Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Would restore benefits to about 2.5 million people, right thing to do?

WASHINGTON – Millions of people stuck on the jobless rolls would receive an extension of unemployment benefits averaging $309 a week under a Senate bill that appears set to break free of a Republican filibuster.

Democrats have stripped the unemployment insurance measure down to the bare essentials for Tuesday's vote, which is a do-over of a tally taken late last month.

With West Virginia Democrat Carte Goodwin poised to claim the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, two Republicans will be needed to push the measure over the filibuster hurdle. Maine GOP moderates Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are expected to provide the key votes to create a filibuster-breaking tally on a key procedural test.

The measure is expected to pass later Tuesday. The House would take it up Wednesday and then send it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_unemployment_benefits

 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 1:42 PM on Jul. 20, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (33)
  • Trickle down economics doesn't work. Rich people keep thier money, poor people spend thier money. It makes more sense to give money we don't have to poor people who will benefit more and give more of it back.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 3:47 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • and the Bush tax cuts add 300 BILLION....repubs want to KEEP them...go figure

    To people with expendable income who are in a position to spend money on more than rent, heat and food. See, tax cuts only apply to people who actually have jobs. That's a rare thing these days. You start taxing them more and there will be even less money flowing into the economy than there is now. Meanwhile, Pelosi is just going to funnel that extra money into saving more non-existent endangered species in SF swamps and hiring people just long enough to screw up their unemployment before the temp job runs out again.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:59 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • So people WITHOUT money to pay for FOOD and MORTGAGE..what happens?

    Oh, they'll have even less coming home in their check, glad you're concerned about them. Or did you mean the unemployed? Cause there's billions of dollars earmarked for stimulus they could use to help them out, they just don't want to give up saving the mosquito and hiring contractors for 3 days to count a created job.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:14 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • If they'd done that in the first place instead of dumping all their pet projects in the bill it wouldn't have lapsed in the first place. Pity people had to lose their homes for them to pull their heads out of their asses and figure that out.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:43 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • Yeah, i thought the issue was "pay-as-you-go" not pet projects in the bill.

    It's both - go back and reread what was going on when they tried the first time. One threw a tantrum worthy of a 3 year old because his pork was shot down and withdrew the whole thing, so they had to revise yet again. The first time it failed was in the house (you know, where the Dems have a full majority and don't need any R votes) In the meantime, this still comes down to where people live - states with less visible unemployment problems would be hard pressed to vote for it regardless of party, because they want to be re-elected. People who don't know anyone who is laid off don't want this passed because they assume it's all lazy people living on the system. IF they had the means to pay for it, everyone could vote for it and not worry. Instead, anyone who votes for it becomes campaign ad fodder for spending what isn't there.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:56 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • "extends benefits for those whose six months of state-paid benefits have run out, millions of others will continue to receive payments that would help prop up consumer demand to the tune of about $30 billion more over the coming year".

    How on earth does extending benefits really help prop up consumer demand? To start with it adds another 34 billion to the deficit. That puts you further in a hole to start with. $300 a week doesn't lend itself to extra spending so it may keep a roof over someones head but it isn't going to fuel the economy.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 1:53 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 4:33 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • Yeah, i thought the issue was "pay-as-you-go" not pet projects in the bill.

    Michiganders need the extension and i am glad it's on it's way.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 1:50 PM on Jul. 20, 2010


  • and the Bush tax cuts add 300 BILLION....repubs want to KEEP them...go figure



    They may be thinking about creating jobs, for those people who want to work..............................
    mustbeGRACE

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 2:52 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • Ohh~And sweet~ your titled question~"Would restore benefits to about 2.5 million people, right thing to do? "


    Better be careful, if Gertie catches your errors...  Hrmmm~Where ohh where is Gertie to edit and critique your grammar? Of course~followed by the insulting your education level? Afterall, that is how she rolls, right? Liberal mocking and calls for fair and balanced only to be made a hypocritcal fool...  Niiiiiiiiice

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 4:58 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN