Senate Rejects Extension on Unemployment Benefits

[conjur]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119636,00.html

WASHINGTON ? The Senate by a single vote rejected an election-year effort Tuesday to extend federal unemployment benefits (search).

Democrats tried to attach the benefit to a corporate tax bill (search). On a 59-40 vote in the GOP-controlled Senate, they fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year's budget agreement.

Mass. Sen. John Kerry (search), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was the only senator who missed the vote. Kerry was campaigning Tuesday in Kentucky.

The amendment would have offered emergency federal unemployment benefits for six months, temporarily giving 13 weeks of extra assistance to people who exhaust their state benefits ? typically 26 weeks.

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent last month as employers added nearly 300,000 new jobs. The Labor Department (search) has reported that payrolls have risen for eight months in a row, with almost 900,000 new jobs created so far this year, most within the last two months.

Republicans seized on April's employment report as evidence that more federal unemployment benefits are not needed.

"The employment picture in this country is looking up, by any measure," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "I believe it's time to end the program."

Democrats said the extended benefits are needed because the economic recovery still hasn't replaced 1.5 million jobs lost since President Bush took office.

"Keep our social compact and extend these needed unemployment benefits," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said it would have cost $5.8 billion to offer the temporary benefits, which would have been drawn from $13.3 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund. Republicans said it would cost $9 billion.

Democrats also tried in February to extend unemployment benefits. That effort, too, failed narrowly, although it had the support of 12 Republicans from states hit hard by layoffs.

I'm sure the R.A.M. will find some to spin this victory into a slam against Kerry for missing the vote. I mean, they wanted the bill to fail so they should applaud Kerry campaiging today.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119636,00.html

WASHINGTON ? The Senate by a single vote rejected an election-year effort Tuesday to extend federal unemployment benefits (search).

Democrats tried to attach the benefit to a corporate tax bill (search). On a 59-40 vote in the GOP-controlled Senate, they fell just shy of the 60 votes needed to overcome objections that extending the benefits violated last year's budget agreement.

Mass. Sen. John Kerry (search), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was the only senator who missed the vote. Kerry was campaigning Tuesday in Kentucky.

The amendment would have offered emergency federal unemployment benefits for six months, temporarily giving 13 weeks of extra assistance to people who exhaust their state benefits ? typically 26 weeks.

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent last month as employers added nearly 300,000 new jobs. The Labor Department (search) has reported that payrolls have risen for eight months in a row, with almost 900,000 new jobs created so far this year, most within the last two months.

Republicans seized on April's employment report as evidence that more federal unemployment benefits are not needed.

"The employment picture in this country is looking up, by any measure," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "I believe it's time to end the program."

Democrats said the extended benefits are needed because the economic recovery still hasn't replaced 1.5 million jobs lost since President Bush took office.

"Keep our social compact and extend these needed unemployment benefits," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said it would have cost $5.8 billion to offer the temporary benefits, which would have been drawn from $13.3 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund. Republicans said it would cost $9 billion.

Democrats also tried in February to extend unemployment benefits. That effort, too, failed narrowly, although it had the support of 12 Republicans from states hit hard by layoffs.

I'm sure the R.A.M. will find some to spin this victory into a slam against Kerry for missing the vote. I mean, they wanted the bill to fail so they should applaud Kerry campaiging today.

Well, if kerry really did care about the common man and the unemployed he would have actually shown up to vote for once - don't you think? I mean here is a guy who claims he cast the "deciding vote" way back when but yet here today he skips the vote entirely - a vote that he could have yet again tried to claim was a "deciding" one.
Tisk tisk tisk - I'm suprised his campaign people didn't realize it was going to be a close vote and a great opportunity for kerry to play up his "for the common man" rhetoric.

We don't need to extend unemployment benefits on a Federal basis. Where is the cut off? If we extend them 13 weeks - why not 24 weeks? Heck - why not a 52 week extention? The problem here is we have an unemployment program designed to hold people over when between jobs - not become a paycheck to live off of.

CkG

 

[Zebo]

not become a paycheck to live off of.
--------
LOL you think you can live off an unemployment check? The max Barly provided enough sustance to get though the day let alone pay any bills.

It's kinda like welfare. And you think people choose to be on it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zebo
not become a paycheck to live off of.
--------
LOL you think you can live off an unemployment check? The max Barly provided enough sustance to get though the day let alone pay any bills.

No, I don't think everyone can live off of it - I didn't say that. Nice try though.

Maybe we should up the benefits for people then Zebo. What do you think about that? Or is it supposed to a short transitional type "benefit" given to people so they can survive till their next job?

How long should we extend it? 13? 24? 36? ....? Anyone?

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
not become a paycheck to live off of.
--------
LOL you think you can live off an unemployment check? The max Barly provided enough sustance to get though the day let alone pay any bills.

It's kinda like welfare. And you think people choose to be on it?

I have seen people do it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure the R.A.M. will find some to spin this victory into a slam against Kerry for missing the vote. I mean, they wanted the bill to fail so they should applaud Kerry campaiging today.

