Well this bill hasn't even passed yet but, they just mentioned another extension for next year.

did i hear right on CSPAN, they were going to vote the someone requested the yays and nays so they postponed it?

Can anyone tell me what's going on? I am sick and kind of out of it but, I thought it sounded like they were talking about voting, now their on another subject?

Yes, Jim Mcdermott asked for the yays and nays. But the postponement is only for a few minutes to a few hours. But it should be voted on by today.

In the same boat,

They will be voting on the bill using yays and nays. The postponement is only temporary for a few minutes to a few hours but should be voted on by today.

That was Congressman Jim McDermott from Washington State who requested the ya's & nay's. Question: what's the purpose of doing that?

Thanks Mrasay.

Do you know why it was postponed?

http://rules.house.gov/archives/voting_house.htm

I believe the yays and nays is a roll call vote to see who is voting what and from where. Also, the roll call vote is done using electronic devices so it is quicker than for the clerk to do a head count. There's about 535 congress member so i believe this should make things go a bit faster. It's possible that the quorum was low so therefore they might be calling for a quorum call.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Yeas+and+Nays+definition&page=1&qsrc=6&dm=all&a...

Thanks GW. It looks to me that there was not a quorum present.

Thanks again Mrassay.

Thanks GW.

they also want the nays to be known and where their from. if there are any.

i never realized how much non-sense these guys talk about. they do this everyday too!

They will be voting on the HR 3548 electronically. I believe they have enough quorum to vote on it. 15 minute vote!

Fingers crossed

they are voting! :-D

Are they voting?

15 min vote on hr3548 right now on cspan

HR 3548, 15 minute electronic
Yeas and Nays voting now.

someone is asking now why the heck they had to send the bill to the House. Very interesting stuff,.

I believe because the Senate changed the original bill and both houses needs to agree on the bill for check and balances.

Once this Bill passes and is signed by Obabma, I hope for myself and everyone else that our states will move quickly to get the money to us.

so far yeas nays
democratic 28 0

republican 16 0

Now after getting this legislative bill is passed. They will need to reconvene for another extension next year because the 14 to 20 weeks is really not enough. Specially for people who lost their benefits weeks ago.

Congress is estimating that unemployment will be high until the end of 2010.

Just wondering...Once this bill is signed by Obama, does anyone know when we'll actually receive benefits? Mine ran out a couple weeks ago and I'm in a huge bind right now.

"hope states will move quickly to get the money to us" again, that will be up to your state. That would be a good question for them.

3 nays by republicans! How can we find out who they are?

I can't believe there is a "nay"! I guess it's good that they are voting yays and nays so we can figure out who's house to torch later.

So far there are 3 nays!

Hedonistic,

That was not a question. I was stating basically good luck to all.

5 nays from republicans already......WOW never vore for a republican they just dont care about us

Stop the phone questions and continue with the information, geez, what the heck are they doing talking on the phone now>?:

1 dem nay

almost

Does it look like you all gonna get paid?

they took it back

and it passed..next stop the presidents desk!

so what now? another hold up? ;what the heck are they waiting for?

SAYS HOUSE PASSED THE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaas 403
Nays 12

Looks like it will be sent to our Prez right away as tomorrow Prez will be at Capitol Hill behind closed doors in a most important meeting regarding the passing of the health bill on Saturday.

Not out of the woods yet, even after signature.

One thing Jim McDermott (original bill sponsor) did say in his speech was that he was hearing that there may administrative challenges on the state level in implementing it. He actually said this was a "wake up call" for state Divisions of Unemployment to get to work.

Many states probably have to update their software, which hopefully they've already started doing at least 2 weeks ago.

A check by Thanksgiving would save a lot of families' holidays.

yeas 388 nays 12 And yes the 12 are from republicans

finally! thank you Lord

it's funny how quickly they can pass stuff that WE don't care about, but when something like this comes up... it really has been infuriating to watch them. the dems should have started this process along time ago and the republicans, i can't even start talking about how much i've come to detest them after watching their obstructionist tactics. well, at least it finally got done. good luck everybody!

Well, we might be saved. No thanks to the "repulicant's'" or is it "repulicwont's"
I agree with Harmon. The republicans (yes with a small "r") are mean spirited and apparently in the pockets of the lobbyists. I will NEVER vote republican again. And to think I was once one of them! Well maybe I'll turn myself into a bank....right now I could use a billion or two.

I didnt see the vote but i heard it from Orion Samuelson on WGN radio....about damn time they finished this.

I too would like to know when actual benifits would reach the public? Also, is anyone aware or know whether the benfits now available under extention are retroactive...? Meaning...do they pick up from the point they previously expired???

They do not pay retro active but they will pay from the point of the legilation signed by Obama. It should take about a week or two before actual payment. check with your local agency. each state is different.

I also would like to know when the public (me) will actually see these benifits? I also would like to know if they are retroactive to the point that when they expired in the first Place???

I posted this in the previous forum, but here's my take on a timeline;

Let's say it does pass this week, and the president signs it into law on, say, Friday. Since it is not retroavtive, the first week you will be eligible to claim is next week; week ending Nov. 14. Since you file two weeks at a time, the earliest you could file is Sunday Nov. 22, for the weeks ending 14th and 21st. If you E-File with Direct Deposit, funds should be in your account no later than Wednesday the 25th. This is the absolute earliest I see any extended unemployment benefits actually being paid out. Other methods of filing obviously would be later, and since offices are closed on Thanksgiving, and The Day After Thanksgiving, if you use regular mail, you're certainly looking at no sooner than a December delivery. In addition, with all of the gov't employees and mail personnel taking vacation days to extend the holiday weekend, and all of the hillbillies taking extra days off for hunting season, normal office procedures would obviously be slowed even further. So, I think most people should plan on a Dec. delivery date, with MAYBE a handful possibly receiving before Thanksgiving, at best.

As far as to when you will see these benefits..sounds like a question for your state unemployment office. Everyone - stop asking if its retroactive...the answer is everywhere.

Why do we need a take on a timeline? Do you like setting false expectations?

Does anyone know how the state of Illinois will work? Do we have to go in to the office if our benefits already ran out or will they send us something in the mail?

GW In IL: Thank you, have yoy ran out of benefits? I don't know why but I am nervous because I ran out of benefits the beginning of September and am worried for some reason that I will not get them. Sowhen we get something in the mail it will have our call in date on it?

For those interested, here's the list of Housemembers voting no:

No Votes (12)
Member Party Dist.
Michael C. Burgess R TX-26
Paul Broun R GA-10
Jeff Flake R AZ-6
Trent Franks R AZ-2
Scott Garrett R NJ-5
John Linder R GA-7
Tom McClintock R CA-4
Ron Paul R TX-14
Tom Price R GA-6
George P. Radanovich R CA-19
John Shadegg R AZ-3
Steve Scalise R LA-1

This will have to be revisited..its only good for 8 weeks or so.

"Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., reminded lawmakers that they'll have to revisit the issue again before adjourning for the year. The bill applies to benefits exhausted this year"

This is NOT for 2010!

I don't give bad information.

There are not 14 weeks left in 2009. So you better hope they decide to offer it into the new year.

First, I would really like to thank all the authors and moderators of this blog, it has been a lifeline for me these past days...as I wait and worry with others. The information and timeliness was first class. My benefit ran out the beginning of September, as many others, I am really in a desperate situation. As we move to the distribution and payment process I was wondering if you have any feedback on what we can do positively impact helping to expedite the process. Write/call senators and reps in IL? They all fought for us and are MORE (27 days) than aware that this time they took has made matters dire. Could they pressure the system to move quicker based on all this.

If congress does nothing between now and 12/31 (that won't happen) you will not get a continuing check into 2010. You should know this. This bill is all over the internet.

HEY hedonistic give me a reliable link or phone number to prove you are right that the new extension bill ends on 12/31/2009

Look when this bill was intially considered there were 13 weeks left in 2009 (and thats what they wanted. But it dragged on and nobody redid the language except for making 14 weeks...You guys have to deal with it...I'm just passing this on.

