Congress OKs Unemployment Extension

The bill to extend and restore unemployment benefits to out of work Americans now only has to make its way to the White House after Congress passed the legislation by a vote of 272 to 152.

The bill, which finally overcame a Republican filibuster on Wednesday, will restore benefits to around 3 million people who were cut off from the program during the protracted debate on the bill.

Republicans defended themselves against charges they were holding back the bill because they think the unemployed citizens didn’t deserve benefits. Explains Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas:

I haven’t heard anybody say we shouldn’t be extending unemployment benefits. The difference is one side wants to borrow 34 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren

Whereas Democrat Jim McDermott of Washington state said the filibuster was intended to smear the White House:

They’ll say it’s because of the deficit. But in reality, they’re simply trying to make this president fail at any cost… The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way to get the White House back is by denying unemployment benefits to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and show them that this government doesn’t work.

Once President Obama signs the bill, it’s up to the individual states to begin disbursing the checks to those who qualify. According to the Washington Post, this could be a quick process in some states, while others might require a few weeks to get up to speed.

U.S. House votes to restore jobless aid for millions [Washington Post]


Edit Your Comment

  1. TuxthePenguin says:

    Just want to ask… so how long do we keep extending unemployment?

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Depends. When does the congressional re-election campaign begin?

    • LVSinner says:

      How about as long as the government keeps throwing money to the banking and automotive industry because they failed Business 101

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      The logical answer would be either A) When unemployment approaches typical numbers, or B) When it gets extended so much no one can take it any more. Say, a few years in total.

    • ARP says:

      They’re not extending it beyond the 99 weeks. They’re just keeping that program going. Typically it’s only 26 weeks. So people who have exhausted their 99 weeks are SOL/welfare.

      The extended benefits usually end when unemployment drops to “acceptable” levels. If R’s make serious gains in the house/senate, it will end at the end of November.

      • taney71 says:

        I thought they were extending it beyond 99 weeks which is why the media is calling it a “long-term” unemployment bill.

        • ARP says:

          I’m trying to find a link, but I think they’re saying that 99 weeks is a long time (and it is) and we’re running the extended benefits for longer than usual. Here’s a snippet…

          “The first 26 weeks of jobless benefits are paid for by the states. Thursday’s legislation renews a federally financed program providing up to 73 additional weeks of benefits in states with high unemployment rates.”

      • dangermike says:

        uuhhhh… They wouldn’t get sworn in until January 20th.

    • incident_man says:

      Are the benefits interfering with Repug sweetheart tax cuts for the rich, or something?

      • ARP says:

        While I agree with the sentiment, don’t use the term “Repugs.” It immediately cheapens your statement and reduces debate rather than increasing it.

        BOT- if the tax cuts for the rich are allowed to expire, they could help pay for the extended benefits.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        Your snarky-ness aside, its a valid question to ask. If this unemployment becomes structural rather than cyclical (and its been a LONG cycle) then that’s something that we’re going to deal with in other ways.

    • whatsfair says:

      “JPMorgan Outsourcing To India To Increase By 25%” (3/10/09)

      So we can End Unemployment Insurance payments – when we start Taxing Corporations for Each Job that they send Out of the US.

      that’s when.

      • RubyRedJess says:

        DAMN RIGHT!

      • amgriffin says:

        The enemy of our economy is not illegal immigration, that favorite red herring of the conservatives, but the exporting of our jobs and our money to other countries.

        I agree, tax every company for every American job they send out of the US.

    • spamtasticus says:

      Until I can figure out how to get others to pay for my vacation.

  2. taney71 says:

    I thought Obama said we would offset new spending with budget cuts elsewhere? Last time we expanded unemployment aid Obama made a big announcement that Congress did cut spending elsewhere to pay for it. But hey let’s keep spending money on wars and domestic programs we can’t afford! In the end we are all dead and our children and grandchildren suffer for our stupidity.

    • nova3930 says:

      Yep yep yep.

      As a response to Republicans spending like drunken sailors, the Democrats instituted PayGo rules when they took control of Congress.

      Since that point, Democrats have used every trick and excuse they can come up with to ignore the PayGo rules and spend like drunken sailors.

      The fact that these are the people elected to run our country means we are so screwed….

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      1. Bush never cut spending to introduce tax cuts during his 8 years.
      2. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not paid for by taxes. The money for the wars was borrowed from other countries. Do you think we’d still be at war if we, the taxpayers, actually had to fund it?

      • taney71 says:

        Nope which is a reason to demand that we do pay for them.

