Yes, exactly, Democratic Party. Not Democrat Party. Similarly, Democratic proposal, not Democrat proposal. No awkward syntax! Sheesh, do I have to hold your hand when you pee, too?
But it’s not just them needing to stay afloat, it is also the people that will get that money when they spend it.
That’s not a deal the Dems can make. “Sure, we gave Big Business a license to kill off the workers we supposedly fight for! But we also got you some money.” Yeah, that really works.
I don’t know if this is a real question or not but either way you answered it yourself . It’s federal money that is run thru the state systems since there is no federal system to pay unemployment benefits.
Should have added that the states waive work related requirements. Don’t have to be looking.
This would be so much simpler if someone was providing cites for their claims, but, alas, no.
CMC fnord!
Concur. You don’t have to be looking for another job if you expect to get your old job back, but if offered your old job back, I doubt you could decline and still collect UI, or the federal contribution, because it’s more economically fruitful for you. I’d be happy to be proven wrong with a cite.
A fucked up loophole I learned about from my brother who’s been furloughed. According to management, if he’s called back soon and then a week later the company has to furlough him again he will only collect the normal amount of unemployment at that point.
CMC fnord!
I’m on unemployment and getting the $600 kicker. I’m expecting to go back to work next week at least part time. I don’t expect to qualify for UI anymore, it if I qualify for even $1 I get the 600. If I bring home too much pay to qualify I don’t get the kicker. It’s going to be close. I do not, however, have the option of NOT going back if recalled and still collecting. There are some exceptions, if one is in an at risk group, recently exposed or currently sick due to the virus.
That may be a state loophole. In my state you’re claim is open for 52 weeks, to account for intermittent employment. As long as you’re on the same case, you can still collect it.
It’s not really a loophole.
I just closed for 8 weeks, and am just reopening this week.
During those 8 weeks, my employees were on a special unemployment for Covid layoffs. I gave them a special number to use that streamlined their application.
Under Covid unemployment, you get the extra federal money. You do not have to seek work. (And you, under normal circumstances, do not need to seek work if the layoff is supposed to last 45 days or less.)
Now that I have reopened, my employees are no longer eligible for Covid separation.
Things are doing well for me, so it’s unlikely to happen, but should I no longer be able to employ them because I have to close my doors due to financial problems, that is regular unemployment. Under the regular unemployment, they will no longer get the federal money, and they will be required to seek work.
If, however, they decide to reinstate the lockdown, and I have to shut my doors for that reason, then they can go back on Covid separation.
This is Ohio, other states may vary.
Well the bill is on to the Senate, which is great because now the Republicans have to swallow their ideology or actually vote to kill the bill. I hope McConnell or Trump is dumb enough to do the latter: another beautiful trap laid down by President Pelosi.
What forces the Senate to consider this bill at all? In terms of the choices available to McConnell, I don’t see how this is different from all those great bills that the House passed a year ago that Mitch ignored.
True from a mechanics of the Senate perspective. From a public pressure perspective, I think there will be a lot more visibility on this bill than on the For The People Act, for example. I don’t think the Senate will pass this exact bill, but I would expect a flavor of the HEROES Act to be signed into law this year.
This ^
There’s no way the Senate can just ignore a $3T bill to the senate when you have 20-25% unemployment and the country is on the precipice of a total economic catastrophe.
I love the optics: let McConnell and Graham explain why households shouldn’t have more money when we have 1930s style lines for food. Mind you, it’s not just households that suffer when people are cash poor – capitalism fundamentally fails to function in that situation, which is what we’re in now.
The great masses have the opportunity to get a little education on how capitalism really works, and how it doesn’t.
‘How about this, for every $1 the undeserving poors get $29 goes to the noble job creators? We can call it the True Heroes Act!’
CMC fnord!
Can’t the Senate pass its own version of the HEROES Act, stripping out most of the things House Democrats want, and then force the bill to go through “reconciliation” so that only a compromise version passes (since the version passed by both houses must ultimately be the same)?
Absolutely and this is exactly what will happen.
Yes, but what will they strip out?
I don’t see Republicans forever agreeing to an endless stimulus stream. That’s what people want and need, but it’s not what the republican party wants and needs.
I personally prefer Kamala and Bernie’s proposal for giving all American adults $2,000 per month until the pandemic crisis is over (although I think $1,000/month is more like it; $2k would be financially backbreaking) but that proposal appears dead on arrival within even the Democratic House.