Look under the HR Bill or Senate bill numbers that were assigned to it.

If your benefits have already run out or will before 12/31/2009, then the 20 week bill just passed applies to you. If you will exhaust your current benefits after year end, the bill does not apply to you. GW...yes you are right I just spoke to the unemployment office today in IL. and they stated this.

Now, how will we know when the Prez signed this bill? I am sure they will not say anything else at cspan, so is there a way of knowing this?> I mean, it's important because by this signing, then we know is on to the Dept that distributes the instructions to each state, dig what i mean?

What is the sense of them passing this BILL if its not going to continue into 2010? They know that we have already exhausted our other extensions and that this would have to continue into next year!!!!!

local news should say something...WGN radio Chicago has been updating occasionally

You should also know that as long as you qualify to receive these last tiers of benefits before Dec. 26, 2009, you will be able to collect the full amount of them, even into 2010. While the entire EUC program has not yet been extended into 2010, you will be "grandfathered" into this last tier of benefits and will receive them in full, so the promise of 14-20 more weeks of benefits is not an illusory one. unemployedworkers.org

Now there are some REAL facts.... that hedonistic couldnt provide

http://www.unemployedworkers.org/sites/unemployedworkers/index.php/benefits scroll down a bit to middle of page everyone...there's your answer

I live in Illinois and just spoke with IDES, extended benefits, mine just ran out as of 10/24. I was advised they are waiting on directives to move forward (after Obama signs) and hope to have info early next and begin getting letters out. I was further advised if you have an upcoming call in date to try it to see if goes through, if not to call IDES right after, that will be the quickest way to get paid if you're in this situation.

I saw, on Washingtonwatch.org, posted by another user an article in The Orange County Register stating that becuse of a Senset Proviso that few would be actuall getting the full twenty or even 14, is this true?

http://economy.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/05/few-eligible-for-the-full-...

I have a question that maybe one of you could help answer for me. I am currently on my first extension, which went into affect when I got my first extension payment on 08/14/09. By my calculations (adding 20 weeks from that point) my extension benefits will exhaust in the middle of December, which should qualify me to receive the second extension that hopefully will be passed by Obama when he signs it soon. However, on the notice that was given to me when my current extension went into place, it says that my "Year End Benefit Date" is "01/17/2010", which leads me to believe that I may NOT qualify. Could someone help clear this up for me? If my benefits are exhausted in December of this year, meaning that will be the last time I receive payment under this extension, I should qualify.....right???

I understood the bill does include the ones that run out after Dec.31, but calculated differently. Their amount would be adjusted by the timeline left, which this extension last til May 31st. Although, many of us will already be drawn all of ours out,they can continue to draw until the timelime. Just like the timeline on the last extention was Dec. 31st the next one is May 31st.

Thanks for the list of the "Party of NO!" I see that Arizona was well represented. I am going to do everything that I can to make sure that they are not re-elected.

By the time this extension is about to expire, I'll bet anything that they'll already be addressing it and moving on it in the form of another extension, lol.

(-:

Here's California's statement from the UI Division (complex programming required, not retroactive):

New Federal Unemployment Insurance Extensions

Congress recently approved legislation providing further unemployment extension benefits. It provides the potential for up to 20 additional weeks of benefits for higher unemployment states, including California. If the legislation approved by Congress is signed by the President and enacted this week, then Sunday, November 8, 2009, becomes the first eligible week for the new benefits. Any time spent unemployed and without benefits before then is not covered by the new federal legislation.

The new extensions will require complex programming to implement once authorized. EDD is working around the clock to ensure payments can be made as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, there is no need to contact EDD. We will be contacting potentially eligible claimants and notifying them of developments. Once programming is in place we will follow up with further instructions and automatically file the extensions for as many of our clients as possible. We may also need to contact some clients at that time and request further information. Please watch this Web site for further updates.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/New_Federal_Unemployment_Insurance_Ex...

The benefits extension approved by the Senate on Wednesday and the House yesterday will
bring the maximum number of available benefits up from 79 weeks to 99 weeks. This maximum
varies by state, however, and can be viewed in this NELP chart:
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/federal.extensions.by.state.pdf?nocdn=1.