      • ARP says:

        I would actually be in favor of a balanced budget amendment, just for this reason. Democrats like going into debt to help poor people and Republicans like going into debt to help rich people and to kill brown people. If they had to pay for every program, every war, etc. either through taxes and/or reduced spending, I’d be all for it, as long as it was implemented as soon as the money is spent.

        So in March of 2003, if Bush/Congress told everyone they’d have to poney up another X% to pay for the war, do you think we’d still go to war?

        • taney71 says:

          Check out the wars during the last century. Democrats have their share of responability in causing unnecessary wars against “brown people”.

      • Jevia says:

        The money may have been borrowed from other countries, but we’re paying it back with our taxes.

  3. hmburgers says:

    I haven’t heard anybody say we shouldn’t be extending unemployment benefits. The difference is one side wants to borrow 34 cents on the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren

    ***BULLSHIAT*** You and your party spend money like madmen (and women) when it comes to fighting wars but the moment a social program hits your desk you turn into the cheapest bastards the world has known

    They’ll say it’s because of the deficit. But in reality, they’re simply trying to make this president fail at any cost… The Republican leadership in Congress has decided that the way to get the White House back is by denying unemployment benefits to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and show them that this government doesn’t work.

    ***BULLSHIAT*** Do you honestly believe that people will blame the White House for a Republican fillibuster preventing a unemployment benefit extension? “show them this government doesn’t work”, I agree with that, but it will be the republican’s with the spotlight on them, they will be seen as the reason this didn’t get through–but it seems like you, and many of your party, think the average American is a complete idiot who needs hand-holding forever… if it’s true it’s only because so many have been allowed to sit at the trough for so long.

    It’s time for the government to stop playing “helicopter parent” for every adult American!

    TWO YEARS of unemployment benefits is insanity! For every sob story I read about someone who has been going to crazy lengths to find a job I wonder how many others are sitting on their asses content with whatever check they’re getting?

    If the safety net is SO big, and SO high, and SO comfortable, then NO ONE will bother to walk the rope… and that means we’re doomed to failure as a nation because we aren’t nearly hipster enough to follow the European models.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Hold on, let me trim it for you:

      Republican: “Military spending is important because Israel is important.”

      Democrat: “Four more years! Four more years!”


    • montusama says:

      I agree with you on if you extend unemployment too much no one is willing to get off of it. It’s similar to the welfare system in this country. It doesn’t encourage people to get off of welfare it just encourages them to stay in the same place their entire life.

      As for following the policies of several European countries. Yes that would be effective but I think that goes against the way of thinking in this country. Some people will think its socialism or even communism (some people don’t know the difference). Though the majority still probably have the mentality that America is always right and the American way is the right way.

      • Me - now with more humidity says:

        “…no one…!?!

        Generalize and stereotype much?

        I’ve been on unemployment three times in my life, and each time I worked hard to get off it as fast as I could. Folks like me are the norm, not those who inhabit the GOP’s “everyone is out to rape the system because the Libs show them how” fantasy world.

        • Me - now with more humidity says:

          That should read “those you assume inhabit…”

        • montusama says:

          My unemployment statement should have been better worded on my part. A few of those that are currently on unemployment will probably do the bare minimum to stay on. I’m not accusing people milking the system, I myself am on unemployment and I can’t stand it. I’m in favor of this bill however I refuse to be on unemployment after the standard 26 weeks is over.

        • frosteternal says:

          The problem is not the system-rapers, it is the tendency of job-seekers to *give-up* entirely after a year and a half unemployed. After 1.5 years, the chances of employment drop by two years, it is statistically common that the unemployed cease to seek work, and as soon as that happens, they are no longer calculated in unemployment rates. (To be counted as “unemployed” requires that one be seeking work.)

      • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

        Actually, since welfare is an all-or-nothing situation, unless you land a dream job, it’s difficult to get out of. If you’re welfare could be on a graduated scale depending on wages instead of losing it all once you hit a certain wage, it would save money for the government. It’s hard to accept a promotion or raise when it could actually substantially decrease the funding you depend on to live. The issue isn’t as simple as deciding to quit welfare. It requires some financial planning skills most people just don’t have.

    • smo0 says:

      I know that in the state of nevada you have to submit copies of applications and any and all responses to prove you are actively searching for a job… they aren’t setting ridiculously low bars either, but I’d think a desperate person would try all angles.

      To be honest, if I got fired right now, (due to my current pay bracket) I’d get a weekly unemp check that would boil down to approximately a $9/hr job.

