising taxes) when the economy improves than to have people loosing half a century of skills and going on welfare and homeless or rioting on the streets.

Republicans tell us to add 100s of billions (many many times more than the UI benefit extensions) to the deficit because (the Bush) tax cuts make it more likely for investors to create jobs. However, what they don't tell you that to reassure those investors, you also need a rule of law and a estable country. As more people are falling off the roles, instability is growing, making it less likely for investors to put their money at risk on a new venture: they'll just sit by the sidelines waiting (as they have for the past 2 year). I'm all for trying reasonable tax cuts, but you have to first ensure stability or no amount of tax cuts will make a difference as you see more and more homeless and people begin rioting. And in this case, it would actually be cheaper to achieve stability (ie, UI is far cheaper than the tax cuts) - and once that is done and the economy begins to hum again (or at least not to crater nearly every month), then we can talk about some tax cuts.

The Democrats don't try and pass an extensive bill because it wouldn't pass (ie, Blue Dog Democrats wouldn't let it, forget about Republicans) - not to mention that they wouldn't know what to cut (what about some defense programs?)

Actually they did have a bill in the beginning of Feb that would have covered UEAI and COBRA for over a year until Feb 2011. It also had bipartisan support. Harry Reid stopped the bill and replaced it with a bill that covered just tax cuts for businesses and stated they would revisit this later. I guess they never got around to it.

But it is interesting that you mention the Democrats as it appears then it is not just Republicans that are against it.

And Bush created how many jobs? Oh yea that's right. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Most of you ignorant people make me sick, you would eat your own!

Funny you are responding to something and what you are speaking of has no correlation to what was posted. so I hope that made you feel better as no one was talking job creation.