I just heard the President signed the Bill!!!!!

We beat the blog...saw it on CNN...THE BILL IS SIGNED!!!....seems like we all now have a seat in the lifeboat. Glad to know I'm not sailing on the Titanic....YET!

Good luck to all of you and best wishes for the upcoming holidays. I wish you and all your families the best. By the way has anyone talked to IDES and found out what we need to do if our benefits have already ran out?

when is this going to take effect in ny state?
are we going to get a lump sum of what they owe us from claiming for the past month?

No..... you will not get a lump sum

http://www.ides.state.il.us/ new information for Illinois at IDES

I guess i'll have to stretch my last check an extra week but that is good news

Gov. Quinn Praises Unemployment Benefit Extension
President Obama Signs Bill that Assists 40,000 Illinois Workers
CHICAGO – November 6, 2009. Governor Pat Quinn today hailed U.S. Congressional action to extend
unemployment insurance benefits an additional 20 weeks for thousands of Illinois workers who otherwise
would have lost that financial support. President Obama signed the legislation into law today.
“Thousands of Illinois families will be able to use this modest benefit payment to support their families
and their local business community,” said Governor Quinn. “I salute President Obama and Congress for
showing leadership and compassion during this economic crisis.”
Without the extension, 40,000 Illinois workers would have exhausted their unemployment insurance
benefits. Nationally, the number is estimated at exceed 1 million. Approximately 420,000 people in Illinois
collect unemployment insurance.
The 20 additional weeks will supplement the 26 weeks available in Illinois that is funded through
business contributions. Previous Congressional action authorized 53 weeks of payments funded primarily by
the federal government.
“As with past extensions, we will implement this program in such a way that claimants need not contact
their local office,” said Maureen O’Donnell, director of the Illinois Department of Employment Security. “We will
proactively notify our customers should there be a question about their eligibility.”
Unemployment insurance was never intended to replace an individual’s income. It always was intended
to provide financial assistance to an individual, and as a result, businesses that the individual patronizes,
during challenging economic conditions. An average Illinois weekly benefit payment is $325 a week. The
maximum weekly payment for a family with dependent children is $534.

My weekly payment is $539. Subtract the 10% for taxes (and I do), it's $485. Now add the $25/week the Fed added, and I get $510/wk, free & clear. Bring on the extension, I got more travelling to do, woo hoo!

Hi..I am wondering why my states benefit office is reporting that we are elgible for only 13 weeks of benefits when our unemployment average for the last 3 months has been over 8.5%?
Any help is greatly appreciated..Thanks

This is NOT a political statement, just an interesting read with a chance to join a Live Discussion on Monday afternoon (see the link at the end of the article).

Why won't Obama give you a job?
The White House thinks the stimulus is working, and it doesn't want you on its payroll

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009

To hear President Obama tell it, he's been busy creating jobs since taking office. The $787 billion stimulus package, he said last winter, would "save or create 3.5 million jobs." The White House is touting reports from recipients of stimulus funds asserting that they have created or saved 640,000 jobs so far.

Yet the national unemployment rate has now hit 10.2 percent, helping explain why Republicans won the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey last week, just a year after the party's 2008 drubbing. And Obama declared Friday that more action is needed.

"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth, which is why we have to continue to pursue measures that will create new jobs," he said. "And I can promise you that I won't let up until the Americans who want to find work can find work."

It was a strong vow, but it raises a question: Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job?

Since taking office, the Obama administration has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing workers' private-sector employment or by creating new government-paid jobs. There are programs in a handful of states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies -- an approach that costs relatively little, since it results in lower payouts of unemployment benefits, and that has helped Germany keep unemployment under 8 percent despite the deep slowdown there. But the Obama administration has so far opted not to expand this initiative. And aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?

The administration is "scared of [any plans] seeming like old-fashioned make-work, but that's what it is: You're giving [people] jobs because they have nothing left to do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think thank. "Giving people a shot at a job has to be worth a little bad publicity . . . but as in a lot of areas, they proved more cautious."