      With that said, why should I give that up to find a job that pays the state minimum wage of $7.25/hr?

      This… actually happened to my roommate, who was unemployed from June 2008 until June 2010. They paid him the equivalent of an $8/hr job and he actually was getting it at the time the unemployment benefits kept being extended. They officially ran out August of last year and he was doing odd jobs, mostly web site design for friends and friends of friends. Finally, it was announced that Clear was opening up one of their call centers here and he applied and got the job last month at $12/hr to start.

      And those of you considering relocating and willing to work for $12/hr and full benefits (even pet insurance) from day 1…. move to Las Vegas and apply to Clear. From what I understand, they are still hiring and expanding faster than the housing boom did, here in Vegas.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      While I agree with the large portion of your statement, I don’t think many are content with a small percentage of their wage each week. When you’re used to a certain standard of living, cutting back by half is a big deal, I don’t care how poor your are. So wondering how many people are content with sitting on their asses collecting unemployment is what “some” would like you to think, so you don’t object as much when they want to end it.

      I’m fortunate enough to be able to support myself with an internship. However, I have no benefits and once it ends, I don’t get unemployment. In fact, you have to wonder how many people were let go for “legitimate” reasons and cannot collect unemployment at all. I worked in a nursing home for 6 years and during that time, of all the people who were terminated, only 2 were able to collect unemployment checks.

      I think unemployment insurance would be a wonderful thing, if I qualified, so that when my paid internship ends and I haven’t landed that new career yet, I don’t have to sell my car and everything else and move 500 miles back home to live with my parents at age 32 in the middle of Nebraska!

      And while republicans would have you think everyone’s partying because they don’t have to work and get to collect a check, I think it’s one of the biggest pieces of propaganda they’re pushing right now. I know no one who is happily unemployed and living the high life on unemployment, and I bet you can say the same. Anyone I know who is unemployed is frantically trying to land a job they can support themselves on.

      • hansolo247 says:

        plenty of areas are offering close to $500 a week.

        And I’m not talking NYC/CA either. To sit at home for that much money (especially if you’re married to a worker and/or your spouse gets the same thing), it approaches $4K a month.

        THAT is something that is comfortable in an average area. At least comfortable enough to be complacent.

        My area offers $275 a week. Not luxurious, but 2 earners at that and it’s not exactly destitute.

    • arcoiris says:

      “TWO YEARS of unemployment benefits is insanity! For every sob story I read about someone who has been going to crazy lengths to find a job I wonder how many others are sitting on their asses content with whatever check they’re getting?”

    • Jevia says:

      I certainly hope that people are smart enough to realize that its the republicans who have been stonewalling and filibustering the attempts to get things done. Unfortunately I hear a lot of people echo the soundbites that the health bill isn’t want Americans want, the financial reform bill isn’t want Americans want, continued unemployment payments isn’t want Americans want. Republicans love their soundbites. That’s why Sarah Palin is so popular.

  4. montusama says:

    I mentioned this in another post but people were discussing about the New Deal, the depression and unemployment (probably the one where experts think the government should throw more money at businesses to jump start the economy even more).

    Extending unemployment is nice as finding work is still hard but why doesn’t the government simply just create agencies or use existing agencies to hire people that are unemployed similar to what they did during the New Deal.

    I’m sure some people on unemployment are just riding it until they can’t anymore, while this may not be cash assistance where you are required to do task for the county that will equal to about 35 hours of “work” a week (at least in Erie County) do something similar with people on unemployment will probably make some people “happier” or at the very least people on unemployment can feel productive again.

    I think the government hiring people (even if its just temporary) is far more effective than just “giving” the money to the several blood sucking corporations in this country.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      “Extending unemployment is nice as finding work is still hard but why doesn’t the government simply just create agencies or use existing agencies to hire people that are unemployed similar to what they did during the New Deal.”

      Because either way, tax money is going to be needed to fund the endeavor. “Make-work” jobs are not sustainable in the long run, and the jobs that would be created by the agencies would be exactly that. Also, if the jobs that are created need some sort of specialized skill, say, technician for a nuclear power plant, the gov’t certainly can’t hire an out of work web design consultant.

      And that’s another thing – the fields that people have chosen to go into seems to play a big part in their employment status. I have friends and associates who are doctors, lawyers, CPA’s, teachers, LEO’s, engineers – all of them have jobs. The people I know who are laid off are graphic designers, art-history majors and “consultants.”

      • smo0 says:

        Oh… didn’t you hear? “Consultants” are now one of the sole job descriptions of people in India.

