Congress set to clear aid to jobless, homebuyers

Congress set to clear aid to jobless, homebuyers

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_go_...

WASHINGTON – Congress is one vote away from sending the president legislation that continues aid to more than a million jobless people and extends tax breaks to hundreds of thousands of prospective homebuyers and struggling businesses.

The legislation, recognizing the lingering distresses of the recession, passed the Senate Wednesday on a 98-0 vote and could come up in the House as early as Thursday, sending it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the bill was "vital to Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the deepest recession in over three-quarters of a century."

The bill, with a price tag of some $24 billion, would provide every American running out of unemployment insurance benefits this year with an additional 14 weeks. The out-of-work in states with jobless rates at 8.5 percent or greater would get six weeks on top of that.

It would also extend for seven months an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers that was enacted as part of the $787 billion stimulus package passed last February and is set to expire at the end of this month. The program would be expanded with a $6,500 credit for homebuyers who have lived in their current residences for five years.

Finally, it would allow businesses that have incurred losses in 2008 and 2009 to seek refunds for taxes paid on profits over the past five years.

The package, said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a leader on the unemployment issue, will "help nearly 2 million Americans who are still unable to find work, protect small businesses struggling in this challenging economic climate and stimulate economic activity to help create jobs and grow our economy."

The extension would be the fourth since June of last year and could result in giving an out-of-work person in one of the harder-hit states up to 99 weeks of benefits, well above the previous record of 65 during the 1970s.

Supporters argued that this help was necessary when 15 million unemployed are competing for about 3 million jobs and 7,000 people are exhausting their benefits every day.

"There is no place today in the United States that does not see a serious crisis in unemployment," said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, where the 13 percent unemployment rate exceeds the national rate of 9.8 percent.

The $2.4 billion cost of extending unemployment benefits is offset by extending through June 2011 the federal unemployment tax that employers pay for each employee.
______

You might find fault with the extension of unemployment. Or the homebuyer credit.

What I see a problem with is setting the threshold ONLY to states with higher unemployment- as if it's the fault of workers in lower unemployment states that their state held it together. 8% unemployment is still high in other states- federal programs should NOT be able to pick and choose!

It is not about the fault of the workers, it is about the level of unemployment and what it does overall.

Many define "full employment", and economic term, as a rate between 3-10%. Specifically, what this means is that anyone that wants a job, can get a job. The rate takes into account normal attrition and turnover. Above these rates, other factors come into play.

Job seekers in Michigan, who own a home, are further constrained by the poor housing market (those who need to sell their home to move and/or support a second household at the out of state job site).

I'm not as upset by these $24 billion bailouts as I am by the Obama lead $1500 billion bailouts of his contributors... specifically the finicial market bailouts. At least the money actually gets into circulation instead of being hoarded by the banks and the credit markets being shut down.

It's not so much the "bailout" as it is the choosing between states. If you're going to do it for one state, you can't pick and choose who gets and who doesn't.

I understand the financial bailouts, and think they went too far. The alternative, a run on the banks, is too much to stomach. Don't forget, both parties went for that bailout. ALL of it should be paid back, including GM and Chrysler. Then they should go to work(and they won't) on finding a way to get a balanced budget. It has to be done.

Again, welfare term limits. Get out of Iraq. Cut no-bid contracts. Change healthcare to make sure the gov't isn't paying insane fees to hospitals for procedures. Pay for the healthcare system, even if that means a lockbox tax. I even think they could look into a flat tax and eliminate 80% of the IRS....and no services for illegals.

Simple, isn't it? Too bad nobody has the balls.

Paul, that is exactly what got us into this mortgage mess in the first place! The sub prime debacle with Fannie and Freddie forcing banks to make home loans to people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

The morons on capital hill will NEVER learn. To make loans to unqualified people is not compassion, it is cruel.

Bonds:

When you make posts like the above, it makes me wonder why we disagree on things so much. Some comments

bonds77 wrote:

It's not so much the "bailout" as it is the choosing between states. If you're going to do it for one state, you can't pick and choose who gets and who doesn't.

EXACTLY. I was simply telling you the rational *if* it should be done. Anytime the government picks winners and losers, be it Joe Unemployed or Bob BigBusiness, this is known as a command economy.

bonds77 wrote:

I understand the financial bailouts, and think they went too far. The alternative, a run on the banks, is too much to stomach. Don't forget, both parties went for that bailout.

Oh, I haven't. That is why I don't automatically vote for one of them, but consider all options.

bonds77 wrote:

Again, welfare term limits. Get out of Iraq. Cut no-bid contracts. Change healthcare to make sure the gov't isn't paying insane fees to hospitals for procedures. Pay for the healthcare system, even if that means a lockbox tax. I even think they could look into a flat tax and eliminate 80% of the IRS....and no services for illegals.

You'll get (not much) of an argument from me here. I would like to see English Rule in the tort system as one part of the reform. Also, I think we shouldn't just assume flat tax is the only option, don't forget that there was no IRS (federal tax) until 1913 and the average man in the street didn't even pay income tax until after world war 2.

bonds77 wrote:

Simple, isn't it? Too bad nobody has the balls.

Yeap. And as long as the American people continue to vote for the corrupt Democrats and Republicans, little will change. I've been a Republican state delegate and little of the party is about values, it is about the tribe and getting re-elected. I'm sure its the same with the Dems. Those that try to stand for principle, be it Mike Gravel of the Democratic Party or Ron Paul of the Republican party, are marginalized by those in their own party.

Bonds, you might like Mike Gravel

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