White House officials express confidence in the steps taken, saying the stimulus is spending money and creating jobs ahead of schedule, and forestalling far higher unemployment. They say they opted against direct jobs programs not for political reasons but because they thought such efforts would not produce long-term value. And they have not pushed the private-sector job-sharing idea -- being promoted by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) -- because they want to build real demand for workers, not just spread work among more people.

"I think we got the Recovery Act right," Larry Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, said in an interview. "The primary objective of our policy is having more work done, more product produced and more people earning more income. It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that's not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work."

Two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps. These efforts helped cushion the recession's blow, saved public jobs and, by injecting demand into the economy, bolstered employment indirectly. On Thursday, Congress buttressed these efforts with an extension of unemployment benefits and an expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers.

The remaining third of the stimulus, however, was expected to be the real jobs generator: $250 billion for infrastructure -- roads, transit, water treatment -- and for investments in energy efficiency, broadband access and other areas. But it is becoming clear that much of that spending is not producing many new jobs. Highway funds have put repaving crews to work, but $6.5 billion flowing to states and cities for energy projects has only just arrived and has created virtually no private-sector jobs yet.

The jobs impact is also paltry so far for the $3 billion in National Science Foundation grants and the $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health. And much of the $19 billion for health information technology will not be spent until 2011.

Administration officials argue that these investments, if done right, will lay the groundwork for growth for years to come. And they say that given the depth of the recession, it's hardly a bad thing for the stimulus to deliver some punch a year or two from now. "We always recognized that America's problems were not created in a week or a month or a year and that they were not going to be solved quickly," Summers said. "We designed the Recovery Act to ramp up over time, through 2010, and to make sure that the investments we made were important for the country's future."

In addition, public-works programs take longer to get started than people realize, officials say. At a recent event at American University, White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein was challenged by economics professor Robert Lerman about direct job creation. Bernstein responded that there weren't enough public works projects ready to be launched: "What [governors] were describing as shovel-ready wasn't really shovel-ready."

None of this persuades the critics, who also argue that the White House, facing a skeptical Senate, settled on too small a stimulus package to begin with. Long as the downturn may be, the need is greatest now, and they have difficulty accepting that a new jobs program would not move faster than the money now percolating through the system. "The administration might have put a higher priority on more labor-intensive spending and spending that had a more immediate employment effect," said former labor secretary Robert Reich. "Basic research into photovoltaic cells is an important public investment, but it doesn't have many jobs attached to it, or certainly not anytime soon."

Others question the claim that more infrastructure spending would have been too slow. U.S. Steel chief executive John Surma noted recently that China is rapidly spending $586 billion on its own stimulus, much of it for big public works projects. The United States has plenty of infrastructure demands and should be able to get such projects going quickly, he said, and the inability to do so is an "indictment" of America's lack of a strategy for public investment.

"It's a defeatist policy to say that we don't know how to spend money on infrastructure," he said. "Stimulus is great, but we have far too little going into projects that actually put people to work."

Still others argue that there is plenty of direct job creation that could be done, short of heavy infrastructure, that could have lasting value. The liberal Economic Policy Institute has drafted a plan that, along with a new business tax credit for hiring that the White House is already considering, includes a pure public jobs proposal: giving money to states and cities to hire people to paint schools, board up vacant homes, staff child-care centers and reopen library branches. Workers would be paid the market wage. It would cost $35 billion for a year, not much more than the combined price tag for the homebuyers' tax credit and the $250 checks that Obama has proposed sending to Social Security recipients.

Lerman offers a variation: Pay people lower-than-market wages, maybe $8 an hour, and reserve the jobs for those who really can't find better work. Instead of extending unemployment benefits over and over, the government would help people develop job skills and would get something in return. He estimates the cost of 1 million jobs (including supervisors) at $30 million, or about $30,000 for each job created, compared with the $92,000 per job that the White House estimates its approach is costing.

And taxpayers would be able to see clearly that the spending was putting people to work -- instead of questioning, as many are now doing, the reliability of the job totals that the White House is attributing to the stimulus.