        I know what you were getting at… but anyone I know who worked for any major consulting firms here, lost their jobs to competing corporations in India.
        I work for a major corporation… and yes, they’ve succumbed to canceling US contracts for ones from India.

    • ARP says:

      I’m supportive of a WPA. Most people think of digging ditches, but a person could do filing, data entry, etc. for a state, town, federal government office, etc. In fact, people could even learn some new skills.

    • Illusio26 says:

      I know at least 2 people that aren’t even bothering to look for work because they make almost as much on unemployment as they did while working. That’s the problem with the system right there.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        And I know three people who are working their asses off to become employed again. OH SNAP how can both situations exist? Clearly, as a result of your evidence, everyone on unemployment isn’t trying to get a job, but as a result of mine, everyone on unemployment is trying to get a job. PARADOX!!

        Oh wait, that’s why anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Carry on.

  5. alSeen says:

    Republicans wanted to use excess stimulus money to fund this. Democrats wanted to go further into debt. Which one sounds more economically responsible?

    • alSeen says:

      That or cut less than 1% of the current budget to pay for it.

    • Me - now with more humidity says:

      Where do you think the stimulus money came from?

      • alSeen says:

        Oh, I know it was generated through debt, but why go further into debt when the money is not currently being used?

    • ARP says:

      Republicans don’t want to offset tax cuts with reduced spending. J-Kyle just stated as much and other R’s agree. How economically responsible is that?

      Republicans tripled the debt in the 80’s and doubled it again under Bush II. Carter and Clinton reduced the debt during their terms. Now suddenly you’re interested in the deficit? So, when the defict went from 30-80% of GDP, that wasn’t a problem. But going from 80-87% is suddenly the biggest issue in the world?

      BOT- many economists believe that the Stimulus was enough to stop the freefall, but not enough to get us out of the recession. This is a small way of increasing the size of the stimulus without passing a full new bill.

      • alSeen says:

        Congress controls spending. All the president can do is sign or not sign. During the 80s the Democrats were in charge of Congress. They are the ones that passed the massive spending bills. Tax revenues went up after the tax cuts, but spending went up more.

        The Republicans were the ones that balanced the budget during the Clinton admin. It wasn’t until 1994 that it started to be brought under control. All Clinton did is sign the spending bills they put in front of him.

        I disliked much of the spending increases that happened during G.W. Bush’s terms. The Republicans brought about one of the largest entitlement increases (up to that point) in recent history. Medicare Part D

        • ARP says:

          Doesn’t change the fact that Reagan and Bush signed off on those budgets. I’m not thrilled about the spending, but I’m more upset about the hypocrisy. Just admit that you’re just as bad about taxes and spending as Democrats are, but have opposite views and that now you want to finally do something about it. Don’t pretend that you were worried about it all along or you had nothing to do with it.

        • PunditGuy says:

          Budgets start with the OMB ( and then Congress works its sausage-making magic on it. If I remember correctly, the Democratic Congresses in the 1980s never strayed more than 5% from Reagan’s OMB framework, so the notion that unrestrained legislators caused the budget shortfalls doesn’t really work out. We can whip out Bush 43’s OMB submissions and check those as well, if you like.

    • jp says:

      Pay for it by ending the billions of dollars in subsides to the oil and gas industries. Guess what? Republicans rejected this because they are all in the back pocket of this corrupt industry.

    • whatsfair says:

      Not Republicans for sure.

      “But today on Fox News Sunday, [Sen Jon Kyl R-AZ] Kyl threw his concerns about the deficit out the window when discussing tax cuts.

      Kyl said Congress should not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, but when host Chris Wallace asked, “How are you going to pay the $678 billion to keep Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?” Kyl wouldn’t answer. And in fact, he went so far as to say tax cuts should never have to be paid for”

      Sure those Republicans are REALLY concerned about the deficit.

      • alSeen says:

        You don’t pay for tax cuts. The money does not belong to the government, it belongs to the tax payers. Tax cuts reduce the amount of money that is available to the government.

        I understand that this is a hard concept to understand, but it is an important distinction.

        • ARP says:

          Fine- How are you going to equitably reduce spending to account for the reduced revenues caused by a tax cut for the wealthy so that it does not further contribute to the deficit?

