Bush signs bill providing extra jobless benefits

Yahoo! News Philippines / The Associated Press ^ | November 22, 2008 | Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent

[2ndDivisionVet]

That wouldn’t be unemployment, employees don’t pay for that. It must have stood for something else.

[Thumper1960]

You're right. Of the nine taxes listed on my stubs, none were for UCI.

Amazing....nine different taxes.

Those sons of ******s must be sadists to cut others a thousand times and watch them bleed.

And, we must be masochists, stupid or cowards to let them do it.

[Gaffer]

Next time, go to the US Department of Labor and get the FACTS.

"Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal/state UI tax). Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if: (1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1,500, or more, in any quarter of a calendar year; or, (2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether or not the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law and employers should contact their state workforce agencies to learn the exact requirements."

At least, in part, UI is funded through taxes. Benefits, to say overly long benefits, funded by taxpayers (yes, employers are taxpayers, too) is welfare.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Well, I worked for the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS), U.S. Department of Labor from 1988 to 2000. Welfare, generally, is considered any unearned benefit, such as TANF, Section 8 or Food Stamps versus something like UI or SSI. Or do you feel that my 40% service-connected VA disability is welfare?

[Gaffer]

This doesn't have anything to do with 'disability' pay. It has to do with 'benefits' that are extended as a result of political largesse. I do know that in most states, employer UI is calculated on the basis of a company's experienced claim history (e.g., an employer with few claims pays less insurance). Whatever bulge in the system caused by outside actions (i.e., mass layoffs, political action, etc.) result in a demand on the 'pool'. If the pool isn't big enough, where do you think the money comes from?

Extending benefits, established through rule and practice, for political benefit is manipulation and pandering for votes. So yes, I still consider politically motivated extension of 'earned' benefits welfare.