The country has a history with this sort of thing. Public investment in the New Deal got off to an underwhelming start. But the Works Progress Administration, launched in 1935, had a bigger impact, partly because it spent more freely -- drawing plenty of derision along the way. Less controversial was the Civilian Conservation Corps, which put men to work building trails, fighting forest fires and so on.

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. But critics said states were just using the money to top off their budgets, and there were tales of abuse in some cities. President Jimmy Carter lowered the pay to make the jobs less likely to be doled out to friends and relatives. His assistant labor secretary, Arnie Packer, recalled last week that "we were able to see it in the statistics, the change in the employment rates for black males -- that's the targeting capacity that exists."

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

"Neo-liberalism continues apace even though it's been thoroughly discredited," he said. The White House "has held back, and it has hurt. People were looking for a more aggressive approach; they did a political calculation and said, 'This is all we can do.' "

Conservative economists stand steadfast against any movement toward direct job creation. They concur with part of the liberal critique of the stimulus -- that much of the spending is going out too gradually, and in the wrong places, to be of use. But they strongly disagree that the government should have tried more direct efforts to create or retain jobs.

Jobs programs "sound so good in theory, but it just doesn't work that way," said Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush. It would be better to stick with safety-net benefits for those most in need and to enact new tax cuts, such as a suspension of the payroll tax to encourage hiring. The New Deal jobs programs were less effective than memory holds, he said, a misperception he attributes to the government-funded writers and artists who depicted the work.

"A lot of what they did was a propaganda campaign," Lindsey said. "They hired the photographers to take the pictures and writers to write the story."

As it happens, an exhibit of New Deal-funded paintings is on display at the Smithsonian's Museum of American Art, with striking images of government-paid men shoveling snow and industrial machinery revving up. But don't expect to see any exhibits portraying the government's response to the Great Recession: The National Endowment for the Arts distributed its $50 million in stimulus funds to hundreds of arts groups and has no plans for direct payments to artists.

"It wasn't for any new programs," said NEA spokeswoman Victoria Hutter. "It's being spent, it's just not as visible" as the New Deal's programs.

But with unemployment into double digits, might not pictures of people heading to work have been a welcome sight?

Alec MacGillis is a reporter on the national staff of The Washington Post. He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

I don't know how they are planning on making jobs when they are still shutting down companies. They just shut down another factory in my town. Nothing left except fast food places and gas stations. Yes, I am happy for the extension but I would rather be working. If something don't break before long we will just be going through this waiting game again.

I thought I read on here that once the president signs the new unemployment extension the funds would immediately be available and it depends on when the individual cities get their databases updated so money can be disbursed. According to my cities unemployment website "A date benefits will become available has not been determined. The U.S. Dept. of Labor will issue the instructions necessary to allow states to begin paying these additional benefits." and it also says not to call the unemployment office as the representatives won't have any relevant information. Can anyone here give me more information about this or what they've been told from their unemployment offices? THANKS.

Illinois seems to have its act together: a new web page providing useful info and links went up on Saturday.

http://www.ides.state.il.us/

I didnt forget you guys.

read this: http://washingtonindependent.com/67159/jobless-benefits-extension-stiffs...

they forgot something.

Geez, some news! Has anyonehere called their state offices to see when they would be mailing the famous letters? Here in Florida they say it won't be until December, which i think it's satanic to treat us that way, this is insane, can someone report of another story similar to this one?

Regarding H.R.3548...Nothing was FORGOTTEN or OVERLOOKED!
Everything is an "ACCOUNTING GIMMICK". Did you know that a wooden two by four is really NOT 2 inches by 4 inches. A criminal sentence to serve one year is really NOT one year. AND, twenty weeks of FREE money is really NOT TWENTY WEEKS and really NOT FREE.

Another ACCOUNTING GIMMICK is the FED taxing thier own money.
It is rediculious in the first place to tax an unemployemnet distribution Nevertheless, first time bebefits are paid by the employer, so at least the IRS gets some money back. None of these extensions are paid from the employer. They are taxing thier own hand-outs. This particular Accounting Gimmick is beyond me???