          Republicans don’t seem interested in answering that question and instead focus on semantics (just like you did). So, please point to a Republican leader that has answered that question fully. Since you like semantics, as used herein, “fully” means that if they’re going to cut programs, the cuts have to equal the reduced revenue stemming from the tax cuts. That means Cantor’s suggestions are a few hundred billion short. Oh, and stating that reducing taxes increases total tax receipts doesn’t work as that’s been proven false over the last 30 years.

        • Trai_Dep says:

          It’s also a difficult concept to understand that, unmolested, capital’s natural state is to accumulate. The Robber Baron Age tests your hypothesis quite handily.
          Short form version: it doesn’t work well for the economy (or society) as a whole. For vibrant, consumer-driven economies (and vibrant, people-led democracies), Capitalism’s rough edges require sanding.
          One of these tools is to mediate extremes in wealth: too much (or too little) wealth is unproductive. Taxes are one way to maintain an equilibrium. Bloody revolutions being the other.

          This, of course, besides the fact that (more) balanced budgets are a vital goal. And that Democrats have consistently done better in this regard (the US has also enjoyed better economic performance under Democratic Presidents, further supporting the above claims).

          • hansolo247 says:

            I know you’re trying to make a Clinton reference, but he had nothing to do with the surpluses.

            He was bullied into signing a balanced budget.

            I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the days the federal government was shut down during the mid-90s regarding this very issue.

            Result: Clinton resisted, and lost. And now he’s some sort of demi-god on fiscal restraint??

  6. jojo319 says:

    I personally really enjoy the debates that happen within the comments. That being said, the stories themselves are starting to sound more and more like articles written for the Huffington Post. This site really used to seem a lot more neutral in it’s tone. Whatever happened to just reporting on good solid consumer news?

    • dragonfire81 says:

      This is a pro-consumer blog (and many times anti-corporation) whose offices are located in a heavily liberal city (NYC) in a heavily liberal state (NY). What did you expect?

  7. Akuma Matata says:

    Why is Congress allowed to arbitrarily change the rules after the fact? If unemployment insurance was set to pay out $X benefits for Y number of weeks, why can Congress simply change that? By changing it, they’ve altered all the math. In order to remain solvent, UI funds must now charge people with jobs more to replenish the fund and continue to pay out ever extending benefits. How long can people honestly expect to receive unemployment benefits?

    • jojo319 says:

      I think the simple answer is, politicians have ZERO interest in anything other than what gets them past the next election. It’s why the can is constantly kicked down the road by both parties. Any politician who even tries to claim they want to permanently “fix” any sort of budgetary problems is immediately called out as someone who doesn’t care about the unemployed, the elderly, children, etc…. The only thing in my opinion that would change anything is term limits. and that ain’t gonna happen.

  8. mopman64 says:

    Let me tell you, I have been unemployed as of June 30 2010. It sucks. I never thought I would miss my little 32,000 a year job as much as I do. I am paying my own way through school which starts in Sept and have a small cleaning service on the side. I dont think unemployment should be more then 6 months for anyone. If you are on it get off if you can. It makes you feel useless.

    • Hoot says:

      Being someone who took a job far below my education level (high school diploma v. Masters degree), I hear you. There are actually some jobs out there… your cleaning service an example of that.

      One of my family friends (a woman in her 50’s) got laid off awhile back from a senior sales job at a pharmaceutical company and refuses to even consider anything a good chunk lower in pay or status. A job is a job. I know a lot of people on unemployment are legitimately unskilled/uneducated and would have a hard time getting the majority of jobs or are in a region where jobs are really really scarce, but there is another chunk who just can’t see themselves as anything but what they were before. And they will sit on unemployment until they get super desperate, it gets cut off, or their job market comes back.

    • sweaterhogans says:

      I was unemployed for a long time and I was getting to the point where it was about to run out. I applied for dozens of jobs every day for the 5 months I was unemployed. Luckily ONE person in that bunch decided to give me a chance and hire me. It really isn’t the job I want and they don’t pay me much, but I had to take it. The thought of running out of money is frightening, and I did feel useless. But, it would’ve been nice if I had just a little longer to look for a job I actually would want.

  9. smo0 says:

    Okay so I was checking out the article on yahoo about this.. and saw this in the comments…

    “Trailers will be a rockin’ tonight!!”

    I fell out of my chair laughing.

  10. RubyRedJess says:

    When you spend all of your life dedicated to a trade and then the bottom falls out, you are stuck. You have to find a way to pay your bills and now, you have to pay for some kind of re-training. Even IF You can pay for that new training, there are millions of people in the same position you are in line in front of you. It takes a freaking miracle to get a job as a JANITOR. Considering you have a college degree and years of experience running multi-million dollar projects, $22,000 a year living in Los Angeles won’t pay your bills!

    • YdoUthinkURright says:

      That truly sucks because the system is in place for just that. I’m telling you though…most people use this benefit as a reason not to look for work. I say this as someone that has known MANY people that do this.

    • mopman64 says:

      The funny thing is my full time job that I lost this past June was for a school dist and I was a janitor. We out sourced to Aramark.

      • jeff_the_snake says:

        i swear that company is run by the devil. it’s like they’ve built an empire based on fucking people over in the ways the businesses they contract with just don’t have the stomach for.

  11. Cicadymn says:

    Talked to an unemployed friend of mine a while back. He was pretty worried about it not making it and said he was finally looking for a job. “I have to get a job my unemployment is running out.”

    Pissed me off that so many people treat this like a vacation and not using it to help find work. My friend was getting 500 bucks a week. I only make 400 a week busting my ass for 40-50 hours. This bullshit needs to be fixed.

    • YdoUthinkURright says:

      You are dead on! I know alot of people that have done exactly that. They all say the same thing…my unemployment is running out and I need to start looking for a job. I hear it all the time..I have a lot of deadbeat losers in my family.

  12. YdoUthinkURright says:

    Sorry to say, but the “on the streets reality” in my experience is that many of the younger people that are collecting are very happy with the position they are in. I myself have terminated several employees in my business this year so far. Each one was due to lack of work ethic. Some were late everyday to work and some late by 20-40 minutes at least 1 day a week. Another was calling out sick once a month. Another couldn’t wait to be fired so she could collect unemployment ( she said this to another employee and almost smiled when being fired )! Each one of these people has been collecting unemployment and I have been fighting to have it revoked as not one of them deserves this support. They had good paying jobs but wanted to hang out with their friends more.

    Hate to say it…truly hate it…but the Republicans are not wrong about this. There are likely more than you know that are happy to be on unemployment and love the idea that it has been extended. Now they can get a off the books PT job and keep collecting insurance and partying on our hard earned tax dollars.

    This is something that I have alot of experience with. It’s more than you think that are getting this benefit that don’t deserve it.

    What’s worse, they were getting this benefit before the Dept of Labor bothered to find out why they were unemployed and had already been paying them for several weeks before they contacted the company.

  13. YdoUthinkURright says:

    By extending this, they have effectively taken away the incentive for many people to get off their ass and hunt down a job. I understand that there are many that are truly looking for work, not just posting online and waiting or sitting at home. Those are the people this was intended for but the truth is this will help pay for a lot of folks to stay home, hang out with their friends and your taxes to go up.

    Keep your eyes open for a mileage tax people!

    • Joe_lovz_buying says:

      There are 4x as many job seekers than open position. By what magic would the needed jobs appear?
      I know you met some slackers but the math simply doesn’t line up. You have a special case in your company. For each of those positions that opened up I bet you have a multitude of people applying.

      If it was as you said, no-one would be applying for open positions. There would be a worker shortage and unemployment and that is not the case.

  14. rockelscorcho says:

    I wish I even had a chance to get unemployment. I got laid off in August of ’09 and had to move back into my parents for the time being. I didn’t qualify for unemployment due to the fact that my job was federally funded (University). I’ve been living off my savings which is dead now for the year.

    Luckily, I got my teaching certification, and a job for the fall! However, it’s not that good for others. Out of the 40 in my class, I’m the only one who has gotten a job.

    Being unemployed sucks.

  15. Psylocke says:

    I’m torn on the unemployment debate. I know a couple people that live in pretty hard hit areas that really have a limited number of jobs like Michigan and WV. They have been without jobs for almost a year now. However on the flip side I know a few people taking the free ride and not looking at all.

    Funny part is the company I work for now is hiring all over the US and this is a good paying livable wage. We are having a difficult time finding people to fill those positions.

  16. madfrog says:

    For all of those who are having a hard time and are legit in looking for some new employment, I am sorry that this has been hard for you. You deserve to get the money. On the other hand, a co-worker of mine lives next to a couple that have both been unemployed for close to two years now and think it’s fun to collect checks and play on the Wii all day long on everyone else’s dime. Every time they get that weekly check, it’s off to the local store to buy more useless craps and games. He is a roofer and she’s a nurse. If the gov’t wants to stimulate the economy and get people working – here’s a thought: hire some people to start going over the records of those who are unemployed for a long time and make sure that they are really looking for work and not doing crap like this! It’s a Win-Win as far as I’m concerned.