Well, if kerry really did care about the common man and the unemployed he would have actually shown up to vote for once - don't you think? I mean here is a guy who claims he cast the "deciding vote" way back when but yet here today he skips the vote entirely - a vote that he could have yet again tried to claim was a "deciding" one.
Tisk tisk tisk - I'm suprised his campaign people didn't realize it was going to be a close vote and a great opportunity for kerry to play up his "for the common man" rhetoric.

We don't need to extend unemployment benefits on a Federal basis. Where is the cut off? If we extend them 13 weeks - why not 24 weeks? Heck - why not a 52 week extention? The problem here is we have an unemployment program designed to hold people over when between jobs - not become a paycheck to live off of.

CkG

Right on cue!!

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure the R.A.M. will find some to spin this victory into a slam against Kerry for missing the vote. I mean, they wanted the bill to fail so they should applaud Kerry campaiging today.

I think it takes it off the table for both sides. Republicans aren't going to trumpet not extending unemployment benefits, and Democrats can't really complain too much since their standard bearer (and the deciding vote which would have invoked cloture) wasn't there to cast his vote. It's a no-win scenario for either side to play this up.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zebo
not become a paycheck to live off of.
--------
LOL you think you can live off an unemployment check? The max Barly provided enough sustance to get though the day let alone pay any bills.

No, I don't think everyone can live off of it - I didn't say that. Nice try though.

Maybe we should up the benefits for people then Zebo. What do you think about that? Or is it supposed to a short transitional type "benefit" given to people so they can survive till their next job?

How long should we extend it? 13? 24? 36? ....? Anyone?

CkG

No you did'nt say it but your implication was as if people chose to be stuck in the unemployment rut rather than they are forced to by cyclic and "the natual unemployment rate".

As usual theres a third way. Why not have public policies that maximise employment and the government creates jobs when the private sector does not create enough jobs for everyone, (which it doesn't) So we don't even have these problems?

I like the idea of upping any benefits to those who pay so much and get so little (the middle class and working class). Maybe if they actually saw some return on thier tax money they wound'nt begrude paying so much in taxes?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue!!

:roll:

Are you really excusing kerry's absense from the vote? It's a nice try conjur but trying to pin this on the "RAM":roll: is weak. Maybe your boy should actually show up and vote if it is soooooo important

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Zebo
not become a paycheck to live off of.
--------
LOL you think you can live off an unemployment check? The max Barly provided enough sustance to get though the day let alone pay any bills.

No, I don't think everyone can live off of it - I didn't say that. Nice try though.

Maybe we should up the benefits for people then Zebo. What do you think about that? Or is it supposed to a short transitional type "benefit" given to people so they can survive till their next job?

How long should we extend it? 13? 24? 36? ....? Anyone?

CkG

No you did'nt say it but your implication was as if people chose to be stuck in the unemployment rut rather than they are forced to by cyclic and "the natual unemployment rate".

As usual theres a third way. Why not have public policies that maximise employment and the government creates jobs when the private sector does not create enough jobs for everyone, (which it doesn't) So we don't even have these problems?

I like the idea of upping any benefits to those who pay so much and get so little (the middle class and working class). Maybe if they actually saw some return on thier tax money they wound'nt begrude paying so much in taxes?

My point was - how long is long enough? The longer it is - the more it becomes a "way of life" because these people are living off of it. I don't have a problem with some "third way" but arbitrarily putting extensions on it isn't the answer.

So does anyone have an answer to how long is long enough? 13, 26, 36....?

CkG

 

[Zebo]

Well Free anything is a negative IMO. So I'd elminate unemplyment entirely and welfare and anything for nothing unless your disabled or crippled or othewise unable to work. They money should come from being productive even if the governemnt has you scarping gum off the sidewallk.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur

Right on cue!!

you have to admit it was a huge oversight on the part of kerry's handlers.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue!!

:roll:

Are you really excusing kerry's absense from the vote? It's a nice try conjur but trying to pin this on the "RAM":roll: is weak. Maybe your boy should actually show up and vote if it is soooooo important

CkG

Where am I excusing Kerry?

Where am I "trying to pin this on the 'RAM'"?

Go back and reread the post.

Until then, bleat on, CkG. Bleat on.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Right on cue!!

you have to admit it was a huge oversight on the part of kerry's handlers.

What gets me is why didn't Kerry just step down from Senator?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


So does anyone have an answer to how long is long enough? 13, 26, 36....?

CkG

How long was it extended before we had Unemployment Benefits??




Entitlement> a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group..



0

 

[glenn1]

What gets me is why didn't Kerry just step down from Senator?

The campaign started back in what, 2002? If he had stepped down from the Senate to run for President, his unemployment insurance would have run out by now

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What gets me is why didn't Kerry just step down from Senator?

The campaign started back in what, 2002? If he had stepped down from the Senate to run for President, his unemployment insurance would have run out by now

I meant the run-up to the primaries...from last fall.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Right on cue!!

:roll:

Are you really excusing kerry's absense from the vote? It's a nice try conjur but trying to pin this on the "RAM":roll: is weak. Maybe your boy should actually show up and vote if it is soooooo important

CkG

Where am I excusing Kerry?

Where am I "trying to pin this on the 'RAM'"?

Go back and reread the post.

Until then, bleat on, CkG. Bleat on.

I have read your post. You stuck that "RAM" bs out there so you could say - "see" :roll: It's obvious it's going to be an issue for kerry - he COULD have had something to trumpet on the campaign trail but failed to capitalize on it. THAT isn't "RAM" - it's just plain obvious. It's also obvious that you have yet to understand politics, the RAM isn't going to only bash kerry on this (and deservedly so) but also provide discussion on why the extention should have failed. The question is quite clear - how long is long enough? 13,26,36? Why not forever?

Anyway - kerry messed up -that is his fault and his fault alone. I wonder what his answer is going to be when the press(now part of the "RAM" I suppose :roll asks him about his failure to show up to vote.

CkG

 

[conjur]

What makes you think he would have voted for the measure anyway? Has he stated previous support for it? Perhaps he wanted it to fail. The reason I put the R.A.M. is I wanted to see how hypocritical its supporters would be. I knew I could count on you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
What makes you think he would have voted for the measure anyway? Has he stated previous support for it? Perhaps he wanted it to fail. The reason I put the R.A.M. is I wanted to see how hypocritical its supporters would be. I knew I could count on you.

Wrong. My stance isn't hypocritical if that is what you are suggesting. It seems you again have trouble separating the issues here and want to lump it all into one big pot.
I most definately can take issue with kerry missing the vote for something he would have voted for(didn't he support the previous attempt at extending it?).
He missed the opportunity to gain a campaign issue - if you can't admit that conjur - you are further gone than gone.
So anyway - yes I'm glad it failed, but that doesn't mean I can't say anything about kerry's missed vote or how it affects the politics of the election.

CkG

 

[Crimson]

I know quite of few people who got laid off in the past 2 years, who DECIDED not to work for as long as unemployment was paying them. They often had wives working or other sources of income. They milked it out as long as they could, then went back to work immediately after it ran out.

 

[Zebo]

This is exactly why is should be absolved. The milking it syndrome which I find hard to believe until you consider alternative forms of income. I bet welfare moms sell crack to suplement thier welfare income then. Either way get rid of it all.

BTW what does it say about thier resume to have gaps in jobs history? I look at people very sceptical when I see that,

 

[CQuinn]

1. In my state at least, you have to make a specific number of job contacts each week to be
eligible for unemployment, and keep a log of those contacts. It is possible to be audited
for that log to determine if you are meeting the requirements for unemployment benefits.
Failing an audit can bring charges of fraud, and can require that the person involved having
to pay back all benefits from the period in which they were not meeting requirements.

It was also very stupid of those people to just sit back and collect if they were really interested
in working again in their chosen field. That means they missed opportunites to find jobs that
could possibly have paid better than the position they had lost, or at least given them a chance
to try out different opportunities while still being eligible to collect benefits if the first or second
choice does not work out.

Zebo, I'd be most suspicious of a person who had a strong employment history without any
gaps in it. The majority of people who lose a job are not prepared to turn around and find
a new job immediately within a month. Those who had worked the same job for a couple of years
need at least a few weeks to update their resumes and figure out what current job title best describes
what they did for a living.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
1. In my state at least, you have to make a specific number of job contacts each week to be
eligible for unemployment, and keep a log of those contacts. It is possible to be audited
for that log to determine if you are meeting the requirements for unemployment benefits.
Failing an audit can bring charges of fraud, and can require that the person involved having
to pay back all benefits from the period in which they were not meeting requirements.

It was also very stupid of those people to just sit back and collect if they were really interested
in working again in their chosen field. That means they missed opportunites to find jobs that
could possibly have paid better than the position they had lost, or at least given them a chance
to try out different opportunities while still being eligible to collect benefits if the first or second
choice does not work out.

Zebo, I'd be most suspicious of a person who had a strong employment history without any
gaps in it. The majority of people who lose a job are not prepared to turn around and find
a new job immediately within a month. Those who had worked the same job for a couple of years
need at least a few weeks to update their resumes and figure out what current job title best describes
what they did for a living.

You just need to prove you have been LOOKING for a job.. if I go to Intel and tell them I want to design CPUs and I want to get paid $1 million a year.. I've been LOOKING, doesn't mean I'm serious.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: conjur

Right on cue!!

you have to admit it was a huge oversight on the part of kerry's handlers.

What gets me is why didn't Kerry just step down from Senator?

Well, hes hedging his bets.

If he loses the election, he will still be a Senator.

How proud the people of Mass. must be that their elected official didn't even bother to vote for an important cause.

I would have voted for this and more R's should have too...I say we can maybe stop extending bene's after unemployment drops below 5 percent.

Does he still collect a paycheck? Thats federal money and he shouldnt be getting paid for not showing up to work...I know I wouldn't