Anyone fimiliar with illusory accounting practices, please advise!

Here's what's posted on my state's (PA) web site, and it's pretty much all that they know, and all that we know:

***The president has signed into law, an extension of EUC benefits. If you are a current EUC claimant, or your EUC and EB benefits have run out, the department will directly notify you with information concerning your eligibility and how to apply for them. If you are currently collecting EB benefits, you should continue to file for EB until you receive further instructions from the department. We encourage you to wait to receive your notification before calling your UC Service Center about the extension of EUC benefits.***

Again, I advise you all to just wait to be contacted...you will be. By now, you know if you're eligible for this extension, so just sit tight, and wait to be contacted by your UC office.

(-:

Hi Everyone,

Just a note to let you all know what NY Unemployments web site is telling NY's unemployed:

Congress Approves Additional Weeks of Emergency Benefits
Legislation was approved guaranteeing an additional 14 weeks of emergency benefits. Pending further legislation, another 6 weeks of emergency benefits could also be provided, for a total of 20 weeks. The first payable week of this new extension is the week ending November 15th, 2009. Retroactive payments cannot be made for individuals who exhausted all extended benefits prior to the week ending November 8, 2009. Please continue claiming your weekly benefits to make sure your claim remains active. You do not need to file a new claim unless the system advises you to do so. For updates on benefit extensions, continue to visit this website.

Hi Everyone,
Today I received “the letter” from IDES informing me my account has a new balance for 13 weeks of extended benefits. We were supposed to get 14 weeks plus six additional weeks for States with more than 8.5% unemployment rate. Here we go again! 14 weeks is really 13 weeks.

Where or where did that one week go? I suppose they have to account for mailing expenses. I am still looking for work, anyone out here need a good Construction Quality Control Inspector?

Yes, similar to your situation, today I received a letter from the Washingston State employment security office. The letter says we will receive 14 weeks of EUC, although WA's unemployment rate is above 8.5% and we are supposed to have 20 weeks. Does any one knows what's going on?

P.S. The Washington State employment seurity dept website says: "President Obama authorizes up to 20 weeks EUC in Washington State." Why does the letter say we only get 14 weeks?

Well, technically the Bill is 14 + 6 weeks, so I'm assuming that you're receiving the notice for the first 14 weeks. Maybe towards/at the end of the initial 14 weeks, you'll get the additional 6-week notice.

Hey, at least you received a notification, I haven't got anything yet, lol.

i emailed the state of North Carolina and the lady from employment office wrote back stating that NC has not received any info from the dept. of labor yet and that "it will be a few weeks". So I'm looking at mid December I'll bet before anything happens. Meanwhile, I have no idea how I will pay the power, phone and internet, car insurance , all of which I'm behind 2 or more months now. This is just taking so long it might be a total waste, because who knows whats going to happen in the next few weeks.

The 14 weeks that workers are eligible to draw unemployment benefits has been extended a further 6 weeks. There has been apprehension that the tax burden for the unemployment extension will fall on tax payers – but they can rest assured, it's going to be assessed on employers, the same as the standard unemployment tax is. Employers might not be the happiest about this arrangement, but it may be seen as a somewhat necessary step as there are fewer jobs available during the recession. That said, the unemployment extension probably won't put anybody into needing tax debt relief.

All the talk about the 14 weeks + 6 for Illinois is correct: after the 14 weeks have passed and if Illinois is still above 8.5%, another 6 weeks will be available, as in all states; that's how the law was written.
But, my REAL reason for posting today is to show what Florida has set up over the weekend. "A couple clicks" and you'll know if you're eligable! See the link below:

http://www.floridajobs.org/unemployment/EUC_09/index.html

Could someone from Florida check out the accuracy of this service, and if good, we could recommend it to IDES!

I just heard on my local news that it could be as long as Christmas or longer for us to receive our unemployment because of a computer glitch here in Nevada. GREAT! They need to fix that issue quickly.

Hey guys,

We're closing down this thread. Please check out our latest post on the topic:

http://progressillinois.com/2009/11/16/ides-ui-certification-begins-next...